Muslim challenge to tuition fee interest charges

reply to post by elusive52


I understand that the example I gave was for a home mortgage, but I wanted to be sure I understood the concept. So the concept of my example and what you want muslims to be offered in the UK are the same?

So rather than replayments based on a floating rate for interest, someone decided on the value of the loan at some stage in the future, and then divides that sum by the period?

reply to post by elusive52


Congratulations for completely derailing this thread with multiple posts babbling about the same material every post. If my signature applies to anyone, it is you.

Muslims should most certainly not receive special attention due to religious beliefs in a secular society. Perhaps you and your muslim brothers should fight for the same benefits for all. I don't want to hear that converting will give those benefits to the non-muslims. That is no basis for an argument.

With a little less wine and a slightly clearer head, I wanted to address some points. Not all, and not in detail, because the world is full of things to do.

First, I was more abrasive than necessary last night, and my apologies for that.

Second, a very valid point has been raised that I am unable to refer to the Quran (and, indeed, the Jewish texts) in the original language, so I am reliant on web-based translations. This is unfortunately a limitation that I cannot overcome at this point in time. I accept that I cannot check or guarantee how accurate my sources are. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the most authoritive free online translation possible if any quotes I use are inaccurate.

I'll set this up in a Q&A format just because it's easier for me. It might involve paraphrasing and combining some of what was said, but hopefully not to the point of being incorrect.

Q. Do you believe in evolution? How can you justify it? Do you think a brain could evolve by chance?

A. Yes. I feel justified in believing it because it makes logical chance and has stood up to scientific scrutiny. While I accept that there is also scientific evidence to the contrary, I find the science in favour to be more persuasive as a lay man. I find no issue of improbability of the brain evolving this way. When you have many millions of years you have enough time for the trial and error involved in getting it right. Who is to say we've even got it right yet? Ask again in a hundred thousand years. I do not consider evolution or existence to be any more a proof of God than it is of statistical probability.

Q. Have you ever considered the Torah, Bible and Quran to be authored by the same person?

A. I wouldn't question that they draw on the same source, whether that is God, previous texts or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My issue with all three is that when one man gives you the word of God, what is to say that he doesn't slip in a few words of his own? Even the Gospels reflected particular stances of their respective writers, despite supposedly recording the same events.You could always take it on blind faith I suppose.

Q. How would you explain the advanced knowledge of the Quran?

A. Guesswork? Probabilty? Apophenia or Pareidolia? A seriously heavy dose of confirmation bias? You can say what you like when there is no science sufficient to dismiss it. Say enough and eventually you'll get something right, especially when people are looking for reasons to show that you're right. It's a matter of probability. Could you point me towards a scientific miracle in the Quran that (thanks entirely to the Quran) you know to be true, but has yet to be discovered or verified by conventional science?

Let's have a look at a handful. Embryology seems a favourite topic. To summarise (and apologies if this is inaccurate, please feel to correct) the Quran appears to identify in stages (i) a drop in a place of settlement (ii) a leech/suspended thing/blood clot (iii) takes on appearance of "chewed substance". Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen etc has already identified the process of (i) the form of semen in the womb (ii) reliance of foetus on maternal bloodflow and umbilical cord for respiration. The "chewed susbtance", like one of the optical illusions, can be seen once someone has told you what you're supposed to be looking for. I've not seen a specific reference to this in the earlier texts but the Greeks had observed embryonic development through the results of miscarriage and dissection. It's not a scientific miracle, it's just a comment made a few hundred years after everyone else already knew about it.

Origins of the universe? A handful of vague allusions that are as equally metaphorical as they are observational do not constitute a deep understanding of the physics of creation. Unless you're looking for ways to interpret it as such.

"...Who has made the earth as a fixed abode..." Sura 27:61
"And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating" Sura 21:33

The sun and moon orbit the earth? Geocentrism (or the "Ptolemaic" view) would be the correct scientific and religious view at the time, certainly.

I admit that there is one source I am aware of who has displayed advanced scientific knowledge; one that foresaw technology that could hardly be imagined at the time, yet we find increasingly that what they have prophesied has come to pass. Arthur C Clarke.

Q. Can you rationally explain the perfect balance of sun, moon and earth in terms of size, orbit etc? What about the balance of gravity that allowed the universe to form and continue expanding?

A. Yes. Luck. Possibly some physics. Lots of luck. If one celestial body had missed its perfect mate by a matter of months then this planet would not exist in the way that it does. Out of the untold billions of planets in the universe, ours got lucky. We are only here to realise it because our planet got lucky. Who is to say that the same process hasn't played out over a billion times before, only those other planets didn't get lucky? Who is to say that there hasn't been a billion failed big bangs until we were lucky enough to hit the right balance to allow growth and expansion? The Quran? The Quran is proof of nothing more than the fact that someone wrote a book.

Quotes

An interesting list of quotes were provided. Some in particular caught my attention - especially the ones that forget to look at the contexts within which they were made.

Michael H. Hart put Muhammad No. 1 on his list of the 100 most influential people in history, and his own Lord and Savior Jesus Christ No. 3.

Michael H. Hart: (Of Mohammed) "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels."

Hart acknowledges Mohammed's role as a leader and religious figurehead. He remains non-commital on Mohammed's role as a prophet, noting that after picking up monotheism from Jewish and Christian settlers he "became convinced that this one true God (Allah) was speaking to him" (emphasis added) and that he (not God) was "the author of the Moslem holy scriptures" based on what "he believed" had been revealed. The ranking was nothing to do with any supposed religious beliefs or acceptance. The ranking simply reflects that fact that the influence of Mohammed is based on his own direct words as recorded. Jesus, by contrast, did not write or dictate his own Gospel (that we know of) and so his influence is "second hand" via the Disciples, notably St. Paul. It is the direct nature of his influence combined with his secular success that leads to the ranking, it is not a commentary on the religion itself. (Hart: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978))

William McNeil, US historian, considers Muhammad as worthy of honor in his list of the first three names.

William McNeill: "If you measure leadership by impact, then you would have to name Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, the great prophets of the world."

Similar to Hart, McNeill is looking at leadership impact. Nothing religious here, just a recognition (that anyone would accede to in the context he was discussing) that Mohammed made a significant impact on society. He also offers Lenin and Marx as options. In this same section of the publication, others suggest Hitler and Mao Zedong. (Time Magazine: Special Section: Who Were History's Great Leaders? (1974))

James Gavin, US lieutenant General, puts Muhammad before Jesus Christ.

James Gavin: "Among leaders who have made the greatest impact through the ages, I would consider Mohammed, Jesus Christ, maybe Lenin, possibly Mao. As for a leader whose qualities we could most use now, I would choose John F. Kennedy."

From the same publication as McNeill. Not actually ranked, just given in an unspecified order, though I appreciate the argument you would expect him to give them in order of preference. Hardly conclusive, however. Interesting to note that, at time of publication, he considered JFK to be more useful than Mohammed.

James Masserman, Psychoanalyst and Professor, judges Muhammad No. 1 and his own Moses a close second.

Jules (not James) Masserman: "Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same."

From the same publication as McNell and Gavin. Fair enough, seems unequivocal. Jesus and Buddha are disqualified because they did not provide a true "social organisation" as they were not secular leaders. He seems to put Hitler as a close runner to Mohammed and Moses though.

Thomas Carlyle said that the Christian scholars’ lies about Muhammad are disgraceful.

Thomas Carlyle: (Of Mohammed) "The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only".

Carlyle is unceasingly flattering of Mohammed the person and leader for his role in lifting the Arab world out of what he perceives as a dark age. However, he goes on to describe Islam in that same chapter as a "bastard kind of Christianity" and the Quran as "wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite; — insupportable stupidity, in short!" (Carlyle: On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1841))

George Bernard Shaw said: "I have studied him - the wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the savior of humanity."

George Bernard Shaw: (Of Mohammed) "I have studied him - the wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the savior of humanity"

The only provenance I can find for this quote is an attribution to an interview with him in a publication called "Genuine Islam", published by the International Union of Islamic Propaganda and Service - make of that what you will. In fact, while he does make favourable (of sorts) reference to Islam elsewhere, I find nothing else quite so glowing.

He also says of Islam "there was to be no nonsense about toleration. You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell." (Bernard Shaw : Collected Letters, 1926-1950 (1988)) Admittedly this is positive praise from GBS, as he generally approved of such approaches. In fact he was even supportive of Stalin's purges to an extent, and proposed that people should be "forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether [they] like it or not. If it were discovered that [they] had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, [they] might possibly be executed in a kindly manner." (Bernard Shaw : The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (1928)). Lovely fellow, eh?

The Encyclopedia reference I will not check but I am sure you are correct. I am also fairly sure that it will be for the same reasons already discussed - combination of secular and religious leadership, social impact - rather than any commentary on the legitimacy of the religion.

There are many other debates that could be had, but I doubt they would serve a purpose. Your opinion will not change and I don't care that much about it to try. My opinion has changed, to the extent that I joined this thread to try and provide a balanced - in fact favourable - understanding of the impact on muslim students, and I've been left with a bitter taste in my mouth from the sheer lunacy of inflexible indoctrination. Such is life.

Originally posted by EvillerBob
With a little less wine and a slightly clearer head, I wanted to address some points. Not all, and not in detail, because the world is full of things to do.

First, I was more abrasive than necessary last night, and my apologies for that.

Second, a very valid point has been raised that I am unable to refer to the Quran (and, indeed, the Jewish texts) in the original language, so I am reliant on web-based translations. This is unfortunately a limitation that I cannot overcome at this point in time. I accept that I cannot check or guarantee how accurate my sources are. I would appreciate it if you could direct me to the most authoritive free online translation possible if any quotes I use are inaccurate.

I'll set this up in a Q&A format just because it's easier for me. It might involve paraphrasing and combining some of what was said, but hopefully not to the point of being incorrect.

Q. Do you believe in evolution? How can you justify it? Do you think a brain could evolve by chance?

A. Yes. I feel justified in believing it because it makes logical chance and has stood up to scientific scrutiny. While I accept that there is also scientific evidence to the contrary, I find the science in favour to be more persuasive as a lay man. I find no issue of improbability of the brain evolving this way. When you have many millions of years you have enough time for the trial and error involved in getting it right. Who is to say we've even got it right yet? Ask again in a hundred thousand years. I do not consider evolution or existence to be any more a proof of God than it is of statistical probability.

Q. Have you ever considered the Torah, Bible and Quran to be authored by the same person?

A. I wouldn't question that they draw on the same source, whether that is God, previous texts or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My issue with all three is that when one man gives you the word of God, what is to say that he doesn't slip in a few words of his own? Even the Gospels reflected particular stances of their respective writers, despite supposedly recording the same events.You could always take it on blind faith I suppose.

Q. How would you explain the advanced knowledge of the Quran?

A. Guesswork? Probabilty? Apophenia or Pareidolia? A seriously heavy dose of confirmation bias? You can say what you like when there is no science sufficient to dismiss it. Say enough and eventually you'll get something right, especially when people are looking for reasons to show that you're right. It's a matter of probability. Could you point me towards a scientific miracle in the Quran that (thanks entirely to the Quran) you know to be true, but has yet to be discovered or verified by conventional science?

Let's have a look at a handful. Embryology seems a favourite topic. To summarise (and apologies if this is inaccurate, please feel to correct) the Quran appears to identify in stages (i) a drop in a place of settlement (ii) a leech/suspended thing/blood clot (iii) takes on appearance of "chewed substance". Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen etc has already identified the process of (i) the form of semen in the womb (ii) reliance of foetus on maternal bloodflow and umbilical cord for respiration. The "chewed susbtance", like one of the optical illusions, can be seen once someone has told you what you're supposed to be looking for. I've not seen a specific reference to this in the earlier texts but the Greeks had observed embryonic development through the results of miscarriage and dissection. It's not a scientific miracle, it's just a comment made a few hundred years after everyone else already knew about it.

Origins of the universe? A handful of vague allusions that are as equally metaphorical as they are observational do not constitute a deep understanding of the physics of creation. Unless you're looking for ways to interpret it as such.

"...Who has made the earth as a fixed abode..." Sura 27:61
"And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating" Sura 21:33

The sun and moon orbit the earth? Geocentrism (or the "Ptolemaic" view) would be the correct scientific and religious view at the time, certainly.

I admit that there is one source I am aware of who has displayed advanced scientific knowledge; one that foresaw technology that could hardly be imagined at the time, yet we find increasingly that what they have prophesied has come to pass. Arthur C Clarke.

Q. Can you rationally explain the perfect balance of sun, moon and earth in terms of size, orbit etc? What about the balance of gravity that allowed the universe to form and continue expanding?

A. Yes. Luck. Possibly some physics. Lots of luck. If one celestial body had missed its perfect mate by a matter of months then this planet would not exist in the way that it does. Out of the untold billions of planets in the universe, ours got lucky. We are only here to realise it because our planet got lucky. Who is to say that the same process hasn't played out over a billion times before, only those other planets didn't get lucky? Who is to say that there hasn't been a billion failed big bangs until we were lucky enough to hit the right balance to allow growth and expansion? The Quran? The Quran is proof of nothing more than the fact that someone wrote a book.

Quotes

An interesting list of quotes were provided. Some in particular caught my attention - especially the ones that forget to look at the contexts within which they were made.

Michael H. Hart put Muhammad No. 1 on his list of the 100 most influential people in history, and his own Lord and Savior Jesus Christ No. 3.

Michael H. Hart: (Of Mohammed) "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels."

Hart acknowledges Mohammed's role as a leader and religious figurehead. He remains non-commital on Mohammed's role as a prophet, noting that after picking up monotheism from Jewish and Christian settlers he "became convinced that this one true God (Allah) was speaking to him" (emphasis added) and that he (not God) was "the author of the Moslem holy scriptures" based on what "he believed" had been revealed. The ranking was nothing to do with any supposed religious beliefs or acceptance. The ranking simply reflects that fact that the influence of Mohammed is based on his own direct words as recorded. Jesus, by contrast, did not write or dictate his own Gospel (that we know of) and so his influence is "second hand" via the Disciples, notably St. Paul. It is the direct nature of his influence combined with his secular success that leads to the ranking, it is not a commentary on the religion itself. (Hart: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (1978))

William McNeil, US historian, considers Muhammad as worthy of honor in his list of the first three names.

William McNeill: "If you measure leadership by impact, then you would have to name Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, the great prophets of the world."

Similar to Hart, McNeill is looking at leadership impact. Nothing religious here, just a recognition (that anyone would accede to in the context he was discussing) that Mohammed made a significant impact on society. He also offers Lenin and Marx as options. In this same section of the publication, others suggest Hitler and Mao Zedong. (Time Magazine: Special Section: Who Were History's Great Leaders? (1974))

James Gavin, US lieutenant General, puts Muhammad before Jesus Christ.

James Gavin: "Among leaders who have made the greatest impact through the ages, I would consider Mohammed, Jesus Christ, maybe Lenin, possibly Mao. As for a leader whose qualities we could most use now, I would choose John F. Kennedy."

From the same publication as McNeill. Not actually ranked, just given in an unspecified order, though I appreciate the argument you would expect him to give them in order of preference. Hardly conclusive, however. Interesting to note that, at time of publication, he considered JFK to be more useful than Mohammed.

James Masserman, Psychoanalyst and Professor, judges Muhammad No. 1 and his own Moses a close second.

Jules (not James) Masserman: "Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammed, who combined all three functions. To a lesser degree, Moses did the same."

From the same publication as McNell and Gavin. Fair enough, seems unequivocal. Jesus and Buddha are disqualified because they did not provide a true "social organisation" as they were not secular leaders. He seems to put Hitler as a close runner to Mohammed and Moses though.

Thomas Carlyle said that the Christian scholars’ lies about Muhammad are disgraceful.

Thomas Carlyle: (Of Mohammed) "The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only".

Carlyle is unceasingly flattering of Mohammed the person and leader for his role in lifting the Arab world out of what he perceives as a dark age. However, he goes on to describe Islam in that same chapter as a "bastard kind of Christianity" and the Quran as "wearisome confused jumble, crude, incondite; endless iterations, long-windedness, entanglement; most crude, incondite; — insupportable stupidity, in short!" (Carlyle: On Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History (1841))

George Bernard Shaw said: "I have studied him - the wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the savior of humanity."

George Bernard Shaw: (Of Mohammed) "I have studied him - the wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the savior of humanity"

The only provenance I can find for this quote is an attribution to an interview with him in a publication called "Genuine Islam", published by the International Union of Islamic Propaganda and Service - make of that what you will. In fact, while he does make favourable (of sorts) reference to Islam elsewhere, I find nothing else quite so glowing.

He also says of Islam "there was to be no nonsense about toleration. You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell." (Bernard Shaw : Collected Letters, 1926-1950 (1988)) Admittedly this is positive praise from GBS, as he generally approved of such approaches. In fact he was even supportive of Stalin's purges to an extent, and proposed that people should be "forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether [they] like it or not. If it were discovered that [they] had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, [they] might possibly be executed in a kindly manner." (Bernard Shaw : The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism (1928)). Lovely fellow, eh?

The Encyclopedia reference I will not check but I am sure you are correct. I am also fairly sure that it will be for the same reasons already discussed - combination of secular and religious leadership, social impact - rather than any commentary on the legitimacy of the religion.

There are many other debates that could be had, but I doubt they would serve a purpose. Your opinion will not change and I don't care that much about it to try. My opinion has changed, to the extent that I joined this thread to try and provide a balanced - in fact favourable - understanding of the impact on muslim students, and I've been left with a bitter taste in my mouth from the sheer lunacy of inflexible indoctrination. Such is life.

edit on 8-11-2010 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-11-2010 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)

hi
Thanks for your response and apology.

firstly let me sweeten the bitter taste in your mouth by correcting some of the inaccuracies you provided by using the glorious, perfect, holy Quran.

1.NOWHERE does the Quran say the sun revolves around the earth NOWHERE! the Quran states a scientific miracle that the sun has its own orbit and rotates around on itself. we in the west only found this out recently yet the Quran stated in 1431 years ago.

IMPORTANT: If Mohammad had wrote the Quran surely he would of said..."AND THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH" if this was what he really believed and wanted to say, but...NOWHERE DOES THE QURAN MAKE SUCH A CLAIM!!!

Quran:
38- And the Sun moves on to its destination. That is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knower.

[u]"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"[/u]


For a long time in the past men thought that the earth was stationary and that the sun revolved around the earth. Later Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo postulated the theory that the sun was stationary and that the earth revolved about the sun. It was even later, thanks to sophisticated telescopes and the accumulation of cosmological data, that it was concluded that the sun was moving as well and the earth revolved about the sun in motion. Despite the fact that it took science this long, this motion of the sun had already been told 1400 years ago in the Quran. Contrary to the assertion that the sun traced a vicious circle about the earth or that it was stationary, the 38th verse of the sura Ya-Seen stated correctly that it moved on to its destination. As in other subjects, in this one also the Quran is the source that gave a correct account of the sun’s motion.

SURAH 10:5 "He it is who made the sun a shining brightness and the moon a (reflected) light, and ordained for it mansions that you might know the computation of years and the reckoning. Allah did not create it but with truth; He makes the signs manifest for a people who know. M.H. Shakir

2) SURAH 55:5 "The sun and moon follow courses exactly computed." Yusaf Ali

3) SURAH 13:2 "Allah is he who raised the heavens without any pillars that you see, and he is firm in power and he made the sun and the moon subservient to you; each one pursues its course to an appointed time; He regulates the affair, making clear the signs that you may be certain of meeting your Lord." M.H. Shakir

THE SUN ‘S & MOON’S ROTATION:

The sun and moon rotate on their own axis. The Arabic verb "sabaha" (yasbahuna) in verse 21:33 means rotation on its own axis. The Arabic word "falak" used for planets and planets' movements in Verse 21:33 can mean movement in its own "celestial sphere." Therefore, verse 21:33 establishes the existence of the Sun’s and Moon’s rotation on their own axis or in their "celestial sphere." The moon completes its rotating motion on its own axis at the same time as it orbits around the earth, i.e. 29.5 days, so that it always has the same side facing us. The sun takes roughly 25 days to revolve on its own axis. There are certain differences in its rotation at its equator and poles, but the sun is animated by a rotating motion. (Bucaille)



2.GEOIDAL SHAPE OF EARTH (when the rest of the world still thought the earth was flat)

QURAN:
30- He made the earth egg-shaped.
79-The Snatchers, 30

The Arabic word “dahw” means rotundity like that of the ostrich’s egg. The above verse was also interpreted to refer to the shaping of the earth in the form of an ostrich egg. Prof. Dr. Suleyman Atefl, former head of Religious Affairs in Turkey, gives the following definition of the word, based on the famous Arabic dictionary Lisan u’l Arab: “The word ‘dahw’ means to spread out, giving (something) a round shape.” The word “dahw” had also been defined as a game played with walnuts. Derived from the same stem, the word “medahi” referred to round stones. Despite the meaning of rotundity concealed in words derived from the word “dahw” there have been translators for whom a spherical earth was difficult to conceive, who had to translate it as “to spread out.” The actual shape of the earth does have the shape of an ostrich egg. Thus the shape of the earth is spheroid with depressions at the poles. The exact figure of the earth which had posed a problem throughout history was established by the Quran.


3.EVOLUTION. So you 'believe' in evolution, don't you see the hypocrisy of your comments. you believe in something with absolutely no scientific evidence(how are you any better than a Christian evangelist???)

(for a serious debunking of the lie of evolution please see www.harunyahya.com... )

4.EMBRYOLOGY:

Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen etc has already identified the process of (I) the form of semen in the womb (ii) reliance of foetus on maternal bloodflow and umbilical cord for respiration. The "chewed susbtance", like one of the optical illusions, can be seen once someone has told you what you're supposed to be looking for. I've not seen a specific reference to this in the earlier texts but the Greeks had observed embryonic development through the results of miscarriage and dissection. It's not a scientific miracle, it's just a comment made a few hundred years after everyone else already knew about it.

in response to this of course there were ideas at the time but please think about this, so if the quran copied these ideas why did it only copy the correct ones? why didn't it also copy all the many many mistakes that Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen etc made???...it didnt!

why not one scientific statement in the Quran can be disproved today with all our technology? humbly I ask you to think about this

CHEWED LUMP!!!
LEECH!!!
www.quranandscience.com... please scroll down to the picture of the leech and the embryo...NO GUESSWORK, A PERFECT DESCRIPTION.

how could anyone of known this 1431 years ago?



The Dutch naturalist Anthony van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) produced lenses powerful enough to prove that many tiny creatures are not spontaneously generated but are produced from eggs. The science of Embryology as we know it today did not discover many of the detailed aspects of human embryonic development until the 1970s, using powerful microscopes, ultra sound and fiber optics technology. See how the Quran described the stages of embryonic development.

"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (The Noble Quran, 16:4)" Fertilization takes place with only one sperm among several tens of million produced by man.

"Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed; (The Noble Quran, 23:13)"

Implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus:

"Then We made the drop into a leech like structure...(The Noble Quran, 23:14)" This resemblance of the human embryo to a leech is an appropriate description of the human embryo from days 7-24, when it clings to the endometrium of the uterus.

"And He gave you hearing and sight and feeling and understanding. (The Noble Quran, 32:9)" The internal ears appear before the eyes, and the brain (the sight of understanding) differentiates last.

Dr. E. Marshall Johnson Professor of Anatomy, concluded after studying verses from Quran: ‘The Quran describes not only the development of external form but emphasizes also the internal stages - the stages inside the embryo of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science... so I see nothing in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved...’



Their comments:

Dr. Keith Moore, Professor of Embryology, after analyzing the verses of the Quran for three years comments: "It has been a pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about Human Development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God or Allah because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later."

Dr. Maurice Bucaille, French Physician, after studying Quran and comparing it with modern science, addressed the French Academy of Medicine in 1976 proclaimed: "Our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible to explain how a text produced at the time of the Quran could have contained ideas that have only been discovered in modern times."

Dr. Tejatet Tejasen, Professor of Anatomy, attending the Eighth Saudi Medical Conference, stood up and likewise announced: "From my studies and what I have learnt at this conference, I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Quran 1400 years ago must be true. That can be proved the scientific way."

Allah Almighty said: "Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord doth witness all things? (The Noble Quran, 41:53)"

A. I wouldn't question that they draw on the same source, whether that is God, previous texts or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My issue with all three is that when one man gives you the word of God, what is to say that he doesn't slip in a few words of his own? Even the Gospels reflected particular stances of their respective writers, despite supposedly recording the same events.You could always take it on blind faith I suppose (YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE BELIEVING WITH BLIND FAITH IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!!...WE MUSLIMS DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM).

ANSWER:

QURAN:
004.082 Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.

002.079 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

if Mohammad wrote the Quran we would of found many mistakes. There is not a single mistake in the Quran, it is full of knowledge only known to god at the time (the Quran said it would reveal the miracles in it over time, every scientific discovery does this) the language is the highest ever seen/heard by the world. The Quran teaches cleanliness, purity, piety, charity, love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness and on and on and on. nothing like it has ever been seen by the world.

QURAN 1431 YEAR OLD CHALLENGE TO ALL MANKIND:

002.023 And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful
002.024 And if ye do it not - and ye can never do it - then guard yourselves against the Fire prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is of men and stones.

all mankind produce one chapter like from the Quran...impossible!



"and I've been left with a bitter taste in my mouth from the sheer lunacy of inflexible indoctrination"

you need to apply the above statement to yourself, I have sound evidence for my claims, you have NONE.


HOLY QURAN:
174- O people! Verily there has come to you an infallible proof from your Lord. We have sent unto you a manifest light.
4-The Women, 174

will you not then believe?

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by elusive52

 

Congratulations for completely derailing this thread with multiple posts babbling about the same material every post. If my signature applies to anyone, it is you.

Muslims should most certainly not receive special attention due to religious beliefs in a secular society. Perhaps you and your muslim brothers should fight for the same benefits for all. I don't want to hear that converting will give those benefits to the non-muslims. That is no basis for an argument.

edit on 8-11-2010 by My_Reality because: (no reason given)

Your signature is pathetic and just shows your level of intelligence.

I'm defending the attacks that came my way with knowledge, evidence, wondrous miracles, you just throw an insult...no comparison!

me and my Muslim brothers and sisters deserve equal to everyone else in our society and if something compromises our strict religious beliefs then compromises should be made, but this in no way should give the Muslims a better deal, just an equal one.

reply to post by elusive52

Your signature is pathetic and just shows your level of intelligence.

My signature is a testament to the dangers of blind fanaticism.

I'm defending the attacks that came my way with knowledge, evidence, wondrous miracles, you just throw an insult...no comparison!

I in no way meant my first statement to be an insult - it was an observation. However, you seem to be insulted. That is a problem that you will have to resolve with yourself.

Other people on this thread have also answered you with knowledge and with evidence. You seem to disregard it all due to your fanaticism. You seem to have the belief that those that do not believe as you do are wrong. It is that kind of attitude that causes discord. As to your statement about wondrous miracles; I cannot speak to that, nor do I care to try. I have studied the history of Islam and Muslims are prone to the same human strengths and weaknesses as all other human beings.

Also remember that you instigated the so called "attacks". You were the first person to quote scripture on this thread. You were the first person to claim that your god owns us all on this thread. Hence, the derailment. If you want to preach, create a new thread.

me and my Muslim brothers and sisters deserve equal to everyone else in our society and if something compromises our strict religious beliefs then compromises should be made, but this in no way should give the Muslims a better deal, just an equal one.

That statement borders on insanity. You either have no knowledge of historical events or choose to ignore them. Any people that are not "People of the Book" are persecuted or killed, their religious institutions destroyed. Hindu's, Sikh's, Buddhist's, and Zoroastrians are just an example of the religious groups persecuted by Muslims. It seems equality is a one way street with Muslims. This last paragraph is slightly off topic but I wanted to put a few FACTS out into the open. I am aware of other religions acting in similar manners however, Islam is by far the most intolerant of the major religions.

To address your statement: If something compromises your strict religious beliefs in a secular society you need to do one of two things. Leave the society you are in or bow to the demands of your society. Muslims deserve no special treatment by a secular society and this also applies to all religions. It is a simple concept. In a secular society people's natural rights are much more important than religious beliefs. You need to fight for changes in your society that apply to all people. If that is not your goal don't even bother to try.

Originally posted by My_Reality
reply to post by elusive52

 

Your signature is pathetic and just shows your level of intelligence.

My signature is a testament to the dangers of blind fanaticism.

I'm defending the attacks that came my way with knowledge, evidence, wondrous miracles, you just throw an insult...no comparison!

I in no way meant my first statement to be an insult - it was an observation. However, you seem to be insulted. That is a problem that you will have to resolve with yourself.

Other people on this thread have also answered you with knowledge and with evidence. You seem to disregard it all due to your fanaticism. You seem to have the belief that those that do not believe as you do are wrong. It is that kind of attitude that causes discord. As to your statement about wondrous miracles; I cannot speak to that, nor do I care to try. I have studied the history of Islam and Muslims are prone to the same human strengths and weaknesses as all other human beings.

Also remember that you instigated the so called "attacks". You were the first person to quote scripture on this thread. You were the first person to claim that your god owns us all on this thread. Hence, the derailment. If you want to preach, create a new thread.

me and my Muslim brothers and sisters deserve equal to everyone else in our society and if something compromises our strict religious beliefs then compromises should be made, but this in no way should give the Muslims a better deal, just an equal one.

That statement borders on insanity. You either have no knowledge of historical events or choose to ignore them. Any people that are not "People of the Book" are persecuted or killed, their religious institutions destroyed. Hindu's, Sikh's, Buddhist's, and Zoroastrians are just an example of the religious groups persecuted by Muslims. It seems equality is a one way street with Muslims. This last paragraph is slightly off topic but I wanted to put a few FACTS out into the open. I am aware of other religions acting in similar manners however, Islam is by far the most intolerant of the major religions.

To address your statement: If something compromises your strict religious beliefs in a secular society you need to do one of two things. Leave the society you are in or bow to the demands of your society. Muslims deserve no special treatment by a secular society and this also applies to all religions. It is a simple concept. In a secular society people's natural rights are much more important than religious beliefs. You need to fight for changes in your society that apply to all people. If that is not your goal don't even bother to try.

you have studied the history of Islam? it doesn't sound like it as you know nothing of the history or rulings of Islam.

you said...

That statement borders on insanity. You either have no knowledge of historical events or choose to ignore them. Any people that are not "People of the Book" are persecuted or killed, their religious institutions destroyed. Hindu's, Sikh's, Buddhist's, and Zoroastrians are just an example of the religious groups persecuted by Muslims.

and...

Islam is by far the most intolerant of the major religions

Evidence you are completely wrong:

The Constitution of Medina (Arabic: صحیفة المدینه‎, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna), also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, and pagans.[1][2] This constitution formed the basis of the future caliphates, and it's spirit inspires all potential Islamic states. The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community—the Ummah

One of the beauties of islam is that it is a condition of faith for the whole Islamic nation to guard and protect other people's right to worship as they see fit in their religions within the Islamic state and that includes people of the book, pagans etc etc etc, there are of course regulations but nothing unfair, including paying the jizya (tax, just like Muslims do here).
people from all faiths(including millions of jews) have lived in peace and security in islamic states for hundreds of years. of course wars have taken place, but this is common to all human history and is another topic.
(you really need to research before you comment, it doesn't look good)


That statement borders on insanity? I think your bordering on insanity!
so because Muslims persecuted mushrikeen (idol worshippers) in the past me and my fellow Muslims don't deserve equal rights in MY COUNTRY (England)? yeh that makes sense, totally sane thinking!

To address your statement: If something compromises your strict religious beliefs in a secular society you need to do one of two things. Leave the society you are in or bow to the demands of your society.

I'm sorry I bow only to the one god Allah not your degraded secular society. this country is now worse than Sodom and Gomorrah and you want me to bow to it? not likely.

Other people on this thread have also answered you with knowledge and with evidence

they have? so where is the evidence? no one has yet brought me one shred of evidence of YOUR RELIGION evolution!!!

Allah (the one and only god of EVERYTHING) is your god whether you like it or not, you may not believe that but you will find out when you meet him, and you will meet him.

you know, you better be absolutely certain I am wrong and you are right because if your wrong, then as the Quran says "prepare for the fire who's fuel is men and stones" if I am wrong and there is nothing...then there is nothing...that is one hell of a gamble you are taking with your eternal soul.

if it offends you me saying God is your God then I think you have something wrong with you. if he isn't your god who created you? oh I forgot chance and luck! chance and luck originated the big bang dna etc etc etc or it just happened and nothing was behind it as another poster said! yeh and 'I'm' bordering on insanity!

if I said to you this computer I am writing on now just happened, just came about no one designed it or built it, there was no intelligence behind it, it just happened, you would call me insane, yet you say the exact same thing of an infinitely more complex creation...us, where is your logic?

As to your statement about wondrous miracles; I cannot speak to that, nor do I care to try. I have studied the history of Islam and Muslims are prone to the same human strengths and weaknesses as all other human beings.

of course Muslims "are prone to the same human strengths and weaknesses as all other human beings." what has that got to do with the Quran miracles?

the fact you "cannot speak to that, nor do I care to try" is of course your choice, but surely you owe it to yourself and the people you care about to find out the truth. if the Quran really is from god wouldn't you want to know it? how can you know its not until you disprove it? that is how I became Muslim, I tried to disprove it but never could.

reply to post by Freedom ERP


Any change you can debate the issues of the thread rather than the continual attempts at conversion. I grow boring with it and want to debate the issue raised by the OP.

Originally posted by elusive52...if the quran copied these ideas why did it only copy the correct ones? why didn't it also copy all the many many mistakes that Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen etc made???...it didnt!

Consider the argument you put forward previously, which could be broken down into the following logical steps:

1. If the Quran wasn't perfect then you would find evidence of mistakes.
2. A mistake is identified
3. Question "does this mistake show the Quran is imperfect?"
4. Answer "No, because it is not a mistake."
5. Question "Why is this not a mistake?"
6. Answer "Because the Quran is perfect so it cannot be a mistake."

I suggest that the Quran has copied other scientific mistakes. Your argument is logically unsound because your proof that there is no mistake is the assumption that there are no mistakes.

Let's look at the issue of geocentrism.

Originally posted by elusive52
1.NOWHERE does the Quran say the sun revolves around the earth NOWHERE! the Quran states a scientific miracle that the sun has its own orbit and rotates around on itself. we in the west only found this out recently yet the Quran stated in 1431 years ago.

IMPORTANT: If Mohammad had wrote the Quran surely he would of said..."AND THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH" if this was what he really believed and wanted to say, but...NOWHERE DOES THE QURAN MAKE SUCH A CLAIM!!!

Except in the bit you then go on to quote. Let's look closer. I'll use your posted translation, though there is a further issue there that I may address later if time and mood takes me.

Quran:
38- And the Sun moves on to its destination. That is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knower.

[u]"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"[/u]

Consider these questions.

1. Does the sun move? Yes, according to this, the sun moves.
2. Does the moon move? Yes, according to this, the moon moves.
3. Do the celestial bodies move? Yes, according to this, the celestial bodies move.
4. Does the Earth move? Oddly enough, no reference is made to this happening.

If you draw up a list of things that move, is it logical to assume that something left out of the list does not move? I suggest that it would be very logical. The Earth is very significant for us, why not include it on the list unless it did not meet the criteria, ie it does not move?

Are steps required to explain this quote in a way that reaches the conclusion that the Earth does in fact move?

Yes. "Celestial bodies"/"Heavenly bodies" (depending on translation) could be extended to include the Earth. This would require discounting the second translation as "heavenly" appears to be used to distinguish the Earth from what is above the Earth (sura 2:29 etc). "Celestial bodies" causes problems as well for the English reader because the specific distinction between "astronomical bodies" and "celestial bodies" in English is that the latter excludes the Earth itself. It could be suggested that this is a non-issue if the word used in the original language includes the Earth - but if the form of the passage is perfect, how could it lead a translator to incorrectly choose a word with such specific usage as "heavenly"?

If something needs clarification, analysis, interpretation or further steps to reach a conclusion other than the one reached by reading it on its own merit, can it still be considered "perfect"?

Occam's razor is probably the best tool we have at our disposal - the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. So what explanations have we got?

1. The sura says what it means: the Earth is not on the list because it doesn't move.
2. The sura does not say what it means: it was written with the intention of the reader subjecting it to interpretation and requires further analysis to get to the actual meaning.

Point 1 is the simplest explanation, unless we consider the passage to be an allegory, in which case Point 2 is equally valid. But if it is allegory rather than fact, that by definition precludes it from being a specific scientific observation.

Which leads to the final question. Is this passage;
1. literal, in which case the facts within are incorrect therefore imperfect; or
2. subject to further explanation, in which case the form is insufficient for its purpose therefore imperfect?

For the record, heliocentrism (the Earth orbiting the sun) was another Greek idea, as far back as the 3rd Century BC. Aristotle discusses the work of one such theorist, though the original literature is now lost to us.

Aristotle: The Sand Reckoner (Link to online copy of book)
But Aristarchus of Samos brought out a book consisting of some hypotheses, in which the premisses lead to the result that the universe is many times greater than that now so called. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun in the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit...

Copernicus et al worked on developing the mathmatical model to explain the relationships, but they did not originate the idea. Neither did the Quran. By several hundred years.

Further matters mentioned

I would like to briefly touch on some other matters that were mentioned, as they are germane to the problems of confirmation bias and selective reporting. I'm not really looking at making a point by point rebuke.

You directed me to a site relating to the Quran and science. I had already seen this site and was considering raising the issue of "evidence" provided but felt it unnecessary at the time. As you've now raised it, I will address it.

I would invite you to consider this photo (Link to Photo) hosted on the page. This is the "proof" that a chewed object does in fact accurately represent a foetus at a certain stage of development.

In my opinion (and that of others) that bite mark has been deliberately created to match the spinal features of the foetus. Naturally chewed gum tends to look like this (Link to Photo) or (Link to Photo). What does it say for the veracity of this scientific miracle that the evidence needs to be fabricated?

In relation to Dr. Keith Moore, he no longer stands by the statements made. In fact, he currently supports the view that the Quran simply echoes the existing views held by Galen. If you have a University library in your town, see if they have a copy of his current textbook. Ours had the 2007 version, I don't know if there is a more recent copy. Go and have a look if you wish.

reply to post by elusive52


I am done. It is clear that if we continue debating it will never end. It never does when it concerns religion. I am willing to respect your beliefs. After all, they are yours. Will you do the noble thing and respect mine as well?

As a member said a few posts above this one: Let's return to the topic of the OP.

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by elusive52...if the quran copied these ideas why did it only copy the correct ones? why didn't it also copy all the many many mistakes that Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen etc made???...it didnt!

Consider the argument you put forward previously, which could be broken down into the following logical steps:

1. If the Quran wasn't perfect then you would find evidence of mistakes.
2. A mistake is identified
3. Question "does this mistake show the Quran is imperfect?"
4. Answer "No, because it is not a mistake."
5. Question "Why is this not a mistake?"
6. Answer "Because the Quran is perfect so it cannot be a mistake."

I suggest that the Quran has copied other scientific mistakes. Your argument is logically unsound because your proof that there is no mistake is the assumption that there are no mistakes.

Let's look at the issue of geocentrism.

Originally posted by elusive52
1.NOWHERE does the Quran say the sun revolves around the earth NOWHERE! the Quran states a scientific miracle that the sun has its own orbit and rotates around on itself. we in the west only found this out recently yet the Quran stated in 1431 years ago.

IMPORTANT: If Mohammad had wrote the Quran surely he would of said..."AND THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH" if this was what he really believed and wanted to say, but...NOWHERE DOES THE QURAN MAKE SUCH A CLAIM!!!

Except in the bit you then go on to quote. Let's look closer. I'll use your posted translation, though there is a further issue there that I may address later if time and mood takes me.

Quran:
38- And the Sun moves on to its destination. That is the ordinance of the Mighty, the Knower.

[u]"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"[/u]

Consider these questions.

1. Does the sun move? Yes, according to this, the sun moves.
2. Does the moon move? Yes, according to this, the moon moves.
3. Do the celestial bodies move? Yes, according to this, the celestial bodies move.
4. Does the Earth move? Oddly enough, no reference is made to this happening.

If you draw up a list of things that move, is it logical to assume that something left out of the list does not move? I suggest that it would be very logical. The Earth is very significant for us, why not include it on the list unless it did not meet the criteria, ie it does not move?

Are steps required to explain this quote in a way that reaches the conclusion that the Earth does in fact move?

Yes. "Celestial bodies"/"Heavenly bodies" (depending on translation) could be extended to include the Earth. This would require discounting the second translation as "heavenly" appears to be used to distinguish the Earth from what is above the Earth (sura 2:29 etc). "Celestial bodies" causes problems as well for the English reader because the specific distinction between "astronomical bodies" and "celestial bodies" in English is that the latter excludes the Earth itself. It could be suggested that this is a non-issue if the word used in the original language includes the Earth - but if the form of the passage is perfect, how could it lead a translator to incorrectly choose a word with such specific usage as "heavenly"?

If something needs clarification, analysis, interpretation or further steps to reach a conclusion other than the one reached by reading it on its own merit, can it still be considered "perfect"?

Occam's razor is probably the best tool we have at our disposal - the simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct one. So what explanations have we got?

1. The sura says what it means: the Earth is not on the list because it doesn't move.
2. The sura does not say what it means: it was written with the intention of the reader subjecting it to interpretation and requires further analysis to get to the actual meaning.

Point 1 is the simplest explanation, unless we consider the passage to be an allegory, in which case Point 2 is equally valid. But if it is allegory rather than fact, that by definition precludes it from being a specific scientific observation.

Which leads to the final question. Is this passage;
1. literal, in which case the facts within are incorrect therefore imperfect; or
2. subject to further explanation, in which case the form is insufficient for its purpose therefore imperfect?

For the record, heliocentrism (the Earth orbiting the sun) was another Greek idea, as far back as the 3rd Century BC. Aristotle discusses the work of one such theorist, though the original literature is now lost to us.

Aristotle: The Sand Reckoner (Link to online copy of book)
But Aristarchus of Samos brought out a book consisting of some hypotheses, in which the premisses lead to the result that the universe is many times greater than that now so called. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the sun remain unmoved, that the earth revolves about the sun in the circumference of a circle, the sun lying in the middle of the orbit...

Copernicus et al worked on developing the mathmatical model to explain the relationships, but they did not originate the idea. Neither did the Quran. By several hundred years.

Further matters mentioned

I would like to briefly touch on some other matters that were mentioned, as they are germane to the problems of confirmation bias and selective reporting. I'm not really looking at making a point by point rebuke.

You directed me to a site relating to the Quran and science. I had already seen this site and was considering raising the issue of "evidence" provided but felt it unnecessary at the time. As you've now raised it, I will address it.

I would invite you to consider this photo (Link to Photo) hosted on the page. This is the "proof" that a chewed object does in fact accurately represent a foetus at a certain stage of development.

In my opinion (and that of others) that bite mark has been deliberately created to match the spinal features of the foetus. Naturally chewed gum tends to look like this (Link to Photo) or (Link to Photo). What does it say for the veracity of this scientific miracle that the evidence needs to be fabricated?

In relation to Dr. Keith Moore, he no longer stands by the statements made. In fact, he currently supports the view that the Quran simply echoes the existing views held by Galen. If you have a University library in your town, see if they have a copy of his current textbook. Ours had the 2007 version, I don't know if there is a more recent copy. Go and have a look if you wish.

edit on 9-11-2010 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)

Hi again
sorry for the delay in response but I have been so busy.

ok firstly here is your quote

"1. Does the sun move? Yes, according to this, the sun moves.
2. Does the moon move? Yes, according to this, the moon moves.
3. Do the celestial bodies move? Yes, according to this, the celestial bodies move.
4. Does the Earth move? Oddly enough, no reference is made to this happening."

on this verse of the holy Quran:

[u]"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"[/u]

I hope from the point I am about to make you will understand the deep wisdom and beauty and subtleness of the Quran.

you say the earth is not mentioned but actually it is, not by name but let me ask you where does night and day occur? in space, on the moon?, the sun? no night and day take place on earth and the verse clearly says "It is He who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon, all swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"

the night and day are 100% separate from the sun and moon and the Quran is clear that the night and day swim along in their own orbit, exactly as happens as the earth swims along and turns and the Quran states clearly the earth is turning/moving in this verse(and others as I will prove shortly).

notice I took out the 'celestial bodies' just to make my point clearer, but yes when the Quran says 'all' swim along each in their own orbit (falak), it is referring to all celestial bodies, The word expressing totality in the Arabic language is “kullu” so all means all. also the word yasbahuna in Arabic can mean 'rotate' so the perfect translation of that verse, with the Arabic words highlighted:

SURAH 21:33 "It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: ALL (kullu) (the celestial bodies) rotate (yasbahuna), each in their celestial spheres (falak)."Yusaf Ali, M.H. Shakir



next a exerpt from www.answering-chrisianity.com

Motion of the earth in Quran

Have we not made the earth kifaata?
[Al-Quran 77:25]

Allah says in the Holy Quran that Allah made the earth kifaata. The motion of the earth is hidden beyond this word. Lets see the wideness of the word kifaata & how beautifully Allah is describing us the motion of the earth.

When the word kifaata, use with birds, the meaning will be "a bird, with contracting its furs, flying fastly." (lughat-ul-Quran).

The similar word when use with horse, the meaning will be "the horse become uncontrolled and the traveler can't able to control it. (Lughat-ul-Quran).

And when this word "kifaata" used with earth then it will mean that the earth is fastly moving (flying) keeping all creatures and its movement is not controllable by traveler (all creatures). Now let us read this verse again with this translation.

Have WE not made the earth a fast moving object with den of storage?
[Al-Quran 77:25]


Second verse regarding motion of the earth:

"Have We not made the earth as a cradle and the mountains like pegs?"
[Al-Quran 78:6-7]

The Arabic word used for cradle is "Mihaada". (Mufridaat-ul-Quran). The Quran compares the earth to a cradle because a cradle is a place of rest that is engaged in motion.




GREEKS!
Anyone can claim anything but without your evidence it means nothing. the Greeks simply theorized the idea, they didn't state it as fact and it was very sketchy at best. it wasn't until much later that they confirmed the earth was round, the Quran states it for a fact 1431 years ago and not only that it goes one better and describes the earth as egg shaped as it actually is...not perfectly round!

[079:030] Waal-arda baAAda thalika dahaha
[079:030] He made the earth egg-shaped.

wiki
Early Greek philosophers alluded to a spherical Earth, though with some ambiguity.[12] Pythagoras (6th century BC) was among those said to have originated the idea, but this may reflect the ancient Greek practice of ascribing every discovery to one or another of their ancient wise men

I'm sure every idea in history has tried to be claimed at one time or another by the Greeks, as I said before they were wrong about untold things, if you make enough guesses you are bound to be correct about some things.

the Quran however hasn't got one thing wrong, IT FORGOT TO COPY ALL THE THOUSANDS OF MISTAKES OF THE GREEKS!!! one man in the middle of a desert that couldn't read or write referred to all the knowledge we are finding out now with all our technology???



BACK TO YOUR POINT ON EMBRYOLOGY!

The chewing gum!

You've made a big mistake here, the picture was actually trying to make the chewing gum look like the embryo.

In my opinion (and that of others) that bite mark has been deliberately created to match the spinal features of the foetus. Naturally chewed gum tends to look like this (Link to Photo) or (Link to Photo). What does it say for the veracity of this scientific miracle that the evidence needs to be fabricated?

The quran never mentioned chewing gum (hehe..) the Quran says "a chewed lump" a lump with a bite mark in it, the picture is simply using chewing gum to demonstrate this. they purposely tried to make it look like it, not to fabricate evidence but to simply illustrate the point.


also the teeth marks in the gum on that picture are not the full story, actually the embryo looks identical to the bite mark of your back teeth, the whole embryo that is, it is astonishing the description the Quran gives.

also about Keith moore, I'm sorry but I cant find any text that he has gone back on what he said, again you can claim anything but if you don't prove it it means nothing. and even if you are correct and he has gone back on what he said anyone can be gotten to...especially after 9/11, cant have anyone say anything good about Islam can we??????

his words are out there for everyone to hear, and not just him, many American and European scientists in the 70's and 80's came out and declared the knowledge in the Quran could only have come from a "divine being" its all on YouTube please go have a look.

Tell me how could the Quran describe an embryo in such perfect detail? (please don't try to tell me the Greeks knew this as well, I cant take anymore of that nonsense!) we only have been able to see this within the last 50 years or so.

Originally posted by elusive52
Hi again
sorry for the delay in response but I have been so busy.

No problems, life is busy enough without internet debates.

Originally posted by elusive52I hope from the point I am about to make you will understand the deep wisdom and beauty and subtleness of the Quran.

you say the earth is not mentioned but actually it is, not by name but let me ask you where does night and day occur? in space, on the moon?, the sun? no night and day take place on earth..

And this is exactly my point. It only makes sense when you start providing explanations. The passage as a standalone piece is therefore imperfect. Further, "night" and "day" occurs, as far as I know, on every planetary body orbiting a star. In some cases that night and day may be permanent on their respective sides (ie the moon) but regardless, your explanation is still flawed. From an analytical point of view, the vast majority of these explanations given to try and fit the square peg of the Quran into the round circle of science, could best be described as "grasping at straws". Even if it was a perfect explanation, the fact you have to give one in the first place is the issue.

Originally posted by elusive52
GREEKS!
Anyone can claim anything but without your evidence it means nothing.

Yes. Which is why I have given evidence and presented logical arguments that allow you to come to your own conclusion without asking you to take a leap of faith or automatically accept anything as "given". The fact that you have no interest in accepting evidence is neither here nor there. Your sole evidence is some rather shaky interpretation of hidden meanings by someone with a vested interest in establishing those same hidden meanings, and a string of quotes that in many cases are taken completely out of context or have later been withdrawn - evidence of which has been provided, with quotes and a link to the full material where appropriate in many cases (Dr. Moore excepted).

Originally posted by elusive52also about Keith moore, I'm sorry but I cant find any text that he has gone back on what he said, again you can claim anything but if you don't prove it it means nothing. and even if you are correct and he has gone back on what he said anyone can be gotten to...especially after 9/11, cant have anyone say anything good about Islam can we??????

My apologies, I included everything but the name of the textbook. It's no longer to hand but a quick search on Amazon should sort it out. He directs the reader back towards Galen as an effective historical source. I believe, based on the timings and if I remember them correctly, that the only times during which he felt he had to propose the Quran as effective was the time spent in Saudi Arabia. Once he returned to Canada, he reverted his original views. "Anyone can be gotten to" indeed.

This game finished a few posts ago and you lost. There really is no need to replay the match because you have not demonstrated having anything of value to offer the conversation. If I want your views I can read the "answering christianity" website myself without you needing to copy and paste it. I don't think I'll be replying any more to this thread again.

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by elusive52
Hi again
sorry for the delay in response but I have been so busy.

No problems, life is busy enough without internet debates.

Originally posted by elusive52I hope from the point I am about to make you will understand the deep wisdom and beauty and subtleness of the Quran.

you say the earth is not mentioned but actually it is, not by name but let me ask you where does night and day occur? in space, on the moon?, the sun? no night and day take place on earth..

And this is exactly my point. It only makes sense when you start providing explanations. The passage as a standalone piece is therefore imperfect. Further, "night" and "day" occurs, as far as I know, on every planetary body orbiting a star. In some cases that night and day may be permanent on their respective sides (ie the moon) but regardless, your explanation is still flawed. From an analytical point of view, the vast majority of these explanations given to try and fit the square peg of the Quran into the round circle of science, could best be described as "grasping at straws". Even if it was a perfect explanation, the fact you have to give one in the first place is the issue.

Originally posted by elusive52
GREEKS!
Anyone can claim anything but without your evidence it means nothing.

Yes. Which is why I have given evidence and presented logical arguments that allow you to come to your own conclusion without asking you to take a leap of faith or automatically accept anything as "given". The fact that you have no interest in accepting evidence is neither here nor there. Your sole evidence is some rather shaky interpretation of hidden meanings by someone with a vested interest in establishing those same hidden meanings, and a string of quotes that in many cases are taken completely out of context or have later been withdrawn - evidence of which has been provided, with quotes and a link to the full material where appropriate in many cases (Dr. Moore excepted).

Originally posted by elusive52also about Keith moore, I'm sorry but I cant find any text that he has gone back on what he said, again you can claim anything but if you don't prove it it means nothing. and even if you are correct and he has gone back on what he said anyone can be gotten to...especially after 9/11, cant have anyone say anything good about Islam can we??????

My apologies, I included everything but the name of the textbook. It's no longer to hand but a quick search on Amazon should sort it out. He directs the reader back towards Galen as an effective historical source. I believe, based on the timings and if I remember them correctly, that the only times during which he felt he had to propose the Quran as effective was the time spent in Saudi Arabia. Once he returned to Canada, he reverted his original views. "Anyone can be gotten to" indeed.

This game finished a few posts ago and you lost. There really is no need to replay the match because you have not demonstrated having anything of value to offer the conversation. If I want your views I can read the "answering christianity" website myself without you needing to copy and paste it. I don't think I'll be replying any more to this thread again.

I accept your surrender! its ok your not the first and definitely wont be the last to be beaten by the holy Quran, there is no shame in losing to Allah.

The game as you put it never even got started because you haven't answered any of the points I raised, you took one point and CONVENIENTLY left all the others, this is a common trick when you know you cant win the debate.

If I want your views I can read the "answering Christianity" website myself without you needing to copy and paste it. I don't think I'll be replying any more to this thread again.

This is a very low blow, I clearly stated that part of my argument was an excerpt from answering Christianity. do you see what your resorting to?

Even a boxer that has been battered for 12 rounds raises his hands at the final bell declaring victory, but he knows in his heart he has lost...

you say you have brought evidence, where is your evidence? the Greeks guesses? the only comments you made were your own ideas, no where did you bring evidence. I have quoted many verses and quoted scientists and brought scientific facts, you simply argued whether the earth was mentioned in a certain verse (I will prove this next by the way.)

where is your evidence for evolution? I challenge you here and now to bring me the proof, I have asked everyone reading these posts over and over yet no one (including you) has brought a single shred, why? because you and I both know it doesn't exist, evolution is a complete lie.

To quickly answer your nonsensical point that the Quran wasn't talking about day and night on earth
He has created the Heavens and the Earth for Truth. He wraps the night up in the day, and wraps the day up in the night. (Qur'an, 39:5)

notice the word wraps, from the word Yukawwiru to mean to wrap around around like a turban is wrapped around the head, again night and day on earth and again the earth IS ROUND night and day wrap AROUND the earth. there is no argument here, the day and night refer to earth in the Quran

Khalaqa As-Samāwāti Wa Al-'Arđa Bil-Ĥaqqi ۖ Yukawwiru Al-Layla `Alá An-Nahāri Wa Yukawwiru An-Nahāra `Alá Al-Layli

16:12 He has made subject to you the Night and the Day; the sun and the moon;

sorry but what a ridiculous point you make, I think 'you' are clutching at straws!


heres a list of the points I raised that haven't been answered:

evolution.
expanding universe (Quran)
big bang stated clearly (Quran)
embryology (Quran)

no ambiguity in Quran, absolute statement of fact.


lastly your statement

From an analytical point of view, the vast majority of these explanations given to try and fit the square peg of the Quran into the round circle of science, could best be described as "grasping at straws". Even if it was a perfect explanation, the fact you have to give one in the first place is the issue.

the Quran is not a book of science, it is the revealed word of god to mankind, it contains scientific statements to prove its authenticity and these statements need no explaining, only you argued the obvious explanation, so I simply proved it correct.

I mean listen to your ridiculous argument from 2 posts ago...if something is left off a list then you must assume it isn't included in the statement

If you draw up a list of things that move, is it logical to assume that something left out of the list does not move? I suggest that it would be very logical. The Earth is very significant for us, why not include it on the list unless it did not meet the criteria, ie it does not move?

"My legs and arms can move"

according to your logic my fingers and toes don't move! , why because they weren't included in the list...this is actually what you argued...sorry but come on this is nonsense.

you are trying, because of your bias(I'm assuming your Jewish) to make the Quran as a square peg when the simple truth is the Quran is clear without need of any explanation. you are trying (but failing miserably) to make the Quran say something it isn't.

the following are statements from Quran:
earth round/egg shaped.
universe was created from one point of singularity and split asunder (and from water every living being was created, debunk this!)
universe steadily expanding
before the planets etc formed the universe was hot gas or smoke

11- Then He turned to the heavens, and it was in a gaseous state. And said to it, and the earth; “Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly.” They said, “We come willingly.” ( GREEKS KNOW THIS?)
41-Elucidated, 11

sun orbiting
and rotating
embryology
barrier between seas
finger prints
mountains as pegs
layers of atmosphere
fecundating winds
perfect balance a rain water
sex of plants and fruits
moons elliptical orbit
iron was sent down to earth and not created on earth

no ambiguity or hidden meanings just simple stated facts. impossible to mean or be interpreted as anything other than what is said.



THE EARTH'S ROTATION AND DIRECTION OF ROTATION
You will see the mountains and reckon them to be solid; but they go past like clouds-the handiwork of Allah Who gives to everything its solidity. He is aware of what you do. (Qur'an, 27:88)

The above verse emphasizes that the Earth not only rotates but that it also has a direction of rotation. The direction of movement of the main cloud masses at 3,500-4,000 meters high is always from West to East. That is why it is generally the state of the weather in the West which is looked at in meteorological forecasts

IRON:
And We also sent down iron in which there lies great force and which has many uses for mankind… (Qur'an, 57:25)

it was impossible for iron to be made in our solar system, it needed a much bigger star, so again the Quran is perfect in its CLEAR AS DAY STATEMENT that iron was sent down to earth.

did the Greeks know this as well?

Al-Hadid (iron )is the 57th Surah of the Qur’an, and the numerical value of the words al-Hadid is also 57.
The value of the word "hadid" (iron) alone is 26, and this is also the atomic number of iron. (rug...pulled...from...under...your...feet)



mathematical

[74:30] Over it is nineteen
19 miracle (whole Quran structured in mathematical code) an awesome miracle! (too massive to list here please see www.submission.org)

number of times day (in its singular form) mentioned in the entire Quran 365

number of times month is mentioned 12

"Human being" is used 65 times: the sum of the number of references to the stages of man's creation is the same: i.e.

Human being 65

Soil (turab) 17

Drop of Sperm (nutfah) 12


Embryo ('alaq) 6

A half formed lump of flesh (mudghah) 3

Bone ('idham) 15

Flesh (lahm) 12

TOTAL 65

The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.238

The word "satan" (shaitan) is used in the Qur'an 88 times, as is the word "angels" (malaika) 88.

The word faith (iman) (without genitive) is repeated 25 times throughout the Qur'an as is also the word infidelity (kufr) 25.

The words "paradise" and "hell" are each repeated 77 times.

The number of times the words, "world" (dunya) and "hereafter" (akhira) are repeated is also the same: 115

When we count the word "Say," we find it appears 332 times. We arrive at the same figure when we count the phrase "they said."

The number of repetitions of the words "plant" and "tree" is the same: 26

Jesus and Adam
[3:59] The example of Jesus, as far as GOD is concerned, is the same as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, "Be," and he was.

Both Adam and Jesus are mentioned 25 times in the Quran (too many mathematical miracles to list here regarding this verse), please see:

miraclesofthequran.com...
www.submission.org...

and this hasn't even scratched the surface.......