Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Islamic Reformation
Comments
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59091
OK then, I'll rephrase. The verses you quote state clearly that the sun and the moon orbit. It does not say what they orbit, but there are no verses that say that the earth orbits or moves at all. Not even vaguely. In fact, the verses concerning the earth are firmly couched in the terms of solid unmoving stability. Exactly what you would find in a pre copernican view of a fixed earth and moving heavens. Can you find any verse that states or even suggests that the earth orbits, revolves or moves at all(and there are plenty that clearly state the sun/moon/stars/heavens move, so the earth is noticable by it's absence)? No is the answer there.the_new_mr wrote:The main thing in your quote here is the word "suggest". You feel that it is suggested but that is simply your opinion. Can you find any verses that explicity state that the earth is fixed? No is the answer there.
We could argue the flesh part over and over. The lack of verses mentioning the female ovum sound the death knell for scientific claims of accuracy TBH. The mountains verse clearly states that mountains are put there by Allah to make the earth stable from earthquakes. This is not correct. Mountains are direct evidence of plate tectonics and thus earthquakes. The verse in question makes out that mountains are like reinforcing stakes driven into the ground specifically to prevent movement.Flesh, mountains etc.
What about those who are not ignorant of Islam, yet chose for whatever reason not to become Muslims? Are they not with Allah too, especially if they are devout Hindus or Jews or whatever? If they have a lifetime of faith behind them and see no reason to change, why should they? They have faith in a different path to you and with a belief no less stronger than you and they are likely equally sure they're right and you're wrong. Why should they be lesser because of this? In faith you and they are right to have such opinions, but when in the case of Islam the state and the faith are one and the same, they would be lesser. In a secular, equal, democratic society they wouldn't be any lesser. To be fair to you, you partly addressed the faith part of this point later on in your post, but I'm concerning myself with the actual running of any society.
You said that In Islam, this is the view. All men and women are created equal while everyone has a fair chance at entering heaven. If someone dies completely ignorant of Islam then their judgement is with Allah and it is the widely held opinion that the fact that they didn't know about Islam will not be held against them. It wouldn't be fair otherwise.
In an Islamic ruled society it would be illegal for me to marry a Muslim woman. Is this not inequality? If I am a Muslim and decide to become a Jew, am I not under the legal threat of execution, if I don't repent? In those instances there Islam has a higher value than non Islamic.What about in an Islamically ruled society? Well, again a non-Muslim is not considered inferior to Muslims as far as the law goes. That's a very important point I want to make sure gets across here.
Faith I have no problem with. I only have a problem when any faith impacts the lives "in this world" of those who do not follow it. This is why I firmly believe in a seperation between (any)church and the law and government.If based on faith the only problem for a non-Muslim in the eyes of Islam will be on the day of judgement then there is no injustice done to them in this world? Would you agree with this logic?
Very just I'll agree and I'd believe it too, especially when compared with the "Christian" way of doing things in the past. Is this from Quran or hadeeth or from another historical document?I can. One such example is when the Muslim armies had to fight a battle and needed all their soldiers in the battle..../.... Non-Muslims living in these cities and towns said things like "We hope you win the battle and come back to rule us for you are the most just rulers we have ever known. Had they [the enemy] been in your position, they would not have given back the money"
You'll be waiting til doomsday for that....When was the last time the government gave back our motor taxation money because they didn't fix up the roads?
I stand corrected. Apologies for that.This is most certainly not the case and I resent such a statement.
Well there are many way to interpret jizya. Yours is the fairest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya for a larger scope on the subject.Anyway, the tax is for one thing and one thing only. When a non-Muslim in a non-Muslim state gives the jizya (tax), it is in exchange for not having any military responsibilities. Also, if any outside force threatens the non-Muslim population inside the Muslim state, the Muslim military are sworn to defend them. A non-Muslim can also decide to not pay the jizya if they enter any military battles as any Muslim would.
And any number of other faiths too.Yes and my point was that these women aren't stupid and wouldn't enter a religion that wouldn't give them any rights.
True enough, but he nonetheless has the right to, if he can fulfil such obligations. He can even marry captives(or those who his right hand possesses). The woman has no such right at all(though they're probably better off as 4 spouses would be asking for troubleTo correct a few things, a Muslim man may not marry up to four wives just because he wants to. There should be reasons.).
The Quran as quoted in that link you posted quite clearly states that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah, but men are a "degree" above them and "Men are in charge of women" and all decisions in a household are his to make in the end. Even if as it says that a mutual agreement is preferred, the man still has precedence. The man still has the power. In fact of women who may rebel from the same link;The truth is that a lot of women in Islamic countries are oppressed because of the unjust men/goverments in those countries and not because of Islam. One example of this is how women aren't allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia which has absolutely nothing to do with Islam. This makes people accuse Islam of oppressing women whereas this isn't the case.
So if they don't agree and rebel, then you can throw them out and "scourge" them? Can women do the same?"As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them"
The talk of averages between the sexes in that article is a red herring IMHO. There are women who are stronger, more capable and more intelligent than many men. What of those? Should she see any man such as that as her "master" in any final decision?
You also refer to SA. Agreed the car thing has little basis in the Quran, but what about free movement of women? Are women not supposed to meet non family males without escort? Does this not restrict women and the roles they may seek out?
Frankly, many might ask for more. Equality in the eyes of whatever God you believe in is hopefully a given and I respect that, but in the here and now, more practical equallity is to be hoped for.In any case, as the article in the FAQ clearly states women and men are equal in the eyes of God and what more equality could anyone ask for?Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Wibbs wrote:Not my intention TBH. Just outlining the people a Man may marry and a woman may not. That's a whole other debate, not relevant here IMO.
But thats it Wibbs , people always bring it off topic if its good but as soon as something difficult comes up .... silence. :rolleyes:
If you look back on the posting there is loads of science and stuff, not relavent, but when something bad comes up then people are afrid to bring it off topic. I for one feel people should not be silent about what they believe. But its just IMHO.
It never shocks me how much people can ignore for the sake of religion.
D0 -
-
Don't jump the gun gentlemen Just because myself (or anyone else for that matter) didn't respond within 24 hours doesn't mean it's silence and that we're trying to ignore. As it happens, I have other things to be doing as well as post messages on forums
Anyway, there's a lot to say. I've been doing a lot of reading since and, before I continue, I have to say thank you to Wibbs for making me do some reading and thereby greaten my knowledge and understanding of my religion along with an enriching of appreciation for the incredible miracle that is the Quran. I must also first and foremost thank God for my increase in knowledge. I also see how God has placed verses which cover both poetic and scientific meanings at the same time. Sub7an Allah! (Glory be to God).
First things first, the earth.
I found some stuff which is extremely rich in information. An incredible amount of information actually. It was a lot to absorb but I found out a lot I didn't already know.
A number. I have re-realised that it's always important to go back to the Quran's original language of Arabic to get a better understanding. Translations are only translations performed by human beings who are imperfect. Even the translations performed by the individual from the source I was reading from are prone to imperfection but they are more accurate translations with respect to science since the translator has an excellent understanding of science in general.Wibbs wrote:Can you find any verse that states or even suggests that the earth orbits, revolves or moves at all(and there are plenty that clearly state the sun/moon/stars/heavens move, so the earth is noticable by it's absence)? No is the answer there.
The earth is round. There are a load of references to show that, not only is the earth round, but that it is also slightly egg-shaped which is completley in agreement with modern science. Too many to put here so I'll just put one of them.The "two Easts" and "two Wests" on earth in the Noble Quran and the roundness of the earth:
The earth literally has two sun rising points and two sun setting points! Noble Quran and Science agree on this:
Before we look at the Noble Verses, it is important to know when the sun rises on one half of the earth, it is at the same time setting on the other half, and when it sets on one half of the earth, it is at the same time rising on the other half. This clearly means that the earth literally has two sun rising points (mashriqayn) and two sun setting points (maghribayn)!
Now let us look at what Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Quran:
"GOD of the two Easts, and GOD of the two Wests. (The Noble Quran, 55:17)"
The Arabic words "mashriqayn" and "maghribayn" were translated as "two Easts" and "two Wests" respectively. It is important to know that Noble Verses 55:10-25 are speaking about the earth and the some of the Creations that exist on it.
The two root Arabic words "Sharq" and "Gharb", which mashriqayn and maghribayn are derived from respectively, can also literally mean the rising point of the sun, and the setting point of the sun.
Important Note: "two Easts" would've be an accurate translation if the word was "Sharqayn" and NOT "mashriqayn". As I said above, "Sharq" means "East", and "Sharqayn" is two easts. But "Mashriqayn" is a plural of "Mashriq", which is used for referring to sun rising as in "Mashriq Al-Shams" (the rising of the sun).
*** The same for "two Wests" and "Gharbayn". This is the literal and accurate meaning for "two Wests". "Maghribayn" is plural of "Maghrib", which is used for referring to sung setting as in "Maghrib Al-Shams" (the setting of the sun).
The fact that Allah Almighty chose to use "Mashriqayn" and "Maghribayn" as opposed to "Sharqayn" and "Gharbayn" is a clear proof that Noble Verse 55:17 is referring to the two sun's rising and setting, and not to east and west.
The earth is moving. Antother extract. You'll have to excuse the writer's bad english (but at least his/her Arabic good)Motion of the earth in Quran
Have we not made the earth kifaata?
{Al-Quran 77:25}
Allah says in the Holy Quran that Allah made the earth kifaata. The motion of the earth is hidden beyond this word. Lets see the wideness of the word kifaata & how beautifully Allah is describing us the motion of the earth.
When the word kifaata, use with birds, the meaning will be "a bird, with contracting its furs, flying fastly." (lughat-ul-Quran).
The similar word when use with horse, the meaning will be "the horse become uncontrolled and the traveler can't able to control it. (Lughat-ul-Quran).
And when this word "kifaata" used with earth then it will meant that the earth is fastly moving (flying) keeping all creatures and its movement is not controllable by traveler (all creatures). Now let us read this verse again with this translation.
Have WE not made the earth a fast moving object with den of storage?
{Al-Quran 77:25}
Second verse regarding motion of the earth:
"Have We not made the earth as a cradle and the mountains like pegs?"
{Al-Quran 78:6-7}
The Arabic word used for cradle is "Mihaada". (Mufridaat-ul-Quran). The Quran compares the earth to a cradle because a cradle is a place of rest that is engaged in motion.
Third Verse Regarding Motion Of the Earth
And the earth is wada'aha for the creatures
{Al-Quran 55:10}
"wada'atinnaaqah" means " a running camel" (lughat-ul-Quran)
"Wada'aturrajul" means "a running man" (lughat-ul-Quran)
We observed that the word "running" common in both meanings, hence in the above verse the word "wada'a" used with the earth. thus the translation of this verse will be,
And the earth, is a running object for the creatures
{Al-Quran 55:10}
I also found an amazing site that has to do with what Wibbs was mentioning before about Galen's findings on embryology being similar to the Quran. The link I posted in one of my previous posts concerning this subject was already quite comprehensive but this new site really takes the cake. It's quite long so have a read when you have some time. It really shows how Galen et al really were nowhere near the kind of detail mentioned in the Quran. Not only that, but the others made a number of glaring errors. Not so the Quran.
Once again, the article shows how important attention to detail in the Arabic grammar unlock more meanings from verses previously mistranslated.
It's at:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttals/PlagiarismGreek/
Already covered this. Don't ask me because it's not for me to answer. Only God judges and only God has this answer.Wibbs wrote:What about those who are not ignorant of Islam, yet chose for whatever reason not to become Muslims? Are they not with Allah too, especially if they are devout Hindus or Jews or whatever?
This Muslim woman in question would not want to marry a non-Muslim so she wouldn't exactly feel "hard done by" when she knows that is God's command. As for yourself, you're free to make up your own mind and if you still didn't want to be a Muslim then that's up to you.Wibbs wrote:In an Islamic ruled society it would be illegal for me to marry a Muslim woman. Is this not inequality?
As for the thing on apostasy, I've already said that I really don't know anywhere near enough to answer.
Historical document.Wibbs wrote:Is this from Quran or hadeeth or from another historical document?Wibbs wrote:
You'll be waiting til doomsday for that....the_new_mr wrote:When was the last time the government gave back our motor taxation money because they didn't fix up the roads?
No problemWibbs wrote:I stand corrected. Apologies for that.
I think you'd do better than to link to a site like wikipedia for such information... especially when I've just given you a definition of Jizya from my own reliable sources. As mentioned before, wikipedia is too open to sabotage from people who intend to put false definitions and/or information in it. A friend of mine had information up there that the moon was made of cheese for a good whileWibbs wrote:Well there are many way to interpret jizya. Yours is the fairest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya for a larger scope on the subject.
That's for another post on another day in the post I promisd to put up showing how Islam eradicated slavery. It should be noted at least at this stage that any marriage between a man and a captive as in this case gave her full rights as a lawful wife and were certainly not concubines as some people will have you believe.Wibbs wrote:He can even marry captives
No, you can't "throw them out". It says: "banish them to beds apart" which is literally what it says... two beds.Wibbs wrote:So if they don't agree and rebel, then you can throw them out and "scourge" them?
Chances are that you've probably never met nor ever will meet a woman that might force a just husband to these measures.
And another thing, I understand that if it comes to the stage that they can't live under the same roof for whatever reason on any particular day (regrettable though it may be), the husband is the one that has to leave the house and not the other way around as the woman is considered the "Queen of the house".
Also, a hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him):
"The best of you are the best to your families and I am the best to mine"
and
"The best among you would never hit their wives"0 -
HAHA!! First time that's happened to meboard.ie wrote:1. The text that you have entered is too long (10089 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long. So, the continuation of my post...
Also, there are options open there for the woman too such as getting the families involved.
An-Nisa:35
"And if you have reason to fear that a breach might occur between a [married] couple, appoint an arbiter from among his people and an arbiter from among her people; if they both want to set things aright, God may bring about their reconciliation. Behold, God is indeed all-knowing, aware"
Once again, man made ideas of equality. If men and women are different then that has to be acknowledged. That doesn't mean they're not equal.Wibbs wrote:Frankly, many might ask for more. Equality in the eyes of whatever God you believe in is hopefully a given and I respect that, but in the here and now, more practical equallity is to be hoped for.
Not in private but they may in public in full view if it is for reasons of necessity (work, government offices etc). Same goes for a man by the way.Wibbs wrote:Are women not supposed to meet non family males without escort?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59091
the_new_mr wrote:Don't jump the gun gentlemen Just because myself (or anyone else for that matter) didn't respond within 24 hours doesn't mean it's silence and that we're trying to ignore. As it happens, I have other things to be doing as well as post messages on forums
Me and God being mentioned, nay thanked in the same paragraph. Glad to be of service and if Allah's out there, I'm sure he's having a good old laugh at the idea(and if you saw the state of me, you'd see He's been taking the p*ss at my expense all along..):DAnyway, there's a lot to say. I've been doing a lot of reading since and, before I continue, I have to say thank you to Wibbs for making me do some reading and thereby greaten my knowledge and understanding of my religion along with an enriching of appreciation for the incredible miracle that is the Quran. I must also first and foremost thank God for my increase in knowledge. I also see how God has placed verses which cover both poetic and scientific meanings at the same time. Sub7an Allah! (Glory be to God). .
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. While many references make the statement that the sun/moon/stars move/revolve orbit, the earth moving needs some serious interpretation to make it stick. There's a large element of bashing a square peg into a round hole going on. As an example, the two easts/wests is also a persian tradition(among others) refering to the the twin easts/wests of the solstices. The sun rises within a range between two easts from the winter to the summer solstice. Many ancient cultures measured their years in this way(inc. ancient Ireland). http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/037.qmt.html#037.005 Here's another example where only the "easts" are mentioned. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/070.qmt.html#070.040 Yet another where the easts/wests are primary points where the observation of the planets/heavens is judged by. And here no metion of the earth with a corse plotted http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/055.qmt.html#055.005First things first, the earth.
Anyway, we really don't wanna go down the route of the Creationist/Darwinist epic that currently plays out elsewhere. And epic it is at this stage. At one point Charlton Heston was up for one of the roles...;)
Well it's hardly egg shaped. For a start an egg is pointed at one end. The earth isn't.There are a load of references to show that, not only is the earth round, but that it is also slightly egg-shaped which is completley in agreement with modern science.
He did make errors in far more detailed writings on the matter, but as I say there is no mention of the female egg in the Quran, which is strange if it's as accurate as you think it to be. Also apparently the Quran states that sperm comes from the spine and that man is created by that fluid alone. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/086.qmt.html#086.006 Again no mention of the female role in this.Not only that, but the others made a number of glaring errors. Not so the Quran.
Well what about an opinion on this? You're not short of those.As for the thing on apostasy, I've already said that I really don't know anywhere near enough to answer. Your definition of Jizya as an example is from your "own reliable sources".
That can be the case, but it is open to debate and review. Other links I or you could post would likely be more partisanAs mentioned before, wikipedia is too open to sabotage from people who intend to put false definitions and/or information in it.
Damn! I thought it was.A friend of mine had information up there that the moon was made of cheese for a good while
That one I await with interest, as the Muslim world would be most allied to the practice for longer than nearly any other(even to the present day).That's for another post on another day in the post I promisd to put up showing how Islam eradicated slavery.
No, I knew that.It should be noted at least at this stage that any marriage between a man and a captive as in this case gave her full rights as a lawful wife and were certainly not concubines as some people will have you believe.
It also says you can scourge them, which the Prophet apparently contradicted in the Hadeeth you quoted(which is good).
Don't bet on it....:DChances are that you've probably never met nor ever will meet a woman that might force a just husband to these measures.
Well the argument could also equally go that individual people can differ more than their gender differences. A man can be weaker than some women. A man can be more gentle than some women. "Equality" based on strict gender averages is hardly equality, man made or not.Once again, man made ideas of equality. If men and women are different then that has to be acknowledged. That doesn't mean they're not equal.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
For your first question DinoBot, I'll have to check up on that. There is a period of living together that they should do after getting divorced (and if they decide to get back together then that is okay) so I'd say that he'd be financially responsible for her then. As I said, I'll check.
As for your second question, when I said leave the house I meant in the unfortunate circumstance of having to part each others' company for one night to cool things off or something. In that case, he's the one that should leave. If it's divorce however then I guess that whoever owns the resisdence should get it and if they jointly own it then the regular process would probably be carried out.
I'm afraid I can't get you sources for the hadith as they're from one of my books without a source quoted. I'll get it for you when I get the chance God willing.
Doubt it. This is a quite disrespectful by the way. Think it if you must but please don't say it.Wibbs wrote:and if you saw the state of me, you'd see He's been taking the p*ss at my expense all along..
I'm always prepareed to agree to disagreeWibbs wrote:I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. While many references make the statement that the sun/moon/stars move/revolve orbit, the earth moving needs some serious interpretation to make it stick. (even if I'd prefer if you agree... for your sake )
However, I don't think that it requires anything like serious interpretation at all like you say. I believe the verses I quoted show that. As you say, we don't want to be dragging it out forever here but it's there in plain black and white (or rather plain black and mild-purple in the case of boards). I know you say that the earth isn't explicitly said to be revolving around the sun (like the sun and moon are... in orbit I mean... not around the sun). I read an interesting theory on this point. It is a possibility that God didn't put such a direct statement in in kind of the same way that the verses on alcohol were abrogated over time. That is to say that God didn't put a direct statment of the movement of the earth in order not to completely mess with peoples' heads who all would have thought the earth flat and motionless etc. Then, 1400 years later when we're all more scientifically knowledgeable, we can find clues to the motion of the earth in the Quran as the verses I showed in the previous post.
Now I know what you're thinking (something along the lines of "Oh come on...") but I'm sure you can see the logic there. Besides, those verses seem enough to me. Just because they're not the translations you see in most translated versions of the Quran doesn't mean they're not verses... especially when the Arabic is examined properly.
Also, I belive that your linking to 37:05 and 70:40 actually enforce the idea.
I said slightlyWibbs wrote:Well it's hardly egg shaped. For a start an egg is pointed at one end. The earth isn't.... and it is.
The Quran does not state that it is from this alone. Also, I believe it is referring to seminal fluid from the prostate gland.Wibbs wrote:Also apparently the Quran states that sperm comes from the spine and that man is created by that fluid alone.
Surprised you missed this. From the link in the previous post:Wibbs wrote:Again no mention of the female role in this.iv) Al-Nutfah Al-Amhsaj
In Arabic Amshaj means mixture and Al-Nutfah AI-Amshaj means a mixture of male and female germinal fluids or cells (Ref: 1A, 29/126-7: 2A, 2/195: 6A, 19/121: 7A, 6/418: 8A, 8/393; 9A, 2/454: 4D, 2/367). All Islamic scholars unanimously agree on deriving this meaning from the above expression. This is evidently clear from the following quotation:
إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ
"Verily We created Man from mixture of germinal drop" (Surah Ad-Dahr, Ayah 2)
The interpretation of this Ayah to mean mixing of male and female gametes to form the Zygote. Al-Nutfah Al-Amhsaj is a peculiar combination of Nutfah, which is a noun referring to a single drop and AI-Amshaj an adjective, which is used in plural form. The grammatical rules of the language permit singular nouns or pronouns to be described by a singular adjective. Al-Amhsaj is a plural adjective used with the singular noun Al-Nutfah. After mixture of the male and female gametes, the Zygote still remains "Nutfah" and in this context the word "Al-Nutfah Al-Amhsaj" will mean a combination of many things mixed in a single drop (Nutfah) i.e., the maternal and paternal chromosomes with their genetic material and other contents of the Cell. "Amshaj" is a plural adjective capable of agreeing with the concept of Nutfah being a multi-faceted single entity.
This is all aside from the incredible usage of Arabic grammar to denote the timing in the process of the formation of the fetus.
It's not a contradiction if you consider it this way:Wibbs wrote:which the Prophet apparently contradicted in the Hadeeth you quoted(which is good).
You may scourge them but it's better not to.
Like this verse:
Al-Baqara:280
"And if the debtor is in straitened circumstances, then (let there be) postponement to (the time of) ease; and that ye remit the debt as almsgiving would be better for you if ye did but know"
Anyway, more on this hopefully when I get the source for this hadith.
Well, that's certainly not true at all so please don't make false statements like that (especially without any kind of data to back your statement up). Anyway, hope to have the time to put that chapter up some time this week God willing.Wibbs wrote:That one I await with interest, as the Muslim world would be most allied to the practice for longer than nearly any other(even to the present day).0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59091
Fair enough, but don't you think the multi dimensional, all knowing alpha omega creator of the universe might have a sense of humour? I mean if emotions like love and mercy are atributed to Him, then why not that?the_new_mr wrote:This is a quite disrespectful by the way. Think it if you must but please don't say it.However, I don't think that it requires anything like serious interpretation at all like you say. I believe the verses I quoted show that.
He doesn't seem to have any trouble "messing with peoples minds" when it came to new ways of doing things on the moral front. In fact various prophets of all religions did precisely that. Surely that's what many revelations are all about? That's why they're still remembered. Do you think if Mohammed kept the status quo of the time we'd know his name to this day? Nope.It is a possibility that God didn't put such a direct statement in in kind of the same way that the verses on alcohol were abrogated over time. That is to say that God didn't put a direct statment of the movement of the earth in order not to completely mess with peoples' heads who all would have thought the earth flat and motionless etc. Then, 1400 years later when we're all more scientifically knowledgeable, we can find clues to the motion of the earth in the Quran as the verses I showed in the previous post.
I've been thinking that for a while TBH, but agreeing to disagree here.Now I know what you're thinking (something along the lines of "Oh come on...")
How so? When a simpler(more logical) explanation of the equinoxes is by far the more likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razorbut I'm sure you can see the logic there. Besides, those verses seem enough to me.
Also, I belive that your linking to 37:05 and 70:40 actually enforce the idea.
Straight away that's one difference between science and religion.
If you squint real hard.I said slightly... and it is.
More likely from either the kidneys or the spinal column, both theories extant at the time and before.The Quran does not state that it is from this alone. Also, I believe it is referring to seminal fluid from the prostate gland.
Still trying that square peg into that round hole.This is all aside from the incredible usage of Arabic grammar to denote the timing in the process of the formation of the fetus.
But if it came to it, scourging women is allowed?It's not a contradiction if you consider it this way:
You may scourge them but it's better not to.
I see no untruth there. While Islam codified the treatment of slaves(and bettered their lot in many ways) the Islamic slave trade was the bigger before and after the Europeans/Americans got on board. A large proportion of the slave trade (both in east and west Africa)was supplied by Muslim traders/raiders. Even Ireland was hit by them http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/60/047.html.
Well, that's certainly not true at all so please don't make false statements like that (especially without any kind of data to back your statement up).
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa040201a.htm
Even today places where slavery is either quasi legal or ignored are Muslim nations(Sudan, Mauritania). Europe while benefiting at one time from this barbarous practice, outlawed it well before the middle east.
I await with interest.Anyway, hope to have the time to put that chapter up some time this week God willing.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Once again DinoBot, I'm afraid I can't comment on the authenticity of the hadith you mentioned as I'm not a scholar. I'll let you know more when I find out more God willing. In the meantime, maybe I can redirect you to http://www.islamonline.net They've got an "Ask about Islam" section. It's pretty comprehensive and allows you to ask specific questions.
First of all, it was not Mohamed (peace be upon him) that broke the status quo with the Quran but God. I know that's a question of belief but I just wanted to state that so let us not work on the assumption that it was created by the Prophet (peace be upon him). He was, after all, illiterate.Wibbs wrote:He doesn't seem to have any trouble "messing with peoples minds" when it came to new ways of doing things on the moral front. In fact various prophets of all religions did precisely that. Surely that's what many revelations are all about? That's why they're still remembered. Do you think if Mohammed kept the status quo of the time we'd know his name to this day? Nope.
Also, changing things on the moral front is very different. As said before, we can only speculate on why anything was done. Still, the fact remains that there isn't one verse in the Quran that explicity states that the earth isn't moving and that there are verses that state that it is.
Well, I think you'll find that as for as Occam's rules go, the Quran breaks them by providing plenty of detail for all to see. It's not a science reference book so it's not meant to have everything in complete and utter detail but God put scientific miracles in there for a reason... to eradicate the need for complete blind faith. I mean, according to your idea, wouldn't it have been better if there were no scientific miracles at all if it was indeed fabricated. I mean, if I was going to fabricate something like that, I'd steer clear of scientific matters altogether. God didn't do that.Wibbs wrote:How so? When a simpler(more logical) explanation of the equinoxes is by far the more likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Straight away that's one difference between science and religion.
Arguing with science now are you?Wibbs wrote:If you squint real hard.
Believe that if you want. It's obvious to me (and literally millions others like me). The amount of detail in the Quran well surpasses anything else around that time and it's completely free of error (despite what you think is implied). Just because it doesn't explain it like your 5th year biology book with illustrations and latin medical terms doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't mean to be rude but don't you think that others have already tried to state that it's wrong and failed? Also, what about all those who are in a better position to comment on the facts and were and are convinced? Food for thought there.Wibbs wrote:Still trying that square peg into that round hole.
As for your ideas about slavery, what may have existed in the Arab world in the past (and may indeed still exist today) is not representative of Islam.
Anyway, it's not for me to try and convince your mind and heart. It's up to you to decide for yourself and you are free to do so. All that is up to me to do is to tell you what I know. Besides, that's not what this forum is for anyway. As I understand it, this forum is for improving one's knowledge of Islam and "for the discussion of the islamic religon only".
We can keep going back and forth but it's pointless really as neither of us are qualified to go into the minor details of any religion. I mean, are you trying to single handedly falsify a faith that others have tried to do before and failed? I surely can't single handedly explain it. It's only by the grace of God that I've been able to say what I can. There's plenty of information out there on the net which talks about this stuff in a better way with much more detail than I ever could. I remind myself of a verse from the holy Quran.
Al-Nahl:125
"Call thou (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner- for, behold, thy Sustainer knows best as to who strays from His path, and best knows He as to who are the right-guided."
I hope I've been keeping to that verse as best as possible. So, I think I'll just provide the info from now on. No point arguing it. Wouldn't you agree?0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59091
Nope, you're right and that's a matter for faith, which I've no problem with.the_new_mr wrote:First of all, it was not Mohamed (peace be upon him) that broke the status quo with the Quran but God.
We each see what we want to see. That's why science is different. Even if the result is not what we expect it's still valid.Still, the fact remains that there isn't one verse in the Quran that explicity states that the earth isn't moving and that there are verses that state that it is.
Then why not have scientific miracles that are obvious and without doubt and the need for interpretation? If that was the case surely everyone would believe in whatever religion had those?It's not a science reference book so it's not meant to have everything in complete and utter detail but God put scientific miracles in there for a reason... to eradicate the need for complete blind faith. I mean, according to your idea, wouldn't it have been better if there were no scientific miracles at all if it was indeed fabricated. I mean, if I was going to fabricate something like that, I'd steer clear of scientific matters altogether. God didn't do that.
When I see a scentific paper describing the earth as egg shaped I'll stop arguingArguing with science now are you?
Millions follow other faiths too. Force of numbers are hardly an argument for any faith. Put it another way, at one point all those years ago, Mohammed was the only Muslim. For a good while after that there were very few fellow Muslims. Don't remember a vast majority of non believers stopping him.Believe that if you want. It's obvious to me (and literally millions others like me).
Only if you disregard the vast lexicon of ancient writings on the world around us, that still speak to us today. The ancient Egyptians even tried to weigh the earth. Not too badly either. Flash gits.The amount of detail in the Quran well surpasses anything else around that time and it's completely free of error (despite what you think is implied).
Again a common argument, but ultimately hollow. As a faithful Muslim, you would(rightly for you) reject any "proof" that goes against the teachings of the Quran, no matter how strong.I don't mean to be rude but don't you think that others have already tried to state that it's wrong and failed?
Not really, one of the main experts on embryology you linked to, never became a Muslim. Even after his pronouncments that the Quran must have come directly from God. Indeed he remained a Catholic. If E=Mc2 or something like that was in the Quran I'd likely be hot footing it to the nearest mosque. Strange he didn't. Food for thought there.Also, what about all those who are in a better position to comment on the facts and were and are convinced? Food for thought there.
TBH, I come from the side that thinks that faith shouldn't need "proof". Your own strong personal faith doesn't need any miracles, you just believe. fair play to you as well. I don't believe, but you never know, you may find me sitting cross legged on the top of a mountain going Ommmmmmm in ten years time. Stranger things have happened(not many though).
And how do you explain the link? Like the bad in western culture. We can't blame it on outside influences. The argument may go that you will know a tree by it's fruits(at least I'm quoting Prophets, you see I do take some stuff on boardAs for your ideas about slavery, what may have existed in the Arab world in the past (and may indeed still exist today) is not representative of Islam. My old Jesuit teacher would be so proud)
To be fair, you brought up the "science bit" and the proof therein, which you claim as proof of the Islamic religion. I just responded. We're still asking questions here. It's just that neither likes the others answers. That's debate for ya.Besides, that's not what this forum is for anyway. As I understand it, this forum is for improving one's knowledge of Islam and "for the discussion of the islamic religon only".
True, but we are qualified to ask questions, even if no answers are forthcoming or no agreement is reached. The process can be enlightening.We can keep going back and forth but it's pointless really as neither of us are qualified to go into the minor details of any religion.
Not at all. Faith I have no problem with. What is between anyone and the God they may believe in is their business and no concern of mine(and should be no concern of any states either). Much good has come from faith. It's only when any faith may seek to impose it's strictures on non believers that I find difficulty(that goes for fundamental absolutists of all faiths, Christian,Jew,Buddhists,Hindus etc)I mean, are you trying to single handedly falsify a faith that others have tried to do before and failed?
Don't be too sure, you're fighting your corner well enough. My eyes are sore from readingThere's plenty of information out there on the net which talks about this stuff in a better way with much more detail than I ever could. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Well, as I've said before, you're completely entitled to your own opinion.Wibbs wrote:]We each see what we want to see. That's why science is different. Even if the result is not what we expect it's still valid.
They are already obviousWibbs wrote:Then why not have scientific miracles that are obvious and without doubt and the need for interpretation? I think I know of some very fitting verses for just such an occasion.
Al-Anam:7-8
"But even if we had sent down unto thee [O Prophet] a writing on paper, and they had touched it with their own hands - those who are bent on denying the truth would indeed have said, "This is clearly nothing but a deception!"; They are saying, too, "Why has not an angel (visibly] been sent down unto him?" But had we sent down an angel, all would indeed have been decided, and they would have been allowed no further respite [for repentance]."
Al-Furqan:5-7
"And they say, “Fables of ancient times which he has caused to be written down, so that they might be read out to him at morn and evening!”; Say [O Muhammad]: “He who knows all the mysteries of the heavens and the earth has bestowed from on high this [Qur’an upon me]! Verily, He is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace!”; Yet they say: What sort of apostle is this [man] who eats food [like all other mortals] and goes about in the market places? Why has not an angel [visibly] been sent down unto him, to act as a warner together with him?” "
Ar-Rum:58
"And, indeed, We have propounded unto men all kinds of parables in this Qur’an. But thus it is: if thou approach them with any [such] message, those who are bent on denying the truth are sure to say, “You are but making false claims!” "
I know what you're thinking. You're probably thinking "insurance placed in there to scare people into believing". All I meant to do was to show that this is something that has been done since the beginning of God's messages to earth.
Well, since you're such a fan of wikipediaWibbs wrote:When I see a scentific paper describing the earth as egg shaped I'll stop arguing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth
Good point. Still, perhaps I approached it incorrectly. The reason that Islam has one of the greatest followings is because it's easily the fastest growing faith. Still irrelevant say you no doubt. Fair enoughWibbs wrote:Millions follow other faiths too. Force of numbers are hardly an argument for any faith. Put it another way, at one point all those years ago, Mohammed was the only Muslim. For a good while after that there were very few fellow Muslims. Don't remember a vast majority of non believers stopping him.
He exercised free will. His choice at the end of the day. In any case, there are literally thousands of others like him who did embrace Islam.Wibbs wrote:Not really, one of the main experts on embryology you linked to, never became a Muslim. Even after his pronouncments that the Quran must have come directly from God. Indeed he remained a Catholic. If E=Mc2 or something like that was in the Quran I'd likely be hot footing it to the nearest mosque. Strange he didn't.
I think this is a western misconception about faith and belief. It's too unfair to expect someone to "just believe". I remember talking to a non-Muslim friend of mine who said that they "wished they could believe like I and other [Muslims and non-Muslims] can believe" It broke my heart to hear that. We know what God guides people to believe if they want to. We can't be expected to just believe without having something to help us believe. Then, you can build on this faith with things that don't need evidence and so on.Wibbs wrote:TBH, I come from the side that thinks that faith shouldn't need "proof". Your own strong personal faith doesn't need any miracles, you just believe.
Another suitable verse.
Fussilat:53
"Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things?"
Well, I think that the really detailed questions require really detailed answers and I'm not qualified for that.Wibbs wrote:True, but we are qualified to ask questions, even if no answers are forthcoming or no agreement is reached. The process can be enlightening.
Sorry about thatWibbs wrote:Don't be too sure, you're fighting your corner well enough. My eyes are sore from reading Still, I'm sure I'm not the best man for the job. 0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59091
Agreed. That's my problem with the idea of any religious state. In an Islamic state(or with other literalist fundamental religion) that right do disagree might just as easily be lost. With a secular state, with seperation from any church, that right is far more protected.the_new_mr wrote:Well, as I've said before, you're completely entitled to your own opinion.
You must be a mind reader.I know what you're thinking. You're probably thinking "insurance placed in there to scare people into believing". All I meant to do was to show that this is something that has been done since the beginning of God's messages to earth. Islam isn't alone in this either. Christianity and Judaism have similar passages.
Just because at one time the vast majority thought the earth was the center of the universe did not make it any more correct. As I said the early followers of Islam didn't care about the amount that believed. You would be the first to agree that didn't make the message any less true for them. Force of numbers does not always a truth make. Also I've heard this put forward before about the "fastest growing religion)(and debate to the contrary). Is this due to higher birth rate in Islamic countries? Is this new converts? Is this because "ex" Muslims are far less likely to speak out for obvious reasons? Most lapsed Catholics are only too happy to tell youGood point. Still, perhaps I approached it incorrectly. The reason that Islam has one of the greatest followings is because it's easily the fastest growing faith. Still irrelevant say you no doubt. Fair enough. Agnosticisim(sp) is fast growing too, as is Buddhism, not to mention "born again" Christian types.
Strange choice though, give the evidence he says is there.He exercised free will. His choice at the end of the day
It could be argued it's a Christian thing which increased with the scientific enlightenment. I seem to remember Jesus saying "blessed are those who have not seen with their own eyes, yet still believe" Apologies to the Christians out there for the misquote if it is such. Could be where some of that comes from.I think this is a western misconception about faith and belief. It's too unfair to expect someone to "just believe".
You and other religious people may think that, but that's a hard sell to those who doubt the existence of God in the first place. Some people seem to be more(or less) open to the whole idea in the first place.We know what God guides people to believe if they want to.
I agree, and for me(and I can after all, only speak for myself) that "help" seems lacking in any faith.We can't be expected to just believe without having something to help us believe.
Again for me, pretty much everything need "evidence" of some kind. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a blind scientific reductionist either. That, in many ways can be as bad and as dogmatic as any religion out there. I'm open to the possiblity that there are things that for the moment are beyond what we class as understandable. I'm loath to consider that may always hold true though. I just find it hard to reconcile the fact that the religion I may believe is heavily dependant on where I am born, the culture I was raised etc and because of that lottery I may believe one thing or another. You raised the point yourself when you talked about how me and my ideas of western culture may not be the be all and end all. That's true too. The only difference I see, is that I at least consider that I may be in error(as Hobbes sees the faintest glimmer of a hope that I may torturously bring the subject back to Islamic reformation sometime soonThen, you can build on this faith with things that don't need evidence and so on.).
You'll do til another one comes along.Sorry about that Still, I'm sure I'm not the best man for the job.
Finally(Thank Allah, I hear you say)
From the same page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblate If that looks like an egg, I pity the chicken.
Good debating with you anyway.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Yeah, you too.
Well, I've been doing some more reading recently. It seems that it's not as you might think. I'll put a link up soon.Wibbs wrote:Agreed. That's my problem with the idea of any religious state. In an Islamic state(or with other literalist fundamental religion) that right do disagree might just as easily be lost. With a secular state, with seperation from any church, that right is far more protected.
I'm practicing my jedi powersWibbs wrote:You must be a mind reader.
Seems I'm not alone... master yodaWibbs wrote:Force of numbers does not always a truth make.
Of course I'm joking... just in case anyone here misreads this post and thinks that I think that Jedi is a real religion (just had to put that little disclaimer in there)
Well, this is certainly not what this forum is about but since you asked I believe the conversion ratio of non-Muslim to Muslim compared to non-Christian to Christian is 10:1 or something like that.Wibbs wrote:Is this new converts?
Look at the world around you. Can all this be an accident?Wibbs wrote:You and other religious people may think that, but that's a hard sell to those who doubt the existence of God in the first place.
I read an excellent analogy about this in a book once. It went a little something like this...
Consider a store room of a printing press that contains literally thousands of character plates for printing pages (before the time of HP, Epson and co). Then, an earthquake happens and some of the letters fall into place to make a few perfectly spelt words. Coincedence, right? Considering the vast amount of letter plates...very likely. Well, what if some letters fell together to make a complete sentence like "The fat cat sat on the mat"? A lot less likely but given the law of averages and probability in mathematics still quite possible.
But what if all of the letter plates fell together to make a complete story which is grammatically correct in every way and has a beginning, middle and end? That's surely not a coincedence.
It's my personal opinion that everybody owes it to themselves to reaffirm their faith. Don't you think I've questioned? I mean, I've thought every possible thought (and then some) but I always end up with the same conclusion that Islam is right. I find that a lot of agnostics and athiests seem to think that people who have faith simply haven't given it enough thought or something. Well, I can tell you different and I still arrive at the same conclusion and I have to say thank God for that.Wibbs wrote:The only difference I see, is that I at least consider that I may be in error
I also think that this is something that bothers people who want to believe but feel they can't (as I discussed in my previous post). They probably think that your faith has to be so good that you never question. But with me and others like me, the question ultimately strengthens my faith in the end.Wibbs wrote:If that looks like an egg, I pity the chicken.
Details detailsthe_new_mr wrote:I said slightly 0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59091
Of course it depends on what the definition of "freedom of expression" is. The recent storm over those cartoons is an example. While I personally disagreed both with some aspects of their publication and was somewhat in agreement with those that peacefully opposed them, I would defend both sides right to express such opinions. I'm not so sure such a debate/incidence would have ever arisen in a theistic state. I'm not trying to drag up that whole mess either, as it's been talked to death and we would likely agree for the most part on the basics. Merely just using an obvious example as illustration.the_new_mr wrote:Well, I've been doing some more reading recently. It seems that it's not as you might think. I'll put a link up soon.
Good plan, if some census information is anything to go by.Of course I'm joking... just in case anyone here misreads this post and thinks that I think that Jedi is a real religion (just had to put that little disclaimer in there)
Again, in fairness, you brought up the whole "fastest growing faith" thing.Well, this is certainly not what this forum is about but since you asked I believe the conversion ratio of non-Muslim to Muslim compared to non-Christian to Christian is 10:1 or something like that.
Well frankly yes. It could be.Look at the world around you. Can all this be an accident?
In many ways, that's mathematical sleight of hand. Many creationists use similar arguments. Complexity can and has arisen from simple beginnings. Also there are faults in the system, mutant DNA etc. In a way, the "book" of existence is not without some grammatical errors. Put it another way, if it hadn't worked we wouldn't be here discussing it. Maybe there are universes where it didn't work. I'm not saying I'm right, but it's possible.But what if all of the letter plates fell together to make a complete story which is grammatically correct in every way and has a beginning, middle and end? That's surely not a coincedence.
As I've said, fair play to you. Islam obviously is right for you. Others have trodden the same path and end up in a different direction. I've known religious people of many denominations that would feel just as strongly about their own roadmap. This can be the case for agnostics too. If an agnostic/atheist said you were lesser because you believe I'd be the first to defend your right to believe. To each their own(except jedis obviously).It's my personal opinion that everybody owes it to themselves to reaffirm their faith. Don't you think I've questioned? I mean, I've thought every possible thought (and then some) but I always end up with the same conclusion that Islam is right.
Didn't you know that God is in the details, though I've heard the Germans say that the devil's in the details. How confusing is that?Details details Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
Advertisement