Atheism

[HeiGou]

How would you know that "no Muslim knew" of any scientific miracles mentioned in the Qur'an?

I am open to any sources you might have that suggest otherwise. I would love to hear of them in fact. What sources I have say that the ulama were unhappy about heliocentric theories of the Universe much less believers in the Big Bang.

Surely by reading passages such as those describing cloud formation, they better understood such processes, the details of which have only just recently been discovered.

I am happy to acknowledge that theoretically this might be true.

I would point out that any work done on cloud formation has been done by non-Muslims whose minds were, I would guess, not prepared by the Quran.

Regarding the creation of the Universe; the Qur'an even confirms beliefs of modern cosmology - such as the universe initially being a cloud of smoke, and these accurate descriptions have been recognised by well-known scientists.

I do not want to needlessly offend, but this is important. The Universe was NOT initially a could of smoke. Smoke is the partially oxygenated gaseous by-product of rapid carbon oxygenation. It is relatively cool. It is a gas. It does not contain hydrogen. The Universe used to be a plasma of very light elements. It was nothing like smoke.

Now a person reading the Qur'an 1400 years ago might not have been aware that that the Universe being smoke is a fact that can be proven, yet he believed in the matter all the same, and his belief would only be strengthened had cosmologists been able to confirm the Qur'anic descriptions.

I think that is my point.

Furthermore, how can you say that it was the 'Western scholars" who identified the scientific miracles;

Because it was. I am happy for anyone to draw my attention to any Muslim scientists who have worked in this area before Westerners did.

when during a time known as the 'Dark Ages' for Europe, the Islamic world created the greatest legacy of scientific knowledge seen in history to that date. The sciences of medicine, geometry, astronomy and even sociology were developed systematically for the first time. All this was a result of the Arabs being brought out of a life of superstition and degeneration, and instead began following a path of reason as a result of the 'light' brought to them in the Qur'an.

That is your opinion and I do not want to challenge that.

The genesis of Islamic civilization at that time was indeed a collaborative effort, incorporating the learning and wisdom of many cultures and languages. Yet Muslims did not only incorporate other cultures, but developed their own through experimentation and observation; this being the real source of Islamic science.

I do not see anything that I would disagree with.

By the way, the allegation that the Qur'an plagiarised Greek embryology has been refuted here.

I appreciate all the hard work that Ansar Al-Adl does, but if you think that was a "refutation" I am happy to move on.

Well Allaah does not tell us that the Universe created itself; rather He said that He created it. Yet there are descriptions about its early stages such as the heaven and earth being a united piece and the description of it once being smoke, which conform to scientific beliefs. So although people might not have referred to the initial creation of the world as 'The Big Bang', they believed in events that have become a part of today's Big Bang theory.

Indeed. They would have believed in whatever the Quran told them. Not in science. This is an important issue. It matters not one bit what the Quran does or does not say as far as science goes. It matters a lot whether Muslims think there is any point studying science. After all if the Quran contains all knowledge why bother to study anything else? Progress in the Muslim world must begin with a recognition that science is worthy of study and is important generally.

Well a simple matter that springs to mind is hygiene. While cleanliness in as late a time as the nineteenth century was still at a stage of taking baths between periods of the likes of a month if not longer, Muslims were ritually washing at least once a week as ordained through their religion. The Qur'an not only commands washing after being in a state of ritual impurity but also after defaecating and of course in preparation for the daily prayers. Perhaps better hygiene could have saved places like England the many epidemics arising from such poor living conditions.

First of all you are taking one small section of European history at one small segment of time (essentially the Germanic invaders before they became a little more civilised) and generalising widely on that basis. It is like arguing the Mamluks are the same as all Muslims through-out history. You can see the European heritage in the Islamic world because Muslims have liked "Turkish" (actually Roman) Baths so much they have used them even though, I assume, they are un-Islamic. Second what Muslims do is a ritual washing - that is not the same as hygene. It may, as it happens, have hygenic side-effects, but hygene is not the purpose or the intent. It may not even by the end-product either. Ritually clean is not the same as hygenic. Third, Europe shows how very true this is. The Muslim population of the Middle East has been declining since Roman times. In the 19th Century European populations were booming when Muslim ones around the Mediterranean were on the way to extinction.

Nothing? What about all its referrals to cloud formation, mountain stability, embryology and various other topics; so much of this has only been brought to light relatively recently yet you say it is useless as a science book?! It might not have bee intended to teach solely science, yet that does not mean it does not contain any accurate scientific information.

I am happy to acknowledge that if you torture the text you can extract knowledge that agrees with what modern scientists say. But this does not mean it is useful as a scientific text book. It is, as I said, useless for that purpose. You cannot read it and solve problems. This can be shown by the fact that no Muslims thought it said what modern apologists argue it says until Western scientists pointed out what it said.

That seems like a very foolish statement indeed. Muslims have spent vast amounts of time studying the Qur'an and inheriting the enormous amounts of knowledge pertaining to it from the scholars of previous generations - leading right up to the best teacher of all: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). To say that nobody at all knew what the Qur'an was referring to is ridiculous and of course baseless.

Well I could have phrased it better. But as far as science goes, the Quran will not help Muslims over-come the technological backwardness of their societies. Rather a focus of the Quran as the be-all and end-all of science will keep them back where they are today. Or worse.

Would you mind sharing any sources for this?

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=258

As far as its rotation, then I have denied it and explained the evidences denying it. However, I did not declare kufr upon the one who upholds it. I only declared kufr upon the one who says that the sun is stationary and does not run on a course because this statement collides with the clarity of the Noble Qur’an and the pure authentic Sunnah which both prove that the sun and the moon both run on a course…

So he asserted, and defended his claim later, that the Sun was not at the center of the solar system, that the Earth did not rotate around it, but rather the Sun orbited the Earth. He based this on the Quran and Sunna.

This is why this is an important issue and why it is important to accept the value of science. It may not be true that the Library at Alexandria was burnt by someone who claimed that everything in it either agreed with the Quran and so was useless or contradicted it and so was heretical, but that mindset exists today and it needs to be fought. If you claim that the Quran is a better science text than anything scientists write, why study science? It is a path that leads to people memorising the Quran and nothing else.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

@HeiGou

Just in passing, it is perhaps worth pointing out that no Muslim knew that the Quran contained any mention of scientific miracles until Western scholars, who as it happens received large amounts of money from the Saudis, pointed it out. Did any Muslims know it referred to this before it was explained to them? No they did not. Is there a single thing in the Quran that traditionally Muslims have believed that Western science rejected but later found to be true? No. As a scientific book it is useless. It predicts nothing.

That’s a backwards reasoning. Just because Muslims failed to recognize these miracles until western scientists discovered it doesn’t make it any less of a miracle. Do take note that the qur’an was never meant to be a scientific source but rather a guideline for mankind. The miracles are only for a confirmation of it’s divineness.

What they did know was more or less what the Greeks knew (embryology for instance).

The Greek did not now the shape of embryo’s in such an early state since that is something that can only be discovered microscopically due to the small size.

The Big Bang is a perfect example. Does the Quran refer to this? Clearly, in my opinion, it does not. But my opinion is perhaps not relevant. The amount of contortions you have to do to make it refer to the Big Bang is enormous. And traditionally Muslims have been utterly unaware of what it is supposed to say. Sheik Bin Baz of Saudi Arabia probably did not say the world was flat because the Quran said so. But he did say the Sun went around the Earth because the Quran said so.

Well as you already suggested, personal opinions do not cary much weight in these kind of debates. Never the less there’s to consider the peculiar claim that the heavens are constantly expanded. Something that clearly testifies knowledge of the universe, and clearly suggests that this verse is indeed referring to the creation of the universe. But as you said, personal opinions doesn’t correlate that easely. As for the motion of the sun, it doesn’t say in the Qur’an that it turns around the earth. It simply says that it follows a fixed path, which is true. The sun (along with the planets of this solarsystem) is currently on a course to the nearest star. The fact that people interpretated this wrongfully in the past doesn’t speak for the verse itself but rather for the lack of knowledge in the time that people made that interpretation.


@Root

As I plainly demonstrate to you that mainstream science and evolutionist's DO NOT claim evolution to be what YOU believe they think it to be. Plainly speaking you are in the wrong and you can wriggle as much as you like, when you are wrong you are wrong.

Well I’m not talking about people who have a special interest in these subjects and read books about it and such. I was referring to a group of people that should know this but sadly doesn’t. Like high school teachers for example. How many people don’t think that evolution is an alternative to creation. That surely indicates that something is going wrong. Abiogenesis could be considered an alternative by some, but evolution cannot.
Again I’m not saying that people educated in this specific matter got things mixed up, but rather the general public who doesn’t really look into this, and that includes my high school teacher biology. ( then again evolution wasn’t even part of her course)

Finally, my apologies once again for calling allah a terrorrist, it's just that I cannot find another word for someone who kills men women and children indescriminately and on mass. Such things I call terrorism.

Well I said I wouldn’t be lured into discussion but now it’s tempting
So I’ll give it a try. First something needs to be made clear. Do you insinuate that Allah (s.w.t.) himself does these things are that trough Allah’s (s.w.t.) guidance people do such things.
If you refer to the last one then you are surely transgressing. How can the things that people do in ones name be held against him. If a stalker kills his ex-wife in the name of love, does this mean love is a hateful emotion? Whether or not Terrorism is allowed in Islam is a whole different discussion. And I will not go into that here. I’m sure there’s already plenty of topics on that. But clearly you cannot judge Allah (s.w.t.) by what people (wrongfully) do in his name.
If you refer to direct acts like a tsunami or an earthquake or any other cause of death that an atheist would describe as nature but a believer as devine will. Then you are coming from a biased place. You fail to take the afterlife as well as creation under consideration when judging death. Death is a veil to conceal the nature of our temporary stay on earth. First we are created here by Allah for a limited time. That is already a gift of life, how vain and unthankful is it not to hold against our creation that our stay here is limited. Second of all, death is a transition to an afterlife. So it is not as bad as an atheists thinks. And surely shouldn’t be kept against Allah (s.w.t.). In fact death can be an end of suffering and the beginning of blessing for some. And I don’t think that if death comes in this way to any of us that we will regret it (Inshallah).
Now you can argue that you believe neither in creation nor in an afterlife. That is your good right. But you need to appreciate that it is non-sensical to judge Allah (s.w.t.) if you do not consider these two things. That’s like judging a geometrical rule without considering the basic axioms that form up geometry.

 

[HeiGou]

That’s a backwards reasoning. Just because Muslims failed to recognize these miracles until western scientists discovered it doesn’t make it any less of a miracle. Do take note that the qur’an was never meant to be a scientific source but rather a guideline for mankind. The miracles are only for a confirmation of it’s divineness.

I think that whether the reasoning is backward or not depends on what angle you approach the question from. It does not make it not a miracle. I don't think that was my claim. It makes the Quran non-useful as a scientific text book. And it does make it less of a miracle. A miracle would have been to tell someone something that no one else could have known. Think how much of a miracle, and how useful it would have been, if the Quran told the Muslims where America was. But it did not do so. It only told people things that are only obvious in retrospect. Obviously this is subject to "finder's bias". This is not to say that the Quran is not a miracle, but you could probably find "scientific miracles" in Homer's Iliad if you were so inclined.

The Greek did not now the shape of embryo’s in such an early state since that is something that can only be discovered microscopically due to the small size.

Where does the Quran tells us anything about the shape of the embryo before it is big enough to see without a microscope? Moreover before it is possible to see something similar in cow, horse and camel embryos?

Well as you already suggested, personal opinions do not cary much weight in these kind of debates.

I am not interested in debating Sheik Bin Baz's views. He was not no one. And he shows the problems - if you live in a God-centred Universe, you are going to have a God-centred view of it. Which means, for Muslims, if they put the Quran at the center of their lives, they will be good Muslims. But they will probably be bad scientists.

Never the less there’s to consider the peculiar claim that the heavens are constantly expanded. Something that clearly testifies knowledge of the universe, and clearly suggests that this verse is indeed referring to the creation of the universe.

May I ask which sura is this?

But as you said, personal opinions doesn’t correlate that easely. As for the motion of the sun, it doesn’t say in the Qur’an that it turns around the earth. It simply says that it follows a fixed path, which is true. The sun (along with the planets of this solarsystem) is currently on a course to the nearest star. The fact that people interpretated this wrongfully in the past doesn’t speak for the verse itself but rather for the lack of knowledge in the time that people made that interpretation.

I am not making a case for the verse and certainly not against it. But rather a more subtle one about how people relate to the world. If you assume that the Quran is a scientifically useful textbook, the obvious way to determine if the Sun is orbiting the Earth is to consult the Quran. If your world-view is shaped by a text, that text will dominate all your questions and answers.

By the way I expect the Sun is moving radially away from the center of the Universe, as is the nearest sun, and so, like an expanding balloon, they are all getting further away from each other.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Where does the Quran tells us anything about the shape of the embryo before it is big enough to see without a microscope? Moreover before it is possible to see something similar in cow, horse and camel embryos?

As for other animals, the shapes are different but the early phases (who are more alike) are still microscopic regardless if we’re talking about a fly or an elephant.

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

And he shows the problems - if you live in a God-centred Universe, you are going to have a God-centred view of it. Which means, for Muslims, if they put the Quran at the center of their lives, they will be good Muslims. But they will probably be bad scientists.

Well that’s a very biased p.o.v. First of all you assume that the Qur’an refers to something untrue and therefore can only lead into bad science. But with what authority can you claim your worldview is more accurate then someone else’s? By best you could point out flaws in other people’s worldviews, but then again it would be very difficult to determine whether that flaw in their worldview is the result of Islam or something else. On another note. I challenge you to look through my posts or inquire me about my thoughts on certain scientific issues correlated to religion. I studied science and reverted to Islam afterwards. Why don’t you put some weight behind your baseless claim and show me how Islam tainted my worldview negatively.

May I ask which sura is this?

http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_02.html

I am not making a case for the verse and certainly not against it. But rather a more subtle one about how people relate to the world. If you assume that the Quran is a scientifically useful textbook, the obvious way to determine if the Sun is orbiting the Earth is to consult the Quran. If your world-view is shaped by a text, that text will dominate all your questions and answers.

Well of course one has to consider the nature of the Qur’an; a guideline for mankind rather then a scientific source. Nevertheless history has thought that the few comparisons made in the Qur’an between different things manifest of great knowledge in any of those fields. And that is really what is so miraculous about them. Of course that doesn’t mean one has to start looking for those missing gravitons in the Qur’an. But it doesn’t mean that religion and science aren’t compatible either, because they actually are.

By the way I expect the Sun is moving radially away from the center of the Universe, as is the nearest sun, and so, like an expanding balloon, they are all getting further away from each other.

Yes you’re right; Pasteur showed us how all constellations are moving away from one place (probably where big bang occurred). Nevertheless, parallel courses, gravity and difference of speed happened to set us heading a lil’ bit differently. The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way at a speed of about 250 kilometers/sec, and its orbital radius is about 8,500 parsecs. It takes over 200 million years to make one full orbit of the Galactic Center. Meanwhile, the Sun is drifting at 19 km/sec in the general direction of Vega as a consequence of the local variation in galactic rotation in our part of the Milky Way.

 

[root]

Well I’m not talking about people who have a special interest in these subjects and read books about it and such. I was referring to a group of people that should know this but sadly doesn’t. Like high school teachers for example. How many people don’t think that evolution is an alternative to creation. That surely indicates that something is going wrong. Abiogenesis could be considered an alternative by some, but evolution cannot.
Again I’m not saying that people educated in this specific matter got things mixed up, but rather the general public who doesn’t really look into this, and that includes my high school teacher biology. ( then again evolution wasn’t even part of her course)

You were talking about such groups, but I accept your point. Seems a lot of people are out to exploit the general public's lack of understanding with such matters. I was at the shop and as a joke which led on from something else (we were discussing old age) I said, my mother in law is so old her first boyfriend was a Neanderthol. "What is a neanderthol" was the response!

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings root,

I strongly disagree with your point, logicallyI know the moon never seperated and for you to believe this requires faith, not logic.

You are quite right, believing in the splitting of the moon is purely an act of faith. However, that is among the events of the Unseen and thus we cannot prove or know from our sense of perception that it happened; rather we believe it because we have already accepted Allaah as our God and His Word as the truth, and once a person has allowed his sense of logic and understanding to make this decision about the basic principles of Islam, he can easily go on to deal with other areas pertaining to faith. Allaah says that the Qur'an is a guide for those who:

[2.3] Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.

As well as mentioning His blessing to us:

[23.78] And He it is Who made for you the ears and the eyes and the hearts; little is it that you give thanks.

Meaning that He has given us hearing, sight and understanding through which we come to know things and draw lessons from them, the signs which attest to the Oneness of Allah and indicate that He is the One Who does what He wills and chooses what He wants.

So having faith is based upon logical reasoning as well as going further to believe in what logic cannot tell us on its own.

The deal with a creator creating the universe only begs the question of who created the creator at which point you then use faith again!

This point has already been discussed in this thread, and I wonder whether it is a question using faith or whether it is one of logic; since by definition God is Eternal and is not created - thus making the question flawed.

Perhaps you are failing to understand what evolution is represents?

Well evolution is among a number of theories that try to explain the stages in which the Universe came to be as it is today. I was simply saying that we don't just sit back and say "don't believe it" but rather we do try to provide logical explanations for why it cannot be true, as you advised.

This refers to using fith as evidence so it does not matter what it is being used evidence as, faith is not evidence.

OK, going back to your original statement, we believe that our faith is based upon logical explanations and does have supporting evidence of its validity, therefore faith itself is not evidence but faith based upon proof can be used as evidence against false notions. I don't think anyone has passed their belief off as evidence, but rather I have seen people showing evidence for their belief.

I did read it, but alas the position does not change, it requires faith

Thank you for reading it . I don't really see how faith is required to see that something is inerrant, comprehensive, preserved, consistent, universal, and noting its literary perfection and power. People don't believe in the Qur'an because they read the words "Believe in me", but rather they have reasons for their believing such as seeing the truth in its messages which converts a faithless heart to one with faith.

Greetings Heigou,

I am open to any sources you might have that suggest otherwise. I would love to hear of them in fact.

You might wish to refer to this thread, which mentions the 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Hajar and his work on embryology, and also provides various links.

I would point out that any work done on cloud formation has been done by non-Muslims whose minds were, I would guess, not prepared by the Quran.

How do you know this? I already brought to light the period in history when Muslims possessed the leading knowledge in the scientific field; during which time there was the likes of Ibn Duraid Al-Azdi, who flourished in the late 9-10th Century and completed many works on Meteorological Science, but whose main work was a book entitled 'Description of Rain and Clouds' - looking into detail at cloud topography. There were many others working in the field of Geography, and thus non-Muslims are not the only ones to study the field.

The Universe was NOT initially a could of smoke. Smoke is the partially oxygenated gaseous by-product of rapid carbon oxygenation. It is relatively cool. It is a gas. It does not contain hydrogen. The Universe used to be a plasma of very light elements. It was nothing like smoke.

And what is plasma? Is it not also a gas? Let me point out that "smoke" does not necessarily have to refer to a product of combustion; smoke can also be used to mean a cloud of fine particles. Furthermore, the description of 'smoke' can be found in various places, for example:

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition).

The First Three Minutes, a Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Weinberg, pp. 94-105.


​

Now a person reading the Qur'an 1400 years ago might not have been aware that that the Universe being smoke is a fact that can be proven, yet he believed in the matter all the same, and his belief would only be strengthened had cosmologists been able to confirm the Qur'anic descriptions.

I think that is my point.

As steve mentioned, the people of earlier times were not able to verify these kind of facts but believed in them due to their faith in God. Modern day discoveries show us that these facts can actually be proven, so the beliefs that Muslims have held since the revelation of the Qur'an have been verified and attest to the truth of the Qur'an.

What you say later about things being 'obvious in retrospect' is not correct, since such things as embryological descriptions and universal origins have been quite clear from the beginning, and your implication that non-muslims realised these facts before Muslims, or that Muslims did not know what such things meant, has already been shown to be false.

Because it was. I am happy for anyone to draw my attention to any Muslim scientists who have worked in this area before Westerners did.

I have done this already - when I mentioned the time that the Islamic world created the greatest legacy of scientific knowledge seen in history to that date.

That is your opinion and I do not want to challenge that.

No it is not an "opinion", but it is actually a fact of history. John Esposito of Georgetown University, one of the most prominent western experts on Islam, has commented that:

... Muslims ceased to be disciples and became masters, in process producing Islamic civiisation, dominated by the Arabic language and Islam's view of life... Major contributions were made in many fields: literature and philosophy, algebra and geometry, science and medicine, art and architecture...

John L.Esposito, Islam:The Straight Path, Oxford Uni.Press,1991,s.52


​

And we can find many other quotes from western people who recognised Islamic achievements.

I appreciate all the hard work that Ansar Al-Adl does, but if you think that was a "refutation" I am happy to move on.

Well I haven't seen much evidence come from your side, so if you could maybe show a better example of what a refutation should be, I would be most grateful.

Indeed. They would have believed in whatever the Quran told them. Not in science. This is an important issue.

Although people believed in whatever the Qur'an told them, this did not stop them from studying science, since the scientific information found in the Qur'an does not contradict scientific teachings; it cannot, for the Qur'an came from the One Who created science.

It matters not one bit what the Quran does or does not say as far as science goes.

Steve has already pointed out how the Qur'an was not intended as a science textbook but rather a book of guidance.

It matters a lot whether Muslims think there is any point studying science. After all if the Quran contains all knowledge why bother to study anything else? Progress in the Muslim world must begin with a recognition that science is worthy of study and is important generally.

The Qur'an actually encouraged the Arab community in which it was revealed to think, to investigate and to use their minds, perhaps for the first time in their lives. In many verses of the Qur'an, people are instructed to examine nature and learn from it because people can know God only by examining His creations. Because of this, in one place in the Qur'an Muslims are defined as people who think about the creation of the heavens and the earth:

Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,-
Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire. [3:190-191]

Thus the Qur'an instructs people to investigate the world around us and actually encourages studies in science. It contains all that we need of Guidance and religious knowledge, supported by teachings from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but it does not prohibit further studying the world that God created and gaining knowledge about it - hence the era of Muslim scientists.

First of all you are taking one small section of European history at one small segment of time (essentially the Germanic invaders before they became a little more civilised) and generalising widely on that basis. It is like arguing the Mamluks are the same as all Muslims through-out history.

Actually, I was referring to the Victorian era of Britain which lasted around 64 years if I'm not mistaken. Incidentally, I came across this:

During the Dark Ages, Western man ceased to bathe. In America, up to the time of Graham, people did not take baths. They had no bath tubs and did not regard bodily cleanliness as a necessity of life. Graham and the other Hygienists taught Americans to bathe and in this work they had the active opposition of the medical profession. As late as the middle of the last century a Dr. Winship, who claimed to be the "strongest man alive," although not wholly opposed to bathing, as were so many of his professional brethren, was not overenthusiastic about cleanliness, advising: "Practice general ablution at least once a week in cold weather, and twice a week in warm, but seldom oftener in a New England climate. (In offering this rule, I expect to be censured by quite a large class in the community, who seem to delight in the daily soaking and splashing in water, not having, probably, the slightest consciousness that by so doing, they defeat every intention for which water is externally applied.)"

From Winship's statement, it will be seen that the objection to the daily bath was still quite strong, so that even a physician who indulged in physical exercise, including heavy exercise, could still oppose daily bathing. Today people take their baths regularly and without opposition and few of them have any knowledge of the mighty struggle that went on in the last century to overcome popular and medical opposition to bathing. SOURCE


​

You can see the European heritage in the Islamic world because Muslims have liked "Turkish" (actually Roman) Baths so much they have used them even though, I assume, they are un-Islamic.

From what I have found: "the Roman bath was adopted, and adapted, by the Muslim Ottoman conquerors". I don't see any obvious un-Islamic concept involved in the bathing process though.

Second what Muslims do is a ritual washing - that is not the same as hygene. It may, as it happens, have hygenic side-effects, but hygene is not the purpose or the intent. It may not even by the end-product either.

Hygiene is not the intent?!
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Purification is half of the Faith." (Reported by Muslim)

He also said, "Cleanse yourself, for Islam calls to cleanliness." (Reported by ibn Hayyan)

He also said, "Cleanliness enhances one’s faith, and faith leads its possessor to the Garden." (Reported by At-Tabarani)

Ritually clean is not the same as hygenic.

It might not necessarily mean that, yet if you looked at how Islam reaches ritual washing, I am sure you would agree that it can be considered hygienic. Please have a look at the following threads:

rulings of ghusl
CLEANILINESS is part of your faith......

Third, Europe shows how very true this is. The Muslim population of the Middle East has been declining since Roman times. In the 19th Century European populations were booming when Muslim ones around the Mediterranean were on the way to extinction.

What does this have to do with Islamic hygiene? And whether or not that is true, Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world .

I am happy to acknowledge that if you torture the text you can extract knowledge that agrees with what modern scientists say.

I have already explained that no degree of torturing is necessary. I have quoted to you Qur'anic verses, yet I did not need to do a lot of explaining to help you understand them, did I?

But this does not mean it is useful as a scientific text book. It is, as I said, useless for that purpose. You cannot read it and solve problems.

Nobody has said that it was meant to be a scientific text book. They simply said that it contains many accurate pieces of scientific information that attest to its miraculous nature.

This can be shown by the fact that no Muslims thought it said what modern apologists argue it says until Western scientists pointed out what it said.

You have brought no proof for any of your claims, so I don't have any reason to believe you. However, I can show evidence of the views of the very first Muslims to whom the Qur'an was revealed:



21:30 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Sufyan Ath-Thawri narrated from his father from `Ikrimah that Ibn `Abbas was asked; "Did the night come first or the day'' He said, "Do you think that when the heavens and the earth were joined together, there was anything between them except darkness Thus you may know that the night came before the day. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Umar said that a man came to him and questioned him about when the heavens and earth were joined together then they were parted. He said, "Go to that old man (Shaykh) and ask him, then come and tell me what he says to you.'' So he went to Ibn `Abbas and asked him. Ibn `Abbas said: "Yes, the heavens were joined together and it did not rain, and the earth was joined together and nothing grew. When living beings were created to populate the earth, rain came forth from the heavens and vegetation came forth from the earth.'' The man went back to Ibn `Umar and told him what had been said. Ibn `Umar said, "Now I know that Ibn `Abbas has been given knowledge of the Qur'an. He has spoken the truth, and this is how it was.'' Ibn `Umar said: "I did not like the daring attitude of Ibn `Abbas in his Tafsir of the Qur'an, but now I know that he has been given knowledge of the Qur'an.'' Sa`id bin Jubayr said: "The heavens and the earth were attached to one another, then when the heavens were raised up, the earth became separate from them, and this is their parting which was mentioned by Allah in His Book.'' Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, "They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.''​

​

So he asserted, and defended his claim later, that the Sun was not at the center of the solar system, that the Earth did not rotate around it, but rather the Sun orbited the Earth. He based this on the Quran and Sunna.

You have misunderstood what the letter was saying. The Shakyh does not mention anywhere that the sun "is not at the centre of the solar system" nor does he say that the "sun orbited the earth". The only thing he said about the sun is that it runs on a fixed course, and steve kindly clarified how this is a scientific fact. I do not know about the rotation issue, so I will need to find out more about that.

If you claim that the Quran is a better science text than anything scientists write, why study science? It is a path that leads to people memorising the Quran and nothing else.

We do not claim that; I have already explained how the Qur'an is not viewed as a science text book and how it encourages learning and investigation. I don't know how you correlated the science text book claim with memorisation, though I can tell you that commiting it to memory involves pleasing Allaah and enabling one to be a better Muslim.

Regards.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

It'd be worth bearing this in mind: its generally not worth the effort of trying to convince a scientist to believe that what he logically knows to be a fact is incorrect; likewise, it is usually not worth the effort of trying to logically prove that a religious persons beliefs are incorrect. For a scientist, logic usually trumps belief; and belief trumps logic for a creationist.

Having said that, please do not confuse knowledge/logic with belief: please do not attempt to convince us to merely 'believe' that evolution is wrong, and please do not attempt to pass off your belief as evidence. Please bear in mind arguments against evolution should be logical/factual.

"How do I know the koran is the word of god, because the koran tells me"

Thanks, but no thanks.

I really don't think that tone was necessary, considering the comment was not even aimed at you. It was aimed at another Muslim. Since a Muslim already believes that the Qur'an is the word of God, I would speak to a Muslim differently than to someone who is not Muslim.
Clearly you confuse me with someone who has blind faith. You and Hei Gou know nothing about the Qur'an. You are not experts of the arabic langauge, and you probably don't even know arabic at all. You just read the translation of the meaning in English and make your own twisted interpretations of what they mean.

"How do I know the koran is the word of god, because the koran tells me"

I don't remember saying this.

Come back when you have an open mind and heart.

 

[HeiGou]

You might wish to refer to work on embryology, and also provides various links.

Thank you for the link. I think it shows the problems of these sorts of discussions. Root cuts and pastes from an anti-Islam website. A moderator or two cuts and pastes from a apologetics site. It gets people nowhere.

How do you know this?

Because the study of clouds is a modern phenomenon. And like most modern Science Muslims have not made major contributions to that process for a long long time.

And what is plasma? Is it not also a gas?

No, plasma is not a gas.

In physics and chemistry, a plasma is an ionized gas, and is usually considered to be a distinct phase of matter. "Ionized" in this case means that at least one electron has been dissociated from a significant fraction of the molecules. The free electric charges make the plasma electrically conductive so that it couples strongly to electromagnetic fields. This fourth state of matter was first identified by Sir William Crookes in 1879 and dubbed "plasma" by Irving Langmuir in 1928, because it reminded him of a blood plasma​

Matter exists in four states - solids, liquids, gases and plasmas. Plasmas are usually very hot (let's pass over the minor case of cold plasmas). Because of this they conduct electricity - indeed the definition of a plasma relies on the conduction of electricity. Smoke does not conduct.

A hot plasma, on the other hand, is nearly fully ionized. This is what would commonly be known as the "fourth-state of matter". The Sun is an example of a hot plasma. The electrons and ions are more likely to have equal temperatures in a hot plasma, but there can still be significant differences.​

Smoke is not and never is so hot that the electrons are free to move.

The Universe at one time was a plasma. It was very hot and dense. It had little to do with gases and nothing to do with smoke.

Let me point out that "smoke" does not necessarily have to refer to a product of combustion; smoke can also be used to mean a cloud of fine particles. Furthermore, the description of 'smoke' can be found in various places, for example:

The science of modern cosmology, observational and theoretical, clearly indicates that, at one point in time, the whole universe was nothing but a cloud of ‘smoke’ (i.e. an opaque highly dense and hot gaseous composition). ​

From an on-line dictionary

smoke Audio pronunciation of "smoke" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smk)
n.

1. The vaporous system made up of small particles of carbonaceous matter in the air, resulting mainly from the burning of organic material, such as wood or coal.

The Universe never looked like this.

2. A suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium.

Plasmas do not generally have a suspension of fine particles in a gaseous medium (although you could make a case for so-called cold-plasmas) but at any rate the Universe never looked like this.

3. A cloud of fine particles.
4. Something insubstantial, unreal, or transitory.
5.
1. The act of smoking a form of tobacco: went out for a smoke.
2. The duration of this act.
6. Informal. Tobacco in a form that can be smoked, especially a cigarette: money to buy smokes.
7. A substance used in warfare to produce a smoke screen.
8. Something used to conceal or obscure.
9. A pale to grayish blue to bluish or dark gray.

And you can also see none of these apply to the early Universe.

At one time the Universe was a high dense compact plasma. It was never at any time smoke.

As steve mentioned, the people of earlier times were not able to verify these kind of facts but believed in them due to their faith in God. Modern day discoveries show us that these facts can actually be proven, so the beliefs that Muslims have held since the revelation of the Qur'an have been verified and attest to the truth of the Qur'an.

Well no. They believed in what the Quran told them but of course they did not know what the Quran said. They did not think that "smoke" referred to "plasma" - a state of matter they were utterly unaware of. They did not know most of the things that modern scientists have discovered (some of which paid hacks have found in the Quran).

What you say later about things being 'obvious in retrospect' is not correct, since such things as embryological descriptions and universal origins have been quite clear from the beginning, and your implication that non-muslims realised these facts before Muslims, or that Muslims did not know what such things meant, has already been shown to be false.

Umm, no where has anyone shown this to be false. You have made some claims without any evidence, nut nowhere have you even suggested Muslims knew about, for instance, the Big Bang. In retrospect Muslims (or more accurately the scientists the Saudis pay) have gone back to the Quran and now argue that the Quran refers to things unsuspected by previous generations of Muslims.

I have done this already - when I mentioned the time that the Islamic world created the greatest legacy of scientific knowledge seen in history to that date.

Well no you have not. You have pointed in the general direction of such scientists and have made grand claims for them, but you have not been able to show me one single Muslim who thought the Quran referred to the Big Bang before Western scientists invented the idea. Nor can you.

No it is not an "opinion", but it is actually a fact of history. John Esposito of Georgetown University, one of the most prominent western experts on Islam, has commented that:[/COLOR]

... Muslims ceased to be disciples and became masters, in process producing Islamic civiisation, dominated by the Arabic language and Islam's view of life... Major contributions were made in many fields: literature and philosophy, algebra and geometry, science and medicine, art and architecture... ​

Then that is your opinion and his opinion, but it is still an opinion. There are very few facts in History. You are also changing the subject are you not?

Although people believed in whatever the Qur'an told them, this did not stop them from studying science, since the scientific information found in the Qur'an does not contradict scientific teachings; it cannot, for the Qur'an came from the One Who created science.

Again there is that odd assumption - why do you believe that all people, especially those who studied science, believed in what the Quran told them? The fact that some people decided that the Quran told them answers to all the important scientific questions did stop many other people studying science. Observatories werew destroyed. Books censored. Printing presses smashed. The problem with asserting that the Quran doews not contradict scientific teachings is the same problem as the Library of Alexandria - some people are going to decide that the Quran says something and the issue is closed. Science needs to be able to say whatever it has to say without being overseen by ulama and inquisitioners.

Steve has already pointed out how the Qur'an was not intended as a science textbook but rather a book of guidance.

I have no problem with that point, but saying it and believe it are two very different things.

The Qur'an actually encouraged the Arab community in which it was revealed to think, to investigate and to use their minds, perhaps for the first time in their lives.

Really? What is the evidence of that? Where is the proof that Arabs did not think and use their minds before Islam? What is the proof that Arabs suddenly started to afterwards?

In many verses of the Qur'an, people are instructed to examine nature and learn from it because people can know God only by examining His creations. Because of this, in one place in the Qur'an Muslims are defined as people who think about the creation of the heavens and the earth:

Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,-

That is not a call to study the universe. It is an assertion that the wonder of the Universe is proof of God.

[quotye] Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire. [3:190-191] [/quote]

Nor is that a call to study the Universe, but an assertion that anyone who does study the Universe will be struck in wonder with it and praise God for creating it. You can simply take a short-cut and praise God without bothering with the study can't you?

Thus the Qur'an instructs people to investigate the world around us and actually encourages studies in science.

That "thus" does not belong in that sentence. Nor is this an accurate reflection of the historical record - whatever the Quran "really" says, Muslim science went into a steep decline as the ulama took over.

It contains all that we need of Guidance and religious knowledge, supported by teachings from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), but it does not prohibit further studying the world that God created and gaining knowledge about it - hence the era of Muslim scientists.

Does not prohibit is not the same as encourages. It contains all Muslims need. I agree that traditionally it has and that traditionally Muslims have felt that way. But it does not. You also need the product of Western science.

Actually, I was referring to the Victorian era of Britain which lasted around 64 years if I'm not mistaken. Incidentally, I came across this:

During the Dark Ages, Western man ceased to bathe. In America, up to the time of Graham, people did not take baths. They had no bath tubs and did not regard bodily cleanliness as a necessity of life. Graham and the other Hygienists taught Americans to bathe and in this work they had the active opposition of the medical profession. As late as the middle of the last century a Dr. Winship, who claimed to be the "strongest man alive," although not wholly opposed to bathing, as were so many of his professional brethren, was not overenthusiastic about cleanliness, advising: "Practice general ablution at least once a week in cold weather, and twice a week in warm, but seldom oftener in a New England climate. (In offering this rule, I expect to be censured by quite a large class in the community , who seem to delight in the daily soaking and splashing in water, not having, probably, the slightest consciousness that by so doing, they defeat every intention for which water is externally applied.)"

From Winship's statement, it will be seen that the objection to the daily bath was still quite strong, so that even a physician who indulged in physical exercise, including heavy exercise, could still oppose daily bathing. ​

You ought to read your own sources more carefully. Clearly "quite a large class in the community" "delight[ed] in the daily soaking and splashing in water". So a doctor urged people to stop. Not to do it more. For which he expected to be criticised by most people.

​

From what I have found: "the Roman bath was adopted, and adapted, by the Muslim Ottoman conquerors". I don't see any obvious un-Islamic concept involved in the bathing process though.

You mean it is not forbidden to strip naked in front of dozens of other people you are not related to? This comes as a surprise to me. Women have to cover from the neck (at least) to the ankles to the wrists, don't they? To where do men have to cover?

Hygiene is not the intent?!
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Purification is half of the Faith." (Reported by Muslim)

Purification, not hygene. There is a difference between something being "clean" in a religious sense and something being clean in a scientific one. Religion is only, or mainly, interested in the first.

It might not necessarily mean that, yet if you looked at how Islam reaches ritual washing, I am sure you would agree that it can be considered hygienic. Please have a look at the following threads:

Hygene might well be a by-product, but it is not the intent and it is not a guaranteed result. Pork is "unclean" in Islam regardless of whether it is safe to eat or not.

What does this have to do with Islamic hygiene? And whether or not that is true, Islam is still the fastest growing religion in the world .

You are making the claim about hygene. You tell me.

And I expect that Islam is not the fast growing religion in the world but let's not argue over it.

I have already explained that no degree of torturing is necessary. I have quoted to you Qur'anic verses, yet I did not need to do a lot of explaining to help you understand them, did I?

Because I do not think they mean what you say they mean. A large degree of torturing is needed as can be seen by the link on embryology. The smoke reference. The mountains being "pegs". All this needs a great deal of clarifying before people can recognise this miracle.

Nobody has said that it was meant to be a scientific text book. They simply said that it contains many accurate pieces of scientific information that attest to its miraculous nature.

I can trivially find Muslim scholars who used to argue that it was a scientific text book and you and Steve have still not moved away from that position. The claim it is a miraculous scientific book is clearly an attempt to reclaim that position. This is dangerous. Muslim need science.

You have brought no proof for any of your claims, so I don't have any reason to believe you.

It is impossible to demonstrate what every single individual Muslim thought. It would be easier if you could find me a single Muslim who, before 1900 or so, thought that the Quran referred to the Big Bang. I can find Muslim scholars who thought it did not and were regarded as orthodox. That suit you?

However, I can show evidence of the views of the very first Muslims to whom the Qur'an was revealed:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Sufyan Ath-Thawri narrated from his father from `Ikrimah that Ibn `Abbas was asked; "Did the night come first or the day'' He said, "Do you think that when the heavens and the earth were joined together, there was anything between them except darkness Thus you may know that the night came before the day.

Except of course the Big Bang came first - kind of bright that was. So it seems that Ibn Abbas was wrong.

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Umar said that a man came to him and questioned him about when the heavens and earth were joined together then they were parted. He said, "Go to that old man (Shaykh) and ask him, then come and tell me what he says to you.'' So he went to Ibn `Abbas and asked him. Ibn `Abbas said: "Yes, the heavens were joined together and it did not rain, and the earth was joined together and nothing grew. When living beings were created to populate the earth, rain came forth from the heavens and vegetation came forth from the earth.''

Which clearly suggests that the Old Man was unaware of the few billion years in which the Earth did not exist.

The man went back to Ibn `Umar and told him what had been said. Ibn `Umar said, "Now I know that Ibn `Abbas has been given knowledge of the Qur'an. He has spoken the truth, and this is how it was.'' Ibn `Umar said: "I did not like the daring attitude of Ibn `Abbas in his Tafsir of the Qur'an, but now I know that he has been given knowledge of the Qur'an.'' Sa`id bin Jubayr said: "The heavens and the earth were attached to one another, then when the heavens were raised up, the earth became separate from them, and this is their parting which was mentioned by Allah in His Book.'' Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, "They were joined together, then they were separated by this air.''

It is a pity that you cannot see how this has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe. It simply proves my point.

You have misunderstood what the letter was saying. The Shakyh does not mention anywhere that the sun "is not at the centre of the solar system" nor does he say that the "sun orbited the earth". The only thing he said about the sun is that it runs on a fixed course, and steve kindly clarified how this is a scientific fact. I do not know about the rotation issue, so I will need to find out more about that.

Steve desparately reaches for something to pull from the burning embers, but of course the good Sheik is denying that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System and insisting that the Sun orbits the Earth. As the Quran does seem to say to me. If you look at the original article there is a link to the original Arabic. That might help clarify what he meant.

​

 

[HeiGou]

You and Hei Gou know nothing about the Qur'an. You are not experts of the arabic langauge, and you probably don't even know arabic at all. You just read the translation of the meaning in English and make your own twisted interpretations of what they mean.

The problem is that experts in Arabic also do not know what it means. It is a difficult book and Muslims generally rely on what other people tell them it means. Before Missionaries made the issue so sensitive Muslims used to argue over what particular words meant because they did not know. I know scholars who say about every third sentence is uncertain.

But that is not important. What is, is your personal attack on me. You may notice, but perhaps not care, I do not dispute what the Quran says all that often if at all. It is not for me to decide what it says. On rare occasions I will be brave enough to suggest what my opinion is, but that is only an opinion. By and large I am only interested in what Muslims think, or thought, it says, or said. A different question altogether.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I can see you're having an interesting discussion here; I'd just like to chip in to make a small point addressing this comment:

I don't really see how faith is required to see that something is inerrant, comprehensive, preserved, consistent, universal, and noting its literary perfection and power.

Focusing on the last two attributes mentioned here: I lack faith in Islam, and I cannot see these attributes in the Qur'an. Perhaps it is therefore possible that faith is required to see these?

Plus of course there is no such thing as literary perfection. Any judgement about literature is always essentially subjective.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Focusing on the last two attributes mentioned here: I lack faith in Islam, and I cannot see these attributes in the Qur'an. Perhaps it is therefore possible that faith is required to see these?

Preservation is anything but subjective (refer to M. M. Al-Azami's book for details). And inerrancy is quite objective as well.

Peace.

 

[root]

I really don't think that tone was necessary, considering the comment was not even aimed at you. It was aimed at another Muslim. Since a Muslim already believes that the Qur'an is the word of God, I would speak to a Muslim differently than to someone who is not Muslim.
Clearly you confuse me with someone who has blind faith. You and Hei Gou know nothing about the Qur'an.

I am sorry if I offended you. However, I can assure you though my knowledge of Islam and the Koran are indeed limited, I probably know more on the subject than christianity and for a number of years I was brought up as a christian.

You are not experts of the arabic langauge, and you probably don't even know arabic at all.

Correct, I don't speak any arabic. A little urdu, but not arabic.

You just read the translation of the meaning in English and make your own twisted interpretations of what they mean.

Twisted! Is that not an hypocritical statement. You take issue with my tone and use such tone in response? However, I am sufficiently thick skinned for it not to concern me and I still apologise if you found my tone OTT.

Brother this is kufr. Allah Ta'ala tells us in the Qur'an of his signs, and whne ponders on this you know that his 'non-existance' is impossible. Read Harun Yahya's works and this is obvious, even better, read the Qur'an. The scientific miracles in the Qur'an alone prove Allah's existance.

How do I know the koran is the word of god, because the koran tells me"

I don't remember saying this.

I am sorry you missed my point here, it was in reference to your circular statement about reading the koran to confirm the validity of the koran?

Come back when you have an open mind and heart.

The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open. The notion of faith in my opinion is employed to counter act what I just stated.

My hole post in response was a general one, suggesting you needed not respond to it nor this one, since it would waste what is quite a good thread. Please accept my apology be on your way

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I am sorry you missed my point here, it was in reference to your circular statement about reading the koran to confirm the validity of the koran?

There is a distinct difference between the following two ideas:

-We confirm the validity of the Qur'an by analyzing it
-We confirm the validity of the Qur'an because it says it is valid

Only the latter is circular reasoning.

Regards

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings HeiGou,

Thank you for the link. I think it shows the problems of these sorts of discussions. Root cuts and pastes from an anti-Islam website. A moderator or two cuts and pastes from a apologetics site. It gets people nowhere.

Pasting from random websites can indeed be a problem. The internet contains many sites holding anti-Islamic views, which are then refuted by other sites using authentic Islamic teachings that show how such former sites are distortions and misconceptions. By "apologetics" I assume you mean people who are defending the truth against falsehood, which is a concept I agree with.

You will find that most discussions on this board are not simply based upon copy and pasting, but rather use other sites on the internet as resources and references to back up claims and provide further information. In this specific discussion, you asked me to provide you a source:

I am open to any sources you might have that suggest otherwise. I would love to hear of them in fact.

So I provided it.

Because the study of clouds is a modern phenomenon. And like most modern Science Muslims have not made major contributions to that process for a long long time.

The study of clouds cannot be a modern phenomenon if I am providing information on people who studied the subject centuries ago. I already told you about Ibn Doraid Al-Azdi whom you can read about here. You can also read about Ibn Sina's (Avicenna's) Contribution to the field here.

I find it quite strange how you have shifted your position on the matter, however. First you said that "any work done on cloud formation has been done by non-Muslims", yet now you admit that Muslims did in fact make contributions when you say "Muslims have not made major contributions to that process for a long long time." Seeing as how the actual discussion was about any contributions rather than when they happened; we do not need to start a new one.

No, plasma is not a gas.

In physics and chemistry, a plasma is an ionized gas, and is usually considered to be a distinct phase of matter...​

​

You have just shown from your own source that plasma is indeed a form of gas. It might be ionised, but it's still gas-like in consistency.

Matter exists in four states - solids, liquids, gases and plasmas. Plasmas are usually very hot (let's pass over the minor case of cold plasmas). Because of this they conduct electricity - indeed the definition of a plasma relies on the conduction of electricity. Smoke does not conduct.

The exact qualities of the smoke in question have not been defined, yet I have seen explanations of the Arabic word referring to a "hot gas". It seems to me like plasma and smoke can refer to the same thing, especially if using the word smoke metaphorically as often words are in the Qur'an.

Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word “smoke” is more appropriate than gas. The following Quranic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dukhan which means smoke:

«"Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... "» [41:11]

Again, this fact is a corollary to the “Big Bang” and was not known to mankind during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). What then, could have been the source of this knowledge? SOURCE
​

Smoke is not and never is so hot that the electrons are free to move.

I think you mean this statement to refer to gases in general, since gases do not normally conduct electricity. This is perhaps one of the reasons for the point mentioned from the site above (in red) that referring to the initial celestial matter as smoke is more appropriate than gas. Smoke, as you pointed out, can refer to "a suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium" rather than a simple gas. By this definition, there is no reason to believe it cannot achieve the temperature needed for conduction. There is also no reason to believe that it contradicts the meaning of 'plasma'. Scientists themselves have used the word 'smoke' when describing the early stage of the Universe, as I quoted in my previous post.

From an on-line dictionary

Yes, to show you the various definitions of smoke.

1. The vaporous system made up of small particles of carbonaceous matter in the air, resulting mainly from the burning of organic material, such as wood or coal.

The Universe never looked like this.

I didn't say it did.

2. A suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in a gaseous medium.

Plasmas do not generally have a suspension of fine particles in a gaseous medium (although you could make a case for so-called cold-plasmas) but at any rate the Universe never looked like this.

Continuing with the discussion of the usage of the word 'smoke'; I think an important point to bear in mind is that the Qur'an was revealed to a non-scientific community a very long time ago before the Big Bang theory was developed. Allaah often uses simple terminology to explain complex processes, for example in the verses describing embryological development:

23:14 Then fashioned We the drop a clot, 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!

25:61 Blessed is He Who made constellations in the skies, and placed therein a Lamp and a Moon giving light;

Seeing as the Qur'an is not a science textbook; it has no need of using advanced scientific jargon to convey its message of clarity, and being addressed to the whole of humanity, it appeals to both scientific and non-scientific minds alike.

And you can also see none of these apply to the early Universe.

I didn't say every single definition was valid, but my point was that more than one definition existed.

Well no. They believed in what the Quran told them but of course they did not know what the Quran said.

They had the best understanding of the Qur'an than any of us, so just because they weren't leading scientist does not mean that they had no idea what the verses meant. I even quoted a hadith in my previous post about their understanding of the heaven and earth being united initially.

They did not think that "smoke" referred to "plasma" - a state of matter they were utterly unaware of. They did not know most of the things that modern scientists have discovered (some of which paid hacks have found in the Quran).

Well this supports what I said before: it would have been harder for them to grasp the meaning of something they were utterly unaware of, hence the usage of a simpler word in place of a more complex one. The fact that they did not know most of what modern scientists do only proves the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, since it described to them scientific things that have only been verified now, and those very same descriptions are valid today.

For your information, I believe it was Muslims who first found the scientific information in the Qur'an, not "paid hacks".

Umm, no where has anyone shown this to be false.

They have, actually, and that was the part where I said:

Furthermore, how can you say that it was the 'Western scholars" who identified the scientific miracles; when during a time known as the 'Dark Ages' for Europe, the Islamic world created the greatest legacy of scientific knowledge seen in history to that date. The sciences of medicine, geometry, astronomy and even sociology were developed systematically for the first time. All this was a result of the Arabs being brought out of a life of superstition and degeneration, and instead began following a path of reason as a result of the 'light' brought to them in the Qur'an. (post #339)

Which was followed by a link to a website in that same post, and there was a quote in the following post of mine in which it said:

No it is not an "opinion", but it is actually a fact of history. John Esposito of Georgetown University, one of the most prominent western experts on Islam, has commented that:

... Muslims ceased to be disciples and became masters, in process producing Islamic civiisation, dominated by the Arabic language and Islam's view of life... Major contributions were made in many fields: literature and philosophy, algebra and geometry, science and medicine, art and architecture...

John L.Esposito, Islam:The Straight Path, Oxford Uni.Press,1991,s.52


​

And we can find many other quotes from western people who recognised Islamic achievements. Post #346

And on the issue of Muslims not knowing their own scripture:

That seems like a very foolish statement indeed. Muslims have spent vast amounts of time studying the Qur'an and inheriting the enormous amounts of knowledge pertaining to it from the scholars of previous generations - leading right up to the best teacher of all: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). To say that nobody at all knew what the Qur'an was referring to is ridiculous and of course baseless.

Since I don't remember you basing your allegations on even a shred of evidence, the last statement sums it up pretty much.

You have made some claims without any evidence,

I think that would be you, actually: firing statements about westerners discovering the science in the Qur'an and Muslims learning it from them and then interpreting the Qur'an with it... all these and such others weren't backed up with any reason or proof at all; just mere 'thinking aloud' as it were, to say the least.

nut nowhere have you even suggested Muslims knew about, for instance, the Big Bang.

I'm not suggesting that Muslims or the Qur'an agree with all the latest scientific theories, as these reject the very notion of God and are therefore unacceptable. There are elements in science that the Qur'an agrees with, but that does not mean it subscribes to the fully blown theories (held by "modern scientists") behind them.

In retrospect Muslims (or more accurately the scientists the Saudis pay) have gone back to the Quran and now argue that the Quran refers to things unsuspected by previous generations of Muslims.

Another one of your unsubstantiated fantasies.

Well no you have not. You have pointed in the general direction of such scientists and have made grand claims for them, but you have not been able to show me one single Muslim who thought the Quran referred to the Big Bang before Western scientists invented the idea. Nor can you.

There seems to be some confusion here. I clarified in my earlier post that:

although people might not have referred to the initial creation of the world as 'The Big Bang', they believed in events that have become a part of today's Big Bang theory.

It does not make sense to claim the Qur'an was talking about a Big Bang theory since it wasn't even invented at the time, as you said, and secondly it isn't favoured by Muslims in modern times anyway. What I was saying is that the Qur'an mentions similar events that scientists believe to have occurred around the time of the creation of the Universe. They explain these events by their theory of the Big Bang whereas the Qur'an attributes them to God's Power.

As for your first point in that quote, I didn't just point in their "general direction", rather I went as far as to name a Muslim scientist specialised in a particular field of study (cloud formation), and when I said that I already answered you when you said "I am happy for anyone to draw my attention to any Muslim scientists who have worked in this area before Westerners did" - I think we were referring to scientific miracles in the Qur'an, or studying science in general, which was addressed when I pointed out the Muslim contributions to science and how they were the leaders in their field at a time when the western world was asleep - showing that westerners didn't find everything, as claimed, nor is there reason to believe that the scientific miracles were not realised by Muslims.

Then that is your opinion and his opinion, but it is still an opinion. There are very few facts in History. You are also changing the subject are you not?

Well first you ask for sources suggesting Muslims realising scientific information in the Qur'an as well as working in the area before Westerners did; so I told you about the Golden Age of Islam which you then dismissed as a mere "opinion" of mine, whilst casting aside the fact that all your claims weren't exactly factual; and then when I showed that the scientific advances and contributions of Muslims was not my opinion but even recognised by the Western world, you resort to accusing me of changing the subject! So it's not changing the subject as I hope you will agree.

Again there is that odd assumption - why do you believe that all people, especially those who studied science, believed in what the Quran told them?

I was referring to Muslims who, by definition, accept the Qur'an as Allaah's Word.

The fact that some people decided that the Quran told them answers to all the important scientific questions did stop many other people studying science.

They didn't "decide" that the Qur'an told them the answers - you see you keep going back to the issue of the Qur'an being a science textbook even though I have agreed with you that it isn't! Please understand that nobody is claiming that.

Observatories werew destroyed. Books censored. Printing presses smashed. The problem with asserting that the Quran doews not contradict scientific teachings is the same problem as the Library of Alexandria - some people are going to decide that the Quran says something and the issue is closed. Science needs to be able to say whatever it has to say without being overseen by ulama and inquisitioners.

Where is your supporting evidence that all this happened: that books were censored and observatories destroyed etc.? As far as I'm aware, education was very much encouraged in those times and there was no such thing - nor is there now - as science contradicting the Qur'an. Books can't have been censored if they were later translated into various languages and admired by the western world. Also, science has always said what God made it say from the beginning, i.e. no human can overlook what science can say and nobody can hide what science does, and likewise it was God Who decided what the Qur'an would say, hence there is no contradiction between the two and thus no need to hide or force anything.

I have no problem with that point, but saying it and believe it are two very different things.

I don't know of anyone who believes otherwise.

Really? What is the evidence of that? Where is the proof that Arabs did not think and use their minds before Islam? What is the proof that Arabs suddenly started to afterwards?

Before Islam came, the Arabs were a barbarous people who worshipped idols of their own making, were capable of killing their own children and only followed what their forefathers had practiced. There were many ignorant practices and immoral activities in which they engaged; yet Islam eradicated all these practices and challenged their ignorance:

7:191 Do they indeed ascribe to Him as partners things that can create nothing, but are themselves created?
7:192 No aid can they give them, nor can they aid themselves!

6:137 Even so, in the eyes of most of the pagans, their "partners" made alluring the slaughter of their children, in order to lead them to their own destruction, and cause confusion in their religion. If Allah had willed, they would not have done so: But leave alone them and their inventions.

6:140 Lost are those who slay their children, from folly, without knowledge, and forbid food which Allah hath provided for them, inventing (lies) against Allah. They have indeed gone astray and heeded no guidance.

2:170 When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah hath revealed:" They say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance?
2:171 The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom.

And within a few decades, Islam, which emerged from the small town of Madinah, spread from Africa to Central Asia. The Arabs, who previously could not even rule a single city in harmony, came to be rulers of a world empire. (Taken from here).

That is not a call to study the universe. It is an assertion that the wonder of the Universe is proof of God.

And how does one know what the "wonder of the Universe" is without studying it, thinking about it, observing and reflecting on it?

[quotye] Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire. [3:190-191] [/quote]

Nor is that a call to study the Universe, but an assertion that anyone who does study the Universe will be struck in wonder with it and praise God for creating it. You can simply take a short-cut and praise God without bothering with the study can't you?

Perhaps it would help to appreciate the encouragement to contemplate God's Creation if we look at the verse which comes a bit later to complete the passage:

3:190 Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day,- there are indeed Signs for men of understanding,-3:191 Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire.
...
3:195 And their Lord hath accepted of them, and answered them: "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: Ye are members, one of another: Those who have left their homes, or been driven out therefrom, or suffered harm in My Cause, or fought or been slain,- verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath;- A reward from the presence of Allah, and from His presence is the best of rewards."
http://muslimheritage.com/topics/de...ID=121&TaxonomyThirdLevelID=274&ArticleID=326
Not only are such people who contemplate God's Creation and realise their purpose in life while being thankful to God, described as being "men of understanding" but among those whom God will reward immensely.

There are many, many verses in the Qur'an in which Allaah draws our attention to various aspects of His creation and points out how there are signs in them for those who have understanding and perception. Thus the Qur'an encourages reflection and comprehension of the world that Allaah created and by no means discourages it.

That "thus" does not belong in that sentence.

It does belong in the sentence and the reason for its presence is that it shows how the verses' message to contemplate God's Creation can be linked to the fact that the Qur'an encourages further investigation of the world around us.

Nor is this an accurate reflection of the historical record - whatever the Quran "really" says, Muslim science went into a steep decline as the ulama took over.

What evidence do you have that the Muslim science declined because the "Ulema took over"? With regards to the historical record, I think it is a pretty accurate reflection considering how science in the Muslim world flourished so well.

Does not prohibit is not the same as encourages. It contains all Muslims need. I agree that traditionally it has and that traditionally Muslims have felt that way. But it does not. You also need the product of Western science.

If you read the whole sentence, you will find that it says that the Qur'an contains all that we need of Guidance and religious knowledge... not science! And it doesn't matter whether I say "does not prohibit" or "encourages" because essentially, the point is that studying science is not something frowned upon.

Clearly "quite a large class in the community" "delight[ed] in the daily soaking and splashing in water". So a doctor urged people to stop. Not to do it more. For which he expected to be criticised by most people.

Well I guess we won't know how big that "large class in the community" really was, considering how the article starts by making a large generalisation that "western man ceased to bathe". It also shows that even the medical profession, from whom we would expect better judgements, discouraged bathing!

You mean it is not forbidden to strip naked in front of dozens of other people you are not related to? This comes as a surprise to me. Women have to cover from the neck (at least) to the ankles to the wrists, don't they? To where do men have to cover?

I wasn't aware that exposing oneself before others was necessary to take a bath, however, it did say that Muslims "adopted and adapted" the Roman bath, hence we don't need to assume they did everything exactly the same as them.
To answer your question: men are required to cover themselves from the navel to the knee.

Purification, not hygene. There is a difference between something being "clean" in a religious sense and something being clean in a scientific one. Religion is only, or mainly, interested in the first.

Though will you not agree that purifying oneself, regardless of the method - religious or not, would improve their hygiene? Those Prophetic teachings I mentioned were quite general, and made it quite clear that Muslims are commanded to cleanse themselves, which should make it clear that hygiene is very important in Islam and is not just a sense of performing rituals without any purpose.

Hygene might well be a by-product, but it is not the intent and it is not a guaranteed result.

How do you know it's not the intent; I've just shown you the importance of hygiene in Islam!

Pork is "unclean" in Islam regardless of whether it is safe to eat or not.

Sorry, I didn't understand the connection between this and the hygiene issue.

You are making the claim about hygene. You tell me.

So you think Muslim populations are declining because they have poor hygiene?! And that is after I have said how highly Islam regards hygiene? I think that is a very poor hypothesis to say the least... did it occur to you that the Middle East is subject to many other factors such as poverty, war, corruption and lack of resources? I think they are far more likely to cause any decline in population numbers than a case of hygiene.

And I expect that Islam is not the fast growing religion in the world but let's not argue over it.

Let's not, though here's some links to read:
Fast-growing Islam winning converts in Western world
News Excerpts about Islam

Because I do not think they mean what you say they mean. A large degree of torturing is needed as can be seen by the link on embryology. The smoke reference. The mountains being "pegs". All this needs a great deal of clarifying before people can recognise this miracle.

Explanations and in-depth analyses are sometimes needed for people who find excuses to reject the meanings. The verse said 'smoke' yet you were determined to try and prove it wrong by giving detailed, miniscule explanations of what plasma is... have you ever thought about your torturing idea the other way round?

I can trivially find Muslim scholars who used to argue that it was a scientific text book and you and Steve have still not moved away from that position. The claim it is a miraculous scientific book is clearly an attempt to reclaim that position. This is dangerous. Muslim need science.

So these scholars claimed that the Qur'an was meant to teach people science and that it contained all aspects of science, without a need for us to study it further? If there are any, feel free to name them, though I doubt there are any of such description. Also, I think both Steve and I made it quite clear that we do not consider the Qur'an a "science textbook". It does, however, contain many accurate and miraculous scientific pieces of information that attest to its divinity.

It is impossible to demonstrate what every single individual Muslim thought.

You don't need to to give the thoughts of every single Muslim; yet I thought you might have some obvious reasoning behind your opinion. Seeing as I have shown how Muslims have made many great contributions to science, I don't quite see how it is possible to claim that no Muslim knew of any scientific detail in the Qur'an until the Westerners found them, considering the likelihood that Westerners probably hadn't even read the Qur'an before the Muslims did.

It would be easier if you could find me a single Muslim who, before 1900 or so, thought that the Quran referred to the Big Bang.

I have already explained that Muslims did not believe the Qur'an to be referring to the specific full-scale theory of the Big Bang, nor do they fully agree with it now. It would be more accurate to say that Muslims believed the Qur'an to be referring to the origins of the Universe.

I can find Muslim scholars who thought it did not and were regarded as orthodox. That suit you?

That's fine by me

Except of course the Big Bang came first - kind of bright that was. So it seems that Ibn Abbas was wrong.

Ah but of course the question is whether there really was a Big Bang or not! Maybe it is you who are wrong!

Which clearly suggests that the Old Man was unaware of the few billion years in which the Earth did not exist.

I don't see how it "clearly suggests" that at all. The man specifically asked Ibn Abbaas about "when the heavens and earth were joined together".

It is a pity that you cannot see how this has nothing to do with the creation of the Universe. It simply proves my point.

So neither the earth nor the heaven are a part of the Universe? I don't know what point you are making, though I can tell you that you seem to have missed mine: that earlier views on the Qur'an are preserved till this day.

Steve desparately reaches for something to pull from the burning embers,

Then why did you agree with him when you said:

By the way I expect the Sun is moving radially away from the center of the Universe, as is the nearest sun, and so, like an expanding balloon, they are all getting further away from each other.

but of course the good Sheik is denying that the Sun is at the center of the Solar System and insisting that the Sun orbits the Earth.

I didn't find that anywhere in the text. All I saw was that he said that the sun runs on a course. [/quote]

As the Quran does seem to say to me.

Perhaps you can share with us the specific location in the Qur'an where you feel it says that.

If you look at the original article there is a link to the original Arabic. That might help clarify what he meant.

I don't think I can read it, sorry.

Peace.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum,

Feel free to contribute anytime!

Focusing on the last two attributes mentioned here: I lack faith in Islam, and I cannot see these attributes in the Qur'an. Perhaps it is therefore possible that faith is required to see these?

The last two attributes I mentioned were "literary perfection and power". Perhaps the reason why you cannot appreciate the literary perfection is because you do not know the Arabic language. Literary power can also be explained in more detail to mean such things as the Qura'nic message being deep, universal, practical, logical, comprehensive, and its text being memorisable and interactive (read more here) . If one person does not see any of these in the text, it does not necessarily mean that faith is required, but could well mean that the person has not understood. There are many people who do recognise these things in the Qur'an, yet they are not Muslims:

I am not a Muslim in the usual sense, though I hope I am a Muslim" as "one surrendered to God," but I believe that embedded in the Quran and other expressions of the Islamic vision are vast stores of divine truth from which I and other occidentals have still much to learn, and 'Islam is certainly a strong contender for the supplying of the basic framework of the one religion of the future.'"
Author :
W. Montgomery Watt
Book Reference :
ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY TODAY, London, 1983, p.ix

'This Text of the Qur'an is the purest of all works of alike antiquity' (Wherry, Commentary on the Koran, I. p. 349).

The Koran abounds in excellent moral suggestions and precepts, its composition is so fragmentary that we cannot turn to a single page without finding maxims of which all men must approve. This fragmentary construction yields texts, and mottoes, and rules complete in themselves, suitable for common men in any of the incidents of life.258 (From John William Draper's book, A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe)

And then there are those in whom faith was ignited as their hearts were opened:

The essential and definite element of my conversion to Islam was the Qur'an. I began to study it before my conversion with the critical spirit of a Western intellectual. There are certain verses of this book, the Qur'an, revealed more than thirteen centuries ago, which teach exactly the same notions as the most modern scientific researches do. This definitely converted me.
Author :
Ali Selman Benoist, France, Doctor of Medicine

"I have read the Sacred Scriptures of every religion; nowhere have I found what I encountered in Islam: perfection. The Holy Qur'an, compared to any other scripture I have read, is like the Sun compared to that of a match. I firmly believe that anybody who reads the Word of Allah with a mind that is not completely closed to Truth, will become a Muslim."
Author :
(Saifuddin) Dirk Walter Mosig, U.S.A.

How can we explain such recognition of the Qur'an if faith was definitely needed to see such merits in the Qur'an?

Plus of course there is no such thing as literary perfection. Any judgement about literature is always essentially subjective.

Well there is always an open challenge for anyone to point out an inaccuracy:

4:82 Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity.

Peace.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

The problem is that experts in Arabic also do not know what it means. It is a difficult book and Muslims generally rely on what other people tell them it means. Before Missionaries made the issue so sensitive Muslims used to argue over what particular words meant because they did not know. I know scholars who say about every third sentence is uncertain.

But that is not important. What is, is your personal attack on me. You may notice, but perhaps not care, I do not dispute what the Quran says all that often if at all. It is not for me to decide what it says. On rare occasions I will be brave enough to suggest what my opinion is, but that is only an opinion. By and large I am only interested in what Muslims think, or thought, it says, or said. A different question altogether.

Personal attack? I think you're being a little paranoid now. I was replying to your statement about my previous comment. If you think i'm attcking you then maybe you shouldnt make comments on what i've said. Anyway you said the key word, 'it is only an opinion', and not an informed one either. Read the works of Dr. Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya, i'm sure you'll take back every thing you said about the Qur'an

 

[The Ruler]

i was jus thinkin dat even science has proved dat dis world is gonna end rite?

let me xplain in a greater detail...

two opposing forces r acting in da sun: force of expasion due to da release of fusion energy causd by burning of hydrogen into helium n force contraction due to gravity. so long as da two forces balances each ova, the sun remains in stable condition. as time passes, the hydrogen is turnd into heliumwich being hevier falls into the central region. gradually da inner part is devided in2 two regions: a central core of helium created wid a surroundin shell o burnin hydrogen n an outer region, wich is composd primarily o hydrogen wich bcuz o lower temperature cannot fuse n produce nuclear reactions. the larger da core grows, da more important da inhomogeneity bcums for da stability o da sun. wen da inner ten percent of da suns mass o hydrogen has been burnt, da sun is no longer stable. calculations show dat wen da sun reaches dis stage, the outer layer will rapidly expand bcuz o d net outward pressure so dat da radius o da photosphere (visible surface) o da sun reaches ten times ts original radiusan thus engulfs da orbits o da inner planets. < wich means da planets wud include earth.

in da Quran it says:

The day the heaven shall be rent asunder with clouds, and angels shall be sent down, descending. (25:25)

da situations r quite similar....da sun engulfin da earth n also da resurrection day.

my question is....

wer do da atheists think humans wud go on dat day?

or wat happens to dem after death? do dey return in da form o som1 else?

these questons may v been asked b4 but while scanning thru, i didnt get da answer

 

[root]

two opposing forces r acting in da sun: force of expasion due to da release of fusion energy causd by burning of hydrogen into helium n force contraction due to gravity. so long as da two forces balances each ova, the sun remains in stable condition. as time passes, the hydrogen is turnd into heliumwich being hevier falls into the central region. gradually da inner part is devided in2 two regions: a central core of helium created wid a surroundin shell o burnin hydrogen n an outer region, wich is composd primarily o hydrogen wich bcuz o lower temperature cannot fuse n produce nuclear reactions. the larger da core grows, da more important da inhomogeneity bcums for da stability o da sun. wen da inner ten percent of da suns mass o hydrogen has been burnt, da sun is no longer stable. calculations show dat wen da sun reaches dis stage, the outer layer will rapidly expand bcuz o d net outward pressure so dat da radius o da photosphere (visible surface) o da sun reaches ten times ts original radiusan thus engulfs da orbits o da inner planets. < wich means da planets wud include earth.

I think what your getting at here is that the solar system according to science has a date with doomsday.

The day the heaven shall be rent asunder with clouds, and angels shall be sent down, descending. (25:25)

da situations r quite similar....da sun engulfin da earth n also da resurrection day.

I think the Quran would probably be seen as "quite similar" no matter what the event since you are assuming that "man" will at least survive to see that day you talk about (The initial expansion of the sun). However, this is only an assumption and we have to survive "extinction events" which are random by nature and can arrive via numerous sources.

wer do da atheists think humans wud go on dat day?

I think the probable best answer to this would be basically anywhere else but within our own solar system! Assuming our evolution lasted for such a long time in the future.

or wat happens to dem after death? do dey return in da form o som1 else?

Taking the form of someone else is more like reincarnation, however at the atomic level it probably is not far from the truth. Whilst I don't speak for atheists after my death the atoms that form me (and forms all matter in the universe) will simply form other complex patterns and go on to take another form, for example my atoms could end up contributing towards forming part of a new sun. Either way, the atoms that make my form are not doomed by such events.

 

[HeiGou]

Anyway you said the key word, 'it is only an opinion', and not an informed one either. Read the works of Dr. Zakir Naik and Harun Yahya, i'm sure you'll take back every thing you said about the Qur'an

Been there, read that, would have laughed aloud if it wasn't so tragic.

What is it about these two gentlemen that you find so compelling?

 

[The Ruler]

Taking the form of someone else is more like reincarnation, however at the atomic level it probably is not far from the truth. Whilst I don't speak for atheists after my death the atoms that form me (and forms all matter in the universe) will simply form other complex patterns and go on to take another form, for example my atoms could end up contributing towards forming part of a new sun. Either way, the atoms that make my form are not doomed by such events.

hmmm...im not so sure about dis but if dat is wat u say den how cum dey found da remains of Pharoah? how cum his atoms did not form anyfin else?

b wat ur talkin bou ere is ur body not soul. do athiests beliv in souls anyways?

if dey do (wich i dunno if u do or not) den wer do da souls go?