Messages

151

General Discussions / Re: The Existence of Jinnaat in Islamic Point of View

« on: January 13, 2016, 09:35:55 PM »

Weren't jinn thought to exist before the Quran? Arabs already believed in them and apparently communicated with them, or thought they communicated with them, or something.

Jinn are probably the same as the demons and spirits mentioned in the Bible, but I was wondering why the Quran talks so much about the jinn, who are considered to be mythological. I mean, according to the Quran they actually exist, but why does the Quran talk so much about a creature that seemingly has its roots in folklore? Do you think the Arabs were right and jinn really did exist, and the Quran confirmed this belief?

Arabs also worshipped jinn at that time. It's possible that the Quran mentioned jinn to stop Arabs from worshiping them, to show that jinn are just creations like humans and angels. Any thoughts?

152

Discussions / Re: Evolution Adam and Eve

« on: January 12, 2016, 08:10:58 AM »

This is a thread on which Joseph shared his opinion:

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=370.msg1112#msg1112

He says that early human species (or kind of human species, like apes or semi-apes) and modern humans shared a common ancestor.

But this common ancestor cannot be Adam and Eve. Their progeny couldn't possibly have included monkeys.

So were Adam and Eve part of the pretty-much-human subspecies that developed from this "common ancestor"? But they didn't have parents, did they?

I would like for Brother JAI and forum members to clarify this issue

Sorry, edit--Brother JAI stated that when God created Adam, he did it by initiating a très long evolutionary process. So Adam had parents that originated from this insanely long evolutionary process? I'm so confused.

153

Discussions / Evolution Adam and Eve

« on: January 12, 2016, 08:04:37 AM »

Salam

I was reading this Nat Geo article that caught my attention. Neanderthals lived for a long time before modern humans, and apparently they could speak, conducted funeral rituals, drew pictures, etc. They sound quite human to me, but they lived separately from "modern humans" for thousands of years.

Apparently today's humans have Neanderthal DNA, indicating a common ancestor between the 2 subspecies. However, Adam and Eve were the first humans, weren't they? And all other humans were descended from them? This is my understanding of the issue from monotheistic scripture. So is it possible that Adam and Eve were the common ancestors of modern humans and Neanderthals, and they sort of evolved into these 2 different races as time passed?

However, a common ancestor of both subspecies would have been distinctly simpler than even Neanderthals. It's unclear whether such an ancestor would have been able to speak, let alone be a vicegerent of God.

So what happened with this whole evolution thing, and where did Adam and Eve come in? Were they before both Neanderthals and modern humans, or what? Neanderthals and modern humans had to share ancestor(s), since they're related. However it's unclear whether these ancestors were Adam and Eve, or if they were even human.

Where do you draw the line between evolution and religion? Adam and Eve had to be fully human, but I'm not even sure what constitutes a "fully human" being at that time.

154

General Discussions / Re: Ayat 65 Of Surat Nisa'i: We Owe This To The Prophet.

« on: January 12, 2016, 07:01:04 AM »

LOL, one of the mods can fix that I think. Not your fault.

The Quran is fully detailed. We do not need hadiths. I think all possible evidence has been provided on this issue. It's up to those concerned to make their decision

155

General Discussions / Re: Verse 39:55 Issues

« on: January 12, 2016, 06:58:44 AM »

So it's just saying to follow God's commandments correctly?

God's revelation includes the Quran, Bible, etc., but the Bible and other books have been corrupted. So it's possible that this verse is telling us to follow only the Quran?

...

156

General Discussions / Re: Ayat 65 Of Surat Nisa'i: We Owe This To The Prophet.

« on: January 11, 2016, 10:14:42 AM »

Salam

The Quran tells us how to pray, just not specifically. The specifics are left to the situation and culture.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/prayer%20without%20hadith%20FM3.htm

http://quransmessage.com/articles/the%20five%20prayers%20from%20the%20quran%20FM3.htm

http://quransmessage.com/articles/3%20or%205%20prayers%20FM3.htm

And on zakah:

http://quransmessage.com/articles/zakah%20FM3.htm

We are ordered to pay zakah from what is reasonable. Everything else is left up to our financial situation.

And speaking of this, where do the hadiths tell us, specifically, rakah by rakah, how to pray?? And why do you follow the ablution given in hadiths when the Quran has a perfectly good (and much shorter) version?

Hadiths mess things up. The Quran simplifies things.

Please see:

https://www.facebook.com/Quransmessage/posts/623078324405578

Your argument is a common one issued against Quran-centric thinking, and it's been refuted ages ago.

The Quran-centric approach does not get rid of all hadiths, by the way. We filter hadiths through the lens of the Quran and get wisdom from the good ones. However, hadiths do not hold any religious authority in themselves. Only God gets to issue decrees. If Bukhari starts laying down his own laws in God's name, that's to his own detriment.

Just our take on things Please see the articles, they'll explain a lot

157

General Discussions / Verse 39:55 Issues

« on: January 11, 2016, 10:06:19 AM »

Bonjour and salam:)

"And follow the best of what was revealed to you from your Lord before the punishment comes upon you suddenly while you do not perceive"--39.55

Isn't all of the Quran "the best"?

So why is it saying to specifically follow the best of what God revealed? Everything that God revealed is the best, right?

I'd like to know the opinions of other forum members on this issue:)

158

General Discussions / Re: The Quran supports a Geocentric view of the universe?

« on: January 11, 2016, 02:27:35 AM »

Hi everyone

Samson: God didn't mention in the Quran that the earth is round because He didn't think He needed to. And that's fine. We need to stop reading into the Quran to support our preconceived notions. The fact is that the Quran is absolutely neutral on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, because there's no reason it should teach us science. The Quran was revealed to 7th century Arabs to teach them religion, not to destroy their ideas of science and magic.

Hicham9: The Quran is not meant to be a science book. It is silent on the issue of heliocentrism. It simply alludes to the fact that celestial bodies move, and it talks about how God spread out the land for us to live in, but it's not meant to teach us science, and we shouldn't read into it that way.
PERIOD.

The earth is not flat. Conspiracy theorists are leading you into delusion. Seriously. The earth is round, and it goes around the sun, and the tilt of its axis causes seasons. Day and night occur in different parts of the world at the same time. How would any of this happen if it were flat?! The constellations in the night sky that we can see change with time, seasonal and annually. How would THIS happen if the earth were flat?! And why should earth be flat when Mars and Jupiter and all other planets are round?! Gravity makes them round! It is a scientific impossibility that earth is flat. It is a logical fallacy. The experiments that you cited are merely mistakes and aberrations. They are easily refuted. Be careful what you believe.

I am leaving this discussion right about now.

Bye.

159

General Discussions / Re: The Quran supports a Geocentric view of the universe?

« on: January 10, 2016, 04:53:40 AM »

Hassan: Exactly. The Quran is not saying that the planet itself is flat. Besides, nearly all celestial solid bodies the size of planets are spherical. They have to be, because gravity pushes them into that configuration. They couldn't exist otherwise, with the forces of gravity at work.

Hicham9: I can see that you are never, ever going to be convinced. You have rejected all of our evidence and used numerous logical fallacies in your arguments. You still have no evidence to back up your claims. You provided pictures, but you yourself say that pictures can be edited and falsified. You told us the Quran supports geocentrism and a flat earth, but this was due to a mistranslation, which we corrected. You have no more ground to stand upon. From my understanding, this absurd "debate" is over, since you refuse to see the obvious. Well, we tried our best to convince you. We cannot do anything more.

160

General Discussions / Re: The Quran supports a Geocentric view of the universe?

« on: January 10, 2016, 02:00:14 AM »

Yes, "ard" can mean surface of the earth or land. It is unspecified. Words used in the Quran have multiple meanings, and we are expected to follow the best meaning. The best meaning of "ard" in this context is "land." This usage adheres to sense and science.

With due respect, please stop repeating arguments that have already been refuted.

Mia

161

General Discussions / Re: The Quran supports a Geocentric view of the universe?

« on: January 10, 2016, 01:55:19 AM »

Salam Hassan. I guess we've all joined the irrational fray again. Well well.

Quranic Arabic Corpus is a pretty good tool for checking the authenticity of translations, because word-by-word morphology rarely lies. You can twist around vague translations of verses to suit your preconceived notions, but it's a lot harder when you're translating word for word.

It's a nice site for non-Arabic speakers to understand the Quran, my dear Hicham9.

162

General Discussions / Re: The Quran supports a Geocentric view of the universe?

« on: January 10, 2016, 01:51:37 AM »

Salam Duster

You're right, it's possible that he knows Arabic. I was using him as an example to show that you don't need to speak Arabic to understand the Quran. That might be unwarranted. I didn't mean anything offensive, and if he actually does know Arabic, I apologize for assuming he doesn't.

Either way, the Quran is a guidance for the righteous, Arabic-speakers or not. But I'll refrain from citing people's backgrounds without evidence next time

Hicham9: It means "surface of the earth" in general terms. However it can also mean land:


30:2-3 - The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest/lowest LAND, and they, after their defeat, will be victorious.

As for the verse you cited, yes, a more specific term for "land" was being used. However, this does not exclude the possibility that "ard" can also mean "land" or "earth's surface" in a less specific way.

163

General Discussions / Re: Why is shirk the worst sin?

« on: January 10, 2016, 01:19:15 AM »

Hi samson! I agree with you on certain points: yes, shirk can be likened to adultery. However, adultery offends the other partner greatly and makes them sad. I don't think God gets sad when people commit shirk, because nobody can harm God or make Him sad. However, He does get angry, because these people are wronging their own souls. Either way, you raised a good point.

164

General Discussions / Re: The Quran supports a Geocentric view of the universe?

« on: January 10, 2016, 01:16:53 AM »

Hicham9, no more pictures, please. You yourself claim that pictures can be edited and falsified. You are cherry-picking by providing pictures of your own. This is a logical issue.

And as I said: The word "ard" means "surface of earth" or "land", not earth. Yes, the Quran says the land was leveled/spread out for us to use it. It does not say the earth itself was leveled. Why do you keep ignoring this fact? I should probably stop replying to you, but you are repeatedly ignoring the factual information that I'm giving you, and I can't let that go unnoticed.

165

General Discussions / Re: The Quran supports a Geocentric view of the universe?

« on: January 10, 2016, 01:13:28 AM »

I want to clarify: THE QURAN DOES NOT EXPLICITLY STATE THAT THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN. Neither does it explicitly state that the Earth is round, unless you consider the meaning of the word "dahaha" to  be "egg-shaped". It does not explicitly state any of this.

And it shouldn't. It is not a science book. It is religious scripture. It neither supports the geocentric theory or denies it. The Arabs believed in the geocentric theory at the time of revelation. The Quran didn't aim to change their views on science, because if Muhammad started saying the Earth was round and went around the sun, the Arabs would have called him a big liar. The Quran provided a neutral position on this issue, and there is wisdom behind this.