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.
...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.
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.
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.
Well that depends, sometimes you don't need/want 4 of a certain card but want to draw 1-2 throughout the course of the game. For me it's Pridemage/Scooze/Knight's. Usually I wanna curve out there and GCR to win, or use Pridemage/Scooze to help push through a weird interaction.
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.
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.
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.
also does anyone else just wish they reprint Sulfuric Vortex? That would help with so many decks like pod/soul sisters etc.
I would, helps get early damage in as well as evolve e1 past 4 since he's lacking goyfs And Knights.
Here's my list:
4 Goblin Guide
4 Wild Nacatl
4 Tarmogoyf
3 Qasali Pridemage
3 Scavenging Ooze
3 Knight of the Reliquary
4 Ghor-Clan Rampager
4 Lightning Helix
2 Path to Exile
1 Domri Rade
4 Arid Mesa
4 Wooded Foothills
4 Windswept Heath
2 Stomping Ground
2 Temple Garden
2 Sacred Foundry
1 Kessig Wolf Run
1 Horizon Canopy
1 Forest
1 Plains
I want to figure out though whether or not Grim's are correct or not. Not sure what to replace it with though.