Is this a sign?

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

Dear friends,

USA people believe in 100% separation between religion and state and they are fighting their corner very well. In fact they are showing others by example and even open support to do the very same. Also need is mother of invention but only if people realise their needs of their own times. Those who realise their needs first are more likely to invent things first. Now you do not realise your needs if you do not bother thinking about them by diverting your attention elsehwere. Having right goals in life and staying focus to them would be way forward.

regards and all the best.

42

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MMughal: *
Dear friends,

USA people believe in 100% separation between religion and state and they are fighting their corner very well. In fact they are showing others by example and even open support to do the very same. Also need is mother of invention but only if people realise their needs of their own times. Those who realise their needs first are more likely to invent things first. Now you do not realise your needs if you do not bother thinking about them by diverting your attention elsehwere. Having right goals in life and staying focus to them would be way forward.

regards and all the best.
[/QUOTE]

MMughal, your points, though (insert adverb here) __-eloquated, remain irrelevant to this thread. You presumably respond to my question regarding american levels of belief. This thread. atleast the current debate, is about personal belief, and personal religion.. and its impact on society. we are not discussing the issue of specific political systems.

my personal belief is that your motive in writing that post was to obfuscate the issue, since you cannot offer logical explanations as to the fact that why the most progressive and technologically advanced nation in the world remains one of the most devout.

even though the essence of your post remains non-sequitur, and essentially its a set of truisms strung together with little regard for coherence, we would be happy to entertain ideas from the religion-choro camp that actually move the debate forward.

43

Hey, I just noticed this reply…What’s a Pan wali Urdu Madhanee? :hehe:

44

And :jazak: Ramyssys…Yes, I do read and understand Urdu…Thanks for posting…

45

basic_force

Who knows my words that you read about my actions were a result of my thoughts and actions (typing) not syncing-up again. So you still can’t prove with any science that you know what my actions are and what they will be… This is irrelevant to this discussion so let’s drop this.

Quran is not the book of Science it is a book of Signs, these words might sound alike but there is hell of a difference in these two terms. Muslims do not go open up Quran when they want discover and advance in the field of science. If you go do some research you will find that all of the discoveries and inventions done by Muslims were result of hard work and drive for excellence and not mere reading from a book. The time period referred to as “Dark Ages” was the age of darkness for the West and not Muslims. Muslims made progress by leaps and bounds in that “Dark Age” period and this period if my memory serves me right was after Quran was revealed.

46

Absolutely chachoo...but the foundation of scientific advancement in the golden age of Islam was not the quran, or signs contained within. It was the work of the chinese, greek, Romans, Indians, egyptians, and others who had laid the foundation. Trty doing algebra without "0".

Signs in the quran are a matter of faith..could be interpreted in 500 different ways, like any other scripture. Which is as it should be. We should not confuse ratifying faith with scientific discovery. When invitro methods of concpetion were introduced, I am sure people went to their holy books to find some analogy. It doesn't mean that the book had it...but it helps if we cna make ourselves feel that each of god's messages contain some relevance to what we are experiencing.

But to BF's point. Scripture is not an origination of scientific thought, it is sometimes an impediment but mostly irrelevant. Scientific thought needs proof not faith.

I do not agree with BF that one needs to be devoid of faith to be a scientist.

And I do not agree with a lot of folks on this site that all worldy knowledge exists in the one book. Retro-fitting is just that..retro-fitting.

47
  • Absolutely chachoo...but the foundation of scientific advancement in the golden age of Islam was not the quran, or signs contained within. It was the work of the chinese, greek, Romans, Indians, egyptians, and others who had laid the foundation. Trty doing algebra without "0". *<<

The humanity is built on previous experiences and discoveries. So before Indians, Chinese, Greeks, and Egyptians there were other nations and societies who came-up with things which were adopted and used and improved upon. It is like baton race.

*Signs in the quran are a matter of faith..could be interpreted in 500 different ways, like any other scripture. Which is as it should be. We should not confuse ratifying faith with scientific discovery. When invitro methods of concpetion were introduced, I am sure people went to their holy books to find some analogy. It doesn't mean that the book had it...but it helps if we cna make ourselves feel that each of god's messages contain some relevance to what we are experiencing. *<<

Like I stated earlier Quran is a book of signs it does not contain all scientific facts that we know today. Some scientific facts are mentioned in Quran some in detail and some not in so much detail. Agreed that faith should not be ratified using scientific discoveries but there is a very important relevance in regards to one’s faith though. The reason it matters is that if anyone of these scientific facts mentioned in Quran proves to be untrue it invalidate the whole scripture but if they (signs) validate then it strengthens your believe in Quran (or what ever scripture).

*But to BF's point. Scripture is not an origination of scientific thought, it is sometimes an impediment but mostly irrelevant. Scientific thought needs proof not faith. *<<

May be in some case some scriptures were the origination point but who knows. I am not saying that all the discoveries made and inventions were the result of someone reading the Quran and following the recipe.

I do not agree with BF that one needs to be devoid of faith to be a scientist. <<

Agreed

*And I do not agree with a lot of folks on this site that all worldy knowledge exists in the one book. Retro-fitting is just that..retro-fitting. *<<

I agree with you on this, not all worldly knowledge is defined or described in any scripture. If it was we will have volumes and volumes of scriptures impossible to manage let alone read, understand, and then follow. Scriptures are meant to provide you with basic guidelines and then you have to build upon those guidelines.

48

If American’s great scientific achievements are the result of their believe in faith and their being religious society, then my suggestion to you ppl is that you should adopt their beliefs and become scientific in this way.

I do accept the need of having faith for a common person in some-what form due to psychological reasons. To leave the faith altogether, or to not to believe in any god at all etc. is not possible by average common person. Such 100% non-belief is only possible by those ppl who are psychologically very strong. Who do not have any fear of death. Who are not afraid of any Hell. Who have good understanding level of this merciless world.

Such a mentality level is impossible to achieve for an average common person in any society. Average person is afraid of death. He is under the trance of religious doctrines of punishments of hell etc. He is afraid of deaths of his close relatives. He has good feelinds and wishes for those close relatives who have died. These factors are really strong and these can build sufficient PSYCHOLOGICAL pressure for a common person to join any available faith system.

And there is a lot lot difference between American faiths and Pakistani faith.

American faiths are only psychological oriented by nature i.e. they only believe in some or the other faith for the satisfaction of their psychological needs. :whereas: The Pakistani faith is the absolute order of absolute divine. This absolute order consists of unchangable/rigid and out-dated social laws and some “moral” conducts. Most of those “moral” conducts in context with modern international ethical system are “immoral”.

American faiths are only personal. Every person has the right to choose any faith of his choice because the only purpose of faiths is the satisfaction of psychological needs. :whereas: Pakistani faith consists of rigid secterian faiths. I know all the faiths claim to be the followers of single quran. But they do differ in interpretations. These different interpretations are permanent in natute because their god cannot tell them which interpretation is right. So there are different rigid and permanent interpretations and every interpretation is considered to be absolutely true by the followers of respective sects. This is the startng point of hatered among themself which is present in Pakistani society. American faiths are not rigid because they are not from absolute devine. Every person may have his own god who is responsible for the satisfactions of psychological needs of that person. So Americans do not hate each other on the basis of differences in religious faiths.

Such American beliefs which are psychological oriented only do not have any bad effect on their scientific or idealogical progress. :whereas: Pakistani belief is that all possible knowledge has been given in their (1500 years old out-dated) holy book so they do not need to do any research work. Only thing they need to do is that whenever new research results are announced by western scientists, they should open their old books and try to find out any “similar” material, then they need to alter the original meanings in such a way as to make it confirm to that new research results. This “scientific” methodology of Muslims is known as Ilm-ul-Kalaam. Dr. Illama Iqbal’s “Reconstruction of Religious Thought” is one example of this kind of “Research” work and “Scientific Methodology”.

So muslims need to leave their useless belief that all the possible knowledge already have been given in their ancient religious books. The fact is that whatever knowledge which is mentioned in them … most of it has been discarded and has become absolete in the present information age.

However if Americans are really going to become a religious society according to the meaning of religion that you take, then there is a good news for you. This growing religious trend, then, is the indication of their decline as a successful nation. When westerns were in “dark age” they were in “golden age” of religion. When western nations made progress they were in “golden age” of rationality and wisdom and in the “dark age” of religion. Now if they are again moving towards “golden age” of religion that would lead them towards the “dark age” of rationality and wisdom. And this is a positive hope for you ppl.

So now is the time for you ppl to come out of your “golden age” of religion which is in fact the “dark age” of your rationality and wisdom.

Now this is the time to enter the “golden age” of rationality and wisdom. Only in this way you can become the leader of this world. Otherwise not. Your faiths do not have enough power in them to make you successful in life. How can they make you successful in afterlife…???

49

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChaChoo: *
basic_force

Who knows my words that you read about my actions were a result of my thoughts and actions (typing) not syncing-up again. So you still can’t prove with any science that you know what my actions are and what they will be… This is irrelevant to this discussion so let’s drop this.

Quran is not the book of Science it is a book of Signs, these words might sound alike but there is hell of a difference in these two terms. Muslims do not go open up Quran when they want discover and advance in the field of science. If you go do some research you will find that all of the discoveries and inventions done by Muslims were result of hard work and drive for excellence and not mere reading from a book. The time period referred to as “Dark Ages” was the age of darkness for the West and not Muslims. Muslims made progress by leaps and bounds in that “Dark Age” period and this period if my memory serves me right was after Quran was revealed.
[/QUOTE]

Ok I do not know your personal actions and real thoughts.

Agree that quran is not the book of science.

Have been unable to find any important and useful sign in it.

Agree that Muslims in their "golden period" did make pure scientific research. This is what I want to convey. Presently muslims are not following the methodology of their own golden age. Muslim glorious period in scientific discoveries was not the result of reading quran (you youself has accepted it and also you yourself has agreed that quran is not a book of science) so it dose not matter that muslims glorious science period started right after revelation of quran or not. Because quran was not involved in this process. And this is what muslims need to do again today i.e. not to involve quran in their knowledge getting process.

50

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *

Ok I do not know your personal actions and real thoughts.

Agree that quran is not the book of science.

Have been unable to find any important and useful sign in it.

Agree that Muslims in their "golden period" did make pure scientific research. This is what I want to convey. Presently muslims are not following the methodology of their own golden age. Muslim glorious period in scientific discoveries was not the result of reading quran (you youself has accepted it and also you yourself has agreed that quran is not a book of science) so it dose not matter that muslims glorious science period started right after revelation of quran or not. Because quran was not involved in this process. And this is what muslims need to do again today i.e. not to involve quran in their knowledge getting process.
[/QUOTE]

Even Albert Einstein said “Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.”

Actually some of the discoveries made in the field of astronomy were the result of interpreting the signs in Quran. But not all discoveries and inventions were made by following a recipe in Quran or any other scripture. Yes they have to follow the example from the “Golden Age” but why do they have to leave Quran and Hadith for it? Did the Muslims in their “Golden Age” leave Quran and Hadith out of their lives? If anything they were very religious people and followed Quran and Sunnah to a great extent. That does not mean that they relied on Quran for all their discoveries.

As far as useful signs are concerned. There are many, take for example, astronomy, hydrology (rain cycle), geology, and in great detail biology. Human developmental stages are defined in great detail and every detail has been proven accurate by today’s science.

51

Chachoo, ver valid points. Signs are a plenty in the quran, bible, upanishads, sumerian tablets, etc etc.. Lajwanti had the silly idea that it is a miracle. The fact that Archiatrus presented a heliocentric model before the quran was written, is a miracle as well? Did he get the message as well? It's a slippery slope once we start trying to validate scipture as miraculous as universal law, instead of of faith.

52

Why is it so fascinating that he, Muhammed, knew these things? Didn't Satan also know these things? And wasn't Satan the one in the garden who knew what God said of the forbidden fruit, and misled Eve? Just because someone knows something doesn't necessarily mean it came from God.

53

Basic force, just a few meta comments. I notice that you lay a great deal of emphasis on research, however your own remarks are unsubstantiated with any factual research, and presented as fact.

Being a person who advocates the cause of progressing in the name of science, such an attitude where you put forward your own biases as fact without any regard for accuracy or evidential support are unlikely to lead you to do any publishable research, regardless of how little you care for religion.

now, to your points:

you misinterpreted my post. The point wasnt that religion causes advancement and technological prowess, it was that having religion does not inhibit progress. that said, there is no material evidence to support that religion was what motivated americans to rise to their current place, atleast not to my knowledge.

you might be mistaken here. whereas I do not question that you might be psychologically very strong, I have seen very weak minded athiests.

Firstly, you should qualify your statements with specific religions when you talk about them. Christianity, the dominant religion in America does have very strong notions of morality and immorality, and they are not phenomenally different in comparison to Islam.

and “American”, specifically Christian faith does not have branches?? You are very wrong when you suggest that every person has his own god that reflects his psychological needs. I suggest you look up the pew report on religion. The statistics I gave of people adhering to some religion, were adherents to organised religion. Heres the 2002 poll I googled, Im sure you can find the 2003 one.

http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/poll2002.pdf

you assume a very restricted view of religion. i’d suggest you avoid belittling everyone else and spend some more time with educated pakistani observant muslims, the majority of which would find your characterisation ridiculous.

see above.

the americans have not “become” more religious. They remain religious over the passing of years, and there is no evidence to suggest that this impacts their rational or technological progress. on the other hand, more rational nations, such as britain, which has the lowest level of adherance to any religion (38 percent i believe) in the world, is well on its way down. i suggest you draw your correlations wisely.

faith is not responsible for making you successful in this life, atleast by the standards you measure success by. you are.

54

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ChaChoo: *

Even Albert Einstein said “Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.”

Actually some of the discoveries made in the field of astronomy were the result of interpreting the signs in Quran. But not all discoveries and inventions were made by following a recipe in Quran or any other scripture. Yes they have to follow the example from the “Golden Age” but why do they have to leave Quran and Hadith for it? Did the Muslims in their “Golden Age” leave Quran and Hadith out of their lives? If anything they were very religious people and followed Quran and Sunnah to a great extent. That does not mean that they relied on Quran for all their discoveries.

As far as useful signs are concerned. There are many, take for example, astronomy, hydrology (rain cycle), geology, and in great detail biology. Human developmental stages are defined in great detail and every detail has been proven accurate by today’s science.
[/QUOTE]

I am not the "follower" of Einstien so I do not think that science without religion is lame.

I think actual situation is that science is pure without religion and the mixure of science/religion is only a fraud.

And nothing about astronomy etc. has been derived from quran. Even more accorate astronomical facts were already known to ancient summerian/ babylonien and egeptian people. They already had made some-what accurate assessments of paths/ routs of astronomical object thousands of years before quran. Those ancient people were also religious ppl I know that. Their main gods were sun, mardokh, bual etc and their main godess was godess Ishtaar.

When Ptolemic's geocentric theory (Theory that Earth is the center of universe and sun, moon and stars are abiting around the earth) was first published in Arabic, The quranic Tafseers were written in support of that and it was claimed that this theory is mentioned in quran also. When Coppernicus rejected that geocentric model and told that earth is not the center of universe but in fact is arbiting around the sun, the "Mufassars" again wrote "Tafaseers" in this new way and said that this "new" theory was already mentioned in quran. This is what I mean by fraud.

The sign you see in your holy book have been better described in science books. So you should resort to the better reading source.

Human stages described in holy book has no relation with accepted scientific theories.

55

ravage:

I am only motivating u ppl to do research. I am putting arguments only. I know that. I myself am doing researches in various idealogy systems and in the capabilities of human understandings etc. On this forum, I am putting only simple arguments. I am talking to "religious" ppl who are not supposed to be familiar with those epistemological terminology. I have choosen this field of research. My words/arguments are not inconsistent with my actions. The only problem is that this forum is not suitable for that technical argumentations which is also substantiated with related factual research.

Here I am only motivating u ppl to come in to the world of reality and do research if you want to improve your knowledge. Faith is only faith. It is not knowledge. Knowledge (how much limited it may be) is certain and faith is not certain. Faith is doutful. It only "claim" to be certain.

Religion has two positive effects;

(i) Firstly it is a kind of psychological shelter against this very cruel and merciless real world and secondly;
(ii) Religion had played a very important and positive role in the initial stages of the development of human civilizations.

Religion as a psychological shelter shall never end in any human society. But now there is no need of religion in our social, political or cultural processes.

Religion should only be a personal matter as it is there in America.

56

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
I am not the "follower" of Einstien so I do not think that science without religion is lame.

[/QUOTE]

I never said you were, I was quoting one the greatest scientist known to the world who caused much “advancement” in the field of science.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
I think actual situation is that science is pure without religion and the mixure of science/religion is only a fraud.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t agree. If a scripture lists scientific facts one has to verify each one of them and if you can’t verify even one out of thousands the scriptures credibility comes under question. Like I said earlier there might have been cases where the scientists might have used Quran or some other scripture to get inspired by the signs mentioned in those scriptures. If I find a specific example I will let you know. No one here is saying that Quran is a science kit.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
And nothing about astronomy etc. has been derived from quran. Even more accorate astronomical facts were already known to ancient summerian/ babylonien and egeptian people. They already had made some-what accurate assessments of paths/ routs of astronomical object thousands of years before quran. Those ancient people were also religious ppl I know that. Their main gods were sun, mardokh, bual etc and their main godess was godess Ishtaar.
[/QUOTE]

But Quran goes into much detail on these accounts. It talks about not only orbits but also the light of moon (borrowed light) , the big bang theory, nebula, the formation of stars via smoke (gases) etc. May be other nations before Quran was reviled knew a lot about astronomy but Quran never contradicted any of the valid discoveries made eons ago or recently. Signs mentioned in Quran compliments these findings and adds to them.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
When Ptolemic's geocentric theory (Theory that Earth is the center of universe and sun, moon and stars are abiting around the earth) was first published in Arabic, The quranic Tafseers were written in support of that and it was claimed that this theory is mentioned in quran also. When Coppernicus rejected that geocentric model and told that earth is not the center of universe but in fact is arbiting around the sun, the "Mufassars" again wrote "Tafaseers" in this new way and said that this "new" theory was already mentioned in quran. This is what I mean by fraud.

[/QUOTE]

Can you please provide some link, name of book or tafseer that proves that Quran supports the geocentric theory? Quran actually talks about the rotations of the Moon and the Sun and orbits, I will be happy to provide you with the verses if you like. Even if a Muffasir made a mistake that does not mean that nullifies Quran, he is a human being and he made a mistake, I am sure God will forgive him.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *
The sign you see in your holy book have been better described in science books. So you should resort to the better reading source.
[/QUOTE]

Why are we circling the same thing over and over again…. If you want to learn about science yes go read scientific books and journals, I am not arguing that at all, I am with you on this all the way. I have an issue with you saying that Quran & Hadith causes backwardness.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by basic_force: *Human stages described in holy book has no relation with accepted scientific theories.
[/QUOTE]

Before making a statement like this go read books written by Dr. Keith Moore world renowned expert of Anatomy.

57

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by lyrixforu: *
Why is it so fascinating that he, Muhammed, knew these things? Didn't Satan also know these things? And wasn't Satan the one in the garden who knew what God said of the forbidden fruit, and misled Eve? Just because someone knows something doesn't necessarily mean it came from God.
[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you are referring to and who you are addressing and to be very honest I don't even know what is your point... May be I missed a post, I have not read all the posts in this thread.

If your point is that Quran was produced by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) I will suggest that you read Quran first and then go back in history and see what kinds of things were known back then and see if it makes any sense that someone who was born and raised in the times of "Jahilliyah" (I guess you can refer to it as Dark Ages) will know all the things mentioned in Quran. Just take the scientific facts mentioned and see if it makes any sense.

58

Actually chachoo..it was jahilliya aka dark ages in the mid east and europe. It was quite the opposite in meso-south america and India/china. Land trade routes had been established between east and neat east way before then so knowledge being transferred had been donee already from places like china and INdia. So the concept of jahilliya is only for arabia.

59

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Matsui: *
Actually chachoo..it was jahilliya aka dark ages in the mid east and europe. It was quite the opposite in meso-south america and India/china. Land trade routes had been established between east and neat east way before then so knowledge being transferred had been donee already from places like china and INdia. So the concept of jahilliya is only for arabia.
[/QUOTE]

Matsui ... May be I should have been more specific... I was talking about the region in which Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was born and raised which happened to be Arabian peninsula where Quran was revealed.

The knowledge-transfer even if it reached the middle-east before or even during Prophet’s time the society did not show any signs that they had such knowledge. If the argument is that the information in Quran came from China and India I will suggest we should analyze each and every sign mentioned in Quran and see what was known back then in China or India when Quran was revealed. Quran mentions some signs that were confirmed in later years not before. Some facts might have been known before and but some came after; question is if they came after how did Quran reveal them in advance if it was not Allah’s word? There are more than 6000 signs in Quran and around 1000 signs deal with science, I can’t claim to know them all but I will be happy to bring-up one sign at a time to discuss and research on if interested.

60

Do you not find that odd that if universla laws and knowledge, scientific and other was gonna come from god, no on echecked if it had already been established in various forms across the world? Lajawab's miracle is one simple example.
I think it boils down to faith rather than terms like knowledge and science.. Quran is book in my opinion of a moral code and ethics from a particular time, as you said..for the jahilliya in arabia. I am not too sure about the book of signs but that is what makes quran great like the other scriptures, it gives people faith to do the impossible. IF tomorrow someone finds motivation or a clue int he Quran to cure aids, then humanity benefits. Whether it was a sign of god as per a muslim or just a parallel of human wisdom from which the cure sprung. Hallelujia!!!