Ask a Muslim anything

[Undesired Walrus]

Where's Jinn?

 

[Leumas]

If any moslim wants to Deify Muhammad then all one needs (presumably) to refute them and show them that the Quran denies that, is this Verse from Surah 3 (Imran)

Surah 3 (Imran)
3:144 Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels ? He who turneth back on his heels doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful.

 

[I Ratant]

That's got nothing to do with the big bang. That's just a rehash of Genesis 1...




Steve S

.
Islam is just a variation on the basic Hebrew beliefs, with a smattering of Christianity and Arab paganism mashed together.

 

[Leumas]

I was asked by Jinn to cite verses to prove my assertions about the utter invalidity of the Quran as an epistemologically and scientific reliable source.

I have mainly concentrated on science stuff....so I did not go into the moral aspects (maybe once). Oh and free will stuff.

The references below are SuraNumber : VerseNumber, VerseNumber, VerseNumberForm-VerseNumberTo

The comma separates verses and the hyphen indicates a range of verses.

Here is the list..... you can use any translation you want.... but I found that the Ibn Kathir site gives a lot of ELUCIDATIONS and additional historical information. The Skeptics site is also a good one.



Remember that it is best to read this in context not just as isolated verses.... so it is best to read the verses before and after sometimes.

That is why I found the Ibn Kathir site an excellent source.



Here is the list

02:7,22,269,272
03:6,59
04:3,34,92
06:107,112,149
07:40,54,81
10:3,5-6
13:12-13,41
15:19,29
16:68-70,93
17:12-13,16,44
18:86
21:30-33
22:65
25:61-62
27:61
29:41
30:20,48
31:10,29
32:3,7-9,13-14
35:11
36:41
38:71-74
39:5,71-82
41:11-12
42:5
47:4
48:14
50:6-7
51:48-49,56
52:17-24,38
55:6-7,14-15,17,37
67:3-5
69:16
71:15-19
77:8-10,30
78:6-14
79:28-32
81:11
86:6-7

 

[MattusMaximus]

Peace Mattus,

This is a very interesting question and one that I can answer rather humorously. ...

... I guess the short answer is that the Qur'an, like any piece of literary work, is open to interpretation for those who want to achieve a slant. However, to date, I haven't encountered any passages that directly contradict what we know.

Thanks for a direct response, Jinn. Let me say that, as an atheist, while I don't share your views on God and whatnot (and we can get into that elsewhere, if you like), I welcome you and your like-minded Islamic brethren to the side of those who defend science against nonsense. I have many religious friends who share your view on the need to interpret their holy texts in a manner consistent with what we learn through science, and it pleases me to see that you seem to come from that same camp. Welcome

Cheers - MM

ETA: I see there is an ongoing debate about the supposed scientific validity of the Koran. This reminds me of a recent blog post I made concerning the supposed scientific validity of the Bible... http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/science-confirms-the-bible-hmmm-not-so-much/

 

[MattusMaximus]

Yep. The Bible also says that light came before the light source

Specifically, Genesis states that day and night came before the sun was created, which violates everything we know about astronomical science. But don't Muslims give the Old Testament Bible validity? If so, this would seem to be a problem for not just Christianity, but any Abrahamic religion which seeks to give the OT validity.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No. There is no "pulsing lighthouse effect", and pulsars do not generate light.

What pulsars do is spin. SN 1054 - the pulsar at the center of the Crab Nebula - rotates about 30 times per second. So if you could detect it, which certainly did not happen prior to the 20th century, you'd perceive it as a low hum.

None of this relates at all to the verse you cited; that's just really, really bad confirmation bias.

Edit: Damn, ninja'd.

I'd also like to know what the Koran says, if anything, regarding the high-intensity magnetic fields surrounding pulsars. Or the fact that they're neutron stars.

If the Koran doesn't mention anything about these features of pulsars, it seems to me that it is leaving out a lot of relevant info. Not what I'd call a scientifically useful source.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Peace DC,

I LOVE your avatar! I have that same exact Cthulhu fish on the back of my car! I love it so much

[derail]

Uh-oh. You're not going to go all "Mad Arab Al Azif" on us now, are you?

[/derail]

 

[MattusMaximus]

Peace gerdbonk,

I believe in a previous post I gave reference to the Big Bang, expansion of the universe and Cosmic Crunch in the Qur'an. Not sure which post number it is, I've been busy answering as fast as I can

If the Koran is so scientifically accurate, as you seem to be implying, with these issues of cosmology, then why does it not mention anything about the accelerating expansion of the universe (i.e. dark energy, etc)?

For that matter, where are quantum mechanics and general relativity mentioned?

 

[MattusMaximus]

However the vast majority of us have a live and let live attitude and have nothing against Jinns religion other than what an atheist would have against religion overall.

To quote Thomas Jefferson:
"... it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Or, as George Carlin put it, have your religion if that's what you want, because for some people it's like lifts for your shoes. Just don't try nailing your shoes to my feet

 

[Mudcat]

Peace Mudcat,

Peace Jinn

The Qur'an tells us, as Muslims, to be charitable to those around us, whether it be to the orphans, the slaves, or our enemies. Indeed the pain and suffering that is widespread around the world is not a simple issue for anyone, regardless of faith, but we are told to do what we can in terms of helping. The Qur'an tells us to "Give in the way of Allah" the excess of our needs.

This does nothing to answer my question except to inform me that I was right all along about God(whatever name you wanna give it) doesn't know the first thing about good leadership qualities.

Maybe good leadership isn't a godly trait or whatever, but we can strike 'all knowing' off the list.

are further commanded to fast during the month of Ramadan, that is, to abstain from food, water and sexual relations from sun-up to sun-down in order to remind ourselves of those who are much less fortunate than us. Those who are unable to fast (due to medical conditions or other such factors) are ordered to feed at least one less fortunate person for the duration of Ramadan.

I have issue with any God that commands any kind of fasting, especially when subsistence is easily at hand. It creates more suffering (granted, not a heavy suffering).

Likewise there are many examples of God using pain and suffering to punish; acts which even Messengers have disagreed on. Examples include Abraham pleading for Sodom to be spared as well as Moses' plea for mercy on the Israelites.

So much wrong here I'm not sure where to begin. Surely a humdinger of a Gordian's knot of fallacies.

1.)Prove that these are 'God Punish' instead of 'Natural Ocurrences'
2.)Punishing for what? One thing that unbelievers have problems with is a wrathful God, venting his spleen upon an unsuspecting population. Especially considering that the population is largely innocent human beings.
3.)Why didn't God listen to Abraham or Moses? Surely a compassionate God heard even a single cry to spare the people and stayed their wrath.

There is more than just that alone in that one statement, but I figure I'll go easy on the new kid on the block.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Hello Jinn,

On the first page you were asked if you consider the Qur'an a source of scientific knowledge, to which you answered:

Peace Lowpro,

There is a man named Dr. Zakir Naik who I believe said it best: "The Qur'an is not a book of SCIENCE, the Qur'an is a book of SIGNS"

The Qur'an is a reminder for humans, not a science book. Every mention of earth and space related entities and happenings is described as a sign and a testament to God. So the simple answer is "no."

I would daresay that if the Qur'an WAS a source of scientific knowledge, it would take a library to house a single copy.

I'm having trouble reconciling this with your testimony that the alleged "pulsar verse" is what led you to accept Islam as true. Further down the thread you were asked how you would react to a seeming contradiction between a hypothetical scientific verse and observed reality, and you essentially rehashed the original post I quoted.

So which is it? Is the Qur'an a source for scientific knowledge or isn't it? Would you say that the Qur'an is a source for scientific knowledge when it appears to agree with reality but is "just a book of signs" when it doesn't?





EDIT: I see that others have repeatedly brought this up with Jinn already and he has ignored such questions, so never mind.

 

[Kopji]

Jinn,
Welcome to the forum. 'A question to a Muslim' - why don't you wander around, read and post in some other threads, come back to this one later if you want? It will be here.

As I see it, a problem with this kind of thread is that you've jumped into a glass jar and said 'examine me'. So we are curious, slam on the lid, and all gather around to look at the interesting bug (no offense, bugs are awesome) shake it and see how it responds. But then by accident the bug is accidentally, well, squished. We are sad, and a creature of interest is gone. That ain't right.

Or you can stick it out, and become like some posters who believe that persistence itself, and not content, is somehow evidence of their truth. That's much worse.

peace

 

[Leumas]

Specifically, Genesis states that day and night came before the sun was created, which violates everything we know about astronomical science. But don't Muslims give the Old Testament Bible validity? If so, this would seem to be a problem for not just Christianity, but any Abrahamic religion which seeks to give the OT validity.

A while ago I used to think that by debunking the Bible (especially the OT) and proving it to be a fallacious document then AUTOMATICALLY the Quran is by the SET properties is also proven to be at least partially fallacious.

The Quran is a substantial INTERSECT with the Bible and the two sets have numerous elements in common. So if you can prove that the elements in the intersect are fallacious using the bible then the quran is also fallacious due to containing fallacious elements.

But this kind of logic is out of the window in the game of religious beliefs.

Every time you argue with a Christian that the OT is bad and he cannot wriggle and squirm out of it he resorts to "ah But Jesus changed all that".


Likewise....moslims have an out..... "the Jews and christians do not have the TRUE torah and ingeel (NT) anymore....they have been distorted and forged and augmented that there is no way it is the REAL scriptures God gave them".


So you no longer can assume that since the Bible is proven to be wrong it implies that the quran is also wrong.

You have to debunk the quran ITSELF directly through its own words.

Many times I point out that the stories I am debunking through the Bible are repeated EXACTLY in the Quran....but to no avail....they refuse to listen.

Not that they listen anyway when you debunk the quran directly either. But at least they PAUSE...then they use the EXACT SAME apologetics as Christians use.... which translation are you using…..not original language....context.... free will..... things were different then….. and the last resort to kill any more logical exchange …..who are you to question god.... he is god and he can do what he wants….you are going to hell I hope you like global warming, you are going to get a lot warmer. ….EXACTLY the arguments Christians use….EXACTLY…..

This actually makes me think…… the contention between christianity and islam is due to each seeing itself in the other and hating what they see.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

If the Koran is so scientifically accurate, as you seem to be implying, with these issues of cosmology, then why does it not mention anything about the accelerating expansion of the universe (i.e. dark energy, etc)?

For that matter, where are quantum mechanics and general relativity mentioned?

RE: Pulsars, It wouldn't be too much to ask for something as simple as:

'Verily, the lights in the sky collapse and spin like the lighthouse'

 

[Kapyong]

Well,
I think that's the last we'll see of Jinn.

K.

 

[DC]

i hope Jinn comes back some time. But reading the thread i must say, i would not come back here. It must be like swimming in a piranhia aquarium.

 

[Brian-M]

Peace Brian,

Unfortunately, I'm not here to debate. I'm here to field questions and answer to the best of my ability. If you are in any way unsatisfied with this simple methodology, then I apologize.

I understand not wanting to debate, especially with the amazingly rapid rate this thread is growing. There's simply no time for extended dialog. However, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to answer the two questions I asked in that post.

These questions were:

• Do you have a rational basis for your belief, and if so, what?
• Can you find a passage that explicitly tells us something that nobody of that time could have possibly known?

I have one further observation. Your stated reason for belief is that in studying the Qur'an you discovered numerous examples of what you consider to be scientifically accurate passages that containing information that the people of that time could not possibly have known without divine revelation.

But when other people in this forum have challenged the scientific accuracy of the Qur'an, you dismiss the points with the defense: "The Qur'an is a book of signs, not a book of science."

This leads me to a third question I would also like answered.

• Is it possible, in your opinion, that your perspective on the Qur'an may be significantly distorted by confirmation bias?

 

[Brian-M]

How does it feel to believe a lie?

Bill, that's a fairly silly question.

If someone honestly believes something to be true, then in their mind it is true. Whether or not it is true in reality makes not difference to how the mind perceives a concept it holds to be true.

So the answer would have to be that believing a lie feels exactly the same as believing a truth.

Where is Jinn?

Has he left?

Was he for real?

Maybe he had to go to sleep. And when he's done with that, it's most likely he'd have to go to work. Most people don't spend 24 hours a day debating on internet forums, or happen to come here at exactly the same time you do.

How is Atheism not just another stupid faith?

Faith is belief in something, such as a deity, without a rational basis for this belief. Atheism is a lack of belief any deities. These are two different things. That's how Atheism is not just another stupid faith.

 

[Leumas]

i hope Jinn comes back some time. But reading the thread i must say, i would not come back here. It must be like swimming in a piranhia aquarium.

Although he seemed like a nice guy...he was a little lacking on critical thinking as far as religion is concerned.

His apologetics and evasive tactics were pretty much STANDARD FAIR.

What puzzles me is .... if he is capable of rationalizing islam with such faulty reasoning....why could he not do it for christianity.... it is not really that different....and would have been easier due to childhood indoctrination.

This point really fascinates me. He could have just as easily kept to the same faulty reasoning and rationalization and stayed christian.

His claim to "science" stuff in the quran is pretty easily satisfied by the same warping of the Bible.... it is not as if it has not been done. In fact there is a lot more of it going on.

I am quite intrigued by his MINDSET.


Another fascinating thing he said.... "it is easy to be an atheist all you have to do is not believe".


Now that is a NOVEL thought....... he is right....BUT… would a person who just stops believing for no rational or reasoned out causes be really an Atheist? Technically he would!

It makes me reconsider the notion that we really need a different delineation than Atheist....we need one for people who use REASON to reject all religions and gods than just not wanting to believe in one?

What do you think?