I had a Hindu friend in high school from Guyana. Didn't call her religion a fairytale. Later on had a friend originally from Trinidad who had converted to Islam. She once talked about the stories in Hinduism and said they were beautiful ...and this was long after her conversion to Islam...but even then I didn't call it fairytales. So, a little bit of tact can be managed. When you have finally admitted that calling our beliefs a "fairy tale" in this holy month (though it wouldn't be okay outside if it either) was wrong....then accept it and move on.
I would never disrespect any other religion southie.. I only am little bit aware of the mixups in my religion so can tell a difference between what is made up later on, and what is original. I dont have enough knowledge about other religions, so I cant comment on them.
No no. I didn't mean to imply you would disrespect any religion. I know that. No questions there.
The only point I was trying to make is simply by definition, some of one religions truth per the followers would be silly for another religion. Imagine the confusion in a science class. How do we reconcile those differences in a science class? We cant. How do we pick and choose what religions beliefs should be taught. We shouldn't.
I had a Hindu friend in high school from Guyana. Didn't call her religion a fairytale. Later on had a friend originally from Trinidad who had converted to Islam. She once talked about the stories in Hinduism and said they were beautiful ...and this was long after her conversion to Islam...but even then I didn't call it fairytales. So, a little bit of tact can be managed. When you have finally admitted that calling our beliefs a "fairy tale" in this holy month (though it wouldn't be okay outside if it either) was wrong....then accept it and move on.
That is just you RV. And a few others maybe who wouldn't call such stories from another religion fairy tales.
Actually I do think those stories in Hinduism are fairy tales. Many Hindus probably dont. So if u call it a fairy tale, I won't take offense. I was simply stating some might. And that for several folks other religions stories do look like fairy tales. Nothing wrong with that.
It is all faith. Not science is all I am saying.
I did not admit I made a mistake. I simply stated in this holy month I would rather not offend people. Of course in ANY month I would not want to offend people. So I just deleted it so others who were hurt weren't anymore.
^Aaaw, dekho kitni lambi umar hai tumhari. Abhi last post main tumhara hi zikr kar rahi thi. And lo n behold, tum tapak pari with the same point.
Are ALL individuals who follow a faith killing humanity? Or do you think that their faith will culminate to killing humanity? If so, do you not then fear everyone who follows a religion or you see all religion as a danger to society/mankind?
i didn't say all individuals, but certain interpretation of faith does lead to killing humanity. so one cannot blame lack of faith, atheism for all the killing. humans will commit crimes regardless of faith or no faith.
if its unfair to blame religion, then its also unfair to blame lack of religion.
But is that not where faith comes in? Taking the example of Bucaille who has said that Quran is in harmony with science. So, if someone like him has found that the Quran confirms many scientific theories and discoveries, that could lead to him to develop "faith" in those events in the Quran that defy nature, right? Or one could examine religious books and compare how much scientific validity they each have, how much sense their core principles make, and give greater credit to the one that ranks higher. If one finds a religious book to 90% kooky theories and another to have 50 percent...then open your mind up to the latter.
many scientists also claim that Qur'an is not in harmony with science. what do you want to say about those scientists?
many scientists also claim that Qur'an is not in harmony with science. what do you want to say about those scientists?
I gave the example of Bucaille because his findings are relevant to the thread and he's the only name I know of who has compared scientific findings to religious texts. I had said in my post that it's up to the individual to decide if they're convinced. Even if I had used the reference of a bigger name than Bucaille such as Einstein, it is still up to the individual to decide if they believe in God and what they believe His nature to be.
Now back to your question. Your quip of a rebuttal, Alhumdolillah, makes no difference to my iman. I only gave the example of one scientist, but if you thought "Oh yeah RV, Ima fire back atchya with MANY scientists who believe that your Quran is invalid, so whatchya gonna do now eh?" MashaAllah, it doesn't make me doubt the validity of the Quran or my faith. My reasons may seem foolish to you and so be it, but even an army of scientists are just limited beings like me. Despite their knowledge about the universe, which isn't complete, they did not create this universe nor do they control it, they only study it and put forth theories. Also, when faced with a crisis...something wholly out of their control...something their own scientific and medical knowledge cannot resolve.....it is in these moments that the atheist, be it a scientist or otherwise, will helplessly cry out, "God, or someone, if you're out there...please save my child...please save my life, etc etc." It is during such storms that even the most dheet of of faith rejectors and atheists will forget about their oft-harped argument that "Look at all the suffering, there is no God"....and will suddenly depend on the thing kind called faith which they find so abhorrent and dangerous and ridiculous. So, yeah, while you n your lot may not be impressed by Bucaille, I am not deterred by your army of Quran opposing scientists.
many scientists also claim that Qur'an is not in harmony with science. what do you want to say about those scientists?
Good point. Probably among the credible scientists, the vast majority - > 90%- would come to this conclusion. We can ignore their conclusion. But that doesn't make it a wise thing to do imo.
Ok. With this post I retire from all controversial topics. So help me God
Good point. Probably among the credible scientists, the vast majority - > 90%- would come to this conclusion. We can ignore their conclusion. But that doesn't make it a wise thing to do imo.
Many doodhwala also claim that Soya Milk is not good for your health. What do you want to say about those doodhwalas?
Joke aside, point is, are those scientist expert in Quran? Can you give examples where Quran is not in harmony?
If a non-Muslim scientist was to dismiss the the Quran's explanation only based on English translation, then it's a huge folly on his part. The English is so limited that it does not adequately capture the actual Arabic meaning. For instance if the English transliteration says "day"...in Arabic that day could refer to a long stretch of time, not the 24 hour period that the English transliteration would suggest. So, a non-Muslim scientist who wants to conduct research fairly and with integrity will have do delve more deeply into the linguistic structure of the Quran. What do you think, TLK?
If a non-Muslim scientist was to dismiss the the Quran's explanation only based on English translation, then it's a huge folly on his part. The English is so limited that it does not adequately capture the actual Arabic meaning. For instance if the English transliteration says "day"...in Arabic that day could refer to a long stretch of time, not the 24 hour period that the English transliteration would suggest. So, a non-Muslim scientist who wants to conduct research fairly and with integrity will have do delve more deeply into the linguistic structure of the Quran. What do you think, TLK?
I agree.
And its not only just the English translation. Biggest road block is general human understanding of Quran. The book is so deep and vast in its meaning, that we are still trying to understand it - otherwise, there was never a need of thousands of tafaseer that has been written, and many are still in the process of being authored. That is why, whenever Science and Quran clashed, majority of the times, it was human interpretation of the Quran that clashed with the science and not the Quran itself. We humans are the weakest link in the chain that is trying to connect these two opposite ends.
One mistake that we made is that our Aalims stayed away from science. An aalim turning into scientist is more capable of bridging the gap between science and religion, than a scientist turning into an Aalim. I was watching a documentary called "Proving the God" and was amazed to learn that Vatican has its own astronomical division and their very own observatory. Their director is a qualified priest who is also a PhD in Astrophysics. Now that is what I call some serous effort to answer the question that the title of this thread is asking. I just wish that we can open up to such efforts in our own religion.
Probably the only serious work that was ever done to gap Islam and Science was done by Doctor Abdus Salam (unfortunately we dont give him much recognition, because of the controversial Ahmedi issue). It was said (and I have to verify this), that he got a lead from an Ayat of Quran , when he was trying to solve his weak particle unification theory (which later led him to get a noble prize). Walahu Alam