Is there any evidence for the Truth of Islam ?

[YmirGF]

So you are also saying that there was no way to say something expands before the 15 th century? Second thing to remember it's that what I have posted is a translation. Also study some off the qualities of Arabic, how words are formed. Like I started earlier, there is good reason for why the book for all time was revealed in Arabic over other languages.

So... it can mean anything you want it to mean. Nice.

 

[Rational_Mind]

To be completely honest with you, It looks all the world as thought he verse changed to better fit the currently accepted scientific explanation in order for some people to rant and rave that the Koran has to be from god because no one, especially an illiterate nobody, could have possibly known about it back then.

Problem is when you apply the 20/20 technique to 51:48 you see that the author believed the earth was flat and that the verse was not talking about the big bang at all.

Jumping from that verse to flat will not work. A verse that describes using one of the same words is here. That is verse 7 on that page, read verse 8. Now the conclusion that the word implies that the entire world is flat would contradict if it mentions mountains as pegs. Furthermore, the Quran claims to be for all time, and it will keep revealing signs. Among the signs are in some verses that may show higher understanding for a later time.

 

[McBell]

Jumping from that verse to flat will not work. A verse that describes using one of the same words is here. That is verse 7 on that page, read verse 8. Now the conclusion that the word implies that the entire world is flat would contradict if it mentions mountains as pegs. Furthermore, the Quran claims to be for all time, and it will keep revealing signs. Among the signs are in some verses that may show higher understanding for a later time.

Your are most skilled in your justifying your use of the Forer Effect.
But it is still merely you using the Forer Effect.

Go ahead and make your bold empty claims of my not being sincere.
Since that has been your mantra whenever someone disagrees with you.

But it is plain to see for those who are not trying to make the verses be about the big bang that they are not about the big bang.

 

[Daviso452]

Most scientific theory is never proven against all circumstances. Let's take Gravity, for instance. I am pretty sure that you don't believe that Scientists have dropped every other Object in the Universe

Point taken. I will give that one to you. I was being unreasonable in that. However, I will say that you must accept the possibility that you are wrong and that they cannot. Otherwise you are creating a presupposition. I'm not saying stop believing, but accepting there is a possibility.

And if you read some Islamic history, it won't be long before you find out that people of Makkah were rebelling against the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) from the moment He started preaching the message of Islam. If you can imagine the Arabian society (especially then) was a very tribal society. And it would have been very hard for someone to go out of the norm/belief of their tribe and accept a completely new message(which didn't exist before) compared to the independent society we see in the west today. I think they would have gone through at least as much hardship/challenge to accept a new way of life if not more.

Point also taken. That still is not quite the point, and I blame myself for not making it clear; my point is that because of the nature of the brain, it is incredibly unlikely that logic was what made them convert. It is the same reason why there are still so many religions. Our emotions and primal instincts can and do override our rational minds 99% of the time. What you may consider "free will" isn't as complete as you would think. Without knowing, our minds mess with our perception constantly.

My point is that it wasn't so much questioning the validity of the kuran as it was other factors such as "feeling the truth in the Kuran", among other things.

Granted, I know little about islamic history in particular, but even arabs are not free from the flaws of the mind.

But you are misunderstanding the point here. we get our definition/attributes of God from the Qur'an and not the other way around. And especially in the case of that person who was talking in that video, it could not be more false.

I suppose I made a lot of mistakes. I was confused as to what exactly he was attempting, but I understand now.

However I do want this question answered: One argument of your and Green's is that the style of the Kuran cannot be replicated. What are the standards to which you are referring to? How can we tell for sure if something truly has matched the Kuran?

 

[fishy]

So you are also saying that there was no way to say something expands before the 15 th century? Second thing to remember it's that what I have posted is a translation. Also study some off the qualities of Arabic, how words are formed. Like I started earlier, there is good reason for why the book for all time was revealed in Arabic over other languages.

Umm because Muhammad was an Arab, perhaps? Or are you saying that every word in Arabic can be interpreted 156 ways, thus they can mean whatever you want them to mean?

 

[Rational_Mind]

You know forer effect goes two ways? So you will not believe only because you don't want to. This argument on forer is so stupid that it undermines ever single thing mankind has discovered. All you have to do is say forer effect and say that the person is wrong. What if the person who discovered forer is called on for looking for it and finding it because that is what they wanted find, hence itself is forer effect. Why should time be wasted on people who read from a dictionary that earliest use of a term is 15 th century and jump logical bounds to say impossible that this Arabic word could never mean that. If some of you are so lazy that you won't go back to edit your last post then why would you even bother researching (edit: to clarify, I mean that such lazy people would not put in enough time to properly research, hence I would have to spend time explaining qualities of Arabic...etc). There is no point in explaining further because you will pick some really stupid point without processing and not make any solid argument and I will have to explain that but you will never admit that you spew out unprocessed information.

 

[fulp]

If some of you are so lazy that you won't go back to edit your last post then why would you even bother researching.

seems legit :areyoucra

 

[fishy]

This interpretation of the Qur'an (tafsir) is by Ibn Kathir, and it's an old tafsir

You can check at this URL the interpretation of Chapter 23, verses 12 to 14:
Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Quran Tafsir - The Success is for the believers whose qualities are described here

(verse 12 starts at the end of the above page)

(12. And indeed We created man out of an extract of Tin.) (13. Thereafter We made him a Nutfah in a safe lodging.) (14. Then We made the Nutfah into a clot, then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So Blessed is Allah, the Best of creators.) (15. After that, surely you will die.) (16. Then (again), surely you will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection.)

Well, well...........now show us the science contained therein.

 

[YmirGF]

You know forer effect goes two ways?

Actually, it doesn't. But hey, why quibble over reality, eh?

So you will not believe only because you don't want to.

Not at all. If I thought there was something to these so-called "arguments", I would happily entertain their plausibility. The fact is, these discussions about "scientific miracles in the Qur'an" just do not measure up, imo. I'm quite sure that some are impressed by them, unfortunately for their writers, most who are impressed are already likely Muslims with little understanding of science.

This argument on forer is so stupid that it undermines ever single thing mankind has discovered.

Wrong. The really good ideas rise to the top - as they should. Can you explain why the scientific community, at large, has simply ignored these amazing "scientific miracles" written about by Muslims? There must be a good reason.

Why should time be wasted on people who read from a dictionary that earliest use of a term is 15 th century and jump logical bounds to say impossible that this Arabic word could never mean that.

The simple fact is that if indeed the concept existed in 7th century Arabia, we would be aware of it by now. I feel your pain.

If some of you are so lazy that you won't go back to edit your last post then why would you even bother researching (edit: to clarify, I mean that such lazy people would not put in enough time to properly research, hence I would have to spend time explaining qualities of Arabic...etc).

Let me guess. "Proper" research would lead us to agree with you. Right? Do I win a prize?

There is no point in explaining further because you will pick some really stupid point without processing and not make any solid argument and I will have to explain that but you will never admit that you spew out unprocessed information.

"Unprocessed information", sort of like these imaginary "scientific miracles in the Qur'an" pieces? If most of you folks knew a bit more about science it might help these discussions.

For the record, I have done these "discussions" about "scientific miracles in the Qur'an" so many times that the whole business is wearing a bit thin. The fact is you are not very good at this. Perhaps you should try some other approach.

 

[gnostic]

When Muslims made discoveries, or even rediscoveries, of what we called scientists, between the 8th century and 15th century, they were made through investigation of nature or the natural world, through observations, evidences and tests. And I applaud their achievements. They were certainly ahead of the Christians in the western Europe.

These medieval Muslim scientists did not discover science through interpretations of the vague Qur'anic verses. These interpretations come Muslims of the last 10-15 years. Jealous of the discoveries made by non-Muslims, they attempt to use and give credits to the Qur'an for achievements of modern science.

It is pure propaganda, which show how dishonest of some of these modern Muslims are. They would deceive fellow-Muslims who have little to no scientific education only demonstrate they have no scruples at all in who they deceive.

Which is why have absolutely no respect for someone like Zakir Naik.

 

[miss interpret]

Is not He (better than your so-called gods) Who originates creation, and shall thereafter repeat it, and Who provides for you from heaven and earth? Is there any ilah(god) with Allah(God)? Say, "Bring forth your proofs, if you are truthful." (Al Quran : 27:64)

In light of the above verse from the Qur'an, it is only fair that non-muslims get to ask the same to the muslims - which is 'bring your proof, if Islam is the Truth'.

For any religion to claim that they have a Holy book which is from God(via one of God's messengers) at the present time, they need to prove the following :
1. The message in that Holy Book has indeed been preserved from the time of the messenger till current time (In other words, historical authenticity of the preservation of the text. That way we know for sure that whatever the messenger claimed to be God's words when we was present, is still with us in its original form.)

2. The message in that book is indeed from God (In other words, it couldn't be possibly from a human being.)

Evidences for both of the above together will confirm that the message in that book is indeed from God (the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth) and it had been preserved accurately throughout history, so everything in it is from GOD and True. Once you prove that,there's no reason why any reasonable person wouldn't accept that book as God's True Message - whether one chooses to follow it is a whole different story.

So let me start with some basics to explain what will constitute proving the Truth of Islam.

Preservation of the Qur'an - proves #1 above
Scientific Facts in the Qur'an - proves #2 above
Historical Facts in the Qur'an - proves #2 above
Prophecies in the Qur'an/Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)'s Sayings - proves #2 above
Literary Miracle of the Qur'an in Arabic - proves #2 above

Since this is a vast topic and covers a lot of things, if you prefer to watch videos, there is a great video in YouTube that covers the evidences for the Truth of Islam. You can choose to watch just the scientific facts and not the others or all. They are all in this playlist : The Proof That Islam Is The Truth - Abdur-Raheem Green - YouTube

Otherwise, if you prefer reading over watching ... carry on ;-)

Preservation of the Qur'an
The Holy Qur'an still exists in its original form in the original language. It has been preserved in writing as well as through memorization for centuries. Yes, millions of people around the world have memorized the Qur'an in Arabic cover to cover, letter for letter. This in and of itself is a miracle given majority of
those memorizers would not understand a word of Arabic. How many other books do you know that can claim that ?

For more information on the way the Qur'an was preserved, please visit:
Proof of The Preservation of the Quran

Scientific Facts in the Qur'an
Historical Facts in the Qur'an
Prophecies in the Qur'an/Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)'s Sayings

For the Scientific and the Historical Facts as well as the Prophecies please visit : Islam: Creation, Science, Miracle, Quran & Religion. Book Exploring The Qur'an.
The linked YouTube video on this is probably better since it is divided in different sections.

Literary Miracle of the Qur'an in Arabic
It is really hard to understand this one, without knowing Arabic. However, the following should suffice for the purpose of our discussion.

"If you have doubts about what We have sent down to Our servant, produce another chapter equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth. (Qur'an, 2:23)

One of the reasons that the Qur'an is described as miraculous stems from the fact that, as emphasized in the verses above, nothing like it can ever be written by human endeavour: The greater the scale of that impossibility, the greater the size of the miracle which we see before our very eyes. Therefore, the fact that the style of the Qur'an has been incapable of imitation by even one out of the billions of people down the centuries is one of the proofs of its miraculous nature. In his book, The Construction of the Bible and the Qur'an, F. F. Arbuthnot makes the following comment about the Qur'an:

From the literary point of view, the Koran is regarded as a specimen of the purest Arabic, written on half poetry and half prose. It has been said that in some cases grammarians have adopted their rules to agree with certain phrases and expressions used in it, and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded." [Taken from http://www.ilmkidunya.com/student_articles/quran-miracle-of-miracles-387.aspx]

Finally for the ultimate skeptics, what are the chances that all of the above just happened as a co-incidence or by chance. To see the probability, read the following article :
Islamic Research Foundation - Athiest Proof of Allah(swt)

Peace.

I always thought that the only support for the koran was the hadiths, yet many muslims have told me the hadiths are not considered 100% reliable, so I don't know what does support the koran as truth.

 

[McBell]

so I don't know what does support the koran as truth.

The exact same thing as for the Bible.
The faith and beliefs of people.

 

[McBell]

You know forer effect goes two ways?

No it doesn't.
Though I suspect that you are meeaning to say that I am using the Forer Effect to dismiss your nonsense.
Which I am not.
I am merely calling the nonsense nonsense.

So you will not believe only because you don't want to.

Sata you.
But then, your position is so weak I understand your need to dictate to those who disagree with you.

This argument on forer is so stupid that it undermines ever single thing mankind has discovered.

Nope.
But the Forer Effect does show how desperate some people are to reinforce their own beliefs.

All you have to do is say forer effect and say that the person is wrong.

Wrong again.
The Forer Effect is a specific thing that only applies to the use of said thing.

Why should time be wasted on people who read from a dictionary that earliest use of a term is 15 th century and jump logical bounds to say impossible that this Arabic word could never mean that.

If you want to ignore everything that might show you are wrong, by all means, do what you have to protect your faith.

But running away does not help your position, it merely reveals just how insecure you are.

If some of you are so lazy that you won't go back to edit your last post then why would you even bother researching (edit: to clarify, I mean that such lazy people would not put in enough time to properly research, hence I would have to spend time explaining qualities of Arabic...etc).

Huh?
This sounds like you are saying that not editing our posts to make them more to your liking makes people lazy.

I suspect that that is not what you meant.

There is no point in explaining further because you will pick some really stupid point without processing and not make any solid argument and I will have to explain that but you will never admit that you spew out unprocessed information.

Your blatant hypocrisy is rather comical.

OASN:
are you ever going to reveal the source of your presented version of that verse?
You know, the version of that verse that uses the new and modern word expand?

 

[Rational_Mind]

When Muslims made discoveries, or even rediscoveries, of what we called scientists, between the 8th century and 15th century, they were made through investigation of nature or the natural world, through observations, evidences and tests. And I applaud their achievements. They were certainly ahead of the Christians in the western Europe.

These medieval Muslim scientists did not discover science through interpretations of the vague Qur'anic verses. These interpretations come Muslims of the last 10-15 years. Jealous of the discoveries made by non-Muslims, they attempt to use and give credits to the Qur'an for achievements of modern science.

It is pure propaganda, which show how dishonest of some of these modern Muslims are. They would deceive fellow-Muslims who have little to no scientific education only demonstrate they have no scruples at all in who they deceive.

Which is why have absolutely no respect for someone like Zakir Naik.

I don't have respect either for people like Zakir Naik. But really who converts to Islam because of just this?? I have never heard or met anyone like this. I also say that Quran is not a science textbook. But I think the Quran can help you understand some laws in nature, more on a philosophical scale. Then applying this can guide you in reasoning but it is not like you will be able to go directly from the Quran into a theory, and the Quran never was intended for scientific progress. I stress again, the interesting thing is the Quran is in conformance with established scientific facts. If it was not that would make it harder for me to belief, I most likely may have left my religion if it was such. For example, if you tell me evolution did not happen and can't explain, or that earth is young and can't explain, or if you first man is Adam created out of a mould...

 

[fishy]

and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded."

Several attempts is extremely significant. I don't know Arabic and have never read the entire Qu'ran, but what I have read in English appears to be a real hodge podge. This is of course simply my opinion and I mean no offense by it.

 

[Rational_Mind]

OASN:
are you ever going to reveal the source of your presented version of that verse?
You know, the version of that verse that uses the new and modern word expand?

Did I not tell you that you were going to the wrong verse number?
Here it is.



I am referring to your personal creation of "forer effect". From what published books and wikipedia defines it, you can see that it applies statements that are susceptible to be interpreted as personal to the individual. So that would make what you labelled most likely wrong. Maybe you are referring to some self discovery.

Forer
Barnum

The Quran has outlined that it contains verses susceptible to many interpretations. Then it has verses that have one interpretation for everyone (like laws). The more you read the more you understand and it raises new interpretations. They are all correct as long as they don't contradict with the Quran itself. It is not a book that once you are done reading you put it down and that is where it ends. This is why Muhammad (saw) stressed to read it everyday.

 

[McBell]

Did I not tell you that you were going to the wrong verse number?
Here it is.

That version does not use the word expand.

I am referring to your personal creation of "forer effect". From what published books and wikipedia defines it, you can see that it applies statements that are susceptible to be interpreted as personal to the individual. So that would make what you labelled most likely wrong. Maybe you are referring to some self discovery.

I did not create the Forer Effect, nor am I the one using it in this thread.

The Quran has outlined that it contains verses susceptible to many interpretations. Then it has verses that have one interpretation for everyone (like laws). The more you read the more you understand and it raises new interpretations. They are all correct as long as they don't contradict with the Quran itself. It is not a book that once you are done reading you put it down and that is where it ends. This is why Muhammad (saw) stressed to read it everyday.

Yes, I understand that there are those like yourself who claim that verses in the Koran mean what ever the currently accepted science says.
But that only means that you change the meaning of the words of god to confirm with mans current knowledge.

not the least bit impressive when considering that the verse supposedly came from an all knowing entity.

 

[Rational_Mind]

That version does not use the word expand.


I did not create the Forer Effect, nor am I the one using it in this thread.

Read through the entire page. Research is an investment, you need to put in a bit more effort.

Your are most skilled in your justifying your use of the Forer Effect.
But it is still merely you using the Forer Effect.

Go ahead and make your bold empty claims of my not being sincere.
Since that has been your mantra whenever someone disagrees with you.

But it is plain to see for those who are not trying to make the verses be about the big bang that they are not about the big bang.

Forer what?

 

[McBell]

Read through the entire page. Research is an investment, you need to put in a bit more effort.

I did.
And it does not use the word expand.
It uses the word spread.

 

[Rational_Mind]

I did.
And it does not use the word expand.
It uses the word spread.

Hmm... You should be more careful. Entire page.

This may help: Musi'un. Although I don't Arabic myself and haven't read through it entirely on both sides. But it does make sense on how I have learned the nature of arabic language, forming of words, etc.. Again, I don't know the quality of the response as I have not yet read both sides.