Hello everyone
Many people keep saying our religion is the best and so on. I've been thinking which religion is the best ?
When i made some research about christianity i found many different types of bible ? How that could be clear ?
I found also that king James edition had many errors and so on
When i got to the conclusion i found that Christianity has been altered a lot and when i asked a pastor and he said well, in the past there were no good lights so writers made some mistakes because they couldn't see and i knew he was lying so i watched many famous pastors who converted to Islam such as Yusuf Estes and i got my attention on Islam.
It has only one original book. It has many miracles that scientists just discovered recently so how if Islam is false miracles about weather and physics were written 1400 years ago and scientists just discovered it recently. Also when i read Quran i feel like the words style and order cannot be written by a human. I met a person and he said who made buildings ? And i said companies and people. Then he said who made cars and so on and my answer was the same then he said nothing can't be existed by it self right ? 0 + 0 = nothing and i said of course then he said who made the earth, sun, stars, planets and i said God then he said what religion do u think is clear about God's worship and i said Islam. I Satisfied about Islam but i want ur opinions
Any advice between Islam and Christianity and what is better to convert to.
I don't think either religion is worth anyone's time, but heck what do I know.
Either way, if your judging religions by asking which one is "better" your looking at it the wrong way. Religion is intended to fulfill the practitioner spiritually, so which ever doctrine fulfills that for your personally should be the religion you adhere to.
As for your argument against Christianity, the Qur'an is not totally absolved from edits and isn't in its total original form. For example, the Satanic Verses are excerpts from the Qur'an believed to be added by Muhammad himself, which were later removed because they exalted pagan Meccan gods.
There's thousands of religions in the world and you make it sound like there are only two options to pick from.
I think it's great that the Quran satisfies you. But keep in mind that if you were brought up in a different place, then you would love a christian bible (or whatever other religion happens to be popular there) instead and you would not take the Quran seriously. And if you lived in another time, you would love Zeus or Apollo or Mishra just as much as you love Muhammad now.
According to the Quran, the world is flat, it is orbited by the sun, and humans were made from clay and mud. It is easy to understand how people in the 6th century could believe these things but a god would know better. Science doesn't support the Quran, it discredits it. If you would like to explain away the errors away by claiming that it is metaphor or inventing different meanings for the words so they mean the opposite of what they say, feel free, but it won't convince anyone.
Personally, I feel that the 'best' religion does not exist but any religion that promotes open-mindedness, acceptance of others, and honesty would be high up on my list of good religions.
This is a trick question. The answer is that NO religion is the best religion because all religions are about consolidation of power and personal manipulation through a shared sense of morality. A better question to ask would be: "Is there some form of established spirituality that is right for me?"
As an example: Take a bible. Throw out EVERYTHING except the parts that Jesus supposedly said. Try to interpret their meaning and live your life by them. Then think about how that sort of spiritual journey would compare to just picking a sect of Christianity, finding a church and following the beliefs and doctrines of that church.
As for your argument against Christianity, the Qur'an is not totally absolved from edits and isn't in its total original form. For example, the Satanic Verses are excerpts from the Qur'an believed to be added by Muhammad himself, which were later removed because they exalted pagan Meccan gods.
The "satanic verses" are nothing new, and have been debunked by every single credible scholar. There's just zero validity to this story.
According to the Quran, the world is flat, it is orbited by the sun, and humans were made from clay and mud. It is easy to understand how people in the 6th century could believe these things but a god would know better. Science doesn't support the Quran, it discredits it. If you would like to explain away the errors away by claiming that it is metaphor or inventing different meanings for the words so they mean the opposite of what they say, feel free, but it won't convince anyone.
Flat? Earth orbited by the sun? I'm sorry but where does it say that? As far as "science" goes in discrediting the Qur'an the only example I can think of is the evolution of man from ape. As for evolution in general there is no opposition to it from an Islamic perspective, but we do believe that Adam was created, and we believe that he was fashioned from clay, mud etc.
The "satanic verses" are nothing new, and have been debunked by every single credible scholar. There's just zero validity to this story.
My understanding is that scholars of Islam are generally skeptical, but that the issue has not been completely put to bed. My further understanding is that many of the scholars within Islam reject the verses on the basis that they are inconsistent with a perfect Qur'an, which of course would be circular reasoning when the perfection of the Qur'an is precisely the issue in question. There may be other good reasons to reject the verses - scanning the Wikipedia page on them, their provenance certainly looks shaky to me - but you can't assert perfection in order to demonstrate perfection.
As far as "science" goes in discrediting the Qur'an the only example I can think of is the evolution of man from ape. As for evolution in general there is no opposition to it from an Islamic perspective, but we do believe that Adam was created, and we believe that he was fashioned from clay, mud etc.
One example of a factually incorrect belief promoted by the Qur'an is sufficient to prove rockondon's point. If the Qur'an is perfect, the only acceptable number of falsehoods is zero.
And yes, the special creation of mankind is a falsehood. It has been "debunked by every single credible scholar" to a vastly more extensive and rigorous degree than a few obscure allegedly-Qur'anic ayat. The only people who reject human evolution do so on the basis that... wait for it... it is inconsistent with a perfect Qur'an (or Bible or other scripture).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
According to the Quran, the world is flat, it is orbited by the sun, and humans were made from clay and mud. It is easy to understand how people in the 6th century could believe these things but a god would know better. Science doesn't support the Quran, it discredits it. If you would like to explain away the errors away by claiming that it is metaphor or inventing different meanings for the words so they mean the opposite of what they say, feel free, but it won't convince anyone.
Flat? Earth orbited by the sun? I'm sorry but where does it say that? As far as "science" goes in discrediting the Qur'an the only example I can think of is the evolution of man from ape. As for evolution in general there is no opposition to it from an Islamic perspective, but we do believe that Adam was created, and we believe that he was fashioned from clay, mud etc.
To mention just a few:
Sura Al-Kahf (18:47)
And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind.
Sura Taha (20:53)
Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out); and has opened roads (ways and paths etc.) for you therein; and has sent down water (rain) from the sky. And We have brought forth with it various kinds of vegetation.
Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:10)
Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you roads therein, in order that you may find your way.
Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:38)
Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarîn (Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of) companion (indeed)!
Sura An-Naba (78:6)
Have We not made the earth as a bed,
Sura An-Naziat (79:30)
And after that He spread the earth;
Sura Al-Kahf (18:90)
Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allâh) had provided no shelter against the sun.
Sura Yasin (36:38)
And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.
Sura Yasin (36:40)
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.
“The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.”
—Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz, supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993
According to the Quran, the world is flat, it is orbited by the sun, and humans were made from clay and mud. It is easy to understand how people in the 6th century could believe these things but a god would know better. Science doesn't support the Quran, it discredits it. If you would like to explain away the errors away by claiming that it is metaphor or inventing different meanings for the words so they mean the opposite of what they say, feel free, but it won't convince anyone.
Flat? Earth orbited by the sun? I'm sorry but where does it say that? As far as "science" goes in discrediting the Qur'an the only example I can think of is the evolution of man from ape. As for evolution in general there is no opposition to it from an Islamic perspective, but we do believe that Adam was created, and we believe that he was fashioned from clay, mud etc.
To mention just a few:
Sura Al-Kahf (18:47)
And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind.
Sura Taha (20:53)
Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out); and has opened roads (ways and paths etc.) for you therein; and has sent down water (rain) from the sky. And We have brought forth with it various kinds of vegetation.
Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:10)
Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you roads therein, in order that you may find your way.
Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:38)
Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarîn (Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of) companion (indeed)!
Sura An-Naba (78:6)
Have We not made the earth as a bed,
Sura An-Naziat (79:30)
And after that He spread the earth;
Sura Al-Kahf (18:90)
Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allâh) had provided no shelter against the sun.
Sura Yasin (36:38)
And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.
Sura Yasin (36:40)
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.
“The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment.”
—Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz, supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993
Can you source for the Ibn Baaz quote so I could read the original in Arabic? Even if that was his position that does not mean that it the Islamically correct. One scholars opinion does not equate religious belief.
As for the verses none of them are substantial proof for the entire earth being flat. There are many types of land formations, such as "flat plains". MtG players should be more than aware of that. As for verses of the sun moving I recall reading that the sun does indeed move, and in none of the verses I can recall does it mention that the sun revolves around the earth (as you mentioned). Please be specific in quoting scientific claims against the Qur'an as well as clear in your assumptions about them.
As for the creation of Adam I am not convinced with our "theory" of evolution in that we 100% evolved out of apes. I also understand that the scientific belief we hold today as fact is vastly different than the scientific belief held 2000 years ago, which was also held as fact. Having said that I have no doubt believing the story of creation and holding it in much more regard that our "scientific" facts revolving around the theory of evolution.
"Having said that I have no doubt believing the story of creation and holding it in much more regard that our "scientific" facts revolving around the theory of evolution."
I am agreeingto that andi say that it is ALLtrue, all of it.
...in none of the verses I can recall does it mention that the sun revolves around the earth (as you mentioned).
The key word to look at is the Arabic in Yasin 36:40 translated here as "orbit". In English, "orbit" implies cyclical movement around a central body - in this context, clearly the earth.
Also, even from a terrestrial perspective, the sun does overtake the moon in the sky. Check it out. The sun's apparent westward motion is faster than the moon's. Every month, the sun appears to "catch up" to the moon, pass it, then run away from it, "lapping" the moon in their race around the earth about twelve times a year. (The reason for this is that the moon's orbit takes it from west to east, against the earth's westward rotation. If the moon orbited the other way it would appear to be the faster one.)
And finally, unless you live on the equator, the night outstrips the day for about half the year, between the autumnal and vernal equinoxes.
So overall, Muhammad does not seem to have been a very observant astronomer.
As for the creation of Adam I am not convinced with our "theory" of evolution in that we 100% evolved out of apes. I also understand that the scientific belief we hold today as fact is vastly different than the scientific belief held 2000 years ago, which was also held as fact. Having said that I have no doubt believing the story of creation and holding it in much more regard that our "scientific" facts revolving around the theory of evolution.
Two thousand years ago Muhammad had not yet been born and Islam did not exist. If, as you say, change in belief over this span of time disqualifies a claim from being true, then Islam is disqualified as well.
But to say that change in scientific understanding is a weakness of science is to fundamentally misunderstand science - and indeed truth itself. Imagine you're playing a game of twenty questions with me. You think the answer might be "tiger", so you ask, "Is it covered in fur?" If I say "no", you should change your mind. This isn't poor reflection on you; it means you're rational. If you insist on thinking the solution is "tiger" anyway, on sticking to your tiger theory through all twenty questions no matter how I answer them, that doesn't make "tiger" more likely to be the truth.
Our search for truth is like a game of twenty questions between us and the universe. We ask the questions, and get answers through observation. If observations are inconsistent with our beliefs, we change our beliefs. As we accumulate more and more observations and change their beliefs to accommodate them, they can be confident that their beliefs are coming ever and ever closer to what is actually true. This is the scientific method. Openness to change is its great strength. And resistance to change is the weakness of religious belief. When a religion insists on a belief that is inconsistent with observation - like evolution, or like the motion of the sun and moon - then they certainly believe something which is not true. Just as if you insist on the belief that the answer is "tiger" even though I've said it's not covered in fur, then you are certainly wrong. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes: rather than twist facts to suit theories, we must twist theories to suit facts.
On the particular subject of evolution, I will only say that our observations overwhelmingly support the theory that humans share a common ancestor with other apes - that humans are apes - and contradict alternative theories that have been proposed. If you want to know more, talkorigins.org will answer in detail just about any question about the science you could possibly have.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
...in none of the verses I can recall does it mention that the sun revolves around the earth (as you mentioned).
The key word to look at is the Arabic in Yasin 36:40 translated here as "orbit". In English, "orbit" implies cyclical movement around a central body - in this context, clearly the earth.
Also, even from a terrestrial perspective, the sun does overtake the moon in the sky. Check it out. The sun's apparent westward motion is faster than the moon's. Every month, the sun appears to "catch up" to the moon, pass it, then run away from it, "lapping" the moon in their race around the earth about twelve times a year. (The reason for this is that the moon's orbit takes it from west to east, against the earth's westward rotation. If the moon orbited the other way it would appear to be the faster one.)
And finally, unless you live on the equator, the night outstrips the day for about half the year, between the autumnal and vernal equinoxes.
So overall, Muhammad does not seem to have been a very observant astronomer.
As for the creation of Adam I am not convinced with our "theory" of evolution in that we 100% evolved out of apes. I also understand that the scientific belief we hold today as fact is vastly different than the scientific belief held 2000 years ago, which was also held as fact. Having said that I have no doubt believing the story of creation and holding it in much more regard that our "scientific" facts revolving around the theory of evolution.
Two thousand years ago Muhammad had not yet been born and Islam did not exist. If, as you say, change in belief over this span of time disqualifies a claim from being true, then Islam is disqualified as well.
But to say that change in scientific understanding is a weakness of science is to fundamentally misunderstand science - and indeed truth itself. Imagine you're playing a game of twenty questions with me. You think the answer might be "tiger", so you ask, "Is it covered in fur?" If I say "no", you should change your mind. This isn't poor reflection on you; it means you're rational. If you insist on thinking the solution is "tiger" anyway, on sticking to your tiger theory through all twenty questions no matter how I answer them, that doesn't make "tiger" more likely to be the truth.
Our search for truth is like a game of twenty questions between us and the universe. We ask the questions, and get answers through observation. If observations are inconsistent with our beliefs, we change our beliefs. As we accumulate more and more observations and change their beliefs to accommodate them, they can be confident that their beliefs are coming ever and ever closer to what is actually true. This is the scientific method. Openness to change is its great strength. And resistance to change is the weakness of religious belief. When a religion insists on a belief that is inconsistent with observation - like evolution, or like the motion of the sun and moon - then they certainly believe something which is not true. Just as if you insist on the belief that the answer is "tiger" even though I've said it's not covered in fur, then you are certainly wrong. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes: rather than twist facts to suit theories, we must twist theories to suit facts.
On the particular subject of evolution, I will only say that our observations overwhelmingly support the theory that humans share a common ancestor with other apes - that humans are apes - and contradict alternative theories that have been proposed. If you want to know more, talkorigins.org will answer in detail just about any question about the science you could possibly have.
You assume that it implies the sun is orbiting the sun, but it is neither in the text nor have I found any other verse mentioning such. It states that it is in an orbit, that's all it explicitly mentions. FYI the word mentioned in Surah Yasin (36:40) is yasbahoon coming from the root word saa-baa-haa which means to swim/roll/float/celebrate praise/declare God to be far removed from any imperfection. All of these meanings seem to be valid in one way or another.
As for evolution you misunderstood my point. My point was to illustrate that "science" is constantly changing and things that were assumed to be factual have been dismissed before, therefore I have no qualms in saying I believe in the creation of Adam over believing in the theory of evolution. **as an aside, the essential beliefs of Islam have been applicable since the very creation of Adam, whether Muhammad had existed or not is irrelevant to the message he was sent with which was that there is One true deity worthy of worship, God.
Thanks for the link, I'll take a glance.
I don't have a problem with the validity of science, I have a problem believing that the theory of evolution is complete and that there is no room for the creation narration. Islam has also adapted and evolved throughout the ages, and so long as the theological tenants remain the same (the belief in One God, His Revelations, His Messengers, His Angels, The Day of Judgment, etc) then Islam has no problem progressing along with society.
I'll give you an example. Let's say for instance there was a classical scholar that, according to his hermeneutical understanding, the earth was flat. Centuries later, there is no problem with modern scholarship to re-investigate the hermeneutical discussion and later reinterpret the verses in an acceptable manner that understands the scientific discovery of an un-flat earth along with a linguistic acceptable commentary of the verse. Does that make sense? The Qur'an is unchanged, but our understanding of the Qur'an continues to grow as we pass through the canals of time.
No. . ., what you said even though sarcastic is 100% correct, that everything he came from no matter what the base outline was came from the Bible. LOOK WHAT HE SAID!
and so long as the theological tenants remain the same (the belief in One God, His Revelations, His Messengers, His Angels, The Day of Judgment, etc) then Islam has no problem progressing along with society.
As a gay man, I am highly skeptical of this assertion. The quoted words of Muhammad himself:
Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death."
Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses.' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot [homosexual intercourse], kill the doer and the receiver."
Will the Ummah really be willing to condemn and ignore the hate speech of their prophet? Based on #sharia governments in #Iran, etc., I'm having my doubts.
You assume that it implies the sun is orbiting the sun, but it is neither in the text nor have I found any other verse mentioning such. It states that it is in an orbit, that's all it explicitly mentions.
It states that the sun is in orbit along with the moon. It makes no sense to pair the two unless you're saying they orbiting the same body - especially not with the talk of "overtaking". You can't overtake someone if you're not on the same racetrack.
FYI the word mentioned in Surah Yasin (36:40) is yasbahoon coming from the root word saa-baa-haa which means to swim/roll/float/celebrate praise/declare God to be far removed from any imperfection. All of these meanings seem to be valid in one way or another.
Thank you, but that's actually the word translated here as "float", not the one for "orbit". And in any case I have to disagree with you, none of those meanings are valid. The sun is not "rolling", because it's not on a surface. It is not "floating", because it's not in a fluid - if I had to speculate, I'd guess that this usage of Muhammad's reflects a Semitic belief we also see in the Bible that above the dome of the sky is a vast reservoir of water and that's where rain comes from. Or possibly something about the Greek notion of quintessence. Anyway, moving on, the sun is definitely not "swimming", both for the previous reason and because it has no volition to move under its own power. And it isn't celebrating or praising God because it is mindless, and the ayah is clearly talking about motion anyway.
If Muhammad wanted to use an accurate word for the motion of the sun that demonstrated an insight into the truth of the matter beyond the misconceptions of his contemporaries, he would have impressed me with the Arabic for "falling". Bonus points if he somehow mentioned that it was falling towards a point in the sky near the constellation Sagittarius, not the center of the earth, and the length of one orbit is about 250 million years, not a day. But as things stand, what I see is a pretty ordinary statement about solar beliefs from a pretty ordinary 7th-Century Arabian man.
My point was to illustrate that "science" is constantly changing and things that were assumed to be factual have been dismissed before...
Things that were assumed to be factual have been dismissed before when the evidence contradicted them. What evidence contradicts the theory of human evolution? If you don't have any, then you are rejecting what our observations tell us in favor of a preferred belief system - twisting facts to fit theories, rather than theories to fit facts.
**as an aside, the essential beliefs of Islam have been applicable since the very creation of Adam, whether Muhammad had existed or not is irrelevant to the message he was sent with which was that there is One true deity worthy of worship, God.
And the theory of evolution has been applicable since long before the life of any human being, "Adam" or otherwise. Whether Darwin had existed or not is irrelevant to the fact he discovered which was that all animals share a common descent.
I'll give you an example. Let's say for instance there was a classical scholar that, according to his hermeneutical understanding, the earth was flat. Centuries later, there is no problem with modern scholarship to re-investigate the hermeneutical discussion and later reinterpret the verses in an acceptable manner that understands the scientific discovery of an un-flat earth along with a linguistic acceptable commentary of the verse. Does that make sense? The Qur'an is unchanged, but our understanding of the Qur'an continues to grow as we pass through the canals of time.
What if you can't make this reinterpretation? What if the only possible interpretations of a verse are all compatible with our scientific observations? What if the night in fact does outstrip the day, every year, at the autumnal equinox?
Homosexual actions, as non-politically correct to state it is, is prohibited not just by the sayings of Muhammad (which following is a tenant of Islam) but also explicitly in the Qur'an.
I'll give you an example. Let's say for instance there was a classical scholar that, according to his hermeneutical understanding, the earth was flat. Centuries later, there is no problem with modern scholarship to re-investigate the hermeneutical discussion and later reinterpret the verses in an acceptable manner that understands the scientific discovery of an un-flat earth along with a linguistic acceptable commentary of the verse. Does that make sense? The Qur'an is unchanged, but our understanding of the Qur'an continues to grow as we pass through the canals of time.
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you're saying that if a classical scholar asserts the Earth is flat, and scholars from our era reinterpret the verses to make it so the words are taken to mean that the Earth is round, that it is acceptable to say that the work of the classical scholar is consistent with the fact that the Earth is round?
Of course there's something wrong with that. That's deliberately distorting the context of what the classical scholar said to make it say what the modern scholars want it to say, as opposed to it being in keeping with the ideas that the classical scholar actually expressed.
You assume that it implies the sun is orbiting the sun, but it is neither in the text nor have I found any other verse mentioning such. It states that it is in an orbit, that's all it explicitly mentions.
It states that the sun is in orbit along with the moon. It makes no sense to pair the two unless you're saying they orbiting the same body - especially not with the talk of "overtaking". You can't overtake someone if you're not on the same racetrack.
FYI the word mentioned in Surah Yasin (36:40) is yasbahoon coming from the root word saa-baa-haa which means to swim/roll/float/celebrate praise/declare God to be far removed from any imperfection. All of these meanings seem to be valid in one way or another.
Thank you, but that's actually the word translated here as "float", not the one for "orbit". And in any case I have to disagree with you, none of those meanings are valid. The sun is not "rolling", because it's not on a surface. It is not "floating", because it's not in a fluid - if I had to speculate, I'd guess that this usage of Muhammad's reflects a Semitic belief we also see in the Bible that above the dome of the sky is a vast reservoir of water and that's where rain comes from. Or possibly something about the Greek notion of quintessence. Anyway, moving on, the sun is definitely not "swimming", both for the previous reason and because it has no volition to move under its own power. And it isn't celebrating or praising God because it is mindless, and the ayah is clearly talking about motion anyway.
If Muhammad wanted to use an accurate word for the motion of the sun that demonstrated an insight into the truth of the matter beyond the misconceptions of his contemporaries, he would have impressed me with the Arabic for "falling". Bonus points if he somehow mentioned that it was falling towards a point in the sky near the constellation Sagittarius, and not the center of the earth. But as things stand, what I see is a pretty ordinary statement about solar beliefs from a pretty ordinary 7th-Century Arabian man.
My point was to illustrate that "science" is constantly changing and things that were assumed to be factual have been dismissed before...
Things that were assumed to be factual have been dismissed before when the evidence contradicted them. What evidence contradicts the theory of human evolution? If you don't have any, then you are rejecting what our observations tell us in favor of a preferred belief system - twisting facts to fit theories, rather than theories to fit facts.
**as an aside, the essential beliefs of Islam have been applicable since the very creation of Adam, whether Muhammad had existed or not is irrelevant to the message he was sent with which was that there is One true deity worthy of worship, God.
And the theory of evolution has been applicable since long before the life of any human being, "Adam" or otherwise. Whether Darwin had existed or not is irrelevant to the fact he discovered which was that all animals share a common descent.
I'll give you an example. Let's say for instance there was a classical scholar that, according to his hermeneutical understanding, the earth was flat. Centuries later, there is no problem with modern scholarship to re-investigate the hermeneutical discussion and later reinterpret the verses in an acceptable manner that understands the scientific discovery of an un-flat earth along with a linguistic acceptable commentary of the verse. Does that make sense? The Qur'an is unchanged, but our understanding of the Qur'an continues to grow as we pass through the canals of time.
What if you can't make this reinterpretation? What if the only possible interpretations of a verse are all compatible with our scientific observations? What if the night in fact does outstrip the day, every year, at the autumnal equinox?
1: Read the verses before it and after it, the conversation isn't just about the sun and the moon.
2: Sorry should have paid more attention. Falak (faa-lam-kaf) means circular, round, and place of the revolving of the stars. Still don't see how you claim it to mean that the sun is in orbit of the earth. I'll go through more classical tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) tonight.
3: That's my point, just because there isn't anything that seems to contradict the theory of evolution, doesn't mean that there ever wont be. And as I've stated, I believe that evolution exists, existed, and even in the case of apes it existed. I don't believe Adam evolved from an ape however. We're going to go in circles around this because science can not prove the creation of man as of yet, and I'm okay with that.
I'll give you an example. Let's say for instance there was a classical scholar that, according to his hermeneutical understanding, the earth was flat. Centuries later, there is no problem with modern scholarship to re-investigate the hermeneutical discussion and later reinterpret the verses in an acceptable manner that understands the scientific discovery of an un-flat earth along with a linguistic acceptable commentary of the verse. Does that make sense? The Qur'an is unchanged, but our understanding of the Qur'an continues to grow as we pass through the canals of time.
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong here, but you're saying that if a classical scholar asserts the Earth is flat, and scholars from our era reinterpret the verses to make it so the words are taken to mean that the Earth is round, that it is acceptable to say that the work of the classical scholar is consistent with the fact that the Earth is round?
Of course there's something wrong with that. That's deliberately distorting the context of what the classical scholar said to make it say what the modern scholars want it to say, as opposed to it being in keeping with the ideas that the classical scholar actually expressed.
No, I said that the specific instance of that scholars opinion could be deemed wrong by scholars who also interpret the verses and are capable of writing Qur'anic commentary. No one said that the scholars words are reinterpreted, but the verses are interpreted based on knowledge available to us.
Many people keep saying our religion is the best and so on. I've been thinking which religion is the best ?
When i made some research about christianity i found many different types of bible ? How that could be clear ?
I found also that king James edition had many errors and so on
When i got to the conclusion i found that Christianity has been altered a lot and when i asked a pastor and he said well, in the past there were no good lights so writers made some mistakes because they couldn't see and i knew he was lying so i watched many famous pastors who converted to Islam such as Yusuf Estes and i got my attention on Islam.
It has only one original book. It has many miracles that scientists just discovered recently so how if Islam is false miracles about weather and physics were written 1400 years ago and scientists just discovered it recently. Also when i read Quran i feel like the words style and order cannot be written by a human. I met a person and he said who made buildings ? And i said companies and people. Then he said who made cars and so on and my answer was the same then he said nothing can't be existed by it self right ? 0 + 0 = nothing and i said of course then he said who made the earth, sun, stars, planets and i said God then he said what religion do u think is clear about God's worship and i said Islam. I Satisfied about Islam but i want ur opinions
Any advice between Islam and Christianity and what is better to convert to.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Either way, if your judging religions by asking which one is "better" your looking at it the wrong way. Religion is intended to fulfill the practitioner spiritually, so which ever doctrine fulfills that for your personally should be the religion you adhere to.
As for your argument against Christianity, the Qur'an is not totally absolved from edits and isn't in its total original form. For example, the Satanic Verses are excerpts from the Qur'an believed to be added by Muhammad himself, which were later removed because they exalted pagan Meccan gods.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
I think it's great that the Quran satisfies you. But keep in mind that if you were brought up in a different place, then you would love a christian bible (or whatever other religion happens to be popular there) instead and you would not take the Quran seriously. And if you lived in another time, you would love Zeus or Apollo or Mishra just as much as you love Muhammad now.
According to the Quran, the world is flat, it is orbited by the sun, and humans were made from clay and mud. It is easy to understand how people in the 6th century could believe these things but a god would know better. Science doesn't support the Quran, it discredits it. If you would like to explain away the errors away by claiming that it is metaphor or inventing different meanings for the words so they mean the opposite of what they say, feel free, but it won't convince anyone.
Personally, I feel that the 'best' religion does not exist but any religion that promotes open-mindedness, acceptance of others, and honesty would be high up on my list of good religions.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
As an example: Take a bible. Throw out EVERYTHING except the parts that Jesus supposedly said. Try to interpret their meaning and live your life by them. Then think about how that sort of spiritual journey would compare to just picking a sect of Christianity, finding a church and following the beliefs and doctrines of that church.
to put it in good terms, there is One God.
The "satanic verses" are nothing new, and have been debunked by every single credible scholar. There's just zero validity to this story.
Flat? Earth orbited by the sun? I'm sorry but where does it say that? As far as "science" goes in discrediting the Qur'an the only example I can think of is the evolution of man from ape. As for evolution in general there is no opposition to it from an Islamic perspective, but we do believe that Adam was created, and we believe that he was fashioned from clay, mud etc.
Need a collection tracker? Use EchoMTG here: https://www.echomtg.com/r/7bb6961d/
Join the Zoo Discord: https://discord.gg/Yu6eTSTrzA
One example of a factually incorrect belief promoted by the Qur'an is sufficient to prove rockondon's point. If the Qur'an is perfect, the only acceptable number of falsehoods is zero.
And yes, the special creation of mankind is a falsehood. It has been "debunked by every single credible scholar" to a vastly more extensive and rigorous degree than a few obscure allegedly-Qur'anic ayat. The only people who reject human evolution do so on the basis that... wait for it... it is inconsistent with a perfect Qur'an (or Bible or other scripture).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sura Al-Kahf (18:47)
And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind.
Sura Taha (20:53)
Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out); and has opened roads (ways and paths etc.) for you therein; and has sent down water (rain) from the sky. And We have brought forth with it various kinds of vegetation.
Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:10)
Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you roads therein, in order that you may find your way.
Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:38)
Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarîn (Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of) companion (indeed)!
Sura An-Naba (78:6)
Have We not made the earth as a bed,
Sura An-Naziat (79:30)
And after that He spread the earth;
Sura Al-Kahf (18:90)
Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allâh) had provided no shelter against the sun.
Sura Yasin (36:38)
And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.
Sura Yasin (36:40)
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
Can you source for the Ibn Baaz quote so I could read the original in Arabic? Even if that was his position that does not mean that it the Islamically correct. One scholars opinion does not equate religious belief.
As for the verses none of them are substantial proof for the entire earth being flat. There are many types of land formations, such as "flat plains". MtG players should be more than aware of that. As for verses of the sun moving I recall reading that the sun does indeed move, and in none of the verses I can recall does it mention that the sun revolves around the earth (as you mentioned). Please be specific in quoting scientific claims against the Qur'an as well as clear in your assumptions about them.
As for the creation of Adam I am not convinced with our "theory" of evolution in that we 100% evolved out of apes. I also understand that the scientific belief we hold today as fact is vastly different than the scientific belief held 2000 years ago, which was also held as fact. Having said that I have no doubt believing the story of creation and holding it in much more regard that our "scientific" facts revolving around the theory of evolution.
Need a collection tracker? Use EchoMTG here: https://www.echomtg.com/r/7bb6961d/
Join the Zoo Discord: https://discord.gg/Yu6eTSTrzA
I am agreeingto that andi say that it is ALLtrue, all of it.
Spam infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Also, even from a terrestrial perspective, the sun does overtake the moon in the sky. Check it out. The sun's apparent westward motion is faster than the moon's. Every month, the sun appears to "catch up" to the moon, pass it, then run away from it, "lapping" the moon in their race around the earth about twelve times a year. (The reason for this is that the moon's orbit takes it from west to east, against the earth's westward rotation. If the moon orbited the other way it would appear to be the faster one.)
And finally, unless you live on the equator, the night outstrips the day for about half the year, between the autumnal and vernal equinoxes.
So overall, Muhammad does not seem to have been a very observant astronomer.
Two thousand years ago Muhammad had not yet been born and Islam did not exist. If, as you say, change in belief over this span of time disqualifies a claim from being true, then Islam is disqualified as well.
But to say that change in scientific understanding is a weakness of science is to fundamentally misunderstand science - and indeed truth itself. Imagine you're playing a game of twenty questions with me. You think the answer might be "tiger", so you ask, "Is it covered in fur?" If I say "no", you should change your mind. This isn't poor reflection on you; it means you're rational. If you insist on thinking the solution is "tiger" anyway, on sticking to your tiger theory through all twenty questions no matter how I answer them, that doesn't make "tiger" more likely to be the truth.
Our search for truth is like a game of twenty questions between us and the universe. We ask the questions, and get answers through observation. If observations are inconsistent with our beliefs, we change our beliefs. As we accumulate more and more observations and change their beliefs to accommodate them, they can be confident that their beliefs are coming ever and ever closer to what is actually true. This is the scientific method. Openness to change is its great strength. And resistance to change is the weakness of religious belief. When a religion insists on a belief that is inconsistent with observation - like evolution, or like the motion of the sun and moon - then they certainly believe something which is not true. Just as if you insist on the belief that the answer is "tiger" even though I've said it's not covered in fur, then you are certainly wrong. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes: rather than twist facts to suit theories, we must twist theories to suit facts.
On the particular subject of evolution, I will only say that our observations overwhelmingly support the theory that humans share a common ancestor with other apes - that humans are apes - and contradict alternative theories that have been proposed. If you want to know more, talkorigins.org will answer in detail just about any question about the science you could possibly have.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You assume that it implies the sun is orbiting the sun, but it is neither in the text nor have I found any other verse mentioning such. It states that it is in an orbit, that's all it explicitly mentions. FYI the word mentioned in Surah Yasin (36:40) is yasbahoon coming from the root word saa-baa-haa which means to swim/roll/float/celebrate praise/declare God to be far removed from any imperfection. All of these meanings seem to be valid in one way or another.
As for evolution you misunderstood my point. My point was to illustrate that "science" is constantly changing and things that were assumed to be factual have been dismissed before, therefore I have no qualms in saying I believe in the creation of Adam over believing in the theory of evolution. **as an aside, the essential beliefs of Islam have been applicable since the very creation of Adam, whether Muhammad had existed or not is irrelevant to the message he was sent with which was that there is One true deity worthy of worship, God.
Thanks for the link, I'll take a glance.
I don't have a problem with the validity of science, I have a problem believing that the theory of evolution is complete and that there is no room for the creation narration. Islam has also adapted and evolved throughout the ages, and so long as the theological tenants remain the same (the belief in One God, His Revelations, His Messengers, His Angels, The Day of Judgment, etc) then Islam has no problem progressing along with society.
I'll give you an example. Let's say for instance there was a classical scholar that, according to his hermeneutical understanding, the earth was flat. Centuries later, there is no problem with modern scholarship to re-investigate the hermeneutical discussion and later reinterpret the verses in an acceptable manner that understands the scientific discovery of an un-flat earth along with a linguistic acceptable commentary of the verse. Does that make sense? The Qur'an is unchanged, but our understanding of the Qur'an continues to grow as we pass through the canals of time.
Need a collection tracker? Use EchoMTG here: https://www.echomtg.com/r/7bb6961d/
Join the Zoo Discord: https://discord.gg/Yu6eTSTrzA
You cannot plausibly claim to interpret the Gospels while disregarding the religious context that is central to the message of Gospels. That's absurd.
As a gay man, I am highly skeptical of this assertion. The quoted words of Muhammad himself:
Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death."
Bukhari (72:774) - "The Prophet cursed effeminate men (those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, 'Turn them out of your houses.' The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman."
al-Tirmidhi, Sunan 1:152 - [Muhammad said] "Whoever is found conducting himself in the manner of the people of Lot [homosexual intercourse], kill the doer and the receiver."
Will the Ummah really be willing to condemn and ignore the hate speech of their prophet? Based on #sharia governments in #Iran, etc., I'm having my doubts.
Thank you, but that's actually the word translated here as "float", not the one for "orbit". And in any case I have to disagree with you, none of those meanings are valid. The sun is not "rolling", because it's not on a surface. It is not "floating", because it's not in a fluid - if I had to speculate, I'd guess that this usage of Muhammad's reflects a Semitic belief we also see in the Bible that above the dome of the sky is a vast reservoir of water and that's where rain comes from. Or possibly something about the Greek notion of quintessence. Anyway, moving on, the sun is definitely not "swimming", both for the previous reason and because it has no volition to move under its own power. And it isn't celebrating or praising God because it is mindless, and the ayah is clearly talking about motion anyway.
If Muhammad wanted to use an accurate word for the motion of the sun that demonstrated an insight into the truth of the matter beyond the misconceptions of his contemporaries, he would have impressed me with the Arabic for "falling". Bonus points if he somehow mentioned that it was falling towards a point in the sky near the constellation Sagittarius, not the center of the earth, and the length of one orbit is about 250 million years, not a day. But as things stand, what I see is a pretty ordinary statement about solar beliefs from a pretty ordinary 7th-Century Arabian man.
Things that were assumed to be factual have been dismissed before when the evidence contradicted them. What evidence contradicts the theory of human evolution? If you don't have any, then you are rejecting what our observations tell us in favor of a preferred belief system - twisting facts to fit theories, rather than theories to fit facts.
And the theory of evolution has been applicable since long before the life of any human being, "Adam" or otherwise. Whether Darwin had existed or not is irrelevant to the fact he discovered which was that all animals share a common descent.
What if you can't make this reinterpretation? What if the only possible interpretations of a verse are all compatible with our scientific observations? What if the night in fact does outstrip the day, every year, at the autumnal equinox?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Need a collection tracker? Use EchoMTG here: https://www.echomtg.com/r/7bb6961d/
Join the Zoo Discord: https://discord.gg/Yu6eTSTrzA
Of course there's something wrong with that. That's deliberately distorting the context of what the classical scholar said to make it say what the modern scholars want it to say, as opposed to it being in keeping with the ideas that the classical scholar actually expressed.
1: Read the verses before it and after it, the conversation isn't just about the sun and the moon.
2: Sorry should have paid more attention. Falak (faa-lam-kaf) means circular, round, and place of the revolving of the stars. Still don't see how you claim it to mean that the sun is in orbit of the earth. I'll go through more classical tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) tonight.
3: That's my point, just because there isn't anything that seems to contradict the theory of evolution, doesn't mean that there ever wont be. And as I've stated, I believe that evolution exists, existed, and even in the case of apes it existed. I don't believe Adam evolved from an ape however. We're going to go in circles around this because science can not prove the creation of man as of yet, and I'm okay with that.
4: I'm not familiar with the "stripping of the night and day" argument. Is this what you're referring to? http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html
Need a collection tracker? Use EchoMTG here: https://www.echomtg.com/r/7bb6961d/
Join the Zoo Discord: https://discord.gg/Yu6eTSTrzA
No, I said that the specific instance of that scholars opinion could be deemed wrong by scholars who also interpret the verses and are capable of writing Qur'anic commentary. No one said that the scholars words are reinterpreted, but the verses are interpreted based on knowledge available to us.
Need a collection tracker? Use EchoMTG here: https://www.echomtg.com/r/7bb6961d/
Join the Zoo Discord: https://discord.gg/Yu6eTSTrzA