Believers and Disbelievers

[Rajina]

I will grand that if there is a mistake or contradiction it would be evidence against its divinity. However that doesn't mean that lack of contradiction (especially written by one man) isn't evidence of divinity. One man writing it makes it less likely to create contradiction.

If there is any mistake or contradiction in Quran, then its an evidence against its divinity.
The absence of such mistakes and contradictions may not be a proof for its divinity but it is an evidence in support of its divinity. There is a difference between something being a proof and something being an evidence.

This evidence is more strong, because it was not initially in a written form and the verses where recited by Prophet Muhammad instantaneously at various situations during a time span of 23 years. The verses were not preplanned, since most of them had connection with the situation in which it was recited.

In terms of scientific issues the salt and fresh water mixing is a pretty solid hit against it. They do mix all the time. There are a few really neat phenomenon where salt and fresh water have been side by side without mixing but by in large they do mix on a regular basis.

Happy that you searched google to find the contradictions in Quran. But you should have made the slightest attempt to open the Qur'an and see the verse by yourself and then check whether this argument is valid or not.

This is the verse which you are talking about:
"And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition." Qur'an (25:53)

Does this verse say that salt water and fresh water will never mix?

You will find these kind of contradictions listed in websites like wikiislam and answeringislam like 'earth is flat', 'elephants and birds fight' and so on. All you have to do is just open the Qur'an and read those verses by yourself. Qur'an talks a lot about nature, sun, moon, stars, birds, animals, trees, wind, and a lot more. It is amazing that even after 1400 years since it was revealed, we cannot find even a single contradiction in the Qur'an. And people who have been desperately trying to find contradictions in Qur'an, create mistranslations, misinterpretations(by taking verses out of context) and false arguments to show that there are contradictions in Qur'an.

Aside from the fact that this is not my language so I cannot re-create it in Arabic it seems a simple enough task. But what are the criteria? What is it being judged upon? What makes those three verses better than the Buddhist sutra? To me I see no objective or inherent advantage the Qur'an has against already existing works. So help me understand how you judge it.

Even If you were an expert in Arabic language you cannot do it. You feel like its a simple task because you have only read the translations. The translations just convey the meaning of the verses as understood by the translator; a lot of Arabic words doesn't even have equivalents in English; translations doesn't convey the style and mode of presentation. This challenge was initially posed to the 7th century Arabs, who were at the peak of eloquence in Arabic language. They had a big need to break this challenge because the call of Qur'an to monotheism, to the abolition of idolatry, and to the equality of slaves and their masters, was a threat to the business and the socio-economic position of the people of Mecca. The challenge of Qur'an was not just empty words with no one caring to prove them wrong. They tried their best to produce a chapter like that of the Qur'an, but they failed.

Please read this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'jaz

To judge whether a work produced by someone is similar to Quran or not, we just have to compare it with Qur'an. The Qur'an has a very superior eloquence. It presents the most amount of information in shortest amount of words. If we take any verse from Quran, We cannot rephrase it in a more concise form without losing any information; and this applies to every verse in the Qur'an. The Qur'an is neither in the form of a pross nor in the form of a poetry, but still maintains a structure and rhyming nature. The words used in Qur'an are precisely accurate for the context in which they are used. This is a vast topic. If you are interested, to know more, you can watch this lecture by Nouman Ali Khan:

The Tora for one. Many of the sutras of the Buddha. Then there are many others that are purely verbal with no evidence of change over time. The Vedas come from several different origins btw. They are not a single source and nor are they all from the same religion. But the Tora has remained unchanged in Jewish tradition for far longer than Islam.

I think u misunderstood my question. I did not mean whether there is any other scripture which is unchanged.I was saying that, the peculiarity of Qur'an regarding its unchangeability is that, even if we intentionally edit all the copies of Qur'an, or if we destroy all of them, there are millions who have memorized it, who can rewrite it, in its original language, without even a difference in spelling. I was asking whether there is any such book in the world, other than Qur'an?
The Thorah was a scripture revealed to Moses from the same God who revealed Injeel to Jesus and Qur'an to Muhammed. I believe that Thorah was a divine scripture. I also believe that Buddha might have been a divinely inspired person (Maybe a messenger of God).

 

[Rajina]

1. Which barrier? Are you talking about the very rare case where two different ocean currents meet at an ill defined and often moving point where it appears as if they are not mixing? Other than that we see no barriers between oceans most of the time.

In places where two seas meat, where the two seas have different densities , their water do not mix. Actually the mixing takes place at a very slow rate, that the two seas remain separate.The barrier here is not a physical wall or something, but the barrier created by the difference in densities.

2. I don't know where they thought honey came from if not from within the bee. I don't give any credence to that.

Bee keeping and honey was around for centuries before Islam. It was used for medicine, taxes, food, etc. Repeating knowledge already present in not divine. Without bees converting necture to honey nectar ferments. Any bee keeper that lost their bees for whatever reason could figure this out.

https://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/newscolumns/archives/OSL/2000/September/091400OSL.html
http://www.greektexts.com/library/Aristotle/History_of_Animals/eng/268.html

People believed that honey was formed inside the flowers. The honey bees collected it from the flowers and stored it in their hives.

“Until the 1800s it was believed that honey bees collected honey from plants and stored it unchanged. In 1853 Langstroth referred to bees gathering honey from flowers and also getting it from honeydews, and in 1880 A.I. Root still used the words nectar and honey as synonyms for the sweet liquid sectreted by flowers. But from the mid-1800s advances in chemistry made it possible to determine the composition of honey; for instance the sugars glucose and fructose were isolated and named, in 1838 and 1834 respectively (OED). Procedures for analysing sugars were developed by Fehling between 1846 and 1865. The nature and function of enzymes were discovered by the late 1880s, and in 1888 Cheshire was able to say that 'the blossoms when the bees gather nectar yield mostly cane sugar, but this undergoes inversion through the action of the salivary secretion of the bee'. It was established in 1931 that the bees add to nectar certain enzymes (from their hypopharyngeal glands) which change its sugar composition.” -The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting, by Ethel Eva Crane

3. This verse isn't talking about an expanding universe. and looked at within context it actually goes on to talk about how the heavens are a dome covering the earth and god holds it up suspended in nothing and would fall down and crush us if he wished. He even talked about falling pieces of heaven being clouds. None of which are scientifically accurate.

Where did you get this explanation from? From the Qur'an? or from the context in which it was revealed? or from the words of Prophet?
The Qur'an clearly says that
"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."

God talked about falling pieces of heaven being clouds? Where in Qur'an? Please quote the verse.

I think it is the verse 44 of Surah Al Tur, that they have misinterpreted and made it this way. The verses 30 to 49 of this Surah talks about disbelievers who deny God. In the verse 44 Allah says that even if Allah showed them a fragment from heaven falling down as His sign, they wouldn't believe. They would just belittle the sign that Allah showed them by saying it is just "Clouds gathered in heaps!"

Killing infidels, women being servants of men, saying its okay for men to beat their wives? None of that is morally sound

Qur'an doesnt teach us these kind of rules. Please dont be misguided by the lies spread against Islam. If you are intrested to know the Truth please make a sincere effort to know what actually is the message of Qur'an.

Though despite those you said that we cannot understand what is moral or correct because humans have conflicting opinions on the matter. You say that you can only find no fault in the Qur'an's version but isn't that only because you have faith that it is correct? Otherwise wouldn't it just be your opinion that its correct?

Suppose that there are two groups with contradicting opinions on the same topic. For example suppose that a group says that plastic wastes are dangerous to our planet so we should avoid using it and find an alternative for plastic which is nature friendly. Another group says that plastic is very convenient for us, since it doesn't cause any problem to us now, we needn't avoid plastic. Both these opinions cannot be correct at the same . How do we know which opinion is more wise and correct than the other?

Seeing as it was created over the course of years and years and years....not as impressive.

The fact that revelation of Qur'an was completed over a long period of time and still it doesn't contain any contradictions makes it more impressive. He was not writing it for 23 years. The verses were revealed in the form of speach. Once he recited a verse, that was final and it was not edited.

He sounds like he was a talented man but far far far from what I would expect from someone speaking as the mouthpiece of god.

You will have to say that he was not just talented, but very knowledgeable (in history, bible, science and linguistics) and experienced in creating literature works. But Prophet Muhammad was not such a person. He was an ordinary man. Even the disbelievers at his time couldn't believe that he created Quran, that they said he was doing some "magic".

If Quran is far far away from what you expect to be from a divine source, then what form of book would you expect from a divine source? I am asking this out of curiosity.

 

[Shad]

People believed that honey was formed inside the flowers. The honey bees collected it from the flowers and stored it in their hives.

Except my two sources show otherwise.

“Until the 1800s it was believed that honey bees collected honey from plants and stored it unchanged. In 1853 Langstroth referred to bees gathering honey from flowers and also getting it from honeydews, and in 1880 A.I. Root still used the words nectar and honey as synonyms for the sweet liquid sectreted by flowers. But from the mid-1800s advances in chemistry made it possible to determine the composition of honey; for instance the sugars glucose and fructose were isolated and named, in 1838 and 1834 respectively (OED). Procedures for analysing sugars were developed by Fehling between 1846 and 1865. The nature and function of enzymes were discovered by the late 1880s, and in 1888 Cheshire was able to say that 'the blossoms when the bees gather nectar yield mostly cane sugar, but this undergoes inversion through the action of the salivary secretion of the bee'. It was established in 1931 that the bees add to nectar certain enzymes (from their hypopharyngeal glands) which change its sugar composition.” -The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting, by Ethel Eva Crane

Except my source refuted the above. You didn't read otherwise you would of never made such a blunder. Both sources actually show that the belief about honey from flowers was wrong due to low honey production even during seasons with large of amount of flowering plants spreading and success. The Greeks refuted a idea Crane claims was only refute post 1800s. Crane never looked at sources from antiquity, her point is incorrect in light of this.

Your reference also refutes your own interpretation showing your interpretation is modern and ad hoc. Amusing.

 

[Midnight Rain]

In places where two seas meat, where the two seas have different densities , their water do not mix. Actually the mixing takes place at a very slow rate, that the two seas remain separate.The barrier here is not a physical wall or something, but the barrier created by the difference in densities.

Yet they mix. The line between them even changes over time. It is objectively true that they mix.

People believed that honey was formed inside the flowers. The honey bees collected it from the flowers and stored it in their hives.

“Until the 1800s it was believed that honey bees collected honey from plants and stored it unchanged. In 1853 Langstroth referred to bees gathering honey from flowers and also getting it from honeydews, and in 1880 A.I. Root still used the words nectar and honey as synonyms for the sweet liquid sectreted by flowers. But from the mid-1800s advances in chemistry made it possible to determine the composition of honey; for instance the sugars glucose and fructose were isolated and named, in 1838 and 1834 respectively (OED). Procedures for analysing sugars were developed by Fehling between 1846 and 1865. The nature and function of enzymes were discovered by the late 1880s, and in 1888 Cheshire was able to say that 'the blossoms when the bees gather nectar yield mostly cane sugar, but this undergoes inversion through the action of the salivary secretion of the bee'. It was established in 1931 that the bees add to nectar certain enzymes (from their hypopharyngeal glands) which change its sugar composition.” -The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting, by Ethel Eva Crane

Some believed it was from the flower. Not all. IT may have even been common to believe that. However it doesn't take divine inspiration from god to figure it out.

Where did you get this explanation from? From the Qur'an? or from the context in which it was revealed? or from the words of Prophet?
The Qur'an clearly says that
"And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander."

In English it is nonsensical. But in the translation as it has traditionally been interpreted *(as in prior to expanding universe theory) is that it was expanded. As in it was created and is as it is.

Qur'an doesnt teach us these kind of rules. Please dont be misguided by the lies spread against Islam. If you are intrested to know the Truth please make a sincere effort to know what actually is the message of Qur'an.

Quran (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Muslim apologists offer creative explanations to explain why Allah felt that a man's testimony in court should be valued twice as highly as a woman's, but studies consistently show that women are actually less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they make more reliable witnesses.

Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

Women are not subjugated according to your holy book? I could make a lot more points on the others but lets talk about the simple sexism first.

Suppose that there are two groups with contradicting opinions on the same topic. For example suppose that a group says that plastic wastes are dangerous to our planet so we should avoid using it and find an alternative for plastic which is nature friendly. Another group says that plastic is very convenient for us, since it doesn't cause any problem to us now, we needn't avoid plastic. Both these opinions cannot be correct at the same . How do we know which opinion is more wise and correct than the other?

By the objectively obtained evidence. Of which none has been provided for the Quran. You believe the Quran is perfect because its perfect so far. The only argument I've seen thus far is that it hasn't changed which isn't an argument for divinity.

Secondly lets follow this point through. You say that nothing can compare to the Quran in its perfection. But by what standards you don't specify. Its just that it is perfect and everything else is not perfect. But AGAIN the criteria has not been laid out. I've given examples of other things that could be considered equal or even greater than the Quran by certain criteria but you haven't specified the criteria to use.

The fact that revelation of Qur'an was completed over a long period of time and still it doesn't contain any contradictions makes it more impressive. He was not writing it for 23 years. The verses were revealed in the form of speach. Once he recited a verse, that was final and it was not edited.

So it was said. So therefore it must be true? We only know what was written down.

You will have to say that he was not just talented, but very knowledgeable (in history, bible, science and linguistics) and experienced in creating literature works. But Prophet Muhammad was not such a person. He was an ordinary man. Even the disbelievers at his time couldn't believe that he created Quran, that they said he was doing some "magic".

If Quran is far far away from what you expect to be from a divine source, then what form of book would you expect from a divine source? I am asking this out of curiosity.

Or he was talented. There is no evidence to suggest he couldn't have created it. Joseph Smith is another good example of such a man.

Something that profoundly reveals truths of this world in the way an all loving god might have. Things that have undeniable scientific instruction that brings our whole world up. Islam hasn't done this. No religion has done this. There is nothing in any of the so called holy books that couldn't have been written by men. Actually they were all written by men claiming to be divinely inspired. But when critically analyzed its simply not likely all of these claims are correct and none really carries more weight than the other.

 

[Midnight Rain]

If there is any mistake or contradiction in Quran, then its an evidence against its divinity.
The absence of such mistakes and contradictions may not be a proof for its divinity but it is an evidence in support of its divinity. There is a difference between something being a proof and something being an evidence.

This evidence is more strong, because it was not initially in a written form and the verses where recited by Prophet Muhammad instantaneously at various situations during a time span of 23 years. The verses were not preplanned, since most of them had connection with the situation in which it was recited.

It is not evidence of divinity. Unless it requires divinity to be free from contradiction.

Happy that you searched google to find the contradictions in Quran. But you should have made the slightest attempt to open the Qur'an and see the verse by yourself and then check whether this argument is valid or not.

This is the verse which you are talking about:
"And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition." Qur'an (25:53)

Does this verse say that salt water and fresh water will never mix?

You will find these kind of contradictions listed in websites like wikiislam and answeringislam like 'earth is flat', 'elephants and birds fight' and so on. All you have to do is just open the Qur'an and read those verses by yourself. Qur'an talks a lot about nature, sun, moon, stars, birds, animals, trees, wind, and a lot more. It is amazing that even after 1400 years since it was revealed, we cannot find even a single contradiction in the Qur'an. And people who have been desperately trying to find contradictions in Qur'an, create mistranslations, misinterpretations(by taking verses out of context) and false arguments to show that there are contradictions in Qur'an.

I didn't actually google it. Its just something mentioned in this thread frequently. If you would like I can google examples.

Even If you were an expert in Arabic language you cannot do it. You feel like its a simple task because you have only read the translations. The translations just convey the meaning of the verses as understood by the translator; a lot of Arabic words doesn't even have equivalents in English; translations doesn't convey the style and mode of presentation. This challenge was initially posed to the 7th century Arabs, who were at the peak of eloquence in Arabic language. They had a big need to break this challenge because the call of Qur'an to monotheism, to the abolition of idolatry, and to the equality of slaves and their masters, was a threat to the business and the socio-economic position of the people of Mecca. The challenge of Qur'an was not just empty words with no one caring to prove them wrong. They tried their best to produce a chapter like that of the Qur'an, but they failed.

Please read this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'jaz

To judge whether a work produced by someone is similar to Quran or not, we just have to compare it with Qur'an. The Qur'an has a very superior eloquence. It presents the most amount of information in shortest amount of words. If we take any verse from Quran, We cannot rephrase it in a more concise form without losing any information; and this applies to every verse in the Qur'an. The Qur'an is neither in the form of a pross nor in the form of a poetry, but still maintains a structure and rhyming nature. The words used in Qur'an are precisely accurate for the context in which they are used. This is a vast topic. If you are interested, to know more, you can watch this lecture by Nouman Ali Khan:

I disagree that there is anything divine about the Qur'an in this or even special. in the regard. What is the evidence that it is divine. You have people who have been convinced on an emotional level that have worked for it. Is there an analysis that shows how it couldn't have been written by a man ?

I think u misunderstood my question. I did not mean whether there is any other scripture which is unchanged.I was saying that, the peculiarity of Qur'an regarding its unchangeability is that, even if we intentionally edit all the copies of Qur'an, or if we destroy all of them, there are millions who have memorized it, who can rewrite it, in its original language, without even a difference in spelling. I was asking whether there is any such book in the world, other than Qur'an?
The Thorah was a scripture revealed to Moses from the same God who revealed Injeel to Jesus and Qur'an to Muhammed. I believe that Thorah was a divine scripture. I also believe that Buddha might have been a divinely inspired person (Maybe a messenger of God).

Yeah, the Torah. There are also people who have memorized the bible. Most of the sutras of the Buddha were passed down orally with no writing. Many monks in monasteries are illiterate and rest solely on the oral tradition.

Oral tradition is a unanimous theme in the history of mankind. For as far back as we can peer we know that we have rested out cultures and works of art on oral tradition. The Iliad and the Odyssey for example are LONGER than the quran all in rhyming verse in the original ancient Greek. Its profound and is considered one of the greatest works of art ever compiled. It existed for a long time before it was written down.

Oral tradition and the composing of oral poetic prose is not new. It is not uncommon and it is not special to the Quran.

 

[Rajina]

Except my two sources show otherwise.



Except my source refuted the above. You didn't read otherwise you would of never made such a blunder. Both sources actually show that the belief about honey from flowers was wrong due to low honey production even during seasons with large of amount of flowering plants spreading and success. The Greeks refuted a idea Crane claims was only refute post 1800s. Crane never looked at sources from antiquity, her point is incorrect in light of this.

Your reference also refutes your own interpretation showing your interpretation is modern and ad hoc. Amusing.

Both the links which you shared clearly shows that Aristotle did not have the idea that honey was formed inside the bees. Aristotle in his book historia animalium vaguely describes his ideas about the formation of honey. These as some of his ideas:

-Honey falls from air

“The honeycomb is made from flowers, and the materials for the wax they gather from the resinous gum of trees, while honey is distilled from dew, and is deposited chiefly at the risings of the constellations or when a rainbow is in the sky: “

“The honey, however, it does not make, but merely gathers what is deposited out of the atmosphere; and as a proof of this statement we have the known fact that occasionally bee-keepers find the hives filled with honey within the space of two or three days. Furthermore, in autumn flowers are found, but honey, if it be withdrawn, is not replaced; now, after the withdrawal of the original honey, when no food or very little is in the hives, there would be a fresh stock of honey, if the bees made it from flowers.)”

-The quality of the honey depends on the freshness of the comb in which it is stored.

"There are two seasons for making honey, spring and autumn; the spring honey is sweeter, whiter, and in every way better than the autumn honey. Superior honey comes from fresh comb, and from young shoots; the red honey is inferior, and owes its inferiority to the comb in which it is deposited, just as wine is apt to be spoiled by its cask; consequently, one should have it looked to and dried. "

-Honey is formed in flowers.

" The flowers from which they gather honey are as follows: the spindle-tree, the melilot-clover, king's-spear, myrtle, flowering-reed, withy, and broom."

Theophrastus, a student of Artistotle wrote " three ways in which honey is produced (i) in flowers (ii) from concocted moisture falling from the air and (iii) in reeds"

The Qur'an on the other hand very precicely and concisely indicates that honey is formed in the bellies of the bees. Opposed to Aristotle's view that the colour of honey depends on the freshness of comb, Qur'an clearly says that the honey that emerges from the bellies of bees is varying in color.

Qur'an also indicates that the bees referred to here are the female bees(as indicated by the word form in Arabic). Aristotle did not have this idea. In his book historia animalium, after describing his views about honey bees, he quotes some of the hypotheses put forward by other philosophers. One of those hypothesis was that the worker bees are female.

Even if Aristotle had the idea that honey was formed inside bees, still your argument is invalid. It is much like arguing that 'Muhammed(ص) , who was an illeterate arab who lived in the 7th century somehow came to know about the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers, and guessed that the ideas of Aristotle would be correct and from the ideas of Aristotle he guessed that this idea was correct, and he took utmost care to make sure that everything that he states in Quran is scientifically accurate; despite of the fact that the people to whom he was preaching were least interested in the scientific accuracy of his statements and despite of the fact that there was no way for them to check its scientific accuracy'.

 

[Mackerni]

I believe that Divinity is a natural process that goes through a process natural means. I do not believe that one can be possessed by Divinity without going through the process of obtaining that Divinity beforehand. I do not believe that there are any species in the solar system the Galaxy or the universe that has these powers.

However I do believe that there are species that may have come closer than us to obtaining these powers. I also believe the humans are destined to be the ancestors towards Divine beings. I am currently an agnostic atheist even though I do not wear that label because I do not like what that label stands for. I would rather tell people what I believe in rather than what I do not believe in. I have faith in works, faith in science, and faith in humanity. I wholeheartedly believe in globalism.

I believe in many things, God happens to not be one of them. I believe that if God existed, life for everything that exists would be different. God would and should be able to change everybody's Minds, if it meant something as significant as going to heaven or hell for eternity. Religion shouldn't be so subjective, even though the question of why is very subjective of itself. The very first people that believed in God believe that the sun was God. It's sad to think that ancient religions we're actually more accurate with current scientific knowledge than modern religion.

I certainly do think that the sun is a very important object one that should be revered and one that should be exalted. Without it no life could exist on Earth. Regarding such you wouldn't be living if it weren't for your parents. Should they be Gods as well? DSo... I'm trying to hire one of my friends as a ghostwriter, to write a religious text for me.

Divinity is not black and white it is a spectrum of colors and a spectrum that changes throughout someone's life. Some people possess more Divinity than others at different times. There are objective measures to defining and measuring divinity. Ubiquity, strength, wisdom, benevolence, and eternalness. Each and every person possesses some of the characteristics to various degrees which keep growing until that person dies.

My goal is to see that not only the human race but everything surrounding it possesses these attributes. I want to see apotheosis for all, starting with the human race. I believe in things like Manifest Destiny for the entire universe. I believe humans possess great powers that will be unlocked even further into the future.

God did not make humans. Human invented the concept of God to a striving to become unto.

 

[Rajina]

Midnight Rain, I feel like you are losing track of our previous conversations in some parts of your reply.

It is not evidence of divinity. Unless it requires divinity to be free from contradiction.

Yes that's what I am also saying. Since the clause after 'unless' is true, the clause before it is false.

I disagree that there is anything divine about the Qur'an in this or even special. in the regard. What is the evidence that it is divine. You have people who have been convinced on an emotional level that have worked for it. Is there an analysis that shows how it couldn't have been written by a man ?

I gave you a big explanation about the challenge of Qur'an and its inimitability and you are responding to it by changing the topic. So are you convinced that the challenge of Qur'an has never been met, and that Qur'an is inimitable.

Yeah, the Torah. There are also people who have memorized the bible. Most of the sutras of the Buddha were passed down orally with no writing. Many monks in monasteries are illiterate and rest solely on the oral tradition.

So do you mean to say that there are millions of people around the world who have memorized Thorah in Hebrew or New testament in biblical Aramaic or illiad and odessey in Greek and so on?

Yet they mix. The line between them even changes over time. It is objectively true that they mix.

Yes they mix at a very slow rate.. There is a barrier, doesn't mean that the barrier cannot be crossed. If there is a barrier between your house and your neighbors house, it doesn't mean that you can never go to your neighbors house.

Some believed it was from the flower. Not all. IT may have even been common to believe that. However it doesn't take divine inspiration from god to figure it out.

So do you mean that a person in seventh century could figure out something which the scientists figured out using modern technologies? Bee keeping had been in existence for thousands of years.. People who observed and studied about bees couldn't figure out that honey was formed inside the bellies of bees until 1800s.

In English it is nonsensical. But in the translation as it has traditionally been interpreted *(as in prior to expanding universe theory) is that it was expanded. As in it was created and is as it is.

Ok.. Let's not depend on English translations to learn this, after all they are all human written. Let's learn this from the actual verse in Arabic. The word for expander in this verse is Musi'oon( مُوسِعُونَ). Its root word is vasa'a( وسع ) which means “he made wide, broad, spacious, roomy, or ample.” So musi'oon means the one who widens it, or the one who broadens it and so on.. Which simply means expander.

You can look up this word in the Arabic-English Lexicon written by Edward William Lane, published in 1863, well before Hubble’s discovery. Here is the link to it:
http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/

 

[Rajina]

Quran (2:282) - (Court testimony) "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women." Muslim apologists offer creative explanations to explain why Allah felt that a man's testimony in court should be valued twice as highly as a woman's, but studies consistently show that women are actually less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they make more reliable witnesses.

Quran (2:228) - "and the men are a degree above them [women]"

Women are not subjugated according to your holy book? I could make a lot more points on the others but lets talk about the simple sexism first.

Before jumping into the explanations of the verses you have quoted, I should make it clear that Men and Women are not equal, both physically and psychologically. I dont think I have to explain the physical differences to you. Physically men are more stronger in muscle power than women. Women often have to face times of weakness like the menstrual periods, pregnancy and postnatal difficulties.
Psychologically men and women differ in the way they think, making decisions, responding to problems and in lot more ways. Due to their differences, men and women have different roles in both family and in the society. A healthy and well functioning family and society requires mutual cooperation between male and female.

Islam insists that women should not be exploited by men by taking advantage of their physical strength, Instead it insists that woman should be cared and supported by men. Every rule in Islam concerning women is for the safety and well being of women or to take off any sort of extra burden from her shoulders, so that she can lead a happy and peaceful life.

When you quoted the verse, you should have quoted it completely. This is the verse from which you quoted:

"O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah , his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is [grave] disobedience in you. And fear Allah . And Allah teaches you. And Allah is Knowing of all things."
Qur'an (2:282)

From the verse, its clear that the context is not court testimony in general. But the verse describes the rules to be followed while making a financial transaction. Qur'an insists that every debt contracts should be done with utmost care, i.e we should write it down and should be done in presence of witnesses. The witness in this case should be either 'two men' or 'one man and two women'. Why two women? Allah explains this in the same verse: "so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her". Why so for women and not for men, doesn't men make errors? Men do not face much of the psychological and physical problems faced by women. Women often have to face the premenstrual syndrome and postnatal problems which includes depression, Anger, irritability, Anxiety, Sensitivity to rejection, Sense of feeling overwhelmed, Social withdrawal etc.in addition to their physical difficulties.

The second verse which you quoted is also not complete. The translation of complete verse is like this:

"And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three menstrual periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allâh has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And they (women) have rights (over their husbands ) similar (to those of their husbands) over them to what is reasonable, but men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise." Qur'an (2:228)

Hope this is clear.

By the objectively obtained evidence. Of which none has been provided for the Quran. You believe the Quran is perfect because its perfect so far. The only argument I've seen thus far is that it hasn't changed which isn't an argument for divinity.

Secondly lets follow this point through. You say that nothing can compare to the Quran in its perfection. But by what standards you don't specify. Its just that it is perfect and everything else is not perfect. But AGAIN the criteria has not been laid out. I've given examples of other things that could be considered equal or even greater than the Quran by certain criteria but you haven't specified the criteria to use.

Again u lost track of what we were discussing about . We were talking about the rules prescribed by Quran. You said that people have different opinions about these rules and I said that, we cannot decide on the correctness of a rule based on opinions of people. To know whether a rule is correct or not, we have to do a detailed study about the effects of that rule in society or effect of absence of that rule in society with a long term vision. And I gave the example, prohibition of riba (interest) by Qur'an. Hope you are convinced that prohibition of riba is a correct rule. But you again responded to it by saying people have different opinions and it is my opinion that the rules in Qur'an are perfect. Then I asked you 'when people have two contradicting opinions about the same topic, how do we decide which one is true'. I also gave you an example. And you are responding this way???

Or he was talented. There is no evidence to suggest he couldn't have created it. Joseph Smith is another good example of such a man.

If u believe that he created it, then u will have to believe that he was not just talented but also well knowledgeable in history, astrology, embryology, entomology and lot of other fields.

Because, during his time, biblical knowledge was limited only to the scholars. Common people did not have direct access to bible. If they wanted to know anything in bible they had to consult the priests or rabbais. Since Qur'an talks a lot about the biblical history, and if Qur'an was written by Muhammad(ص) , then he should have been well knowledgeable in biblical history.Then again Quran also presents historic informations which are not present in bible and are true. For example, the name Yahya used for John the baptist, the name of Haman who was a minister of Pharoa. So he must have had historic knowledge outside bible.Quran talks about sun, moon, stars, plants, bees, birds, animals, embryology and so on and doesn't go wrong anywhere, and is precisely accurate. So if Qur'an was written by Muhammad(ص), he must have had deep knowledge about them also.

Something that profoundly reveals truths of this world in the way an all loving god might have. Things that have undeniable scientific instruction that brings our whole world up. Islam hasn't done this. No religion has done this. There is nothing in any of the so called holy books that couldn't have been written by men. Actually they were all written by men claiming to be divinely inspired. But when critically analyzed its simply not likely all of these claims are correct and none really carries more weight than the other.

Such a scripture which everyone in the world believed in has never been revealed, because this life is a test for each one of us. God created us, gave us intellect to think, gave us an an innate disposition to recognize our Lord, He sent His guidance to us through His messengers, and He has given us a free will, that is he has given us the freedom to decide whether to follow His guidance and be saved. Now its up to us to learn, think and decide our destiny.

 

[Shad]

The Qur'an on the other hand very precicely and concisely indicates that honey is formed in the bellies of the bees. Opposed to Aristotle's view that the colour of honey depends on the freshness of comb, Qur'an clearly says that the honey that emerges from the bellies of bees is varying in color.

Actually it doesn't since it does not say honey is made in the stomach merely comes from it. This is not the same. Beside as per my source they also knew honey came from the stomaches of bees. They just didn't know the source nor process which the Quran never mentions once.

Qur'an also indicates that the bees referred to here are the female bees(as indicated by the word form in Arabic). Aristotle did not have this idea. In his book historia animalium, after describing his views about honey bees, he quotes some of the hypotheses put forward by other philosophers. One of those hypothesis was that the worker bees are female.

Which the Quran merely repeats. The same hypothesis which required zero divine knowledge.

Even if Aristotle had the idea that honey was formed inside bees, still your argument is invalid.

Empty statement.

It is much like arguing that 'Muhammed(ص) , who was an illeterate arab who lived in the 7th century somehow came to know about the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers, and guessed that the ideas of Aristotle would be correct and from the ideas of Aristotle he guessed that this idea was correct, and he took utmost care to make sure that everything that he states in Quran is scientifically accurate; despite of the fact that the people to whom he was preaching were least interested in the scientific accuracy of his statements and despite of the fact that there was no way for them to check its scientific accuracy'.

A lot of people were illiterate during this era and after. You seem to ignore there is oral communication and it was a primary method of teaching for the majority of humanity. You use illiterate as if it matter in that era since it matter in the current one. It didn't.

Argument from incredulity. Muhammad traveled as a merchant could of easily picked up idea from hearsay. Arabia wasn't some backwater with no access nor knowledge of/from the Greeco/Roman world, knowledge which existed for over a millennia just from one source. You are speculating in an ad hoc manner, nothing more.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Before jumping into the explanations of the verses you have quoted, I should make it clear that Men and Women are not equal, both physically and psychologically. I dont think I have to explain the physical differences to you. Physically men are more stronger in muscle power than women. Women often have to face times of weakness like the menstrual periods, pregnancy and postnatal difficulties.
Psychologically men and women differ in the way they think, making decisions, responding to problems and in lot more ways. Due to their differences, men and women have different roles in both family and in the society. A healthy and well functioning family and society requires mutual cooperation between male and female.

I"m going to stop you right there. The second you tell me you believe your god doesn't see men and women equally then I reject it. It is a false god or if it is a real god then it is an immoral god. Equality isn't about ability. Men on average are stronger and taller. That is about it in advantages over women. Neither dictate rights and opinion. Especially not by a god. I've heard the same nonsensical rebuttal before.

Again u lost track of what we were discussing about . We were talking about the rules prescribed by Quran. You said that people have different opinions about these rules and I said that, we cannot decide on the correctness of a rule based on opinions of people. To know whether a rule is correct or not, we have to do a detailed study about the effects of that rule in society or effect of absence of that rule in society with a long term vision. And I gave the example, prohibition of riba (interest) by Qur'an. Hope you are convinced that prohibition of riba is a correct rule. But you again responded to it by saying people have different opinions and it is my opinion that the rules in Qur'an are perfect. Then I asked you 'when people have two contradicting opinions about the same topic, how do we decide which one is true'. I also gave you an example. And you are responding this way???

What of treatment of homosexuals and apostates? Sure. Some things were good in the Quran. Some things were good in Mine Kampf but the question isn't if some is good but is it totally good and perfect. Discrimination against LGBT community is in fact immoral.

If u believe that he created it, then u will have to believe that he was not just talented but also well knowledgeable in history, astrology, embryology, entomology and lot of other fields.

No. None of that. I don't believe the Quran to have such in depth and amazing articles that were not figured out later by science. It is my opinion, limited as it may be but based on the arguments and evidence I have seen, to be mundane information not at all impossible for him to have known.

Because, during his time, biblical knowledge was limited only to the scholars. Common people did not have direct access to bible. If they wanted to know anything in bible they had to consult the priests or rabbais. Since Qur'an talks a lot about the biblical history, and if Qur'an was written by Muhammad(ص) , then he should have been well knowledgeable in biblical history.Then again Quran also presents historic informations which are not present in bible and are true. For example, the name Yahya used for John the baptist, the name of Haman who was a minister of Pharoa. So he must have had historic knowledge outside bible.Quran talks about sun, moon, stars, plants, bees, birds, animals, embryology and so on and doesn't go wrong anywhere, and is precisely accurate. So if Qur'an was written by Muhammad(ص), he must have had deep knowledge about them also.

Give an example about astronomy that was impossible for him to know at the time.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Midnight Rain, I feel like you are losing track of our previous conversations in some parts of your reply.

By all means bring me back when you see fit.

Yes that's what I am also saying. Since the clause after 'unless' is true, the clause before it is false.

And I think I agree to an extent. What I am saying is it is not evidence of divinity. It simply is free from one possible glaring attribute that would most definitely make it not

I gave you a big explanation about the challenge of Qur'an and its inimitability and you are responding to it by changing the topic. So are you convinced that the challenge of Qur'an has never been met, and that Qur'an is inimitable.

I am not. You have not given specific criteria even though I ask for them. I have given you examples of works that meet certain criteria that couls imitate or even surpass the Quran. However you have brushed them aside without any real reason why.

So do you mean to say that there are millions of people around the world who have memorized Thorah in Hebrew or New testament in biblical Aramaic or illiad and odessey in Greek and so on?

Yes. Perhaps less so than the Quran but they exist. Oral tradition isn't rare.

Yes they mix at a very slow rate.. There is a barrier, doesn't mean that the barrier cannot be crossed. If there is a barrier between your house and your neighbors house, it doesn't mean that you can never go to your neighbors house.

In which case it means that the verse can be more or less assumed to be anything so long as one can rationalize it to a barrier.

So do you mean that a person in seventh century could figure out something which the scientists figured out using modern technologies? Bee keeping had been in existence for thousands of years.. People who observed and studied about bees couldn't figure out that honey was formed inside the bellies of bees until 1800s.

Personally? I think he guessed and was right. I don't know enough of historical bee keeping to go into the details but as a little child without any knowledge of bees or teachings of where the honey comes from I had assumed that it came from inside the bees. Cows make milk. Bees make honey. Honey is obviously not flower nectar so even if it was created out of nectar it had to have undergone processes inside the bee.

Ok.. Let's not depend on English translations to learn this, after all they are all human written. Let's learn this from the actual verse in Arabic. The word for expander in this verse is Musi'oon( مُوسِعُونَ). Its root word is vasa'a( وسع ) which means “he made wide, broad, spacious, roomy, or ample.” So musi'oon means the one who widens it, or the one who broadens it and so on.. Which simply means expander.

I'll give you a hint about something. Expander isn't even a word in English. The term "expanded" "expanding" ect are only used in this verse translation after the fact. Another such translation, though I don't speak the language myself but was explained to me (so if this is wrong feel free to context it I suppose as this is second hand) the same word could be used for someone building a house. To have made the room wide and expansive. IT doesn't mean the house itself was made and then stretched out but rather it was made in a way that it would be broad and large. Not to mention in the verse in the arabic it seems to indicate that it was a past tense not present tense expansion.

It could just as easily be read "God made the universe big and wide"

 

[Shad]

Because, during his time, biblical knowledge was limited only to the scholars. Common people did not have direct access to bible. If they wanted to know anything in bible they had to consult the priests or rabbais. Since Qur'an talks a lot about the biblical history, and if Qur'an was written by Muhammad(ص) , then he should have been well knowledgeable in biblical history.Then again Quran also presents historic informations which are not present in bible and are true. For example, the name Yahya used for John the baptist, the name of Haman who was a minister of Pharoa. So he must have had historic knowledge outside bible.Quran talks about sun, moon, stars, plants, bees, birds, animals, embryology and so on and doesn't go wrong anywhere, and is precisely accurate. So if Qur'an was written by Muhammad(ص), he must have had deep knowledge about them also.

Empty statements since there is no evidence for Haman at all. You are claiming it is true based on the your presupposition that Islam is true thus nothing it says can be false. The embryology is wrong and repeating Greek knowledge. You make Muhammad sound like a moron in order to make your argument from incredulity stronger. However an argument based on a fallacy is still fallacious. You seem to forget, or are ignorant, that Muhammad's, according to tradition, own "cousin", Waraka, was a monk thus had knowledge of the some of the very subjects you claim Muhammad never could have access to.

 

[FearGod]

Actually it doesn't since it does not say honey is made in the stomach merely comes from it. This is not the same. Beside as per my source they also knew honey came from the stomaches of bees. They just didn't know the source nor process which the Quran never mentions once.

What method they used thousands of years ago to know that honey came from stomach and not anus?

 

[Shad]

What method they used thousands of years ago to know that honey came from stomach and not anus?

Observation and deduction.

 

[FearGod]

Observation and deduction.

What they observed?

 

[Shad]

They observed the activities of bees outside,when possible, but also within the hives.

 

[FearGod]

They observed the activities of bees outside,when possible, but also within the hives.

And were they able to observe and deduct by using their naked eyes?

 

[Shad]

Qur'an also indicates that the bees referred to here are the female bees(as indicated by the word form in Arabic). Aristotle did not have this idea. In his book historia animalium, after describing his views about honey bees, he quotes some of the hypotheses put forward by other philosophers. One of those hypothesis was that the worker bees are female.

Using female verbs, grammatical gender, does not mean the subject is female, sex gender.

 

[Shad]

And were they able to observe and deduct by using their naked eyes?

The Greeks could have used primitive lens as a form of an early microscope. Although it would be closer to a magnifying glass since it lacks the type of lens within what is now considered microscopes. Such lens were used during the period even in surgery