Quran consistent with modern science (was: Sexism in Islam)
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Rami Rustom
Oct 2, 2012, 3:47:38 PM10/2/12
to Fabric-o...@yahoogroups.com, beginning-...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Ismail Atalay <i_c_a...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 18:49 PM, <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Compatible with modern science? I challenge you to find one Quranic
>>verse that is compatible with modern science while also being
>>incompatible with 7th century knowledge.
>
>
> 51:47 "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."
>
> So Quran says heavens are expanding and God is its expander.
Are you saying that heaven = Universe? If so, then we are in heaven
now (because Earth is inside the Universe). But that is inconsistent
with the Quran's idea that we only go to heaven in the afterlife. How
do you reconcile this?
> 65:12 "It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them. [His] command descends among them so you may know that Allah is over all things competent and that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge".
>
> So the Quran says Earth is created as "similar" or "like" heavens (here seven means not number seven but multiple).
So you are asserting that "seven" actually means "multiple", but
without explanation. What is your explanation?
Note that the translation you provided incorrectly translates
"samawaat" as "heavens" when actually it means "skies". Jana means
heaven. Sama means sky.
Note also, that the translation you provided incorrectly translates
the whole verse "Allahoo al-lathi khalaka saba' samawat wamin al-arda
mithlahoona". It actually translates to "Allah is the one who created
seven skies and the earth like it." A word by word translation is
below:
Allahoo = Allah
al-lath = the one who
khalaka = created
saba' = seven
samawat = skies
wamin = and
al-arda = the earth
mithalhoona = like it (where the it is referring to the last noun
before the Earth, which was the skies.
> So Earth is like "heavens".
>
> This is a crazy idea for 7'th century AD. All scientific knowledge of the time was saying that Earth and Heavens were completely different domains in nature and in structure.
>
>
> 41:11 "Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."
>
> So the heaven and the earth was smoke (as they are similar). And God told them to come. And they did come.
So God talks to heaven and Earth and they reply? You believe that
heaven and Earth talks? Or do you believe this is just symbolic? If
you believe its just symbolic, then why don't you believe the other
parts of the verse are symbolic?
> Can you please explain me how it is possible that an illiterate person
Thats an unexplained assertion, that Mohamed was illiterate. Why do
you think he was illiterate?
> living in 7'th century Arabia (with Arabic civilization having no scientific knowledge on astronomy until that time)
False. The field of astronomy started millinia before 7th century. See
wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astronomy#Mesopotamia
> can come up with the idea that the heaven they see in the sky with moon, sun and all the stars was originally "smoke" and it has transformed to its present form via a command by God?
Are you equating smoke with gas?
> So here is a book from 7'th century AD that claims
>
> 1- Heavens are expanding
> 2- Earth is like heaven (from physical creation point of view)
> 3- Heaven was smoke at one point in time before God ordered it to "come"
>
> These verses were so incompatible with the scientific knowledge of that time that all Quranic interpretations until mid-20'th century had to force the Arabic meaning of the verses to come up with something plausible. Or scholars chose not to interpret these type of verses as it was not understandable to them. It is only after mid-20'th century that interpreters have changed classical interpretations and used the current cosmological knowledge that is confirming Quranic verses.
>
> There are many other verses like this. However from your attitude so far I am not so hopeful that you will approach to these verses from an objective and openminded stance.
You are claiming that I've said something subjective and that I've
been close-minded. I challenge you to quote a statement or complete
argument of mine and explain why you think my argument was subjective
and/or close-minded. If I'm mistaken, I want to correct my mistake.
>>Quran 4:89 (translated by Sahih): [...] do not take from among them
>>allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn
>>away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take
>>not from among them any ally or helper
>
>
> Here we go again. You are repeating the same mistake as isolating one specific verse with harsh tones from the following verse that completes the regulation with crucially important exceptions.
>
> Quran 4:90 Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people.
I'm confused as to why you think that verse fixes the previous verse.
This is about the morality of spreading religion. The Quran instructs
Muslims to spread Islam by compulsion. And 4:89 explains *how* to
apply that compulsion (seize them, kill them, from anywhere). And 4:90
explains in which situations Muslims should stop applying compulsion
(when they stop defending themselves - aka don't fight back).
> So muslims can only fight with renegades who refused to take refuge with people muslims are in peace with or with renegades who does not feel any strain in fighting with muslims or their own people. So they should be agressors and they should not be willing to submit after being renegades. It is only in this case you are permitted to seize/kill them.
Yes and the only reason Muslims have to seize/kill anyone is while
they are conquering a non-Muslim country to make it part of the
Islamic empire. And the Muslims called this "Footoohaat al-Islamia",
which means "opening to Islam". Note that the idea of war is not part
of that title.
>
>>That says to settle things. It doesn't say to women to divorce. It
>>doesn't even mention the word divorce. What are you talking about?
>
> I honestly do not think that this discussion is proceeding in a fruitful way. You asked me to provide a verse on women's right to divorce and I did provide it. The wording from the verse and the context is obviously talking at least about the prospect of "divorce". What type of settlement you can have if women has ill-treatment or his husband completely turns away? Why the verse does say "there will be no blame". Clearly it is a permission for some settlement that might lead into undesirable condition aka "divorce" or maybe reconciliation.
>
> Here is the verse about divorce. I do not see anything gender specific.
>
> 2:229 A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others).
>
> Here "she give something for her freedom" means she gives back (partially or fully) the marriage money that the men gives to women as financial security.
The verse you just quoted is not about how and why to do a divorce and
instead its about what to do after a divorce, which is irrelevant to
how and why to do a divorce. Is this a mistake on your part or is it
evasion? Or something else?
> With all due respect, I think it is a good point to end the religious discussion in this thread.
Do you mean *all* the tangents that we've taken starting from your
original response to my article?
> We have to agree on disagreeing here.
No. I don't agree with you on that. I have criticized so much of what
you've said and you haven't replied. This is not a "agree to disagree"
situation. The only time we would have a "agree to disagree" situation
is if both of us stated unexplained assertions that contradicted each
other and which didn't criticize each other successfully since they
were both void of explanations. But in our discussion, all of my
criticisms of your claims have includes explanations. So if our
discussion stops, it'll be because you have no more criticisms of my
ideas, thus they are the truth. See Popper's epistemology on what is
truth.
> I will not respond to any further responses to this thread.
I wonder why. Is it because you have no criticisms of my criticisms?
If so, why do you hold on to ideas that you now have criticisms of?
If you don't agree with my criticisms, then quote them, point out the
flaws, and explain why you think they are flaws. Or just turn off your
rationality and go back to faith.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>>On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 18:49 PM, <rom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Compatible with modern science? I challenge you to find one Quranic
>>verse that is compatible with modern science while also being
>>incompatible with 7th century knowledge.
>
>
> 51:47 "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."
>
> So Quran says heavens are expanding and God is its expander.
Are you saying that heaven = Universe? If so, then we are in heaven
now (because Earth is inside the Universe). But that is inconsistent
with the Quran's idea that we only go to heaven in the afterlife. How
do you reconcile this?
> 65:12 "It is Allah who has created seven heavens and of the earth, the like of them. [His] command descends among them so you may know that Allah is over all things competent and that Allah has encompassed all things in knowledge".
>
> So the Quran says Earth is created as "similar" or "like" heavens (here seven means not number seven but multiple).
So you are asserting that "seven" actually means "multiple", but
without explanation. What is your explanation?
Note that the translation you provided incorrectly translates
"samawaat" as "heavens" when actually it means "skies". Jana means
heaven. Sama means sky.
Note also, that the translation you provided incorrectly translates
the whole verse "Allahoo al-lathi khalaka saba' samawat wamin al-arda
mithlahoona". It actually translates to "Allah is the one who created
seven skies and the earth like it." A word by word translation is
below:
Allahoo = Allah
al-lath = the one who
khalaka = created
saba' = seven
samawat = skies
wamin = and
al-arda = the earth
mithalhoona = like it (where the it is referring to the last noun
before the Earth, which was the skies.
> So Earth is like "heavens".
>
> This is a crazy idea for 7'th century AD. All scientific knowledge of the time was saying that Earth and Heavens were completely different domains in nature and in structure.
>
>
> 41:11 "Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."
>
> So the heaven and the earth was smoke (as they are similar). And God told them to come. And they did come.
So God talks to heaven and Earth and they reply? You believe that
heaven and Earth talks? Or do you believe this is just symbolic? If
you believe its just symbolic, then why don't you believe the other
parts of the verse are symbolic?
> Can you please explain me how it is possible that an illiterate person
Thats an unexplained assertion, that Mohamed was illiterate. Why do
you think he was illiterate?
> living in 7'th century Arabia (with Arabic civilization having no scientific knowledge on astronomy until that time)
False. The field of astronomy started millinia before 7th century. See
wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astronomy#Mesopotamia
> can come up with the idea that the heaven they see in the sky with moon, sun and all the stars was originally "smoke" and it has transformed to its present form via a command by God?
Are you equating smoke with gas?
> So here is a book from 7'th century AD that claims
>
> 1- Heavens are expanding
> 2- Earth is like heaven (from physical creation point of view)
> 3- Heaven was smoke at one point in time before God ordered it to "come"
>
> These verses were so incompatible with the scientific knowledge of that time that all Quranic interpretations until mid-20'th century had to force the Arabic meaning of the verses to come up with something plausible. Or scholars chose not to interpret these type of verses as it was not understandable to them. It is only after mid-20'th century that interpreters have changed classical interpretations and used the current cosmological knowledge that is confirming Quranic verses.
>
> There are many other verses like this. However from your attitude so far I am not so hopeful that you will approach to these verses from an objective and openminded stance.
You are claiming that I've said something subjective and that I've
been close-minded. I challenge you to quote a statement or complete
argument of mine and explain why you think my argument was subjective
and/or close-minded. If I'm mistaken, I want to correct my mistake.
>>Quran 4:89 (translated by Sahih): [...] do not take from among them
>>allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn
>>away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take
>>not from among them any ally or helper
>
>
> Here we go again. You are repeating the same mistake as isolating one specific verse with harsh tones from the following verse that completes the regulation with crucially important exceptions.
>
> Quran 4:90 Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people.
I'm confused as to why you think that verse fixes the previous verse.
This is about the morality of spreading religion. The Quran instructs
Muslims to spread Islam by compulsion. And 4:89 explains *how* to
apply that compulsion (seize them, kill them, from anywhere). And 4:90
explains in which situations Muslims should stop applying compulsion
(when they stop defending themselves - aka don't fight back).
> So muslims can only fight with renegades who refused to take refuge with people muslims are in peace with or with renegades who does not feel any strain in fighting with muslims or their own people. So they should be agressors and they should not be willing to submit after being renegades. It is only in this case you are permitted to seize/kill them.
Yes and the only reason Muslims have to seize/kill anyone is while
they are conquering a non-Muslim country to make it part of the
Islamic empire. And the Muslims called this "Footoohaat al-Islamia",
which means "opening to Islam". Note that the idea of war is not part
of that title.
>
>>That says to settle things. It doesn't say to women to divorce. It
>>doesn't even mention the word divorce. What are you talking about?
>
> I honestly do not think that this discussion is proceeding in a fruitful way. You asked me to provide a verse on women's right to divorce and I did provide it. The wording from the verse and the context is obviously talking at least about the prospect of "divorce". What type of settlement you can have if women has ill-treatment or his husband completely turns away? Why the verse does say "there will be no blame". Clearly it is a permission for some settlement that might lead into undesirable condition aka "divorce" or maybe reconciliation.
>
> Here is the verse about divorce. I do not see anything gender specific.
>
> 2:229 A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others).
>
> Here "she give something for her freedom" means she gives back (partially or fully) the marriage money that the men gives to women as financial security.
The verse you just quoted is not about how and why to do a divorce and
instead its about what to do after a divorce, which is irrelevant to
how and why to do a divorce. Is this a mistake on your part or is it
evasion? Or something else?
> With all due respect, I think it is a good point to end the religious discussion in this thread.
Do you mean *all* the tangents that we've taken starting from your
original response to my article?
> We have to agree on disagreeing here.
No. I don't agree with you on that. I have criticized so much of what
you've said and you haven't replied. This is not a "agree to disagree"
situation. The only time we would have a "agree to disagree" situation
is if both of us stated unexplained assertions that contradicted each
other and which didn't criticize each other successfully since they
were both void of explanations. But in our discussion, all of my
criticisms of your claims have includes explanations. So if our
discussion stops, it'll be because you have no more criticisms of my
ideas, thus they are the truth. See Popper's epistemology on what is
truth.
> I will not respond to any further responses to this thread.
I wonder why. Is it because you have no criticisms of my criticisms?
If so, why do you hold on to ideas that you now have criticisms of?
If you don't agree with my criticisms, then quote them, point out the
flaws, and explain why you think they are flaws. Or just turn off your
rationality and go back to faith.
-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages