and btw Queen, before you think that I am not a good Muslim, let me tell you that believing or not believing that Adam was 60 feet tall, is not part of Aqeeda. It may be our of respect someone wants to believe that, but questioning that belief is not going to make you or someone, lesser of a Muslim.
I dont want to turn this thread into controversial thread from Hadees point of view, but I heard real dars-e-bukhari (the one part of madrasa curriculum and not not meant for general public), where the aalim shared his doubt about a certain hadees of bukhari. I am not going to narrate that hadess because its quite a disturbing hadees. Point is, the doubt of that Aalim was not on ahaadees, but on Imam Bukhari's perfection.
Same is the case here. I am not saying that my intellect is better than a hadees, I am just presenting an argument on the compilations of imam bukhari.
aap bhee tou assume hee kar rahee hain naa when you said "maybe he was tall but he was as light as air??"
you can assume, but I cannot. Bohut khoob janaab.
and btw Queen, before you think that I am not a good Muslim, let me tell you that believing or not believing that Adam was 60 feet tall, is not part of Aqeeda. It may be our of respect someone wants to believe that, but questioning that belief is not going to make you or someone, lesser of a Muslim.
"maybe he was tall but he was as light as air??"
^this sentence was the reply of your assumption (calculation of force to walk)
secondly, TLK bhai, I respect you and what made you feel i think of you as not a good Muslim. You may be a far better Muslim than me. I was just wondering what made you think that way when already we have read that hadiths discussing the height of Hazrat Adam A.S, so tried to make you understand that Allah can do anything and we (HIS creatures) are nothing to raise the point on what HE has created and how HE has created. Ofcourse, HE knows everything, HE can do anything! Even if HE created somthing that couldn't survive because of its size..... isme bhi Allah ki koi maslehat hi hogi!! Agar insaan Allah ki soch tak pohanch sakta hota to naozubillah insaan aur Allah main kiya faraq hota.. yehi faraq hay usme aur ham me ke USNE hamen takhleeq kiya hay aur hamari soch, hamara dimagh bhi usi ne takhleeq kiya hay.. beshak ham ashraf-ul-makhlookaat hain magar kuch baten aisee hain jo Allah ne ham se poshida rakhi hain... wo kehtay hain na Allah ke raaz, Allah hi jaanay :)
so Allah k baray main ya Allah ki kisi takhleek ke baray main itni baareek bini se bhi nahin sochna chahye ke wo gunah main shaamil hojaye! had se tajawaz nahin kerna chahye, verna TLK bhaiyya, mairay paas to itnay sawal hain ke bus magar jab soch aati hay to jhatak deti hun kyunke kuch sawalo ke jawab Ooper hi milenge :)
I have come aross some ahadeeth that also state that People of Paradise will be of Adam's height and the calulation given translates into 125 Feet. Never heard of 60 Feet.
And I am no one to say if Adam could have survived with that mass/height or not. Allah created him and Allah sustained him. end of story. Even nations of Aad and Thamood were tall as trunk of a tree. Are we going to deny that too even when the religious evidence is present for this claim? I hope not.
There is a hadith in Sahih Muslim where Almighty Allah said that He created Adam a.s. in His own image with His length of sixty cubits. My knowledge is limited till here.
Are you SURE? This sounds like the Christian belief, not the Muslim belief.
You brought up a really interesting point, TLK bhai, so interesting that I actually read up on some physics which is a miracle in itself :@: Since no one has posted a scientific response to your question, I asked for Google’s help and came across two main theories that offer explanation for the existence of human giants and impossibly large dinosaurs on earth – the expanding earth theory and the reduced gravity theory.
The expanding earth theory states that the earth has expanded, gained more mass and so the gravity has increased over time. This theory is rejected by some geologists because it offers no acceptable method by which the earth could have gained more mass. But it is accepted by many because it is correct with regards to the reduced gravity since there’s no way the gigantic creatures could survive in present gravity. There is a website called physicsforums on which some posters state the earth’s gravity has not changed but provide no references to back it up. There is a book from 1995 titled "What Really Caused the Dinosaurs' Demise?: A Question of Increasing Gravity" which should be an interesting read but you can't preview it.
A 2007 book titled "Secret History of Twin Planet Earth" states that “there is a degree of certainty” and that “there can be no doubt” that there was less gravity on the prehistoric earth (Pangaea). All of the earth’s land mass was drawn into a single supercontinent because of the intense gravitational pull which also allows for impossibly large creatures.
The atmospheric pressure was also much higher (around 32 pounds per square inch) which explains why pterodactyl, a flying creature with a wingspan of 52 feet, would’ve had no difficulty moving back then; whereas it would be impossible for the creature to fly in today’s lower atmospheric pressure.
The conclusion, as I understood, was that there is a gap in knowledge. The 2007 book stated that the problem of the weight of the dinosaurs/giants is a “geological mystery that will hang around as a source of embarrassment until it is solved.” So… Allahu Alam.
er.. and what explanations do they offer for how the earth gained mass from the time of dinosaurs until now?
if the earth gained mass, that would mean gravitational pull increased. but doesn't the second half of your post claim just the opposite of the first half?
YA 2007 book titled "Secret History of Twin Planet Earth" states that “there is a degree of certainty” and that “there can be no doubt” that there was less gravity on the prehistoric earth (Pangaea). All of the earth’s land mass was drawn into a single supercontinent because of the intense gravitational pull which also allows for impossibly large creatures.
so which is it - an intense gravitational pull allows for large critters, or a lesser gravitational pull allows for large critters? :D
I dont want to turn this thread into controversial thread from Hadees point of view, but I heard real dars-e-bukhari (the one part of madrasa curriculum and not not meant for general public), where the aalim shared his doubt about a certain hadees of bukhari. I am not going to narrate that hadess because its quite a disturbing hadees. Point is, the doubt of that Aalim was not on ahaadees, but on Imam Bukhari's perfection.
Same is the case here. I am not saying that my intellect is better than a hadees, I am just presenting an argument on the compilations of imam bukhari.
You are right. There are numerous ahadees from the sahi sitta which are so bizarre and does not match with the otherwise personality of prophet Mohammed. Imam Bukhari or imam Shafi etc were humans and prone to error/lapse of judgment.
You are right. There are numerous ahadees from the sahi sitta which are so bizarre and does not match with the otherwise personality of prophet Mohammed. Imam Bukhari or imam Shafi etc were humans and prone to error/lapse of judgment.
The books combinely called "Saha Sitta" not sahi sitta.
Do you have some of the ahadeeth at your disposal that you think are not ahadeeth? Let's open a separate discussion for that.
Do you have some of the ahadeeth at your disposal that you think are not ahadeeth? Let's open a separate discussion for that.
do you really want to go that route Jinx? That debate could get ugly bro. There are certain things whose discussion should be avoided in general public. And I dont want to appear as Munkir-e-hadess (naoozobillah in any argument.
Lets just agree to disagree and not open a can or worms.
er.. and what explanations do they offer for how the earth gained mass from the time of dinosaurs until now?
You no read this part, queer? .... "This theory is rejected by some geologists because it offers no acceptable method by which the earth could have gained more mass."
if the earth gained mass, that would mean gravitational pull increased. but doesn't the second half of your post claim just the opposite of the first half?
*It is not *my post, I was summarising what I read which included the rejection of the idea of earth gaining mass. **
so which is it - an intense gravitational pull allows for large critters, or a lesser gravitational pull allows for large critters? :D
*The gravitational pull bit was a summary of this article:
*
**The basic requirement for an attenuated perception of gravity involves the Earth being in a very close orbit around a smaller and much cooler stellar body (or binary body) than our present Sun. One pole would always be pointed directly at this nearby small star or binary system. The intense gravitational attraction would pull the Earth into an egg shape rather than its present spherical shape, so that the planet's center of gravity would be off center towards the small star. This would generate the torque necessary to counteract the natural gyroscopic force and keep the Earth's pole pointed in the same direction as it revolved around the star.
The consequences of this intense gravitational pull would be dramatic. It would allow, first of all, for gigantic animals like the dinosaurs (just as any change in gravity to the present situation would likely cause their demise). It would also tend to draw all of the Earth's land mass into a single supercontinent (Pangea). Why else, after all, should the Earth's continental masses have amassed in one place? And finally, with the Earth's pole pointed straight at this star or binary system, there would be no seasons. All literature of the distant past points out that the seasons did not appear until after the flood.
**
Baki tussi ziada samajhdaar ho. This is all the physics I'm indulging in. Feel free to agree or disagree with some or all of it, they aren't my own made up theories. Like I said, the conclusion as I understand is that there is a gap in knowledge, there are differences in opinion amongst geologists themselves.
well there may be gaps, but those aren't really acceptable arguments or sources, imho. they keep refering to this one thing - before the flood/ ante-diluvian. aka bible thumpers out to legitimize their scripture, by hook or crook. not a lot of science on there.
do you really want to go that route Jinx? That debate could get ugly bro. There are certain things whose discussion should be avoided in general public. And I dont want to appear as Munkir-e-hadess (naoozobillah in any argument.
Lets just agree to disagree and not open a can or worms.
No. I do not want to go to that route. But when people claim that ahadeeth "Can't" be correct because it does not make "sense" to their "intellect", then you have to ask, what ahadeeth? If one does not want to go to that route, then, the person should not say that some ahaadeeth are incorrect and provide nothing to backup the claim. If we can not provide the material to back up our claim then, we should not go to that route to begin with.
do you really want to go that route Jinx? That debate could get ugly bro. There are certain things whose discussion should be avoided in general public. And I dont want to appear as Munkir-e-hadess (naoozobillah in any argument.
Lets just agree to disagree and not open a can or worms.
You created lot of curiosity about those ahadeeths.........May Allah guide us and protect us in this world and here after