Mohammed

[nawab]

See Brother, If you beleive in God Almighty you will have to understand his might as well (Everything is possible), e.g. Prophet Noah, did he dragged the animals into the ark, he also talked to them and they followed him, if you dont beleive in God Almighty then you can claim these alledgations which you still wont be able to disproof.

GOD had created the animals and what is the big deal if Prophets could have done Miracles, now there are people who can command dogs and cats today, why cant Prophet Solomon the great talk to animals, these are just miracles. Which Science cant proof or Disproof - Neither can science today tell us this is true or this is false agreed my friend.

We focus more on Scientific facts rather then miracles, Miracles was used in the past to proof to the temporary nations to accept Islam. However, not even one miracle of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH is mentioned in the Quran. Thats why because we focous more on Facts, any person today can come on TV and perform Miracles.

Suppose i tell you that 80% of the Quran is agreed by most scientist which many prominet Scientist like Maurice Bucaille, Keith Moore, Tejat tejat Shawn, has agreed upon biology, geology, embrology, and much more, More than 80% of the quran is agreed by modern Science. However, to make things easy for you i will only count that 80% of the quran is in accordance with Modern Scientific Facts. Then the remaining 20% is neither Proofed nor Disproofed so, what my logic according to the Law of probability tells me that if 80% of the quran is correct, then 20% of the unproved part will also be correct.

The contents, if you can disproof i agree with you, but i am sure that you wont be able to disproof because many people tried and didnt. We cannot see Germs with our eyes but they still exsist maybe in future we shall have a microscope for Jinns. Then is part will officially be prooved by the science.

 

[Popeyesays]

The fact is that the Qur'an is not a treatise on science. Any claims it makes are couched in such general terms that they would be useless for scientific analysis.

God gave us rational minds to seek out answers to God's Creation, and we used those rational minds to create "science" as a method for doing that.

Baha`u'llah often puts science and spirituality together in metaphor:
"
Consider the doubts which they who have joined partners with God have instilled into the hearts of the people of this land. "Is it ever possible," they ask, "for copper to be transmuted into gold?" Say, Yes, by my Lord, it is possible. Its secret, however, lieth hidden in Our Knowledge. We will reveal it unto whom We will. Whoso doubteth Our power, let him ask the Lord his God, that He may disclose unto him the secret, and assure him of its truth. That copper can be turned into gold is in itself sufficient proof that gold can, in like manner, be transmuted into copper, if they be of them that can apprehend this truth. Every mineral can be made to acquire the density, form, and substance of each and every other mineral. The knowledge thereof is with Us in the Hidden Book. "

The primary purpose of the statement is to show that the human heart can be transformed from crass materialism to precious spirit; at the same time He discusses the transmutation of elements as it occurs within the supernovae of Population I stars.

At the time He wrote it science did not understand and thought that atoms were created as copper or gold and could not evolve from one element to another.

The Qur'an is the same in that regard--spiritual truth is emphasized and scientists and religionists can debate how science is described accurately or not. We should concentrate on the first more important purpose of revelation, and leave discovery of the natural world to the talents God gave us to discern and define reality.

Regards,
Scott

 

[McBell]

See Brother, If you beleive in God Almighty you will have to understand his might as well (Everything is possible), e.g. Prophet Noah, did he dragged the animals into the ark, he also talked to them and they followed him, if you dont beleive in God Almighty then you can claim these alledgations which you still wont be able to disproof.

GOD had created the animals and what is the big deal if Prophets could have done Miracles, now there are people who can command dogs and cats today, why cant Prophet Solomon the great talk to animals, these are just miracles. Which Science cant proof or Disproof - Neither can science today tell us this is true or this is false agreed my friend.

We focus more on Scientific facts rather then miracles, Miracles was used in the past to proof to the temporary nations to accept Islam. However, not even one miracle of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH is mentioned in the Quran. Thats why because we focous more on Facts, any person today can come on TV and perform Miracles.

Suppose i tell you that 80% of the Quran is agreed by most scientist which many prominet Scientist like Maurice Bucaille, Keith Moore, Tejat tejat Shawn, has agreed upon biology, geology, embrology, and much more, More than 80% of the quran is agreed by modern Science. However, to make things easy for you i will only count that 80% of the quran is in accordance with Modern Scientific Facts. Then the remaining 20% is neither Proofed nor Disproofed so, what my logic according to the Law of probability tells me that if 80% of the quran is correct, then 20% of the unproved part will also be correct.

The contents, if you can disproof i agree with you, but i am sure that you wont be able to disproof because many people tried and didnt. We cannot see Germs with our eyes but they still exsist maybe in future we shall have a microscope for Jinns. Then is part will officially be prooved by the science.

I would tell you to see one of the many many threads that shows you are mistaken.

 

[gnostic]

See Brother, If you beleive in God Almighty you will have to understand his might as well (Everything is possible), e.g. Prophet Noah, did he dragged the animals into the ark, he also talked to them and they followed him, if you dont beleive in God Almighty then you can claim these alledgations which you still wont be able to disproof.

Your Qur'an does not say that human can teach animals to follow a few instruction. Your Qur'an is saying that Solomon can understand what birds and ants are saying, not the other way around. These 2 are totally different things you are talking about. So your argument is not proof.

Even today, modern science can't communicate with animals, which is understanding the speech of animals.

And beside all this. I don't believe in Noah and the Flood. Not only that I have seen no evidences in favour of the Flood.

Consider the doubts which they who have joined partners with God have instilled into the hearts of the people of this land. "Is it ever possible," they ask, "for copper to be transmuted into gold?" Say, Yes, by my Lord, it is possible. Its secret, however, lieth hidden in Our Knowledge. We will reveal it unto whom We will. Whoso doubteth Our power, let him ask the Lord his God, that He may disclose unto him the secret, and assure him of its truth. That copper can be turned into gold is in itself sufficient proof that gold can, in like manner, be transmuted into copper, if they be of them that can apprehend this truth. Every mineral can be made to acquire the density, form, and substance of each and every other mineral. The knowledge thereof is with Us in the Hidden Book. "

Gee, Nawab. Please stop confusing belief with facts.

Without evidences then there are no proof and therefore there are no facts. Lack of evidences certainly don't prove your faith. In fact it prove it is non-existence, such as your belief in angels, demons, djinns and your God. Prove to me that any of these exist with evidences, if you seriously want me to believe.

Simply saying that I can't disprove you, is not worthy of your faith.

You seriously have no understanding whatsoever science, nawab, and you have just proven to me with your nonsense about "80% of scientists" that you have no idea about scientific matters. Bring this up in the scientific community, and no doubt they would laugh at your 80% figure.

80%!!!! *scoff* Your 80% is a myth, like your Qur'an. Where did you dream up the 80%? In Islamic-fantasy-land? Don't insult me with false figures.

If 80% of scientists world-wide seriously believe everything, supernatural, miracles and the so-called Islamic-science, then 80% of the world population of scientists would be Muslims.

 

[nawab]

I never said 80% of the scientists, i said 80% of the Quran is proofed to be correct. the other 20% is neither proofed nor disproofed. Belief is with Facts, Knowledge is not the enemy of Faith. it increases your faith.

Francis Bacon, the famous philosopher, has rightly said that a little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God

Thats what i meant that they cannot proof or disproof Myths, angels, Demons. Science cannot proof this. The problem is with Science not Islam. Science is inferior plus in Islam we are taught to beleive in facts. We beleive that the Sun has its own light but the Moon has reflected light not because Science teaches us, Because Islam teaches us. To us Modern Science is inferior. They cant even prove Alliens exsist or not and they cant even make a statement to proof that Mobile Phone radio waves create cancer or not.

Moreover, I dont have to Insult you, you have done a pretty good job of insulting your self. You disproof to me that these verse about Solomon are wrong and i will follow what ever religion you tell me. You wont be able to proof it to me, Its a challenge

 

[McBell]

You disproof to me that these verse about Solomon are wrong and i will follow what ever religion you tell me. You wont be able to proof it to me, Its a challenge

Counting the hits and ignoring the misses is dishonesty at best and flat out lying at worst.

 

[gnostic]

I never said 80% of the scientists, i said 80% of the Quran is proofed to be correct. the other 20% is neither proofed nor disproofed. Belief is with Facts, Knowledge is not the enemy of Faith. it increases your faith.

Sorry, my mistake.

I still think you are exaggerating, like your Qur'an.

As to 80% of Qur'an being agreeable "by most scientists", is also distortion of the truth. Are you sure about the "most scientists"? Because it sounds no better than my mistaken "80% of scientists".

Maurice Bucaille, Keith Moore, Tejat tejat Shawn are not most scientists.

Also modern science have excluded religion. Tell me, nawab. What fields of modern science agree with the Qur'an? Modern astronomy? Geology? Botany? Physics? Nuclear science or quantum mechanics? Laws of Relativity? Industrial chemistry? Neurology? Calculus? Computer science? Electronics? Modern science is large. What fields?

Modern science, as I said, is large, and barely a fraction of it ever turns its head in direction towards religions.

What load of nonsense. If there is one thing I can't abide is people thinking their religion could have a single shred of scientific merits, whether they be Christians or Muslims. At least, the Jews don't confuse science with religion.

 

[gnostic]

I can accept that you have your belief and faith...because you are entitled to belong whatever religion you freely choose. I can accept that people believe what is written in their respective scriptures. I can even accept your religion as a religion. I can accept that there may some or a lot of wisdom in teaching. I can accept religion as myth....which is usually the case for me.

What I can't accept is that people would use science as a springboard for their religious propaganda. Science is science and religion is religion. I dislike people who use their so-called religious texts as having any scientific values.

I know a propaganda when I read one. And with the creationists and their bible and Muslims with their so-called scientific Qur'an, that's all it is - PROPAGANDA.

I have come across these so-called scientific Islamic verses before, here and there, and none of them so far adhere to science in anyway.

Science is not just about proving a theory. It is also about disproving a theory.

So don't go around telling me "modern science" or "most scientists" agree with your scripture when you know that you are lying through your teeth with such false claims.

 

[nawab]

In the quran these are called Signs, I used A scientific approach because you claimed to be following no religion, I personally do not beleive in Science as a ultimate criteria but However,the discoveries made today in modern science are foretold in the Quran. But that is not science for us but rather Signs of God almighty.

Moreover, you claim that we muslims do what the Christians do, so we alike are creating propogenda. I suggest you to find a fact for me which is unlogic, Dont discuss miracles because there is absolutely no way of finding if Noah flood, Plagues of Egypt, took place. Compare both scripture and then you will understand.

 

[McBell]

Moreover, you claim that we muslims do what the Christians do, so we alike are creating propogenda. I suggest you to find a fact for me which is unlogic, Dont discuss miracles because there is absolutely no way of finding if Noah flood, Plagues of Egypt, took place. Compare both scripture and then you will understand.

And you claim no propaganda...

 

[Popeyesays]

To claim "most _____ do, so you should too" is a propaganda ploy. It is called a "bandwagon argument". It is not an argument; it is propaganda.

The proper reply is the old motherly adage, "If everybody jumped off a cliff would you jump off a cliff too?"

Regards,
Scott

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe in the existence of Solomon, but at least the account of the Kings didn't add supernatural-fairytale-type phenomena like controlling demons and djinns, or that of Solomon's understanding the speeches of birds and ants, or controlling the winds. And even if I didn't believe in Solomon, I found the Kings is far more reliable and realistic than Qur'anic version of Solomon.

I found the whole Genesis' creation unrealistic, but it had no nonsense about Satan competing against Adam in animal-naming contest - the cause of Satan's Fall.

29 He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things. 30 And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee ? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.
31 And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.
32 They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise.
33 He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth ? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide.
34 And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever.
35 And We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
36 But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other! There shall be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a time.

Your Islamic version is less believable than that of the Bible.

As I said before, it is not the contradictions that make me think it is man-made, it is the contents and context. Muhammad's version just seemed to be more embellished one. Your Islamic version of the biblical events seemed to be as believable as the Alf laylah wa laylah (or "The Thousand And One Nights").

I am highly skeptical and do not believe in the miracles (healing and exorcism) and resurrection of Jesus, the plagues in Egypt and Parting of the Red Sea, the Creation and the Flood, Elijah's ascension on the chariot of fire, etc, so what make you think I couldn't possibly believe in more exaggerated Qur'an's version of the Books of the People?

 

[Popeyesays]

I don't believe in the existence of Solomon, but at least the account of the Kings didn't add supernatural-fairytale-type phenomena like controlling demons and djinns, or that of Solomon's understanding the speeches of birds and ants, or controlling the winds. And even if I didn't believe in Solomon, I found the Kings is far more reliable and realistic than Qur'anic version of Solomon.

I found the whole Genesis' creation unrealistic, but it had no nonsense about Satan competing against Adam in animal-naming contest - the cause of Satan's Fall.



Your Islamic version is less believable than that of the Bible.

As I said before, it is not the contradictions that make me think it is man-made, it is the contents and context. Muhammad's version just seemed to be more embellished one. Your Islamic version of the biblical events seemed to be as believable as the Alf laylah wa laylah (or "The Thousand And One Nights").

I am highly skeptical and do not believe in the miracles (healing and exorcism) and resurrection of Jesus, the plagues in Egypt and Parting of the Red Sea, the Creation and the Flood, Elijah's ascension on the chariot of fire, etc, so what make you think I couldn't possibly believe in more exaggerated Qur'an's version of the Books of the People?

The Thousand and One Nights were Persian tradition, not Arabic. Other than that, one can do worse than acknowledge all those Biblical and Qur'anic stories as allegory containing spiritual truths rather than literal history.

Regards,
Scott

 

[gnostic]

The Thousand and One Nights were Persian tradition, not Arabic. Other than that, one can do worse than acknowledge all those Biblical and Qur'anic stories as allegory containing spiritual truths rather than literal history.

An allegory with spiritual truth is still a work of fiction, no matter how you would paint the picture.

There are elements of truths in The Odyssey and from the The Lord of the Rings, both which I admired, but it is still mythical with the former and fantasy with the later. Nevertheless, both are fictional. It doesn't matter how much allegories are in the scriptures, elements of truth, don't make it whole truth, therefore the Bible and Qur'an are largely fictional.

Do you think the Islamic version about Solomon have any scientific merit? Nawab seemed to think so, since he think that modern science agreed with 80% of the Qur'an, then this must be one of them.

It makes no difference if it is Persian tradition or Arabic tradition, the Qur'an still contained fables and fairytales. That's what I am getting at. As I said it is no better than of stories within 1001 Nights, like that of Sindbad and Aladdin. Tell me, do you believe in Solomon controlling demons and djinns, an army-full of them, doing his bidding? If you believe this to be only allegory, then where is the truth behind this Solomon's abilities?

It is certainly have nothing to do with divine wisdom, unless you think that Allah is divine storyteller or myth-maker. If you think the later (God being a myth-maker), then I would believe you. But if you want me to take it seriously, as many Muslims do, then I have to say you and the Muslims in general need a reality check.

I don't deny that may be wisdom in some of the teachings found in both bible and qur'an, but many of it have been borrowed from other civilisations and cultures, and most of them are archaic, crude and brutal, and have no place today, eg the jihad and the shariah laws.

The jihad and shariah have been subjects of abuses by followers, today, and it is one I would like to see Muslims get rid off, but they are so entrenched and enshrined in customs and traditions, so I don't see any hope of this happening any time soon. I see these practices as being narrow-minded, oppressive and barbaric.

The bottom line is this. Spiritual truth don't make it as being factual truth. PERIOD. And without factual truth, I can't accept it being truth at all. So if your religion is based largely on allegories, then your religion is nothing more than illusions and delusions.

I can't put it more bluntly and frankly as that.

 

[Popeyesays]

The Illiad was meant to be historical, and archeology and the historicity is confirmed by written tablets unearthed in ruins in and around the Black Sea area.

In spiritual text the allegory is MEANT to have levels of meaning that are universally true. Explaining the allegory of Adam and Eve, Ab du'l Baha uses three pages of text to explain ONE interpretation that has nothing to do with literal meaning hten ends his analysis with saying: "This is but one meaning, discern the others for yourself."

For that matter fiction can be enlightening in and of itself, the author intended it to have wide appeal when he wrote it in most cases. Herman Hesse, Camus, Voltaire, Bunyan, etc. wrote allegory unabashedly in the guiswe of fiction.

In short fiction is as fiction does. Spiritual wisdom seems obtuse to those who want it to be obtuse.

Regards,
Scott

 

[gnostic]

In spiritual text the allegory is MEANT to have levels of meaning that are universally true....

For that matter fiction can be enlightening in and of itself, the author intended it to have wide appeal when he wrote it in most cases.

As I have said, fiction can contain truth and meanings within its story, or tried to explain or teach a lesson. Allegory being the same way, still make it - a work of fiction.

What is fiction?

A narrated story that can be long and short, would have meaning for the author but a meaning for the readers to discover for themselves. The fiction may or may not have something from life-experience, either the author's or someone else that may have inspired him (or her).

Since fiction is extreme broad category - or distinct genre, allegory would fall under this category, no matter how much universal truth or hidden meaning within its story.

Allegory is essentially a story, and if the bible, qur'an or some other scriptures contained allegory, then they are fiction - with a genre known as "allegory".

You are quibbling over the allegory being a separate to fiction when allegory actually falls under its category.

If you say that "this or that" in the bible or qur'an as being allegory, then characters, like Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, are like your deity and satan, they are inspiring and powerful figures, but are nothing more than fictional figures.

 

[Popeyesays]

Main Entry: al·le·go·ry Pronunciation: \ˈa-lə-ˌgȯr-ē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural al·le·go·ries Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek allēgoria, from allēgorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -ēgorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly — more at else, agora Date: 14th century 1: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression2: a symbolic representation : emblem 2

 

[YmirGF]

Main Entry: al·le·go·ry Pronunciation: \ˈa-lə-ˌgȯr-ē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural al·le·go·ries Etymology: Middle English allegorie, from Latin allegoria, from Greek allēgoria, from allēgorein to speak figuratively, from allos other + -ēgorein to speak publicly, from agora assembly — more at else, agora Date: 14th century 1: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence; also : an instance (as in a story or painting) of such expression2: a symbolic representation : emblem 2

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. - J.R.R. Tolkien


I am with ol' J.R.R. 100% on his sentiments on the merit of allegory. Show me an allegorical tale and I'll show you a tale not worthy of reading.

 

[Popeyesays]

I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. - J.R.R. Tolkien

I am with ol' J.R.R. 100% on his sentiments on the merit of allegory.

In spite of the highly allegorical end to the Ring Trilogy "The Scouring of the Shire"?

Regards,
Scott

 

[YmirGF]

In spite of the highly allegorical end to the Ring Trilogy "The Scouring of the Shire"?

Regards,
Scott

J.R.R denied any allegorical content in the Lord of the Rings regardless of what others have read into the story. If you percieve that it is allegorical, you are mistaken.