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
-
In fairness, I didn't just look at today's flawed bunch. I've also read a couple of books about the history of Islam (Malise Ruthven's I found the best and seemed the most balanced). I've also dipped into the Quran. I do have a translation of Al-Ghazali's 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers' somewhere, and I do intend to read it some time, I just haven't had the chance. (And, now that I think of it, I can't remember where I put it).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.
In fairness, I don't think anyone had laid out a coherent case for the Earth going around the Sun before Copernicus and Galileo. There was a Greek guy who had speculated that this was the case, but I don't think his accounted to more than that.Ibn Taymiyyah made it clear about the earth, sun & moon in the 13th century.
To illustrated how people read what they like into the Quran. The language is so vague in these verses that its quite ridiculous for anyone to say it contains hints of advanced science when the very same text is used by someone to say the exact opposite.Why do you post this Mufti?
Well, I've satisfied myself that its a reasonable explanation of how the human species came to be. But, clearly, you'd want to verify that for yourself. Bear in mind, I've many feelings of ambivalence about posting here at all. At the end of the day, if you want to believe in divine creation that's your business. If you want to believe there's science in the Quran, equally that's your business. I simply dissent from those views.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)??
100% is too strong. I mean, at any stage a better explanation might emerge. I simply feel its the best explanation so far.WHY do you believe in Darwinism 100%??
I've read the Origin of Species and, while I don't doubt the science is out of date, I did notice that Darwin generally supported each statement with some evidence either from observation or from an experiment. That's not to say those observations and experiments are beyond question. Simply that he left a trail for us to follow if we wanted to contest any individual point. I don't feel a need - but clearly others can if they wish.
I think Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene' is a good, short and clear account of evolution - better than Darwin, which might reflect the fact that Dawkins has the benefit of the advances in science that have occured since. For instance, Darwin knew nothing about DNA, which is probably the key evidence that people would rely on now. I think 'The Selfish Gene' is much better than 'The God Delusion'. I think Dawkins is good on science, but bad on philosophy. I've said on other threads that I think Julian Baggini’s Atheism: A Very Short Introduction presents a much better account of atheism.
If you've a real interest, and two hours of your life to invest, I've found Ken Miller's lecture on Intelligent Design interesting. Basically he's just talking about the court cases in the US where he's been involved in keeping Creationism out of the science curriculum. But I found his lecture good and clear in illuminating why so much religious controversy is thrown up by evolution.0 -
The Quran stipulates that Muslims are not allowed to eat blood, yet they are allowed to eat meat.... Was your God not aware that all meat, regardless of how long you bleed it will contain some level of blood?0
-
The Quran stipulates that Muslims are not allowed to eat blood, yet they are allowed to eat meat.... Was your God not aware that all meat, regardless of how long you bleed it will contain some level of blood?
you're an idiot!
If you're so curious about Islamic teachings & practices, go and ask an imam in the nearest Masjid...
What has that got to do with the eight pieces of evidence OR 'why you don't believe Muhammed(p)'??. Start another thread after you've actually done a bit of research on those ayat in the Qur'an!!0 -
What a lovely response.. ...:rolleyes:you're an idiot!
Quite a bit actually... It's evidence to the contrary that supports the motion that Mohammed was simply a warlord, who's lack of divine inspiration left him blissfully unaware that some blood will always remain in meat, regardless of how long an animal is bled..What has that got to do with the eight pieces of evidence OR 'why you don't believe Muhammed(p)'??.
Also Mohammed seemed unaware that women, especially those of dark complection, are susceptible to Vitamin D deficiency if they cover-up too much during the cold dark winters of the Northern/Southern Hemisphere.... I.e. the muslim dress code is quite unhealthy in this part of the world..
P.S.
The phrase "clutching at straws" comes to mind having read through your list of """evidence"""....0 -
... It's evidence to the contrary that supports the motion that Mohammed was simply a warlord, who's lack of divine inspiration left him blissfully unaware that some blood will always remain in meat, regardless of how long an animal is bled..
Also Mohammed seemed unaware that women, especially those of dark complection, are susceptible to Vitamin D deficiency if they cover-up too much during the cold dark winters of the Northern/Southern Hemisphere.... I.e. the muslim dress code is quite unhealthy in this part of the world..
P.S.
The phrase "clutching at straws" comes to mind having read through your list of """evidence"""....
"supports the notion", "seemed", "comes to mind":::
Everybody has their own views, I suppose ... Have you any evidence to support your thoughts about Muhammed (p) or you just assuming things from your religion-hating, atheistic perspective. Good for you if you believe these things but it still doesn't prove a single thing about Muhammed (p) being a warlord who seemed unaware of health issues. As I said before, if your genuine in seeking answers for these trivial matters ask an Imam (in your nearest Masjid).0 -
Advertisement
-
Have you any evidence to support your thoughts about Muhammed (p) or you just assuming things from your religion-hating, atheistic perspective.
Here's a quick google of peer reviewed journals on the unhealthy hijab for a scientific perspective on this dresscode... Sunlight hitting the skin is necessary to generate this vitamin.. Blocking the skin with excessive clothing prevents the generation of this Vitmain, and disease follows..
But the meat aspect is a little more obvious, simple logic would infer that it's quite impossible to remove all blood from the body by letting an animal bleed to death.. It's like trying to clean dirt from a plate using the same dirt as a cleaning agent, it doesn't work.. Yes most of the blood is removed from the animal, but significant amounts will always remain in the capillaries, which form extensive networks trough the muscles that make their way to your plate as meat.. Thus meaning the very idea of Halal meat is impossible, or at least not worth the effort of painstakingly removing the millions of tiny capillaries one by one..
You're the believer here my good man... I'm simply applying some logic and rational...Good for you if you believe these things but it still doesn't prove a single thing about Muhammed (p) being a warlord who seemed unaware of health issues.0 -
Let's all walk around naked so!! The media are always looking for ways to attack Islam (True Christians, Jews and other religious groups have been practicing hijab (head-covering & modest dress) for centuries); I don't agree with face cover, etc., but that's still people's traditions. What about the population of the North pole, Iceland, Alaska, or countries that don't get much sun (Ireland, etc.!!) - What's the solution for these people?!? - ship them out to Africa, Australia & the Middle East?? Why do you attack a whole nation and not even think about what your saying??Here's a quick google of peer reviewed journals on the unhealthy hijab for a scientific perspective on this dresscode... Sunlight hitting the skin is necessary to generate this vitamin.. Blocking the skin with excessive clothing prevents the generation of this Vitmain, and disease follows..
You try your best to follow Allah's teaching. Sometimes, the wisdom is in the intention to follow the teaching. You try your best to drain the slaughtered animal as best as you can (again same idea as true Christian & Jewish slaughtering); When you try to find any little tiny issue about a belief you'll always come to different views (for example I say homosexuality is unnatural; you say it's natural; good for you for that belief)!But the meat aspect is a little more obvious, simple logic would infer that it's quite impossible to remove all blood from the body by letting an animal bleed to death.. It's like trying to clean dirt from a plate using the same dirt as a cleaning agent, it doesn't work.. Yes most of the blood is removed from the animal, but significant amounts will always remain in the capillaries, which form extensive networks trough the muscles that make their way to your plate as meat.. Thus meaning the very idea of Halal meat is impossible, or at least not worth the effort of painstakingly removing the millions of tiny capillaries one by one..
You also believe in something - look inside your heart. Everybody on this planet has a belief: You believe 100% that there is no god for example; you believe that all of the prophets (p) were liars; you believe we were all the result of continuous accidents; you may believe that homosexuality is natural; you may believe that alcohol is healthy (because some governments have made them a part of society); You get the idea... 'I'll never believe in what you believe & you'll never believe in what I believe. To you be your beliefs and to me be mine.' good bye.You're the believer here my good man... I'm simply applying some logic and rational...0 -
The populations of the far north have been forced to adjust to their circumstance via natural selection, i.e as populations tend towards the poles, skin complection tends to get paler, thus allowing more sunlight in to produce this Vitamin..But even saying that, in the very far reaches of this globe people do commonly suffer from deficiencies of this vitamin...What about the population of the North pole, Iceland, Alaska, or countries that don't get much sun (Ireland, etc.!!) - What's the solution for these people?!? - ship them out to Africa, Australia & the Middle East?? Why do you attack a whole nation and not even think about what your saying??
Some articles on that here and a more straightforward one on Finland here..
Indeed you do, but the point I'm making is that Mohammed couldn't have had much understanding of the finer details of blood circulation by stipulating such an impossibly impractical foodstuff, i.e. meat without blood....Such an obvious mistake is strong evidence to support my motion that the Quran isn't really all that divine...You try your best to follow Allah's teaching. Sometimes, the wisdom is in the intention to follow the teaching. You try your best to drain the slaughtered animal as best as you can (again same idea as true Christian & Jewish slaughtering);
Don't be so prejudiced and presumptuous, I don't "believe" any of those things, my mind is open to be convinced of any reality.. I let rational thought be my guide in this life and accept every possibility and don't feel the need to choose any as a particular belief...You also believe in something - look inside your heart. Everybody on this planet has a belief: You believe 100% that there is no god for example; you believe that all of the prophets (p) were liars; you believe we were all the result of continuous accidents; you may believe that homosexuality is natural; you may believe that alcohol is healthy (because some governments have made them a part of society); You get the idea... 'I'll never believe in what you believe & you'll never believe in what I believe. To you be your beliefs and to me be mine.' good bye.0 -
So you do believe there is a possibility of a God?? so you do believe there's a possibility that prophets were telling the truth?? I don't really understand what your trying to say in these comments ... What will convince you otherwise in this day and age!! What do you believe exactly, now? -- Are you confused or lost or just not sure of yourself?!?? Surely you must believe in something, anything (e.g. Darwinism, Paganism, Scientology, Agnosticism, etc.) Anyway, good luck in your search for truth.Don't be so prejudiced and presumptuous, I don't "believe" any of those things, my mind is open to be convinced of any reality.. I let rational thought be my guide in this life and accept every possibility and don't feel the need to choose any as a particular belief...0 -
I didn't really expect you too.. I've a rather different perspective on this world than a person of "faith" like yourself, in that I believe anything is possible.. I'm not arrogant enough to ignorantly assume I know any particular truth..So you do believe there i s a possibility of a God?? so you do believe there's a possibility that prophets were telling the truth?? I don't really understand what your trying to say in these comments ...
I accept that a God is possible, I even accept Mohammad may well have been the prophet of such a God.. But I haven't observed any evidence that would make me believe that such a possibility is even remotely probable..0 -
Advertisement
-
-
#1. I talked about bees: how the Qur'an correctly said that it is the female bee which leaves the house.
#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.
#3. barriers between the seas: this was clearly stated in the Qur'an.
#4. barriers between salt and fresh water.
#5. that at the bottom of the ocean, it is complete deep darkness after, of course, one thousand meters.
#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??
#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.
#8. the Qur'an clearly stated that the sun and the moon have an orbit, and that is exactly what scientists today tell us. And there are more on Astronomy, Embryology, etc. Not one single error in his statements!!! Lucky?!?
1 - cannot comment, do not speak Arabic
2 - a historical document naming an ancient city?? A miracle! Can you not se how illogical that is?
3 - the passage in question could refer to ANYTHING, most likely the division "Allah" put between the Red Sea and Mediterranean
4 - The "partition zone" refers to a bit near a river mouth where the constant influx of fresh water keeps salt levels lower than normal. A child could deduce that.
5 - Dive down in water, it gets dark. Anyone who has ever dove could tell you so.
6 - but any cartographer would have known that that was the lowest point in the region. it just happens to be the lowest point on earth also. (Technically, the Marianas Trench is the lowest point below sea level, while the North Pole is the closest surface point to the Earth's centre.)
7 - The iron did not come "down" as there was no "down" - it was part of a vast cloud of materials that gradually coalesced to form the Earth. Couldn't this passage just as easily refer to a meteorite.
8 - everyone has known that the sun and moon "have orbits". the Greeks, Sumerians, Aztecs - THEY MOVE IN CIRCLES ACROSS THE SKY.
There are dozens of errors in the Quran: the sun sets in a swamp, sperm are produced near the back, etc. Like the Bible, Metamorphoses and Gilgamesh, it's a bunch of legends and stories thrown together to which powerful people have ascribed magic powers. Fairytales are for children.0 -
Full stop! In that case you can't comment on any of them; and also the one's you've produced at the very bottom!!!EamonnKeane wrote: »1 - cannot comment, do not speak Arabic
Why did you not use your head for this one like you've done for the rest of the verses below: It's a 50/50 chance and Muhammed (p) guessed right, I suppose!
Ok, sorry, I'll give you another piece of evidence: 'And I (Allah) created the universe with power and it is I who is expanding it)' -- Muhammed (p) guessed at this I suppose, even though the most intelligent scientist of the 21st Century were arguing about this for years before it was discovered in the last 50 years or so. Good guess!EamonnKeane wrote: »2 - a historical document naming an ancient city?? A miracle! Can you not see how illogical that is?
Ok, so it refers to a barrier where the two sea's meet as it says clearly in the verse. The main thing is there is a barrier as you can see from links above. Read the Qur'an properly (without prejudice)EamonnKeane wrote: »3 - the passage in question could refer to ANYTHING, most likely the division "Allah" put between the Red Sea and Mediterranean
A child could deduce it and Aristotle got it wrong!?!EamonnKeane wrote: »4 - The "partition zone" refers to a bit near a river mouth where the constant influx of fresh water keeps salt levels lower than normal. A child could deduce that.
[ Aristotle’s faulty knowledege on salt and fresh water phenomenon ]
Let me refer back to Aristotle again. Aristotle did research on
oceanography in his books, in addition to bee study. And he tried to
explain this phenomenon of fresh water and salt water. He had no idea that
there was an actual physical barrier between them. This is what Aristotle
thought: he says "the same thing happens in animal bodies. Here, too, the
food when it enters the body is sweet, yet the residuum and dregs of liquid
food are found to be bitter and salt." So basically what Aristotle is
saying is that when you eat a twinkie, it tastes nice - yeah, it's great -
but now, if you taste your own poop or your own feces, it is very bitter
and salty. Now, this is what I call a very dedicated scientist, you know,
who would taste his own feces. You have to give credit to the man.
Anyway, so Aristotle continues: "This is because the sweet and the
drinkable part of it has been drawn away and the natural animal heat has
passed into the flesh and other parts of the body according to their
several natures." So basically he is saying when you eat something by a
process of evaporation - animal heat, he's referring to evaporation - this
is how fresh water becomes salty. Just like when you eat a twinkie, and you
go to the bathroom and you defecate that twinkie, that is the same thing
which happens when you see salt water and fresh water. So of course,
needless to say, this is a gross scientific error. We all know this does
not describe the relationship of salt and fresh water.
So my point here is, again, I do not think the author of the Qur'an was
plagiarizing from Aristotle, or else he would have copied this gross
scientific error in his book. Or let me ask the question again: out of all
the scientific statements I have been showing in the Qur'an, what is the
scientific truth over scientific error ratio? Who can tell me? It is one
out of zero for every one - every single one of them, one out of zero.
Muhammed (p) never went near an ocean and dove under! So Muhammed (p) just guessed again because nobody nobody knows for sure (it doesn't get darker as you go down at swimming level; after 40ft.)EamonnKeane wrote: »5 - Dive down in water, it gets dark. Anyone who has ever dove could tell you so.
Ok, if you say so. How about the prophecy in the verse - was that rigged?? I suppose he coincidently got it right!EamonnKeane wrote: »6 - but any cartographer would have known that that was the lowest point in the region. it just happens to be the lowest point on earth also. (Technically, the Marianas Trench is the lowest point below sea level, while the North Pole is the closest surface point to the Earth's centre.)
ok whatever you say, but Iron had to have come somehow (in a meteorite or wherever) from somewhere beyond our solar system as scientists say.EamonnKeane wrote: »7 - The iron did not come "down" as there was no "down" - it was part of a vast cloud of materials that gradually coalesced to form the Earth. Couldn't this passage just as easily refer to a meteorite.
Ok, they must have had good equipment in their time; but Muhammed (p) chose their knowledge out of all of the other false statements in Arabia, ignorant Europe, Asia, etc. No matter about people's beliefs, this fact was only fully established with the powerful telescopes of the 17th or 18th Century. Coincidence he went with his gut feeling, I suppose.EamonnKeane wrote: »8 - everyone has known that the sun and moon "have orbits". the Greeks, Sumerians, Aztecs - THEY MOVE IN CIRCLES ACROSS THE SKY.
You mentioned above you don't know Arabic and you seemed to analyze these verses perfectly!! Go and read and ask a scholar about these and you'll understand you Arabic is actually the barrier in understanding these (but it's not a difficult language!)EamonnKeane wrote: »There are dozens of errors in the Quran: the sun sets in a swamp, sperm are produced near the back, etc. Like the Bible, Metamorphoses and Gilgamesh, it's a bunch of legends and stories thrown together to which powerful people have ascribed magic powers. Fairytales are for children.
Sorry to make this go on forever. I just want to conclude by giving you an analogy of only six pieces of evidence (not 8, 9 or 10) - This might look messy on boards because I copied and pasted it from my email:
There was a man who was accused of killing his girl friend. And there were
many pieces of evidences that the prosecutors had against him; there were 6 pieces of evidence.
First, he claimed that he was going to kill his girlfriend, number one.
Number 2, he actually bought a knife the same week that his girlfriend was
stabbed, and it was the same type of knife.
Number 3, he was last seem with her one hour before her death in a fight,and he was pushing her in the car.
Number 4, blood was found in his car also.
Number 5, he claimed that he mysteriously lost the knife that he bought
just a couple of days before.
Number 6, the very same day of the murder, he said to a local friend that,
"I’m going to take care of her, so that she will never bother anyone again".
Ok, so anyway, here is my point. There is no question in anyone's mind,
that this man is clearly guilty of the murder of this woman. And there is
no court around in the entire world who would not prosecute this man and
send him to jail, based upon this evidence. I don t think there is any
question about that inside anyone's mind. But, what if he tried to plead
innocent what if this man tried to plead innocent? I don t think this man
who has done this will claim, that all of the 6 pieces of evidence given,
was ALL a coincidence. And that's a fact. In fact the explanation is so
silly, that even the defendant would not offer that nor would the attorney
in a court of law come up on court day and say, "Yes, ALL of those 6 pieces of evidence was all just an amazing coincidence!".
Anyway, let me move on to my point here. My point is that we could look at each and every one of these pieces of evidences INDIVIDUALLY, remember this is a key word, INDIVIDUALLY. And we look at this piece of evidence. Like, let’s take the first example: "he claimed that he was going to kill his girlfriend". Well, you know, that in itself is not conclusive evidence to prosecute him, right? To convict him? Because you know, like I was saying, to my wife and my brother,"man, if don t get out of my room, I m going to kill ya..!" Does that mean, that I actually wanted to kill my wife and my brother? Well, of course not. So, this is basically the same situation we are seeing with the Quranic verses. That, yes, there could be, it may be
from a higher source or it may not be. The same thing is happening here
with each and every one of these pieces of evidences. May be he is
guilty may be is not. In both (science in the Quran and murder trial) cases
the evidence is inconclusive based on this one piece of evidence alone.
If we just looked at this evidence alone. Now of course, that holds true
for each and every one of these 6 pieces of evidences. Alone it will be
very hard to prosecute this man, and he would get away.
But now, here is what I would like to ask people to do. Let us take a look
at the evidences not individually, but COLLECTIVELY. Let us look at the
evidence COLLECTIVELY. So when we ask the question, "how do you explain ALL of these 6 pieces of evidence happening to you"? Then it becomes clear that this is not a COINCIDENCE! Because.. what you are doing is that you're saying "ok..ok..fine you claimed you were going to kill your girlfriend, ok, that in itself is not proof. But, hey, you also bought a knife the same week! How do you explain BOTH of these?!?! So what I am asking you to do tonight, is not look at the evidence individually, but look at it collectively. And basically, if you were to look at this evidence
collectively which I just did, I don t think there is any question that
this man is guilty. Because what your brain just basically did, weather you
realize it or not, You looked at #1 , that he claimed he was going to kill
his girlfriend, in your mind you came up with a probability, maybe 1/10
that he is innocent, or 1/50.. whatever. And then you look at the second
piece of evidence, and then your brain basically did the same thing; well,
that may be a 1/50 chance. So you multiplied the probability of the first
one, and the probability of the second piece of evidence and then you went
down and did all 6 pieces of evidences, and you came up with a number like 1/10,000,000. The chances are, that it is 1/10,000,000 that all of this was just done by chance, or... by just pure luck, that it is clear that you are guilty, because the chances of you being innocent are so low.
Anway, now what I am asking for people to do is put the same logic to the
Quran! Look at the evidence collectively, not just individually. Up to this
point, we were looking at the evidence individually. Now, let’s look at the
evidence collectively, and lets see what we come up with. Ok, the Author of the Quran made 6, 7 or 8 brilliant scientifically correct statements, which of course I basically mentioned and more not mentioned. (e.g. guess is 1/10,000 and coincidence is 1/100,000 or more... think about it - who would guess something that is accurate with science in 1,000 years time even!??) Collectively, the 7 or 8 pieces of evidence comes out at 1/1x 10^28 (1 followed by 28 zeros).
Mathematically speaking (4 or 8 decimal places at most), logically speaking
(court case), and practically speaking that is IMPOSSIBLE!
So how did he do it (remember, that's only 7 examples. There are much more in the Qur'an)
More...
9.
The Qur'an on the expansion of the Universe:
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_02.php#2a
10.
The Qur'an on the protective function of the Atmosphere:
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_03.php#10
(Van Halen Belt,etc.)
More proofs that the author of the Qur'an was not guessing at the functions
of the Universe:
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php0 -
'And I (Allah) created the universe with power and it is I who is expanding it)' -- Muhammed (p) guessed at this I suppose, even though the most intelligent scientist of the 21st Century were arguing about this for years before it was discovered in the last 50 years or so. Good guess!
Could you try and maintain some level of objectivity.. When something is being built it tends to grow in size, a four year old would come up with a similar description of something being created from nothing.
The only specific bit of "evidence" you've provided is the description of a worker bee as female.. Everything else is vague and could mean any number of things..
But I'll accept you're point that if the Quran continually got things right this vagueness might become something else. But the fact of the matter is that the Quran gets many things wrong, and obviously so, and I've provided one example above and Mr. Keane has provided others.. God's supposedly don't make mistakes, meaning one mistake in the Quran invalidates the books claim to divinity..
As above my argument doesn't need to take the Quran collectively, a single fallacy from the book is all I need to show for my argument to hold true..Look at the evidence collectively, not just individually. Up to this point, we were looking at the evidence individually.0 -
just like a child could deduce 'the partition zone' in the sea!Could you try and maintain some level of objectivity.. When something is being built it tends to grow in size, a four year old would come up with a similar description of something being created from nothing.
They seem clear enough; what exactly do you not understand?? Go to a Qur'an book and look at different translations, interpretations & comments from different scholars about the Arabic wordings for each of these verses. They are not in great detail because it's not the main message of the Qur'an as I said before (they'd only confuse the people of that time if they were in more detail). It is a perfect way to reveal functions of the Universe without affecting the Core Message (worship Allah alone) and confusing the ignorant people.The only specific bit of "evidence" you've provided is the description of a worker bee as female.. Everything else is vague and could mean any number of things.
Where are your so-called errors? you named one or two, which are very vague indeed. What errors are you talking about - I'll try to explain them to you after asking the scholars or doing some proper research (from proper sources).But I'll accept you're point that if the Quran continually got things right this vagueness might become something else. But the fact of the matter is that the Quran gets many things wrong, and obviously so, and I've provided one example above and Mr. Keane has provided others.. God's supposedly don't make mistakes, meaning one mistake in the Quran invalidates the books claim to divinity.
List your so-called errors.As above my argument doesn't need to take the Quran collectively, a single fallacy from the book is all I need to show for my argument to hold true..0 -
-
If you've actually picked up a Qur'an and read through it (instead of googling for Qur'an errors) you will notice that the Arabic word used in the verse (86, Surah 18) is 'wajada' meaning, "‘it appeared' to Zulqarnain." And you don't need a proficient knowledge of Arabic for this (just basic research). So 'wajada' means - 'it appears' if you look it up in the dictionary. So Allah is describing what 'appeared' to Zulqarnain. In fact there are various ways to try and analyze this verse. One is this way - according to Muhammad Asad, that 'wajada' means… ‘It appeared to’… ‘It appeared to Zulqarnain.’ Point no.2 - The Arabic word used is 'Magrib' - It can be used for time, as well as place. When we say ‘sunset’ – ‘sunset’ can be taken for time. If I say… ‘The sun sets at 7 p.m.’; I am using it for time. If I say… ‘The ‘Sun sets in the West’, it means I am taking it for place. So here if we use the word 'Magrib' for time. So Zulqarnain did not reach that place of sunset - used - as time - He reached at the time of sun set. The problem is solved. Further more, you can solve them in various ways. If you're going to be stubborn and say… ‘No No, the basic assumption is too much - It is not… ‘Appeared to’… it is actually this.’ Let us analyze it further. The Qur'anic verse says… the Sun set in murky water.’ Now we know, when we use these words, like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ - does the sun actually rise? Scientifically, sun does not rise - neither does the sun set. We know scientifically, that the sun does not set at all. It is the rotation of the earth, which gives rise to sunrise and sunset. But yet you read in the everyday papers mentioning, sunrise at 6 a.m. sun sets at 7.00 p.m. Oh! The newspapers are wrong – Unscientific!’ If I use the word ‘Disaster’, Oh! There is a disaster’ – ‘Disaster’ means there is some calamity which has taken place. Literally, ‘disaster’ means ‘an evil star.’ So when I say… ‘This disaster’ every one knows what I mean is ‘a calamity’, not about the evil star.’ The Qur'an is so eloquent and pure that the Creator has used the people's language (in full) to convey the Message to them (how the people communicate; that's how Allah has communicated to the people through the final Revelation). You and I know, when a person who is mad, we call him a lunatic - Yes or no? At least I do, and I believe you also do. We call a person ‘a lunatic’ – He is ‘mad.’ What is the meaning of ‘lunatic’? It means… ‘struck by the moon’ - But that is how the language has evolved. The Qur'an is timeless and effortless in it's language. Another Miracle.I've already pointed out one, so feel free to address that first:
I've already explained this above if you've looked. The three main religions (Islam, Catholicism and Judaism) practice slaughtering. The whole idea behind it, is to pronounce Allah's Name (bismillah) when killing an animal to eat (even when shooting a bird, etc.). Don't take the literal meaning of every single drop of blood has to be drained (just a certain amount). Ask a knowledgeable scholar if this has really caused you distress and confusion!Mohammed's wrong assumption that letting an animal bleed to death will remove all blood from the meat....0 -
Don't take the literal meaning of every single drop of blood has to be drained .
Why not? If the God in question was all knowing when assembling this book he would have surely used language one could take literally, such that his message wasn't open to misinterpretation...
The Quran definatively states eating blood is haram, how else can one interpret that statement other than literally? Explain the thought process you've undertaken to justify eating meat on the basis of this requirement..0 -
The thought process that the final prophet (p) has taught us. If you ask any knowledgeable imam he will explain the reasoning for you. He would have looked up to a good knowledgeable scholar, who in turn would have gone back to a well-known school of thought, which goes back through the history of knowledgeable scholars, who lead all the way back to the prophet Muhammed (p) -- proper understanding of the seerah of the prophet (p).The Quran definatively states eating blood is haram, how else can one interpret that statement other than literally? Explain the thought process you've undertaken to justify eating meat on the basis of this requirement..
I think a lot of people misunderstand the complexity of the Islamic system. Just like any other subject (Economics, Law, Philosophy, etc.) each of its sub-headings actually needs a thorough course (3-4 years), i.e. Islamic Law, Islamic Economics, Islamic Jurisprudence, etc.; a normal person can't just comment on issues without proper knowledge of the subject matter. You seem to be going about things the wrong way my friend. Ask a teacher of Islamic Jurisprudence. Don't make assumptions when you don't even have a basic grasp of the subject. Be reasonable (don't attack the religion when you're trying to find something out). I've learnt one thing in my life about most of you atheists - you really are an aggressive, intolerant bunch of arrogant fools!0 -
Expand please!The thought process that the final prophet (p) has taught us.
How do you justify eating meat knowing it contains a significant amount of a harem foodstuff (i.e. blood)?
Could you justify eating a tasty dessert knowing it contained a small dash of some liqueur?
Says the man making derogative statements.... :rolleyes:I've learnt one thing in my life about most of you atheists - you really are an aggressive, intolerant bunch of arrogant fools!0 -
Advertisement
-
simon, did you even read the beginning of my last paragraph properly in my last post?? You don't understand the basics of Islam and Qur'an. Why do you comment on things you don't understand the basics of??Why not? If the God in question was all knowing when assembling this book he would have surely used language one could take literally, such that his message wasn't open to misinterpretation...
http://communityquran.com/quran/compare/3.70 -
simon, did you even read the beginning of my last paragraph properly in my last post?? You don't understand the basics of Islam and Qur'an. Why do you comment on things you don't understand the basics of??
http://communityquran.com/quran/compare/3.7
Surah 3, Al-i'Imran Ayah 7: "He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. "
That verse you referenced states that only some verses in the book contain hidden spiritual meaning, i.e. thus implying that many verses can in fact be taken quite literally... You seem to be claiming that the following verse has some allegorical edge:
Al-Baqara 2, 173: "He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah."
It seems pretty clear to me... Feel free to point out the hidden meaning contained within that statement...0 -
Well, what seems actually clear is blood being forbidden for consumption, (i.e. as nutrition in the diet). Do you like consuming blood as a food stuff?! The verse's interpretation from some of the knowledgeable interpreters is like this:
Al-Baqara 2, 173: "He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah."
It seems pretty clear to me... Feel free to point out the hidden meaning contained within that statement...Our sharee’ah intends that the slaughtered animal should be drained of blood as completely as possible, and that is because of the extreme harm that would result from eating its blood. It does not make sense, and it is unacceptable to suggest, that Islam would set out all these conditions to get rid of the blood of the slaughtered animal in the manner prescribed, then allow us to drink or eat blood after it is drained from the animal. For this reason it is a definite fact that Islam has forbidden blood as a means of nutrition for man. Rather this prohibition is a clear sign of the wisdom and purpose of sharee’ah in purifying the animal by draining the blood from it because blood is one of the most evil and unlawful kinds of food, which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent to abolish.
“he allows them as lawful At Tayyibaat (i.e. all good and lawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons and foods), and prohibits them as unlawful Al Khabaa’ith (i.e. all evil and unlawful as regards things, deeds, beliefs, persons and foods)” [al-A’raaf 7:157 – interpretation of the meaning]
Al-Tabari said in his Tafseer: “ The phrase ‘blood poured forth’ means blood that flows copiously. This is how Allaah described the blood when He told His slaves that it is haraam. ‘Ikrimah said: were it not for this aayah, the Muslims would have gone to extremes in avoiding the blood that remains in the veins as the Jews do. Al-Maawardi said that with regard to blood that is not ‘poured forth’, if it has solidified in the veins, as in the liver and spleen, then it is halaal, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Two kinds of dead meat and two kinds of blood have been permitted to us…”
The reason why the blood that is “poured forth” is forbidden to us is because of the information that has become well known and well established nowadays among the doctors and those who carry out medical tests and study microscopic creatures, which is that blood is considered to be the optimum environment for the growth of germs. So if a person drinks blood it is as if he has drunk a “farm” for growing germs, in which the germs can multiply and grow, producing lethal poisons which, as is well known, have extremely harmful effects which result in germs invading the human body resulting in the person contracting contagious and lethal diseases.
If it is said that cooking the blood and eating it will surely kill these bacteria and microbes and put an end to them whilst preserving the hoped-for nutritional benefits of the blood, our answer is that some of these toxins cannot be altered by boiling and changed in such a manner that they become beneficial to the body. There are some that do not change at all, rather they remain lethal poisons even after being boiled, or the heat may alter them in such a way that they become even more lethal and harmful.
With regard to the benefits expected by the one who drinks blood thinking that it is a nutritious substance that strengthens the body, these benefits are non-existent, if we examine the composition of blood. Blood is very difficult to digest, so much so that if some of it is poured into a man’s stomach, he will vomit immediately, or it will come out in his stools without having been digested, in the form of a black substance. The reason why it is so hard to digest and it turns the stools black is the presence of the red substance (haemoglobin) which is basically formed of iron. As the blood passes through the digestive tract and as time passes, it starts to disintegrate and break down, and thus it also harms the body. If it were said that cooking also helps to break down the components of blood and make it easier to digest and benefit from its nutritional value, our answer is that boiling solidifies the proteins in the blood and makes it even more difficult to digest, more harmful and less beneficial.
After hundreds of scientific experiments and huge advancements in modern science, carrying out blood tests and precise scientific research in this field, it has become indisputably clear to all those who are concerned with human health of all nationalities and specialties that the great harm done to health by eating blood or cooking it and using it all boil down to the fact that drinking blood is ingesting a lethal poison. This is clear from the following scientific facts:
1 – Blood is basically composed of two basic elements, namely water which represents 90% of the liquid in which the components of blood swim (which is known as plasma). The rest is formed of blood cells and other elements. The one who wants to drink blood or cook it and eat it does so because he wants to consume something with a high or regular nutritional value. But these scientific facts prove that he would have to drink such a huge amount of blood in order to avail himself of a small amount of blood protein and a little bit of iron that it is not worth the risk of exposing himself to the dangers that result from that.
In brief, blood is the opposite of what people think, it is very poor in nutritional values. Therefore the fact that it is forbidden does not mean that the Muslims are being deprived of any major nutritional benefit.
2 – Major harm may result from this small amount of blood protein mixed with very harmful and poisonous elements, which means that ingesting it poses a great risk and puts a person in danger. Foremost among these dangers is the poisonous gas with which blood is filled, namely carbon dioxide which flows in venous blood from all parts of the body.
Because the one who drinks blood takes it from the animal when it is full of carbon dioxide, which is a gas that kills by asphyxiation. When a person dies of asphyxiation, it is because of the accumulation of this gas in his blood, the lethal effects of which result in death. So it is obvious that repeatedly drinking blood which is filled with carbon dioxide, on the part of one who is accustomed to this practice, will lead to harmful results depending on the extent to which this gas is present in the animal’s blood and the extent to which the body of the drinker is susceptible to it.
What we have mentioned here are only the effects that result from the components of blood on the one who drinks it or eats it after cooking it. We have also mentioned other extremely harmful effects which are directly connected to the specific functions that Allaah has created in blood and the roles that it plays in the animal’s body, functions that cannot be performed unless the blood is in a liquid, flowing state. If we were to content ourselves with the above bad effects of using blood for food, that would be sufficient to make any nation that appreciates knowledge to promulgate laws banning this practice, even if that nation was kaafir.
“He grants Hikmah [wisdom] to whom He wills, and he, to whom Hikmah is granted, is indeed granted abundant good. But none remember (will receive admonition) except men of understanding” [al-Baqarah 2:269 – interpretation of the meaning]
Glory be to the One Who taught the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that which he did not know and bestowed that blessing upon him. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah has sent down to you the book (the Qur’aan), and Al Hikmah (Islamic laws, knowledge of legal and illegal things, i.e. the Prophet’s Sunnah — legal ways), and taught you that which you knew not. And Ever Great is the Grace of Allaah unto you (O Muhammad)”[al-Nisa’ 4:113]
Glory be to the One Who honoured the world with this true religion which has not left any major or minor matter without explaining to mankind the right way and the straight path. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Indeed, there has come to you from Allaah a light (Prophet Muhammad) and a plain Book (this Qur’aan).
6. Wherewith Allaah guides all those who seek His Good Pleasure to ways of peace, and He brings them out of darkness by His Will unto light and guides them to the Straight Way (Islamic Monotheism)” [al-Maa’idah 5:15-16]
Prepared by Professor Dr. Tawfeeq ‘Alwaan, Majallat al-Da’wah0 -
Tawfeeq ‘Alwaan wrote: »The phrase ‘blood poured forth’ means blood that flows copiously. This is how Allaah described the blood when He told His slaves that it is haraam. ‘Ikrimah said: were it not for this aayah, the Muslims would have gone to extremes in avoiding the blood that remains in the veins as the Jews do.
This actually clears up my line of questioning... The Koran translation I referenced stipulated that all "blood" was forbidden, but many other translations seem to stipulate that only the "blood that pours forth" is forbidden, i.e. the blood that pours out of an animal is forbidden.. Which is fair enough, and I'd agree that back in the 800's in the searing desert heat such a fluid could easily become septic and transform into quite the toxic cocktail. Thus making it an obvious inclusion in the Koran as Mohammed's community would have been well aware of dangers of eating such a foodstuff...
This does bring into question the need for the cruel throat slitting ceremony that occurs during halal slaughter, as bleeding an animal to death seems to have no Koranic basis and only a cultural one..
Indeed I do.. Black Pudding is quite the Irish delicacy, tis made primarily from the "blood that pours forth" out of a pig, so quite the harem foodstuff from your perspective but exceedingly tasty....Do you like consuming blood as a food stuff?! The verse's interpretation from some of the knowledgeable interpreters is like this: 0 -
You can check on google or in Islamic books about the cruelty of slaughtering. i.e.:...This does bring into question the need for the cruel throat slitting ceremony that occurs during halal slaughter, as bleeding an animal to death seems to have no Koranic basis and only a cultural one...
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/14022
It's actually not that cruel at all. It seems that way to us, but it's actually the other ways of killing an animal that is more painful for the animal. Again, I'm not an expert in Islamic slaughtering but I've read many articles about it, even from Western sources, that say it's normal. There are vegetarians that think killing an animal is cruel full stop; but you can't please everybody. I don't disagree with them but I think we should just live and let live instead of criticizing what people do or don't do. And that goes for every extremist...0 -
i know that muslims and jews drain the blood from living animals before eating-and i understand the muslim /jewish reason -but why do they both still except blood transfusions ?--i know that jehovahs witness drink and eat blood but will not exept a blood transfusion -its all very confusing0
-
AFAIR it is allowed for medical reasons only where the patient needs the blood. You can't sell the blood, be forced to give blood under duress or at risk to your own life.
Saving another persons life is more important then eating the blood of animals I guess.0 -
-
Our universe and all that it contains is the creation of Allah, the Wise. He has created every thing with a purpose and to achieve that purpose He has provided all necessary guidance and means. He has created man in His own image and has made him the chief of His creation. Both good and bad have been made manifestly clear to man. He has also been blessed with wisdom by which he can find out the right path, can sift right from wrong and truth from falsehood. The Holy Quran tells us that man has been endowed with both spiritual and physical eyes by which he can distinguish good from evil and has been given a tongue and two lips that he might ask for guidance, and above all God has placed before him a supreme object of his life that he may devote all his faculties and energies to achieve it.
Man has been granted the choice of both selection and action. Hence he is the master of his own destiny.
To achieve the object of life, God, out of His benevolence raises prophets, who serve as models. These prophets have been appearing in every people and in all parts of the world. Their mission has always been to guide mankind to its Creator, through their example and model. The guidance revealed through each prophet was designed to cater for the specific needs of the time and location; hence they were essentially temporary in nature. With the advancement and maturity of mankind God sent advanced and matured teachings suitable to their time. God�s guidance for human race commenced through Adam (peace be upon him) and reached the zenith through Mohammed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). God says,�This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed my favor upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion.� (5:4)Thus the revelation of Law, or Shariah, was perfected and completed by Islam.
According to one saying of the prophet Mohammed the number of prophets who were chosen to convey the message of God to mankind is 124,000. The names of all of them are not mentioned anywhere. However the Holy Quran states in very clear words,�There are no people (in the world) to whom We have not sent a Warner.� (35:25)It also mentions the following twenty-eight prophets by name: Adam (peace be upon him), Noah (peace be upon him), Abraham (peace be upon him), Lot (peace be upon him), Ishmael (peace be upon him), Isaac (peace be upon him), Jacob (peace be upon him), Joseph (peace be upon him), Hud (peace be upon him), Salih (peace be upon him), Shuaib (peace be upon him), Moses (peace be upon him), Aaron (peace be upon him), David (peace be upon him), Solomon (peace be upon him), Elias (Elijah) (peace be upon him), Jonah (peace be upon him), Ezekiel (Dhul-Kifl) (peace be upon him), Elisha (Alyasa) (peace be upon him), Idris (Enoch) (peace be upon him) (19:57), Job (peace be upon him) (4:164), Zechariah (peace be upon him) (19:3), John (Yahya) (peace be upon him) (3:40), Jesus (peace be upon him) (3:46), Luqman(peace be upon him) (31:13), Ezra (peace be upon him) (9:30), Dhul-Qarnain (peace be upon him) (18:84), Mohammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) (48:30).
Belief in all the prophets and their messages is an integral part of the belief of every Muslim. The Holy Quran states,�This messenger of Ours believes in that which has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers; all of them believe in Allah, and in His angels, and in His Books, and in His Messengers, saying, �We make no distinction between any of His Messengers.� (2: 286).In peophethood all are equal but their ranks are different as is clear from the following verse of the Holy Quran,These Messengers have We exalted some of them above others; among them there are those whom Allah spoke; and some of them He exalted in degrees of rank...� (2:254).So Wherever and to whichever people prophets have been sent, they are our (Muslims) prophets as well, and we hold them in great reverence. In the following pages a brief history of a few of them is given for the benefit of the reader.0 -
Advertisement
-
http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/new/THE_EXPANDING_UNIVERSE.pdf
Chew on this and then get back to me bro!
Yusuf0
Advertisement