Ask About Islam

[KWED]

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that Google would get it that wrong, please provide a link to support your claim.

I carried out a variety of searches using different key words and had no results that matched their claim. The top results for every search were quite clear about the definition containing the concept of misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.
Busted!

 

[KWED]

Honestly, I meant it more as a joke. Saying they might like it because they know Muslims don't eat it. It's a way to rub in our faces how delicious it is, it's because it's sin to us, it tastes all that much better.

You think non-muslims like pork because it it is a sin for Muslims?

I didn't think people would take the comment that serious.

None of this is "that serious". It is an informal, online debate forum. However, given your posting history, one cannot assume what you say is a "joke" simply because it sounds ridiculous.

 

[Sheldon]

If you want to debate evolution, please go to that thread to debate, I am not here to debate evolution. That is not what my thread is about.

There you go again trying to tell other posters what they can say, if you don't want to hear about evolution then don't make references to facile superstitious creation myths that contradict the scientific facts. Otherwise you ill get to hear about it, whether you want to or not, just as happened the facile nonsense claiming pigs were dirty animals, and eating them was harmful.

 

[KWED]

If we have a soul, it would be evidence.

What even is "a soul"? Before you can look for something you must have an idea of what it is.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't need scientific evidences to prove my belief in my Creator.

Perhaps that's just as well, as there is no scientific evidence for any deity.

It is all around if one can see.

That is demonstrably false, my eyesight is perfectly sound and I have seen no objective evidence for any deity in the 56+ years I have lived on this planet.

In Islam, The Quran is a book of fact.

Facts are not subjective, they are universal. The Quran as has been shown makes claims that are contradicted by known scientific facts, its creation myth like that of the bible, is clearly errant nonsense. Human knowledge has moved on.

 

[Link]

You think non-muslims like pork because it it is a sin for Muslims?

No I don't, I'm just joking. I brought it as a possibility, as a joke.

 

[Link]

The principles behind selective breeding were known long before Islam was invented.

But feel free to quote the passage and we can see what it actually says.

You do have a good point.
Then he asked: O Muhammad, how is it that sometimes a child resembles his maternal uncle and not the paternal uncle? And sometimes he resembles his paternal uncle and not the maternal? He (S) said: He resembles one whose fluid is dominant over the other.

 

[Sheldon]

Differences in morality is all attack on morality as well. If you don't believe morality, then yeah, there is no proof of God. But this argument is still strong because most people know morality exists and is not an illusion nor are we an illusion.

It's hard to fathom much of that, but morality is subjective concept. Also all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups, have evolved the ability to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, they likely couldn't exist in such groups otherwise. So there is plenty of evidence that human morality has it's precursors in our earlier evolution.

 

[Link]

What even is "a soul"? Before you can look for something you must have an idea of what it is.

A soul would know what a soul is.

 

[MyM]

You do have a good point.
Then he asked: O Muhammad, how is it that sometimes a child resembles his maternal uncle and not the paternal uncle? And sometimes he resembles his paternal uncle and not the maternal? He (S) said: He resembles one whose fluid is dominant over the other.

maybe you got uncle in the wrong place?

The Prophet pbuh was asked how come the baby sometimes resembles the father and sometimes resembles the mother, and he said: “If the water of the man precedes the water of the woman, the child will resemble him, and if the water of the woman precedes the water of the man, the child will resemble her.” Muslim

 

[Link]

maybe you got uncle in the wrong place?

He is saying why sometimes he resembles mom's side of family over father's side of the family or vice versa. Rasool (s) says, it's which fluid of the mother or father is dominant.

 

[MyM]

He is saying why sometimes he resembles mom's side of family over father's side of the family or vice versa. Rasool (s) says, it's which fluid of the mother or father is dominant.

yeah it was just the word usage that you used is all

 

[Sheldon]

Tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a) talks about dominant genes and recessive genes. It doesn't use the word genes but explains the concept. Now no one knew that back then except on Authority of Ahlulbayt (a). It was not a scientific fact till recently.

If you are interested I will quote it.

I am very dubious, as these kind of claims that the Quran contains only recently discovered scientific facts, usually turn out to be laughably false, with the most tenuous assertions being interpreted to mean things they don't remotely explain.

@KWED

Then he asked: O Muhammad, how is it that sometimes a child resembles his maternal uncle and not the paternal uncle? And sometimes he resembles his paternal uncle and not the maternal? He (S) said: He resembles one whose fluid is dominant over the other.

Well there you go, to claim that facile observation in the passage quoted, is remotely evidence that the author had any knowledge of recessive genes is risible nonsense sorry. These claims always turn out to be exactly like this, wildly errant nonsense.

 

[KWED]

@KWED

Then he asked: O Muhammad, how is it that sometimes a child resembles his maternal uncle and not the paternal uncle? And sometimes he resembles his paternal uncle and not the maternal? He (S) said: He resembles one whose fluid is dominant over the other.

I couldn't find any reference to your claim.
However, I did find a sahih hadith where Muhammad said
"if the man had ejaculated first during intercourse, the child would resemble his father while if the wife ejaculated first, the child would look like his mother." (Sahih Bukhari)
which is obvious nonsense.

 

[Link]

I couldn't find any reference to your claim.
However, I did find a sahih hadith where Muhammad said
"if the man had ejaculated first during intercourse, the child would resemble his father while if the wife ejaculated first, the child would look like his mother." (Sahih Bukhari)
which is obvious nonsense.

Okay that is none-sense, but the quote I referenced is in tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a).

 

[KWED]

I brought it as a possibility, as a joke.

Which one?

 

[Sheldon]

I carried out a variety of searches using different key words and had no results that matched their claim. The top results for every search were quite clear about the definition containing the concept of misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.
Busted!

Oh I'm guessing that false claim will go unaddressed, and for pretty obvious reasons, as all they would have to do is post a link to the result of the Google search to lend some credence to the claim. A more likely explanation is the complete lack of interest in being rational, and making sound arguments is yet again at play, and it was another dishonest attempt to deflect.

 

[KWED]

A soul would know what a soul is.

That didn't really get us anywhere, did it?

 

[Link]

Which one?

More on the joke side. But who knows

 

[Link]

That didn't really get us anywhere, did it?

It does. It means if there is a soul, then we know what a soul is. The question is not about how we would know or not. It's then about if do we know or not.