Vanderbilt Muslim chaplain advocated capital punishment for gay people.

[Perfect Circle]

[snip]There's the statement. Where's the proof?

There we go! I thought we might go an entire thread without seeing this... but no such luck...

In the future, would anyone be interested in starting a pool to bet on which post Fati uses this phrase in first for any thread he's involved in?

 

[Perfect Circle]

:sarcastic
The term and its indication has no place in Islam.

There is no special group has a religious authority over the people. The religious authority is the authority of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and the authority of enjoing what's right and forbidding what's wrong which is given to every sane adult Muslim.

Pardon my ignorance, but what would you define an Imam/Mullah/Ayatollah/Caliph as? They seem to fulfill the same function as a Rabbi or Minister...

 

[Fatihah]

There we go! I thought we might go an entire thread without seeing this... but no such luck...

In the future, would anyone be interested in starting a pool to bet on which post Fati uses this phrase in first for any thread he's involved in?

Response: Well, it it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's a motto I follow as well. As for your pool, it wouldn't be much of a bet. The phrase alone is evidence enough as to when it's going to be used.

 

[Sahar]

No, it wasn't too much detail at all. It helped a lot actually.

I am glad to know this. Alhamdulillah.

Pardon my ignorance, but what would you define an Imam/Mullah/Ayatollah/Caliph as? They seem to fulfill the same function as a Rabbi or Minister...

Imam means a leader. It could refer to Imam of the country; the leader of the country i.e the political leadership, Imam of the prayer in congregation or Imam simply refers to a scholar.
Caliph denotes the political leadership of the Ummah.

The Shi'a have a different story.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Imam means a leader. It could refer to Imam of the country; the leader of the country i.e the political leadership, Imam of the prayer in congregation or Imam simply refers to a scholar.
Caliph denotes the political leadership of the Ummah.

The Shi'a have a different story.

Gotcha. It seems as though it just semantics here. When I mean clergy, I'm not implying a hierarchy like the Catholic church or anything. By clergy, I just mean any religious leader with some sort of community authority.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Response: Well, it it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's a motto I follow as well. As for your pool, it wouldn't be much of a bet. The phrase alone is evidence enough as to when it's going to be used.

Ehh... I don't know. I would change the wording a little if I were you.. Maybe something like "There's the statement, where's the evidence?" or "...where's the source?".

It's not math.. you're never going to get proof.

 

[Sahar]

Gotcha. It seems as though it just semantics here. When I mean clergy, I'm not implying a hierarchy like the Catholic church or anything. By clergy, I just mean any religious leader with some sort of community authority.

There is a difference between religious authority and political authority. The scholar doesn't have this kind of religious authority that you are talking about except maybe the authority of enjoining good and forbidding evil which is given to every Muslim who is sane, able and adult (it's not unique to scholars).
There is no one has a religious authority over me. When you say a "religious leader", I would simply tell you "what do you mean? cuz I don't have one", "the leader who I know is the president of my country Hosni Mubarak."
You can simply say "a scholar", someone who is specialized in the Islamic studies and have deeper knowledge than me.

 

[YmirGF]

You can simply say "a scholar", someone who is specialized in the Islamic studies and have deeper knowledge than me.

The simple fact is that many people follow the thinking of given "scholar" and can quite correctly be said to be "followers" of said thinking, which, be default, makes said "scholar" their leader.

 

[Perfect Circle]

The simple fact is that many people follow the thinking of given "scholar" and can quite correctly be said to be "followers" of said thinking, which, be default, makes said "scholar" their leader.

Exactly. I could just as easily call a Christian minister a scholar because he's attended a seminary and is very well versed in subjects pertaining to Christianity. But he's still what I would consider clergy.

Regardless... it's just semantics. I'll refer to them as "Islamic Scholars" in the future if it will clarify things.

 

[Sahar]

Call it teacher, leader, sheikh...what I am basically discussing is the idea of religious authority.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There we go! I thought we might go an entire thread without seeing this... but no such luck...

In the future, would anyone be interested in starting a pool to bet on which post Fati uses this phrase in first for any thread he's involved in?

No pool necessary - just wait for the first post Fatty can't come up with a meaningful objection to. Normally, this takes about 3 posts on average.

 

[Fatihah]

No pool necessary - just wait for the first post Fatty can't come up with a meaningful objection to. Normally, this takes about 3 posts on average.

Response: Yet according to your own words above, the pot is calling the kettle black. Except in your case, it won't take 3 post. We'll see it in your next post.

 

[Autodidact]

Response: You've explained this before. True. And as always, I've responded with the same response. (So you should be familiar with it). There's the statement. Where's the proof? You seem to think that saying so is proof that it is so. Thus the fact that you continue to do so just confirms the fact that you have no proof, thus confirming your denial.

Well, we're pretty far off the subject of this thread.

When trying to prove the validity of the qur'an, you cited the qur'an. It's a circular argument. What you proved, in effect, is that if the qur'an is true, then the qur'an is true. Watch: I'll do the same thing. See if you can spot the problem.

My posts are a source of eternal truth. The test for this is that if this post ends in the word true, then you will know it is true. And lo', it ends in the word true, so you know it is true.

 

[Autodidact]

I am glad to know this. Alhamdulillah.


Imam means a leader. It could refer to Imam of the country; the leader of the country i.e the political leadership, Imam of the prayer in congregation or Imam simply refers to a scholar.
Caliph denotes the political leadership of the Ummah.

The Shi'a have a different story.

btw it's similar in Judaism. "Rabbi" means teacher. His or her only authority is from their scholarship. People respect their learning, so do what they say. They have no authority over anyone. There is no hierarchy.

 

[Fatihah]

Well, we're pretty far off the subject of this thread.

When trying to prove the validity of the qur'an, you cited the qur'an. It's a circular argument. What you proved, in effect, is that if the qur'an is true, then the qur'an is true. Watch: I'll do the same thing. See if you can spot the problem.

My posts are a source of eternal truth. The test for this is that if this post ends in the word true, then you will know it is true. And lo', it ends in the word true, so you know it is true.

Response: Apparently, you don't have a clue as to what circular logic is. At no time did I say that the qur'an is true because the qur'an is true, nor did the verses say so, nor can you quote my words saying otherwise. Once again, your point is without substance. And the simple fact that you've avoided the challenge once again, only confirms your denial once more.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Response: In the qur'an we read:

"Will they not, then meditate upon the qur'an? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy". Surah 4:82.

"And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to our Servant, then produce a chapter like it, and call upon your helpers, beside Allah, if you are truthful". Surah 2:23.

Here we have two tests which confirms that the qur'an is the true word of Allah(swt). For not only is it free of discrepancy, but it is humanly impossible to produce a chapter like the qur'an, confirming that it is not the work of man or any person for that matter. If you disagree, the challenge still stands. Find a discrepancy in the qur'an and produce a chapter like the qur'an.

I agree with Autodidact. You claim the Qur'an has no discrepancies, but your only evidence is Surah 4:82, which says no one has found a discrepancy. But as you know, there are several threads on this forum where we have discussed errors/contradictions/discrepancies/inaccuracies in the Qur'an. Usually whether something is an error, or inaccurate, or imperfect or not comes down to a person's subjective judgment.

For example, you and other Muslims usually argue that the meaning is complex or subtle or poetic, or intended for a different audience, or use special pleading, in order to make the problems disappear. If the subtle or poetic language seems to agree with something scientific, then it is literal, however. You pick and choose. With enough imagination, it's always possible to interpret scriptures in a way that makes perfect sense out of them. You can see other religious people doing the exact same thing, with Taoist or Jewish or Christian or Manichaean or Zoroastrian or Hindu or Mormon scriptures.

If advanced intelligent beings wanted to give us information that can be proven to be perfect and without any error, they could send proofs of advanced mathematical theorems. Or they could accurately describe the nature of molecules and all the elementary atoms, how micro-organisms cause disease, what is the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy, or what are the fundamental laws of physics. Or what is the mass of the electron. Or the exact times/dates and locations of sunspots, or several digits of pi around the trillionth decimal. Or how to produce penicillin, how to construct a steam engine or printing press, or how to vaccinate people. That kind of information is truly indisputable, there's no subjective judgment as to how "perfect" or accurate it is.

But apologists will say, oh, that would be too much proof. That would spoil the test of faith. So which is it? Does the Qur'an provide indisputable proof or not?

The most compelling "proofs" from the Qur'an I have seen posted on this forum are (1) it's dark under the water, and (2) a 1 centimeter human embryo looks like a lump of flesh. Wow. Incredible. :sarcastic

And by the way, I have read many chapters which are far more technical than the Qur'an and I do not know of any error or discrepancy within them. The margin for error in those chapters is far smaller and yet I often do not find any errors. And I have read chapters that are like the ones I have read in the Qur'an. In fact, many of them are more clear, accurate, eloquent, useful and true than the chapters of the Qur'an I have read.

 

[Fatihah]

I agree with Autodidact. You claim the Qur'an has no discrepancies, but your only evidence is Surah 4:82, which says no one has found a discrepancy. But as you know, there are several threads on this forum where we have discussed errors/contradictions/discrepancies/inaccuracies in the Qur'an. Usually whether something is an error, or inaccurate, or imperfect or not comes down to a person's subjective judgment.

For example, you and other Muslims usually argue that the meaning is complex or subtle or poetic, or intended for a different audience, or use special pleading, in order to make the problems disappear. If the subtle or poetic language seems to agree with something scientific, then it is literal, however. You pick and choose. With enough imagination, it's always possible to interpret scriptures in a way that makes perfect sense out of them. You can see other religious people doing the exact same thing, with Taoist or Jewish or Christian or Manichaean or Zoroastrian or Hindu or Mormon scriptures.

If advanced intelligent beings wanted to give us information that can be proven to be perfect and without any error, they could send proofs of advanced mathematical theorems. Or they could accurately describe the nature of molecules and all the elementary atoms, how micro-organisms cause disease, what is the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy, or what are the fundamental laws of physics. Or what is the mass of the electron. Or the exact times/dates and locations of sunspots, or several digits of pi around the trillionth decimal. Or how to produce penicillin, how to construct a steam engine or printing press, or how to vaccinate people. That kind of information is truly indisputable, there's no subjective judgment as to how "perfect" or accurate it is.

But apologists will say, oh, that would be too much proof. That would spoil the test of faith. So which is it? Does the Qur'an provide indisputable proof or not?

The most compelling "proofs" from the Qur'an I have seen posted on this forum are (1) it's dark under the water, and (2) a 1 centimeter human embryo looks like a lump of flesh. Wow. Incredible. :sarcastic

And by the way, I have read many chapters which are far more technical than the Qur'an and I do not know of any error or discrepancy within them. The margin for error in those chapters is far smaller and yet I often do not find any errors. And I have read chapters that are like the ones I have read in the Qur'an. In fact, many of them are more clear, accurate, eloquent, useful and true than the chapters of the Qur'an I have read.

Response: At no time have I said or provided evidence saying that the qur'an is free of discrepancy because it says so. Thus the only thing you have in common with Autodidact so far is adding to the post words which are not there, then disputing them. By doing so, your refuting another argument, not mine. The proof that the qur'an is free from discrepancy is due to the simple fact that neither you, nor anyone, can find a discrepancy in it. Not because it says so.

As for reading chapters which are far more technical than the qur'an, I say good for you. However, the challenge of the qur'an still stands, which is to produce a chapter like the qur'an. If the qur'an is the work of man and is humanly possible to create, then prove it to us. Produce a chapter like the qur'an, if you are truthful. And when you do so and fail, that alone will be the indisputable proof that the qur'an is from Allah(swt).

And by producing a chapter like the qur'an, it doesn't mean to write a book or poetry in arabic. For the qur'an is not just a book of arabic. The challenge is to produce the same miracle as Muhammad(saw). And what is that miracle?

That miracle is, that it is absolutely impossible for a person/s to create their own religion and use their made up religion to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation.

This is the miracle of the qur'an. This is the miracle of Muhammad. Because Muhammad did in fact use the qur'an to inspire enough followers to conquer a nation. So to those who claim that this was the act of a man made religion, then why don't you do the same? Why don't you create your own religion and see how far you get? And when you do, you will fail. Not only will you will fail, you will fail miserably. Muhammad conquered Arabia. I guarantee you, you won't even be able to conquer your own neighborhood. And once you fail, you will be forced to ask yourself the question "why was it possible for Muhammad but impossible for me and anyone else?" That is when you will come to realize that it was the help of Allah that made it possible for Muhammad. Without Allah, even Muhammad would have failed. You disagree, the 1400+ year challenge still stands.

 

[Sahar]

btw it's similar in Judaism. "Rabbi" means teacher. His or her only authority is from their scholarship. People respect their learning, so do what they say. They have no authority over anyone. There is no hierarchy.

Oh, I see.

 

[Sahar]

I agree with Autodidact. You claim the Qur'an has no discrepancies, but your only evidence is Surah 4:82, which says no one has found a discrepancy. But as you know, there are several threads on this forum where we have discussed errors/contradictions/discrepancies/inaccuracies in the Qur'an.

Really?

If advanced intelligent beings wanted to give us information that can be proven to be perfect and without any error, they could send proofs of advanced mathematical theorems. Or they could accurately describe the nature of molecules and all the elementary atoms, how micro-organisms cause disease, what is the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy, or what are the fundamental laws of physics. Or what is the mass of the electron. Or the exact times/dates and locations of sunspots, or several digits of pi around the trillionth decimal. Or how to produce penicillin, how to construct a steam engine or printing press, or how to vaccinate people. That kind of information is truly indisputable, there's no subjective judgment as to how "perfect" or accurate it is.

You are confused about the nature of the Qur'an.

 

[Sahar]

Religion has an inherent duty to adjust itself to modern sciences and thoughts, not the other way around. A religion that doesn't keep up with the times is doomed.

Islam has no problem with science. And I don't see why should Islam adjust to the Western thoughts (which of course are the modern thoughts ).

btw from Wikipedia:

The term sexual preference has a similar meaning to sexual orientation, but it may be interpreted as endorsing the notion that sexual orientation is, in whole or part, a matter of choice.