Happy Atheist Forum

Hackenslash, in my case it's different.

I have the Qur'an here. I have no idea who wrote it besides God or aliens.

- it doesn't contain a single contradiction.. (if you knew how it was revealed......)

- it tells of things that were unknown back then....for example this verse..and there are many more..

"And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you."(Quran, 78:6-7)

What the above says, 95% of the people still don't know that mountains are actually stabilizing tectonic plates...
How could a man have known this?

- there is no other arabic book like it.. one of it's kind....

- it claims so much, yet it is never wrong...

- why would a man-made book contain a verse like this?
 
“Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from
any other than Allah, they would surely have found
therein much discrepancy.” (Surah An‐Nisa, 4:82)

That's like challenging others to find contradictions...a man-made book would never contain a verse like that..

- The promise that it will never get altered...Dhikr = Quran

"Verily, I revealed the Dhikr and verily I will preserve it."
[Noble Quran 15:9]

If the Quran had changed, then God would not fulfill His promise...

- Professor Arthur J. Arberry, Professor of Arabic at Cambridge University

Apart from certain orthographical modifications of the originally somewhat primitive method of writing, intended to render unambiguous and easy the task of reading the recitation, the Koran as printed in the twentieth century is identical with the Koran as authorized by Uthman more than 1300 years ago


Till this today the Quran has not changed a word...

Or that Muhammad (pbuh) was foretold in the Old testament and the New testament....

And this is not everything..if you read history about the revelation of the Quran and the life of Muhammad (pbuh)..

Personally with all the knowledge I have, not believing this would be like closing my eyes putting fingers in my ears
pretending as it never happened.
It would be nothing more than 'I don't believe in God because science can explain everything'.
I tried a lot to figure out where the Quran comes from...basically I came up with three theories.

- All of it was dumb luck (man wrote it)
- God
- Aliens

I take my chances, I believe in God.

iSok, this thread is not for discussions.

Quote from: "Whitney"iSok, this thread is not for discussions.

It's called preaching ;)

Quote from: "iSok"Hackenslash, in my case it's different.

I have the Qur'an here. I have no idea who wrote it besides God or aliens.

- it doesn't contain a single contradiction.. (if you knew how it was revealed......)

- it tells of things that were unknown back then....for example this verse..and there are many more..

"And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you."(Quran, 78:6-7)

What the above says, 95% of the people still don't know that mountains are actually stabilizing tectonic plates...
How could a man have known this?

- there is no other arabic book like it.. one of it's kind....

- it claims so much, yet it is never wrong...

- why would a man-made book contain a verse like this?
 
“Do they not consider the Quran? Had it been from
any other than Allah, they would surely have found
therein much discrepancy.” (Surah An‐Nisa, 4:82)

That's like challenging others to find contradictions...a man-made book would never contain a verse like that..

- The promise that it will never get altered...Dhikr = Quran

"Verily, I revealed the Dhikr and verily I will preserve it."
[Noble Quran 15:9]

If the Quran had changed, then God would not fulfill His promise...

- Professor Arthur J. Arberry, Professor of Arabic at Cambridge University

Apart from certain orthographical modifications of the originally somewhat primitive method of writing, intended to render unambiguous and easy the task of reading the recitation, the Koran as printed in the twentieth century is identical with the Koran as authorized by Uthman more than 1300 years ago


Till this today the Quran has not changed a word...

Or that Muhammad (pbuh) was foretold in the Old testament and the New testament....

And this is not everything..if you read history about the revelation of the Quran and the life of Muhammad (pbuh)..

Personally with all the knowledge I have, not believing this would be like closing my eyes putting fingers in my ears
pretending as it never happened.
It would be nothing more than 'I don't believe in God because science can explain everything'.
I tried a lot to figure out where the Quran comes from...basically I came up with three theories.

- All of it was dumb luck (man wrote it)
- God
- Aliens

I take my chances, I believe in God.

Are there any other verses in the Qur'an like the one about mountains, ie about stuff that couldn't have been known back then?

Quote from: "pilchardo"Are there any other verses in the Qur'an like the one about mountains, ie about stuff that couldn't have been known back then?

A lot of verses indicate to things like these.

This one for example (expansion of the universe).

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (The Qur'an, 51:47)

Or that all matter came from one point and life comes from water.

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder, and We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (The Qur'an, 21:30)

Or that the atmosphere is our shield for different aspects (meteors..radiation etc)

"We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs.." (The Qur'an, 21:32)

Or that mountains move with the earth crust, and do not stand still at one point.

"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds." (The Qur'an, 27:88)

There are about a thousand verses in the Quran on subjects like these, the Quran calls these verses 'Signs'.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "pilchardo"Are there any other verses in the Qur'an like the one about mountains, ie about stuff that couldn't have been known back then?

A lot of verses indicate to things like these.

This one for example (expansion of the universe).

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (The Qur'an, 51:47)

Or that all matter came from one point and life comes from water.

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder, and We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (The Qur'an, 21:30)

Or that the atmosphere is our shield for different aspects (meteors..radiation etc)

"We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs.." (The Qur'an, 21:32)

Or that mountains move with the earth crust, and do not stand still at one point.

"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds." (The Qur'an, 27:88)

There are about a thousand verses in the Quran on subjects like these, the Quran calls these verses 'Signs'.

Regardless of whether or not god dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad, either way, I have a lot of respect for ancient knowledge. It seems to me that so called "primitive" cultures do know many things that science is only just beginning to discover, or hasn't yet been able to confirm. Personally I think it's down to the possibility that there may have been a time when scientific knowledge and technology was far more advanced than it is today. What do you think?

Quote from: "iSok"This one for example (expansion of the universe).

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (The Qur'an, 51:47)

That's not what my translation says, and that's completely aside from the Texas Sharpshooter gambit you have erected:

Quote51:47 We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent.

QuoteOr that mountains move with the earth crust, and do not stand still at one point.

"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds." (The Qur'an, 27:88)

In what logically consistent universe could that be translated into plate tectonics? Poetry is not science.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "iSok"This one for example (expansion of the universe).

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (The Qur'an, 51:47)

That's not what my translation says, and that's completely aside from the Texas Sharpshooter gambit you have erected:

Quote51:47 We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent.

QuoteOr that mountains move with the earth crust, and do not stand still at one point.

"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds." (The Qur'an, 27:88)

In what logically consistent universe could that be translated into plate tectonics? Poetry is not science.

They didn't have the same vocabulary that we have, so it stands to reason that you can't expect them to have used phrases such as "plate tectonics".

Quote from: "pilchardo"Regardless of whether or not god dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad, either way, I have a lot of respect for ancient knowledge. It seems to me that so called "primitive" cultures do know many things that science is only just beginning to discover, or hasn't yet been able to confirm. Personally I think it's down to the possibility that there may have been a time when scientific knowledge and technology was far more advanced than it is today. What do you think?

Too be honnest Pilchardo, I think it's impossible.  
The expanding of the universe, could you just guess that by looking at the night sky?

Or looking at an mountain and saying it moves around and it stabilises tectonic plates?

Or that all matter came from one point?

Or that a man described the processing of an embryo in the womb when it's in the first stage (few cells), where you usually need a microscope for..
And that after 1400 years an embryologist/surgeon converts after reading these verses?

However these signs in the Quran are not the most convincing to me.
But the environment, in which the Quran came, and the uniqueness of the Quran.

The Arabs back then were pretty good in wars, slavery and killing people.
And here comes an illiterate man that claims he's a messenger of God, in the midst of this chaos.
The fact that the Arabs just couldn't kill him....while they so eagerly wanted.

Or the story about Abu Lahab, Muhammad's (pbuh) uncle, who was not the most pleasant man...always trying to destroy Islam by killing many of its followers in the most brutal way.
10 years before this man died, the Quran came with the message that he would never change.
All Abu Lahab had to do is to say that he's a Muslim and that way he would prove that the Quran was man-made.
10 years passed..and he didn't say it.

Basically I have an overwhelming ammount of arguments for me personally to say that the Quran is from God or aliens.

Walking away from it so I can fornicate as much as I can...won't be easy, I need something which will
proof that the Quran comes from man.

Personally, I think the more probable option out of the two is that it came from aliens.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "iSok"This one for example (expansion of the universe).

"And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it." (The Qur'an, 51:47)

That's not what my translation says, and that's completely aside from the Texas Sharpshooter gambit you have erected:

Quote51:47 We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent.

QuoteOr that mountains move with the earth crust, and do not stand still at one point.

"You will see the mountains you reckoned to be solid going past like clouds." (The Qur'an, 27:88)

In what logically consistent universe could that be translated into plate tectonics? Poetry is not science.

It's upto you to say that it's wrong.

I see those verses as.

Mountains <--> Less earthquakes
Mountains move like clouds.


In your eternal conquest to deny God, even claiming this goes a bit too far...

Quote from: "iSok"In your eternal conquest to deny God, even claiming this goes a bit too far...

Eternal? Don't you mean finite?    Sorry, couldn't resist. But I have to say, it's just poetry.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "pilchardo"Regardless of whether or not god dictated the Qur'an to Muhammad, either way, I have a lot of respect for ancient knowledge. It seems to me that so called "primitive" cultures do know many things that science is only just beginning to discover, or hasn't yet been able to confirm. Personally I think it's down to the possibility that there may have been a time when scientific knowledge and technology was far more advanced than it is today. What do you think?

Too be honnest Pilchardo, I think it's impossible.  
The expanding of the universe, could you just guess that by looking at the night sky?

Or looking at an mountain and saying it moves around and it stabilises tectonic plates?

Or that all matter came from one point?

Or that a man described the processing of an embryo in the womb when it's in the first stage (few cells), where you usually need a microscope for..
And that after 1400 years an embryologist/surgeon converts after reading these verses?

However these signs in the Quran are not the most convincing to me.
But the environment, in which the Quran came, and the uniqueness of the Quran.

The Arabs back then were pretty good in wars, slavery and killing people.
And here comes an illiterate man that claims he's a messenger of God, in the midst of this chaos.
The fact that the Arabs just couldn't kill him....while they so eagerly wanted.

Or the story about Abu Lahab, Muhammad's (pbuh) uncle, who was not the most pleasant man...always trying to destroy Islam by killing many of its followers in the most brutal way.
10 years before this man died, the Quran came with the message that he would never change.
All Abu Lahab had to do is to say that he's a Muslim and that way he would prove that the Quran was man-made.
10 years passed..and he didn't say it.

Basically I have an overwhelming ammount of arguments for me personally to say that the Quran is from God or aliens.

Walking away from it so I can fornicate as much as I can...won't be easy, I need something which will
proof that the Quran comes from man.

What I mean is that the knowledge back then was advanced, regardless of where it came from. It may have come from god (although as I say I'm reluctant to believe that) or aliens. To be perfectly honest I would say aliens. However, if it can come from another planet, why not this one too? I'm playing devil's advocate but I', inclined to believe it came from another planet or planets.

As for the language used to describe things which we would now describe in other words, that's plausible.

Quote from: "pilchardo"They didn't have the same vocabulary that we have, so it stands to reason that you can't expect them to have used phrases such as "plate tectonics".

I'm not talking about the vocabulary, I'm talking about there being no reasonable way to translate that sura as what we know as plate tectonics.

Quote from: "pilchardo"What I mean is that the knowledge back then was advanced, regardless of where it came from. It may have come from god (although as I say I'm reluctant to believe that) or aliens. To be perfectly honest I would say aliens. However, if it can come from another planet, why not this one too? I'm playing devil's advocate but I', inclined to believe it came from another planet or planets.

As for the language used to describe things which we would now describe in other words, that's plausible.

That's true Pilchardo.

Aliens could have seen humans and decided to play a joke on us.

However, the ethical code in the Quran appeals to me a lot.
For example, silence is an important factor within Islam.
Open your mouth only, when you have something good to say, never say something which
will not benefit others.

I'm following this religion not just because I firmly believe in God but also the morals that are given to mankind.
We're not allowed to squash a bug if it's not neccesary.

There was a time when Muhammad (pbuh) was so poor, he was persecuted by the others Arabs that he
had only one blanket to sleep on. One night he found a cat sleeping on his blanket.
He tore the blanket in two parts, just so the cat would not get disturbed.


What do you mean with the bold part?




@Sophus, I'm looking forward to fornicating a lot.
But Hackenslash has to come with better points
Nonetheless poetry or not...it's amazing that in all of thoses verses he (if it was by man) didn't make single mistake.

Isok, I meant that if the knowledge can come from another planet, then why not this one? I'm not saying it did, I'm just posing the possibility.

Quote from: "iSok"It's upto you to say that it's wrong.

Err, no. It's up to you to support your guff. It is only up to me to voice my objections. When I erect any claims, I will be more than happy to support them.

QuoteI see those verses as.

Mountains <--> Less earthquakes
Mountains move like clouds.


In your eternal conquest to deny God, even claiming this goes a bit too far...

What have I claimed?

To be honest, you've missed a trick. If you had said that that sura was to be translated as 'even the most solid of objects is comprised mostly of empty space', I would have had little response, because it actually could be reasonably translated as that, and it would at least fit the argument.

Still, it has Texas Sharpshooter written all over it, as do most examples of such obfuscatory wibble when applied to current knowledge.

Quote from: "iSok"@Sophus, I'm looking forward to fornicating a lot.

QuoteNonetheless poetry or not...it's amazing that in all of thoses verses he (if it was by man) didn't make single mistake.

It says they would take flight like clouds.

27:88 And thou seest the hills thou deemest solid flying with the flight of clouds: the doing of Allah Who perfecteth all things. Lo! He is Informed of what ye do.

Earlier in the chapter it makes another mistake:

27:61 Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas ?

The earth is not fixed.

Quote from: "iSok"Nonetheless poetry or not...it's amazing that in all of thoses verses he (if it was by man) didn't make single mistake.

Of course he didn't make any mistakes! He didn't actually say anything. It is only you coming along after the fact and painting targets on barn doors that makes it look remotely like he did. It's all obfuscatory wibble.

Quote from: "hackenslash"I'm not talking about the vocabulary, I'm talking about there being no reasonable way to translate that sura as what we know as plate tectonics.

It's an interpretation Hackenslash from the original arabic.
The Quran's original form is Arabic, Arabic and the Arabs themselves were not randomly choosen as the 'people of the final message'.
There are a few reasons for that..

However I pointed out above, that the sura very likely suggests this.
The Quran itself is not a book of science but a book of signs. The knowledge
back then was quite backward....

For example this verse.

"And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and He has power to gather them together when He wills.(The Noble Quran, 42:29)"

When they heard this, they were quite shocked that they were not the only creatures in the universe. It lead many people to doubt.
Even now many people would not believe that we are not alone in this vast universe.


Another 'hidden' sign is for example the water-land mass ratio.


Sea(water) is mentioned 32 times in the Quran
land (dryland) is mentioned 13 times in the Quran

Percentage of water: 32 divided by 45 x 100 =  71.1111111111%

Why would a man in the desert mention the sea in his man-made book 32 times
and land just 13 times?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "iSok"@Sophus, I'm looking forward to fornicating a lot.

QuoteNonetheless poetry or not...it's amazing that in all of thoses verses he (if it was by man) didn't make single mistake.

It says they would take flight like clouds.

27:88 And thou seest the hills thou deemest solid flying with the flight of clouds: the doing of Allah Who perfecteth all things. Lo! He is Informed of what ye do.

Earlier in the chapter it makes another mistake:

27:61 Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas ?

The earth is not fixed.

(27:88) You now see the mountains and consider them firmly fixed, but then they shall pass away even as clouds pass away. That will be the handiwork of Allah Who has created everything with perfect wisdom. He is well aware of what you do.

It means that mountains look solid and fixed on a steady place.
The same counts for clouds, but if you look at clouds well, they move a bit, so the same can be said about mountains.


Earth fixed?

(27:61) Who is it Who has made the earth a place of resort, and has caused rivers to flow in its midst, and has placed upon it firm mountains, and has placed a barrier between two masses of water? Is there any god associated with Allah (in these tasks)? Nay; but most of them do not know.

Also take a good look at the second part of the verse.


@Hackenslash.

It's not just this ONE thing you can say "hmmm....ok lets consider this as dumb luck or a lie or our misinterpretation.."
If you just see how much the Quran claims..if it was man-written, surely there would be atleast one verse that would totally be wrong.....

Basically there's a whole list..in total of thousand verses...
All would get the same answer: 'hmmm.....dumb luck or misinterpretation..'
And that's just about the 'science'.

There are a few more topics that need to be adressed as 'false'.
You need to find ONE contradiction in the Quran and the origin of the Quran.
The list is pretty long...

not to forget, that we can also add this ( it does play a minor role )
Some of the best people in history would be classified as 'liars', people I would give my life for.
Their entire struggle and their enormous will to spread the word would be regarded as 'foolish'.
The societies they formed and he morals they brought to some societies would be called as 'ignorance'.
The constant persecution they went through, without ever looking for worldy gains would be called 'deluted'.
 
And the final answer would be:
'Science can explain everything and the universe popped out of nowhere'


I'm sorry Hackenslash, but I don't think you can do this...

Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2007&p=99215).  Show me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.  By the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

Quote from: "Recusant"Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2007&p=99215).  

Harun Yahya is not really popular within the muslim community...

QuoteShow me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.

Frank Press in his book 'The Earth'.
“Likewise the Modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s”

[Geological Concept of Mountains pp. 44-45]
"Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth."

The theory however is quite new.
Nonetheless it's amazing that the verse DOES point out that mountains move over time.
 

QuoteBy the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

(27:88) You now see the mountains and consider them firmly fixed, but then they shall pass away even as clouds pass away. That will be the handiwork of Allah Who has created everything with perfect wisdom. He is well aware of what you do.


And what about this?

Sea(water) is mentioned 32 times in the Quran
land (dryland) is mentioned 13 times in the Quran

Percentage of water: 32 divided by 45 x 100 = 71.1111111111%

Dumb luck?

Or this one.


"Do you see who forbids a servant of Ours (God) when he (turns) to pray? Do you see if he who prays follows the guidance and enjoins righteousness? Do you see if he who obstructs rejects (Truth) and turns away? Does he not know that God sees? Let him beware! If he desists not, We (God) will punish him upon his forehead - a lying, sinful forehead!" (Quran 96:9-16)

lying, sinful forehead?
Not lying eyes but lying sinful forehead..

"The frontal lobes are considered our emotional control center and home to our personality. There is no other part of the brain where lesions can cause such a wide variety of symptoms (Kolb & Wishaw, 1990). The frontal lobes are involved in motor function, problem solving, spontaneity, memory, language, initiation, judgement, impulse control, and social and sexual behavior."

There is no need for all this back and forth.  

If a god or highly intelligent being were inspiring Moh to recite this stuff they could have inspired him to use the correct words.  He could have even made translations in to all past and future world languages just pop out of thin air.

There is nothing impressive about vague passages that refer to fixed mountains not actually being fixed because allah can move them.

Quote from: "Whitney"There is no need for all this back and forth.  

If a god or highly intelligent being were inspiring Moh to recite this stuff they could have inspired him to use the correct words.  He could have even made translations in to all past and future world languages just pop out of thin air.

There is nothing impressive about vague passages that refer to fixed mountains not actually being fixed because allah can move them.

Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....


However let me add another fact.

The word 'day' in it's plural form is mentioned 30 times
The word 'day' in it's singular form is mentioned 365 times
the word 'month' is mentioned 12 times.

The lunar year was used in the Arab world back then, so why use this system?

Coincidence?

Like I said before, science is very important in our lives.
Even I (the naive believer) am an university student, in a few years I'll be working on my PhD.

Development of different fields of science is utterly important, my religion even commanded me to do that.
Science can explain a lot.

But I will never say: 'We don't need God, all we need is science'
One meteorite, and it's over with mankind, and yet we think we're on the edge of immortality.

I did a google books search of Frank Press's Understanding Earth and was unable to find a match for the sentence which you quoted, iSok.  Would you mind providing an edition number and page number, so that I might verify that the quote is accurate, and not taken out of context?  

Regarding the second quote, is it supposed to be from Understanding Earth as well?  If not, who was the author of the book by the name of "Geological Concept of Mountains" and when was it published?

Thank you in advance.

Quote from: "iSok"Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....

Why is faith important? Isn't having everybody go to heaven a better thing to do, not preserve some blind faith?

Quote from: "Recusant"I did a google books search of Frank Press's Understanding Earth and was unable to find a match for the sentence which you quoted, iSok.  Would you mind providing an edition number and page number, so that I might verify that the quote is accurate, and not taken out of context?  

Regarding the second quote, is it supposed to be from Understanding Earth as well?  If not, who was the author of the book by the name of "Geological Concept of Mountains" and when was it published?

Thank you in advance.

It's in 'Earth' (1985) not in 'Understanding earth'.


As for the second book, I think you know it better yourself
After googling I found out it is written by muslims, not valid in this argument I guess.

Here's some more info.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Geology-1359/2009/1/RE-statement-mountains-1.htm

Would you be surprised, iSok, to hear that when using the same technique to search the 1985 textbook Earth by Frank Press and Raymond Siever, the supposed quote which you used as evidence does not appear?  If you're sure that it does, please supply a page number, as previously requested.  When one reads the supposed quote, it doesn't even seem to make grammatical sense.  I have a feeling that it's actually something that somebody manufactured by combining some sentences from the book.  Feel free to prove me wrong; I can take it.

As for your latest link which you seem to think supports your assertion of "miraculous knowledge" re: mountains stabilizing the earth: it does not say that modern geological theory supports the view that mountains stabilize the earth.  I read the linked page.  Did you?

Quote from: "iSok"
(27:88) You now see the mountains and consider them firmly fixed, but then they shall pass away even as clouds pass away. That will be the handiwork of Allah Who has created everything with perfect wisdom. He is well aware of what you do.

It means that mountains look solid and fixed on a steady place.
The same counts for clouds, but if you look at clouds well, they move a bit, so the same can be said about mountains.


Earth fixed?

(27:61) Who is it Who has made the earth a place of resort, and has caused rivers to flow in its midst, and has placed upon it firm mountains, and has placed a barrier between two masses of water? Is there any god associated with Allah (in these tasks)? Nay; but most of them do not know.

Also take a good look at the second part of the verse.

Now it comes down to a difference in the translations. I wouldn't have the first clue which one is more accurate.

Quote from: "iSok"Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....

If it's about faith then why are you trying to pretend supposed clues left in the koran prove it is authentically divinely inspired?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "iSok"Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....

If it's about faith then why are you trying to pretend supposed clues left in the koran prove it is authentically divinely inspired?

Because it's not just blind faith.
Like believe in fairy tales, and that's it.


It's like this way, a lot of dots appear and they seem to present a figure.
Faith connects all those dots, without faith the dots still stay dots with no connection
and no one knows how they came, I think that's the difference.


@Sophus,

This is probably the best translation --> http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php (http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php)
It''s true that the translation is an interpretation (every translation is).
To really study the Quran in depth, one needs to learn Arabic.


@Recusant,

I got the source from a muslim website, so yes it's plausible that they made the third claim up, I won't deny that.
Maybe you can also search for the geophysics 'Tarbuck and Ludgens'

The verse claims three things here.

- Mountains move steadily
- Mountains have underlying roots (pegs)
- Mountains cause the earth to shake less

The first two, we both agree on.
I did read the link, so in 1960's it was a theory that mountains stabilise the Earth's crust.
And now there is a new theory, mountains are caused by plate colliding with eachother.
I wanted to point out, that the theory of stabilising mountains was popular in the late 60's.

However, it's peculiar that mountains do occur in regions where different plates collide.

Quote from: "Recusant"Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2007&p=99215).  Show me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.  By the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

If you don't know what it means, why don't you ask what it means first, and then if you're told what it means, then ask where's the evidence.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "iSok"Yeah He could have, but I don't think that's the way it works.
He can also teleport to this planet so we will all follow the straight path.
It's about faith....

If it's about faith then why are you trying to pretend supposed clues left in the koran prove it is authentically divinely inspired?

Because it's not just blind faith.
Like believe in fairy tales, and that's it.


It's like this way, a lot of dots appear and they seem to present a figure.
Faith connects all those dots, without faith the dots still stay dots with no connection
and no one knows how they came, I think that's the difference.

Faith by it's very nature is blind.  So you either value faith or you really don't.

Saying that you are in some gray area where faith has some proof is just a weak rationalization for why you feel the need to find evidence in your holy text.  If it were all about faith you'd believe for belief's sake.

That's quite incorrect, whitnay. Not all faith is blind.

Quote from: "pilchardo"That's quite incorrect, whitnay. Not all faith is blind.

No "whitnay" recant, the faithful know just where they're leaping, whether it's there or not.

It’s an interesting question you rise here Whitney; blind faith?

The main point that atheists have against religion, I think consists out of two points.

- It teaches intolerance
- It stops the advancement of science

I do understand that, that they do reach out to these two points. The Dark Ages in Europe must not have been a pleasant time to live in.
However I think that oppression comes from man’s greediness.
Religion is just used as an excuse to say ‘the divine ordered so’, to control the mass for worldy gains.
If you take a look at certain religious figures now and in the past, they hijacked religion for their own purpose.
We can take a look at Pope Alexander VI in the past or our friend OBL who controls the mass with religion for their own purposes.

However this phenomenon can not only be found in religion, in recent times we can set the RUF as an example.
Or Adolf Hitler brainwashing the mass and controlling them by promising them certain
achievements, religion promises heaven, Hitler promised glory for Nazi-Germany. So this phenomenon of controlling the mass will always stay, even if religion disappears.
It is what makes us human beings, we’re not individuals but like cattle (there are exceptions), we follow the mass.
Even today, and even on this forum there are two groups of people; believers and non-believers.

Religion itself is perfect, the followers however are not. Religion itself teaches to treat the other the way want to be treated. It’s followers however neglect this.

The way Christians act today, do they resemble the teachings of Jesus Christ (pbuh)?
The way Muslims act today, do they resemble the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh)?
The way Pol Plot acted, does he resemble the teachings of Bhudda (pbuh)?

If the religious people of today would follow exactly what their key figures said, the world would be a much better place.
Their key figures never looked for worldy gains, their entire existence was meant to serve his fellow man.

We as mankind have always been divided, religion itself is not the cause.
If in everyone of us would be more mutual understanding.
The world would be a far better place, for both the believer and non-believer.

Today, there is a new group rising. This group claims that they have the truth and calls
everyone else; blind, foolish, ignorant, deluted..and what not?
While this group claims that they want tolerance and kindness in this world.

This phenomenon is not new if we study our history, but it’s the same old story
in a new coat.

I think you're generally correct, iSok. That's why I'm against irrational thinking, blind faith, ideologies, etc., not just religion.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I think you're generally correct, iSok. That's why I'm against irrational thinking, blind faith, ideologies, etc., not just religion.

Why do you impose your rational thinking on other people?
Rational thinking can be the standard for you, but does that mean that rational thinking should also
be the standard for others?

There are a lot of people in the world who cannot practise science.
They don't have the intellect or don't have the opportunity.

What does life mean for you?
You answer is probably: Nothing or contributing to mankind.

I saw the documentary made by Richard Dawkins: 'God strikes back'.
He visits all types of people. christians, muslims, jews, astrologists, people who could talk with the dead..etc..
He was troubled by this, and asked them; why not just believe in science?

And I wondered; if it makes them happy and enjoy life, then why tell them to stop with it? Let them do whatever they enjoy.
Life itself is short, then why impose your own way of life on others?

Why would you call these peace-loving people; deluted, dumb, stupid and ignorant?
If they enjoy life, not harm society and contribute to society, then why can't you let them be with whatever they are doing?

Some people have other purposes in life, they would rather do something else.
I understand why Dawkins wants people to follow science rather than religion.

He basically wants to use as many minds as possible, so science can advance rapidly.
But does he have the right to do that? To seize/use the minds of others in order to
improve that in which he steadily believes.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For rational thinking
The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For Jesus

Both have the same concept.

Quote from: "iSok"Why do you impose your rational thinking on other people?

I don't.

QuoteRational thinking can be the standard for you, but does that mean that rational thinking should also
be the standard for others?

It should -- it won't, but it should.

QuoteThere are a lot of people in the world who cannot practise science.

Rational thinking is not the same as science.

QuoteThey don't have the intellect or don't have the opportunity.

Bullshit. Anyone can be a rational thinker.

QuoteWhat does life mean for you?
You answer is probably: Nothing or contributing to mankind.

I don't know.

QuoteI saw the documentary made by Richard Dawkins: 'God strikes back'.
He visits all types of people. christians, muslims, jews, astrologists, people who could talk with the dead..etc..
He was troubled by this, and asked them; why not just believe in science?

And I wondered; if it makes them happy and enjoy life, then why tell them to stop with it? Let them do whatever they enjoy.
Life itself is short, then why impose your own way of life on others?

Irrationality is potentially dangerous; rationality and science leads to improved quality of life.

QuoteWhy would you call these peace-loving people; deluted, dumb, stupid and ignorant?
If they enjoy life, not harm society and contribute to society, then why can't you let them be with whatever they are doing?

I can.

QuoteSome people have other purposes in life, they would rather do something else.
I understand why Dawkins wants people to follow science rather than religion.

He basically wants to use as many minds as possible, so science can advance rapidly.
But does he have the right to do that? To seize/use the minds of others in order to
improve that in which he steadily believes.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For rational thinking
The Richard Dawkins Foundation: For Jesus

Both have the same concept.

One is improving the world. One isn't.

Quote from: "pilchardo"

Quote from: "Recusant"Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2007&p=99215).  Show me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.  By the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

If you don't know what it means, why don't you ask what it means first, and then if you're told what it means, then ask where's the evidence.

You have managed to be quite unhelpful here pilchardo, congratulations.  I was asking iSok to explain what he thought the idea that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates" meant, since if he's aware of modern geological theory, he already knows that tectonic plates are in more or less constant motion, yes, even as we speak. That is; the plates are not "stable (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/stable)" in a geological sense.  So if one is asserting that mountains stabilize them, and that modern geological theory backs up that assertion, I question what possible interpretation of those words makes the assertion valid. Your advice is gratuitous, considering the fact that iSok, in just the previous post, had basically settled that particular point of discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ISok, I must say that you impress me with your willingness to try to take a rational approach to this issue.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "pilchardo"

Quote from: "Recusant"Where is there scientific evidence that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates?"  What does that even mean? This sounds like something you got from that obfuscating purveyor of pseudo-science, Harun Yahya (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2007&p=99215).  Show me a reputable geologist who agrees with this theory, please.  By the way, tectonic plates are not stable.  It's well known that they actually drift around quite freely, carrying their mountains with them, when viewed on a geological time scale.

If you don't know what it means, why don't you ask what it means first, and then if you're told what it means, then ask where's the evidence.

You have managed to be quite unhelpful here pilchardo, congratulations.  I was asking iSok to explain what he thought the idea that "mountains stabilize tectonic plates" meant, since if he's aware of modern geological theory, he already knows that tectonic plates are in more or less constant motion, yes, even as we speak. That is; the plates are not "stable (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/stable)" in a geological sense.  So if one is asserting that mountains stabilize them, and that modern geological theory backs up that assertion, I question what possible interpretation of those words makes the assertion valid. Your advice is gratuitous, considering the fact that iSok, in just the previous post, had basically settled that particular point of discussion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ISok, I must say that you impress me with your willingness to try to take a rational approach to this issue. :D

The verse say does not say that because of mountains tectonic plates stop moving.
It says mountains move (we agree), have pegs (we agree) and they cause the earth to SHAKE LESS (we don't). (without mountains it would shake more).

But how do you explain the other verses?

Doesn't the Qur'an claim the Earth is flat? (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/earth_flat.html)
(Yes, I know that is a pro-Christian site, but the article itself seems to be sound.)

Quote from: "iSok"Well, Recusant, I am of the opinion that science still has to discover this lol  Very well. I sincerely doubt that will occur, but we live in hope.

Quote from: "iSok"The verse say does not say that because of mountains tectonic plates stop moving.
It says mountains move (we agree), have pegs (we agree) and they cause the earth to SHAKE LESS (we don't). (without mountains it would shake more).

But how do you explain the other verses?

"The mountains move."  Considering that the Christian Bible, predating the Quran, says that "faith can move mountains," it would appear that concept of moving mountains does not originate with the Quran.  This was an image used to get across the idea that with faith, it's possible to achieve the seemingly impossible. I see nothing miraculous in another holy book using what was obviously a known concept of the era. Geologically, mountains do not plow through the surrounding earth like ships.  They can and do move in relation to their position on the globe, as the continents upon which they are situated move.  They also grow, either because of uplift and folding, or because of volcanism.  Does the Quran "predict" this also?  (Not that I would consider it miraculous if it did, I'm just curious.)

"Mountains have/are pegs"  If you've ever been to a desert you will see the roots of mountains quite clearly disappearing into the surrounding sand and earth.  This is an observation available to anyone with eyes to see, even if they lived in the 7th century.

ISok, I hope you're not wasting valuable study time disputing with us here, as much as I enjoy your presence on this forum.

They refer tot this verse probably.

(79:30) “And thereafter spread out the earth.”


The Arabic verse goes like this.

وَاÙ,,ۡاَرۡضَ بَعۡدَ ذٰÙ,,ِكَ دَحٰٮهَا ؕ‏ (79:30)

‘Wala arda  bagh zaleka dahaha’

They translated the final word in the verse as ‘spread out’.
dahaha in arabic has two meanings.

- ‘Egg shaped’ which comes from the word ‘Duhiya’ (It refers to the egg of an ostrich)
- ‘Expansion’, the  Qur’an claims in some other verses also that the Earth used to be smaller, and it was expanded.


@Recusant,

If I said 100 years ago, that the universe was expanding, I would be mocked at.

(And We have built the heavens with Our own hands; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.) (51:47)


I have on exam left, which is tommorow.
It's about architecture, unfortunately I can't study for it.
I will either pass, or fail

I'm more the math's guy.

Quote from: "iSok"They refer tot this verse probably.

(79:30) “And thereafter spread out the earth.”


The Arabic verse goes like this.

وَاÙ,,ۡاَرۡضَ بَعۡدَ ذٰÙ,,ِكَ دَحٰٮهَا ؕ‏ (79:30)

‘Wala arda  bagh zaleka dahaha’

They translated the final word in the verse as ‘spread out’.
dahaha in arabic has two meanings.

- ‘Egg shaped’ which comes from the word ‘Duhiya’ (It refers to the egg of an ostrich)
- ‘Expansion’, the  Qur’an claims in some other verses also that the Earth used to be smaller, and it was expanded.

You should have read the article.

Quote from: "Article"Udhi'ya or Udhu'wa, are two names for the egg of the ostrich. The verb Da'ha (Ydahoo: present tense) is not derived from Udhi'ya or Udhu'wa, because names are derived from the "verb of origin" (fi'l al masdar), and the verb of origin is not derived from a name. The verb of origin is "dahawa" from which the verb "da'ha" and "yadhoo" are derived, and so is the name of the noun denoting the egg. The verb "da'aha" does not mean "kaw'wara" (made round) or made something in the shape of an egg, whether it is an ostrich egg or a chicken's egg. As a matter of fact, the verb "da'ha" means the complete opposite to the concept of the roundness. Here is what "Al-munjid fil'lugha wal'alam" has to say:

    "da'ha da'hwan ... God `da'ha' earth that is `basataha'."
       And that is exactly what Al-Jalalayn has said.
    "da'ha idhiwa'an: `inbisatan'." (that is: flattening)
    "al-udh'y, al-idhi'y, al-udhu'wa, al-udhi'ya: The egg of the ostrich in the sand."

We must pay attention to what Al-Munjid is saying here: "The egg of the ostrich ‘in the sand’" and the following is the reason for this expression:

When the female ostrich fears a danger threatening her egg, she immediately digs into the sand to hide the egg, then "tadhoo" (flattens) the earth above it, so that it would not be seen by the vultures of the air who are always in search of such a delicacy for their next meal. Therefore, the word "al-udhu'wa" is used as a name of the ostrich egg since it is something (with the sand) flattened (over it). That is where the name came from. The Arabic dictionary never states that the verb "da'ha" means "made round" or "made in the shape of the egg of an ostrich".

Other verses in the Qur'an stated that earth is flat using other words. All of these words are interpreted as "flat" and none of them has been interpreted as round.

We read in Sura 96:6 (Ash'shams): "Wal'ardu wa ma ta'haha".
The word "Tahaha" is interpreted in Tafsir Al-Jalalayn as "He made it flat". In Munjid Al-lugha Wal'alam, the word "Taha" is also interpreted as "to flatten or to stretch". Then, the noun "At'taha" is interpreted as "a flat part of the earth". Then, Al-Munjid gives a sentence as an example to confirm the meaning of "taha" as "to make a certain thing flat".

In Sura 15:19 (Al-Hajar), we read: "wal'arda madadnaha wa'alkayna feeha rawasi".
The word "madadnaha" is from the verb "madda", which is a very simple and easy word to understand. Not even a little Arabic child would use this word to describe the shape of a watermelon or a ball. It is the most simple way to describe something flat.

If Muhammad or the author of the Qur'an really had known that the earth is round, and had wanted to mention this fact in the book, he could have used a more simple word in Arabic to put an end to this puzzling issue. We have no doubt that Muhammad was aware of the existence of other words in the Arabic language that can describe the shape of something round. In fact, we read in sura 81:1 (At'Takweer - meaning: Rounding!):

    "Itha'sh-shamsu kuwirat": "When the sun is folded up."

In this verse, Muhammad is predicting that "the sun shall be folded up" or "shall become rounded" (which would be a better translation). This means first of all that Muhammad believed that the sun is also flat and that it will become round when the hour comes. And this also means that he knows that there is a better word to describe a round shape. Therefore: Why he didn't use this term to to spare the Muslims this confusion?

Yes, Muhammad did indeed believe that the sun is flat as Al-Jalalayn comments on this verse by stating: "`kuwirat' that is `lufifat' i.e. folded up and its light taken."

Bassam Darwich

For example, there are verses which talk about 'seven heavens'.
We don't have a clue what that means..
Something, I hope will be discovered soon :D )
http://www.answering-christianity.com/e ... _earth.htm (http://www.answering-christianity.com/egg-shaped_earth.htm)

Quote from: "pilchardo"That's quite incorrect, whitnay. Not all faith is blind.

Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
 (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)

Now what kind of faith are you willing to argue is based on proof?...aside from definition 1, which is not what we are discussing.

It's kind of pointless to post the dictionary definition if you're then going to decide what is and what is not to be discussed. It's an open forum, Whitnay.

Quote from: "pilchardo"It's kind of pointless to post the dictionary definition if you're then going to decide what is and what is not to be discussed. It's an open forum, Whitnay.

Quote from: "pilchardo"It's kind of pointless to post the dictionary definition if you're then going to decide what is and what is not to be discussed. It's an open forum, Whitnay.

If you can't contribute positively to the discussions then don't post.

We are not discussing people who are faithful to spouses, the topic at hand is obviously religious faith...if you can't even figure that out then maybe you should go back to trolling 4chan.

If you continue to disrespect me, other members, or the forum I'll ban you.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "pilchardo"It's kind of pointless to post the dictionary definition if you're then going to decide what is and what is not to be discussed. It's an open forum, Whitnay.

If you can't contribute positively to the discussions then don't post.

We are not discussing people who are faithful to spouses, the topic at hand is obviously religious faith...if you can't even figure that out then maybe you should go back to trolling 4chan.

If you continue to disrespect me, other members, or the forum I'll ban you.

I have no intention of disrespecting you, and I apologise if you took offence, even though it wasn't my intention to upset you in any way. But by the same token, please don't accuse me of trolling 4chan. Thank you.

Quote from: "iSok"If I said 100 years ago, that the universe was expanding, I would be mocked at.

(And We have built the heavens with Our own hands; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.) (51:47)


I have on exam left, which is tommorow.
It's about architecture, unfortunately I can't study for it.
I will either pass, or fail  

I'm more the math's guy.

I'm glad to hear that spending time here isn't going to be a detriment to tomorrow's exam.  I hope that you do well in it; good luck!

Now let's look at this aya 51:47--

First, I'd like to compare the translation you've provided with other translations of the same aya:

1) (Provided by iSok [date unknown]) And We have built the heavens with Our own hands; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.

2) (Translation by Maulana Muhammad Ali [1917]) And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and We are Makers of the vast extent.

3) (Translation by Marmaduke Pickthal [1930]) We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

4) (Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali [1934]) With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.

Obviously, the translation you chose is different than the other three.  I have to ask; why is that?  Could it be that your translation was made after the relatively recent scientific discoveries regarding the expansion of the universe were made?  That this translation was deliberately crafted to highlight a supposed miraculous prediction in the Quran?   Why is the word "steadily" included in the translation you give, but that word (and/or concept) is not mentioned in the other three translations? When exactly was the translation which you quote made, and by whom?

So obviously we have an issue with how this aya is translated. Perhaps we might find what the translated aya means by looking at the aya which immediately follows it; 51:48.

1) (Translation by Maulana Muhammad Ali [1917])  And the earth, We have spread it out. How well We prepared it!

2) (Translation by Marmaduke Pickthal [1930]) And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!

3) (Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali [1934]) And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!

In both of these ayat, the same word (سÙ... Ù...رفوع) is used.  Are you going to now tell me that according to the Quran, the earth is expanding?

I think what we have here is a case of selective translation. In fact the Quran did not predict modern cosmology, rather the translation was changed to reflect modern cosmology.

Quote from: "iSok"I have on exam left, which is tommorow.
It's about architecture, unfortunately I can't study for it.
I will either pass, or fail  

my favorite subject
can't study for it...hmm...must be a design problem?

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "iSok"If I said 100 years ago, that the universe was expanding, I would be mocked at.

(And We have built the heavens with Our own hands; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.) (51:47)


I have on exam left, which is tommorow.
It's about architecture, unfortunately I can't study for it.
I will either pass, or fail  

I'm more the math's guy.

I'm glad to hear that spending time here isn't going to be a detriment to tomorrow's exam.  I hope that you do well in it; good luck!

Now let's look at this aya 51:47--

First, I'd like to compare the translation you've provided with other translations of the same aya:

1) (Provided by iSok [date unknown]) And We have built the heavens with Our own hands; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.

2) (Translation by Maulana Muhammad Ali [1917]) And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and We are Makers of the vast extent.

3) (Translation by Marmaduke Pickthal [1930]) We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

4) (Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali [1934]) With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space.

Obviously, the translation you chose is different than the other three.  I have to ask; why is that?  Could it be that your translation was made after the relatively recent scientific discoveries regarding the expansion of the universe were made?  That this translation was deliberately crafted to highlight a supposed miraculous prediction in the Quran?   Why is the word "steadily" included in the translation you give, but that word (and/or concept) is not mentioned in the other three translations? When exactly was the translation which you quote made, and by whom?

So obviously we have an issue with how this aya is translated. Perhaps we might find what the translated aya means by looking at the aya which immediately follows it; 51:48.

1) (Translation by Maulana Muhammad Ali [1917])  And the earth, We have spread it out. How well We prepared it!

2) (Translation by Marmaduke Pickthal [1930]) And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!

3) (Translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali [1934]) And We have spread out the (spacious) earth: How excellently We do spread out!

In both of these ayat, the same word (سÙ... Ù...رفوع) is used.  Are you going to now tell me that according to the Quran, the earth is expanding?

I think what we have here is a case of selective translation. In fact the Quran did not predict modern cosmology, rather the translation was changed to reflect modern cosmology.

Isn't it kind of moot if those meanings and interpretations only come about when translated to english? That tells me that the translator is fishing for meaning that may or may not be there. Does it or can it come out the same way if translated to russian? Japanese? German? etc?

Quote from: "iSok"it is We who are steadily expanding it.

As far as my understanding goes, the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Not steady at all. Oh, well.

Quote from: "DJAkuna"Isn't it kind of moot if those meanings and interpretations only come about when translated to english? That tells me that the translator is fishing for meaning that may or may not be there. Does it or can it come out the same way if translated to russian? Japanese? German? etc?

I'm sure the same thing can be done when the Arabic is translated into languages other than English.  I've corresponded with a gentleman who used to make his living as a translator of Arabic.  He describes Arabic as a very poetic language, the words of which can (and do) have several meanings.  Context is extremely important in coming close to the correct translation-- he feels that it's more so with Arabic than with most other languages.  In other words; it's an issue with the original language of the Quran, rather than with the languages into which it's translated. ISok's translation is no doubt a valid one; my point is that it is (from what I can tell) a recent translation, and the motive for the change is what I'm questioning.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote from: "Stevil"As far as my understanding goes, the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Not steady at all. Oh, well.

 That is my understanding as well.  Very good point, sir!

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "iSok"I have on exam left, which is tommorow.
It's about architecture, unfortunately I can't study for it.
I will either pass, or fail  

my favorite subject :D
You have to 'feel' architecture if you want to be good at it.

Last year, I talked after a speech with my Professor, he thought us 'Dynamic architecture'.
After his speech, we discussed over two hours about architecture.
After two hours he said; 'Son, I think you made a wise decision that you choose structural engineering over architecture'.
I couldn't agree more



@Recusant.

My respect towards you for looking more deep in this matter.
I do like the fact; that you investigate for yourself, it keeps the debate alive.
So thank you for your new insights.


I mentioned it here before I think, I’m not an expert in Arabic, and certainly not an expert in the Arabic style of the Qur’an. However, I’ll try to explain a bit.

Whenever one reads a verse in the Qur’an, it contains a lot of meanings.
We Muslims call it ‘light upon light’. This is the case in the whole Qur’an, every single verse of it.

I hope you read my previous post about the rather simple aya (sign) 79:30

(79:30) “And thereafter spread out the earth.”

I explained that the translator; translated the Arabic word ‘Dahaha’ into ‘spread’.
In Arabic ‘Dahaha’ has two meanings.
The first one is ‘Egg-ness’
The second one is ‘Expanded-ness’.
(Read my previous post)

So the Qur’an here claims that the Earth is round and used to be smaller, and that God expanded it.
This is an example why the Qur’an in depth can only be understood in Arabic.
You could ask: Why did God do that?
That’s a different debate, we can open a new topic and start talking about that.


Dr. Lauren Vaglieri (Italian orientalist at the University of Naples)

The Miracle of Islam par excellence is the Quran, through which a constant and unbroken tradition transmits to us news of an absolute certainty.
This is a book which cannot be imitated. Each of its expressions is a comprehensive one, and yet it is of proper size, neither too long nor too short.
 Its style is original. There is no model for this style in Arab literature of the times preceding it.
The effect which it produces on the human soul is obtained without any adventitious aid through its own inherent excellences.
The verses are equally eloquent all through the text, even when they deal with topics, such as commandments and prohibitions, which must necessarily affect its tone.
Stories of Prophets, descriptions of the beginning and the end of the world, enumerations and expositions of the
divine attributes are repeated but repeated in a way which is so impressive that they do not weaken the effect.
The text proceeds from one topic to another without losing its power.
Depth and sweetness, qualities which generally do not go together, are found together here, where each rhetoric figure finds a perfect application. . . .
We find there vast stores of knowledge which are beyond the capacity of the most intelligent of men, the greatest of philosophers and the ablest of politicians.

Professor A. Guillaume (Orientalist)

The Qurān is one of the world’s classics which cannot be translated without grave loss. It (The Holy Qurān) has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear.
Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. . . .
Indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it.


A few translations of the original Arabic verse.

Sahih International
And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander.

Muhsin Khan
With power did We construct the heaven. Verily, We are Able to extend the vastness of space thereof.

Pickthall
We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof).

Yusuf Ali
With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.

Shakir
And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

   (Ù,,ÙŽÙ...ُوسِعُونَ وَإِنَÙ'ا بِأَيۡيÙ'دٍ۬ بَنَيۡنَـٰهَا ÙˆÙŽÙ±Ù,,سَÙ'Ù...َآءَ (51:47

“Wasama’ A ba’naina ha - be Aidiwoe wa ina la moesighoen”

‘Moeshigoen’ is the plural present participle of the verb “Aus’a”
Which means ‘to make wider, to expand, to extend, to vastness’

Some Islamic scholars questioned this. Muhammad Hamdiullah for example states that it means that the heavens are expanding, but he adds a question mark. He himself did not understand it.

Another Islamic scholars; Abdul Ala Maududi who passed away in 1979 (way before this 'Science in the Quran!').
He translated the Qur’an, his book is called: Tafhim-al-Qur’an (In urdu language).
A very popular translation in the urdu language and has recently been translated in English.
This is the link of his translation (I use this one a lot): http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php

He translates verse (79:46) as followed.
“And heaven â€" We made it with Our Own Power and We have the Power to do so.” (79:46)

When someone translates the Qur’an, he also adds a so called ‘Tafseer’. Tafseer gives additional about the verse and also other meanings. In his tafseer he writes this:

“The word must' (pl. musi'un) may mean the one who possesses power and means, and also the one who can extend and expand something.
According to the first meaning, the verse would mean: "We have built this heaven by Our own might and not with somebody else's help, and its erection was in no way beyond Us.
Then how can you ever conceive that We shall not be able to recreate it ?" According to the second meaning, it would mean:
"This huge universe that We have created, is not a finished work, but We are expanding it continuously, and new and ever new manifestations of Our creation are appearing in it every moment. How do you then think that such a marvelous Creator would not be able to repeat His creation.”

So people with no knowledge about the expanding of the Universe would rather choose for the translation 'Power'.
(See Hamidullah, he was afraid to claim that the universe was expanding).
Translators with knowledge about the expanding, choose to translate it to 'expanding universe'.
For them it's a pretty logical explanation of the verse.
'Power' and 'Expanding' in this verse, two different approaches.

I hope it’s a bit more clear now after explaining this.
Many translator seek a certain style, they have their own style to translate the Qur’an. Translation itself is a mere interpretation of the Qur’an.
Translators often try to translate the Qur'an in the way that other people understand what the Qur'an wants.
An important aspect of the Qur'an is it's dialogue with the person that is reading it (asking questions), many translators are keen on keeping that intact.
That aspect makes the person think, you can almost say the Qur'an is trying to brainwash the reader.

Thank you for your reply, iSok.  I'm well aware of the concept of "light upon light."  Basically it means that because of the multiple definitions which words in Arabic have, the Quran can be interpreted in many ways.  I think your reply shows that until modern science had shown that the universe was expanding, the verse you use to show a miraculous foretelling of modern science was not understood in the way that your translator used it.  You choose to see it as miraculous; for this I do not fault you.  You (and others who subscribe to these ideas) may try to say that infidels such as myself should see the fact that the verse can be re-translated to reflect modern science as a sign of the miraculous nature of the Quran.  I do not see it that way.  When words can have so many meanings (as is the case in Arabic) then it's inevitable that people will change their understanding of the writing to reflect the modern world when it suits their agenda.  This is not miraculous, and is not a sign to me of a divine origin for your holy book.

Quote from: "Recusant"Thank you for your reply, iSok.  I'm well aware of the concept of "light upon light."  Basically it means that because of the multiple definitions which words in Arabic have, the Quran can be interpreted in many ways.  I think your reply shows that until modern science had shown that the universe was expanding, the verse you use to show a miraculous foretelling of modern science was not understood in the way that your translator used it.  You choose to see it as miraculous; for this I do not fault you.  You (and others who subscribe to these ideas) may try to say that infidels such as myself should see the fact that the verse can be re-translated to reflect modern science as a sign of the miraculous nature of the Quran.  I do not see it that way.  When words can have so many meanings (as is the case in Arabic) then it's inevitable that people will change their understanding of the writing to reflect the modern world when it suits their agenda.  This is not miraculous, and is not a sign to me of a divine origin for your holy book.

I understand your concept Recusant.

I don't consider anyone an infidel (I think the word infidel has a rather harsh meaning). I am not put on this world to judge, but only to grow and learn.

The term ‘Kafir’ used in the Qur’an, translators usually translate it into ‘disbelievers’.
‘Kafir’ comes from the root ‘Kafara’, and that means ‘to cover or conceal’.

In the word of the Qur’an, ‘Kafirs’ are people who consciously or unconsciously
reject a divine gift or truth. The Qur’an asks about these people.

“Do they not travel through the land, so that their hearts may thus learn wisdom?”
(22:44)

“Do they not examine the earth?” (26:7)

“Do they not travel through the earth and see what was the end of those before them?” (30:9)

Within Islam, there are also people known as the ‘ahl-al-Fatra’. People who never got the message, or didn’t/couldn’t understand it.
They aren’t accountable for their actions nor for their beliefs.
I would be accountable now, because I understand the message from A to Z, if I would reject it, I would probably be an ‘kafir’.

However, the verse above does not have an unlimited amount of meanings.
Basically two; 'Power' and 'Expanding'. You are right, that people approach the verse in a different way since recent scientific discoveries.
But the interpretation that follows from the original verse, has a basic foundation in it’s original verse.
‘Power’, ‘Expanding’ or ‘Power’ and ‘Expanding’ (for example the verse about the Earth that was spread out).
These two key elements, were always present.
The interpretation does not just fall out of the sky, that’s what I am trying to say.
This is however not the only verse, there are many more.
I hope you understand.

I’ll open a new topic in the creationism section about evolution very soon, I hope you can participate and answer the many questions I have, since I am here to learn.

You are kind, but I do consider myself an infidel, and a barbarian. I have good reason to adopt those words to describe myself. I do not care what others may choose to call me. As the old quip has it: "Just don't call me late for dinner."

If you put the word in question into "google translate," yet another meaning will be given:  "lifting"  Also, the root of this word can have many different meanings.

Most Arabic words have more than two meanings, depending on the context.  So while the context of this word in these two ayat gives the two meanings you show, I think that if it were to somebody's advantage to use yet another meaning, and they felt inspired by Allah to do so, then they would feel justified in using it in yet another different way.

Quote from: "Recusant"You are kind, but I do consider myself an infidel, and a barbarian. I have good reason to adopt those words to describe myself. I do not care what others may choose to call me. As the old quip has it: "Just don't call me late for dinner."

If you put the word in question into "google translate," yet another meaning will be given:  "lifting"  Also, the root of this word can have many different meanings.

Most Arabic words have more than two meanings, depending on the context.  So while the context of this word in these two ayat gives the two meanings you show, I think that if it were to somebody's advantage to use yet another meaning, and they felt inspired by Allah to do so, then they would feel justified in using it in yet another different way.

How can you consider yourself an infidel if in your worldview God doesn't exist?
Others may call you an infidel, but surely calling yourself an infidel is acknowledging God Google translation to understand grammar of a language, it's more a simple and useful tool.
It's true that some words in the Arabic language have multiple meanings, but the words that were chosen for certain verses are pretty much correct
to describe certain events.

Just give me some time, this forum will soon enough be changed into 'Happy Muslim Forum', mark my words

Quote from: "iSok"How can you consider yourself an infidel if in your worldview God doesn't exist?
Others may call you an infidel, but surely calling yourself an infidel is acknowledging God Google translation to understand grammar of a language, it's more a simple and useful tool.
It's true that some words in the Arabic language have multiple meanings, but the words that were chosen for certain verses are pretty much correct to describe certain events.

Just give me some time, this forum will soon enough be changed into 'Happy Muslim Forum', mark my words lol

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "iSok"How can you consider yourself an infidel if in your worldview God doesn't exist?
Others may call you an infidel, but surely calling yourself an infidel is acknowledging God Google translation to understand grammar of a language, it's more a simple and useful tool.
It's true that some words in the Arabic language have multiple meanings, but the words that were chosen for certain verses are pretty much correct to describe certain events.

Just give me some time, this forum will soon enough be changed into 'Happy Muslim Forum', mark my words lol

The two meanings were always present in the verse.
In my previous post I mentioned that Abdul Ala (He wasn't a scientist, he lived in Pakistan, probably never heard about the expansion of the universe)
wrote in 1967 (before this issue of 'science in the Quran') in his tafseer, that the same verse could also have a second meaning (expansion of the universe).

If he knew the theory back then, he would have probably used that translation as the translation of the verse.
Instead of explaining it in his tafseer, but he didn't.

Right now the Qur'an says that besides this universe where we live in, there are 6 more (in total 7)
And probably also 6 other Earth's besides this one.

Alien life for example.
Do you consider this as a prediction?
(42:29) And of His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the living creatures that He has spread out in them. He has the power to bring them together when He so wills.

Or the 365 days, 12 months and 30 days? (I have a complete list)

What do you think of the water-land mass ratio? Too far fetched?

Recusant, let me add this one.

Verse 21:30

اَوَÙ,,ÙŽÙ...Û¡ يَرَ اÙ,,ÙŽÙ'ذِيۡنَ كَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَÙ' اÙ,,سَÙ'Ù...ٰوٰتِ وَاÙ,,ۡاَرۡضَ كَانَـتَا رَتۡÙ,ًا فَفَتَÙ,ۡنٰهُÙ...َا‌ Ø•
وَجَعَÙ,,ۡنَا Ù...ِنَ اÙ,,Û¡Ù...َآءِ كُÙ,,ÙŽÙ' شَىۡءٍ حَىٍÙ'‌ Ø• اَفَÙ,,َا يُؤۡÙ...ِنُوۡنَ‏


Sahih International
Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?

Muhsin Khan
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Pickthall (1930)
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

Yusuf Ali (1934)
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Shakir
Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

Dr. Ghali
And have not the ones who disbelieved seen that the heavens and the earth were an integrated (mass), then We unseamed them, and of water We have made every living thing? Would they then not believe?

Maulana Muhammad Ali (1917)
21:30 Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And We made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?


So we can conclude that all of the famous translators, translated the verse in the same way of interpretation.

However, the universe expanding was first introduced by Lemaitre in 1927
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding in 1929.
In 1949 the term 'Big Bang' was used for the first time by Fred Hoyle.
After a while, scientists concluded that all matter must have come from one point (if you reverse the expanding of the universe).

But almost 35 years before that, Maulana Muhammad Ali, interpretates verse 21:30 just like all other translators in the following way in 1917.

[21:30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And We made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?

Quote from: "Recusant"And the meaning which was chosen by the later translator was chosen to reflect modern science. This is not a prediction of modern science.

What about this? Can this be seen as a prediction in the field of science?

Quote from: "iSok"So we can conclude that all of the famous translators, translated the verse in the same way of interpretation.

However, the universe expanding was first introduced by Lemaitre in 1927
Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding in 1929.
In 1949 the term 'Big Bang' was used for the first time by Fred Hoyle.
After a while, scientists concluded that all matter must have come from one point (if you reverse the expanding of the universe).

But almost 35 years before that, Maulana Muhammad Ali, interpretates verse 21:30 just like all other translators in the following way in 1917.

[21:30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, so We rent them. And We made from water everything living. Will they not then believe?

Quote from: "Recusant"And the meaning which was chosen by the later translator was chosen to reflect modern science. This is not a prediction of modern science.

What about this? Can this be seen as a prediction in the field of science?

*sighs with a wry smile*

Do you expect me to take this as a prediction of modern cosmology?  Thiis aya is talking about separating or rending heaven from earth., and the fact that water is essential for life. How does that relate to cosmology?  The Big Bang is not described in anything close to the imagery which we see here.  In fact, the first separation event described in modern cosmology would be the separation of the forces immediately following Planck time: Separation of gravity from the other fundamental forces in the first of the "spontaneous symmetry breaks."  Then another break occurs as the strong force differentiates.  Then the hypothesized inflationary period. This is still nothing like "rending" of "heaven and earth."  In fact, the universe is believed to have still been a more or less uniform state of extremely high energy; matter as we know it didn't even exist. Rather it's described as "a sizzling sea of quarks."  Then a final symmetry break; the electromagnetic and weak forces differentiate. It's only after this that it's theorized that the first particles appear.  Not even nuclei yet; just protons, neutrons and other baryons. It's only after somewhat after this that the universe is thought to have become transparent to light.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fastro%2Fimgast%2Fbbtim.gif&hash=dd747d615838378d2a2bcd908da9bb380d5fc0ed)
(Timeline image from hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/timlin.html#c1"))

Tell me where in this do you see any "parting," "cleaving," "rending," of heaven from earth?  In fact, I'm just going to forget cosmology on a grand scale for a moment, because this aya isn't talking about the cosmos, but of the earth itself.  The earth was not formed by being separated from the heavens. Rather it formed by coalescing.  The planets in the solar system were built up over time. How do you reconcile that with the imagery of the aya which you quote?  

As for the issue of water being the basis of life, Muhammad had lived for his whole existence in a desert.  Desert people have no illusions of how important water is if you want to live.

So as a disbeliever, no I do not see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, then rent by Allah.  I don't find this at all convincing, and I do not now believe.

As far as I'm concerned, presenting these supposed miracles from the Quran will do little to persuade me, iSok.  You should not be surprised to hear that this isn't the first time I've encountered a young Muslim who wanted to proclaim them to the "disbelievers."  I may not jump to answer them as quickly as you might like. Though I do find the Arabic culture interesting, the Quran itself does not hold the same interest.  I won't say that I've heard all of the "Miracles in the Quran," but I have heard many of them.  Not one has actually piqued my interest so far.  Except perhaps for the willingness of Muslims to adopt them, they seem to be yet another set of mystical reworkings of a holy book.  Almost on par with the "Bible Code."

Quote from: "Recusant"*sighs with a wry smile*

Do you expect me to take this as a prediction of modern cosmology?  Thiis aya is talking about separating or rending heaven from earth., and the fact that water is essential for life. How does that relate to cosmology?  The Big Bang is not described in anything close to the imagery which we see here.  In fact, the first separation event described in modern cosmology would be the separation of the forces immediately following Planck time: Separation of gravity from the other fundamental forces in the first of the "spontaneous symmetry breaks."  Then another break occurs as the strong force differentiates.  Then the hypothesized inflationary period. This is still nothing like "rending" of "heaven and earth."  In fact, the universe is believed to have still been a more or less uniform state of extremely high energy; matter as we know it didn't even exist. Rather it's described as "a sizzling sea of quarks."  Then a final symmetry break; the electromagnetic and weak forces differentiate. It's only after this that it's theorized that the first particles appear.  Not even nuclei yet; just protons, neutrons and other baryons. It's only after somewhat after this that the universe is thought to have become transparent to light.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu%2Fhbase%2Fastro%2Fimgast%2Fbbtim.gif&hash=dd747d615838378d2a2bcd908da9bb380d5fc0ed)
(Timeline image from hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/timlin.html#c1"))

Tell me where in this do you see any "parting," "cleaving," "rending," of heaven from earth?  In fact, I'm just going to forget cosmology on a grand scale for a moment, because this aya isn't talking about the cosmos, but of the earth itself.  The earth was not formed by being separated from the heavens. Rather it formed by coalescing.  The planets in the solar system were built up over time. How do you reconcile that with the imagery of the aya which you quote?  

As for the issue of water being the basis of life, Muhammad had lived for his whole existence in a desert.  Desert people have no illusions of how important water is if you want to live.

So as a disbeliever, no I do not see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, then rent by Allah.  I don't find this at all convincing, and I do not now believe.

As far as I'm concerned, presenting these supposed miracles from the Quran will do little to persuade me, iSok.  You should not be surprised to hear that this isn't the first time I've encountered a young Muslim who wanted to proclaim them to the "disbelievers."  I may not jump to answer them as quickly as you might like. Though I do find the Arabic culture interesting, the Quran itself does not hold the same interest.  I won't say that I've heard all of the "Miracles in the Quran," but I have heard many of them.  Not one has actually piqued my interest so far.  Except perhaps for the willingness of Muslims to adopt them, they seem to be yet another set of mystical reworkings of a holy book.  Almost on par with the "Bible Code."

Recusant,

I see what you think. I don’t know how old you are, but probably older than I am.
You have probably the thought off:

“What is this kid trying to claim? That this so called holy book (that was made up by man) he believes in, actually predicts science? How low can you get in order to propagate your religion?”

I’m telling you here that the Quran comes from a Divine source by quoting different verses, while you probably rejected the idea of a God a long time (decades?) ago or never had this idea.
So yes Recusant, I understand that in the very least I might annoy you. If I surpass a limit then do notify me of that, I won’t mind.


The orginal meaning of an ‘aya’ or ‘ayat’ is Sign. When we talk about aya, we talk about signs.
So the Qur’an is not a book of science, but a book of signs. So in the Qur’an there are ‘signs’ for people.

So what are the principles of the Big Bang theory? (The origin of our universe).


It says, that all matter that we know now came from one point (a singularity), with an infinite density and an infinite temperature (hot).
If we take a look at the verse again.

Yusuf Ali (1934)
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30)

The verse indicates with ‘heavens and the earth’ to all matter. Like I said before, that according to the Qur’an we are not alone in this universe. We humans live on Earth, that is the reason that the earth has been mentioned here.

So the verse says, (1) that everything we now see, was joined in one point.
The second part of the verse states; (2) that this point of matter was eventually ‘cloved asunder’.
(3)The last is about water, which is essential for our earth (doesn’t mean that other planets with life are supported by water).

And yes, Muhammad (pbuh) could have known point 3, but the point 1 and 2, he couldn’t have known it.

So the verse says: Everything once in one point  --->  then 'tore' it appart.
litterally means 'Tore it appart' (translated it as 'cloved them asuner') -->               فَفَتَÙ,Ù'نَاهُÙ...َا

I think it’s a very good indication on how the universe began.

As for the graph you posted. If I'm not wrong, it shows what happened in the moments after the initial 'Bang'? (temperature(k) and time(s) )
However it does say that the singularity (Which we all came from) shows 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' immediatly
after the 'Bang'. So the singularity was 'torn appart'. (Do correct me if I'm wrong)

There are many many other reasons why the Qur'an is from a divine origin (what I believe).
The reason I take this aspect to debate and show it to you is because the verses
most of the time do not belong to a context.  The Qur'an talks about one subject and before it engages into another, it uses a verse like this as a pause for the reader.

It's easier for you to respond.
So I hope you don't mind if we can proceed this topic.

If no one minds, I would like to add this one to the list.

In Arabic, each letter of the alfabet has a numerological value.

Iron is called 'Hadid' in the Qur'an.

Ha - 8
D -  4
i-  10
D- 4

4 + 10 + 4 + 8 = 26 (the atomic number of Iron)

QuoteDo not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:30)

...Is that what you think that verse says?

Me, I think it says that heaven and earth were separated while saying nothing about their former condition. A tire and a car do not make a singularity, or even a single unit of (in this case the car's) creation, as you put it - they make a system. There is a difference.

EDIT:

So, we have established that

QuoteSo the verse says, (1) that everything we now see, was joined in one point.

No, not in one point.

QuoteThe second part of the verse states; (2) that this point of matter was eventually ‘cloved asunder’.

Separated by force, in other, more technical terms. Not from a point though. From a system... Kind of like changing tires, yes?

Quote(3)The last is about water, which is essential for our earth (doesn’t mean that other planets with life are supported by water).

Water is essential, and yet, we are not made of it. Oh, there is a lot of water in us, but just because the bulk of a car (since I use that example) is steel, doesn't mean the car as a whole is made of steel. It is not. There is rubber, plastic, light metals like aluminium, copper for wiring, silicon oxide for glass, whatever they make the glue of, petroleum products, textiles (and so on)


You see, your book needs to be interpreted a certain way in a certain light to make certain sense. Interpreted differently, yet true to the word, it might mean something different.

Quote from: "iSok"If no one minds, I would like to add this one to the list.

In Arabic, each letter of the alfabet has a numerological value.

Iron is called 'Hadid' in the Qur'an.

Ha - 8
D -  4
i-  10
D- 4

4 + 10 + 4 + 8 = 26 (the atomic number of Iron)

What is Xenon called? Does it match its atomic number? Hydrogen? Carbon? Bismuth? Magnesium?

What exactly is the point of that post you made, if there is a point there?

Oh, and how do you know the numbers are supposed to be added? Here, let me try...

8*4+10^4=10032

I got paid that amount for a job I did five years ago (close enough) What is significance of THAT?

Asmodean,

I would have to be very creative to interpretate in the way you just did.
By taking an example as a car and tyres....


I explained earlier that with 'Heavens and Earth' is meant 'everything'.
And this point of 'matter' was eventually 'rented', and all the matter of this singularity lead to the earth and the heavens (universe).

And didn't everything come from one point?

Quote from: "Asmodean"What is Xenon called? Does it match its atomic number? Hydrogen? Carbon? Bismuth? Magnesium?

What exactly is the point of that post you made, if there is a point there?

Oh, and how do you know the numbers are supposed to be added? Here, let me try...

8*4+10^4=10032

I got paid that amount for a job I did five years ago (close enough) What is significance of THAT?

The most logical way is to sum up the numbers.

Ha
D
i
D

If you sum up these letters, they form a word.
If you sum up their values, you get 26 as number.

Quote from: "iSok"The most logical way is to sum up the numbers.

Addition is much more logical than multiplication. Everyone knows that.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"The most logical way is to sum up the numbers.

Addition is much more logical than multiplication. Everyone knows that.

Excuse me for my poor English, I was looking for the word 'adding them up'.
You do get 26, by adding the numbers up.

Quote from: "iSok"I explained earlier that with 'Heavens and Earth' is meant 'everything'.

So..?

As I explained to you, it's not a single point the book implies, but a system. Within itself, a car is also everything and yet it is a system, not a single point.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Oh, and how do you know the numbers are supposed to be added? Here, let me try...

Quote from: "iSok"If you sum up these letters, they form a word.
If you sum up their values, you get 26 as number.

THAT part, you have at least attempted to answer. The minor part of my question, of course. I will address this, then re-post the issue I have with this.

Mathematical addition is a different process to that of making a word out of letters. Addition increases value, so adding A to B would increase the value of B, making it into a different constant, C, for instance. Thus, adding ke to the bab would not necessarilly make a kebab, done mathematically.

You are comparing things which should, in the name of intelligence, not be compared, so my point stands. How do you know you are supposed to perform mathematical addition?

Now to the important stuff:

Quote from: "Asmodean"What is Xenon called? Does it match its atomic number? Hydrogen? Carbon? Bismuth? Magnesium?

What exactly is the point of that post you made, if there is a point there?

Address that, please.


As for the logic of addition... E=m+c+2, yes? E being the energy, m being the mass, c being the light speed constant and 2 being 2..?

QuoteAs for the logic of addition... E=m+c+2, yes? E being the energy, m being the mass, c being the light speed constant and 2 being 2..?

.....?...what?

If you have the letters 'I, R, O and N', you add them up and they form a word. I + R + O + N = IRON
If they represent a mathematical value, you add them up....and you'll get 26....It can't be more clear than that...



The elements you are talking about, are probably not stated in the Qur'an.
Iron itself is very important for mankind.

I study structural engineering.

Within 20 a 30 years, concrete buildings will not be build anymore. (environmental polution)
Structures will be (mainly) made of steel, timber and glass(Carbon + Iron mainly).

So Iron as an element is very important. We see this in our buildings, bridges and tunnels.
It's not really easy to replace this element by another for the purpose of Engineering.
Some elements have better ability's , but are very expensive to manufacture.

Without Iron, the world would have looked very different than as it is now today.
If it wasn't for Iron, heavie structures like medieval castles would be still very common. (Not everyone would have a shelter)
Skyscrapers can only be build by using steel.
Any s.engineer will tell you this.
Iron also plays a very important part in your body...
I am not a medical doctor, but could we have existed without Iron?
Are there complex organism who do not use Iron?

The Qur'an points out that Iron comes from outer space (Our solar system did not reach the high temperature you need for the forming of Iron).
The Qur'an says that it litteraly has been 'sent down' for the benefits of mankind.

I guess that is the reason Iron has been mentioned in the Qur'an.
The fact that I just presented, gives the number 26 when you add up the values.



Iron is called 'Hadid' in the Qur'an.

Ha + D + I + D = HADID
8   + 4 + 10 + 4 = 26 (Atomic number of Iron)


My point is, that it cannot be just coincidence.
You say, it is coincidence.

Quote from: "iSok"The elements you are talking about, are probably not stated in the Qur'an.

Ok. Let me re-state. Nitrogen, Hydrogen, the inert gases and Oxygen, also known as "air". Do their names add up to their atomic numbers?

Silicon? Which, combined with oxygen can make glass. Not a word about glass in your book..?

QuoteIron itself is very important for mankind.

...So?

QuoteI study structural engineering.

Within 20 a 30 years, concrete buildings will not be build anymore. (environmental polution)
Structures will be probably made of steel (Carbon + Iron mainly).

I fail to see your point. Oh, and you *really* don't want to try invoking win-by-education with me without even knowing what I do for a living.

QuoteSo Iron as an element is very important. We see this in our buildings, bridges and tunnels.

How unimaginative...  :|

MY point is that you are manufacturing evidence. You are using the exact operation which would yield the correct answer to support your position, while the calculation itself is disputable. Point invalid until the necessity of mathematical addition, rather than other operations, is demonstrated.

You did not answer my question and I won't bother re-quoting. Answer it directly, please. If you add up the letters needed for the elements given, will their names match their atomic numbers?

Quote from: "iSok"

QuoteAs for the logic of addition... E=m+c+2, yes? E being the energy, m being the mass, c being the light speed constant and 2 being 2..?

.....?...what?

If you have the letters 'I, R, O and N', you add them up and they form a word. I + R + O + N = IRON
If they represent a mathematical value, you add them up....and you'll get 26....It can't be more clear than that...

What makes you think that the numeric value of "I" is, for instance, 4..? Its place in the alphabet? Justify, please. Why does that make sense?

What makes you think that i+r+o+n yields 26? Why not 22, with one of the letters having a negative value of 4? Why should, for instance, a letter used twice not be multiplied by two the second time? Why is there a plus between the third and fourth letter, rather than an exponent?

You can not compare grammr to mathematics. Imposing mathematical addition on grammar yields bullshit, as does the reverse. For instance, because c+a+t yields a cat, and Schrödinger had one in a box, energy can be calculated as c+a+t, yes? Since a also stands for acceleration and t stands for time..?

It makes perfect sense that they would mention iron being sent from heaven, the first uses of iron were of meteoric iron before it was known it could be smelted from iron ore from the ground.

As far as the numerology stuff goes...adding the letters up and getting 26 really is just a coincidence, if you break it down further you get 8, or oxygen. You only stop at 26 because it's a number that seems significant.
You can take almost any word and use numerology to come up with a number that seems special...

bullshit
b=2, u=6, l=3, l=3, s=3, h=5, i=1, t=4,
Total= 27
2+7
Total= 9

OMG, my neighbor had 9 cows, that can't possibly be coincidence.

I'd like to see more information about your assertion that concrete is being replaced by steel and wood in construction, a quick google search turns up a lot of information on how they're making stronger types of concrete.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'd like to see more information about your assertion that concrete is being replaced by steel and wood in construction, a quick google search turns up a lot of information on how they're making stronger types of concrete.

Although some within engineering circles fantasize about that, it won't happen any time soon. Steel is versatile, but a poor replacement for concrete for a whole host of reasons. Wood is... Wood.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I fail to see your point. Oh, and you *really* don't want to try invoking win-by-education with me without even knowing what I do for a living.

I am curious, tell me. It certainly does make money as you said.

QuoteHow unimaginative...   Iron is also the business end of hemoglobin in blood. Point, please.

I already said that
[/quote]

QuoteIt IS easy to replace it. Just impractical.

By which element would you replace it?

QuoteNo.

Do explain, you are about to resolve a great question in the field of engineering.

QuoteOne just did. Oh, it's expensive as hell, but you do not NEED iron to build a decent sky scraper.

Expensive, because  other elements are either very rare, or too expensive to manufacture.

QuoteAND in my car example. Your point is still not made.

My point

QuoteIncorrect on several levels. Please substantiate and expand.

What part?

QuoteAnd because we know that humans can not exist as we are today, and as we have been in the past, without iron... That is just nonsense. Iron preceded humans.

So without Iron, the world would look exactly as it does today?

QuoteYes, but you added the numbers, which is clearly uncalled for.

It's still surprising that the word forms 26 when you add the letters up (the most logical way)

QuoteMY point is that you are manufacturing evidence. You are using the exact operation which would yield the correct answer to support your position, while the calculation itself is disputable. Point invalid until the necessity of mathematical addition, rather than other operations, is demonstrated.

You did not answer my question and I won't bother re-quoting. Answer it directly, please. If you add up the letters needed for the elements given, will their names match their atomic numbers?

Those elements you mentioned are not too be found in the Qur'an.
The Arabic language is not a miracle language, but the content of the Quran is in my opinion.
So for your answer (which questions wether a language has links with science) the answer is no.
As for Iron in the Qur'an, it's a fact that it forms 26 when you add up the numbers.

(1) You attack this fact by saying that I just add up the numbers and this way 26 forms.
However, here the most logical thing to do, is to add up the numbers (just like adding up the letters to form a word).

(2) You say that other elements could also have mentioned in the Qur'an. I pointed out earlier that the Qur'an is
a book about signs (aya means sign) not about science.

While we are talking about numbers, I pointed earlier about this one.


Sea(water) is mentioned 32 times in the Quran
land (dryland) is mentioned 13 times in the Quran

Just to try it out, it would be logic to divide 13 by 32.
Percentage of water: 32 divided by 45 x 100 = 71.1111111111%

What about this?

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'd like to see more information about your assertion that concrete is being replaced by steel and wood in construction, a quick google search turns up a lot of information on how they're making stronger types of concrete.

I disagree with his comment about concrete being phased out due to environmental concerns (or that it is being phased out for any reason), it can be an environmentally friendly building material,  It contains recycled materials, is locally produced, creates long lived structures, can enhance energy performance, and can be used to help create sustainable sites.  Here's a site that explains it: http://www.cement.org/buildings/green_leed.asp (http://www.cement.org/buildings/green_leed.asp)  For what it's worth, I am a LEED AP which means I passed a test of my knowledge concerning green building materials and practices.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I'd like to see more information about your assertion that concrete is being replaced by steel and wood in construction, a quick google search turns up a lot of information on how they're making stronger types of concrete.

I disagree with his comment about concrete being phased out due to environmental concerns (or that it is being phased out for any reason), it can be an environmentally friendly building material,  It contains recycled materials, is locally produced, creates long lived structures, can enhance energy performance, and can be used to help create sustainable sites.  Here's a site that explains it: http://www.cement.org/buildings/green_leed.asp (http://www.cement.org/buildings/green_leed.asp)  For what it's worth, I am a LEED AP which means I passed a test of my knowledge concerning green building materials and practices.

My professor specialised in the field of Concrete and Steel structures gave a lecture about this phenomenon last week.
Environmental rules are becoming more and more strict, and in the end concrete manufacturers
can no longer catch up with the environmental rules..........
However lets not derail the topic, I started the post about Iron....


@Djakuma...

The numerology I am talking about comes form the Arabic Adjab system (used since the 8th century).
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.submission.org%2Fimages%2FG-Value.jpg&hash=cec4218da304ec3e6464a97ccabcae040622b184)


حَـدِيۡدَ (Iron in Arabic)



Ø­ÙŽ
دِ
ÙŠÛ¡
دَ
See the tabel above, add the values of these letters and you'll get 26.



Once again Asmodean (see my previous post too..)

What about this?

Sea(water) is mentioned 32 times in the Quran
land (dryland) is mentioned 13 times in the Quran

Just to try it out, it would be logic to divide 13 by 32.
Percentage of water on Earth compared with landmass: 32 divided by 45 x 100 = 71.1111111111%

Quote from: "iSok"I am curious, tell me.

No.

QuoteIt certainly does make money as you said.

Yes.

QuoteBy which element would you replace it?

Carbon, mostly. A few others.

QuoteDo explain, you are about to resolve a great question in the field of engineering.

HA! No... I am not. There is no big issue there. Do not turn a mosquito into a whale.

You can use a frame reinforced with carbon fiber, for instance. Expensive and time consuming, so very impractical, but doable enough. There is also ceramics. Basically, what I am saying is that a steel skeleton can be exchanged with a composite one.

QuoteExpensive, because  other elements are either very rare, or too expensive to manufacture.

There is a difference between "you can't do something without A" and "It is impractical to use something other than A to do something"

QuoteWhat part?

The whole sentence, really. Its point.

QuoteSo without Iron, the world would look exactly as it does today?

Quite possibly. Depends on the distance you are looking from, I guess. What's your point? That iron is somehow unique compared to other elements..? Well, so is hydrogen. Oh, and Kalium... And Sulphur. And Oxygen. And... You get the idea. Iron is no more special - actually less so - than several other chemical elements.

QuoteIt's still surprising that the word forms 26 when you add the leeters up (the most logical way)

E=m+c+2 is NOT logical. It's gibberish. How is it more logical in your example? And no, it is not surprising at all since you produce the evidence in order to manufacture a connection between science and a book, written long before the age of science. There is none, really. Wanting there to be one does not ake it so, unfortunately.

A man of straw... Like in that Wizard of Australia tale...  

QuoteThose elements you mentioned are not too be found in the Qur'an.
The Arabic language is not a miracle language, but the content of the Quran is in my opinion.
So for your answer (which questions wether a language has links with science) the answer is no.
As for Iron in the Qur'an, it's a fact that it forms 26 when you add up the numbers.

So it works for iron, and nothing else..? How is that then a valid mathematical model?

Quote(1) You attack this fact by saying that I just add up the numbers and this way 26 forms.
However, here the most logical thing to do, is to add up the numbers (just like adding up the letters to form a word).

You are hanging on the minor point. Yes, I dispute the "fact" and the "logic" behind it as presented by you. It is a man of straw. Just like in that Wizard of Australia tale.

Quote(2) You say that other elements could also have mentioned in the Qur'an. I pointed out earlier that the Qur'an is
a book about signs (aya means sign) not about science.

And yet iron is an exception... How very... Interesting. Or was it hypocritical..? I always confuse those expressions...

QuoteWhile we are talking about numbers, I pointed earlier about this one.


Sea(water) is mentioned 32 times in the Quran
land (dryland) is mentioned 13 times in the Quran

Just to try it out, it would be logic to divide 13 by 32.
Percentage of water: 32 divided by 45 x 100 = 71.1111111111%

What about this?

For starters, it's wrong. (Well, inaccurate in regard to what it is supposed to signify)

Where exactly is the logic of dividing by that number..? I thought we have agreed ADDITION was the key..?

Present PROOF OF CONCEPT. Do not just claim "logic".

EDIT: Also, what is the significance of 71% compared to, for instance, 96%?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Carbon, mostly. A few others.

I stopped reading when you said this.......
Now I am really curious what you do for a living.....
(Steel is a composite by the way....)

Quote from: "iSok"I stopped reading when you said this.......
Now I am really curious what you do for a living.....

You disregard carbon based on..? Would love to hear you out-steel composites.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "iSok"I stopped reading when you said this.......
Now I am really curious what you do for a living.....

You disregard carbon based on..? Would love to hear you out-steel composites.

Once again Asmodean. What do you do for a living?
As I'm really curious........you still did not answer this.

QuoteHA! No... I am not. There is no big issue there. Do not turn a mosquito into a whale.

You can use a frame reinforced with carbon fiber, for instance. Expensive and time consuming, so very impractical, but doable enough. There is also ceramics. Basically, what I am saying is that a steel skeleton can be exchanged with a composite one.

You claim a lot of things.

- High structures like the Burj Khalifa can be build with carbon fiber....? (Please do explain this)
- Concrete structures with reinforced fibre structures are expensive and time consuming (They are actually not, most of the time pre-cast and very cheap)
- 'There is also ceramics'.....concrete is a ceramic..you can not build a skyscraper with concrete. Ceramic materials can endure a lot of pressure
 but when it comes to tension, they crumble pretty fast... Ceramic materials were always available, but with the coming of Iron during the industrial age.
 High rise buildings were possible for the first time, because of the iron that was used in concrete, so concrete could also endure more tension than without.
- Steel is a composite (Iron and Carbon)...it's not an element as you think it is....

See below.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi52.tinypic.com%2F2wbxbix.jpg&hash=8c003f33c628a0ffe4d53976170b298c234015df)


Concrete which is a ceramic, can endure good pressure but  barely tension.
A certain span L endures tension at the bottom and pressure at the top.
Concrete lacks of enduring tension, therefore during pre-cast the concrete
is reinforced with steel at the bottom, so it can also endure tension.

A steel skeleton cannot be replaced by any material, unless you want to make it with titanium
or something. (Start with making your own car of gold)

None of your points have any value. It's as if you say the Earth is flat....and keep claiming that....you do condemn certain religous groups for that.
I lack in many..many things knowledge, but I just don't claim things........I keep silent and ask if I don't know.

I'm not sure what the whole point with iron and steel is but iSok is right about tension not being a friend of concrete.  If we didn't have steel we'd still be able to build stuff, just not as high (or perhaps we would have developed some other material by this point).

I find it amusing that gematria and isopsephy are being used here as some sort of method for "proving" a scientific revelation in the Quran.  Neither method has any basis in science at all.  This is mystic tripe served up by those with too much time on their hands. You might as well tell us that your psychic told you that the Quran holds all the secrets of the universe, iSok.  It would be just as convincing.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not sure what the whole point with iron and steel is but iSok is right about tension not being a friend of concrete.  If we didn't have steel we'd still be able to build stuff, just not as high (or perhaps we would have developed some other material by this point).

Topic derailed a bit.
I said that Iron is important for man, without Iron the world we see today would not be like it is.
(High structures would not be possible, the introduction of Iron in the industrial age made that possible)

Asmodean denies that, see my post.
We are still looking for new materials, but steel is by far the best composite that can be found.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not sure what the whole point with iron and steel is but iSok is right about tension not being a friend of concrete.  If we didn't have steel we'd still be able to build stuff, just not as high (or perhaps we would have developed some other material by this point).

Topic derailed a bit.
I said that Iron is important for man, without Iron the world we see today would not be like it is.
(High structures would not be possible, the introduction of Iron in the industrial age made that possible)

Asmodean denies that, see my post.
We are still looking for new materials, but steel is by far the best composite that can be found.

Well, while it's nice to be able to build tall structures; it's not like humans would die out if we couldn't do it.  Some places even forbid tall structures.  

Not to mention that skyscrapers wouldn't be possible without the invention of various other technologies; such as the elevator.

There are lots of things that humans use and that we find important that we wouldn't necessarily miss if they had never existed.

Quote from: "Recusant"I find it amusing that gematria and isopsephy are being used here as some sort of method for "proving" a scientific revelation in the Quran.  Neither method has any basis in science at all.  This is mystic tripe served up by those with too much time on their hands. You might as well tell us that your psychic told you that the Quran holds all the secrets of the universe, iSok.  It would be just as convincing.

Mentioning certain words in the Qur'an and ammount of times.


World: 115
Hereafter: 115


Seven heavens: 7
Creation of the seven heavens: 7

Faith: 25
Infidelity: 25

Paradise: 77
Hell: 77

Satan: 88
Angels: 88

Life: 145
Death: 145

Man: 23
Woman: 23

I can continue....


Did Muhammad(pbuh) posses a secret list so he would make sure this?
Would someone who's trying to make up a religion even think of this?

Quote from: "iSok"Once again Asmodean. What do you do for a living?
As I'm really curious........you still did not answer this.

Once again, my profession is no business of yours. I do not advertise on demand.

QuoteYou claim a lot of things.

- High structures like the Burj Khalifa can be build with carbon fiber....? (Please do explain this)

A matter of fiber direction. It is difficult, but doable. CF is brittle, however, the fibers have very decent resistance to pressure. Thus, a layered CF pipe would provide reasonable kilo-per-kilo stability compared to a steel T-bar or a steel pipe.

Quote- Concrete structures with reinforced fibre structures are expensive and time consuming (They are actually not, most of the time pre-cast and very cheap)

No, I said composites tend to be expensive and time consuming to manufacture. Example: modern torsion bars

Quote- 'There is also ceramics'.....concrete is a ceramic..you can not build a skyscraper with concrete. Ceramic materials can endure a lot of pressure

Ceramics as a part of a composite material. Why not? We do it already.

Quotebut when it comes to tension, they crumble pretty fast... Ceramic materials were always available, but with the coming of Iron during the industrial age.

Yes, which is why you can use layered fiber, for instance, to counter the brittle ceramics. And that's where we come to the expensive part - layered fibers like this are not exactly cheap.

QuoteHigh rise buildings were possible for the first time, because of the iron that was used in concrete, so concrete could also endure more tension than without.
- Steel is a composite (Iron and Carbon)...it's not an element as you think it is....

Yes to point one. No to point two. Steel is an alloy

QuoteNone of your points have any value.

Because you seem to be looking at this debate in terms of practicality, while I do so in terms of possibility.

QuoteIt's as if you say the Earth is flat....and keep claiming that....you do condemn certain religous groups for that.
I lack in many..many things knowledge, but I just don't claim things........I keep silent and ask if I don't know.

Well, I WAS hoping you would answer what I HAVE asked, but I guess it's not going to happen in any reasonably constructive manner.

I am not going to continue this debate, pointless....
You are trying to tell a doctor that the heart can be in a man's head.....

You presented your job as 'I make much money!!' and it would impress me as an
engineer, I am not at all....so I am still curious.
I already answered your question.

Do also read my post above.

Quote from: "iSok"Asmodean denies that, see my post.

No. Do not put statements in my mouth which have never come out of there.

I challenge any one to find a line where I stated that iron was not important to our civilization.   In regard to how the world would look, that depends. Visual appearance of a planet is greatly dependant on the closeness of the observer. I'm sure that with no iron deposites, some rock formations would be different, but I am not so sure the Earth would look all that dfferent seen from the Moon or Venus.

What I DID say is that within a civilization and excluding its biology, iron is not necessarilly irreplaceable. It may well be the best and the most practical alloy for construction, but that is a different point, which I have not contested beyond providing an alternative.

Quote from: "iSok"I am not going to continue this debate, pointless....
You are trying to tell a doctor that the heart can be in a man's head.....

No. The doctor just reads into statements whatever he wants.

QuoteYou presented your job as 'I make much money!!' and it would impress me as an
engineer, I am not at all....so I am still curious.

No. I said something about what I do for a living, then you pulled money out of thin air and I said yes to that question. *I* did NOT present my job as making much money, nor did I use the exclamation marks. I merely responded to two questions, one of which I was willing to answer in the most general terms possible.

QuoteI already answered your question.

Yes. Your answer was flawed and you ignored the flaws.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "iSok"I am not going to continue this debate, pointless....
You are trying to tell a doctor that the heart can be in a man's head.....

No. The doctor just reads into statements whatever he wants.

QuoteYou presented your job as 'I make much money!!' and it would impress me as an
engineer, I am not at all....so I am still curious.

No. I said something about what I do for a living, then you pulled money out of thin air and I said yes to that question. *I* did NOT present my job as making much money, nor did I use the exclamation marks. I merely responded to two questions, one of which I was willing to answer in the most general terms possible.

QuoteI already answered your question.

Yes. Your answer was flawed and you ignored the flaws.

"I fail to see your point. Oh, and you *really* don't want to try invoking win-by-education with me without even knowing what I do for a living."


"'Oh and you really don't want to try..."
Did I fail in seeing that as 'I know more about this'?
I am still very curious what you do for a living.....are you a mobster?

This whole derail began because you started to question.

-Why do I add up the values?
-Why isn't it applicable for other elements.

1) Because I find it logic.
2) Other elements are not too be found in the Qur'an, they are of course in the Arabic language.
    But the Arabic language is not some miracle language (If it was, you would still question the Qur'an).

Then I said that Iron is very important for us, and you started a whole argument that it isn't at all and we can easily live without it, claiming
that you knew everything about it.....which obviously you didn't (half of your info comes from wikipedia....).

Okay so be it, I am wrong and you are right Asmodean.

But care to explain the issue above, about the pattern in Qur'an?
Why is for example man mentioned 23 times and woman also? Or the other words?

Quote from: "iSok"Did I fail in seeing that as 'I know more about this'?

Apparently, you did fail to see my words for what they were.

Or gotten the meaning in reverse.

I was saying that while it is quite possible that you hold an expert opinion in this regard, advertising it invokes the implication that I, or someone in my immediate surroundings, do not. OR that your opinion is more valid by virtue of an education that I, or someone in my surroundings, do not posess.

Now, would you mind explaining to me where I presented my job as the following:

QuoteYou presented your job as 'I make much money!!'

Not where YOU presented it as such and I responded by a vague confirmation, where I did.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "iSok"Did I fail in seeing that as 'I know more about this'?

Apparently, you did fail to seeing my words for what they were.

Or gotten the meaning in reverse.

I was saying that while it is quite possible that you hold an expert opinion in this regard, advertising it invokes the implication that I, or someone in my immediate surroundings, do not. OR that your opinion is more valid by virtue of an education that I, or someone in my surroundings, do not posess.

Now, would you mind explaining to me where I presented my job as the following:

QuoteYou presented your job as 'I make much money!!'

Not where YOU presented it as such and I responded by a vague confirmation, where I did.

You still didn't answer my question Asmodean about the points above.

This is what you said by the way:

8*4+10^4=10032

I got paid that amount for a job I did five years ago (close enough) What is significance of THAT?

I have no idea HOW you brought up this....your wealth does not benefit me....

Quote from: "iSok"-Why do I add up the values?
-Why isn't it applicable for other elements.

Indeed. I do remember where we were before the derail quite clearly. Let us look at that, shall we..?

Quote1) Because I find it logic.

Thank you. Because YOU find it logical. We have a key word here. That doesn't mean, however, that any one else will see the same logic without proof of concept, which is not possible without a larger sample size which is not possible due to the limitations of the Quran. Thus, your statement that there is something other than a coincidence or false evidence in the number 26 is an empty and highly subjective claim, which has been my position throughout this whole charade.

Quote2) Other elements are not too be found in the Qur'an, they are of course in the Arabic language.
    But the Arabic language is not some miracle language (If it was, you would still question the Qur'an).

Of course I would question. I can, however, be convinced that something is indeed correct. You just failed to do so in this case for the reason partly stated above.

QuoteThen I said that Iron is very important for us, and you started a whole argument that it isn't at all and we can easily live without it, claiming
that you knew everything about it.....which obviously you didn't.

Never did that. You are attributing implications to my words which I never made.

QuoteOkay, I am wrong and you are right Asmodean.

For all we know, I could be wrong too. However, you have not convinced me that you are likely to be less wrong than I.

QuoteBut care to explain the issue above, about the pattern in Qur'an?

Superstition is seeing patterns where there are none. What is the word for imposing patterns where there should be none..?

LAST POST ADDON: Is 10000 a lot..? Not really, no. Well, maybe in Euro or USD or British pounds... But I am not from any one of those countries. By the way, THAT job was not the one I do today. It was a one-time summer gig. What I was asking was: if I use those same numbers, but with different operators and get my own salary from five or so years ago, what would be the significance of that..? Numerologically..? About the same as the significance of them adding up to 26, yes?

EDIT: You see, THIS is why I asked to provide the lines in which I have stated that I make a "lot of money". With misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misimplications out of the way, maybe we can actually GET SOMEWHERE.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "iSok"-Why do I add up the values?
-Why isn't it applicable for other elements.

Indeed. I do remember where we were before the derail quite clearly. Let us look at that, shall we..?

Quote1) Because I find it logic.

Thank you. Because YOU find it logical. We have a key word here. That doesn't mean, however, that any one else will see the same logic without proof of concept, which is not possible without a larger sample size which is not possible due to the limitations of the Quran. Thus, your statement that there is something other than a coincidence or false evidence in the number 26 is an empty and highly subjective claim, which has been my position throughout this whole charade.

Quote2) Other elements are not too be found in the Qur'an, they are of course in the Arabic language.
    But the Arabic language is not some miracle language (If it was, you would still question the Qur'an).

Of course I would question. I can, however, be convinced that something is indeed correct. You just failed to do so in this case for the reason partly stated above.

QuoteThen I said that Iron is very important for us, and you started a whole argument that it isn't at all and we can easily live without it, claiming
that you knew everything about it.....which obviously you didn't.

Never did that. You are attributing implications to my words which I never made.

QuoteOkay, I am wrong and you are right Asmodean.

For all we know, I could be wrong too. However, you have not convinced me that you are likely to be less wrong than I.

QuoteBut care to explain the issue above, about the pattern in Qur'an?

Superstition is seeing patterns where there are none. What is the word for imposing patterns where there should be none..?

LAST POST ADDON: Is 10000 a lot..? Not really, no. Well, maybe in Euro or USD or British pounds... But I am not from any one of those countries. By the way, THAT job was not the one I do today. It was a one-time summer gig. What I was asking was: if I use those same numbers, but with different operators and get my own salary from five or so years ago, what would be the significance of that..? Numerologically..? About the same as the significance of them adding up to 26, yes?

Forgive me, you are right. (I don't see the point in continueing this)

A last question before I go to bed.

World: 115
Hereafter: 115


Seven heavens: 7
Creation of the seven heavens: 7

Faith: 25
Infidelity: 25

Paradise: 77
Hell: 77

Satan: 88
Angels: 88

Life: 145
Death: 145

Man: 23
Woman: 23

(List is longer)

You do consider this as coincidence, right?

Quote from: "iSok"World: 115
Hereafter: 115

Is that the sum of letters in an alphabet..? Which one..? If latin derivates, then it would be off by several points depending on the country of origin. Not all countries using latin lettering have the same number of letters and the special characters don't always come at the very end.

QuoteSeven heavens: 7
Creation of the seven heavens: 7

Faith: 25
Infidelity: 25

Paradise: 77
Hell: 77

Satan: 88
Angels: 88

Life: 145
Death: 145

Man: 23
Woman: 23

Is this coincidence? Yes/No

I don't really know how you achieved those numerical value, so I can not make a proper response. However, I think this is more the case of imposing a pattern onto the words rather than finding one already there. That means, in VERY short and incomplete words, NO, not a coincidence.

Quote from: "iSok"Did Muhammad(pbuh) posses a secret list so he would make sure this?
Would someone who's trying to make up a religion even think of this?

To the first question: Perhaps Muhammad, or perhaps whoever first wrote the book down, or somebody subsequent to that. (Assuming that the counts you posted are accurate, and not fudged by somebody with an agenda.) As far as I'm concerned, any one of these explanations are more likely than that "Allah willed it thus."

To the second question:  Why not?  Muhammad may have had nothing to do with the precise number of times a certain word was used in the written version of the Quran which has come down to us in the modern world. People living hundreds of years ago put great store in such things, and apparently some still do.

At any rate, the putative fact that certain pairs of words appear the same number of times in the Quran does not indicate a divinely inspired origin to me.  It looks like nothing so much as human manipulation of the text.  Ockham's Razor would lead us to go with that explanation:  We have people writing down a book.  Those same people were quite capable of adding or subtracting a word or two (or three or n), even of saying that Allah inspired them to do so. We certainly don't need a supernatural entity to explain it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote from: "Asmodean"What is the word for imposing patterns where there should be none..?

A couple of my favorite words describe this:

 I think the most applicable would be "apophenia (http://www.skepdic.com/apophenia.html)."  However, there may be an element of "pareidolia (http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html)" as well.  Even if not, it's a good word to know.

Quote from: "Recusant""pareidolia (http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html)"

  I'm-a memorize that.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "iSok"World: 115
Hereafter: 115

Is that the sum of letters in an alphabet..? Which one..? If latin derivates, then it would be off by several points depending on the country of origin. Not all countries using latin lettering have the same number of letters and the special characters don't always come at the very end.

QuoteSeven heavens: 7
Creation of the seven heavens: 7

Faith: 25
Infidelity: 25

Paradise: 77
Hell: 77

Satan: 88
Angels: 88

Life: 145
Death: 145

Man: 23
Woman: 23

Is this coincidence? Yes/No

I don't really know how you achieved those numerical value, so I can not make a proper response. However, I think this is more the case of imposing a pattern onto the words rather than finding one already there. That means, in VERY short and incomplete words, NO, not a coincidence.

No, this list is not about numerical values...
It's very simple.

In this piece of text for example.

Muslims hold that the Qur’an is the verbal divine guidance and moral direction for mankind. Muslims also consider the original Arabic verbal text to be the final revelation of God.


Muslims - 2
Verbal - 2
the - 3


Do you understand what I mean?
You can find the word 'Life' for example written/mentioned in the Qur'an 145 times, same counts for 'Death'.
This is the same for the whole list I posted earlier.

So you consider this as coincidence?

Quote from: "iSok"You can find the word 'Life' for example written/mentioned in the Qur'an 145 times, same counts for 'Death'.

Ah! The number of times the word is mentioned..!

Well, it can be coincidental OR it can be written that way on purpose by those who wrote the script. OR it can be partly coincidental (Like the words only used twice) while being partly on purpose (Like using life just as much as death - to signify that for every life, there is always a death, namely its own, perhaps...)

I can only speculate whether or not that is coincidental.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

QuoteWell, it can be coincidental OR it can be written that way on purpose by those who wrote the script.

If you only knew the history of it......



Lastly I want to say.
That even a very respected Christian orientalists eventually came to the conclusion
that the Qur'an was divinely inspired but he eventually rejected it because he didn't find truth in it.
He believed it was God's will to inspire the human race in different way based on my signature verse (see below).

So for a Christian orientalist it must be pretty hard to come to that conclusion.


William Montgomery Watt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Montgomery_Watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Montgomery_Watt)

Quote from: "iSok"If you only knew the history of it......

That I do not.

However, I fail to see the significance of words being mentioned equal number of times, factoring in the reasonable doubt, which in this case is: How is it more plausible that there is something divine to the equal values than that some less-than-divine human put them there to invoke symbolic significance?

Is there any significance there besides symbolic..?

EDIT: By the way, it just dawned on me that you have probably misunderstood me in the carbon vs. steel discussion... OR maybe I misunderstood you. We left that discussion, but just for the heck of it...

You asked me which element I would replace steel with, so I gave you a chemical element. Carbon as a chemical element is not only about ye old bike frame carbon fibers. There are also plastics, resins and a whole host of organic compounds in which carbon is cruicial.

By making composites I mentioned out of such compounds (Very basically, layering those with high tensile strength and those which resist pressure), you can achieve materials with properties sufficient to construct a tall structure. Such a structure would have some great disadvantages in case of earth quakes, for example, however on stable ground, it could be built quite tall indeed.

While not (practically, within reason. Theoretical possibilities are a different matter) having the tensile strength of many construction alloys, such materials would be sufficient to construct a sky scraper. Naturally, the architecture would difer from that of today's sky scrapers, but that is a different matter.

Are we on more or less the same page now..?

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "iSok"If you only knew the history of it......

That I do not.

However, I fail to see the significance of words being mentioned equal number of times, factoring in the reasonable doubt, which in this case is: How is it more plausible that there is something divine to the equal values than that some less-than-divine human put them there to invoke symbolic significance?

Is there any significance there besides symbolic..?

Well, if you knew how the Qur'an came into existence, you'd see that it would be very hard.

So far, there has not been a reasonable theory of the origin of the Qur'an.
Orientalists usually study the Qur'an, Muhammad (pbuh) and Islamic history and that's it.
So uptill today there's no other theory about the origin of the Qur'an than the theory of the Muslims.

- Dr. Laura Vaglieri (Orientalist)

The Miracle of Islam par excellence is the Quran, through which a constant and unbroken tradition transmits to us news of an absolute certainty. This is a book which cannot be imitated. Each of its expressions is a comprehensive one, and yet it is of proper size, neither too long nor too short. Its style is original. There is no model for this style in Arab literature of the times preceding it. The effect which it produces on the human soul is obtained without any adventitious aid through its own inherent excellences. The verses are equally eloquent all through the text, even when they deal with topics, such as commandments and prohibitions, which must necessarily affect its tone. Stories of Prophets, descriptions of the beginning and the end of the world, enumerations and expositions of the divine attributes are repeated but repeated in a way which is so impressive that they do not weaken the effect. The text proceeds from one topic to another without losing its power. Depth and sweetness, qualities which generally do not go together, are found together here, where each rhetoric figure finds a perfect application. . . . We find there vast stores of knowledge which are beyond the capacity of the most intelligent of men, the greatest of philosophers and the ablest of politicians.

I think it isn't coincidence.
But one of the many arguments for it's divine source.

Quote from: "iSok"Well, if you knew how the Qur'an came into existence, you'd see that it would be very hard.

And yet, as it seems from what you implied below, no-one DOES know its origin.

QuoteSo far, there has not been a reasonable theory of the origin of the Qur'an.
Orientalists usually study the Qur'an, Muhammad (pbuh) and Islamic history and that's it.
So uptill today there's no other theory about the origin of the Qur'an than the theory of the Muslims.

I have half a mind of poking the first sentence against the third, but I will not. It is, after all, 3AM.

So why exactly can the Quran NOT have been written by men with no divine intervention?

Quote- Dr. Laura Vaglieri (Orientalist)

The Miracle of Islam par excellence is the Quran, through which a constant and unbroken tradition transmits to us news of an absolute certainty. This is a book which cannot be imitated. Each of its expressions is a comprehensive one, and yet it is of proper size, neither too long nor too short. Its style is original. There is no model for this style in Arab literature of the times preceding it. The effect which it produces on the human soul is obtained without any adventitious aid through its own inherent excellences. The verses are equally eloquent all through the text, even when they deal with topics, such as commandments and prohibitions, which must necessarily affect its tone. Stories of Prophets, descriptions of the beginning and the end of the world, enumerations and expositions of the divine attributes are repeated but repeated in a way which is so impressive that they do not weaken the effect. The text proceeds from one topic to another without losing its power. Depth and sweetness, qualities which generally do not go together, are found together here, where each rhetoric figure finds a perfect application. . . . We find there vast stores of knowledge which are beyond the capacity of the most intelligent of men, the greatest of philosophers and the ablest of politicians.

Very subjective in far too many places.

QuoteI think it isn't coincidence.
But one of the many arguments for it's divine source.

Purpose does not imply divine intervention or origin. Humans can make patterns for a purpose.

Quote from: "Asmodean"And yet, as it seems from what you implied below, no-one DOES know its origin.

We (muslims) do, Islam is based on it.

QuoteI have half a mind of poking the first sentence against the third, but I will not. It is, after all, 3AM.

3:18 now, got to get up at 06:00. Tommorow first day of second semester.

QuoteSo why exactly can the Quran NOT have been written by men with no divine intervention?

There are a lot of arguments. If you are sincerely interested.
Start here...   http://www.theinimitablequran.com/ (http://www.theinimitablequran.com/)

QuoteVery subjective in far too many places.

Wanted to point out that the Qur'an is also regarded by
non-muslim orientalist (people with no agenda) as something 'very nice'.

QuotePurpose does not imply divine intervention or origin. Humans can make patterns for a purpose.

Yes it does play a role.
There are a lot of 'signs', not just science or counting words, that just plays a minor role.
I hope I can explain them all here.
But on the other hand, there's not a single reason why I shouldn't believe in the Qur'an or Islam.

Quote from: "iSok"

Quote from: "Asmodean"

QuoteWell, it can be coincidental OR it can be written that way on purpose by those who wrote the script.

If you only knew the history of it......



Lastly I want to say.
That even a very respected Christian orientalists eventually came to the conclusion
that the Qur'an was divinely inspired but he eventually rejected it because he didn't find truth in it.
He believed it was God's will to inspire the human race in different way based on my signature verse (see below).

So for a Christian orientalist it must be pretty hard to come to that conclusion.


William Montgomery Watt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Montgomery_Watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Montgomery_Watt)

Take a look at the "argument from authority" logical fallacy to see why the above doesn't hold water...

Quote from: "iSok"Yes it does play a role.
There are a lot of 'signs', not just science or counting words, that just plays a minor role.
I hope I can explain them all here.
But on the other hand, there's not a single reason why I shouldn't believe in the Qur'an or Islam.

You can find "signs" in almost any literary work if you look hard enough, can you prove with empirical data that the "signs" in your book are any more accurate than those in the bible, the book of mormon or the prophesies of nostradamus?

Quote from: "iSok"But on the other hand, there's not a single reason why I shouldn't believe in the Qur'an or Islam.

I can't think of a single reason why I would believe in the Qur'an or Islam. I guess it comes down to personal choice rather than proven fact.

Achronos says that we should forget about proof and reason and instead look to the Bible and Christian Orthodoxy, it all just seems so random to me. Put my faith into a scripture (Bible, Qur'an, or other), believe what I am told, align my values to the morals of that scripture, persecute people that the scripture tells me are sinners...

I'd rather think for myself, do what I feel is right, be tolerant of others, show compassion and love, treat others as equals...
I've never been good at doing what I'm told, I always ask too many questions. You know, "...but why?". I like that science tries to improve itself all the time, that they look for proof, that they are willing to admit when they are wrong, that they don't care if the answer doesn't match preconceived ideas, that they have no alteria motive, they have no moral high ground, they simply want to know how things work.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"But on the other hand, there's not a single reason why I shouldn't believe in the Qur'an or Islam.

I can't think of a single reason why I would believe in the Qur'an or Islam. I guess it comes down to personal choice rather than proven fact.

Achronos says that we should forget about proof and reason and instead look to the Bible and Christian Orthodoxy, it all just seems so random to me. Put my faith into a scripture (Bible, Qur'an, or other), believe what I am told, align my values to the morals of that scripture, persecute people that the scripture tells me are sinners...

I'd rather think for myself, do what I feel is right, be tolerant of others, show compassion and love, treat others as equals...
I've never been good at doing what I'm told, I always ask too many questions. You know, "...but why?". I like that science tries to improve itself all the time, that they look for proof, that they are willing to admit when they are wrong, that they don't care if the answer doesn't match preconceived ideas, that they have no alteria motive, they have no moral high ground, they simply want to know how things work.

That right there is the big difference between faith and science. Faith starts out with the answers and interprets the evidence to fit them, science looks at the evidence and tries to find answers, as more evidence is gathered the answers are subject to change. With faith the answers stay the same, as more evidence gets in the way the interpretation of the evidence is adjusted to fit the answers.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"But on the other hand, there's not a single reason why I shouldn't believe in the Qur'an or Islam.

I can't think of a single reason why I would believe in the Qur'an or Islam. I guess it comes down to personal choice rather than proven fact.

Achronos says that we should forget about proof and reason and instead look to the Bible and Christian Orthodoxy, it all just seems so random to me. Put my faith into a scripture (Bible, Qur'an, or other), believe what I am told, align my values to the morals of that scripture, persecute people that the scripture tells me are sinners...

I'd rather think for myself, do what I feel is right, be tolerant of others, show compassion and love, treat others as equals...
I've never been good at doing what I'm told, I always ask too many questions. You know, "...but why?". I like that science tries to improve itself all the time, that they look for proof, that they are willing to admit when they are wrong, that they don't care if the answer doesn't match preconceived ideas, that they have no alteria motive, they have no moral high ground, they simply want to know how things work.

Stevil,

Almost two years ago, I think I was pretty much an agnostic, because of all the evil in the world, the lack of proof.
But I never read the Qur'an or any Islamic books. So I wanted to give it a chance.

When I started reading, the Qur'an started a 'dialogue' with me. First it is you that
reads the Qur'an, but after a while the Qur'an is reading you, there's a frightening presence.
So the Qur'an asks you to think, to reason to connect idea's.
'have you no sense?'

I would build up a barrier with questions, but when I read the Qur'an for a few pages it would
answer pretty much every question and destroy my  barrier. This continued for days, everytime I thought, now my barrier
stays, the Qur'an would get in and crumble it. And when I finished it, I was overwhelmed.

Islam itself means 'to find peace in submission'.
I don't know how to describe the feeling, but you are actually ready to die.
Not because of the afterlife-aspect and not of depression. But because you are a part
of nature, everything that exists is already in submission and now I am too.
So when people die they often ask themselves: 'Why me?", I'd rather ask myself 'Why not me?'.
There are also other aspects.

In Islam you are encouraged to grow in spirit, spiritual enlightment.
And you are given a few ways on how to achieve that; high morals, prayer, charity....etc

This inner feeling of infinite peace is overwhelming....
You stop thinking about materialistic aspects; cars, houses and money....this leads to emptiness.
If I have a shelter and enough food to survive, I am more than happy because many people in the world don't even have that..
Basically I still have no single reason not to believe.

Achronos understood that also very well...He has this feeling too.
I wanted to point out that the Qur'an cannot be man-made, the reason I gave this 'evidence' is not for myself
but to at the very least stimulate you in getting you more interested. The 'evidence' I gave is not meant as an undeniable proof of divine origin.
But it's meant to stimulate some people here...
So that you might also say; 'lets give it a chance'.

I'm not interested in becoming a follower of Islam; a few numerology tricks and some vague interpretations that kinda sorta meet reality if you want them to is not compelling reason to throw on a head scarf.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not interested in becoming a follower of Islam; a few numerology tricks and some vague interpretations that kinda sorta meet reality if you want them to is not compelling reason to throw on a head scarf.

Head scarf itself is a minor aspect of Islam (also pretty controversial).
I know some converts on my uni, they do not wear it, although they are pretty much practising muslima's.
Others wear it after years, some never do.

The most important aspect within Islam,
is to submit to God and surrender your will, just like everything in nature does, only man does not have it's set of laws and rules
and decides to change them continuosly to fulfill his/her desires.
'to submit and find peace', I know it's hard to think this way because the image that Islam is given today.

"Tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms." The Qur'an.

"Your wifes are your tillage, Go in therefore unto your tillage in what manner soever ye will" The Qur'an

If wives are disobedient, "admonish them, send them  to beds apart, and scourge them." The Qur'an

Of course, only God could have come up with such beautiful passages.

Quote from: "Stevil""Tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms." The Qur'an.

"Your wifes are your tillage, Go in therefore unto your tillage in what manner soever ye will" The Qur'an

If wives are disobedient, "admonish them, send them  to beds apart, and scourge them." The Qur'an

Of course, only God could have come up with such beautiful passages.

You do not harm me with this Stevil, you only harm yourself.
I explained the verses you mentioned in detail in another topic, but you never responded.
And now you quote them again....

I won't go into detail here, as you've already made your choice.

'Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty, that will make for greater purity for them, Surely Allah is aware of what they do.' (Al-Quran: Surah An-Noor - Verse 30)

Huh, It is never my intent to harm you.

I am simply presenting some simple phrases as they are written in the Qur'an. I thought this would be good balance since you are presenting the Qur'an as a divine and beautiful thing. At least if it is presented verbatim then people can decide for themselves.

By the way, your interpretation of the tillage phrase did not match at all what the Qur'an says. I think people should be able to read for themselves rather than listen to the iSok interpretation.

Quote from: "iSok"I explained the verses you mentioned in detail in another topic, but you never responded.
And now you quote them again....

BTW, when you say "them" you are either lying or you have a poor memory. Of the three phrases I have only ever mentioned one of them before. Please be honest in your discussions.

Quote from: "Stevil"Huh, It is never my intent to harm you.

I am simply presenting some simple phrases as they are written in the Qur'an. I thought this would be good balance since you are presenting the Qur'an as a divine and beautiful thing. At least if it is presented verbatim then people can decide for themselves.

By the way, your interpretation of the tillage phrase did not match at all what the Qur'an says. I think people should be able to read for themselves rather than listen to the iSok interpretation.

Quote from: "iSok"I explained the verses you mentioned in detail in another topic, but you never responded.
And now you quote them again....

BTW, when you say "them" you are either lying or you have a poor memory. Of the three phrases I have only ever mentioned one of them before. Please be honest in your discussions.

Like I said Stevil, you already made your choice and no one can change that.
About the tillage, go look on the web if you don't believe me, but you have probably already read about that
on faithfreedom.com I guess.

you post this.

"Tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms." The Qur'an.
But you don't post the verse meant for men..I find that rather odd.....

I think the most controversial part of Muhammad (pbuh) for you is the marriage with Aisha.
At the other topic I already explained this in detail and you never responded....

As for the last verse, it's pretty easy to explain, you'll be surprised.
But even if I do explain in detail, you've already marked Islam as opressive towards woman.
And within a week you'll quote once again verses of the Qur'an as so called 'opressive'.

(I said earlier, that the majority of converts are women, would be strange if Islam is opressive towards women)


A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of God! Who among the people is the most worthy of my good companionship? The Prophet said: Your mother. The man said, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man further asked, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your mother. The man asked again, ‘Then who?' The Prophet said: Then your father. (Bukhari, Muslim). - Muhammad (pbuh)

Your Heaven lies under the feet of your mother (Ahmad, Nasai). - Muhammad (pbuh)

Quote from: "iSok""Tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms." The Qur'an.
But you don't post the verse meant for men..I find that rather odd.....

As I have told you in the past, my knowledge of Islam and Qur'an is from a book called "Nine parts of Desire - the hidden world of Islamic Women". I have not read nor do I have the desire to read the Qur'an. It should not be surprising to you that I only quote stuff pertaining to women since by source is a book about women. If the verse meant for men is oppressive of men then please feel free to post that as well, it would also support my case against the Qur'an.

Quote from: "iSok"I think the most controversial part of Muhammad (pbuh) for you is the marriage with Aisha.
At the other topic I already explained this in detail and you never responded....

As disgusting as Muhammad is, I realise the focus should be on the Qur'an which is percieved to be God's word and not Muhammad's.

Quote from: "iSok"As for the last verse, it's pretty easy to explain, you'll be surprised.
...

I am trying to add balance to this discussion by simply quoting the Qur'an, I am not adding my own interpretation. The qur'an is what the qur'an is, warts and all, people need to realise what it speaks of. You choose to only show the parts you think are devine, I see that as dishonest as you are not showing a true representation. I am merely adding balance, I don't think the whole book is as bad as the parts I have quoted.
You can choose to defend the quotes I have shown by adding an alternative interpretation or you can chose not to defend the qur'an, that is your perogotive. I don't think you need to defend it. It is what it is.

Quote from: "Stevil"As I have told you in the past, my knowledge of Islam and Qur'an is from a book called "Nine parts of Desire - the hidden world of Islamic Women". I have not read nor do I have the desire to read the Qur'an. It should not be surprising to you that I only quote stuff pertaining to women since by source is a book about women. If the verse meant for men is oppressive of men then please feel free to post that as well, it would also support my case against the Qur'an.

This is rather shocking, that all of your knowledge of a whole religion comes from one book, and do you really think you have obtained an objective look?
You are only repeating what you read, it doesn't come from you. I am glad you admit it....

QuoteAs disgusting as Muhammad is, I realise the focus should be on the Qur'an which is percieved to be God's word and not Muhammad's.

Once again, you failed to see the whole context.
Would a pervert marry a woman of 40 at the age of 25, 15 years older than him.
And stay with her for 25 years and even after her death never forget her?
So somehow Muhammad (pbuh) turned into a pervert all of a sudden at the age of 53 according to you by marrying Aisha?
Even then I explained the whole issue in detail and your only respond is "As disgusting as Muhammad is"

QuoteI am trying to add balance to this discussion by simply quoting the Qur'an, I am not adding my own interpretation. The qur'an is what the qur'an is, warts and all, people need to realise what it speaks of. You choose to only show the parts you think are devine, I see that as dishonest as you are not showing a true representation. I am merely adding balance, I don't think the whole book is as bad as the parts I have quoted.
You can choose to defend the quotes I have shown by adding an alternative interpretation or you can chose not to defend the qur'an, that is your perogotive. I don't think you need to defend it. It is what it is.

You are actually not adding balance, are you accusing me of being not honest?
I posted verses of the Qur'an which contained as what I believe 'signs'. Those verses were not about
laws, politics or daily life. I didn't even start a topic about women and men....

But you did and you decided to post only verses that seem to be opressive towards women.
(1)You started the subject, (2)you picked verses on women and (3)you picked specifically verses that are 'opressive'.
By looking at the verses you posted, I can see that the author had her own agenda, and you based your view on that book.
Your excuse is that it comes from the only book you have ever read about this topic so you have nothing else to add.
And you accuse me of being dishonest?

I am sorry to have offended you iSok. I merely posted some quotes from the Qur'an. I am not sure how you can find quotes from the Qur'an offensive.

I was correct in accusing you of being dishonest with regards to your statement that I had posted the three quotes before when you know I had only posted one of them.

I had overstated your dishonesty with regards to your representation of the Qur'an as obviously you were using material to back up your point. I felt it was dishonest when I read it as I know there are other material within the Qur'an which are contrary to your point, however I should allow you to address these issues before accusing you of being dishonest here.

Quote from: "Stevil"I am sorry to have offended you iSok. I merely posted some quotes from the Qur'an. I am not sure how you can find quotes from the Qur'an offensive.

I was correct in accusing you of being dishonest with regards to your statement that I had posted the three quotes before when you know I had only posted one of them.

I had overstated your dishonesty with regards to your representation of the Qur'an as obviously you were using material to back up your point. I felt it was dishonest when I read it as I know there are other material within the Qur'an which are contrary to your point, however I should allow you to address these issues before accusing you of being dishonest here.

No worries, you did not offend me, I am not offended that soon
If the verses in the Qur'an (you quoted) would offend me, I would no longer be a Muslim.
I just didn't like the idea that you quote verses with no context and no explanation.

Stevil, if you do have any questions, please do ask me. I will be honest in adressing every issue.
Wether it's something in the Qur'an, Muhammad's (pbuh) life or Islamic history.
(I lack knowledge on the last topic)

I am sorry too if I hurt your feelings by any of my posts.

Quote from: "iSok"Stevil, if you do have any questions, please do ask me. I will be honest in adressing every issue.

iSok, just to get us off in the right direction, there is zero possibility that you will convert me to islam, and I have zero interest in converting you to be an Atheist.

I am interested to know more about Islam though and I am interested to know how you as a Muslim feel about how Muslims are representing themselves on the world stage. I hope you can understand how the Western world struggle to understand Islam the way the Arab countries are behaving with their treatment of women, hiding them under bed sheets and treating them like property. I hope you can understand how the Western world struggle to understand why some Muslims perform terror acts and simply blow non military citizens up, creating much grief and pain. I hope you can understand the fear that people feel when they hear leaders such as the leader of Iran who make public statements that they would like to blow up Isreal.
This is all very extreme stuff and gets in the news alot.

Are you able to paint a different picture for us? What do the normal muslims think of all this?

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "iSok"Stevil, if you do have any questions, please do ask me. I will be honest in adressing every issue.

iSok, just to get us off in the right direction, there is zero possibility that you will convert me to islam, and I have zero interest in converting you to be an Atheist.

I am interested to know more about Islam though and I am interested to know how you as a Muslim feel about how Muslims are representing themselves on the world stage. I hope you can understand how the Western world struggle to understand Islam the way the Arab countries are behaving with their treatment of women, hiding them under bed sheets and treating them like property. I hope you can understand how the Western world struggle to understand why some Muslims perform terror acts and simply blow non military citizens up, creating much grief and pain. I hope you can understand the fear that people feel when they hear leaders such as the leader of Iran who make public statements that they would like to blow up Isreal.
This is all very extreme stuff and gets in the news alot.

Are you able to paint a different picture for us? What do the normal muslims think of all this?

Tank and Asmodean also asked me of this, I'll open a new topic with this issue (terrorism) to be adressed.