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
Why do you believe Mohammad?
Comments
-
^^ Thaks Agathon for such a detailed posting. So are the reasons you detailed above why 'you' believe Muhammads claims?
Well I suppose they are JimiTime. Why do you believe that Jesus was God when he never said it??
Well I mentioned one in the previous post (#6 I think). I'd say if you ask a good Islamic Scholar on one of the web sites or in a Masjid near you they'll give plenty of prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. Mine would be scattered ... But some of the familiar prophecies are in this link:BTW, is there any fulfilled prophecy in the Qu'ran? Also, are there any prophecies that have yet to be?
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/379/0 -
Why do you believe that Jesus was God when he never said it??
I think thats an assumption on your part. Did I say that Jesus was God?
Well I mentioned one in the previous post (#6 I think). I'd say if you ask a good Islamic Scholar on one of the web sites or in a Masjid near you they'll give plenty of prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled. Mine would be scattered ... But some of the familiar prophecies are in this link:
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/379/
Thanks again.0 -
the church says and the new testament that jesus said ;i am the son of god; in the dead sea scroll they now say he said ;i am a son of god;the church has tried to hush this up--i have been banned from the islam web so i will not comment on mohammed--0
-
Okay, I am all done over here, and I just want to review, very quickly, the eight pieces of evidence which I have mentioned in this post and hope it answers all of your questions about Prophet Muhammed (p), The Qur'an and Islam's proof of a Higher Power:
If i may, I would like to go over some of this evidence.#1. I talked about bees: how the Qur'an correctly said that it is the female bee which leaves the house.
I dont know much about bees, but at the very least I can say theres a 50/50 chance of getting it right when saying if bees are male or female. Another thing is you say that in Arabic, animals are either male or female, there is no gender neutral term. What happens when you are describing an animal but don't know if its either male or female? Is Arabic similar to French, where its not the aniaml thats male or female, but the noun?#2. I talked about a city named Iram, which no one has heard [of] until 1978, and this city was mentioned in the Qur'an and archeologists dug up the city. I'm sorry, the archeologists dug up a city named Ebla, and they found out that a city named Iram did exist.
The Qur'an was written about 1400 years closer to the existence of the city Iram than we are today. Also wikipedia mentions that "Ubar was mentioned in ancient records, in its Arabic form "Iram", and was spoken of in folk tales as a trading center of the Rub al-Khali Desert in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula" (although I cannot see the reference for this, so I dont know when these ancient records are dated from), meaning that other people had heard about it too.#3. barriers between the seas: this was clearly stated in the Qur'an.
See #4#4. barriers between salt and fresh water.
The very fact that freshwater and saltwater (and different oceans) are clearly different (in taste, colour and movement) is a big indication that there would be some sort of barrier between them. The Qur'an says nothing of its nature, just that its there.#5. that at the bottom of the ocean, it is complete deep darkness after, of course, one thousand meters.
This would be pretty obvious to anyone who spends any time on the see, what with you not being able to see the bottom and all.#6. the Qur'an clearly pointed [to] the lowest point on earth by using a word adnaa 'l-ard, which one of the meanings is "lowest point." Plus a prophecy fulfilled after 7 years... coincidence??
Seeing as the author was an Arab talking about a battle between Arabs and Romansd, its not unexpected that he would say that the Arabs would win. Since Jerusalem is the lowest point in the world (well its actually the shores of the dead sea but close enough), it would also be the lowest point in Isreal. For the natives to assume that the lowest point they new of was the lowest point in the world is not really unexpected either.#7. the Qur'an clearly stated that iron did not come from earth, rather God said "we sent down iron," meaning it came from some external source, which is exactly what scientists today tell us.
You said at one point "That is exactly what modern scientists today are telling us - that iron could not be produced by earth.", However this is wrong. Iron in the earths crust is mostly (but not entirely) from meteorites, however Iron is also the major component of the earths core, it is in fact the most abundant element on earth (4th most abundant on the crust)#8. the Qur'an clearly stated that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that is exactly what scientists today tell us.
You use chapter 21 verse 33 ("and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating") to say that Qur'an says the sun and the moon have an orbit, but can you show how where it points out the sun orbits the milky way (ie not the earth) while the moon orbits the earth? Chapter 21, verse 33 could be very easily interpreted to mean that as it gives no indication the sun and moon orbit different things.And there are more on Astronomy, Embryology, etc. Not one single error in his statements!!! Lucky?!?
I would appreciate some more, if you are willing.0 -
sorry JimiTime but I thought Christians believed Jesus is a part of God or god/trinity or something like that) Is he not God incarnate??I think thats an assumption on your part. Did I say that Jesus was God?
I don't want this post to be too long; I think we're off the original subject, I'll try to explain the first piece of evidence in a bit more detail. And see where we go from there.If i may, I would like to go over some of this evidence.
On bees, there's a 50/50 chance, and in fact on all eight there's a 50/50 chance! There was an Arabic cartoon which was broadcast in the Arab world (I watched it in Libya when I was 10 or 11), and the hero was a male bee going out to search for something. So even Arabs ignorant of the Qur'anic text still make the mistake of the worker bee being male (that was a few decades ago) -- I suppose that's just fiction ... Also I want to bring up one of the books which were written much before the time the Qur'an was revealed, and that is the works of Aristotle. Because I think when you look at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know. Anyway, when you go to his books on meteorology you will find that he has done studies on bees. This is what Aristotle had to say - and actually Aristotle did make some scientifically correct statements regarding bees - Aristotle discovered that there were three categories of bees, and he discovered that there was such a thing as a leader bee, which today we know are queen bees, as well as drones and workers. So he did make some correct discoveries inside modern science when it comes to bees. But that can very easily fall under the category of (6), that this is something which is observable. Meaning, if you study the bee hive, you're going to see the same thing.
Anyway, here's an important point on Aristotle. Aristotle also made many scientific errors regarding bee study. I'm going to give you seven scientific errors, which Aristotle made.
1. Aristotle first of all thought the queen bee was actually a male, which is wrong, it is female.
2. Number two: he thought bees do not give birth to young, but they fetch their young from flowers, which is actually false. We know that bees are actually hatched from eggs.
3. Number three: Aristotle thought bees come from olives, which of course we know is not true.
4. He said the honey comb of the bee is actually made from flowers. This is false - the honey comb is made from wax.
5. He knew of bee's wax though, but he thought the bee's wax comes from the gum of trees, which is completely scientifically inaccurate - it comes from the wax glands of the bees.
6. He said female bees do not sting because nature does not provide females with weapons, but this is also false, because female bees are the ones that are stinging you. They are the ones with the stingers. The male bees don't have stingers.
7. And he basically thought that the worker bees were basically sexless, meaning they had no male or female parts to them.
So these are basically seven scientific errors which Aristotle made. Now I want to ask a question - I want to raise a point here. What is the scientific truth over scientific error ratio for Aristotle? Well, I believe it is one over seven(1:7). For one scientifically correct statement he made seven errors, and that's reasonable. There's nothing wrong with that, because that's how scientists learn and make discoveries. They make these discoveries by a trial and error method. what is the ratio of the scientific error over scientific truth for the Qur'an in relation to bee study? Who can tell me? Well, it is one over zero (& this is for all of the scientific facts as we will see). Aristotle's was one over seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero (for one area). Which means that the author of the Qur'an could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to copy some of the wrong answers too. Also the Qur'an's main message was not scientific. Science just shows up as a normal occurrence so as not to distract the people from the main message. It just came naturally as if the Author was not concerned about functions of the universe but to get one core message across: 'There is ONE Creator without a doubt, Follow your Warner who has come to you with this fact before it's too late.'
The other issues about barriers, Jerusalem, iron, etc., are debatable. The main thing is if you look at the interpretation of these verses properly you will come to the conclusion that the author naturally describes them without effort (even though some things are not mentioned, the scientific error ratio is always 1:0). I don't want this post to gone for longer than it should with posts so we'll discuss each point one by one, if you're happy with evidence #1 (that it's 50/50 chance), we can move onto the next piece of evidence (the famous city of Iram that only Muhammed(p) seemed to recall until recent excavations!!) Is this plagiarized I wonder!? (maybe even taken from the great wikipedia web site, which in my opinion is the lazy-man's research tool & it's not even accurate half of the time!)0 -
Advertisement
-
Apologies on intruding. But I find it next to impossible to stay out of the rather distorted statements that circulate about so-called scientific miracles in the Quran. I think you can half guess they are all contestable. But I’d simply draw your attention to one thing Aristotle said about beesBecause I think when you look at Aristotle's works here, it's going to give us some insight, because he did some research on bees, which a lot of people don't know.
Now, Aristotle may have had mistaken ideas about bees. But it is perfectly obvious from the quote above that he is speaking at a time when ‘others’ hold that worker bees are female. Hence, there is really no surprise that the author(s) of the Quran might have the same idea.Their size is double that of the worker bees. By some they are called the mother bee, as if they were the parents of the rest; and they argue, that unless the ruler is present, drones only are produced and no bees. Others affirm that they have sexual intercourse, and that the drones are males, and the bees females.
This pattern, you may know, happens in any of these so-called ‘miracles’ that get investigated. The ultimate source of the claim is always a distortion either of what the Quran says or of the ‘evidence’ supporting a miraculous anticipation of knowledge. I sometimes wonder if the intention of whomever generates these claims is simply to flood the world with so many claims as to make it impossible to squash each individual one.
Hence, I’m certainly not going to try to refute every variant of every claim made. I’ll simply remind you that not so long ago the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia was stoutly insisting that it was heresy to say the world was round and orbits the Sun. The simple fact is that the Quran does not contain any miraculously anticipated scientific knowledge. It actually maintains that the sky is held up by invisible pillars.
I'm not sure this logic actually stacks up, but in any case the Quran is very clearly drawing on material from the world around it, including the errors about the Sun and Moon both orbiting the Earth.Aristotle's was one over seven, the Qur'an's is one over zero (for one area). Which means that the author of the Qur'an could not have plagiarized this from any source, because if you're copying from a source, believe me man, I know this [from] first hand experience: you're going to copy some of the wrong answers too.0 -
Schuhart, does it actually say this in the Qur'an or are you making it up. Have you even read these statements about the sun & moon orbiting the Earth or are you taking someone else's words for it. The Qur'an just says the sun has an orbit (there's no mention of milky way, earth, etc.) Why is that so hard to believe. The main thing is, it's actually a scientific fact - True?? - The sun is in an orbit. Now you might say he guessed and got it right, that's a valid point but don't change the subject. Do you agree with me ... Do you think it's an educated guess and he got it right by coincidence?? That's all I want to know.I'm not sure this logic actually stacks up, but in any case the Quran is very clearly drawing on material from the world around it, including the errors about the Sun and Moon both orbiting the Earth.
Anyway, the main issue here is the bee (evidence #1): Do you think he guessed and got that right also?? - That's all I'm asking. I'm not saying it's a miracle. I'm asking how did he get it right? - It is right isn't it?? Answer the question and we'll move on. You'll understand what I'm trying to get at once you can actually give me an intelligent answer on how he got it right... It's not a riddle!!
rocksteady, Are you still there?? We can move on quickly to other pieces of evidence one by one, once you give me a quick answer for this without going off on a tangent and your own theories. It's simple - How did he get this scientific fact right? look at the algorithm again & choose one of the 7 possibilities. In fact, all you have to write is a number. I'll get to the last piece of evidence in time and we can argue about that then, there's no point in jumping all over the place. Focus on #1 or just leave it! Everybody has their own opinions in the end and we can go on forever about different theories...
Sorry for sounding arrogant; this is text for you -- that's why I said it's better to talk face to face about these things.0 -
I only have a few minutes to post at the moment, so this will be short.The other issues about barriers, Jerusalem, iron, etc., are debatable. The main thing is if you look at the interpretation of these verses properly you will come to the conclusion that the author naturally describes them without effort
Well no, the main things is if you look at these verses, fully knowing the facts in question, then you can interperet them in a way that matches up with the facts. However, 1400 years ago, before most people knew that the moon revolved around the earth, the earth around the sun and the sun around the milky way, passages that say "and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating" and "He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night." are a more than a little ambiguous.Anyway, the main issue here is the bee (evidence #1): Do you think he guessed and got that right also?? - That's all I'm asking. I'm not saying it's a miracle. I'm asking how did he get it right? - It is right isn't it?? Answer the question and we'll move on. You'll understand what I'm trying to get at once you can actually give me an intelligent answer on how he got it right... It's not a riddle!!
I already asked if it was the case in Arabic (as it is in French) that it is nouns that have sex, ie that the bee in question was not refered to as female because the author knew it was female, but because the word bee (in Arabic) is female.
Thats all for know, I've things to do.
PS. if you feel this is dragging the thread off topic, then maybe we should start a new one?0 -
I've already answered that for you if you've looked at the first paragraph of my reply up there! There was an Arabic cartoon where Arabic people have made the worker bee male: Bashar the bee, it's called (& it's in the male & not the noun!) The prophet(p) could have easily said 'And your Lord inspired the male bee' OR he could have made a mistake if scientists found out it was actually the male bee which goes out, etc. I know you're probably very busy but all you have to do really is say it's a 50/50 chance. There's no riddle or strange interpretation/brainwashing involved ... The verse is clear!! How did he know??I already asked if it was the case in Arabic (as it is in French) that it is nouns that have sex, ie that the bee in question was not refered to as female because the author knew it was female, but because the word bee (in Arabic) is female.
I already said we'll get to these one by one ... can we not try to do this slowly so we don't get confused and muddled up. It's better for you since your busy. By doing it in small pieces instead of arguing about the whole thing. If you think evidence #1 is ambiguous say so; but it seems clear to me - '...And your Lord inspired the Female Bee to go out...' Was it a good guess?? We can then go onto Iram, then Oceanography, then Astronomy; but we must get this out of the way and cleared.Well no, the main things is if you look at these verses, fully knowing the facts in question, then you can interperet them in a way that matches up with the facts. However, 1400 years ago, before most people knew that the moon revolved around the earth, the earth around the sun and the sun around the milky way, passages that say "and He it is Who has created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating" and "He coils the night upon the day and coils the day upon the night." are a more than a little ambiguous.0 -
rocksteady wrote: »PS. if you feel this is dragging the thread off topic, then maybe we should start a new one?
I suppose it fits fine under the title: 'Why do you believe Muhammed (p)' ... But it looks like JimiTime has no more input, he seems happy enough with his answer!! I'm glad he's not as stubborn as a lot of atheists, scientologists, etc.!!!0 -
Advertisement
-
Indeed, I have read the text in the Quran on which this statement is based. Verse 21:33 seems clear enough to me in its context. To read into it an anticipation of the Sun’s movement relative to the rest of the Galaxy is rather too much. I think that takes language into a space where we can read anything into the text that we want.Schuhart, does it actually say this in the Qur'an or are you making it up. Have you even read these statements about the sun & moon orbiting the Earth or are you taking someone else's words for it.
But, of course, this is not the only reference the Quran makes to the movements of the Sun. Verse 36:38 talks about the sun running to a ‘resting place’ – a concept that only makes sense if the world is flat. It also seems to me quite clear that Sura 36:40, by asking us to consider the fact that the Sun does not overtake the Moon (making days and nights erratic), is talking of a situation where the Earth is static and the Sun and Moon rotate about it. This all adds up to the Quran describing the Earth as static with the Sun and Moon rotating about it and, as the quote I’ve posted from the Grand Mufti above illustrates, possibly flat. There is absolutely nothing strange or inexplicable in how it is described, given knowledge at the time.
As a little side issue, I was tickled pink when I came across this quote from ‘The Koran for Dummies’ by Sohaib Sultan
I’d guess the mindset of the author to be of interest. He’s been taught, presumably, that the Quran contains information miraculously predating scientific discovery. He can see the Quran describes the Sun as orbiting the Earth. Hence, he writes something we can all see is pure fantasy. I think this says all we need to know about the so-called ‘scientific miracles’. They each just amount to someone cooking up a claim and, when challenged, saying ‘oh, I didn’t quite meant that, er, I didn’t quite mean that either’ as they retreat, searching for some ambiguity they can hide in rather than admit the emperor has no clothes.The Koran shows an innate knowledge of astronomy in pointing out that the sun and moon alternate by day and night in a ‘rounded course’ (21:33) which alludes to the fact that both the sun and moon rotate around the earth, a ‘scientific’ discovery that was made well after the Koran’s revelation.
A more pertinent point is whether there is anything particularly remarkable in saying ‘he got it right’. By the same token, its hardly a miracle if he refers to a city that was remembered 1400 years ago, and then a reference to that same city is discovered subsequently. Yes, worker bees are female. Yes, Aristotle records ‘others’ as having this opinion about one thousand years before the Quran. Yes, this means there is nothing remarkable about this appearing in the Quran or, indeed, about it reportedly appearing in the Talmud before that. So how could the Quran have this right? Because it’s consistent with what others thought.I'm asking how did he get it right? - It is right isn't it?? Answer the question and we'll move on. You'll understand what I'm trying to get at once you can actually give me an intelligent answer on how he got it right... It's not a riddle!!
Given our anxiousness for straight answers and getting on, do you accept the Quran is wrong in stating that the Earth is static? Could you give us an intelligent answer on how it got that wrong? Or in Sura 43:12 and 51:49 which wrongly states that all living things come in pairs, ignoring the possibility of asexual reproduction?
I could go on, but like nasty old Thrasymacus in Plato’s Republic, I find myself wondering what’s in it for me.0 -
Schuhart: I'd say you weren't very good at exam questions. Somebody asks you a question about something (e.g. how did Muhammed get the female bee right in the Qur'an?) and you go writing two or three paragraphs about other things (sun, moon, earth, settings, etc.) - & then ask the examiner a question!! What has that got to do with bees in all fairness?!! I said we'll look at the bee question first and then we'll come to other things as we look at these pieces of evidence one by one. It's justGiven our anxiousness for straight answers and getting on, do you accept the Quran is wrong in stating that the Earth is static? Could you give us an intelligent answer on how it got that wrong? Or in Sura 43:12 and 51:49 which wrongly states that all living things come in pairs, ignoring the possibility of asexual reproduction?
a more organized way of debating something. If you want I'll start another thread about errors in the Qur'an...
I'll come back to this but I just want to ask a simple question: Is this author an Islamic scholar/interpreter (or did he/she even ask a Scholar)?? You seem to go about things the wrong way. You google things and see what comes up? - If you want to study the Qur'an, actually get one and read it for a start. Secondly if there's any confusion go and ask a knowledgeable Imam (preferably face to face); and don't go to atheists who despise religions & religious people!!As a little side issue, I was tickled pink when I came across this quote from ‘The Koran for Dummies’ by Sohaib Sultan
I dunno? - enlightenment?? Maybe, I suppose, you get to prove your point whatever that is (Muahmmed(p) was lying, which is untrue??!) II could go on, but like nasty old Thrasymacus in Plato’s Republic, I find myself wondering what’s in it for me.
seriously don't really know what's in it for you, but you seem to ignore an easy question on the basis of, what exactly?? -- It's simple really - did he guess? Why do people seem to think this is a trick question? or riddle? or
miracle (if they say he guessed)? or a brainwashing method?!?
Anyway, about evidence #1, so we go on (the way people go on about this simple question makes me wonder about some of the guys on this forum - they just love to argue for no particular reason - very stubborn about something so simple, it's unbelievable!!) ... seriously, I'm not spinning my own interpretation in this verse. Just read the verse about the bee and answer the exam question as best as you can without trying to compete with the examiner!! Use your head. clear your head. Read the question (you don't need to go to wikipedia or google for the answer, it's actually in your head if you know how to use it!!) And then we'll go to evidence #2 ... go on, take a chance!!!!!0 -
I’m puzzled as I actually did answer your question very clearly. I said, very clearly, that I’d expect the reason the Quran states that worker bees are female is because people are recorded as saying that for about a thousand years before the Quran was written. Do you now understand I have answered your question, and that there is clearly no miracle involved in the description of the sex of bees?Schuhart: I'd say you weren't very good at exam questions. Somebody asks you a question about something (e.g. how did Muhammed get the female bee right in the Qur'an?) and you go writing two or three paragraphs about other things (sun, moon, earth, settings, etc.) - & then ask the examiner a question!! What has that got to do with bees in all fairness?!! I said we'll look at the bee question first and then we'll come to other things as we look at these pieces of evidence one by one.
Could you now answer mine? I thought we both wanted to get through this quickly. You asked me for an intelligent answer on how he got it right. I’ve given you one that includes a reference to Aristotle, which is about as intelligent as you will get from me.
Can you now give me an intelligent answer as to why the Quran got it wrong by very clearly stating that the Earth is fixed? Surely one straight answer deserves another.
Yes. So was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia I mentioned earlier.Is this author an Islamic scholar/interpreter
Unlike many, I actually do read whole books and stuff. I have a copy of the Quran (right here in front of me now). I haven’t read it much of late – as I honestly just got dragged in here because of this inane miracles stuff that is so patently false.You seem to go about things the wrong way. You google things and see what comes up? - If you want to study the Qur'an, actually get one and read it for a start.
Unfortunately, I actually am one of those despicable atheists. I doubt if I’d find an Imam any more willing to answer a frank question than you are proving to be.Secondly if there's any confusion go and ask a knowledgeable Imam (preferably face to face); and don't go to atheists who despise religions & religious people!!0 -
I said, very clearly, that I’d expect the reason the Quran states that worker bees are female is because people are recorded as saying that for about a thousand years before the Quran was written. Do you now understand I have answered your question, and that there is clearly no miracle involved in the description of the sex of bees?
So basically, what you're trying to say is, it's an assumption; an educated guess?? Muhammed (p) just basically followed all of the ignorant people around at the time (a lucky guess I suppose) - he didn't fall into the same reasoning as Aristotle? He didn't make the same mistake as some Arabic cartoonists did a couple of decades ago? he just decided to put it in there and coincidentally it's scientific fact?? ok, I'm going to move onto evidence #2: Iram, but before I do, I want to clear one thing with you about this so-called Islamic scholar and the Mufti you seem to reference (they both don't know what they're talking about - they're bringing their own views into matters that actually need specific Qur'an interpreters of the highest order & honest scientists (without any prejudice of world views). There are many books on Islam and science, but one I found interesting and highly recommend is: The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille. His a neutral scientist who researches most scriptures.
You got this totally wrong. I'll actually get to this when we reach Astronomy, which will be pretty soon if we actually analyze each of these verses logically (without competing or bringing in prejudice); But I want to also get this thing cleared:Can you now give me an intelligent answer as to why the Quran got it wrong by very clearly stating that the Earth is fixed? Surely one straight answer deserves another.
Scientific errors really are not germane to the topic - they're really irrelevant. Let me explain to you why. Let's hypothetically say again that there is this book we found - an ancient book - two thousand years ago - I'm just giving you a hypothetical. And in that book you found every single concept of modern day chemistry that scientists have only discovered today. I don't think anyone would hesitate in concluding that man could not have been the author of this book - nobody would hesitate on that conclusion. Now let me throw this in this equation also: what if there were two pages filled with scientific errors also in that book? What does that mean? Does it change the fact that there are statements in that book which a human being could not have known two thousand years ago? Of course not, it does not change that fact. So again I'm talking logically here. Logically, scientific errors are irrelevant. Whether a book contains scientific errors or not is really irrelevant. It does not prove or disprove anything. These are all emotional arguments. They're basically used to capture a shock effect, but it doesn't prove or disporve the fact that this book cannot have been written by a man - it had to have been a greater source. I hope you understand that - I can repeat that point again in case anyone needs to. But as I said, if you look in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the Qur'an which disagrees with established modern scientific fact, though that is not being debated here.
Okay, having said all of that, If you look through most of my posts you'll see the full logic. Print it out and see if you can understand it because I seem to be seriously repeating myself a lot. So can I move onto the second piece of evidence (#2): Iram?? Have we established that the Prophet (p) guessed right for the bee being female as science says now?
Basically the thing about bees, some people have mentioned male bees, some people have mentioned female bees, and some people have mentioned sexless bees.. well.. there is a very good reason for this. Because it is a 50/50 chance! It’s either male or female! So some people got it right, some people got it wrong. That’s why you see some books you will find male bee, some books say female bee. But my point is, that the Quran got it right. Again I also showed you, that it does not matter what the other books state.
So, the probability of guessing the right bee is ½. It doesn’t matter what book you find it in or what people assumed at the time, the probability is ½ , so that is very important as we continue… it’s ½. Anyway, lets talk about Iram. Firstly is it possible, that maybe….. some way…… some how……. the author of the Quran somehow knew of the city called Iram, I don’t know how, but maybe some way he has done that? So, ok, maybe it was a coincidence or it was luck and I cited that in my algorithm at the very beginning. What do you think about Muhammed (p) on Iram? I don't want to go off tangent like the first piece of evidence ... Answer the question like you'd answer an exam question. You don't need to argue another point for now. We don't want posts to go on forever!!0 -
The Qur'an was written about 1400 years closer to the existence of the city Iram than we are today. Also wikipedia mentions that "Ubar was mentioned in ancient records, in its Arabic form "Iram", and was spoken of in folk tales as a trading center of the Rub al-Khali Desert in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula" (although I cannot see the reference for this, so I dont know when these ancient records are dated from), meaning that other people had heard about it too.
I just want to go back to rocksteady's original quote above:
I don't think you read the piece properly in your haste. Read the paragraph below again slowly:
You can look through all the pre-Arabic or Arabic literature, none of the companions of Muhammad (salallaahu alayhee wa's-Salaam), or Aristotle's work, or the Hindu scriptures, nobody has ever heard of a city called Iram yet this is a city mentioned in the Qur'an: Only Muhammed (p) who must have heard it from an unkown wizard in Arabia or something as you claim! You could say Iram was wiped out from history (almost to a fictional level) All of this changed in 1978, because there was an archeological dig (which is impossible at the time of Muhammed(p) and they discovered a city named Ebla. Now in this city Ebla, they looked in the library and there they discovered a city that Ebla used to do business with, and low and behold, that city was named Iram. The very same exact city as mentioned in Surah eighty-nine, verse seven of the Qur'an. And that was done in 1978. Now, how was the author of the Qur'an able to have knowledge of this city? ... And even the person who wrote the article from National Geographic in 1978 - I believe it was the December edition, I'm not sure - but he even makes specific reference to this. He says "Iram, this is that strange or obscure city that was mentioned in the Qur'an." (HE DIDN'T GO TO WIKIPEDIA FOR HIS REFERENCE) That is even mentioned in the National Geographic article. So how did the author of the Qur'an know that such a city existed?
Well again, we would look at the algorithm and we could see that it is any one of those 7 possibilities, perhaps. Some people have guessed or basically made a hypothesis that Iram is a city in Southern Arabia. There's
really no proof for that, but some people have basically guessed at that - but anyway, let's go along with that. you might say- "oh what's so big about an Arab talking about a statement in Arabia? There's nothing really
strange about that or something miraculous." I would ask you to really look at that argument a little bit more carefully, because the point is, it does not really matter if it is in Europe or China or Malaysia. The point is
that no one in history - in ten thousand pages of hadith literature as well as all history - has ever heard this city named Iram. And how is it mentioned in the Qur'an, this city? That is like me coming saying that let's say in Montana there was an archeological dig, and there we discovered a city named - I'll just make up some name, Montezuma, no not Monetzuma - Bohemia! I'm just going to think up some name here. And Bohemia is actually a city, which is five thousand years old. Now if somebody in Florida was talking about a city called Bohemia, that would be something very profound. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. How was that person in Florida talking about a city named Bohemia? Would there be anyone who would come up tonight and say "oh, no, no, no, that means nothing, that could be nothing - it is simply an American talking about a city in America." Well of course that would be foolish. So, there's really no basis for that argument. It seems that Muhammed (p) was the only one aware of this city until 1978's archeological dig. Do you agree that this was some sort of coincidence or lucky guess??
And then we can move onto evidence #3,#4,#5 (oceanography - Barriers & darkness in the ocean (even though Prophet Muhammed (p) lived in the middle of the desert and there has never been any record of him going near sea water!!)
Again, maybe he just made an educated guess like you say - we can move onto evidence #6, and the infamous Astronomy issues(#7 & #8) if you actually think he made the educated guesses about these scientific facts (1:0 truth over error ratio for each one) even though you think they were vague. They seem clear to me!0 -
You are making the mistaken assumption that the choice was between 1. Following Aristotle or 2. Following ‘ignorant people’. I’m suggesting option 3. which is repeating what might have been the opinion of reliable people around the author(s) of the Quran. You’re setting up a straw man and ignoring the plain fact that Aristotle documents the conventional wisdom 1,000 years before the Quran was written was that worker bees were female.Muhammed (p) just basically followed all of the ignorant people around at the time (a lucky guess I suppose) - he didn't fall into the same reasoning as Aristotle?
You seem to be having great trouble accepting the plain fact that this ‘discovery’ that you have been told is so special actually isn’t so special after all.
Clearly, as this is the internet, I’ve no idea of your qualifications. But, as I have documented, Sohaib Sultan is a young Islamic chaplin in a US university. From the interview, he displays impressive modesty about his role. But I’d suggest that to hold that position he would need more than a passing knowledge of the Quran. The Grand Mufti would be the highest religious official in Saudi. Hence, I suggest that I’m providing more scholarly corroboration of what I’m saying than you are.I want to clear one thing with you about this so-called Islamic scholar and the Mufti you seem to reference (they both don't know what they're talking about - they're bringing their own views into matters that actually need specific Qur'an interpreters of the highest order & honest scientists (without any prejudice of world views).
No-one, apart from people who seem to thirst for external verification of the Quran as if they fear it cannot stand on its own merits, takes that book seriously. And the antics of the Saudis get up to, using their chequebooks to try to buy the opinion of Western scientists, is well documented. Again, this all seems to suggest a lack of confidence in the spiritual value of the Quran.There are many books on Islam and science, but one I found interesting and highly recommend is: The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille. His a neutral scientist who researches most scriptures.
This is an incredible statement. What you are basically saying is if the Quran has some statement vague enough to be read as anticipating science that’s incontrovertible proof of its truth, but if it contains plain factual errors that’s not to be taken as proof of its error.Scientific errors really are not germane to the topic - they're really irrelevant.
This is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to disturbing facts.
But we’ve already seen that the Quran conflicts with the modern scientific fact because it states very clearly, in several verses, that the Earth is fixed and does not move. You have simply refused to answer this point, despite the fact that I gave you the clear answer you demanded. With respect, I don’t feel you are treating me fairly in this discussion by your refusal to engage on this point, despite my willingness to answer the question you posed.But as I said, if you look in the Qur'an, there is nothing in the Qur'an which disagrees with established modern scientific fact, though that is not being debated here.
I frankly don’t care, and I’ve already explained why.What do you think about Muhammed (p) on Iram?0 -
With respect, I don’t feel you are treating me fairly by saying this. The discussion was going logically up towards your arguments but you seem to be impatient to deal with one thing at a time.I frankly don’t care, and I’ve already explained why
I was trying to debate normally with rocksteady but you seem to make me want to go off subject altogether. Can you remember before you intruded we were were going to discuss these 8 pieces of evidence one by one.
You kept jumping to errors and bringing in Mufti's and so-called scholars, etc. We can actually discuss these 8 pieces of evidence very quickly but for some reason, stubborness or I dunno, people aren't being rational about the ACTUAL topic we're on (which is #2 Iram now).
Please be patient with me, everything you've mentioned will be discussed in due course. I'm not refusing to engage on these points, I've said it about three or four times, I'm getting to that topic of the debate, but can we take this one step at a time. Don't worry, there's plenty of time to cover everything .... I'm not going to run away after brainwashing you!!!
I said it before to rocksteady if you can recall I'm going to debate about these pieces of evidence first, one by one, and then you can call the shots about whatever topic you wish... Can we be a bit civilized and organized in our discussions?? The questions I'm asking are not even that difficult. I'll clarify them if you like; add detail to each topic. But they can analyzed in a very short period of time. So stay with me on the topics or else just give up (on #2)!!0 -
You are making the mistaken assumption that the choice was between 1. Following Aristotle or 2. Following ‘ignorant people’. I’m suggesting option 3. which is repeating what might have been the opinion of reliable people around the author(s) of the Quran. You’re setting up a straw man and ignoring the plain fact that Aristotle documents the conventional wisdom 1,000 years before the Quran was written was that worker bees were female.
You seem to be having great trouble accepting the plain fact that this ‘discovery’ that you have been told is so special actually isn’t so special after all...
So what you're trying to say is, the reliable people were 100% it was the female bee that was the worker bee?? You don't seem to get that it's 50/50 chance no matter what ... It's impossible for anybody at that time to know for sure, hence Aristotle's analysis!! Most of the people (reliable or ignorant) are guessing. Muhammed (p) guessed with a 50/50 chance that this would be right, when the time came (which was in our century). It could have been wrong. Do you not agree, at least, that there was a 50/50 chance it could have been wrong? Or do you believe that just because there was reliable people, they were the most confident people ever; and that gave Muhammed (p) the confidence to go ahead and put it in his book?? In the end, it's a 50/50 chance, as rocksteady said. True??
I actually don't think it's special or even a miracle. It's just a point about a simple issue that you have blown out of proportion altogether for some reason!!0 -
That's grand. I'm happy to leave the point there.I actually don't think it's special or even a miracle.
Quranic miracles so far = zero
Well, in fairness, you did seem to introduce a note of urgency in seeking an answer to your first point. And I don’t see the point of delaying over Iram as I’ve already said its hardly a miracle if he refers to a city that was remembered 1400 years ago, and then a reference to that same city is discovered subsequently. I mean, is there anything more to the point than that?With respect, I don’t feel you are treating me fairly by saying this. The discussion was going logically up towards your arguments but you seem to be impatient to deal with one thing at a time.
The city of Troy was similarly a legend until it was actually discovered. Do we take that as proof of the Greek Pantheon?
Does this move us on to point 3, with the situation still Quranic miracles so far = zero?
Fair enough, but is this actually going anywhere?Please be patient with me, everything you've mentioned will be discussed in due course
(Apologies on being a bit cranky, but I've been working late and, in any event, I sort of suspect I know where you're taking this. I suspect, perhaps unfairly, that despite your apparent dislike of data acquistion from sources like wikipedia, that you're working through the dialogues suggested by Dr Zakir Naik on youtube for handling atheists. You do realise that the Dr Zakir's dialogues only work on the imaginary atheists he pictures in his dreams?)0 -
...And I don’t see the point of delaying over Iram as I’ve already said its hardly a miracle if he refers to a city that was remembered 1400 years ago, and then a reference to that same city is discovered subsequently. I mean, is there anything more to the point than that? The city of Troy was similarly a legend until it was actually discovered. Do we take that as proof of the Greek Pantheon?
OK, we can move on, if we wish; but I just want to repeat a few things since we forget a lot lately: There's no documentation of Muhammed (p) ever going out near any city named Iram, Nobody around him ever mentioned a city by the name of Iram, It's not in any scripture and he was illiterate, so he took smebody's else's word for it and guessed that it was a true place, even without proving it for himself. He just decided to put it in his book with confidence. I suppose that's just a coincidence. Anyway, like you said there's nothing special about that piece of evidence, since Troy was also a 'coincidence'; or a reliable source (100%)!?
I can swear to you right now, even though you probably won't bleieve me, and there's no reason why I would say this, but I have never ever in my life read anything written by Zakir Naik. I've heard of his name before, but I swear I have never seen his dialogues. Now that you've mentioned it I might have a look some time later. Thanks for the reference!!(Apologies on being a bit cranky, but I've been working late and, in any event, I sort of suspect I know where you're taking this. I suspect, perhaps unfairly, that despite your apparent dislike of data acquistion from sources like wikipedia, that you're working through the dialogues suggested by Dr Zakir Naik on youtube for handling atheists. You do realise that the Dr Zakir's dialogues only work on the imaginary atheists he pictures in his dreams?)
I know this may sound strange, but seriously don't know him. For example, I know Ahmed Deedat, Harun Yahya, Khalid Yasin, etc., but I never got read any of Zakir Naik's works (he sounds like a good read).
Anyway, to continue, after clearing that ssumption about me, did you look at evidences #3, #4 & #5 (oceanography) in my previous posts. Have a look and please stop making me repeat myself a lot, I know you're a busy man, so look at all of the posts (with these 3 pieces of evidences in them) and then reply after analyzing them. Sorry to sound arrogant again, but stay on topic and answer as if you're in an exam (don't compete)! We're getting to your favourite topic (& the errors, i-A)...0 -
Advertisement
-
But, as I think you’ve hinted at yourself, we’re talking about a period in human history where records were not as common as they are today. As I understand it, there are no non-Muslim contemporary sources for any aspect of his life, just a few references to him generally dating from decades after his death. Its not as if, like today, you’d expect a city to be listed on maps, guidebooks and so forth or that the world’s media would be recording every event of any significance. Maybe Muhammed did visit a city called Iram. Maybe he didn’t. Maybe the Quran had several authors. We really don’t know. Am I right in saying there’s an element of doubt over exactly how many wives he had? If as basic a detail as that can be missing, then surely he could have made a journey that would not have been recorded.OK, we can move on, if we wish; but I just want to repeat a few things since we forget a lot lately: There's no documentation of Muhammed (p) ever going out near any city named Iram,
But, so long as we’re agreed there’s no miracle at work here, I take it nothing more needs to be said on this issue.
I absolutely accept what you say – I’ve no reason to doubt it. If you like Harun Yahya, then I expect you would enjoy Zakir Naik.I know this may sound strange, but seriously don't know him. For example, I know Ahmed Deedat, Harun Yahya, Khalid Yasin, etc., but I never got read any of Zakir Naik's works (he sounds like a good read).
Indeed. The first two I actually don’t understand. What is the nature of this ‘barrier’ that you are saying has been discovered between seas and between rivers that flow into the sea?Anyway, to continue, after clearing that ssumption about me, did you look at evidences #3, #4 & #5 (oceanography) in my previous posts.
As to the existence of deep seas, I take it you agree that we simply don’t know enough about the lives of the author(s) of the Quran to know where they travelled every day of their lives, or who they got to speak to. Certainly we know that they would have had contact with Jews, for the sake of argument, who presumably knew about seas as they had scriptural stories like Jonah and the Whale. So this alleged miracle requires us to accept a picture of Mohammed locked in a box for his whole life so that he could never journey to the coast, and unable to converse with anyone who might have made that journey.
Can I suggest that, if he was a merchant in a town that attracted traders and pilgrims from far away, it would be more of a miracle if he didn’t know the sea existed, that it was salty and that it was deep.
Does this take us to point 6, still without anything that constitutes a scientific miracle?0 -
The thing about your comment is it's all speculation (a lot of maybe's in there); Prophet Muhammed (p), if you studied the history of Islam properly or even knew the basics of Muslim faith, is the living/walking Qur'an. There has never been a man documented by his followers as he has (the scrutiny & accuracy of hadiths, authentic or otherwise, account for EVERY single aspect of his life) -- look through them yourself & ask all of the true scholars about them; don't google them, looking for faults as you've been doing. Ask a knowledgeable Muslim about the seerah of Muhammed (p) and how even trivial things like, how he went to toilet, how he had sex with his wives were documented. I can recommend a biography ('The sealed Nectar) but you'd probably dismiss it; There's also a good book by Karen Armstrong: 'A Biography of the Prophet' but you'd probably treat it like Bucaill's book without even opening the first page. Sorry if I've been acting arrogant, demanding & ignorant, but I feel a lot of people have their own agendas when they argue with you on these type of forums. For example, I don't agree with your assumptions about Dr. Bucaill even though you haven't even read his book for yourself or even analyzed it without prejudice (you seem to go with other people's words for your conclusions) ... I think you should try to read for yourself and come up with your own conclusions instead of being lazy and taking other atheist's words by using google & wikipedia). Act as if there's no internet. Research the old, genuine way: Read the scriptures, ask people (with varying/different world views) & back up sources. I've read your links but they're very biased; What has that got do with the 8 pieces of evidence I produced for you in the original post. Why is there so much fuss about going to google and looking for faults in general when we can't even look at one thing at a time and discuss the matter at hand (i.e. the bee verse, the iram verse, the barrier verse, etc.); Why do people totally go off on a tangent and come up with theories about other issues (flat earth, pairs, vagueness in general). If we looked at one simple thing at a time, we'll realize how unbelievable we are at blown things out of proportion & how biased we are when we're supposed to be fair & logical about analyzing anything to the best of OUR knowledge (not somebody else's!) There's seriously no need to jump all over the place with different topics (it just confuses the matter and everybody trying to follow the debate). One topic at a time. Pick one small issue and we'll get it out of the way (no need to go into another issue to prove our point). I think if we're not clear on one issue we definitely will not be clear on other issues we try to come up with. And that's why I'm kind of ignoring anything that's not to do with the topic at hand. So don't get the wrong ideas thinking I'm shying away from one issue while focusing on another....Maybe Muhammed did visit a city called Iram. Maybe he didn’t. Maybe the Quran had several authors. We really don’t know. Am I right in saying there’s an element of doubt over exactly how many wives he had? If as basic a detail as that can be missing, then surely he could have made a journey that would not have been recorded.
But, so long as we’re agreed there’s no miracle at work here, I take it nothing more needs to be said on this issue. I absolutely accept what you say – I’ve no reason to doubt it.
Ok, let’s talk about barriers. Aristotle had some familiarity with it. That Aristotle, had NO clue, NO idea, that there was actually a physical barrier between the salt and fresh water. He had no idea of this. And notice also another thing, that the things which he did write about salt and fresh water, that is all observable to man. Meaning if I were to conduct experiments on salt and fresh water, and I had no special equipment, and a man 1400 years ago were able to do this he would be able to also come up with the same conclusions. So his observations were observable. That’s a point to be noted also.The first two I actually don’t understand. What is the nature of this ‘barrier’ that you are saying has been discovered between seas and between rivers that flow into the sea?
As far as going back to the issue of "waters can not transgress" in that ayat, again I think I agree with Schuhart, this is all a matter of interpretation. I ask the same question sometimes,: what do you mean by, "waters can not transgress"? What some people will say, "because it is it self not a clear wall". Some people will say, "look, what it means is that you have 2 bodies of water.. the salinity the temperature on that side, and the salinity, temperature, density on that side is something else…" so that shows that these 2 bodies of water do not mix. So some people will explain it like that. If you look at this link, it explains it a bit better: http://www.islamiccenterofpeoria.org/QuranMracles.asp?lID=2
OK, about the darkness in the seas. Now let me pause here for oneAs to the existence of deep seas, I take it you agree that we simply don’t know enough about the lives of the author(s) of the Quran to know where they travelled every day of their lives, or who they got to speak to. Certainly we know that they would have had contact with Jews, for the sake of argument, who presumably knew about seas as they had scriptural stories like Jonah and the Whale. So this alleged miracle requires us to accept a picture of Mohammed locked in a box for his whole life so that he could never journey to the coast, and unable to converse with anyone who might have made that journey.
Can I suggest that, if he was a merchant in a town that attracted traders and pilgrims from far away, it would be more of a miracle if he didn’t know the sea existed, that it was salty and that it was deep.
second, because I want to make a very important note also. I forgot to make it in the beginning. What your saying is that there were possible human explanations for it. So, that’s also very important which should be noted. I see less visible water, you know, and I can see I can see my feet less visable, MAYBE the author(s) of the Quran saw the same thing or heard it from Jews or whoever. I've already explained up there that the Prophet(p) was scrutinized to the point of almost worship by his followers (to this day); but even if he did speak to Jews, I don't think they were 100% sure about the depth (over 1000m) of the ocean (humans can ony swim down to 40m or so, & there's still light at that depth). You may agree with me that most of things you're saying is all conjecture. The point is, that the issue about the depth and darkness of the deep dark seas you will not find in any book. So basically, again, it's a coincidence or
luck. Go back to the algorithm, which I have posted for you and look at
what is coincidence.. Because you do agree that they match up with modern science, right??
Anyway learn more about this piece of evidence here: http://www.islam-guide.com/ch1-1-f.htm#bee
Does this take us to point 6, still without anything that constitutes a scientific miracle?[/quote]
It sure does if you say so; as long as we're clear that they actually agree with modern scientific statements and that it was some sort of a coincidence Muhammed (p) got them (from where ever) into his book (that he got the full credit for)!!
Let me go on to the issue of 'nearer land' & 'lowest point' on the earth which is near Jerusalum. And the Quran used a word for that in which you will find both "nearer land" as well as the lowest point. My question to you is, " why did the author of the Quran USE a particular word which has both meanings. This is my question number one. You might say it's vague, i.e., "most people translate it as nearer land". That is because, for the people who don’t know science, or lets say for the person living 1000 years ago, that’s going to make more sense to him than "lowest land". But my point stands, it does not matter you can use any one of the meanings, "nearer land" or "lowest point", the word means BOTH. So basically, to put it in a nut shell, what Denis is basically saying, is that, "it is an amazing coincidence". It is an amazing coincidence that the author of the Quran used a word which has both meanings.0 -
I haven't contributed to this discussion until now, since Agathon is drawing heavily on arguments that have been aired extensively on the internet (for example, a debate on the Qur'an and Modern Science that appears on a website called "examine the truth"). I really think, though, that trying to read obscure "scientific predictions" into the wording of the Qur'an rather demeans a book that, even for those who are not Muslims, merits respect.
For example, the verse referred to in Example Number 5, Surah An-Nur 24: 40, reads as follows in Muhammad Asad's translation:Or [else, their deeds are] like the depths of darkness upon an abysmal sea, made yet more dark by wave billowing over wave, with [black] clouds above it all: depths of darkness, layer upon layer, [so that] when one holds up his hand, he can hardly see it: for he to whom God gives no light, no light whatever has he!
This verse follows another simile, where the deeds of unbelievers are likened to a mirage in the desert. The clear message is that the deeds of those who do not believe in God are empty. Any "scientific" claims being made about the absence of light deep in the ocean are not crucial to this passage, which is trying to put forward a contrast between the darkness within which the unbeliever labours and the light that comes from God.
The issue in Example Number 6 seems to be particularly artificial. Again using the Asad translation, the first few verses of Surah Ar-Rum 30:2-5, are as follows:Defeated have been the Byzantines in the lands close-by; yet it is they who, notwithstanding this defeat, shall be victorious within a few years: [for] with God rests all power of decision, first and last. And on that day will the believers [too, have cause to] rejoice in God's succour: [for] He gives succour to whomever He wills, since He alone is almighty, a dispenser of grace.
This surah is believed to have been revealed around 616CE, after the Persians defeated the Byzantines by capturing the city of Jerusalem, and also took Egypt, Syria and parts of Anatolia. The expression "lands close-by" is a reasonable description of these areas to someone in Mecca. I am not aware of any battle between the Persians and Byzantines in the region of the Dead Sea, whereas the siege of Jerusalem in 614CE is well-attested historically. Jerusalem is about 800 metres above sea-level, so I cannot see how anyone could interpret the words used in these verses as making any claim about the "lowest point on earth".
The more interesting thing about this passage is the apparent prophecy that the Byzantines (referred to as "Romans" in the Qur'an) would defeat the Persians several years later, which was what actually transpired.0 -
And what's wrong with that?? I've been debating a lot of people about these issues and it seems like a logical argument. I think there are many verses in the Qur'an that the Prophet (p) could not have coincidentelly got right (the probability of that happening is just unbelievable)I haven't contributed to this discussion until now, since Agathon is drawing heavily on arguments that have been aired extensively on the internet (for example, a debate on the Qur'an and Modern Science that appears on a website called "examine the truth").
I'm not saying that scientific predictions are the objective of the Qur'anic text. I'm just trying to debate the logic of how a man got these things right (by guessing/coincidence/luck) and they happen to match up with modern scientific facts. Is it really a case of Muhammed (p) seriously being the luckiest man in the world (unlike Aristotle who specialized in Science)!?I really think, though, that trying to read obscure "scientific predictions" into the wording of the Qur'an rather demeans a book that, even for those who are not Muslims, merits respect.
The main message of the Qur'an is: There is a Creator; I already made that clear, and that's why some verses about science seem vague (and of no concern) as if the Author is not even trying to get people's attention to these facts. They just come naturally in the Qur'an. Do you think Muhammed (p) guessed at all of these (especially the main 6 pieces of evidence so far) and got them to match our knowledge of scientific facts today (advanced thinking?!)? Do you think it was a coincidence?? -- because no man was 100% sure at that time.. Analyze them for yourself (even in 'Examine the Truth').
Exactly what I was saying before, it's not a big deal. But the analogy is 100% spot on. It's like a novelist or a non-fiction writer (like Richard Dawkins for example -- in fact he practically writes fiction!) writing an analogy about something that didn't make sense at the time & 1000 years later it actually proves to be right! Muhammed (p) used an analogy for the unbelievers that actually 100% matched up with our current understanding of that pitch blackness at the bottom of the ocean. Did Muhammed (p) know that it was pitch black to use this analogy?? Or Was it just a figure of speech and it was a coincidence that he got it right??For example, the verse referred to in Example Number 5, Surah An-Nur 24: 40, reads as follows in Muhammad Asad's translation: "Or [else, their deeds are] like the depths of darkness upon an abysmal sea, made yet more dark by wave billowing over wave, with [black] clouds above it all: depths of darkness, layer upon layer, [so that] when one holds up his hand, he can hardly see it: for he to whom God gives no light, no light whatever has he!"
This verse follows another simile, where the deeds of unbelievers are likened to a mirage in the desert. The clear message is that the deeds of those who do not believe in God are empty. Any "scientific" claims being made about the absence of light deep in the ocean are not crucial to this passage, which is trying to put forward a contrast between the darkness within which the unbeliever labours and the light that comes from God.
True the more interesting things were prophecy & nearer lands for the Arabs/Christians/Jews; but the 'coincidence' is this word means 'lowest point on earth'. The lowest point on land is the area near the dead sea scrolls (between jerusalem & Jordan) It doesn't suddenly shoot up to be the highest piece of land were the fighting took place (it was near border of the dead sea) - Jerusalem is about 10/15miles from this!The issue in Example Number 6 seems to be particularly artificial. Again using the Asad translation, the first few verses of Surah Ar-Rum 30:2-5, are as follows: "Defeated have been the Byzantines in the lands close-by; yet it is they who, notwithstanding this defeat, shall be victorious within a few years: [for] with God rests all power of decision, first and last..."
This surah is believed to have been revealed around 616CE, after the Persians defeated the Byzantines by capturing the city of Jerusalem, and also took Egypt, Syria and parts of Anatolia. The expression "lands close-by" is a reasonable description of these areas to someone in Mecca. I am not aware of any battle between the Persians and Byzantines in the region of the Dead Sea, whereas the siege of Jerusalem in 614CE is well-attested historically. Jerusalem is about 800 metres above sea-level, so I cannot see how anyone could interpret the words used in these verses as making any claim about the "lowest point on earth".
The more interesting thing about this passage is the apparent prophecy that the Byzantines (referred to as "Romans" in the Qur'an) would defeat the Persians several years later, which was what actually transpired.
Check out this link, even though you probably will dismiss it:
geology: http://www.journeytoislam.com/science/lowest%20point%20on%20earth.htm0 -
This is a distorted picture of the situation. The point is that the statement to the effect that it would be miraculous for Mohammed to have knowledge of the sea is not merely speculation. Its actually not believable. This hoax miracle requires us to accept an unrealistic scenario.The thing about your comment is it's all speculation (a lot of maybe's in there); Prophet Muhammed (p), if you studied the history of Islam properly or even knew the basics of Muslim faith, is the living/walking Qur'an. There has never been a man documented by his followers as he has
As to the documentation of Mohammed’s life, you must know that this is an exaggeration of the situation. Specifically, as I said just as illustration, there is a lack of non-Muslim sources and details (like exactly how many wives he had, and whether some of his companions were just concubines) are simply not known.
I certainly do google if I want a link to use here to validate what I say. But my knowledge of Islam does come from reading from the Quran and from history books. I’ve already told you that I’m not just an internet jockey. In particular, I think Malise Ruthven’s ‘Islam in the World’ is an excellent attempt to set out its features by someone who (I think) balances respect for the faith with objectivity. I know many think highly of Karen Armstrong. I don’t, as I think she lets her personal views get in the way of her objectivity. As to Bucaille, I have read extracts of his book. There is no way that he can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We only have a limited amount of time, so you have to understand I’ll only read authors that I think have something to teach me. I read Von Danikens ‘Chariot of the Gods’ years ago. I wouldn’t see why anyone would need to trudge through that book to know it’s a hoax, and I feel the same about Bucaille.look through them yourself & ask all of the true scholars about them; don't google them, looking for faults as you've been doing. …. I can recommend a biography ('The sealed Nectar) but you'd probably dismiss it; There's also a good book by Karen Armstrong: 'A Biography of the Prophet' but you'd probably treat it like Bucaill's book without even opening the first page.
I reject this statement. The links I have provided so far are:I've read your links but they're very biased
A link for a bee enthusiasts’ website presenting Aristotle’s comments on bees
A link from an article about evolution presenting a quote from the Saudi Grand Mufti,
A link from a book by an Islamic chaplain
A link confirming he is an Islamic chaplain
A link to wikipedia just to quickly substantiate the existence of asexual reproduction (which you hardly contest).
A link to an article that originally appeared on a mainstream new site, illustrating the real background to how these alleged ‘miracles’ are generated.
I don’t see how any of those sources could be called ‘biased’, and I suggest you are being unreasonable.
I don’t understand you reaction. I thought this is what we were doing.One topic at a time.
But isn’t this the issue. There is no barrier, and the link you provided is just an Islamic site trying to distort statements about differences in water temperature and salinity to pretend there is. Can I suggest you post that link on the science forum and see if any folk there can confirm the existence of this purported barrier? They might explain how salmon seem able to swim through a barrier that the Quran suggests allows nothing to pass.As far as going back to the issue of "waters can not transgress" in that ayat, again I think I agree with Schuhart, this is all a matter of interpretation. I ask the same question sometimes,: what do you mean by, "waters can not transgress"?
The sex of bees is correct. The stuff about ‘barriers’ seems to be wrong. Plus, you can hardly claim 100% accuracy when we know that we have more wrong statements coming up, stating that the Sun orbits the Earth and that all living things reproduce in pairs.It sure does if you say so; as long as we're clear that they actually agree with modern scientific statements and that it was some sort of a coincidence Muhammed (p) got them (from where ever) into his book (that he got the full credit for)!!
I’m inclined to think hivizman has covered this, but you seem to be passing by his statement that there is no record of a battle at the lowest point of the Earth as if he hadn’t said it.Let me go on to the issue of 'nearer land' & 'lowest point' on the earth which is near Jerusalum.
I think your statement here has helped me to define my ambivalence about posting on this topic. Just so I don’t seem disingenuous, I don’t share your respect for the Quran. It has never spoken to me, but obviously I accept other may have a different view of it.I really think, though, that trying to read obscure "scientific predictions" into the wording of the Qur'an rather demeans a book that, even for those who are not Muslims, merits respect.
However, I think you’ve put your finger on the issue. The manufacture of these hoax miracles, and the apparent enthusiasm with which many seem to have embraced them, suggests an enormous lack of confidence. Its as if people are so much in despair for good news that any old nonsense, no matter how obviously spurious, is seized on. The possible result, as I think you are essentially saying, is to downgrade whatever message the book is supposed to be communicating.
I can see another issue over the horizon. People, even willing dupes, cannot stop reality forever. At some future date these ‘miracles’ will be discarded, as the illusion becomes impossible to sustain. The only reason they’ve survived this long is because so few could be arsed to actually wade through this rubbish to refute it. When that happens, and when critical voices start emerging with the faith, its likely that the religion as a whole will fail. I can see why Islamic clerics would be happy to promote this stuff in the short run, if it seems popular with the faithful. But, rather like the Irish property bubble, they’ll find out sooner than they think that they cannot stop the chickens from coming home to roost.
In the meanwhile, I find it a little disturbing to see so many people charging towards a rather nasty accident with so much gusto. But that’s Homo Sapiens Sapiens for you. So wise they named them twice.
Anyway, best of luck to ye. If some wants to believe this, then surely they will.0 -
I think your statement here has helped me to define my ambivalence about posting on this topic. Just so I don’t seem disingenuous, I don’t share your respect for the Quran. It has never spoken to me, but obviously I accept other may have a different view of it.
However, I think you’ve put your finger on the issue. The manufacture of these hoax miracles, and the apparent enthusiasm with which many seem to have embraced them, suggests an enormous lack of confidence. Its as if people are so much in despair for good news that any old nonsense, no matter how obviously spurious, is seized on. The possible result, as I think you are essentially saying, is to downgrade whatever message the book is supposed to be communicating.
Thanks for these comments - yes, I think that these very tenuous claims that the Qur'an anticipated later scientific (or archaeological) discoveries do indeed diminish the overall message of the Qur'an. I also recognise that the presence of errors in books that are claimed to be divinely inspired creates a problem for such a claim. One of the elements of Christian fundamentalism is the belief in the "inerrancy" of the Bible, and this leads on to belief in the literal truth of the creation stories in Genesis and to creationism as a pseudo-scientific doctrine. Other Christians can reject the view that the Bible is inerrant (that is, are prepared to accept the presence of errors), or to read passages symbolically and metaphorically, but there is more of a problem for Muslims, who believe that the Qur'an is the uncreated Word of God, revealed to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel.
I came across the following quote in a book by Shabbir Akhtar The Quran and the Secular Mind: A Philosophy of Islam (London: Routledge, 2008, p. 171). Akhtar is currently a philosophy professor at Old Dominion University in the USA, and formerly worked at the International Islamic University in Malaysia.The Quran is continually raped in order to yield the ephemeral findings of the latest scientific research [in a footnote, Akhtar refers to Maurice Bucaille and Harun Yahya]. The scripture's relevance to readers impressed by modern science is established by imposing self-indulgent and tortured interpretations on the ambiguous and malleable parts of the text. The Quranic vocabulary is forced to accommodate preferred scientific meanings which compete with the original or classical significances closer to the intention and the era of revelation. The modern meaning of the scripture can dwarf the original message which is primarily religious, spiritual and prescriptive. The text buckles under the pressure of detailed scientific meanings attached to vague and innocent expressions. The arguments offered for such meanings carry weight only with devotees. The Muslim apologist celebrates the undiscovered scientific potential of his book while the outsider is amused and puzzled by this facile and ingenuous handling of scripture.
Muslims are not alone in holding such views about their scripture; some Christians similarly mine the Bible. Nor is the tendency necessarily disreputable. If an allegedly revealed book unequivocally provided scientific knowledge in a pre-scientific age, this would strengthen the possibility that it had a superhuman author. If a scripture, produced before the advent of science, succeeded in attaining a broad and approximate compatibility with the picture secreted by current scientific learning, perhaps through a deliberate and studied ambiguity in its scientific claims, this would provide evidence in favour of its claim to be a divinely revealed book. But we do not have any indisputable scientific facts anticipated by the Quran. Given the general vagueness and elasticity of its sentences, the Quran sustains differing and incompatible interpretations. One enthusiastic apologist extracts one piece of scientific learning from a given pregnant passage, while another extracts, with equal ease, a different, even rival, claim from the same passage.
I don't think anything else needs to be said.0 -
Indeed, that's a well chosen and helpful extract.0
-
I suppose we could end this whole issue since we all have our own interpretations & understandings that are Worlds apart! I'd like to leave you with this summary though:
1. The ayah with the female bee in it (obvious in the Qur'an)
2. The ayah with Iram's Pillars in it (obvious in the Qur'an)
3. The ayat with barriers in them (still makes sense, even if it doesn't specify what type)
have a look at this:
http://thescientificfacts.blogspot.com/2007/06/verse-that-showed-cousteau-right-way_26.html
4. The ayah with darkness at bottom of ocean in it (analogy makes sense & 100% correct)
5. The ayah with 'adna-l-ard' in it (obvious, prophecy, another coincidence)
6. The ayah with iron in it (obvious, even though some say it's matter of interpretation)
7. The ayat with sun's orbit in them (obvious, even though some bring in their own theories into it)
8. The ayat with 'so-called' flat earth' in them (not obvious in the Qur'an):
YUSUFALI: "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its rounded course." (21:33) -- what has that got to do with flat earth?? The Arabic is actually more accurate than this translation!
Any more ayat with 'so-called flat earth' in them need more explanations than what's in the actual ayah; People assume different things about the Qur'an, even though it doesn't specifically say that. Read the works of scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah & his students or teachers if you'd like a proper course in Islamic Studies; not a guy who authored 'Islam for dummies'
10. Another example is the ayah with expanding universe in it (obvious in the Qur'an):
"With power and skill did We construct the Firmament; And it is We Who expand it." (surah 51: ayah 47)
11. The ayat with "pairs" in them (look at Harun yahya's work or somebody who's actually not against Islam!):
YUSUFALI: "That has created pairs in all things, and has made for you ships and cattle on which ye ride,"
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1172571560641&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam%2FAskAboutIslamE%2FAskAboutIslamE
For more scientific facts, have a quick look through this link:
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/faith/Allahs_miracles_of_the_quran/Allahs_miracles_of_the_quran.php
Some ayat are obvious without mind-games & interpretation tricks, even though people don't want to believe them. Some are vague (I never mentioned the vague ones).
Atheists seem to have this thing against religions saying it's an accident (that's the most arrogant statement if there ever was one). What if atheism is actually the accident. Is there actually any proof for Darwinism or is it blind faith??In the meanwhile, I find it a little disturbing to see so many people charging towards a rather nasty accident with so much gusto. But that’s Homo Sapiens Sapiens for you. So wise they named them twice.
I believe Muhammed (p) was not lying; because of the authority of the Qur'an and nobody has fully convinced me otherwise yet. But why do you believe an outdated Darwinian theory (no scientific basis/mostly speculation)? Why do you believe your arrogant, flawed scientists (Dawkins, Dennett, Pinkett, etc.)?? I've read some of their books, and all they do is attack religions instead of researching and coming out with proper evidence for their theories. They dream that a world will exist without religion (but it will never happen); they imagine scenarios where Darwinism made everything (starting with chance & ending with chance); and they plot in ways to convert people to their so-called 'theory of everything' when all they're doing is guessing, speculating, and insulting, without a shred of strong-enough evidence. Everything you say about Muhammed (p) is still inaccurate, unless you have proper proof to back up your claims (sources) instead of googling the nearest atheist to help you out!!
In the end, there's only one certainty: "...To you be your Way (beliefs), and to me mine."(surah 109: ayah 6)0 -
Sometimes its best to quit while you’re behind. I rather think the best summary is Shabbir Akhtar’sI'd like to leave you with this summary though:
What you have posted doesn’t advance us beyond that point.The scripture's relevance to readers impressed by modern science is established by imposing self-indulgent and tortured interpretations on the ambiguous and malleable parts of the text.
Just for your own information, lest there should be some genuine misunderstanding,I understood the Grand Mufti’s insistence that the Quran must be read as saying the Earth is flat is based on verses like 71:19what has that got to do with flat earth??
You’ll understand, I’m not saying that the phrase translated as ‘a carpet (spread out)’ or ‘wide expanse’ means the world is flat. I’m simply reporting the fact that a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia said that this is how it must be read. I’ll just remind you again of his opinion, as the highest Islamic official in the country that hosts Islam’s most sacred sites, given in 1966071.019
YUSUFALI: "'And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),
PICKTHAL: And Allah hath made the earth a wide expanse for you
SHAKIR: And Allah has made for you the earth a wide expanse,
I stress again. This is his opinion, not me. If you are suggesting that the Grand Mufti formed his opinion in 1966 by surfing islamophobic websites, then you are simply so deeply in denial that no conversation is possible.The Holy Koran, the Prophet’s teachings, the majority of Islamic scientists, and the actual facts all prove that the sun is running in its orbit . . . and that the earth is fixed and stable, spread out by God for his mankind. . . . Anyone who professed otherwise would utter a charge of falsehood toward God, the Koran, and the Prophet.
You’re in luck. There’s a thread here on the atheism forum that brings together quite a lot of the scholarly work available online. If you really want to find out about evolution, I suggest you start there. Or feel free just to start you own thread on the atheism forum posing the question if evolution is based on blind faith. I’m confident you’ll get a response.Is there actually any proof for Darwinism or is it blind faith??
On the other hand, you could just voice your doubts on the long-running creationism thread in the Christianity forum. Nearly 13500 posts so far, but I’m sure you’ve a contribution to make. The thread is linked here.
As I understand it, typically Islamic scholars advise that Darwinism is an acceptable explanation of how different species of animals appeared on Earth, except for humans. Generally, the view is taken that the origin of the human species has to be seen as a direct act of divine creation as Adam is described as being formed out of clay.
But what would I know. I’m only some eejit who gets all his information from Google.0 -
Advertisement
-
I've already said everybody has their own world view point. If you want a proper understanding of Islam (read up on Ibn Taymiyyah, his teacher, his students, al-Ghazali, Bin Baz, etc.) Why do you look at today's flawed bunch when you can go to the source of true Islam (the fountain of knowledge) and make up your own mind then.Sometimes its best to quit while you’re behind. I rather think the best summary is Shabbir Akhtar’s...
Ibn Taymiyyah made it clear about the earth, sun & moon in the 13th century. Why do you post this Mufti?? - That's why I said you were bias. We are all human and make silly mistakes & interpret things the way we view the world; but if you were sincere about searching for a proper response it would be to find faults in our early Scholars (The real hero's of Islam's strength).What you have posted doesn’t advance us beyond that point. Just for your own information, lest there should be some genuine misunderstanding, I understood the Grand Mufti’s insistence that the Quran must be read as saying the Earth is flat is based on verses like 71:19You’ll understand, I’m not saying that the phrase translated as ‘a carpet (spread out)’ or ‘wide expanse’ means the world is flat. I’m simply reporting the fact that a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia said that this is how it must be read. I’ll just remind you again of his opinion, as the highest Islamic official in the country that hosts Islam’s most sacred sites, given in 1966 I stress again. This is his opinion, not me. If you are suggesting that the Grand Mufti formed his opinion in 1966 by surfing islamophobic websites, then you are simply so deeply in denial that no conversation is possible.
Why do you give me this link when I'm actually directing the claim at you?? I'm asking you a question or two, and you direct me to a forum. Are you following Darwinism blindly (you're the one that needs to go onto the forum not me?!) - Can you not form a response (do you have your own actual beliefs or are you just following the crowd)?? WHY do you believe in Darwinism 100%??You’re in luck. There’s a thread here on the atheism forum that brings together quite a lot of the scholarly work available online. If you really want to find out about evolution, I suggest you start there. Or feel free just to start you own thread on the atheism forum posing the question if evolution is based on blind faith. I’m confident you’ll get a response.
There are some things that we can call evolution or something like that (we are still not 100% sure what it is yet). I don't agree we have a right to call these things by labels and force them on people (adding to them). For example you are right I agree with a certain aspect of what you're saying about common ancestory for some things, etc. But again it could be something totally different than what we see (would have to be looked at from a totally different perspective, if you know what I mean). Maybe we're looking at things from a different angle or dimension than what it is in reality!As I understand it, typically Islamic scholars advise that Darwinism is an acceptable explanation of how different species of animals appeared on Earth, except for humans. Generally, the view is taken that the origin of the human species has to be seen as a direct act of divine creation as Adam is described as being formed out of clay.
Sorry if I have offended you in any way. You've convinced me that your well-read, educated and I apologise for saying you google a lot. I'm just really asking you questions the way atheists ask questions (they assume all religious people are the same, etc.). What I meant by my previous question about Darwinism is:But what would I know. I’m only some eejit who gets all his information from Google.
Darwinism not having a scientific basis in these areas, which are very important: Origin of life, Protenoid error, RNA, fossil records, etc.) ... show me a book that has tested Darwinism properly (& don't recommend one of Dawkins' books; he comes across as a fraud after reading 'Climbing Mount Improbable'.) Recommend a book by a genuine scientist in this day and age (not religion-haters; scientists who don't care about religion!) And I'll have a look at your side of the story!
In fact, you have been conditioned to believe in Darwin's Evolution even though it has been a failure recently (Miller's experiments, Fox's experiments, the complexity of the cell & DNA, the RNA world, fossil record, origin of life, big bang theory, etc.) There are so many coincidences (chance is on a roll here!) -- remember, even Muhammed (p)'s oincidences!
That's why I said your belief in Darwinism is actually "Blind Faith" (basically, you can't stand the idea of a Creator, so you'll believe in anything else but a Creator) -- you're a true scientist!0
Advertisement