Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Are there any Muslim converts on here preferably from a judea-christian background? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Ahhh god, zakir naik. Alright, I'll read this, but not without pain...


    'In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of themale and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries,begin their development near the kidney betweenthe spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs.Later they descend; the female gonads (ovaries) stopin the pelvis while the male gonads (testicles)continue their descent before birth to reach thescrotum through the inguinal canal. Even inadulthood after the descent of the reproductiveorgans, these organs receive their nerve supply andblood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is inthe area between the backbone (spinal column) andthe ribs. The lymphatic drainage and the venousreturn also go to the same area.'

    This is grasping at straws. The arabic is very clear that the fluid itself comes from between the sulb and tara'ib, not that the gonads develop there. The translation according to arabic lexicon which say that the sulb is the male loins and the tara'ib is the womb makes a lot more sense, lol.
    Haha well, it's a good book.

    And okay, I'm no expert so I'm not going to comment on that, I realise there are different translations. However I've never heard of tara'ib being translated as womb. But even if we take sulb to mean 'backbone' and tara'ib to mean 'ribs', I still thought his explanation made sense. So both translations could be backed up by scientific proof, for those who say the Qur'an makes an error in this specific verse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yasminkattan)
    Haha well, it's a good book.

    And okay, I'm no expert so I'm not going to comment on that, I realise there are different translations. However I've never heard of tara'ib being translated as womb. But even if we take sulb to mean 'backbone' and tara'ib to mean 'ribs', I still thought his explanation made sense. So both translations could be backed up by scientific proof, for those who say the Qur'an makes an error in this specific verse.
    Idk, 'proceeding from between the backbone and ribs' indicates that the fluid itself is ejaculated from that position...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Idk, 'proceeding from between the backbone and ribs' indicates that the fluid itself is ejaculated from that position...
    Well you could be right, but I guess we can agree there is no error in what the Qur'an is saying
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yasminkattan)
    Well you could be right, but I guess we can agree there is no error in what the Qur'an is saying
    I guess, lol. I find zakir naik to be a distasteful person to listen to after hearing him call bin laden 'Sheikh Usama' and say 'may allah be pleased with him' after saying the name of the 3rd ummayid caliph Yazid, who murdered most of the Prohet (sawas)'s family. Oh, and saying pretty bad things about what he thinks the rights of non muslims should be in an islamic state, like not being allowed to preach their religions or have churches, synagogues, etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I guess, lol. I find zakir naik to be a distasteful person to listen to after hearing him call bin laden 'Sheikh Usama' and say 'may allah be pleased with him' after saying the name of the 3rd ummayid caliph Yazid, who murdered most of the Prohet (sawas)'s family. Oh, and saying pretty bad things about what he thinks the rights of non muslims should be in an islamic state, like not being allowed to preach their religions or have churches, synagogues, etc.
    You're right, I don't like him. I read the book before knowing this information about him. But still I think the book is good, despite his views and his character.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yasminkattan)
    You're right, I don't like him. I read the book before knowing this information about him. But still I think the book is good, despite his views and his character.
    I've see excerpts from it before, and while I agree that he makes scientific explanations, I think sometimes that he's trying to make excuses/proof for the verses rather than showing them as they really are with as accurate a linguistic analysis as possible. He's made a lot of claims about so-called quranic scientific miracles like the 'two bodies of water that don't mix, one fresh and one salty' by referring to the fact that channels of water with different salinities and temperatures exist in the ocean, but the quran goes on to talk about the salty one being there for travelling on and the fresh one for drinking, so... He's manufactured a 'scientific miracle' when the quran is saying, 'look how most of the water is salty, and I provide fresh water for you to drink'. There are a lot of people trying to do what he does, so I don't trust him on any issues relating to science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Qur'anic embryology is riddled with scientific errors and omissions, proving quite clearly that it's not the work of an all-knowing God. In addition, there isn't a single piece of precise, original science in Islamic scripture. In fact, the Qur'an is replete with scientific errors.
    Okay so there’s a lot of flaws in comparing a religious book to science. a science isn’t asking people to follow it or to, you know, to take his claims as the words of god nor is he asking you to reform your life in an ethical or spiritual way etc. What a scientist is doing is simply researching the universe. And the assumption that following the prophet somehow contradicts umm following modern scientific research is absurd, I mean they are not mutually exclusive. I think this problem occurs in many other faith traditions where science was seen was a threat. And I remember exchanging PMs with you, you said you were catholic which did have that issue. And so the assumption you make is that all religions must be this way. all religions must discourage scientific inquiry. But actually islamic history as it has already been indicated - it has been one of very in depth scientific inquiry and even pioneering in the field of scientific inquiry. Now as for the prophet being 1400 years ago and having the kind of scientific knowledge and access that we have today - when it comes to matters of guidance, right and wrong, justice and injustice - scientific revolutions will not change that. Doesn’t matter what kind of technology you hold, what is fair is still fair and what is unfair is still unfair, truth is still truth and falsehood is still falsehood. You know wronging people is still wronging people. So whether we live now or 300 years from now or 300 years before now, the principals on which we are supposed to live our life are timeless. And that's an issue I have with contemporary days - morality and ethics has become subjective. And thats actually what attracts me about the Quran, its stance stays the same.

    I realise though that making this argument would bring up questions regarding homosexuality, ill treatment of women etc in the Quran but I'm bisexual and I don't think theres a single thing in the Quran against homosexuals (except for speaking clearly against anal sex but I've got gay friends that has never actually had anal intercourse but they're openly gay). I also find that when people take a literal interpretation of the Quran then obviously it seems quite nonsensical (which it also does to me) however I don't think it should be in the literal sense because it has no chronological order so how can you really? And since in the Quran God says the language in it s beautiful I do believe it should be understood by taking a linguistic approach to it (and hence including the possibility that some things in it are in fact metaphors, personification etc).

    And I think thats another issue with religion which is that everyone has various interpretations of it and each claims theirs is the right one. I personally try not to say whether I'm right or not as I'm not even a part of the religion itself. However I do believe (speaking from a political context) the view that those who are vicious are following quran the correct way while those who interpret it in a peaceful manner are just sugar coating it is wrong. It just marginalises the moderates further and preaches the same thing radicals preach - so really that's helping the terrorists and giving them legitimacy - which I wouldn't like to do.

    Anyway the issue I have with the Quran isn't from a moral standpoint or scientific/historical standpoint but rather a spiritual one. And its the same issue I have with religions in general - I find it difficult to believe in the concept of heaven and hell. I still don't understand why God would make us go through all these trials and inflictions (the world) just to say at the end oh yeah you've persevered and therefore you deserve heaven. I still don't understand why there is existence, just that we exist. And for that reason even though I love the God of Judaism and Islam (trinity just would never make sense to me with what I believe as my definition of a God would be someone who's everliving and doesn't need to be a part of creation itself), I couldn't ever be a part of organised religion.

    However as Hydeman has pointed out before, and I believe so as well, I don't need to be a part of these religions to appreciate them. And appreciating them I do, I appreciate them quite a lot .

    But basically, what I was trying to get across was that it seems rather nonsensical to compare religion with science to me- but thats not to say just because I don't like that approach doesn't mean others shouldn't either. Therefore I don't like the hate preacher Zakirs Naiks version of Islam as well, he's an idiot brainwashing tons of ignorant people and because of his memorising capability he's able to come across as 'smart' to them when in reality he's the opposite imo.

    I also understand the response I'll get is questioning the legitimacy of the Quran if its (according to you) explicitly against science/ has scientific errors but I haven't found any explicit scientific errors in the Quran. But then again I have in fact looked into the Quran with a linguistic scholar I met in Dubai so it was kind of like learning Physics from Einstein himself tbh.

    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    oo cool, another muslim (erm, I consider you muslim if you believe but haven't declared a shahada or whatever haha) who doesn't consider homosexual interactions to be haraam. What's your take on the story of Lut (a.s)? In my understanding the huge condemnation God makes isn't about homosexual acts but the fact that the people of soddom and gomorrah were raping travellers, -and- they were married, so it was adultery too.
    I agree with you in that it wasn't about being Gay. How about sodomy is explicitly haram in the Quran but (as I mentioned earlier) not all Gay people have anal intercourse. However you can't really consider me Muslim because firstly I don't identify as such and because of the things I've said above ^. Yes I appreciate the Quran and I love Allah and the concept of God in the Quran, however I do not believe in a lot of things that one would need to believe in order to be religious I suppose.

    (Original post by ScaredBanana)
    I was a staunch, somewhat militant atheist in my early teens. I read Dawkins' God Delusion, watched atheist debates on YT, and basically thought all religion was dumb as it was what I had been raised to believe.When I met a Muslim for the first time during secondary school my outlook on religion began to change completely. She showed me how Islam is supported by science with embryology for example, and I bought a translated Qu'ran to learn more about Islam. Recently I have embraced that Allah (swt) is God and that has changed my life greatly. Suddenly I see meaning in the world that I just didn't before.Currently, I am reading my Qu'ran and trying to understand it more thoroughly. The things I never knew previously include the many sects of this religion. Right now, I'm trying to develop my own understanding of Islam, without focusing too much on sects. I especially don't know much about the Hadiths, and their legitimacy and this is a big learning point for me right now.
    Hey Scared Banana, please don't be scared - I'm a very nice person, I won't attack you cause of your belief ☺️

    So are you a practicing muslim now? Are you male or female? How old are you? How did you go from being a militant atheist to someone who believes in the unseen? I am an agnost that really does appreciate the Quran but I still don't believe in heaven and hell myself, I find it very difficult to grasp the concept - how did you manage to do that? Also did you feel your relationship with people in your life (Im assuming you're white British jewish/christian) change or are you just like before but actually probably even better and nicer and open-minded? I found after studying the Quran myself I have a different approach towards everyone - it's actually made me more understanding of others, less of a ***** tbh not because the way I used to see the world has changed. Trivial things that used to matter to me before doesn't anymore if that makes sense? Like before what I used to want most out of life was happiness but now it's so much more than that, like now it's to make impact and to be in search of the truth and happiness seems to be a byproduct of that. I actually visit catholic and muslim orphanages in the country I'm living in currently quite a lot and organise these fund days with the kids . They all call me 'bideshi apu' (foreign sister) haha and I don't know it brings me so much joy just being with these kids. I also teach english to street kids here and it does feel very fulfilling. And I feel as though the Quran encourages you to do that - to aim for impact and truth and happiness would be a byproduct of it. I like how its almost as if as a human with opportunities its almost as though I have a duty towards rest of humanity to help them out. I'll be modelling next May after my A2s and hopefully through that I can also bring awareness to causes in the developing world.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hilrho)
    Okay so there’s a lot of flaws in comparing a religious book to science. a science isn’t asking people to follow it or to, you know, to take his claims as the words of god
    This isn't a case of comparing a religious book to science, I am not. But if someone's saying that there is accurate science in there then that can be analysed and in the case of the Qur'an, debunked.

    I often notice that muslims come on here proclaiming the scientific wonders of Qur'an and when they're refuted almost always resort to "well it's not meant to be a science book anyway". Well if that's the case then don't claim there's accurate science in it, you can't have it both ways.

    nor is he asking you to reform your life in an ethical or spiritual way etc. What a scientist is doing is simply researching the universe.
    Yes, I'm aware.

    And the assumption that following the prophet somehow contradicts umm following modern scientific research is absurd, I mean they are not mutually exclusive.
    This is a strawman. I have not said "following Muhammad contradicts science". I was, however, pointing out the very real scientific inconsistencies which are present in Qur'an.

    I think this problem occurs in many other faith traditions where science was seen was a threat. And I remember exchanging PMs with you, you said you were catholic which did have that issue.
    I agree, science has and still is a major threat for various religions, including Islam.

    And so the assumption you make is that all religions must be this way. all religions must discourage scientific inquiry.
    Hilrho, you are now just completely making things up. I suggest you reread my post and see what I was actually saying (highlighting the embryology errors which someone said were original science) and not saying that "Islam discourages scientific inquiry".

    But actually islamic history as it has already been indicated - it has been one of very in depth scientific inquiry and even pioneering in the field of scientific inquiry.
    What's the use in bringing up Islam's golden age which was over a thousand years ago? Is the Islamic world currently a leader in scientific advancement and progress? Obviously not, most muslims still refuse to accept that human beings evolved.

    Now as for the prophet being 1400 years ago and having the kind of scientific knowledge and access that we have today - when it comes to matters of guidance, right and wrong, justice and injustice - scientific revolutions will not change that.
    And science isn't supposed to give answers to those things.

    Doesn’t matter what kind of technology you hold, what is fair is still fair and what is unfair is still unfair, truth is still truth and falsehood is still falsehood.
    A lesson many religious people would do well to learn, especially when it comes to scientifically proven truth and falsehood.

    You know wronging people is still wronging people. So whether we live now or 300 years from now or 300 years before now, the principals on which we are supposed to live our life are timeless.
    But they are clearly not, because what we see as wronging people has unarguably changed over the centuries.

    And that's an issue I have with contemporary days - morality and ethics has become subjective. And thats actually what attracts me about the Quran, its stance stays the same.
    Morality has never become subjective, it's always been subjective, shown by the shifting of moral values over the millennia.

    Why religionists think an unchanging moral code is a good thing is beyond me. In life, all things change. This is undeniable and inevitable, and in this struggle life will always win. It is clear that most modern muslims do not do many of the things advocated in the Qur'an and some moral issues are greatly debated, such as listening to music, wearing of the hijab etc.

    Also, you're slightly confusing me now. If you're not muslim and don't believe in the Qur'an, then why are you agreeing with its claim that morals are timeless, which stems from the argument that Muhammad received his revelations directly from God?

    I realise though that making this argument would bring up questions regarding homosexuality, ill treatment of women etc in the Quran but I'm bisexual and I don't think theres a single thing in the Quran against homosexuals (except for speaking clearly against anal sex but I've got gay friends that has never actually had anal intercourse but they're openly gay). I also find that when people take a literal interpretation of the Quran then obviously it seems quite nonsensical (which it also does to me) however I don't think it should be in the literal sense because it has no chronological order so how can you really?
    Another flaw in the book. Other muslims would say it is to be taken literally.

    And since in the Quran God says the language in it s beautiful I do believe it should be understood by taking a linguistic approach to it (and hence including the possibility that some things in it are in fact metaphors, personification etc).
    Of course there are metaphors and personification in it. The issue comes when trying to say that all the things that don't make scientific science are metaphors, just to get out of logically explaining them.

    And I think thats another issue with religion which is that everyone has various interpretations of it and each claims theirs is the right one.
    Which debunks your previous assertion that the values in there are timeless. Everyone's differing and changing interpretations show they are not.

    I personally try not to say whether I'm right or not as I'm not even a part of the religion itself. However I do believe (speaking from a political context) the view that those who are vicious are following quran the correct way while those who interpret it in a peaceful manner are just sugar coating it is wrong.
    But don't you see? This is just your interpretation. The ones following it "viciously" will say they're following it correctly and that you're not!

    Anyway the issue I have with the Quran isn't from a moral standpoint or scientific/historical standpoint but rather a spiritual one.
    If that's the case then muslims should drop the "scientific miracles" narrative, as some apologists have already started to do, Hamza Tzortzis being the most famous, saying it's an intellectual embarrassment for muslims.

    You can't say it contains miraculous science and then when someone challenges it resort to the "it's not a science textbook!" retort. You can have your cake or eat it, not both.

    And its the same issue I have with religions in general - I find it difficult to believe in the concept of heaven and hell. I still don't understand why God would make us go through all these trials and inflictions (the world) just to say at the end oh yeah you've persevered and therefore you deserve heaven.
    I agree. That's essentially the notion that life is an exam, which is illogical and nonsensical in the extreme.

    I still don't understand why there is existence, just that we exist. And for that reason even though I love the God of Judaism and Islam (trinity just would never make sense to me with what I believe as my definition of a God would be someone who's everliving and doesn't need to be a part of creation itself), I couldn't ever be a part of organised religion.
    You misunderstand the Trinity. It simply means that God has 3 facets to himself, it is not intrinsically linked to being a part of creation. Jesus, one of the persons of the Trinity incarnated, but he didn't have to do this.

    But basically, what I was trying to get across was that it seems rather nonsensical to compare religion with science to me-
    Which I didn't do.

    I also understand the response I'll get is questioning the legitimacy of the Quran if its (according to you) explicitly against science/ has scientific errors but I haven't found any explicit scientific errors in the Quran. But then again I have in fact looked into the Quran with a linguistic scholar I met in Dubai so it was kind of like learning Physics from Einstein himself tbh.
    Well I'm afraid the Qur'an is absolutely replete with scientific errors, which a simple google search should show easily enough. Embryology for example fails to mention the female ovum, compares the embryo to a leech (which is false), calls the embryo a blood clot (erroneous), and says that semen comes from between the backbone and ribs (it doesn't). And this isn't even getting to all the other major errors such as denying human evolution, saying man's made from clay, claiming mountains keep the Earth steady etc etc.

    I'm not saying that errors in holy books are necessarily a bad thing, as it merely reflects the incomplete knowledge present at the time. It only becomes a problem for those purporting their book to be infallible and perfect.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    This isn't a case of comparing a religious book to science, I am not. But if someone's saying that there is accurate science in there then that can be analysed and in the case of the Qur'an, debunked.

    I often notice that muslims come on here proclaiming the scientific wonders of Qur'an and when they're refuted almost always resort to "well it's not meant to be a science book anyway". Well if that's the case then don't claim there's accurate science in it, you can't have it both ways.
    Well then let me rephrase - when you're comparing scientific inquiry (in this case embryology) with things written in the Quran and it just doesn't make sense to me to compare the two, Quran is not a biology book. But I see where you're coming from now: someones said Quran had scientific miracles and you're saying it doesn't. And I agree, I don't understand why muslims come on here talking about scientific miracles in the Quran - Muhammad was not a scientist and science doesn't prove a religion wrong or right and so making that argument is also rather stupid.


    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    This is a strawman. I have not said "following Muhammad contradicts science". I was, however, pointing out the very real scientific inconsistencies which are present in Qur'an.
    I suppose this is you showing how it is inconsistent with science:

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Well I'm afraid the Qur'an is absolutely replete with scientific errors, which a simple google search should show easily enough. Embryology for example fails to mention the female ovum, compares the embryo to a leech (which is false), calls the embryo a blood clot (erroneous), and says that semen comes from between the backbone and ribs (it doesn't). And this isn't even getting to all the other major errors such as denying human evolution, saying man's made from clay, claiming mountains keep the Earth steady etc etc.
    If that's Zakir Naiks argument then I don't know what to say really, he brainwashes hundreds and thousands of ignorant muslims and is often so incorrect himself in everything he says whether its talking about the teachings of Quran, interpreting other religious books, or him speaking about science itself - he's just wrong and so I can see why you'd say Quran is inconsistent with science.

    As for the humans made from clay goes, I'm curious, have you read the Quran in English?

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I agree, science has and still is a major threat for various religions, including Islam.
    I can't say science is a threat to Islam because who knows, maybe someday if it can be prove as a firm fact things in the Quran are wrong then yes it will be a threat to Islam. But so far I don't think science has been a threat to Islam and dare I argue it wouldn't be - the Quran asls people to question the book themselves (which I doubt most muslims don't do) and question the world around them, it encourages people to become inquirers. I doubt the God in the Quran would've done that if it were afraid that someday it will get debunked by scientific inquiry.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Hilrho, you are now just completely making things up. I suggest you reread my post and see what I was actually saying (highlighting the embryology errors which someone said were original science) and not saying that "Islam discourages scientific inquiry".
    You haven't explicitly said islam discourages scientific inquiry, however you have said science is a threat to islam and I'd argue its a very fine line between the two and to me what you're trying to imply is pretty much the same.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    What's the use in bringing up Islam's golden age which was over a thousand years ago? Is the Islamic world currently a leader in scientific advancement and progress? Obviously not, most muslims still refuse to accept that human beings evolved.
    Well because classical Islam was closer to Muhammad's time compared to contemporary Islam i.e. its 1400 from now, so I'd argue classical Islam was closer to the Islam Muhammad taught.
    No, the Islamic countries are some of the worst countries. Even Dubai, well I mean it's nice to live in for me or even you (white) but underneath all that luxury, the south asian immigrant workers are treated so poorly it's disgusting.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But they are clearly not, because what we see as wronging people has unarguably changed over the centuries.
    But I wasn't talking about what we see as wronging people.



    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Morality has never become subjective, it's always been subjective, shown by the shifting of moral values over the millennia.

    Why religionists think an unchanging moral code is a good thing is beyond me. In life, all things change. This is undeniable and inevitable, and in this struggle life will always win. It is clear that most modern muslims do not do many of the things advocated in the Qur'an and some moral issues are greatly debated, such as listening to music, wearing of the hijab etc.

    Also, you're slightly confusing me now. If you're not muslim and don't believe in the Qur'an, then why are you agreeing with its claim that morals are timeless, which stems from the argument that Muhammad received his revelations directly from God?
    Actually I agree with you, my bad, morality is subjective you're right. But I don't think it should be.

    As for your question, I haven't said I believe in the Quran. Well no that's wrong, I do believe many things in it however not all of it. However, I've always said I appreciate it, which I do tremendously, but I don't believe in the unseen. I don't believe muhammad rode on a flying horse. I don't see why life has to be a test, just so we can all end up in heaven but then God already knew everything. And while I feel as though its stupid to try and prove or disprove religion with science, I feel as though those questions are some proper ones to ask regarding theologies.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Another flaw in the book. Other muslims would say it is to be taken literally.
    How is that a flaw in the book?

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Of course there are metaphors and personification in it. The issue comes when trying to say that all the things that don't make scientific science are metaphors, just to get out of logically explaining them.
    I agree.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Which debunks your previous assertion that the values in there are timeless. Everyone's differing and changing interpretations show they are not.
    Actually it doesn't as how people chose to interpret it is up to them, so it doesn't debunk what it teaches is timeless because the words in it have stayed the same since they compiled the Quran. However how people choose to interpret it is up to them, we are all individuals after all.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But don't you see? This is just your interpretation. The ones following it "viciously" will say they're following it correctly and that you're not!
    I do see that yes, and I have also acknowledged it. But what I was saying was from a political standpoint: people like Bill Maher always debates that the extremists are those that are following the true teachings of Islam and the moderates aren't which I would say doesn't help at all and legitimises the terrorists and marginalises the moderates. It's the moderates that should be given more legitimacy (whether people personally believe they're following Islam correctly or not) just for the politics.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    If that's the case then muslims should drop the "scientific miracles" narrative, as some apologists have already started to do, Hamza Tzortzis being the most famous, saying it's an intellectual embarrassment for muslims.

    You can't say it contains miraculous science and then when someone challenges it resort to the "it's not a science textbook!" retort. You can have your cake or eat it, not both.
    I don't know who Hamza Tzortis is.

    I'm rather offended at the underlying assumption behind your words - you're implying I'm muslim even though we have PMed each other and I told you I am an Islamophile (One, especially one who is not an adherent of Islam, who loves Islam or Islamic culture) however I'm not of the religion myself and neither am I party of any organised religion. Although racially I am part Jewish.

    We even spoke about me applying for Theology and Philosophy or Oriental (Islamic) Studies at Oxbridge because of my passion to study the nature of religion but in a purely objective way. I even talked to you about doing runway, catalogue and editorial after my A2 next May, I don't get to know people much on TSR as I'm a private person, you've hurt my feelings Planta :cry2:.
    Only dirty kinky hot sex can make up for it now 😐 (I jest but seriously just because I like Islam and argue for it in many senses does not mean I'm automatically muslim, I argue against a lot of philosophies in it too exhibit A being the concept of heaven and life being a test, so you shouldn't assume 💁🏻)


    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I agree. That's essentially the notion that life is an exam, which is illogical and nonsensical in the extreme.
    Glad we agree about one thing.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You misunderstand the Trinity. It simply means that God has 3 facets to himself, it is not intrinsically linked to being a part of creation. Jesus, one of the persons of the Trinity incarnated, but he didn't have to do this.
    I get that, but I still don't like the deification of Jesus. I prefer him as a messenger which imo makes more sense.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Which I didn't do.
    But comparing what Quran teaches and what biology teaches is doing that.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I'm not saying that errors in holy books are necessarily a bad thing, as it merely reflects the incomplete knowledge present at the time. It only becomes a problem for those purporting their book to be infallible and perfect.
    And I wasn't arguing the Quran to be infallible but rather that scientific teaching and teachings of the Quran cannot be compared, they're two separate things however I see where you're coming from as people do try to validate the Quran by saying it has scientific miracles in it which I personally don't like.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hilrho)
    Well then let me rephrase - when you're comparing scientific inquiry (in this case embryology) with things written in the Quran and it just doesn't make sense to me to compare the two, Quran is not a biology book. But I see where you're coming from now: someones said Quran had scientific miracles and you're saying it doesn't. And I agree, I don't understand why muslims come on here talking about scientific miracles in the Quran - Muhammad was not a scientist and science doesn't prove a religion wrong or right and so making that argument is also rather stupid.
    I'm not comparing the two, I am just pointing out that it contains scientific errors. Just like pointing out there's a spelling mistake in an essay doesn't mean I'm comparing it to the work of a four-year-old who can barely write.

    I agree with that, but unfortunately many muslims think this scientific miracles discourse is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the Quran's veracity.

    I suppose this is you showing how it is inconsistent with science:
    Again, I am merely pointing out the scientific errors, not comparing it with science. The Qur'an is a piece of literature (which tries to smuggle in some so-called scientific truths), scientific literature is usually in the form of journals and data, it doesn't contain metaphors and flowery literary devices. So I'm not comparing the two distinct types, as they are so different that it's virtually pointless. But that doesn't mean that I can't point out the scientific errors that are in there.

    If that's Zakir Naiks argument then I don't know what to say really, he brainwashes hundreds and thousands of ignorant muslims and is often so incorrect himself in everything he says whether its talking about the teachings of Quran, interpreting other religious books, or him speaking about science itself - he's just wrong and so I can see why you'd say Quran is inconsistent with science.
    I don't think it's exclusively Naik's argument, all of that is from the Qur'an itself. Well as I've just explained, many of the so-called scientific claims are inconsistent with known evidence.

    As for the humans made from clay goes, I'm curious, have you read the Quran in English?
    Most of it yes, your point being? This doesn't get away from the fact that the clay assertion is unequivocally and unambiguously erroneous.

    I can't say science is a threat to Islam because who knows, maybe someday if it can be prove as a firm fact things in the Quran are wrong then yes it will be a threat to Islam.
    So-called scientific miracles in the Qur'an have already been proved wrong, this isn't recent news. It's just that most muslims will refuse to believe it, understandably so, as to accept it would mean their rejection of Islam.

    But so far I don't think science has been a threat to Islam and dare I argue it wouldn't be - the Quran asls people to question the book themselves (which I doubt most muslims don't do) and question the world around them, it encourages people to become inquirers. I doubt the God in the Quran would've done that if it were afraid that someday it will get debunked by scientific inquiry.
    And yet, Quran 5:101 says this

    {O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allaah has pardoned it [i.e. that which is past]; and Allaah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.} [Quran 5:101-102]

    More importantly, however, the God of the Qur'an wouldn't have gotten things wrong about science, meaning no such deity authored it.

    You haven't explicitly said islam discourages scientific inquiry, however you have said science is a threat to islam and I'd argue its a very fine line between the two and to me what you're trying to imply is pretty much the same.
    I was arguing it in the context of many muslims rejecting scientific evidence for the sole reason of the Qur'an saying otherwise.

    But I wasn't talking about what we see as wronging people.
    But right below this section you admit that morality is subjective, so therefore it must be us who are deciding what wronging someone is...

    Actually I agree with you, my bad, morality is subjective you're right. But I don't think it should be.
    Why shouldn't it be?

    As for your question, I haven't said I believe in the Quran. Well no that's wrong, I do believe many things in it however not all of it. However, I've always said I appreciate it, which I do tremendously, but I don't believe in the unseen. I don't believe muhammad rode on a flying horse. I don't see why life has to be a test, just so we can all end up in heaven but then God already knew everything. And while I feel as though its stupid to try and prove or disprove religion with science, I feel as though those questions are some proper ones to ask regarding theologies.
    I agree with most of this.

    How is that a flaw in the book?
    Muslims generally claim the Qur'an is perfectly clear and unambiguous, which is debunked by the fact there are so many different Islamic sects and interpretations.

    Actually it doesn't as how people chose to interpret it is up to them, so it doesn't debunk what it teaches is timeless because the words in it have stayed the same since they compiled the Quran. However how people choose to interpret it is up to them, we are all individuals after all.
    It does debunk it. I am not talking about the actual word remaining in place because that is a nonsensical argument. I am talking about the meaning of the words. If the Qur'an says certain morals are timeless and then we see that they aren't, this is proof that the Qur'an is wrong, therefore not perfect and infallible and by extension not the work of Allah.

    Also, can you prove that not a single word of the Qur'an has changed from when Muhammad and others wrote it down?

    I don't know who Hamza Tzortis is.
    He's a well-known muslim apologist who has admitted that the scientific miracle claim is void.

    I'm rather offended at the underlying assumption behind your words - you're implying I'm muslim even though we have PMed each other and I told you I am an Islamophile (One, especially one who is not an adherent of Islam, who loves Islam or Islamic culture) however I'm not of the religion myself and neither am I party of any organised religion. Although racially I am part Jewish.

    We even spoke about me applying for Theology and Philosophy or Oriental (Islamic) Studies at Oxbridge because of my passion to study the nature of religion but in a purely objective way. I even talked to you about doing runway, catalogue and editorial after my A2 next May, I don't get to know people much on TSR as I'm a private person, you've hurt my feelings Planta :cry2:.
    You do realise that the "you" was a general you and not specifically in reference to you, right? :laugh:

    I know you're not a muslim, that's why in my previous post I expressed confusion at you saying the Qur'an's morality was timeless whilst simultaneously not believing in it. My cake comment was in reference to those saying the Qur'an contains divinely inspired science, but retreating to the "it isn't a science textbook" retort when called out :lol:

    Only dirty kinky hot sex can make up for it now 😐 (I jest but seriously just because I like Islam and argue for it in many senses does not mean I'm automatically muslim, I argue against a lot of philosophies in it too exhibit A being the concept of heaven and life being a test, so you shouldn't assume 💁🏻)
    You sound horny

    But comparing what Quran teaches and what biology teaches is doing that.
    It is comparing scientific facts, not comparing the book to the scientific method as a whole. Facts can be compared wherever and whatever form they're written down in.

    And I wasn't arguing the Quran to be infallible but rather that scientific teaching and teachings of the Quran cannot be compared, they're two separate things however I see where you're coming from as people do try to validate the Quran by saying it has scientific miracles in it which I personally don't like.
    Again, it isn't a comparison of the scientific method, but of some facts. If Shakespeare's Macbeth said "the moon is a star" and I said "that's wrong", that doesn't mean I'm comparing his play to the scientific discipline does it, it just means I'm pointing out a scientific error.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I've see excerpts from it before, and while I agree that he makes scientific explanations, I think sometimes that he's trying to make excuses/proof for the verses rather than showing them as they really are with as accurate a linguistic analysis as possible. He's made a lot of claims about so-called quranic scientific miracles like the 'two bodies of water that don't mix, one fresh and one salty' by referring to the fact that channels of water with different salinities and temperatures exist in the ocean, but the quran goes on to talk about the salty one being there for travelling on and the fresh one for drinking, so... He's manufactured a 'scientific miracle' when the quran is saying, 'look how most of the water is salty, and I provide fresh water for you to drink'. There are a lot of people trying to do what he does, so I don't trust him on any issues relating to science.
    Yeah I read the oceanology part of the book, but this is mentioned in several places throughout the Qur'an (25:53, 27:61, 55:19-20). They all talk about two bodies of water and the barrier between them. I don't know about that interpretation, but I think it makes sense to say it refers to that phenomenon. Anyway I'm in no position to have debates about this haha, I'm no expert and I'm not trying to stand up for him either but it made sense to me. I understand what you mean though, a lot people do try to disguise certain things in the Qur'an, so they shouldn't be trusted entirely.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I'm not comparing the two, I am just pointing out that it contains scientific errors. Just like pointing out there's a spelling mistake in an essay doesn't mean I'm comparing it to the work of a four-year-old who can barely write.

    I agree with that, but unfortunately many muslims think this scientific miracles discourse is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the Quran's veracity.



    Again, I am merely pointing out the scientific errors, not comparing it with science. The Qur'an is a piece of literature (which tries to smuggle in some so-called scientific truths), scientific literature is usually in the form of journals and data, it doesn't contain metaphors and flowery literary devices. So I'm not comparing the two distinct types, as they are so different that it's virtually pointless. But that doesn't mean that I can't point out the scientific errors that are in there.



    I don't think it's exclusively Naik's argument, all of that is from the Qur'an itself. Well as I've just explained, many of the so-called scientific claims are inconsistent with known evidence.



    Most of it yes, your point being? This doesn't get away from the fact that the clay assertion is unequivocally and unambiguously erroneous.



    So-called scientific miracles in the Qur'an have already been proved wrong, this isn't recent news. It's just that most muslims will refuse to believe it, understandably so, as to accept it would mean their rejection of Islam.



    And yet, Quran 5:101 says this

    {O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allaah has pardoned it [i.e. that which is past]; and Allaah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.} [Quran 5:101-102]

    More importantly, however, the God of the Qur'an wouldn't have gotten things wrong about science, meaning no such deity authored it.



    I was arguing it in the context of many muslims rejecting scientific evidence for the sole reason of the Qur'an saying otherwise.



    But right below this section you admit that morality is subjective, so therefore it must be us who are deciding what wronging someone is...



    Why shouldn't it be?



    I agree with most of this.



    Muslims generally claim the Qur'an is perfectly clear and unambiguous, which is debunked by the fact there are so many different Islamic sects and interpretations.



    It does debunk it. I am not talking about the actual word remaining in place because that is a nonsensical argument. I am talking about the meaning of the words. If the Qur'an says certain morals are timeless and then we see that they aren't, this is proof that the Qur'an is wrong, therefore not perfect and infallible and by extension not the work of Allah.

    Also, can you prove that not a single word of the Qur'an has changed from when Muhammad and others wrote it down?



    He's a well-known muslim apologist who has admitted that the scientific miracle claim is void.



    You do realise that the "you" was a general you and not specifically in reference to you, right? :laugh:

    I know you're not a muslim, that's why in my previous post I expressed confusion at you saying the Qur'an's morality was timeless whilst simultaneously not believing in it. My cake comment was in reference to those saying the Qur'an contains divinely inspired science, but retreating to the "it isn't a science textbook" retort when called out :lol:



    You sound horny



    It is comparing scientific facts, not comparing the book to the scientific method as a whole. Facts can be compared wherever and whatever form they're written down in.



    Again, it isn't a comparison of the scientific method, but of some facts. If Shakespeare's Macbeth said "the moon is a star" and I said "that's wrong", that doesn't mean I'm comparing his play to the scientific discipline does it, it just means I'm pointing out a scientific error.
    So I'd love to take my time and reply to all the points you made but honestly I went to bed at 11pm last night and now up at 4am randomly because I really wanna cuddle so I'll reply to the horny part right now and then the rest tomorrow or whenever yeah?

    Yes I'm a very sexual person possibly a nymphomaniac And I've got a thing for blondes, especially those with huge boobies (which I realise you don't have :giggle:) so yes I was horny, in fact I'm horny right now But its mostly because I just got out of this serious relationship and so it's kind of hard to not do it all the time lol

    EDIT: Never mind I'm not horny anymore and neither am I really in a mood to debate so I won't be replying. It's not because I don't have anything to say but more like I don't really feel like speaking to anyone anymore. If you're wondering why just look at my VMs. I honestly ****ing don't know what to do anymore.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    Firstly my apologies for the strange reply last night - my personal life's kind of f*ucked up atm and its affecting all other aspects of my life.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I'm not comparing the two, I am just pointing out that it contains scientific errors. Just like pointing out there's a spelling mistake in an essay doesn't mean I'm comparing it to the work of a four-year-old who can barely write.

    I agree with that, but unfortunately many muslims think this scientific miracles discourse is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the Quran's veracity.
    Yes I see what you're saying now. But what I'm trying to get at is there really isn't an error to point out in the first place. I realise doing google searches will bring about tons of results for/against such 'scientific miracles' in the Quran but to me it's not an issue when looking into the Quran - I like the Quran from a theological perspective as well as a linguistic one. Arabic is a rich language and the Quran's use of language is beautiful.

    Yes I am aware many muslims think that way. But I don't really know what to say about that lol?


    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Again, I am merely pointing out the scientific errors, not comparing it with science. The Qur'an is a piece of literature (which tries to smuggle in some so-called scientific truths), scientific literature is usually in the form of journals and data, it doesn't contain metaphors and flowery literary devices. So I'm not comparing the two distinct types, as they are so different that it's virtually pointless. But that doesn't mean that I can't point out the scientific errors that are in there.
    Yes it is a literature and a beautiful one at that and I think its rather doing it a great injustice saying it "tries to smuggle in some so-called scientific truths".

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)

    Most of it yes, your point being? This doesn't get away from the fact that the clay assertion is unequivocally and unambiguously erroneous.
    Aah but it does. And I could say the same for the leech thing too.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    So-called scientific miracles in the Qur'an have already been proved wrong, this isn't recent news. It's just that most muslims will refuse to believe it, understandably so, as to accept it would mean their rejection of Islam.
    I've actually looked into arguments both for and against such claims and to be honest with you both are quite horrendous on their own. One is trying to prove scientific claims in a spiritual book and the other is trying to debunk scientific claims in a spiritual book. Quite idiotic on both sides.

    And yet, Quran 5:101 says this

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    {O you who have believed, do not ask about things which, if they are shown to you, will distress you. But if you ask about them while the Quran is being revealed, they will be shown to you. Allaah has pardoned it [i.e. that which is past]; and Allaah is Forgiving and Forbearing. A people asked such [questions] before you; then they became thereby disbelievers.} [Quran 5:101-102]
    And so the beauty of the Quran is stripped away from it. It's beauty is the language (quite different from ordinary arabic too of course) and the linguist tools it uses and so picking out english translator versus out of the Quran proves nothing. You're using that to prove your point whereas a muslim can use the quote to prove his point. This is mostly a problem though because its in no chronological order.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    More importantly, however, the God of the Qur'an wouldn't have gotten things wrong about science, meaning no such deity authored it.
    Not sure what you mean by this.


    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I was arguing it in the context of many muslims rejecting scientific evidence for the sole reason of the Qur'an saying otherwise.
    Yes I see now and it kinda makes sense why you would say what you would I suppose.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    But right below this section you admit that morality is subjective, so therefore it must be us who are deciding what wronging someone is...
    When did I ever say it shouldn't be us that decides what wronging someone is? I mean who else can besides us? What I have said though it shouldn't be subjective, which it is since we're individuals and you're right the world is always changing, but whats right and wrong should never change because of times - to be honest though when I say that I'm mostly thinking in the sense that say cheating can never be justified although you never know, it can be moral to cheat in the future. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Don't know if I make sense or not.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Why shouldn't it be?
    Life experiences. Would like to stick to core values I've learnt from them no matter how the world evolves.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    I agree with most of this.
    most?

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Muslims generally claim the Qur'an is perfectly clear and unambiguous, which is debunked by the fact there are so many different Islamic sects and interpretations.
    Cant say I disagree.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    It does debunk it. I am not talking about the actual word remaining in place because that is a nonsensical argument. I am talking about the meaning of the words. If the Qur'an says certain morals are timeless and then we see that they aren't, this is proof that the Qur'an is wrong, therefore not perfect and infallible and by extension not the work of Allah.
    Well I was talking about the words themselves . Its hard to say the meaning of the words as one man might interpret it to blow up people while another would interpret it as self-defence. I think with religions a lot of the time its a reflection of the person you are as well. Although from what I learnt of the morals taught in the Quran they do seem timeless and thats what I was saying before.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Also, can you prove that not a single word of the Qur'an has changed from when Muhammad and others wrote it down?
    Have you read Leslie Hazletons book on Muhammad? He was an illiterate so he couldn't have written it down. However his followers might have. And I can't prove anything, I can only go by what historians, theologians and people far more qualified than me says. It's not about proving things to anyone, its about learning different things about it and analysing every aspect and coming to a conclusion of your research.


    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You do realise that the "you" was a general you and not specifically in reference to you, right? :laugh:

    I know you're not a muslim, that's why in my previous post I expressed confusion at you saying the Qur'an's morality was timeless whilst simultaneously not believing in it. My cake comment was in reference to those saying the Qur'an contains divinely inspired science, but retreating to the "it isn't a science textbook" retort when called out :lol:
    Aah I see then, sorry I can be slow at times But it's also because often times people can't fathom the idea that an agnost can appreciate the Quran, and therefore, actually argue for a lot of things in it, that I've often been called out to be muslim in disguise trying to convert people on this forum:giggle: when really I'm so far from that lol it's quite hilarious.:laugh:

    I think this attitude of mine stems from the fact that I've grown ups round the world and it was the norm for me to have friends that are all from different backgrounds, not just white brits you know? Like I've attended private international schools all my life (until I moved to Bangladesh and became homeschooled) so it just seems quite stupid as well, some of the things people say. Like honestly I've only ever encountered such ignorance for the first time on TSR. In real life I honestly can tell you I haven't.

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    You sound horny
    I was

    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Again, it isn't a comparison of the scientific method, but of some facts. If Shakespeare's Macbeth said "the moon is a star" and I said "that's wrong", that doesn't mean I'm comparing his play to the scientific discipline does it, it just means I'm pointing out a scientific error.
    Eh not a fan of Shakespeare, boring as ef.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    My family converted to Islam! :P
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by PrincessZara)
    My family converted to Islam! :P
    Hey there! Really? The entire family? 🙎🏻 Thats so interesting! 💁🏻Are you muslim too then?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hilrho)

    Yes I see what you're saying now. But what I'm trying to get at is there really isn't an error to point out in the first place.
    What do you mean there isn't an error? There is, there are biological errors in there concerning embryology...

    I realise doing google searches will bring about tons of results for/against such 'scientific miracles' in the Quran but to me it's not an issue when looking into the Quran - I like the Quran from a theological perspective as well as a linguistic one. Arabic is a rich language and the Quran's use of language is beautiful.
    Fair enough. All I'm saying is that if someone is going to claim there is reputable science in there (I'm not saying you are), then that can be challenged.

    Yes it is a literature and a beautiful one at that and I think its rather doing it a great injustice saying it "tries to smuggle in some so-called scientific truths".
    Well I'm not the one that's tried to smuggle in the so-called scientific miracles so I guess you'll have to take that bugbear up with the writer(s) of Qur'an.

    Aah but it does. And I could say the same for the leech thing too.
    Aah but it does? I'm confused as this statement doesn't answer the quote you were replying to...

    I've actually looked into arguments both for and against such claims and to be honest with you both are quite horrendous on their own. One is trying to prove scientific claims in a spiritual book and the other is trying to debunk scientific claims in a spiritual book. Quite idiotic on both sides.
    Actually, it's only the former that's idiotic. If a book, regardless of whether it's spiritual or otherwise, claims it has real science in it then those claims can be looked at and analysed scientifically to see it they have any truth in them. There is nothing idiotic about that.

    And so the beauty of the Quran is stripped away from it. It's beauty is the language (quite different from ordinary arabic too of course) and the linguist tools it uses and so picking out english translator versus out of the Quran proves nothing. You're using that to prove your point whereas a muslim can use the quote to prove his point. This is mostly a problem though because its in no chronological order.
    Not really sure what you're trying to say here. You said Qur'an promotes scientific inquiry, yet this passage is basically saying "don't ask hard and tricky questions as those who have done so have left Islam!"

    Not sure what you mean by this.
    You said in Qur'an Allah asks people to question and that he wouldn't have done this if he were afraid his book would be debunked by scientific inquiry. So you are presupposing, (even for the sake of argument), that Allah actually wrote Qur'an. But the fact that there are clear scientific errors in it proves he didn't, as an all-knowing Deity wouldn't make mistakes.

    When did I ever say it shouldn't be us that decides what wronging someone is?
    You implied it here:

    (Original post by hilrho)
    But I wasn't talking about what we see as wronging people.
    If you weren't talking about what we (humans) see as wronging people then what were you talking about?

    I mean who else can besides us?
    Indeed, who can.

    What I have said though it shouldn't be subjective, which it is since we're individuals and you're right the world is always changing, but whats right and wrong should never change because of times - to be honest though when I say that I'm mostly thinking in the sense that say cheating can never be justified although you never know, it can be moral to cheat in the future. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Don't know if I make sense or not.
    But if right and wrong never changed then you're saying that homosexuals should still be killed, that women should still be considered inferior to men, that black people are less human than white people etc etc.

    most?
    Most because you said you believe in many things in the Qur'an, which I don't. Apart from historical accounts then I don't believe in any of it really, nor do I particularly appreciate it.

    Well I was talking about the words themselves . Its hard to say the meaning of the words as one man might interpret it to blow up people while another would interpret it as self-defence. I think with religions a lot of the time its a reflection of the person you are as well. Although from what I learnt of the morals taught in the Quran they do seem timeless and thats what I was saying before.
    How on Earth do the morals in the Qur'an seem timeless? Are you saying that all the violent practices that went on against women, slaves etc should still be perfectly acceptable today?!

    Have you read Leslie Hazletons book on Muhammad? He was an illiterate so he couldn't have written it down. However his followers might have. And I can't prove anything, I can only go by what historians, theologians and people far more qualified than me says. It's not about proving things to anyone, its about learning different things about it and analysing every aspect and coming to a conclusion of your research.
    No, I haven't. But as you say, others could have written the Qur'an, which they obviously did as there is no evidence it was written by God or Angel Gabriel. This, however, is not evidence that not a single word has changed. Unless someone has in their possession the original Qur'an and can prove it's the original Qur'an, then this claim is vacuous.

    Aah I see then, sorry I can be slow at times But it's also because often times people can't fathom the idea that an agnost can appreciate the Quran, and therefore, actually argue for a lot of things in it, that I've often been called out to be muslim in disguise trying to convert people on this forum:giggle: when really I'm so far from that lol it's quite hilarious.:laugh:

    I think this attitude of mine stems from the fact that I've grown ups round the world and it was the norm for me to have friends that are all from different backgrounds, not just white brits you know? Like I've attended private international schools all my life (until I moved to Bangladesh and became homeschooled) so it just seems quite stupid as well, some of the things people say. Like honestly I've only ever encountered such ignorance for the first time on TSR. In real life I honestly can tell you I haven't.
    Haha, yeah I get what you mean. I'm often confused as a Christian just because I regularly have to correct muslims on their interpretation of the Trinity and other Christian tenets :lol:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    What do you mean there isn't an error? There is, there are biological errors in there concerning embryology...
    What are the biological errors?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    oo cool, another muslim (erm, I consider you muslim if you believe but haven't declared a shahada or whatever haha) who doesn't consider homosexual interactions to be haraam. What's your take on the story of Lut (a.s)? In my understanding the huge condemnation God makes isn't about homosexual acts but the fact that the people of soddom and gomorrah were raping travellers, -and- they were married, so it was adultery too.
    I don't think it is necessarily about rape. The problem with this interpretation is verse 7:81, and as Mufti Menk says (which is a common Muslim response to this interpretation) is that this verse would then be saying "don't rape the men, rape the women" (to quote the words of Mufti Menk)



    I think there two more logical interpretations. One would be to view the teachings of Allah based on context. During the era of Adam, incest was permitted, mainly due to there being no other option. During the time of Muhammad, homosexuality was not permitted, but this would not be an applicable teaching for our modern era. During the era of Muhammad, babies and young children often died and the world's population was rather small. Encouraging procreation would enable the continuation of the human race. We are now at a time however where we have an impending issue of overpopulation and where baby and child deaths are at an all time low and so such a stipulation would no longer be relevant.


    The other interpretation is to view the story of Lut as being a teaching against adultery. Muhammad was an orphan himself and knew the importance of having a strong family structure. Such acts of adultery could bring to ruins the family structure and thus disturb the familial environment of the child.

    If we are to believe that the Quran is the final word of God, then Quran would not prescribe rulings for no reason. They would have reasons behind them. Marriage was an institution designed to provide a stable and safe environment for children. Marriage allowed for clear lines of responsibility in the raising of children and ensured that children knew who their parents were and whose duty it was to raise them. This was to prevent problems arising such as among people who practised sexual relations freely with multiple people outside marriage (especially during the era of Muhammad), as people would be unable to know who the child's father was and therefore whose duty it was to support and raise the child so that the child is not orphaned. Muhammad, himself being an orphan, knew the negative effects that growing up as a child in an unstable environment can have.

    Now some might think therefore that committing adultery with men was fine (and there is much evidence for such pederastic relationships taking place in the early Islamic world), because obviously no children would be the result of such an adulterous relationship, so what is the harm? Well, such adulterous relationships can cause a breakdown of the marriage and eventually lead to divorce. Again, when it comes to a divorce, it is the children who suffer most. By prohibiting adultery, such marriage breakdowns can be better avoided. Time and again, the Quran speaks out against adultery, and verse 7:81 would therefore be one of many.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    ...

    It can't really be argued that Islam isn't critical of homosexual acts. Your interpretation seems to be rather wishful thinking on your part in an attempt to reconcile a liberal view of homosexuality with the Islamic view of homosexuality. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were quite clearly punished by god because of their indulgence in homosexuality, not their indulgence in rape or adultery...

    The Koran is quite clear that Lut's primary objection to the townsfolk's intentions for the travellers wasn't that it was adultery or rape, but rather the homosexual aspect of it. If he cared about people not being raped, he wouldn't have offered his daughters to them instead. :facepalm: Of course, the moral implication of that -- that heterosexual rape is better than homosexual rape -- is another point that I doubt anybody can really explain or justify.

    (Disclaimer: I'm aware that he offered his daughters for marriage and not rape specifically. )
    One would have to view the teachings of Allah based on their context. During the era of Adam, incest was permitted. But incest is no longer permitted. The teachings therefore are subject to external influences, and in this case it was due to there being no other option.

    During the time of Muhammad, homosexuality was not permitted, but this would not be an applicable teaching for our modern era. During the era of Muhammad, babies and young children often died and the world's population was rather small, the Muslim population even smaller. Encouraging procreation would enable the continuation of the human race and the spread of Islam. We are now at a time however where we have an impending issue of overpopulation and where baby and child deaths are at an all time low and so such a stipulation would no longer be relevant.

    Lut was therefore offering his own daughters in marriage as an indication of how important procreation was.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I don't think it is necessarily about rape. The problem with this interpretation is verse 7:81, and as Mufti Menk says (which is a common Muslim response to this interpretation) is that this verse would then be saying "don't rape the men, rape the women" (to quote the words of Mufti Menk)



    I think there two more logical interpretations. One would be to view the teachings of Allah based on context. During the era of Adam, incest was permitted, mainly due to there being no other option. During the time of Muhammad, homosexuality was not permitted, but this would not be an applicable teaching for our modern era. During the era of Muhammad, babies and young children often died and the world's population was rather small. Encouraging procreation would enable the continuation of the human race. We are now at a time however where we have an impending issue of overpopulation and where baby and child deaths are at an all time low and so such a stipulation would no longer be relevant.


    The other interpretation is to view the story of Lut as being a teaching against adultery. Muhammad was an orphan himself and knew the importance of having a strong family structure. Such acts of adultery could bring to ruins the family structure and thus disturb the familial environment of the child.

    If we are to believe that the Quran is the final word of God, then Quran would not prescribe rulings for no reason. They would have reasons behind them. Marriage was an institution designed to provide a stable and safe environment for children. Marriage allowed for clear lines of responsibility in the raising of children and ensured that children knew who their parents were and whose duty it was to raise them. This was to prevent problems arising such as among people who practised sexual relations freely with multiple people outside marriage (especially during the era of Muhammad), as people would be unable to know who the child's father was and therefore whose duty it was to support and raise the child so that the child is not orphaned. Muhammad, himself being an orphan, knew the negative effects that growing up as a child in an unstable environment can have.

    Now some might think therefore that committing adultery with men was fine (and there is much evidence for such pederastic relationships taking place in the early Islamic world), because obviously no children would be the result of such an adulterous relationship, so what is the harm? Well, such adulterous relationships can cause a breakdown of the marriage and eventually lead to divorce. Again, when it comes to a divorce, it is the children who suffer most. By prohibiting adultery, such marriage breakdowns can be better avoided. Time and again, the Quran speaks out against adultery, and verse 7:81 would therefore be one of many.
    Yeah, I was accidentally speaking from perspectives which I'd already put away at the time. It doesn't make sense. I don't make sense.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 12, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.