Religion and Islam

[El_Machinae]

Oops, Fachy, it looks like the bulk of the work to give Islam a good name will have to rest on your shoulders!

First off, and this may shock many of you, but I myself am NOT Muslim.

You refer to God as "the Islamic God." Whether you believe it or not, Muslims are praying to the same God you have, we simply reject that Jesus is divine/God himself, and the concept of the Holy Spirit as also being a part of God.

 

[Stacmon]

If the above is trying to make me seem inconsistent, you won't have much success.

You don't have to be a Muslim to question the divinity of Jesus Christ.

In my case, the reason things are so complicated is that I have a Muslim father, and a Russian Orthodox mother. I myself am officially Russian Orthodox, but I am extremely skeptical about the argument that Jesus was divine and is the same as God Himself.

When I said we I referred to Muslims and myself included. In every other post I've made, I've managed to remember to distance myself from Islam by speaking about it in the third person, as in:

"Muslims believe this..."

or "In Islam..."

Also, one does not have to be a Muslim to make arguments that favour Islam. Anything I say is fact checked or common knowledge to most Muslims. If you want to bring something specific into dispute, please do, but I don't appreciate the suggestion that I can't make constructive comments regarding Islam unless I'm a Muslim :/

Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sure, if you're not Muslim, just tell me that you don't believe that Muhammed was God's prophet. I'll believe you.

 

[Stacmon]

Forgive me for pointing out your inconsistency, like I say elsewhere, if you're not Muslim, I'll believe you if you specifically tell me that you don't believe Mohammed is God's prophet.

I can tell you this much, and I don't know if it'll be enough to convince you of my sincerity. Although I am not willing to categorically say that I believe Muhammad (pbuh) was not a prophet, I can in all honesty say that I am not convinced that he is. If I was convinced, I would have converted to Islam on the spot, and my greatest worry in this "quest for religious truth" is that I'll never be fully convinced of anything.

What I can say though, is that thus far, I've seen the strongest case made for Islam (at least a stronger case than the one I've seen made for Christianity or any other major religion). Another religion that I've looked into is the Baha'i Faith, but there are certain reasons I'm skeptical of it as well.

The 'Science in the Qur'an' movement has a horrible reputation, and the people who most push it seem to be very dishonest. Of course there are true believing converts to the idea, but there are others who're patently pushing an agenda.

I agree that some people are overzealous in their attempts to convince people about the truth of Islam. The problem is, even if a person feels that they are justified in misleading people to gain converts, it is better not to include a convincing lie, in case it is discovered, as that will immediately harden people's hearts and make them extremely skeptical of what you say (even though they should be anyhow!)

That being said, although some people take the "Science in the Qur'an" theme too far, there are many so-called Signs in the Qur'an that are quite interesting, and simply astounding (like the mentioned Chromosome one). In addition to this, there are many others, but I agree with you that a problem arises when people start taking greater and greater liberty when reading or interpreting verses. I myself have read some of the "so-called" scientific miracles and have found some to be over-hyped, or otherwise weak. Nevertheless, those that I find genuinely thought provoking are well worth weeding through the more ambiguous ones.

I don't think it's a red herring. You're assuming something to be significant when it could easily be coincidence. A pattern is required to show that something is done intentionally, that there are hidden truths that are more significant than 'lucky'.

It is hard to make the case that man appearing 23 times and woman appearing 23 times, both adding up to a total of 46 could be mere coincidence. If it is simple coincidence, why for instance was it those two words of all the words in the Arabic language? Of all the possible number of instances that each word could appear, why 23? Why are they both the same? And why do the two of them add up to 46?

Now, I agree with you that however unlikely it is, there is a possibility that this was just a major fluke. The problem with that argument however is that this isn't the single such "sign" found in the Qur'an. As I mentioned above, there are several really amazing things in terms of scientific, mathematical and prophetic "miracles."

The odds of your 'revelation' are not really all that impressive. And the fact that further revelation is not revealed using the same technique is not all that impressive. It also woefully misses the point that some people have more than 46 chromosomes; you'd think revelation on that would be useful if we're going to condemn homosexual behaviour!

This is a weak argument. Although it's true that in rare cases, a person may have more chromosomes, that is a genetic aberration and in the majority of cases, the human being suffers from mental or physical handicaps. We're talking here about a general, or average human being, the one that represents the vast majority of us out there.

In fact, including a hidden message about human chromosomes and not including a hidden message about pigs seems to be ... well ... looking for criticism. The author should have included a final verse, repeating "swine" 33 more times.

The book is a message to humanity. Suggesting that there needs to be a pattern in every single word, mammal or animal used in the Qur'an simply asks too much. Remember, despite containing certain signs, the Qur'an is meant as a guide to life, and it would fail to achieve this purpose if it was filled with nothing but signs .

Where's your (pbuh) after Joseph Smith?

This is a fair question with a straightforward answer. I have never seen Mormons use "Peace and Blessings be upon him" when referring to their Prophet Joseph Smith. pbuh is a translation of an Arabic phrase that pretty much always follows the name of Muhammad (pbuh) when it's mentioned. If Mormons did follow up their references regarding Joseph Smith with something similar, I would likely use it as well (as long as it wasn't disrespectful to them - that a non-Mormon does it).

To be completely honest though, I see a more convincing argument thus far for the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) than I see for Joseph Smith, with all due respect to Mormons on these forums, especially you Eran! The problem is, that the two are mutually exclusive.

Since Muhammad's (pbuh) revelation came before Joseph Smith's, and Joseph Smith's doesn't incorporate it, you can only believe one or the other. Also, Muslims believe that Muhammad (pbuh) is the seal of the prophets (generally agreed to mean last).

Putatively, Satan knows how many chromosomes you have too.

This could potentially be a strong argument. The problem here though is that it can apply not only to Islam but to any other religion.

For instance, using the same reasoning, one could argue that Satan mislead the early Christians into adopting a trinitarian doctrine, when they assigned divinity to the humble prophet Jesus (pbuh). The concept of Original Sin, and an atoning sacrifice of God himself was completely foreign to the Judaism from which this notion sprung. Furthermore, keeping the same train of thought, it could be argued that the revelation represented by the Qur'an was sent down to set people back upon the straight path, and lead them away from "associating partners with God (Allah)."

In other words, you could say that Satan is potentially responsible for anything (using your assumptions about him). In the Qur'an however, as a Jinn, he is no equal to God and is only able to do what God permits.

That leads me to another question, direct at you El_Machinae, and any other Christians here.

Is the Satan that you recognize considered to be an equal power compared to God? In other words, can he do things independent of God, without God's approval?

I'll mention one last thing regarded your accusing me of being a "Muslim in disguise", El_Machinae. I can guarantee you that if I had steadfast faith in the Qur'an and Muhammad (pbuh), I would never pretend to be Christian, or announce myself to be a Non-Muslim. Beyond that fact, I also don't lie and believe that a person's word has value, as long as they have a strong and dependable character.

Hopefully I've put your fears to rest, and if I haven't, that's not my purpose with this thread .

 

[Fachy]

I think that the Qur'an is rather explicit on the fact that Jesus is not God's son.

But it's not explicit about the type of flood

There are no details given regarding Abraham's colour.

Just like there are no details about the flood's size

You're really, really ignoring the fact that the description of "Global" is not required when discussing the Flood, because it's implicit in the description.

?

There is also no need to say that Godzilla is tall. If you speak of a historical Godzilla, all statements about his actual existence are false, unless you clarify about the status of Godzilla as NOT a giant radioactive lizard..

If you put words into someone's mouth and attempt to prove him contradicting himself, like asking him "how could you say Godzilla cannot crush a human, when he is 50 meters tall?", he can very well answer "I did not mean Godzilla in the movie, but rather another Godzilla"

Simply speaking: I'm not responsible for the bible's story. Please act like the bible never said anything! The Qor'an speaks of a flood, and it's not our business that the bible mentions correct or incorrect facts about the flood, period.

You're making a mistake ignoring Mott1. He's very nice and clever. You might disagree with him (I have), but he's honest in his attempt to pursue truth.

I don't need to rise my blood pressure 300% and read blasphemy and rudeness towards my God, religion, and prophet... there are other ways to be "nice, clever, and honest", among those is the very simple rule of not offending the person you're debating with (unless you want to offend him so he'd be gone so you won't have to answer his valid points )

The animals migrated there at a time all the continents were connected (or maybe migrated when they were closer together)(So much for mountains preventing the Earth from moving). Humans arrived in North America millions of years later, and have been there for at least 10 thousand years.

A flood would have killed all those animals, with no ability for them to migrate back over.

No, you didn't get what I'm saying: I'm asking where did they originally come from?? Like, they originated from Africa? Fine, how did they "originate" in Africa then? If "evolution created them" in Africa, why can't it in America? And pleeeeeeease no more talking about this because I couldn't care less whether the flood was global or local!(except for plain curiousity) The Qor'an doesn't explicity say, and we're not held responsible for what the bible say. The Qor'an doesn't say "the flood, which was mentioned in the bible, drowned the heathens" for example!

Well, it's potential evidence that the man Moses interacted with was drowned, it does not have anything to do with the Flood. I have no reason to think that the Jews weren't freed by Moses.

Who said anything about the flood dude????????????????????? That's ANOTHER ISSUE I'm talking about!

Can you tell me where in the Qur'an it says that the meaning of the language (in the Qur'an) will change for each generation?

Oh you're right! So when the Qor'an uses bi-meaning words, which afterwards prove to hint to scientific facts discovered centuries later, that means nothing! Because the Qor'an doesn't say that the meanings of the words would change! Perfect logic!!!!

Tell you what, which is your favourite one? I'll examine that one in detail. Either that, or I'll refute one in detail and assume that as a model.

Nope. I do my best answering all your doubts, and it's fair that you do the same. Besides, assume my "wishful thinking" made me illude that one of them is a miracle, when it's not, doesn't render all of them invalid. So it's a must to confute each and every one of them

That comment was focused at Stacmon, who lives in Canada. Our society finds it sick to engage in sexual relations with a 13 year old child, especially if you're an older man in a position of authority over her parents.

I don't know where in your laws does it differentiate between the guy being an older man, older woman, with authority or not, or even "slightly older". If an 18 yr old girl has sex with a 17 yr old boy then she "statutory raped" him!!! Anyway it's not my business, but our society also "finds it sick to be homosexual"!

Anyway, a 15 year old can have a bank account, drive, and marry in the West. He might need a parent to help him out to get the bank account or marriage. He can drive while supervised. And, of course, it's not unreasonable to restrict driving permissions.

I think not, but I don't know about the exact laws where you live...
Anyway even assuming that would be age-descrimination. Why does a 15 yr old needs parent supervision, when an 18 yr old doesn't? Not to mention orphans, who often have "guardians" (nothing compared to a real parent)

I'm going to guess it's never seen because you're assuming that it's a human (and sinful) trait? What are you basing that belief on?

Based on the statistic saying that 1 of each 10 men is gay (or bisexual), and I never saw any male gay pets, nor have we seen them on the TV news or zoology programs!

Seriously, punishing pedophiles is done to protect children against doing something that they may later regret, because they don't have enough information about the consequences of their actions.

Homosexual activity is done between consenting adults. I cannot see a good reason to punish it.

We're protecting gays from themselves too
You don't have any stronger reason to assume a 17 yr old can't make a decision, and that the law has the right to regulate his sexual actions, than me having the same over an 18 yr old (or a 40 yr old). If you're stopping the 17 yr old girl (or boy) from sleeping with an 18 (or 90) yr old man (or woman), why can't I do the same to an older person? That's where the West is hypocretical again: you go for democracy, till Hamas wins an election. You go for freedom, till you occupy a country and face resistence. You go for sexual liberty, till it tackles a point which you don't like, pffft

I have many opinions, on many topics. Are you referring to my belief in God? I'll have to break it down, because there are so many variants of god.

- I don't believe there's an afterlife. Being dead is the same nothingness that happened before I was born.

- I am agnostic on whether our visible universe was created intentionally. I don't see a reason to assume that it was a natural event, when it could have been a constructed event.

- I certainly don't believe that a putative creator intended for me to exist.

- I don't believe that there is a personification of goodness, for the same reason why I don't believe there's a personification of cubeness. As far as I can tell, both 'goodness' and 'cubeness' are theoretical constructs that need not exist except as an ideal (there is good evidence that nothing can be a perfect cube).

- I don't believe that there is a being that hears or responds to our prayers, and I certainly don't believe that any such being cares about us or is a source of morality. I believe that our spiritual response is a mental illusion that we learn how to do

Heck, you're so confused! That's why "Organized Religion" is my favorite civic . Moslems have a good answer to almost every point agnostics are confused about

I'm thinking of the "the Earth is laid out like a blanket" verse.

Where is it? It's probably a lousy translation issue (as usual)

You'll note, too, that I am not mentioning the verse that talks of the sun setting in a murky swamp.

Wow thank you, I would've been greatly embaressed if you did! But I wouldn't be so embaressed if you bothered to mention the whole verse

I'm still waiting for your refuting of my "alleged" miracles. I took the time to paste and explain them, I'm expecting the same from you. Btw, you can just say "I don't know how he knew that", which would be much fairer and more of a truth-seeker attitude than simply trying to prove anything I say is false, whether you actually think it's false or not

I don't think he's ignoring anything Machinae. Basically what he's saying is that the Qur'an doesn't specifically talk about a "Global" flood. Even though the Old Testament, New Testament, and earlier writings (ie: the Epic of Gilgamesh) considered this flood global, this could have simply been from the perspective of the writers. If there was a historic flooding of the Euphrates/Tigris rivers, it could certainly have seemed global.

Muslims argue that Jewish and Christian scriptures no longer accurately represent the revelation given to them by God. Therefore, just because you look at them now, see "global flood" and see a similar flood described in the Qur'an, you can not assume that it's "global" nature can be taken as given.

Your argument is basically that the Qur'an simply takes and perpetuates this story from earlier works. However, since we can clearly see that the flood is not described as Global in the Qur'an, it is possible that the Qur'an is describing a true, historic event and not simply alluding to one described by other sources (again, assuming it is the word of God).

I've been trying to explain this to him over like 3 posts now

Oops, Fachy, it looks like the bulk of the work to give Islam a good name will have to rest on your shoulders!

I was surprised when I found out he's not Moslem too. But first, I'm not finding that defending Islam or clearing facts is a burden. It's a pleasure for me, and a rewarding act as well. But more importantly, I'll quit the thread if I'm convinced that nobody here is objective (which I'm totally convinced with Mott1, half-convinced with you, and Stacmon & I exchanged emails anyway)

I can in all honesty say that I am not convinced that he is. If I was convinced, I would have converted to Islam on the spot, and my greatest worry in this "quest for religious truth" is that I'll never be fully convinced of anything.

What has Mohammad done which makes you think he's not a prophet? Or what has he been lacking which you think is necessary for a prophet to have?

 

[Hygro]

Based on the statistic saying that 1 of each 10 men is gay (or bisexual), and I never saw any male gay pets, nor have we seen them on the TV news or zoology programs!

But if there were animals that were exclusively homosexual, would you concede your point, or are you reaching for any reasoning to try to appeal to El_Machinae?

 

[Fachy]

It would simply prove that homosexuality is surely a natural phenomena, which one has no control over. Yet it wouldn't mean that God has no right to tell those people to suppress their desire, just like he told unmarried men (or married men, too) to suppress their desire towards other women

Or that your laws cannot "protect children for their own interest"

 

[El_Machinae]

You guys are fantastic , I'm having great fun. Sorry that I have to reply over many posts, in order to keep my posts as clear as I can.

I can tell you this much, and I don't know if it'll be enough to convince you of my sincerity. Although I am not willing to categorically say that I believe Muhammad (pbuh) was not a prophet, I can in all honesty say that I am not convinced that he is. If I was convinced, I would have converted to Islam on the spot, and my greatest worry in this "quest for religious truth" is that I'll never be fully convinced of anything.

If you recall, you were discussing Pascal's Wager previously. Your goal (it seems) is to avoid Hell or maybe enter Heaven. You're left with a dilemma, because you cannot simultaneously believe that Muhammed is a prophet, or give respect (i.e., "pbuh") to him, without being apostate to Christ. However, you cannot deny that Muhammed is a prophet without offending Allah.

You're left with a dilemma, especially if you started out as Christian - because both gods express great distaste for apostacy. It seems to me that either god will not punish you as severly for remaining Christian as they will for being apostate wrongly.

It's not the 'easier' wager of atheism vs. one of the gods, since you have to determine whether switching is appropriate and even logical.

What I can say though, is that thus far, I've seen the strongest case made for Islam (at least a stronger case than the one I've seen made for Christianity or any other major religion).

I would think that a decent case can be made that Christianity is a gentler and has a more reasonable morality. I'm not saying Christians are more moral, that would be stupid. I'm saying that the Christian morality is more reasonable. When it's abused and used to hurt people, it's obvious that it's being abused. It's easier to believe that Jesus certainly recommends much, much less violence on people. It's easier to see that Jesus recommends a less oppressive society. Christianity, much more than Islam, allows other people to be wrong. You can twist Scripture to present that Jesus endorses the death penalty, but you'd be deliberately misreading. It's pretty explicit that only the sinless should administer the death penalty, and maybe even not then (since He did not)

A very simple example is their different messages regarding the treatment of people who attack you. Pacifism vs. responsible violence. I for one, cannot imagine how someone can believe in Heaven and Hell and yet think it is moral to kill an evil person instead of letting them kill you. But this is a very detailed conversation we should have elsewhere. Surely if God wanted the murderer stopped, God could stop him? Surely it's better for someone to send you to Heaven than to send someone (to the best of your knowledge) to Hell? Love should stay your hand, for fear for the man's soul.

It is hard to make the case that man appearing 23 times and woman appearing 23 times, both adding up to a total of 46 could be mere coincidence. If it is simple coincidence, why for instance was it those two words of all the words in the Arabic language? Of all the possible number of instances that each word could appear, why 23? Why are they both the same? And why do the two of them add up to 46?

How large a fluke is it? Count all the nouns in the Qur'an, and determine the spread. Then determine the odds that two related nouns have a similar count number. I think you'd find that the 'odds' are much less impressive than the converted would have you believe.

Even a better question, how many other nouns appear 23 times?

Putatively, Satan knows how many chromosomes you have too

This could potentially be a strong argument. The problem here though is that it can apply not only to Islam but to any other religion.
...
In other words, you could say that Satan is potentially responsible for anything (using your assumptions about him). In the Qur'an however, as a Jinn, he is no equal to God and is only able to do what God permits.

You're using circular reasoning to submit that the devil didn't help write the Qur'an.

Actually, my argument is not a strong argument, it's a crap argument. A religion that allows people to be deceived by the devil into thinking it is god (through divine revelation) suffers so many logical fallacies that it makes my head spin. In the end (if a divine being exists), then divine revelation is all we have to determine if god exists or not. A moral god cannot allow his creation to be deceived in the only reliable arena they have of determining his existence. There is almost no logic or evidence that can disprove 'divine revelation' to someone, nothing by which the creation can save himself from deceit.

I'm not foolish enough to state that muslims don't receive religious feedback through their prayers.

Is the Satan that you recognize considered to be an equal power compared to God? In other words, can he do things independent of God, without God's approval?

Yes to your first question, and no to your second question.

I'll mention one last thing regarded your accusing me of being a "Muslim in disguise", El_Machinae. I can guarantee you that if I had steadfast faith in the Qur'an and Muhammad (pbuh), I would never pretend to be Christian, or announce myself to be a Non-Muslim.

I'll believe you. But you have no idea how many Muslim sockpuppets I've seen push the "Science in the Qur'an"

 

[Stacmon]

Rather than continuing this back and forth banter, I want to take a break and tackle something shocking I've just seen.

CenturionV has made some absolutely ridiculous comments in "The End of the War on Terror" thread we were both participating in.

Check out his responses to my original criticism of his post.

Here, you'll find my reaction to those responses.

 

[El_Machinae]

But it's not explicit about the type of flood
Just like there are no details about the flood's size

"waves like mountains"
"pairs of EVERY animal type went into the ark"

Are there Hadith explaining why pairs of EVERY animal type went into the ark?

No, you didn't get what I'm saying: I'm asking where did they originally come from?? Like, they originated from Africa? Fine, how did they "originate" in Africa then? If "evolution created them" in Africa, why can't it in America?

I don't think you really understand natural history, which is not really a surprise. You should give it some study, it's very interesting and enlightening.

Animals originated in the main continent. They migrated throughout it. Certain species were carried away while North and South America drifted away from the main body.

The Americas were greatly separated from the rest by the time humans migrated there.

Oh you're right! So when the Qor'an uses bi-meaning words, which afterwards prove to hint to scientific facts discovered centuries later, that means nothing! Because the Qor'an doesn't say that the meanings of the words would change! Perfect logic!!!!

I don't think that the words were bi-meaning when the Qur'an was written, right?

Why do you assume that the meanings in the Qur'an change? Why do you assume that Allah meant more than one thing? I don't understand that. If I were to use the modern meanings of words when reading an ancient text, it would not make sense and not be interpreted as the author intended.

I understand that the words change. I don't understand why you think the message in the Qur'an changes to fit the times.

I think I'm not understanding your point. Could you please give an example where a word change revealed an amazing scientific fact? And why ignore examples where a word change made a Qur'anic statement false?

Nope. I do my best answering all your doubts, and it's fair that you do the same. Besides, assume my "wishful thinking" made me illude that one of them is a miracle, when it's not, doesn't render all of them invalid. So it's a must to confute each and every one of them

I know that seems to be the logical position - it very well might be if I was utterly determined to determining if there is truth in the Qur'an. I'm not. At that point, it becomes very tiring to refute one after another.

If I were to present a dozen apparently coincidental 'miracles' in the episodes of Bugs Bunny, and demanded you refute each in turn, you would fatigue too. It's not a reasonable request for me to go through each one.

But, just for fun, I'll do one.

21:30
"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?"

You alledge that it's talking about the Big Bang. I'll bite.

Good golly, it's describing the Big Bang! It's talking about the singularity being cleaved and then matter resulting! Let's see if I can find support for that ...

21:32
"And We have made the heaven a guarded canopy and (yet) they turn aside from its signs."

Okay, so the heavens are the stars, or contain the stars ("signs" being astral portents, they have to be visible to 'them' (people)). That works, if we put it into verse 30, because originally the progenitor material of all the stars and the earth were one thing. Certainly works within the Big Bang Theory.

Let's look for more! I recommend looking at the book on the creation. Remember, to believe that 30 is referring to the big bang, I have to believe that "heavens" means the stars (or what was before the stars, or what's in space) and that the "earth" means ... earth. Okay.

41:09
"Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds."

Looks good, I expected no less!

41:10
"And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers"

Okay, then he made the mountains, and even let stuff grow on it for 'four' periods. Why, that even fits with the theory of evolution, where we had life on the planet before humans were here.

So now, if we try to read into the text, we see that natural history is in fact confirmed. I'm able to read in information that Muhammed couldn't possibly have known!

41:11
"Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly."

Well, you could certainly describe the early heavens as a 'vapor', before there were stars. And he did form the earth out of star stuff. It's reasonable that he was calling the Earth, knowing that it would exist later. Erm, but you have a big problem, because we already know that the Earth existed WELL after the stars were merely 'vapor'. In fact, there's no way to say that the earth existed while the stars were vapor. Why is it saying the stars were vapor AFTER the earth was formed?

41:12
"So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing."

Well, now it's just off and wrong. The stars actually came before earth. The text clearly claims that the earth was formed before the stars. And what's with this 'seven heavens' bit? And the 'two periods' doesn't fit with the time frame hinted at above, with the mountains and life (yes, I know that elsewhere we're told that Allah cannot describe time accurately, let's ignore that error then)

Okay, here's the problem El_Machinae has. My reading of this revelation, if I'm looking for an enlightenment of the big bang, runs into a horrible hiccup later on; because it gets the order of creation wrong (stars were not created after the earth was formed AND had hills on it!).

The other problem I have is that the creation story here is the same as the greek creation story (in essence; don't worry, they got it wrong too!). We already know that Muhammed drew from the greek tradition elsewhere. And, once I include the 'greek' hypothesis, the reference to the 'seven heavens' gets a little more easy to understand, because the Greeks thought of the 7 distinct astral bodies (sun, moon, and five visible planets) as types of heavens.

The 'mandate' of the seven heavens (mentioned in other translations of that verse) makes sense, too, if you think that the Qur'an is referring to the 7 astral bodies that the greeks liked, since the paths of the seven astral bodies are so predictable and stately and wildly diverging from all the other stars.

I think not, but I don't know about the exact laws where you live...

No, really, a fifteen year old can have a bank account (I had one at the age of 6). A fifteen year old can drive (if they have supervision). A fifteen year old can get married with parental consent or if there is a pregancy.

Anyway even assuming that would be age-descrimination. Why does a 15 yr old needs parent supervision, when an 18 yr old doesn't?

Yes, it's discriminatory. The number of accidents that people get into increase the younger the driver is. We've cut a line at 16 for simplicity. It's readily acknowledged as arbitrary, but it also has logic. There needs to be a limit on driving somewhere, we choose to base that limit on a combination of skill and age requirements.

That's where the West is hypocretical again: you go for democracy, till Hamas wins an election. You go for freedom, till you occupy a country and face resistence. You go for sexual liberty, till it tackles a point which you don't like, pffft

Please don't conflate me with the "West". I don't share many of the attributes that you despise with the "West".

I don't understand why you think that you have given a good reason why homosexual behaviour should be punished. Merely because we prevent sex elsewhere, does not mean it's best to prevent sex in other places.

Heck, you're so confused! That's why "Organized Religion" is my favorite civic . Moslems have a good answer to almost every point agnostics are confused about

I'm not confused. I'm undecided on certain topics, but we're undecided on many topics, especially when we don't have enough information and multiple options.

The problem with Islam, and their answers, is that I'm quite sure that some of their answers are wrong. And those are on the things that I know about. Why should I accept that Islam has answers on the unknowable?

 

[Fachy]

"waves like mountains"
"pairs of EVERY animal type went into the ark"

Are there Hadith explaining why pairs of EVERY animal type went into the ark?

huh? I didn't mean size as in "dimensions", I meant as in "extent" (area covered). And I don't know about the hadeeths

I don't think you really understand natural history, which is not really a surprise. You should give it some study, it's very interesting and enlightening.

Animals originated in the main continent. They migradeted throughout it. Certain species were carried away while North and South America drifted away from the main body.

The Americas were greatly separated from the rest by the time humans migrated there.

While it doesn't surprise me that you lack the imagination which enables you to depict animals originating again on places other than the "main continent"

I don't think that the words were bi-meaning when the Qur'an was written, right?

Yes they were, they are, and they will always. It's just that people interpreted them differently in different timing according to what they knew at that time.

I understand that the words change. I don't understand why you think the message in the Qur'an changes to fit the times.

Words don't change, interpretations do. And I assume that because it's too difficult to be a coinsidence that all these words just happen to fit modernly discovered facts. Could even a dogged person like you claim that the ratio of the words land-to-sea is a coinsidence?

Could you please give an example where a word change revealed an amazing scientific fact?

I already did on my post on page 5, I even used the Arabic words

And why ignore examples where a word change made a Qur'anic statement false?

Because a rule of thumb is that if the word carries 2 meanings, you cannot assume it's carrying the "contradicting meaning" as long as there's a way for the text to be consistent. If I said "I met John today" and said "I didn't meet John today", you should automatically assume that they're 2 Johns, unless you can prove otherwise.

I know that seems to be the logical position - it very well might be if I was utterly determined to determining if there is truth in the Qur'an. I'm not.

There you go, then what's the use of debating with someone who doesn't even care to know the truth? Let alone be objective in persuing it. You're just a joker (or a bored person wasting your time and mine for the sake of plain, pointless arguments)

At that point, it becomes very tiring to refute one after another.

If I were to present a dozen apparently coincidental 'miracles' in the episodes of Bugs Bunny, and demanded you refute each in turn, you would fatigue too. It's not a reasonable request for me to go through each one.

But, just for fun, I'll do one.

21:30
"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?"

You alledge that it's talking about the Big Bang. I'll bite.

Good golly, it's describing the Big Bang! It's talking about the singularity being cleaved and then matter resulting! Let's see if I can find support for that ...

21:32
"And We have made the heaven a guarded canopy and (yet) they turn aside from its signs."

Okay, so the heavens are the stars, or contain the stars ("signs" being astral portents, they have to be visible to 'them' (people)). That works, if we put it into verse 30, because originally the progenitor material of all the stars and the earth were one thing. Certainly works within the Big Bang Theory.

Let's look for more! I recommend looking at the book on the creation. Remember, to believe that 30 is referring to the big bang, I have to believe that "heavens" means the stars (or what was before the stars, or what's in space) and that the "earth" means ... earth. Okay.

41:09
"Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds."

Looks good, I expected no less!

41:10
"And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers"

Okay, then he made the mountains, and even let stuff grow on it for 'four' periods. Why, that even fits with the theory of evolution, where we had life on the planet before humans were here.

So now, if we try to read into the text, we see that natural history is in fact confirmed. I'm able to read in information that Muhammed couldn't possibly have known!

41:11
"Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly."

Well, you could certainly describe the early heavens as a 'vapor', before there were stars. And he did form the earth out of star stuff. It's reasonable that he was calling the Earth, knowing that it would exist later. Erm, but you have a big problem, because we already know that the Earth existed WELL after the stars were merely 'vapor'. In fact, there's no way to say that the earth existed while the stars were vapor. Why is it saying the stars were vapor AFTER the earth was formed?

41:12
"So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing."

Well, now it's just off and wrong. The stars actually came before earth. The text clearly claims that the earth was formed before the stars. And what's with this 'seven heavens' bit? And the 'two periods' doesn't fit with the time frame hinted at above, with the mountains and life (yes, I know that elsewhere we're told that Allah cannot describe time accurately, let's ignore that error then)

Okay, here's the problem El_Machinae has. My reading of this revelation, if I'm looking for an enlightenment of the big bang, runs into a horrible hiccup later on; because it gets the order of creation wrong (stars were not created after the earth was formed AND had hills on it!).

The other problem I have is that the creation story here is the same as the greek creation story (in essence; don't worry, they got it wrong too!). We already know that Muhammed drew from the greek tradition elsewhere. And, once I include the 'greek' hypothesis, the reference to the 'seven heavens' gets a little more easy to understand, because the Greeks thought of the 7 distinct astral bodies (sun, moon, and five visible planets) as types of heavens.

The 'mandate' of the seven heavens (mentioned in other translations of that verse) makes sense, too, if you think that the Qur'an is referring to the 7 astral bodies that the greeks liked, since the paths of the seven astral bodies are so predictable and stately and wildly diverging from all the other stars.

No point of continuing in this debate after what you've said....

I don't understand why you think that you have given a good reason why homosexual behaviour should be punished. Merely because we prevent sex elsewhere, does not mean it's best to prevent sex in other places

I clarified my reasons when I said:
We're protecting gays from themselves too
You don't have any stronger reason to assume a 17 yr old can't make a decision, and that the law has the right to regulate his sexual actions, than me having the same over an 18 yr old (or a 40 yr old). If you're stopping the 17 yr old girl (or boy) from sleeping with an 18 (or 90) yr old man (or woman), why can't I do the same to an older person?

And, as usual, you didn't answer my question here too!

Why should I accept that Islam has answers on the unknowable?

Don't bother buddy, it's only a matter of time

 

[Hygro]

It would simply prove that homosexuality is surely a natural phenomena, which one has no control over. Yet it wouldn't mean that God has no right to tell those people to suppress their desire, just like he told unmarried men (or married men, too) to suppress their desire towards other women

So that should be your argument, because http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html

 

[Fachy]

Amazing!!!!!

Well, the only good deduction from that article is Gays have survived Darwinian selection, Nazis, the dulling effects of Will & Grace. I don't think a little patch would ever keep some rams from wanting other rams. which, in my opinion, proves that homosexuality is a "disease" or a "mutation", just like potency. All potent and gay men are born off non-gay and non-potent fathers, so it must be a disease, KILL THE MUTANTS! (then wait till more mutants come, so we could kill them too )

 

[Ursinho]

Messy subject, this "homosexuality." (And religion, certainly.) As far as I know, as observed in monkeys (and it has been), it's been a social construct, based on power and dominance, rather than a sexual one.

<devil's advocate>Of course monkeys are not subject to God's laws, unless I'm missing something. So who cares what they do? </devil's advocate>

 

[Fachy]

*Falling for the bait of devil's advocate* grrrrr shut up, all these are HEATHEN RUMORS to justify your obscene acts grrr

(Was that good? )

What's interesting though, is that it's your first post here, and you skipped all the normal stuff a civ fan would be normally interested in, and directly came to this thread

I think you're one of the people actively posting here but undercover: matt, stacmon, or el_machine (or me! )

 

[Mott1]

To clarify, what I said in the quote that appeared in your post was that I am mainly interested in discussing the Qur'an. I do not suggest that we dismiss or ignore the Sunnah/Hadith, I am simply saying that they don't have the same theological significance and infallibility that the Qur'an does.

For instance, a new discovery that unequivocally discredited and disputed one part of the Sunnah that was earlier regarded as completely accurate would cause Muslims to reevaluate one part of their religion, and adjust their practice to take the new information into account.

However, the discovery of such a glaring inaccuracy in the Qur'an would not cause Muslims to "reform"/"change" their religion, it would cause them to lose complete faith in the Qur'an and Islam.

There is no disagreement here. You have affirmed what I have previously stated. So what is your problem with referencing the verses of the Quran to the authentic hadith? the hadith I have employed do not contradict the Quran. I can't see how you can have a meaningful discussion on the Quran without referencing the hadith. You state that when sound arguments are made against the legitimacy of the Quran, "a counter argument can often be found which explains the perceived problem." What sources do you employ to counter or explain away the arguments that initially challenged the Quran? They are derived from the same sources, the hadith. You can not use the hadith to support your position and at the same time dismiss opposing arguments based on the same hadith by appealing to source fallibilty. It just doesn't make sense. You either recognise the credibilty of the authentic hadith or you don't, which is it?

Having said this, I asked legitmate questions concerning a "Quran only" discussion which you have neglected to address. If we are to discuss verses or passages in the Quran without context to the hadith, on what basis do we establish constructive dialogue? as was stated, despite its claim to being a clear book and easy to understand, on the contrary the Quran is obtuse and very obscure.
For example verse 8:55 states:

"Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve."

To me this verse calls me "the vilest of all animals," you became offended because I refered to Allah as Muhammds sock puppet, now just imagine how I feel when Allah calls me a "vile animal"! I would never call you or anyone else here a vile animal. This is hate speech and perpetrated by none other than God. Now you will say that I am wrong in my interpretation, well tell me what is the proper context of the verse and how will you validate it?

Many non-Muslims have advanced arguments that they feel cause this level of doubt. To date, I (personally) have not seen an argument that is sound enough to destroy whatever believe I am developing in Islam.

El Mac and I have presented a number of valid arguments that challenge the legitimacy of the Quran which you have tactically avoided. Allow me the present the argument we were discussing previously:

Is there no compulsion in religion according to the Quran?

You claim there is no compulsion in religion with which you present verse 2:256 "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things,"
I have listed verses that contradict verse 2:256. Verses 9:3, 9:5, 9:29, 8:39 and 3:85 seem to conflict with the former. You cannot expect us to accept an argument formulated on the "no compulsion in religion" imperative until you can logically explain this clear discrepancy. Furthermore if you are genuinely committed to finding "the truth in religion" then it is in your best interest to address this contention.

Lets examine verses:

9.5 "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. "

and

9.29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Clearly there is a contradiction between verse 2:256 and verses 9.5, 9.29. The latter two verses are confirmed by numerous hadith as indicated in Sahih Muslim:

IMAN, Chapter 9:
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that he heard the Messenger of Allah say: I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought. And when they do it, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

You have stated that you "have not seen an argument that is sound enough to destroy whatever believe I am developing in Islam," so I assume you can logically explain this contradiction in the Quran.

I understand what you're trying to say, and on one level I agree with you. In a liberal democracy, you may have the right to practice as you wish, and should you choose to change back to your previous beliefs and position, you have that freedom. I say may because many of your so-called "Liberal democracies" are now infringing on their own clearly defined religious freedoms. Muslim women for example are forbidden to wear Hijab/Niqab/Burqas, and this may mean choosing between an education and practicing your religion as you believe it. This is an example of the "tyranny of the majority" that many people have tried to associate Islam with.

Now, I would say that I did understand what you were describing in your earlier post. What I'm saying, and I feel many people agree with me, is that if I believe in Islam to be the true religion, then I would not only abstain from drinking alcohol, I would seek to make it illegal, so that even if I was tempted, I wouldn't be able to consume it. This is similar to the way that conservative Christians seek to make abortion illegal. They try to reform their "Liberal Democracy" to be consistent with their religious views. It's not simply that they decide not to do abortions themselves, rather they want to change the law to make it completely forbidden.

What we're basically talking about is replacing "Secular, Liberal Democracy" with something that people want more. If a democracy is supposed to represent the people, and let's say that the people's values coincide with Qur'anic values, then that society's laws and regulations will be modified accordingly

El Mac's rebuttal to the above reflects my own thoughts, I assume you found it satisfactory? Just to respond to your accusation of "so-called" Liberal democracies infringing on defined religious freedoms. First I can't understand how you can criticise a Liberal democracy for its supposed lack of freedoms when you yourself are promoting a government that by its very principle is illiberal. Which do you support Liberalism or Totalitarian? I assume you are speaking of France or Great Britain with regard to the restriction of religious practice "imposed" on Islam. You describe this as an example of the "tyranny of the majority." I am sure you are aware that in both countries the law applies to all religions equally, not just Islam. You cannot discuss religious freedom in context to your own religiously held views and expect them to appeal to me when we do not share the same understanding of freedom. Where you see examples of the "tyranny of the majority" in these countries, I see the opposite. I see a certain minority group demanding certan rights that the majority do not possess, rights that conflict with the very laws of liberal society. And they do this by employing the very laws that they oppose.

 

[Mott1]

...Mott1. He's very nice

Hey thanks! that is perhaps the first time someone called me nice on a public forum.
Maybe its because I frequent forums were my views are generally regarded as 'blasphemous' and 'insulting'.

 

[Stacmon]

@ Mott/El_Machinae: Some of your arguments are decent, and I'd like to reply to them, but I'm finding that I'm getting a bit "addicted" to trolling this post and writing long answers. This has started taking up a lot of time and I have to start reigning myself in.

Also, there's no place where I'm deliberately trying to avoid responding to individual points. I may have forgotten to tackle something (usually because there are more glaring points to cover) or my answer may not have been sufficient, or completely clear in your eyes. In any case, if you bring up the matter again, I'll try to address it.

For now, I'm going to take a bit of a break. I've enjoyed the discussion thus far, and probably the most significant thing that I myself have learned comes from Eran --- who in another post mentioned that Mormons consider the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit three separate, divine beings, which he confirmed for me in this post. That actually shocked me to the core, and aside from all other discussion, I had no idea that Mormons believe that. He even admitted that it makes them unquestionably polytheistic, though not in the traditional (idolatrous) sense :O!

Anyway, I'm going to go work out at the gym soon, hopefully I'll find my way back and will find a way to be part of this discussion without trying to reply to every single point that people make, which takes a LONG time!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So your biggest benefit from this thread has been learning LDS doctrine? That's CFC for you.

 

[El_Machinae]

While it doesn't surprise me that you lack the imagination which enables you to depict animals originating again on places other than the "main continent"

Please forgive me, because I have no idea what knowledge base you're working off of.

I certainly have enough imagination to come up with ways for animals to get back onto South America after a flood wiped them out. Each of those imaginations would then suggest plausible evidence to look for. None of this evidence is there.

There is an alternate imagination, that animals were never destroyed in South America. This also suggests evidence to look for. And scientists find it. In addition, when new ideas of what to look for come up (someone has a good idea of what evidence to look for), they are then confirmed.

You should really know that (even if you choose to not believe it) that there are STACKS of evidence that there was no massive flood sweeping over South America. And there is NO credible evidence that a flood occurred. I know you don't really believe me, but as you get older, keep your eyes open.

Because a rule of thumb is that if the word carries 2 meanings, you cannot assume it's carrying the "contradicting meaning" as long as there's a way for the text to be consistent. If I said "I met John today" and said "I didn't meet John today", you should automatically assume that they're 2 Johns, unless you can prove otherwise.

Yeah, good point. Oops.

There you go, then what's the use of debating with someone who doesn't even care to know the truth? Let alone be objective in persuing it. You're just a joker (or a bored person wasting your time and mine for the sake of plain, pointless arguments)

Make no mistake, I DO care about the truth. You're being ungenerous. How many false leads should I follow before I give up?

You cleary pointed out something that shows that the Qur'an talks about the Big Bang. I worked with that theory, and went looking through the Qur'an for more information on that topic. If I use the theory that the Qur'an is talking about the Big Bang in the verse you showed me, other verses in the Qur'an then become patently false.

I can do another one, but each time I have less energy.

If we throw prayer into the mix, it becomes even more confusing. Why did the authors of that website include a metaphor that was obviously false to someone who is educated? Did Allah encourage it? Why didn't Allah discourage it? It's not fair to think that the authors of that website are not devout Muslims.

I clarified my reasons when I said:
We're protecting gays from themselves too
You don't have any stronger reason to assume a 17 yr old can't make a decision, and that the law has the right to regulate his sexual actions, than me having the same over an 18 yr old (or a 40 yr old). If you're stopping the 17 yr old girl (or boy) from sleeping with an 18 (or 90) yr old man (or woman), why can't I do the same to an older person?

And, as usual, you didn't answer my question here too!

Can we agree that society has more rights/obligations to restrict younger members than adult members? We may disagree at the right age of restriction, but we all agree that people should be a certain age before they do "some dangerous activity", right?

Regardless, the western law is not preventing the 17 year old woman sleeping with the 40 year old man (we won't punish the 17 year old). The law is preventing the 40 year old man from sleeping with the 17 year old. It's a subtle difference, but important. (As an aside, in Canada the age limit is not set at 17 but at 15. You cannot sleep with someone who is 15 if you're over 18)

The reason for this law is because we are not sure that a 15 year old is wise enough to sleep with an adult, at least without being taken advantage of. We try to restrict incidences where people who are weaker (less mature, for example, or employed by someone) are taken advantage of.

There is no good reason to "protect homosexuals from themselves" if they're consenting adults. In any areas they're at risk, they should be able to reduce the risk on their own.

What will you protect the homosexual from (by making it illegal) that they can't protect themselves from on their own?

Don't bother buddy, it's only a matter of time

You do think it would be a good thing, or a bad thing, if I died?