Messages

16

General Discussions / Re: Should only Muslims be allowed to visit the Kaaba in Mecca?

« on: November 02, 2017, 04:57:19 AM »

Hi,

The verse says it's unclean for the idolaters but not monotheistic believers. Hence if anyone believes in the one God regardless of them being Christian, Jew, Muslim or even Hindu then I don't see why it shouldn't be OK.

The purpose it would serve is in unifying people to one God rather than keeping them as separate groups.

17

General Discussions / Should only Muslims be allowed to visit the Kaaba in Mecca?

« on: October 19, 2017, 05:40:07 PM »

Hi,

Just wanted to get peoples thoughts on whether only Muslims should be allowed to visit the Kaaba. The Quran says that the Kaaba is for all men, it doesn't say that it's only for Muslims. My thoughts are that anyone should be allowed to visit regardless of their religion.

Thanks

18

General Discussions / Re: seeing allah in jannah

« on: October 18, 2017, 08:52:27 PM »

My understanding from the Quran is that we will see God in heaven. There are a number of verses in the Quran which mention hands, face and eyes of God. I don't think seeing God in anyway limits God because we are just seeing an image/representation of him. God is much more than that, but as limited beings created by God (including the Angels) we interact in a certain way in the reality which God has created. So we see, hear, smell, taste, etc. The Children of Israel actually heard the voice of God so that says we can hear God's voice but that in no way limits God. Also Moses nearly saw God.

I also think God is going to be the most beautiful thing humans will see, those humans which make it to heaven. It's just a shame that many of us including me don't have have a really strong desire to see him as I believe that is the ultimate reward one can have, much greater than being granted heaven.

19

General Discussions / Re: Disturbing Questions

« on: February 14, 2016, 05:31:25 AM »

The covenant was that God is our Lord and worthy of worship.

I don't know what conditions we took the pledge in. Maybe we had bodies, maybe not. Did it really matter? I'm sure we had some fundamental understanding of what good and evil were as well. God wouldn't make us take a pledge we didn't understand.

Salam

If "God wouldn't make us take a pledge we didn't understand" then I don't think God Almighty would make us forget it and then allegedly remind us in a book many thousands of years later.

20

General Discussions / Re: Disturbing Questions

« on: February 08, 2016, 07:16:24 AM »

Salaam Samson,

By saying Bani Adam and their descendants, the Quran in my view, is emphasising that it is all of mankind from time immemorial.

Secondly by forgetting a covenant is not equal to breaking a covenant. If we never forgot then we would never sin and there would not be a test or struggle in life so the purpose of it would be somewhat defeated.

Mia666
yes I understand what you are saying and agree with it

Another thing, when mankind was supposedly brought into being and took this "pledge" or "covenant", we're we all alive? Did we have our bodies? Did we see, listen? Did we understand what God is, what creation is, what good and evil is? etc, etc.

And what exactly is the covenant or pledge?

21

General Discussions / Re: Disturbing Questions

« on: February 07, 2016, 09:51:39 AM »

Salaam Samson,

By saying Bani Adam and their descendants, the Quran in my view, is emphasising that it is all of mankind from time immemorial.

Secondly by forgetting a covenant is not equal to breaking a covenant. If we never forgot then we would never sin and there would not be a test or struggle in life so the purpose of it would be somewhat defeated.

Mia666
yes I understand what you are saying and agree with it

Believers knowingly sin and have sinned in the past. The children of Israel saw clear miracles in front of their eyes en mass and chose to disobey God.

22

General Discussions / Re: Contextual Problems in Quran[55:xx]

« on: February 07, 2016, 03:37:55 AM »

Peace to all

In Q[55:1-13], the text is focused on human beings (Inns), no mention of JAn, and in Q[55:13], it immediately switches to both humans and JAn.

In Q[55:18-21], it talks about separation of two waters, which is a favor for humans and hardly a favor for JAns, still addresses both in Q[55:21].

In Q[55:22:23], what would be the use of pearl and coral for JAns? Because, it addresses both Inns and JAn in Q[55:23].

In Q[55:24:25], How do JAns sail in the waters and use vessels? Because, it addresses both Inns and JAn in Q[55:25].

In Q[55:56, 72, 74], talks about Houris, Undeflowered, again, addresses both Inns and JAn in the next verse.

Are JAns in need of water, garden, fruits, vessels, houris and other things which are visible things and not transparent? Or, there is a contextual problem here. Any explanation?

Thanks!

Maybe Jinnkind use those things in different way?

23

General Discussions / Re: No Sect!

« on: February 05, 2016, 03:25:14 AM »

Very good. But I think you're missing Christianity, Judaism and maybe some other faiths.

24

General Discussions / Re: Disturbing Questions

« on: February 02, 2016, 04:38:20 PM »

Salaam Samson,

You said:

which I think is common, is both illogical and doesn't make sense in the context of the other verses surrounding it. The interpretation is illogical because it doesn't make sense to make entire mankind to testify to something which now they no longer remember.

You are welcome to disagree, but may I first ask you what 'Bani Adam' means when used in the Quran and it is used a lot?

Secondly it is not illogical that a covenant is taken and we have forgotten about it because if we all remember then what is our test?

The taking of the covenant and testifying to the truth is what results in our 'fitrah' (primordial human nature) being born. That inherent nature is what instrinsically tells us what is right or wrong even if you are an atheist.

From our fitrah we either nurture it further to do good or descend into wrongdoing.

As with many words in the Quran you have to take a look at the context in which they are used. You seem to be ignoring the context of the verse.

First of all immediately after "bani Adam" it says "from their loins their descendants". Now if "bani Adam" referred to mankind then it doesn't make sense that the descendants of mankind were made to testify. Rather it should just be left as "bani Adam" and not be made more specific.

Secondly, in verse 7:173 it basically says that we can't use the excuse that we were just following the way of our fathers who had taken false gods.

"Or lest ye should say: "Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them: wilt Thou then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?"" - 7:173.

How we got our "fitrah" is mentioned in 82:7. We were simply given a just bias, it is part of God's design.

"Him Who created thee. Fashioned thee in due proportion, and gave thee a just bias;" - 82:7

To say that we took a covenant and then were made to forget the covenant is simply illogical. It breaks the purpose of taking a covenant as a covenant by definition is to be remembered. If God makes us forget the covenant then it would be grossly unfair to be accused of breaking something we had no idea we had taken.

Our test in this world is simply to see if we will conduct ourselves properly as stated in verse 18:7.

That which is on earth we have made but as a glittering show for the earth, in order that We may test them - as to which of them are best in conduct. 18:7

Iblis's goal is to divert us away from the path of God where we worship our desires by going after the things of this world/life. Note that in Quran it says that if you ask them who created the heavens and earth then they will say Allah. But even though they KNOW this they still worship other things.

If indeed thou ask them who it is that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, "Allah". Say: "See ye then? the things that ye invoke besides Allah,- can they, if Allah wills some Penalty for me, remove His Penalty?- Or if He wills some Grace for me, can they keep back his Grace?" Say: "Sufficient is Allah for me! In Him trust those who put their trust." - 39:38

So it's not really about testifying that there is one God, many of the polytheists already knew/know this. For the polytheists it's about why they have taken other things beside God for worship. The same applied to some of the Children of Israel who took to idol worship even though they knew it was forbidden.

Hope the above makes sense.

25

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: February 01, 2016, 06:28:31 AM »

Hassan, the link below may make for easier reading.

https://ay201b.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/formation-of-planetesimals/ - Section "The first half of the story: from dust to planetesimals"

The key paragraphs are:

"But what about the first chapters: how do we even get planetesimals in the first place?  How do tiny dust particles build up to create compact solids a kilometer in diameter?  This is one of the major questions remaining in planet formation research and although much progress has been made, the first half of the book as yet to be written."

and

"Growth of planetesimals gets increasingly difficult as sizes approach a meter because binding energies decline while relative velocities increase.  According to Chambers (2010), with turbulence disruptive collisions between a meter-sized and a much smaller planetesimal are frequent because relative speeds of 100 m/s are often reached and it is difficult to get larger bodies.  Youdin (2008) also discusses other issues (both theoretical and observation) with growing large bodies via collisions.  Since we need kilometer-sized planetesimals to proceed with the second half of our story, we have a problem which is usually called the “meter-size barrier” in the literature."

To summarise, dust does not naturally collect and form a larger and larger mass.

26

General Discussions / Re: Disturbing Questions

« on: January 31, 2016, 05:21:03 PM »

Salaam Samson,

I just want to correct you on your statement:
The quran doesn't say that every soul took a pledge. It's referring to the children of Adam's children not all of mankind.

"And when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, (saying to them), "Am I not your Lord?"- They said: "Yes! We have testified!" (This), less you should say on the Day of Judgment: "Indeed, of this we were never aware" (7:172)

The above is referring to mankind as throughout the Quran, 'Bani Adam' (Children of Adam) denotes mankind. Also by referring to 'their descendants' it means the entirety of the human race

Sorry TruthSeeker but I have to disagree. Your interpretation, which I think is common, is both illogical and doesn't make sense in the context of the other verses surrounding it. The interpretation is illogical because it doesn't make sense to make entire mankind to testify to something which now they no longer remember.

Also the verse clearly says God "took from the children of Adam" their descendants. If we substitute 'Bani Adam'/mankind in the above verse then it will mean God took the descendants from 'mankind' which doesn't make sense.

Optimist explains it well.

Related to the topic, let me give you some more points to think about.  There are certain verses which are normally taken to mean we had a previous life, verses like, 3:81 (taking a pledge from all prophets);  and 7:172 (taking pledge from all human being), etc.  I liked Muhammed Asad transaltion for the said verses;

(7:172) AND WHENEVER thy Sustainer brings forth their offspring from the loins of the children of Adam, He [thus] calls upon them to bear witness about themselves: "Am I not your Sustainer?" - to which they answer: "Yea, indeed, we do bear witness thereto!"139 [Of this We remind you,] lest you say on the Day of Resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this"; (7:173) or lest you say, "Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventors of falsehoods?"

 139 In the original, this passage is in the past tense ("He brought forth", "He asked them", etc.), thus stressing the continuous recurrence of the above metaphorical "question" and "answer": a continuity which is more clearly brought out in translation by the use of the present tense. According to the Qur'an, the ability to perceive the existence of the Supreme Power is inborn in human nature (fitrah); and it is this instinctive cognition - which may or may not be subsequently blurred by self-indulgence or adverse environmental influences - that makes every sane human being "bear witness about himself" before God. As so often in the Qur'an, God's "speaking" and man's "answering" is a metonym for the creative act of God and of man's existential response to it.

Well, according to me, if  we accept the traditional transalation to mean that this was an incident that took place before the advent of human being,  we will find it difficult to explain  the meaning of the subsequent verse that follows "lest you say on the Day of resurrection, "Verily, we were unaware of this"; or lest you say, "Verily, it was but our forefathers who, in times gone by, began to ascribe divinity to other beings beside God; and we were but their late offspring: wilt Thou, then, destroy us for the doings of those inventors of falsehoods?"    BECAUSE, since NOT ONE human being remembers such a ‘promise’ made before Allah and it does not make any sense to hold anyone responsible for violating the promise.  As per the traditional understanding it would mean that there is no need to send warners and prophets because according to the verse this pledge was sufficient enough NOT TO come up with any excuses like being unaware of the fact or being mislead by forefathers!!  However, Quran says in 17:16 that  Allah will NOT GIVE any punishment to any people or nation or towns UNLESS Allah has sent or appointed a messenger and they are sufficiently warned.

Also, the following is the translation given by Muhammed Asad for 3:81 (normally translated by classical translators to mean an incident that took place when Allah gathered all the prophets at a particular moment of time before the advent of human being).

"AND, LO, God accepted, through the prophets, this solemn pledge [from the followers of earlier revelation]: "If, after all the revelation and the wisdom which I have vouchsafed unto you, there comes to you an apostle confirming the truth already in your possession, you must believe in him and succour him. Do you" – said He – "acknowledge and accept My bond on this condition?" They answered: "We do acknowledge it."Said He: "Then bear witness [thereto], and I shall be your witness." (3:81)

This covenant was that when any subsequent prophet comes validating the claims and promises made in their scriptures, they should accept him and also aid him.  The Quran described the issue in this way to show the unity of prophethood, and uniformity of their teachings.  In fact this verse is simply stating that  this solemn pledge was associated with prophethood of each and every prophet. 

27

General Discussions / Re: Disturbing Questions

« on: January 30, 2016, 04:37:53 AM »

Salam all

I found an interesting answer for question #2. It's weird that I'm answering my own challenges, but as I said I didn't come up with them, and we're in this together.

So the Quran says that before the advent of this life, all souls took a pledge that God was their only Lord, so that they would have no excuse on Judgement Day. I think Joseph mentioned this in one of his articles. Thus, all babies are born with the knowledge and love of their Lord. So Allah loves them by default.

It is only when they turn away from God and consciously disbelieve that He stops loving them. Allah only casts off those who cast Him off, if that makes sense.

The idea that all children are born as believers is not readily apparent unless you pay attention to the fact that every soul took a pledge before birth. This fact, along with the fact that God is essentially loving and caring, led me to the above conclusion. All verses about God not liking disbelievers have to be viewed through the lens of His natural love, which is only revoked when we shirk our duties.

Bye!

Mia

The quran doesn't say that every soul took a pledge. It's referring to the children of Adam's children not all of mankind.

28

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: January 28, 2016, 05:40:34 PM »

How do planets/stars/asteroids etc. form?

I think the following two sites will suffice

How stars form:
http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how-does-a-star-form/

How planets form:
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form

Forgive me for asking, but do you by any chance adhere to the young earth creationist view of with regards to the age of the earth and universe? If yes, what theory, if any, do you have with respect to the 'true' age of the earth/universe?

Good research. However like the vast majority of people you've been mislead by articles such as this. They come across as providing a scientific explanation yet there is no citation of experiments to prove/demonstrate their explanation.

Take a look at the following link which involves actual real experimentation.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/wisdom/extrasolar/Canup.pdf

I think it helps to understand what the facts are first before going on to making speculations about what may/may not have happened in the past which we have no idea of proving beyond doubt.

29

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: January 27, 2016, 06:21:51 PM »

Salaam samson,

No I am not done with our discussion. School resumed, so I've been burden with school-work.

God-willing I shall cite you those sources I was referring to. Apologies for the wait.

In the mean time, have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

Peace.

No problem, school is important.

Lets start with the basics. How do planets/stars/asteroids etc. form? It's not accretion. If you think it is then show me real experoments which prove this.

30

General Discussions / Re: Program of Creation of Man on Earth, in light of Quran.

« on: January 27, 2016, 06:05:09 AM »

As I said earlier, I believe "six" days is of significance and the fact that there is no further confirmation that those days are thousands or tens of thousands of years or more.

But again, on what grounds can you assert that the word ayyamin (as in 6 ayyamin) automatically means six(6) human days? I am of the opinion that the word ayyamin (as in 6 ayyamin) means six periods or epochs, and not six human days; but if you say otherwise, then the burden is on you to prove said assertion from the Quran.
So when the Quran says that Allah created the universe in six days, that would mean six days with Allah, but for us it would be mean six periods or epochs.

Just one or 2 evidences will do for now as if too many is listed it's hard to take it all in and respond to them.

I will bear that in mind.

Hassan are you done with the above or are you still gathering the evidence?