Re: Islam promoting thought and false accusations: Att. Ummm
Peace Umm
Please read below:
Well … you think you know logic. If you are not willing to accept then asking for proof is irrelevant. People who ask for proof if they a truthful will only ask for proof if they ARE willing to accept the claim provided a sound basis can be given. It seems you only ask for proof when you have already made your mind up not to accept.
I do not intend to guide you, because I do not believe that I can guide you. However, it is my responsibility to clarify the misconceptions that you may have, explain the things as I have understood them in a wise manner and prevent lies to be propagated by presenting the alternative views. In fact the Qur’an itself testifies and I cannot emphasise this more that people will be guided and misguided by the Qur’an. It does not admit defeat nor is it saying that it has faults, rather it clearly caters for the response type taken by me and you, it is all encompassing and though you may find things to ridicule and provide reason to yourself to denounce when analysed with honesty the same things are evidence for the contrary. You will find things that cannot be proven either way to support our reason to denounce the Qur’an. Let’s see if this is in fact true.
I am having trouble making sense of you verbosity here; however, I feel I agree with the idea that reasoning destroys myths. Therefore I am reasoning with you that humans are actually INCAPABLE of not believing in the unseen. They will believe somewhere some place a belief will set in and that belief will be founded on a limit beyond which only analogy, metaphor, reflection and the say so of others will suffice. Even the most staunchest of atheists will have a belief and that belief will be driven not necessarily by what is factual but a sort of reasoning will be employed that most likely skirts around a bias basis. People who are philosophic will reach beyond the capabilities of the mere rational because they will strive to reach truth rather than fact. Religion need not be about seeking truth, rather it is about seeking God, but if it is the true religion it needs to stand up to philosophical constructs rather than the factual ones. Fact is based on what is objective and most of belief is in a domain that should begin with objective evidence but sometimes even objectivity is not enough to convince some people of truth. Therefore it falls back on the absolute statement that there is nothing we can do to ‘guide’ people rather that guidance can only come from God. This statement is a philosophical truism.
I fear to burst your bubble on the extent of your reasoning. But you see putting things simply to me is asking for trouble. You should keep to the more difficult approach perhaps then you can better hide your fallacious arguments. Okay I’m going off on one, I apologise in advance.
You say firstly that you made an assumption. An assumption is fixing the argument so it suits your end result. There are other things that need to be entertained to do this subject justice.
Let’s assume your assumption is true. That humans try to survive. The questions to ask are why? Is it because it is innate in their natures? Is it because they ‘feel’ they should do, due to some external influence? But before we do this we should also entertain the question Do humans actually try to survive, or is the question more complicated than that?
Let’s see … from a young age children do very dangerous things that can harm them, though they have no idea of survival their parents do indeed protect them. So from this observation humans wish their young to survive. But so far the children themselves seem not to have a directly sensed purpose to survive. Then we have to look at all the people who kill themselves and all the people who wage wars. It seems the need to survive is laced with layers of complexity which on the level of reasoning is counter-intuitive. People will kill to keep other people alive.
On the other hand however, death is part of life. What I mean is no one has escaped death or those who live long it is fairly certain that they will soon die. Now the assertion by you is that people have developed ‘religion’ to combat a fear of death. On the other side of the equation the people who have developed science are trying to combat death itself. Based on reasoning alone what is the better option? To try to combat death or try to combat the fear of it? The reasoning in the latter is of a higher rational calibre because past experience tells us that no one can cheat death. Not that we have yet substantiated that the reason for religions development is about death, we are merely entertaining the notion raised by you at this stage.
Now let’s argue the position of the said claim which is humans have developed religion to combat the fear of death. Is this true? The reasoning provided is based on a possible truth that we do ‘fear’ death. This is like saying bananas exist because they are edible. There may be a connection between the fact that religion does indeed provide hope and peace and a better way to handle the unknown of death. But it does not mean that religion was devised for that reason, just because we can see that our fear of death is reduced by religion. Rather we need to come up with direct evidence to support that view. If it can be found that in the past the fear of death led to a demise of humanity so by creating religion somehow the people survived or prospered over those people who had no religion then your argument can fit in with your claims. In fact I can just easily say that religion increases our fear of death so we can be better people because it emphasises that we have only one chance to make a good life. So your argument is half-baked and that is that. In fact it is not only half-baked it actually requires a lot more belief in my part to accept your version than mine, which is that the One who created us, has indeed created our religion for us too.
As I said I require ‘proof’ evidence that suggests the connections you are creating. The size of a car increasing does not always mean what you have asserted. You must first rule out that the car is not growing. How about if you are moving towards the car? How about if you are shrinking in size? What if you have not ruled out the fact that you might be deceived? Logical proof has to be rigorous. Of course cars do not grow, but in the case of religion we can just as easily entertain the idea that religion has been sent to us. In fact because we have documented statements in our scripture to this effect that “Islam has been chosen for us” then we have greater evidence for our belief than you do for yours, which is that on a fanciful thought you create the notion that people developed their own religion from nothing just to combat a fear of death. Your assertion cannot be proven. In fact if it were true would you not get animals beginning to develop religions too out of fear of death? And even if you can answer saying animals this or animals that you cannot support your statement with evidence like we can.
The one making the claim is the one who should be asked the question. I did not make any claim. The claim comes from the Qur’an. Test the Qur’an and see if it holds it’s ground. The Source of the Qur’an is the One Who needs to defend it, not me. I have found there is enough evidence in Islam that satisfies me enough to believe it with conviction. Without giving the Qur’an a fair trial it cannot be dismissed as false. That is what you and all people are doing. Those people who have treated the Qur’an with respect have also seen the accuracy and truth it proclaims every time. And you do have to offer something. Even if what you have to offer is confusion and lies it is being offered by you whether you realise it or not. By regurgitating the material off dubious websites you are doing such things. Enlightened or people of religion are also less likely to afflict pain and punishment. It is those people who under the guise of religion who are in fact worldly power mongering and killing others. Let alone dividing the world. When a people are saved or not when there are some who are good and those who are not none of this information comes to me, so I have not place in Islam to call people as such. However, Islam does tell what will happen to such people who find their way into such classifications. I hope that appeases your concerns.
There are explanations or reconciliations beyond your one that suffices the apparent difference that you are presenting.
The first reconciliation is one based on overlap, which in my view is the weaker of the two. Here is how it goes:
2 + 2 + 2 where 2 from the first 2 and 2 from the second two makes up the 4 in the verses regarding the mountains.
The second reconciliation is one based on the concept of seven firmaments and the concept of completion of them.
According to my understanding verses in Chapter 7:54 are high level verses referring to 6 periods of time of generally equal significance. These will be cosmological eras. The chapter 41 verse 9 – 12 however, is talking on a different level. Nebulae and system development. Chapter 41 verse 9 splits this development in two periods of time. The first of the two periods is subdivided into four equal periods for the development of the mountains, etc and the second of the two periods is subdivided into the development of the atmosphere in two sub periods.
A yawm in Arabic does not have the same period length in every verse in the Qur’an, rather it can only be taken to be a period of equal time length based on the objects being talked about in that very verse. You will notice that the term in chapter 41 verse 12 states “So He completed them”, which implies that the beginning of the creation was already in place and the two periods of time were used to only complete the heavens not make them entirely. A period of time can be defined either as stage where changes are happening until an equilibrium of sorts is reached or against an arbitrary means of measurement. I think you will find Islam and the Qur’an is consistent in the way it perceives the word ‘yawm’ which is as period of activity or time rather than ‘day’.
Furthermore, science also deals with eras and functional natures between those eras. Just take a look at the development of the universe theories.
For 18:47 what are trying to get at?
For 20:53 The Earth is like a bed – it is sanctuary like a bed, it is comfortable like a bed.
For 43:10 The same
For 43:38 Two easts can also imply north east and south east, or it can also be geographical east, geopolitical east or magnetic east based on the magnetic north. Most likely it is the former.
For 78:6 Explained
For 79:30 Spread the Earth – yes I agree
It is true what Muslims scientists did or did not realise is not important, but what you don’t realise obviously is. None of these verses require explanation further than what is in them.
But at the same time there is nothing to suggest that it is a consecutive process, that is logical to you, but it may not be the intended. If there is a possibility that you are wrong it means that there is impossibility that it can be conclusively called erroneous.
I have also explained the concept of yawm in Arabic. This concept is consistent, you will everywhere in the Qur’an where it talks about ‘yawm’ in many different contexts, which vary the time length.
Some lights in the sky are bodies like the sun and moon other lights in the sky are shooting stars, which serve a different purpose to the sun and moon. The rest is part of the belief system and we can at the moment use science to prove or disprove this.
[quote=“ummm”]
read the previous post. The Sun does not set in a prticular place.
The Qur’an never says that the sun sets in a given place. Rather it says that a human being saw or perceived the sun to be setting in a given place. If the Qur’an mentions what a human sees and thinks, if that thought is wrong it does not make the text wrong. It merely means that the thought of the human whose thoughts are being quoted was limited and that Allah (SWT) knows the thoughts of his people.
I think you will find the terms are reflexively implied as though on an egg-shaped surface. It is based on the etymology of the Arabic text.