Is Islam in accordance with rationality and science?

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Abdullah, Mar 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Abdullah

    Abdullah Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    9
    Peace to All :)

    Religion is indeed about faith, for it is faith that gives us the inner vision of absolute truth [this however dont apply to all religions] but one thing that is sometimes overlooked, is that the faith of Islam is also in accordance with the intellect and science; my first article on this will show how reaching the faith of Islam is all very rational and the links on the bottom have some astounding evidence of how it even supercedes science!, i.e it is far ahead of modern science for whatever modern science 'discovers', it's seems to be allready in the Quran! iether in acurate details of it or indicating it or just generally in accordance with it:

    Lets first acknowledge some basic facts:

    The amazing and sophisticated creation around us, affirms for us that there indeed is an All-Powerfull Creator.

    Mankind have the abilty to do good and evil; we can love one another and live in peace, harmony, security and safety, or we can hate, fight and kill one another, and violate each others rights by stealing, robbing, etc, etc,

    Now there has to be a reason why God created us and put us in this earth for surely we have not been created in vain, as it will go against common sense to think that an Allpowerfull God creates something for no purpose.

    A bit of common sense will tell us, that since mankind has been equipped with the ability to do good and evil, and since there is all the indications that God, who created such a pleasant earth, that caters to mankinds needs, is Most Mericifull, Kind and Good, then the purpose must be to live good lives, rather than commit evil in the world.

    Now what is obviously happening is that a lot of evil is commited in the world, and due to that a lot of people are suffering, and not all of this injustice is rectified on earth, so should we assume that people are going to die and that will be it, and none of the injustices will be done justice to?; can that be possible for a Just and Mercifull God?

    Common sense tells us, that God is going to Judge between us, and do justice to all.

    Now do we think that God has just created us and put us in this earth to figure out for ourselves, the purpose of life, etc, or will God let us know about it?

    Lets examine that question in more depth:

    God, being the most Mercifull, will not want suffering for his creation, and it's only common sense to know that, without God letting us know the purpose of life, and that there will be consequences after death, for peoples good and bad actions, then people wont be rightly guided and thus evil will be rampant, resulting in the inevitable suffering of countless people; which in turn shows that for God to keep people in the dark like this [without sending them guidance] will be a 'reckless' thing to do?; also to assume that God will not to send any guidance negates His wisdom too?, for it presupposes that God made this creation for nothing [for people to wallow in darknes and die and thats it!]? and both of these things can never be associated with an All-powerfull, Most Mercifull God; thus it's only common sense to know that He will indeed send us information and guidance, explaining the reason for our creation, and pointing out the right path from the wrong one.


    Now if God has sent us this guidance and knowledge, how will He do it?; does the notion that God sent an angel to one of His chosen humans, with this guidance and knowledge really sound too 'out of this world', or is it possible?; given the fact that guidance from God has to reach us in some way, then it is perfectly in accordance with common sense that God may well have sent it via an angel to one of his chosen humans, who then teaches, explains and demonstrates this guidance to us.

    And a man, will also be the most suitable choice to receive this guidance, for he can then demonstrate it to us by living/practicing it himself.

    There obviously will need to be some verry clear signs that indeed the man who claims to be a Messenger from God, is indeed a Messenger of God, and that he isn't lying, thus it makes perfect sense for God to back up His Messengers with miracles; also, there will be Signs in the guidance itself; The perfection and 'Divine signs' within the revelation will speak for itself, once it is studied with an open, and objective mind.

    So now it all comes down to, wether Muhammad [saw] is indeed a true Messenger of God and wether the Quran is indeed a true revelation from God; look into it peeps, the proof is in the pudding!


    Miracles of the Qur'an - Modern Science Reveals New Miracles of the Qur'an

    The medical miracle of Quran معجزة القرآن الطبية

    Peace :)

    ps: here is an additional article from my archives that reveals another scientific wonder!:

    The creation story basically goes like this in Islam that ALlah first created the light of the Prophet muhammad [saw] and then divided this light into four parts and from the first part He made the pen [which He ordered to write down the destiny of creation], from the second, the Tablet [where destiny of all creation? is written], from the third the throne [the greatest of Gods creation, which is situated above all of creation?], and from the forfth, everything else [1];


    this is verry interesting as it accords to the modern astrophysical theory, which says that all of creation came from what is termed the initial singularity in which all of existence was contained in a point of infinte density and temperature. from this initial light which burst forth in what is known as the 'big bang', it split into four fundemental forces; the strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, weak interaction and gravitation. the forfth part mentioned above from which 'everything else' proceeded may refer to this gravitational force, which causes attraction between the particles of matter, allowing the seen world to exist and be joined together, and Allah nows best


    In terms of how Allah created the heavens and the earth; basically ALlah created the earth in a preliminary/embryonic mode first, then he created the heavens and then completed the earth; He made the heavens and the earth in 6 days but these six days could refer to six periods of time, so it is not known to us exactly how long it took


    In terms of the living creatures; the jinn [a spirit like creature that is made to worship ALlah and which has free-will] and the angels were created before man; ... then ALlah created man and put the first two parents of all humanity in paradise; the satan made them slip and the rest is history!
    .............................................

    [1] The evidence for that comes from the saying of the Prophet muhammad [saw] which are called 'hadiths' [recorded/documented saying of the prophet [saw]

    The hadith is found in the musannaf of al-Hafiz Abu bakr, Abdur-razak b hammam al-San'ani and considered sound by recent scholarship and it goes like this:

    Jabir b Abdullah asked the prophet [saw], 'what is the first thing Allah created'?, the Prophet [saw] replied, 'oh Jabir, the first thing ALlah [swt] created was the light of your Prophet from His light and that light remained in the midst of His power for as long as He wished, and there was not at that time a Tablet or a Pen or a Paradise or a Fire or an angel or a heaven or an earth, and when ALlah wished to create creation, He divided that light into four parts, and from the first He made the pen, from the second the Tablet, from the third the Throne, and from the fourfth everything else"

    The reference in the hadith of the light of muhammad [saw] being from 'His light' [Allah's light] means something like that it was a created light very dear and precious to ALlah and not that it was part of ALlah's divine light
     
  2. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    2
    oh, abdullah, just go and read the code of conduct before you start on yet another one of these islamist bragathons.

    was-salaam

    bananabrain
     
  3. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    It makes God sound weak and stupid. Weak, because why would God need an angel's help to talk to humans, and why can God only talk to a few humans instead of to everybody? If an ALL-POWERFUL God wanted people to get a message, then everybody would know it, directly.
    Stupid, because this reliance on intermediate "Messengers" makes sure that the message mostly goes astray. As you say, it is easy for humans to claim to have special revelations (Joseph Smith, Helena Blavatsky, and Sun Myung Moon all have "messages from above" for us), and forcing us to sort out which, if any, we should trust is worse than just leaving it up to us to figure it out for ourselves in the first place. I have no reason to pay particular attention to the Qur'an: it is in a language I don't know, and does not travel well, coming across in translation as a very tedious and uninstructive book; if it was a message from above, it was not a message that was aimed at me.
    No, obviously it refers to solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasmatic states of matter.

    Or no, it refers to the Constitution of the United States, which sets up three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial, and "everything else" refers to all the citizens who are not government officials, or maybe it refers to the state governments and how they are separate from the federal.

    Or no, it refers to the automobile, in which you need gasoline, air, and a spark, and "everything else" refers to the pistons and gear-shafts that turn that original combustion into a useful motion.

    I mean, come on now. I have read a lot of this "science in the Qur'an" stuff, and found it really really unimpressive, but this is the most laughably unimpressive bit I have ever read. All you have here is two lists of four, and one of the lists actually is a list of three plus an "et cetera", and you are saying they correspond? Your proof that "science agrees with the Qur'an" is that both sometimes have short lists of things, and the low integers therefore come up in both places?
     
  4. Abdullah

    Abdullah Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    9
    If God sent the message to everybody, then what would the meaning of life being a 'test' be?, for the test is to believe in the unseen [with ample evidence of it being there], thus if everyone has access to the unseen [i.e, to see it in the form of God revealing to him direct] on earth then there would be no meaning to the test anymore; also if everyone saw the 'unseen' then there would be no responsibility of believing anymore for then beleif would be automatic and not out of responsibility

    If the message is embedded with divine signs, then how can the sincere people who want to find out the truth go astray?, thus it is only those who look for excuses not to submit their will to God, only they go astray; as for false claims of being prophets and having recieved revelations, that would be easy to spot for falsehood would be full of contradictions and morally reprehensible too

    Allah says in the Quran that if the Quran weren't from ALlah [swt] then there would be many contradictions in it and the objecters have yet to find even a singly contradiction! :)



    It shows that Islamic teaching do not neccessarily contradict science

    Or no, it refers to the Constitution of the United States, which sets up three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial, and "everything else" refers to all the citizens who are not government officials, or maybe it refers to the state governments and how they are separate from the federal.

    Or no, it refers to the automobile, in which you need gasoline, air, and a spark, and "everything else" refers to the pistons and gear-shafts that turn that original combustion into a useful motion.

    I mean, come on now. I have read a lot of this "science in the Qur'an" stuff, and found it really really unimpressive, but this is the most laughably unimpressive bit I have ever read. All you have here is two lists of four, and one of the lists actually is a list of three plus an "et cetera", and you are saying they correspond? Your proof that "science agrees with the Qur'an" is that both sometimes have short lists of things, and the low integers therefore come up in both places? [/QUOTE]

    ok, some bits of the 'science' of the Quran put forward can seem to be a bit dubious, but consider the acurate statements regarding embryology in the above link that gets even the microscopic details of the embryo stages correct?; now any tom dick and Abdullah knows that this type of information cannot be known without modern microscopes, so is this not a clear miracle?
     
  5. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    Excellent! I presume this means you don't have a problem with evolution?
     
  6. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    What possible meaning could a "test" have, if God is all-knowing?
    Now you are depicting a God who is flat-out evil, making things confusing so that people will be confused. A "responsibility of believing"? What a horrible concept!
    It is the same with the Bible: point out a contradiction to a Bible-believer, and he will come out with all kinds of excuses why there is no contradiction, just like you will come out with excuses for the Qur'an. The Qur'an to me is a singularly unimpressive book. If you want some argument about "contradictions in the Qur'an", then give me your excuses for this famous one:
    Moses, Aaron, and Miriam were the children of Amran. In the Qur'an, their father is called "Imran" but that is just a minor spelling change between Hebrew and Arabic (no more serious than Hebrew "Aharon", Arabic "Harun"); the terrible mistake in the Qur'an is to think that this Miriam ("Maryam") is the same person as the mother of Jesus ("Isa"), confusing people who lived over a thousand years apart. Not only is the mother of Jesus described as a daughter of Imran (her father was actually named "Joachim"), but she is addressed as "sister of Harun" to make it absolutely clear she is identified as the sister of Moses and Aaron.
    The embryology in the Qur'an reflects the medical knowledge found in the works of Galen, which was impressive for its day but is now known to be inaccurate in several respects. Nowhere does the Qur'an display any knowledge which was not already known before.
     
  7. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    .

    Disclaimer: I am not supporting the rationalist point of view of Abdullah, but some comments here need to be clarified.




    Bob + Abdullah + Brian


    That is a language convention, -not to be taken literally- It's like saying "we are all the children of Adam." There is no contradiction here.

    Think about it, there were enough Jews present in Mecca and Medina when the Prophet was alive. Those Jews would have just started laughing at the Prophet if he had made such an obvious mistake. Everyone knows what is meant by those words (that she was a decedent of Prophets, which is why the charge of fornication against her would have been so serious). It was meant to emphasize her noble lineage.

    Personally, I don't believe the Quran is the word of God because it contains scientific data (it is an article of faith). But still, as far as I know, there are no actual errors contained therein.

    So please give specific details as to the inaccuracies you are talking about. Embryology in the Quran isn't meant to be a detailed science (despite what some Muslims think). The general words used to describe the fetal stages in the Quran are generally what takes place in the womb.




    @ Abdullah



    seriously bro... you gotta just stop with this rationalistic crap... you are doing waaaaay more damage then good here.





    @ Brian


    FYI: evolution (by natural selection) is completely compatible with the Quran.
     
  8. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jews DID laugh at Muhammad.
    This is a feeble excuse. She isn't called the "daughter" of Harun (which I could accept as meaning the great-great-great...granddaughter, not an uncommon extended usage) but the "sister". She is called the daughter of Imran, which makes as little sense as calling her the daughter of Serug (or any other randomly chosen name from the tedious genealogies), given that Imran was not a prophet or famous for anything, except for being the biological father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.
    Here is a rundown. The most blatant errors (40 days before the sperm implants, etc.) are in the Hadith, but the Qur'an itself contains the one about bones forming before the muscles.
     
  9. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, they didn't actually.

    Did you know that the Jews even used the Prophet as an arbitrator to settle their own disputes? This much is even mentioned in the Quran (which you are supposed to have read). And think about this: if the Prophet was just spewing random nonsense in the deserts, he wouldn't have been the greatest threat to their entire social order, would he? (basic common sense)

    If you had taken the time to research your case before making it, you would already know how common this language convention that you are disputing is among the Arabs. Why do you think men and women in Islam refer to each other as brothers and sisters? You think every Muslim man and woman is actually each other's brother and sister?

    Here's another example of the top of my head: one of the prophet's wives was Jewish convert. The other wives made fun of her, and the Prophet comforted her by saying that she should be proud as she was the daughter of Moses. This doesn't mean she was ACTUALLY the daughter of Moses (duh!)

    Also, when you say things like Imran (ra) "was not famous for anything" that just hows that you have no idea how important genealogy is among Middle Easterners. He was the father of two prophets! He was himself the descendant of Abraham. The point is to highlight Mary's (ra) noble lineage in that passage.



    (LoL)

    That's it? Are you serious with this anti-Islamic hate website crap? You disappoint me man...
    And if you want to get into a link war, then you better bring something more impressive then that.

    Here's mine:

    Embryology in Qur'an

    Article By: Keith L. Moore, Ph.D., F.I.A.C.
    The Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada. (<< this was my uni)

    The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association, Vol.18, Jan-June 1986, pp.15-16

    Address all correspondence to:
    Keith L. Moore, Ph.D, F.I.A.C., Professor of Anatomy and Associate Dean Basic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M55 IAB, Canada
     
  10. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    .

    p.s.



    I apologize for the last link. After going through yours I realized mine was very outdated. (I was so unimpressed by the website itself, I didn't even read it). But as to the point it makes about Quranic verses on the fetal stages being plagarized by Greek and other sources, I found a rebuttal for this as well (plus details on the supposed "inaccuracies" on bone formation etc..)

    Does the Qur'an Plagiarize Ancient Greek Embryology?

    I haven't even gone through all of it, as it VERY extensive, but I did however, check the "bone formation" issue myself and the paper makes that clear. It is dealt with about half way down the article. I am not an anatomy major myself (i always found biology to be extremely boring) But I invite any expert in the field here to freely question this paper. Hopefully there are some Muslim doctors on this forum who can contribute as well.





    p.p.s.

    Damnit Abdullah! I knew I was gonna have to end up cleaning your mess on this frekkin stupid thread!
     
  11. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    So I would hope. :)
     
  12. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, they did, actually. In the passage "don't say to me ra'eenu (look upon us)" the reference is to a bad pun (it can also be taken as "our evil one").
    The Prophet ended up slaughtering a bunch of the Jews. I don't want to argue about the rights and wrongs of that fight, but you should not pretend that the relationship was overall a friendly one.
    He was organizing a serious military force. If you look at the Hutaree, for example, you will find militant groups are often organized by people who spout a lot of nonsense. When it is extremely nonsensical, as in the Hutaree case, to be sure the group is not likely to attract a huge number of followers but can still be a threat; Muhammad, of course, spoke a lot more sense than this fellow, which is why he had a lot more followers, but I'm sorry, I do see a lot of nonsense mixed in.
    Because they are contemporaries, in present-day fellowship with one another. Find me some other examples of someone referred to as a "brother" or "sister" to someone they never met from a thousand years earlier.
    Why didn't he call her "sister" of Moses, if that is the common way of expressing that, as you claim?
    Why not "daughter of Serug" then, or any other randomly-chosen name from the long list?
    When it is emphasized that Jesus was of royal descent, he is called "son of David", since David was a king; not "son of Jesse", forcing the reader to look up who Jesse was.
    I see sober, rational discussion, not emotional vitriol-spewing. If you are going to dismiss anybody who argues against Islam as a "hater" from the premise that nobody could possibly argue against Islam for any reason than "hate", that is just a circularity.

    I will look over your rebuttal sites; I am of course handicapped by not being a specialist in embryology any more than you are, but what I see in the Qur'an and Hadiths is vague and inexact, reflecting knowledge that is better than the Bible, since from a later period, but unsurprisingly a little off.
     
  13. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1: It was a JEW who recommended to the Prophet that he put to the sword all of the jews who broke the treaty and betrayed the Muslims. He was following Jewish law.

    #2: You didn't respond to the part about the Jews coming to the Prophet for arbitration. If he was a joke as you claim, then why would they make him a judge in their own disputes?

    Imran (ra) was not as obscure as you obviously think. Do you know the 3rd chapter of the Quran (one of the largest) is titled "The Familly of Imran" ??? So it makes perfect sense why his name is mentioned in her lineage.


    Err, Moses and Aaron (ra) were brothers. If she is mentioned as the sister of one, then obviously she would be the (metaphorical) sister of the other.


    Okay, first of all, you are comparing the most influential person in history to a tribal militant (which is pretty funny). Secondly, what "nonsense" do you see? So far all you have is semantics.

    again with the same...

    as the jews say "oi!"



    This is the homepage of the website you gave:

    www.bible.ca/Islam

    have you seen this? The opening words are

    "Islam is intolerant and incompatible with all other religions:"

    How do you expect the opposition to take this site seriously?


    In any case, the points it makes have been responded to in the paper I gave.

    Exactly! I don't know why you (a physcist) would even pick that line of attack. It almost seems like you just randomly googled "errors in the Quran" and posted the first website that came up.

    As Riddick would say: "skittish tombs, real skittish"
     
  14. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your point??? As I said, I really don't care in the least to go into an argument about the rights or wrongs of the conflicts; my only point was that most Jews treated Muhammad rather contemptuously.
    He was also a MAJOR POWER. Lots of people had to submit issues to George W. Bush for resolution, whether or not they thought his views on creationism were lunatic. I even know people who voted for Bush-- despite thinking he was an idiot-- given the options. People may have brought issues to Muhammad for resolution simply because he was the person who had the power to make a decision stick; that doesn't mean they agreed with all his views, and it doesn't even mean that they respected him much. Have you ever had to bring an issue to the City Council, or as we refer to it in Detroit, the City Clowncil?
    He was, until Muhammad got this confused notion that Jesus was also in that immediate family.
    ??? Of course I do: what do you think we're even talking about? I'm asking WHY he thinks the mother of Jesus is one of those children.
    Which "she" are you talking about? I'm afraid you lost the thread of the conversation here: you mentioned a Jewish woman, contemporary to Muhammad, whom Muhammad referred to as a "daughter" of Moses, when according to what you said earlier, he should have called her a "sister" of Moses, since you say it is the common usage to refer to people thousands of years apart as "brothers" and "sisters". My claim was that only people who live at the same time are referred to as "brothers" and "sisters", and this example you gave of how Muhammad himself spoke seems to confirm that.
    I'm not really an "anti-Muslim missionary" and have no interest at this time in giving you a full rundown of everything that I find repugnant or silly about your religion. Abdullah was taking this line that the Qur'an is just so obviously a wonderful book with nothing wrong in it; I don't see it that way.
    I wasn't citing the homepage, but the embryology paper, by a different author who is not to blame for who chooses to link to his paper. Is the Qur'an obviously an evil book, if I can find horrible web-pages that link to the Qur'an?
    Islam IS intolerant and incompatible with all other religions. This whole claim that Muhammad had a special pipeline to God, that he is correcting the errors of all previous claimants to know the will of God, and that he is the last word, after which nobody should listen to anybody else who has some new insight about God: this is at the absolute top of the list as far as the "lot of nonsense" in the Qur'an.
    I'm not a credentialled physicist either; my degrees are in mathematics and law; the subjects I've studied most are history and linguistics; physics was just one of the fields I toyed with going to graduate school for. I am a generally well-educated man, and know enough biology to argue with a creationist, but can't pretend to name all the stages of embryonic development. I picked that "line of attack" because the Qur'an's "miraculous knowledge of embryology" is usually the first "line of attack" people like Abdullah throw at me.
    I Googled "Qur'an Galen". I've read other papers on this stuff, last time this came up, years ago, and as you say really couldn't be bothered to go through more than whatever came up top.
    ??? Who's "Riddick"? And what is he talking about?
     
  15. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    The most relevant section from your rebuttal-site on embryology looks to be this one:

    The Qur'an has placed the stage of clothing with muscle to mark the end of embryonic stage; the foetal stage (Nash'ah) follows, as explained in the Ayah:

    فَخَلَقْنَا الْمُضْغَةَ عِظَامًا فَكَسَوْنَا الْعِظَامَ لَحْمًا ثُمَّ أَنشَأْنَاهُ خَلْقًا آخَرَ فَتَبَارَكَ اللَّهُ أَحْسَنُ الْخَالِقِينَ (المؤمنون: 14).
    "Then We made of that Mudghah bones (skeleton) then We clotted the bones with flesh (muscles) then We developed out of him another creation, so blessed be Allah the best to create". (Surah Al-Mu-minun, Ayah 14)

    The stage of clothing with muscle occurs during the 8th week which is the end of the embryonic stage after which it goes to another stage with other features, the foetal stage or "AI-Nash'ah".

    vii) After the 42nd day

    The developmental events after 42 days are described in the Hadith:

    "When forty two nights have passed over the Nutfah, Allah sends an angel to it, who shapes it and makes its ears, eyes, skin, flesh and bones. Then he says "0 Lord! Is it male or female?" And your Lord decides what He wishes and then the angel records it". (Muslim: Kitab Al- Qadar)


    confirming that the Qur'an itself says the muscles form after the bones (not so), and that there is a Hadith saying the gender is undetermined until six weeks after conception (not so).
     
  16. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you notice this part of the paper:

    The verse which your link was quoting was referring to development at a later stage. The formation of bones is listed in a separate verse altogether (as you can see the highlighted blue)



    First of all, in Arabic the word "ukht" is not limited to a close blood relationship. This is why you have to read the notes in the translations of the Quran. Secondly, if you look at verse 35 of chapter 3, you will clearly see Mary (ra) being mentioned as a "imra'at" which loosely translates to "a woman of Imran" (you can even stretch it as far as "wife" and some translations do exactly that)

    What should all of this show you? That these Arabic terms that you are hanging on to are not as rigid as their English equivalent.


    There is also a very good reason for this. Mary (ra) was of the priestly class. And priesthood was an exclusive privilege of the children of Aaron (pbuh), and not Moses (phuh).


    So far, this is your assertion. You have given me no actual proof that the personalities in the Quran have been confused. It was a LANGUAGE CONVENTION. Arabic is a complicated language (sorry) but if you are going to critique a text based on language, then you have to deal with the original Arabic.


    Great, now you're comparing the greatest personality (ever) with an idiot like Dubya... :rolleyes: But anyway, this is all irrelevant until you prove your point that what he was saying was actually "nonsense".

    Then why did the Jews prosper under Muslim caliphates while they were being hunted for blood libels in Europe? (think about it)

    I know you are an educated man which is why I don't understand why you have come to take such a superficial position on the Quran.


    Nevermind (Hollywood reference)
     
  17. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Once again:

    "I'm afraid you lost the thread of the conversation here: you mentioned a Jewish woman, contemporary to Muhammad, whom Muhammad referred to as a "daughter" of Moses, when according to what you said earlier, he should have called her a "sister" of Moses, since you say it is the common usage to refer to people thousands of years apart as "brothers" and "sisters". My claim was that only people who live at the same time are referred to as "brothers" and "sisters", and this example you gave of how Muhammad himself spoke seems to confirm that."

    You reply: "First of all, in Arabic the word "ukht" is not limited to a close blood relationship." Same in Hebrew, for that matter. And in English, likewise, "brother" and "sister" may be used metaphorically: I might say, "Obama's my brother," to emphasize how close I feel to him. The point, which you keep refusing to address: My claim was that only people who live at the same time are referred to as "brothers" and "sisters", and this example you gave of how Muhammad himself spoke seems to confirm that. We call George Washington the "father of our country", not the "brother of our country."
    When I say, "according to what you said earlier, he should have called her a "sister" of Moses", the pronoun her DOES NOT REFER TO MARY, it refers to a Jewish woman, contemporary to Muhammad, whom Muhammad referred to as a "daughter" of Moses, THE WOMAN YOU YOURSELF MENTIONED in the post to which I was responding. The first time I responded, you got confused, forgetting what you yourself had said; so the second time, I pointed out to you that I was not talking about Mary, I was talking about the contemporary of Muhammad, whom Muhammad did not refer to as the "sister of Moses" but rather as the "daughter of Moses".

    So what do you do but make the exact same confusion again? You explain why MARY would not be called a "sister of Moses", which is completely irrelevant. I am talking about a Jewish woman, contemporary to Muhammad, whom Muhammad referred to as a "daughter" of Moses, and asking why Muhammad did not call her the "sister" of Moses, when according to you it is a "LANGUAGE CONVENTION" in Arabic to refer to people who are hundreds or thousands of years apart as "brothers" or "sisters". I do not believe you: show me one example; if it's such a common convention, it should not be hard to come up with a case. Instead, Muhammad's own usage, as reported by you, is to describe someone's relationship to a person from the deep past as "daughter" (or "son") just like in any other language.
     
  18. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0
    .
    @ Bob

    I assume you are conceding the point about the bones and the Quran contradicting modern science now?

    Do you think I came up with this myself? I don't speak Arabic. And since neither do you, we both have to defer to someone who is an expert in the Arabic language, correct?

    I provided you with an opinion from the footnotes of the translation of my copy of the Quran. You can say that this source is biased, but you can not argue that a person who translates the Quran (obviously) has a sound knowledge of Arabic. Therefore, I hold his statement on this issue to be valid and counts as an expert opinion (as far as the language is concerned).

    And in his expert opinion "ukht" is a general term and is not limited to blood relations. Now if you are basing your entire case on this one argument, then the LEAST you can do is source some expert of Arabic who disagrees with the above opinion.
     
  19. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    You assume falsely. Just because I had little time last night and only tried to clear up one point (which you STILL won't get!) doesn't mean that I have nothing else to say. You need to take a chill pill!
    Linguistics is one of my major studies. I'm not good at seeing the distinctions among the Arabic letters or hearing the distinctions among the consonants they represent, so Arabic has rather defeated me: when the Qur'an says, "I gave you this book in the Arabic language so that you can understand it," that says to me God never intended it for me, but only for a particular people in a particular place and time, for it was certainly unhelpful of God to put it in that language if *I* was supposed to get anything out of it. But when Arabic is transcribed, I can certainly recognize some of it from what I know of Hebrew and other Semitic languages.

    The embryology paper has a lot of the same kind of "gushing" as in Abdullah's post, all "isn't this wonderfully precise?" about phrases that are really vague. For example, min nutfah "from a droplet" we are told means "from a small part of a droplet" evidencing knowledge that out of the millions of spermatozoa, only one participates in conception, all from that word min. Wait a freaking minute: I do know that word min, which is identical in Hebrew and other Semitic languages, and is the generic preposition "from". That doesn't have to mean "from the whole of" (I am from America, but not from every place in America) nor does it have to mean "from a small part of" (I said they are deriving all that "from that word min" and I don't mean "from one letter in the word", or "from one stroke in the formation of that one letter"); it's just "from", a very basic vocabulary word that can't carry all this weight they are loading on it.

    Again, alaqa is "sticky thing", translated most generically, as it is related to other words from a root "to stick", and your site acknowledges that early Muslim scholars all treated it as meaning "clot", in accord with the old notion that the female contribution was the menstrual blood, and an important role for the sperm was to make it congeal; but the author decides it "really" means something else, more in accord with modern understanding. Oh, "really"? Well how do we decide what the "real" meaning of old Arabic words is? As opposed to Biblical Hebrew, where there were a number of closely related contemporaneous dialects (Canaanite and Phoenician are not different "languages", rather dialects of the same language) with substantial written records, so that when we are confronted with a puzzling word in Hebrew we can look at other sources to see how it, or a similar word, was used: from Arabia we have almost nothing else in writing from the period of the Qur'an or earlier, and if a word is puzzling, the best we can do is to look at how the word was understood by those writing later, but as soon after the time of Muhammad as we can find. So, "clot" is the favored meaning here; but the procedure for finding "real" meanings of the word seems to be that we will make up whatever meaning makes the Qur'an true! Aside from the circularity of claiming that the Qur'an is all correct because we read the Arabic to make it so, in this case there is a theological problem: not only was it unhelpful to BobX for God to put the Qur'an in this secret code language, it failed to convey its meaning even to contemporaneous Arabs; that's really what we are being told, when it is asserted that the "real" meanings of the words are different from how people at the time used those words.
    That has never been the dispute. Please, I am explaining this to you for the fourth time now: I understand perfectly well that kinship terms like "brother" and "sister" are often used metaphorically for non-blood-relations in many languages, English included for that matter. But in every language that I have ever heard of, Arabic included, "brother" or "sister" are used for people who live at the same time; when instead someone is referring metaphorically to the relationship between people widely separated in time, the words "son" or "daughter" are used for the later generation, "father" or "mother" for the earlier.
    The expert of Arabic I used as my source was: MUHAMMAD. Speaking face-to-face with a Jewish woman (a contemporary of Muhammad, not of Moses), he called her a "daughter" of Moses. He would not call her a "sister" of Moses, would he? That would be silly, when Moses was over a thousand years earlier, right? So, Muhammad used these metaphorical-kinship-words just as I described, just like everybody else speaking any language in the world does; and my source for the claim that Muhammad used words this way was: C0DE.

    So, when he called Mary a "sister" of Aaron, the natural inference is that he thought of Mary and Aaron as people who lived at the same time, and saw each other face-to-face. There never was any issue of whether there is or isn't a blood-relation: everybody but Muhammad seems to have believed that Mary was a distant descendant of Aaron, the kind of relation for which the metaphorical term "daughter of Aaron" would be the normal usage.
     
  20. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    Double-posted on me again: OK, let me edit this one down to some remarks about "bones" and "muscles".

    First, the muscles take preliminary shape (missing the major fibers that hook them in place); then the bones take preliminary shape (laid down in the waxy cartilage, not the calcium-phosphate mineral); much later the muscles take final shape (acquiring tendons, sinews etc.), and finally the bones are mineralized. There are sound evolutionary reasons for the order of events (fish which had only cartilagineous skeletons preceded those with bony skeletons, and were preceded in turn by creatures with musculature quite like the fish but no skeletal structure at all).

    The embryology text takes "bone" to be referring to the preliminary cartilage, and "flesh" to be referring to the final appearance of muscular fibers. Is there anything in the Arabic words themselves that justifies this? This is the kind of arbitrary gamesmanship that I don't like in the Islamic apologetics.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page