[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by IdeasForLife)
I blame pathetic religious leader, and also pathetic hypocrite leaders.
e.g. I fail to see how the arabs can call themselves muslims when they want anon muslim nation to destroy Iran, because it is shia.
In pakistan its like allot of the idiot imams issue fatwa's and such against each other.
Like with the islamabad red mosque thing, they go we want to fight america etc... Then they burn cars and stuff, i was like seriously how are you fighting them by burning cars and such in islamabad, they have no sense.

Can't disagree with that!

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by naiadania)
Yes, the Qur'an has never set out to be a scientific book. This is shown by how any indications of scientific knowledge in the Qur'an are mentioned rarely, and are mentioned by way of passing, e.g. in a parable or comparison..

If you spend any length of time on TSR you will know the opposite of that is true- and there is almost daily some post by a muslim about how the quran is the origin of various modern sciences and knoweldge and we should all bow to its all knowing scriptures as a result- all of which get disproved pretty quickly obviously- but not by other muslims, generally by someone with a bit of reading under their belts who tend to be a non muslim.
But that doesnt stop the same threads appearing periodically - it seems idiocy such as that is encouraged within islamic communities otherwise why would myths about scientific facts in the quran still circulate so readily amoungst muslims.

[amerzeb]

(Original post by Indo-Chinese Food)
If you spend any length of time on TSR you will know the opposite of that is true- and there is almost daily some post by a muslim about how the quran is the origin of various modern sciences and knoweldge and we should all bow to its all knowing scriptures as a result- all of which get disproved pretty quickly obviously- but not by other muslims, generally by someone with a bit of reading under their belts who tend to be a non muslim.
But that doesnt stop the same threads appearing periodically - it seems idiocy such as that is encouraged within islamic communities otherwise why would myths about scientific facts in the quran still circulate so readily amoungst muslims.

Please show me some verses from the quran which is against scienctific facts?

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by amerzeb)
Please show me some verses from the quran which is against scienctific facts?

There are none that are against science per se, but there are many which believe believe to be scientific but they're not really.

[amerzeb]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
There are none that are against science per se, but there are many which believe believe to be scientific but they're not really.

could you give me some examples

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by amerzeb)
Please show me some verses from the quran which is against scienctific facts?

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Scient...n_the_Qur%27an

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by amerzeb)
could you give me some examples

There are numerous threads on TSR about it, just search "science and Islam"

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Scient...n_the_Qur%27an

Yeahhhh wouldn't use wikiislam...

[Golden_Boy786]

People on this thread. Clearly have too much time on their hands.

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
There are numerous threads on TSR about it, just search "science and Islam"




Yeahhhh wouldn't use wikiislam...

Of course, you'll refute the source as you know it will prove you wrong. Very typical.

Look at the huge list. Those quotes of Quran ARE in it. And they are scientifically wrong.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by ALII)
Also "honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women;" is not a part of Islam. It goes against the teachings of Islam.

Someone should tell them that.

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Of course, you'll refute the source as you know it will prove you wrong. Very typical.

Look at the huge list. Those quotes of Quran ARE in it. And they are scientifically wrong.

What? Prove me wrong in what? The reason I suggested not to use wikiislam is because Muslims themselves don't accept it as a source. There's tonnes of websites debunking the Qur'an science.

I know they're wrong I spend a lot of time explaining this to Muslims myself.

[mariachi]

(Original post by NuckingFut)
Yes, I can speak for Muslims, because (surprise, surprise) I am one. If you've studied Islam to any depth, you'll know that there are different schools of thought within it. You'll also know that some aspects are practiced differently in each of these schools of thought.
And if you honestly believe that the majority of Muslims, think theres anything wrong with Islam, i'd like to see your source.
And as has been pointed out already, the some of the things you disagree with and have 'proposed for reform' go directly against the fundamentals.

as I pointed out elsewhere, there are many attempts at liberalization of Islam right now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal...s_within_Islam

this is not a new phenomenon : in the past, there were many similar movements - you can check e.g. the figure of Al-Afghani in the late 19th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal-al-Din_al-Afghani

on the political side, the Ottoman Caliphate tried to start an era of reform (the Tanzimat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzimat , with rather mixed success (and eventual failure)

[mariachi]

(Original post by IdeasForLife)
The believer is a slave and will always be unless stated otherwise by Allah.
For example - Ibrahim called a friend of Allah in the Qur'an.

If I thought we had a higher status I would've converted to some edited faith like Christianity now, where they all claim they are God's children.

The case of Abraham/Ibrahim is particularly useful

as you know, Abraham chose to obey the order by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, (or Ishmael, for a majority of Muslim scholars) and was stopped by God at the last moment

I cannot understand how this attitude can be praised. Abraham's attitude is one of blind obedience (a first example of the "Befehl ist Befehl - orders are orders, the justification given by Nazi potentates in Nurenberg), against what both his natural instinct and his conscience would have dictated him.

If any sort of entity asked me to sacrifice my son, I would of course flatly refuse, as most everyone would.

It is, in my view, deeply wrong to go against your personal conscience, which is your ultimate guarantee. Blind trust in anything else -a religion, a deity, a prophet, a charismatic political leader- is deeply wrong, and can only lead to disaster.

It is beyond my comprehension how Abraham's attitude can be praised.

As I said, we can safely state that slavery has to be abolished, both in this world and in the hereafter: be no one's slave, not even God's.

[mariachi]

(Original post by harmony_01)
Firstly, it’s obvious that one way Islam grew was as a consequence of conquests but that does not mean that people were forcibly forced to convert. Forced conversions are another issue to this facet, people have identified that the Arabs grew in strength and power exponentially in short time but the reasons for their conquests, or in other words what caused the Muslim armies to expand, was more to do with regional politics than the strife to spread Islam through that. In fact, originally they were hesitant when people came to their camps wanting to convert to Islam because they deemed it insincere. Clearly to anyone who knows more about Islam than what they read in the papers, it was anything but an Islamic duty to forcefully convert people let alone harm them because of their refusal..

This is, again, a fascinating subject

as far as I can tell, Islamic orthodoxy is something which developed as a rationalisation of what was, originally,the case of a very simple, classical "conquest" : tribal peoples attracted by the prosperity of richer, but militarily weaker communities and States

Early Islamic conquests are not much different from, say, classical Roman conquests (before the advent of Christianity) : extract booty, taxes, settle in as a military/political elite. As to what religion people will follow, that's strictly their own business, as long as the money keeps flowing.

This is why conversions to Islam took very long : it took about a couple of centuries before significant proportions of the conquered peoples converted, and up to 4 centuries (such as in Egypt) before a majority of the people had left their traditional religions. However, the advantages of joining the "ruling class" were immense and proved, in the long run, irresistible for the conquered peoples

In the meantime, as one would expect, a deep rivalry developed between the original invaders and conquerors (mostly Arabs) and the converts (the Mawalli - mostly non-Arab) - but this is another story

In my view, people tend to overstate the importance of religious motives as compared to practical motives : most of the time, in human affairs, the ideologico-religious superstructure is a thin veil covering material desires and aspirations.

[mariachi]

(Original post by NuckingFut)
we (muslims) are, as a whole, happy with our beliefs. If muslims were not, well, they probably would follow some other religion.

or work at reform/liberalisation of the existing religion

which is exactly what some Muslims are doing

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by amerzeb)
Please show me some verses from the quran which is against scienctific facts?

i think the assertion that the quran is an accurate book of science and the origin of those sciences, needs to proved, not the other way around. Please show some verses from the quran which is proven scientific fact, and that the quran was the origin of that science.

[mariachi]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
Yeahhhh wouldn't use wikiislam...

agree

using wikiislam is not advisable, because muslims will shrug off anything you may quote from that source as being just rabid Islamophobia, without even looking at it

so, it is a waste of time and effort : better choose some other source

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
What? Prove me wrong in what? The reason I suggested not to use wikiislam is because Muslims themselves don't accept it as a source. There's tonnes of websites debunking the Qur'an science.

I know they're wrong I spend a lot of time explaining this to Muslims myself.

Sorry my bad, I thought you were another muslim refuting the source for no good reason

[mariachi]

(Original post by Ayshizzle)
There are none that are against science per se, but there are many which believe believe to be scientific but they're not really.

the main point is this :

the Quran uses a poetical language, not a scientific language

any statement in the Quran which may seem "scientifically inaccurate" can easily be justified as being an allegory, or a subjective opinion, or a poetical hyperbole etc

for the same reason, it is stupid to try and find any "scientific miracle" in the Quran, when it could just as well be simply an allegory, a subjective opinion etc etc

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by mariachi)
the main point is this :

the Quran uses a poetical language, not a scientific language

any statement in the Quran which may seem "scientifically inaccurate" can easily be justified as being an allegory, or a subjective opinion, or a poetical hyperbole etc

for the same reason, it is stupid to try and find any "scientific miracle" in the Quran, when it could just as well be simply an allegory, a subjective opinion etc etc

i will add to your above that although quran uses poetry to sound magestic and appealing to those that hear it in arabic- remember arabic was only invented as a written language for the purpose of writing the quran, it didnt exist in mohammeds time. A lot of it was based on "scientific" knowledge of the time - dont forget it was only written some 1200 or so years ago, whcih isnt a long time ago in temrs of human civilisation and technological advancement. Certainly its writters took advantage of knowledge sources of the arabs predecessors, the babylonians, as well as the egyptians, persians and via trade, indinas and chinese. In addtion much of the greeks science was adopted by the early arabs.
So some of the 'science' as we know stated it is correct ( earth being flat, sunlight being reflected off the moon etc ) but came from non islamic scientists. Other quranic statements like man not physically being able to leave the earth and fly into the outer atmostpheres, or man not knowing what was within the womb of a pregnant women - obviously are falsehood, given our now better scientifc understanding.