Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Nope, no reading comprehension failures:

And the throes (of childbirth) compelled her to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten!

Then (the child) called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you;

Sigh.

shafique wrote:You seem to be having a failure in reading young lad. Go back and read again, there is nothing in God's words that says that Jesus had the conversation when he was one day old. Fail.

Let me repeat - no where in the Quran does God say Jesus was one day old (or even in his first few months of life). 19.24 specifically does not say it was Jesus who spoke at that point - it was an angel.

Therefore, the question that eh is still ducking (and I won't stop asking) remains:


Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.


So, which is it?

Let me repeat - no where in the Quran does God say Jesus was one day old (or even in his first few months of life). 19.24 specifically does not say it was Jesus who spoke at that point - it was an angel.

It sounds like, O wise one, that your argument is not with me but with translators who believe that it was Jesus (not an angel) who spoke to Mary.

(But thanks for highlighting the 'clear' passages of the Koran when Muslim scholars are even unsure who the speakers of certain passages are)


Further, your argument is one from silence - the Koran says that Mary then traveled back to her village after giving birth - that's what the Koran says and what I have highlighted before. That Mary stayed in the desert on her own for a few months is a story you must invent.

The Koran is clear that Mary did not stay in the desert for a few months living from a dead tree - she returned to her family immediately after Jesus spoke to her - that's what the Koran says.

I've no problem with any person's translation - I'm just making the point that God does not say Jesus spoke at one day old. 19.24 does not say who the one speaking is, and I agree with the translators and tafseers who say the voice was that of an angel. The translators that speculate that it was Jesus are at pains to put the word 'child' in brackets -i.e. it is not in the Arabic text.

I've been pretty consistent - I'm just stating what God says and does not say in the Quran. I've also been quite clear that your interpretation and inferences are your own, and you're entitled to interpret and interpolate to your heart's content. I'm just pointing out that God does not say Jesus was one day old.

Therefore, the question that eh is still ducking (and I won't stop asking) remains:


Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.


So, which is it?

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm sorry. But, unfortunately, once again, the Koran does say that Jesus spoke after he was born.

After the disputed speaker in v .24 was finished speaking, the Koran says that Mary then traveled back to her village to meet with her family.

Unfortunately, it's your wild speculation and claims that the Koran should not be read literally that Mary must have stayed in the desert by her lonesome self for the next several months.

But, as I said, the Koran does not leave room for that interpretation.

shafique wrote:and I agree with the translators and tafseers who say the voice was that of an angel.

Sure they do. You wouldn't mind quoting these Tafsirists by any chance, now would you ???

As I keep repeating, God does not say that Jesus spoke at one day old.

You are now debating whether your interpretation is more valid than other interpretations - eg speculating how long Mary and child were away from home, and speculating that she was alone in that period.

As for 19.24 -first look at the word for word translation:
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... 9&verse=24

And this is how Tafsir al Jalalayn translates the verse:
Then he called her from below her, namely, Gabriel — for he was lower than her, ‘Do not grieve. Your Lord has made below you a rivulet, a river of water, which had dried up.
http://quran.com/19/24


And just to save you some time, here's info about the Tafsir:
Tafsir al-Jalalayn

Tafsir al-Jalalayn is one of the most significant tafsirs for the study of the Qur’an. Composed by the two “Jalals” -- Jalal al-Din al-Mahalli (d. 864 ah / 1459 ce) and his pupil Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911 ah / 1505 ce), Tafsir al-Jalalayn is generally regarded as one of the most easily accessible works of Qur’anic exegesis because of its simple style and one volume length.


So, we come back to the same point - God does not say that Jesus spoke at one day old.

Now, we've got that out of the way...

Therefore, the question that eh is still ducking (and I won't stop asking) remains:


Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.

Which is it?

Cheers,
Shafique

Another Tafsir:

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

(Then (one) cried unto her from below her) i.e. Gabriel, (saying: Grieve not) O Mary over the birth of Jesus! (Thy Lord hath placed a rivulet beneath thee) a prophet beneath you; it is also said that this means: Jesus cried unto her from beneath her: grieve not your Lord has placed a stream beneath you,

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=19&tAyahNo=24&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Moving on to the next scientific absurdity, the Koran describes the phenomenon of talking ants - not only are ants able to speak, but their speech may also be understood by humans:

27:16-20

And Solomon was David's heir, and he said, 'Men, we have been taught the speech of the birds, and we have been given of everything; surely this is indeed the manifest bounty.'

And his hosts were mustered to Solomon, jinn, men and birds, duly disposed;

till, when they came on the Valley of Ants, an ant said, 'Ants, enter your dwelling-places, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, being unaware!'

But he smiled, laughing at its words, and he said, 'My Lord, dispose me that I may be thankful for Thy blessing wherewith Thou hast blessed me and my father and mother, and that I may do righteousness well-pleasing to Thee; and do Thou admit me, by Thy mercy, amongst Thy righteous servants.'

-- Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:50 pm --

shafique wrote:Another Tafsir:

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

(Then (one) cried unto her from below her) i.e. Gabriel, (saying: Grieve not) O Mary over the birth of Jesus! (Thy Lord hath placed a rivulet beneath thee) a prophet beneath you; it is also said that this means: Jesus cried unto her from beneath her: grieve not your Lord has placed a stream beneath you,

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=19&tAyahNo=24&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

LoL.

Hey, I'm glad we agree the Koran is a 'clear' and 'complete' book - where readers are unsure who the actual speaker of a passage is.

Yup, that's very complete.

shafique wrote:Now, we've got that out of the way...

Therefore, the question that eh is still ducking (and I won't stop asking) remains:


Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.

Which is it?

Answer this and I'll gladly 'move on' (and good to see you've finally thrown in the towel on Jesus speaking at one day old!)

Cheers,
Shafique

(and good to see you've finally thrown in the towel on Jesus speaking at one day old!)

Hardly, snowball.

The Koran is quite clear that Mary gave birth and was instructed to not speak to any mortal that day (either by Jesus or Gabriel, 'scholars' have to guess).

The Koran then says that Mary then traveled back to her village.

I've given you plenty of chances to defend your belief based on what the Koran says but you seem to have passed it up. More, you have not addressed any of the evidence from the Koran which says that Jesus, the day he was born, was able to speak.

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp? ... 9&verse=26

Ok, cool - we keep coming back to the same point - God does not say that Jesus spoke at one day old in 19.26 - the link shows the word for word translation (thanks), but you are desperate to infer this. We've quoted tafsir's that show 19.24 does not relate to Jesus speaking - so this 'one day old' malarky is just your wishful thinking.

Let's move on, as you say:

shafique wrote:Now, we've got that out of the way...

Therefore, the question that eh is still ducking (and I won't stop asking) remains:


Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.

Which is it?

We've quoted tafsir's that show 19.24 does not relate to Jesus speaking

Where was this shown ?

What was the evidence presented ?

I thought we both agreed that it was down to personal interpretation - some translators put Jesus in brackets and others put Gabriel in brackets.

In fact, just doing a quick search, I stumble upon this commentary (pg 71):

Allah (swt) begins this ayah by saying “Then one called out to her from below her”. At
that moment of difficulty, at this moment of pain, she (as) heard a voice calling out to her. The
voice was coming from beneath her. Whose voice was this? Most of the scholars say that it was
the voice of ‘Isa (as). It was the voice of her baby. Her infant, only a few minutes old, was
speaking to her. A Miracle from Allah (swt).

http://quran-tafsir.org/maryam.pdf#zoom=100

But hey, I'm liable to change my mind. Do you have any evidence from the Koran that Jesus was *not* a day old when he first spoke ?

After you admit that you don't have a leg to stand on, we can move on to the next scientific absurdity from the Koran - talking ants !

event horizon wrote:Start off with a hilariously absurd passage and move on from there:

Koran 54:1-2

The Hour has drawn nigh: the moon is split.

Yet if they see a sign they turn away, and they say 'A continuous sorcery!'

Let's see if anyone can defend this passage - then I'll move on to the other scientific absurdities in the Koran.

ITS TRUE!!

http://miracles-of-allah.blogspot.com/2 ... -moon.html

Yup, that's what many Muslims are saying after NASA discovered 'cracks' on the moon's surface.

Perhaps shafique will change his tune now that he believes there is scientific evidence behind the moon being split in two - as the Koran says.

As I said - let's move on, as you say:

shafique wrote:Now, we've got that out of the way...

Therefore, the question that eh is still ducking (and I won't stop asking) remains:


Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.

Which is it?

(I've been answering your questions, so I'll just wait patiently for you to answer the above before tackling the latest batch of allegations from you trying to show that the Quran contains the kind of scientific absurdities you believe the Bible contains - and which I'll show don't exist in the Quran)

Cheers,
Shafique

Let me know when you're ready to stay on topic.

I'm currently waiting for your rebuttal that the Jesus did not speak at one day of age.

Then, when you acknowledge that you have no argument, we can move on to talking ants.....

You already have shown that God does not say Jesus spoke when he was one day old - and that it is only something you wish to infer.

As I said - let's move on, as you say:

shafique wrote:Now, we've got that out of the way...

Therefore, the question that eh is still ducking (and I won't stop asking) remains:


Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.

Which is it?

(I've been answering your questions, so I'll just wait patiently for you to answer the above before tackling the latest batch of allegations from you trying to show that the Quran contains the kind of scientific absurdities you believe the Bible contains - and which I'll show don't exist in the Quran)

Cheers,
Shafique

If your question is relevant to the thread, I'll be happy to answer it.

Otherwise, it is just off-topic.

You already have shown that God does not say Jesus spoke when he was one day old - and that it is only something you wish to infer.

On the contrary, I have shown that Mary is instructed not to speak to any mortal the day she gave birth by Jesus - most Muslims believe that Jesus told her this while some others believe that it was Gabriel.

You have not disputed this passage and I've waited patiently for you to provide your own evidence that the Koran should not be interpreted literally where it says that Mary was told not to speak to any mortal the day she gave birth.

event horizon wrote:If your question is relevant to the thread, I'll be happy to answer it.

Ok, fair enough.

Let's see what you wrote earlier in this thread.

event horizon wrote:So you agree with me that the Koran is scientifically inaccurate and therefore not the word of god.

philosophy-dubai/koran-and-science-t41858.html#p336296


So, the relevant question remains

shafique wrote:Given you now admit that the Bible contains 'scientific absurdities' and you argued that if the same applied to the Quran it would therefore not be the word of God - do you therefore believe the Bible is not the word of God or are you a hypocrite?
Two options:
1. You believe Bible is not the word of God because it describes the sun stopping in the sky for a day, and you believe this happened despite there being no scientific explanation for this,
2. You are a hypocrite.

Which is it?

(I've been answering your questions, so I'll just wait patiently for you to answer the above before tackling the latest batch of allegations from you trying to show that the Quran contains the kind of scientific absurdities you believe the Bible contains - and which I'll show don't exist in the Quran)

Cheers,
Shafique

I thought it was pretty obvious that there is a difference between a 'miracle' and a phenomenon that the Koran takes for granted.

Miracles in the Koran include Jesus being able to speak as a one day old infant, splitting of the moon, animating birds from clay, raising the dead back to life, creating natural disasters at the whim of a higher being (as opposed to scientific explanations as for why earthquakes and volcanoes are really triggered) - all of these are scientifically impossible, but they are explained away as miracles or through divine intervention.

If you want to go further than that, angels and other supernatural beings communicating with humans are scientific absurdities. I thought all of this was kind of obvious.

As for what the Koran takes for granted, then I refer you to the Koran cosmology thread where the Koran incorrectly explains the workings of the world and universe. Some other examples are errors in the fields of embryology, entomology and zoology.

Now we can get back to talking ants.

Are ants capable of advanced communication as claimed in the Koranic verse and, if so, are humans able to understand ant speech (which mimics the speaking abilities of humans) without the aid of sophisticated equipment ?

event horizon wrote:I thought it was pretty obvious that there is a difference between a 'miracle' and a phenomenon that the Koran takes for granted.

So, your loon logic is that you believe in scientific absurdities (like the sun stopping in the sky for a day) as long as you label it a 'miracle'.

At least that is consistent with your refusal to condemn war crimes - such as enslaving of 32,000 virgins, the slaughter of babies etc - as long as the Bible tells you that the excuse for these crimes is 'God told them to do it'.

Therefore by your own logic, all the 'scientific absurdities' you think are in it can be explained away by the phrase 'God can do what He likes, and what you think happened is a miracle, not a scientific absurdity'.

Now, the fact that rational Muslims don't have to resort to this argument is neither here nor there - as you believe that the sun can stop in the sky for a day despite this being scientifically absurd. And the only reason you believe this happened, is that you want to believe the Bible is word of God.

But even though this a cop-out, I agree with you - I do indeed maintain that there is nothing in the Quran that is scientifically absurd (whilst you believe in the scientifically absurd 'miracles' in the Bible and you believe these are in the Quran too).

So - given you think the animation of birds, a belief that Jesus spoke at one year old etc are miracles - and don't need to adhere to science - then we need to concentrate on the descriptions of nature that God gives in the Quran and see whether these accord with science or not.

So therefore we have in your logic 1. descriptions of miracles (where science doesn't apply), 2. literal descriptions of nature and 3. metaphorical descriptions (for you have agreed that God says the Quran contains metaphors).


Clearly, all the exchanges so far show that God's words in the Quran about nature fit into categories 2 and 3 without a problem, and you believe that un-scientific miracles can explain category 1 descriptions (but I have a different view).

So, as a rational Muslim, I don't reject science - but you do, as long as it is labelled a 'miracle'. That is indeed a worthy conclusion to this long exchange.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:So, your loon logic is that you believe in scientific absurdities (like the sun stopping in the sky for a day) as long as you label it a 'miracle'.

Well, my loon logic tells me that an 'angel' from another dimension appearing in front of humans isn't any less scientifically absurd than the earth seemingly stopping for a day.

[Mod apology - sorry eh, I deleted the rest of your post in error. I clicked on Edit instead of Quote by mistake and lost the rest of your post]

Apologies again for the above.. please try and repost.

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:So, your loon logic is that you believe in scientific absurdities (like the sun stopping in the sky for a day) as long as you label it a 'miracle'.

Well, my loon logic tells me that an 'angel' from another dimension appearing in front of humans isn't any less scientifically absurd than the earth seemingly stopping for a day.

Sorry, but according to science - what dimension do angels inhabit?

To me saying the sun stopped in the sky for a whole day is clearly violating the laws of physics as we understand them - I mean the earth has to stop rotating for 24 hours and that just can't happen.

However, what happens in the spiritual realm is outside of the laws of physics - by definition. At least that's what rational Muslims believe.

But anyway - you believe that the Bible's account of the Sun stopping in the sky did happen even though it violates science - i.e. is a scientific absurdity. You want to equate it to communication that God and Angels have with humans - I guess that's a coherent ideology - I mean if you really believe God stopped the earth rotating, then of course all other 'miraculous' descriptions can be attributed to 'God did it, the Bible tells me so'.

However, I keep coming back to the point that you started this thread to try and show that the Quran contains verses that describe events that are contrary to science and then infer from this that the Quran can't be the word of God because it contains scientific absurdities.

Loon logic is really fascinating that way - great to see these leaps of logic.

No wonder you guys have these weird beliefs such as Rapture, and can justify the slaughter of women and children and enslavement of virgins - all because the Bible tells you it is ok.

Does it not surprise you that scientists can't comprehend this blind rejection of science and rationality?

Cheers,
Shafique

Let me know, Adolf, when you're done editing posts and are ready to deal with the Koran's claims that ants have the ability to communicate with humans.

First let's get this new belief about Angels and science out of the way, and sort out once and for all your loon logic that has you believing that the sun can stop in the sky for a day 'because the Bible says so' despite this being scientifically absurd - and explaining this away as 'a miracle'. Doesn't this make you a hypocrite for trying to show that the Quran is like the Bible? (Which unfortunately for you, you've been unable to show thus far)

Young man, you seem to have painted yourself into a corner - arguing that if the Quran contains scientific absurdities it can't be the word of God, yet in the process having to admit that the Bible does contain scientific absurdities!

Guru Bob will be so disappointed in you, young loon.

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually, I'm just using your own argument against you.

I never claimed that the Bible contains scientific miracles in it.

But Muslims do claim the Koran contains scientific miracles.

And Muslims claim that these supposed miracles in the Koran are proof that the Koran is allah's word.

So, Muslims have set themselves up for a mighty fall since it is easy to prove that the Koran is not allah's word - since, according to Muslims, allah would not put false information into the Koran (such as the ability for ants to speak to communicate to humans).

Now that we have cleared this up, are you ready to acknowledge that the Koran is scientifically inaccurate - and therefore not the word of allah - for claiming that ants could talk to humans ?

Ok, I'm glad you're taking the time now to clarify respective positions.

You believe that the Bible contains scientific absurdities (such as the sun stopping in the sky for a whole day) and say this happened because the Bible says so, and that it is a 'miracle'.

My position has been consistent and can be summarised in the quote from Professor Abdus Salam:

There is not a single verse in the Quran where natural phenomena are described and which contradicts what we know for certain from our discoveries in Sciences.

philosophy-dubai/abdus-salam-nobel-prize-winner-t41151.html

I don't recall every using the word 'scientific miracle' to the Quran - but leaving that aside, all along you've been trying to disprove that the Quran and science aren't in unity as stated above. You've thus far failed.

But what is revealing, is that as a result of your trying to show that the Quran contains scientific absurdities - you've had to admit that this is what you believe of the Bible.

That makes you a hypocrite - as well as the other titles you've earned from your posts here - eg loon and most extreme religious fanatic poster.

You say it is 'easy to prove that the Koran is not allah's word' - but yet you have failed in multiple threads so far to disprove Prof Abdus Salam's quote above.

The loon reality-distortion field must be working in over-drive!!

Cheers,
Shafique

Talking ants ?

Really ?

Science supports the ability for humans to understand ant 'speech' ?

And that ant speech is just as complicated and developed as human speech ?

Wow.

What's the matter young loon?

Not happy that you've been exposed as a hypocrite for believing the Bible contains scientific absurdities and now desperately trying to show that if we squint, look sideways and chant loon songs we'll find the same in the Quran?

Anyway - so you want to talk about talking ants.

1. No science does not support your interpretation of these verses.
2. Al Naml refers to a tribe with that name.

Next.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm sorry, is that your arguments that ants can communicate with humans ?