Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution+Islam?

PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 5:00:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a thread for the Muslims on this site. If you are not a Muslim, but have an understanding of islams teachings, you may also contribute.

Are Islam and evolution, or Islam and science in general, contradictory? Or can they coexist or even compliment one another?

In my opinion, nothing in science contradicts Islam, and nothing in Islam contradicts science.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 5:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 5:00:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a thread for the Muslims on this site. If you are not a Muslim, but have an understanding of islams teachings, you may also contribute.

Are Islam and evolution, or Islam and science in general, contradictory? Or can they coexist or even compliment one another?

In my opinion, nothing in science contradicts Islam, and nothing in Islam contradicts science.

I believe that depends on whether or not you take the Koran literally.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 5:41:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In my opinion, nothing in science contradicts Islam, and nothing in Islam contradicts science.

I believe that depends on whether or not you take the Koran literally.

The Quran itself states that some verses are meant to be taken literally, and some should be taken as metaphors. So, I would caution against anybody (Muslim or non), claiming the Quran MUST be read as a literal instruction manual.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 6:15:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 5:41:16 PM, HPWKA wrote:
In my opinion, nothing in science contradicts Islam, and nothing in Islam contradicts science.

I believe that depends on whether or not you take the Koran literally.

The Quran itself states that some verses are meant to be taken literally, and some should be taken as metaphors. So, I would caution against anybody (Muslim or non), claiming the Quran MUST be read as a literal instruction manual.

But isn't the Quran also the miracle produced by Muhammad to show he was a Prophet sent by God?

If you don't take any part of it literally, then it isn't a miracle any more, just a plain book like any other book produced by mankind.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 7:07:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Quran itself states that some verses are meant to be taken literally, and some should be taken as metaphors. So, I would caution against anybody (Muslim or non), claiming the Quran MUST be read as a literal instruction manual.

But isn't the Quran also the miracle produced by Muhammad to show he was a Prophet sent by God?

If you don't take any part of it literally, then it isn't a miracle any more, just a plain book like any other book produced by mankind.

Nobody here (except you), is claiming that not one part of the Quran be taken literally. Even if that were the case, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Quran's claim as a "miracle" could be discarded.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 10:48:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It can be discarded because there was no miracle. Not when Muhammad was a caravan robber and had access to caravan booty which no doubt sometimes contained religious scrolls and books and to be a merchant you have to be able to read tallies of merchandise. There were books and it appears to scholars that Muhammad at one point come across Gnostic Christian texts as his ideas about the Crucifixion match certain Gnostic ideas, one in particular Muhammad used that confirm he knew about this Gnostic gospel as he used the same idea again found in them. Common sense tells us there's no way to confirm Muhammad's claim of being illiterate and frankly, no reason for any non-Muslim to believe Muhammad as I say, he was a caravan robber and had access to religious texts.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 12:13:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 10:48:21 PM, biomystic wrote:
It can be discarded because there was no miracle. Not when Muhammad was a caravan robber and had access to caravan booty which no doubt sometimes contained religious scrolls and books and to be a merchant you have to be able to read tallies of merchandise. There were books and it appears to scholars that Muhammad at one point come across Gnostic Christian texts as his ideas about the Crucifixion match certain Gnostic ideas, one in particular Muhammad used that confirm he knew about this Gnostic gospel as he used the same idea again found in them. Common sense tells us there's no way to confirm Muhammad's claim of being illiterate and frankly, no reason for any non-Muslim to believe Muhammad as I say, he was a caravan robber and had access to religious texts.

A) you have no source for your claim that he was a caravan robber.
B) given that nearly the entire population in that part of the world was illiterate at the time, BOP is in actuality on you to prove that he was indeed literate.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 12:14:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And above all, this is not the thread for this discussion.as I very clearly stated, this conversation is for those who are either Muslim, or hold sufficient knowledge of Islam to answer the question.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 1:09:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 5:00:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a thread for the Muslims on this site. If you are not a Muslim, but have an understanding of islams teachings, you may also contribute.

Are Islam and evolution, or Islam and science in general, contradictory? Or can they coexist or even compliment one another?
Considering the importance of very first subject of revelation, this becomes the foundation of Islam to focus on the study of nature and science as science itself can be described as a "Sign". There are many verses which call toward exploring the scientific mysteries, and universe as being a creation is even described as an evolutionary process, even the stages (asoic, proterozoic, palaeozoic, mesozoic, cainozoic eras) are endorsed and explained. So there is no contradiction in moving for "research", but the difference is of the limitation, science has very little in it which can be called as final and absolute.


In my opinion, nothing in science contradicts Islam, and nothing in Islam contradicts science.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:39:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 12:14:39 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
And above all, this is not the thread for this discussion.as I very clearly stated, this conversation is for those who are either Muslim, or hold sufficient knowledge of Islam to answer the question.

Oh, ok. You need to talk behind closed doors because your silly Muslim ideas can't withstand non-Muslim scrutiny. We ask embarrassing questions, don't we, and how can you keep Muslim 7th Century ideas going in the 21st Century if 21st Century conscious people are allowed into the discussion..
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:45:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:39:36 AM, biomystic wrote:
At 2/2/2014 12:14:39 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
And above all, this is not the thread for this discussion.as I very clearly stated, this conversation is for those who are either Muslim, or hold sufficient knowledge of Islam to answer the question.

Oh, ok. You need to talk behind closed doors because your silly Muslim ideas can't withstand non-Muslim scrutiny. We ask embarrassing questions, don't we, and how can you keep Muslim 7th Century ideas going in the 21st Century if 21st Century conscious people are allowed into the discussion..

Kfc
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:57:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:45:17 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:39:36 AM, biomystic wrote:
At 2/2/2014 12:14:39 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
And above all, this is not the thread for this discussion.as I very clearly stated, this conversation is for those who are either Muslim, or hold sufficient knowledge of Islam to answer the question.

Oh, ok. You need to talk behind closed doors because your silly Muslim ideas can't withstand non-Muslim scrutiny. We ask embarrassing questions, don't we, and how can you keep Muslim 7th Century ideas going in the 21st Century if 21st Century conscious people are allowed into the discussion..

Kfc

PotBelliedGeek this guy (biomystic) and his friends casting bullsh1t here so you can ignore him <=:)
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 8:00:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 7:57:38 AM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:45:17 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:39:36 AM, biomystic wrote:
At 2/2/2014 12:14:39 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
And above all, this is not the thread for this discussion.as I very clearly stated, this conversation is for those who are either Muslim, or hold sufficient knowledge of Islam to answer the question.

Oh, ok. You need to talk behind closed doors because your silly Muslim ideas can't withstand non-Muslim scrutiny. We ask embarrassing questions, don't we, and how can you keep Muslim 7th Century ideas going in the 21st Century if 21st Century conscious people are allowed into the discussion..

Kfc

PotBelliedGeek this guy (biomystic) and his friends casting bullsh1t here so you can ignore him <=:)

Hence the KFC. I checked out this guys website, he is more than a little loopy.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 5:29:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 5:00:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
This is a thread for the Muslims on this site. If you are not a Muslim, but have an understanding of islams teachings, you may also contribute.

Are Islam and evolution, or Islam and science in general, contradictory? Or can they coexist or even compliment one another?


I'm not a Muslim, but I'm modestly familiar with Islamic teachings... I believe that Qur'anic Islam can coexist with the evolution of non-humans, but there are verses in the Qur'an which mostly likely contradict the concept of apes evolving into humans. For instance, "We said: Get down all of you[Adam and Eve] from this place (the Paradise), then whenever there comes to you guidance from Me, and whoever follows My guidance, there shall be no fear on them, nor shall they grieve." This implies, according to the orthodox interpretation, that Adam and Eve were formed fully in paradise and then sent down. While the ToE says that humans evolved like other animals. So I guess this is one of the possible conflicts, although there could be a way to say that evolution also works in paradise and that Adam and Eve evolved there, but that is also back-flipping apologetic as we have good evidence that humans evolved on Earth.

In my opinion, nothing in science contradicts Islam, and nothing in Islam contradicts science.

The Qur'an mistakenly explains sperm production in Surah 86:5-7 and says that "gushing water" (some translators translate it to a drop, but I'm following my translation as a native Arabic speaker) , which is the term most likely used for semen (which is described in other verses(e.g Surah 32:8) as "ignominious water" , gushes forth between the ribs and spinal bone. I've argued against many people who have apologetic for that, but they all seem to fail at convincing me. To say that it talks about the secretions of the seminal vessels is also scientifically false as the seminal vessels are located beneath that location. To say that it was referring to the "blood" which supports those vessels is also false for many reasons. (1) The word for blood was known as "Al Dima2" and used across the Qur'an, so it makes no sense why the verse did not use that. (2) The term "water" is used in other verses (Surah 32:8) to clearly depict a fluid that is directly involved with creation, so it mostly likely wasn't referring to blood. (3) The verse clearly is speaking of a fluid that is directly involved and not a fluid that supports the vessels which secrete another fluid which goes to the testicles and mixes with other material to come out as semen.

I didn't much expand on both paragraphs, but I would if any of what I said was found problematic.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:27:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 8:00:56 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:57:38 AM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:45:17 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:39:36 AM, biomystic wrote:
At 2/2/2014 12:14:39 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
And above all, this is not the thread for this discussion.as I very clearly stated, this conversation is for those who are either Muslim, or hold sufficient knowledge of Islam to answer the question.

Oh, ok. You need to talk behind closed doors because your silly Muslim ideas can't withstand non-Muslim scrutiny. We ask embarrassing questions, don't we, and how can you keep Muslim 7th Century ideas going in the 21st Century if 21st Century conscious people are allowed into the discussion..

Kfc

PotBelliedGeek this guy (biomystic) and his friends casting bullsh1t here so you can ignore him <=:)

Hence the KFC. I checked out this guys website, he is more than a little loopy.

Hey! Knock off the Muslim intellectual cowardly slander. It appears that both of you are afraid to debate my opinions of your Muslim beliefs and then go on to libel me and that's chickenshite. If you can't debate with reasoned argument and have to resort to childish name-calling and slander, you've already lost the argument. Grow up, Muslims. You've got a long long way to catch up with Western social advancement in every single field Muslim learning abandoned centuries ago and thus fell behind. That's why you get caught out all the time by non-Muslims for backward, superstitious thinking that looks to a 7th Century Authority Figure to tell them how to think. As if the Past ruled the Present and the Future, which is one of the Fatal Flaws of Muhammad's theology.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 6:30:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Evolution would not occur if the past overruled the present and the future. Only ongoing revelation is authentic to God. Man-made attempts such as Muhammad's or the Jews and Paulists before him to stop revelation always fail. Because God is God of the Living, not the dead.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:05:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:27:01 PM, biomystic wrote:
At 2/2/2014 8:00:56 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:57:38 AM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:45:17 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/2/2014 7:39:36 AM, biomystic wrote:
At 2/2/2014 12:14:39 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
And above all, this is not the thread for this discussion.as I very clearly stated, this conversation is for those who are either Muslim, or hold sufficient knowledge of Islam to answer the question.

Oh, ok. You need to talk behind closed doors because your silly Muslim ideas can't withstand non-Muslim scrutiny. We ask embarrassing questions, don't we, and how can you keep Muslim 7th Century ideas going in the 21st Century if 21st Century conscious people are allowed into the discussion..

Kfc

PotBelliedGeek this guy (biomystic) and his friends casting bullsh1t here so you can ignore him <=:)

Hence the KFC. I checked out this guys website, he is more than a little loopy.

Hey! Knock off the Muslim intellectual cowardly slander. It appears that both of you are afraid to debate my opinions of your Muslim beliefs and then go on to libel me and that's chickenshite. If you can't debate with reasoned argument and have to resort to childish name-calling and slander, you've already lost the argument. Grow up, Muslims. You've got a long long way to catch up with Western social advancement in every single field Muslim learning abandoned centuries ago and thus fell behind. That's why you get caught out all the time by non-Muslims for backward, superstitious thinking that looks to a 7th Century Authority Figure to tell them how to think. As if the Past ruled the Present and the Future, which is one of the Fatal Flaws of Muhammad's theology.

Kfc
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 7:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 6:30:24 PM, biomystic wrote:
Evolution would not occur if the past overruled the present and the future. Only ongoing revelation is authentic to God. Man-made attempts such as Muhammad's or the Jews and Paulists before him to stop revelation always fail. Because God is God of the Living, not the dead.

Kfc
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 10:47:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Soundbite slander = Muslims afraid of intellectual debate. See my other post on the Ahmadiddyah thread about how Muhammadians fearful of non-Muslim critics because of not being able to defend Muhammad's ideas rationally.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 11:00:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Qur'an mistakenly explains sperm production in Surah 86:5-7 and says that "gushing water" (some translators translate it to a drop, but I'm following my translation as a native Arabic speaker) , which is the term most likely used for semen (which is described in other verses(e.g Surah 32:8) as "ignominious water" , gushes forth between the ribs and spinal bone. I've argued against many people who have apologetic for that, but they all seem to fail at convincing me. To say that it talks about the secretions of the seminal vessels is also scientifically false as the seminal vessels are located beneath that location. To say that it was referring to the "blood" which supports those vessels is also false for many reasons. (1) The word for blood was known as "Al Dima2" and used across the Qur'an, so it makes no sense why the verse did not use that. (2) The term "water" is used in other verses (Surah 32:8) to clearly depict a fluid that is directly involved with creation, so it mostly likely wasn't referring to blood. (3) The verse clearly is speaking of a fluid that is directly involved and not a fluid that supports the vessels which secrete another fluid which goes to the testicles and mixes with other material to come out as semen.

From what I have read on the subject, the controversy surrounding this verse stems from poor/varied translation, some due to author error, and some due to grammatical differences in Arabic and English.

When correcting for the above, the verse could translate literally to "man is created from a sperm/egg, that issued from between a man's loins, and the abdomen area of a woman.".

This would not be in conflict with modern science at all.

I agree with you on the man-evolution thing, though I'm not sure how scientifically certain it is.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:25:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
When correcting for the above, the verse could translate literally to "man is created from a sperm/egg, that issued from between a man's loins, and the abdomen area of a woman.".

There are many problems with this apologetic, which I guess is inspired by Ibn Katheer.

(1) There is no mention of the abdomen area. The two references used are basically the backbone and the ribs. Saying that it is referring to a woman's abdomen is subjective interpretation on your behalf.

(2) Both the testicles and ovaries are not close to the backbone or the ribs, and so saying that such a liquid proceeds from such locations is a very wide-breath, unspecific reference. Moreover, if we use your interpretation, sperm doesn't gush forth from my loins, but from above my testicles as that secretion is the one that contains my sperms.

Moreover, the old translations are pretty much accurate for that verse if we observe different translations. However, modern translators attempted to reconcile it with modern science by trying to shift the reference frame.

Sahih International
Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
Muhsin Khan
Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,
Yusuf Ali
Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Those are reliable translators in the Muslim world. Saying that it is just a grammar difference and an error of one author seems to be hogwash.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:55:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 10:47:11 PM, biomystic wrote:
Soundbite slander = Muslims afraid of intellectual debate. See my other post on the Ahmadiddyah thread about how Muhammadians fearful of non-Muslim critics because of not being able to defend Muhammad's ideas rationally.

kfc
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 3:30:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When correcting for the above, the verse could translate literally to "man is created from a sperm/egg, that issued from between a man's loins, and the abdomen area of a woman.".

(1) There is no mention of the abdomen area. The two references used are basically the backbone and the ribs. Saying that it is referring to a woman's abdomen is subjective interpretation on your behalf.

The word "Tara'ib" in Arabic, which is translated literally as "female ribs" in a few Quranic versions, is a bit more ambiguous. It can and has been translated historically as the area of the chest/abdomen, or the area of the ribs. It translates literally to "arch of bone", which could refer to the rib-area again, or a woman's pelvic arch.

The entire business of Quranic translation is "subjective interpretation", which makes this subject entertaining. However, given that we can legitimately refer to the "Tara'ib" as the female area of the ribs/abdomen, and given that this region is associated with a fetus/female re-productive anatomy, I don't see a scientific contradiction.

(2) Both the testicles and ovaries are not close to the backbone or the ribs, and so saying that such a liquid proceeds from such locations is a very wide-breath, unspecific reference. Moreover, if we use your interpretation, sperm doesn't gush forth from my loins, but from above my testicles as that secretion is the one that contains my sperms.

The other part of the Quranic verse in question deals with the "Sulb". This term CAN be translated as "backbone", however, it can also be translated as a man's loin area. Elsewhere in the Quran, the term Aslab (plural of Sulb) is translated as the "loins" of men, so this doesn't seem like much of a reach at all. Indeed, Pickethall, one of the major Quran translators, translates Sulb as loins in this verse.

Your second comment on "gushing" is nonsensical. The Quranic verse with respects to the male, claims that man is created from the sperm issued from the loins. Loins refers to the penis/testicles of a man. Sperm is emitted from both the testicles and penis of a man. Case closed.

Moreover, the old translations are pretty much accurate for that verse if we observe different translations. However, modern translators attempted to reconcile it with modern science by trying to shift the reference frame.

Sahih International
Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
Muhsin Khan
Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,
Yusuf Ali
Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Those are reliable translators in the Muslim world. Saying that it is just a grammar difference and an error of one author seems to be hogwash.

I never claimed it was an error by "one author", simply that it was a grammatical/linguistic error. You declaring this is "hogwash" isn't a rebuttal to the argument I've laid out, and neither is pointing out that some Quranic translators translate it a different way. You would need to provide evidence that shows I am categorically wrong in my assertions, or that the "scholars" above have considered this position, but for some concrete reason, opted for another translation.

As it stands, we cannot say with any degree of certainty, that the Quranic verse in question clashes with modern scientific thought.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 3:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 3:30:51 PM, HPWKA wrote:
When correcting for the above, the verse could translate literally to "man is created from a sperm/egg, that issued from between a man's loins, and the abdomen area of a woman.".

(1) There is no mention of the abdomen area. The two references used are basically the backbone and the ribs. Saying that it is referring to a woman's abdomen is subjective interpretation on your behalf.

The word "Tara'ib" in Arabic, which is translated literally as "female ribs" in a few Quranic versions, is a bit more ambiguous. It can and has been translated historically as the area of the chest/abdomen, or the area of the ribs. It translates literally to "arch of bone", which could refer to the rib-area again, or a woman's pelvic arch.

The entire business of Quranic translation is "subjective interpretation", which makes this subject entertaining. However, given that we can legitimately refer to the "Tara'ib" as the female area of the ribs/abdomen, and given that this region is associated with a fetus/female re-productive anatomy, I don't see a scientific contradiction.

(2) Both the testicles and ovaries are not close to the backbone or the ribs, and so saying that such a liquid proceeds from such locations is a very wide-breath, unspecific reference. Moreover, if we use your interpretation, sperm doesn't gush forth from my loins, but from above my testicles as that secretion is the one that contains my sperms.

The other part of the Quranic verse in question deals with the "Sulb". This term CAN be translated as "backbone", however, it can also be translated as a man's loin area. Elsewhere in the Quran, the term Aslab (plural of Sulb) is translated as the "loins" of men, so this doesn't seem like much of a reach at all. Indeed, Pickethall, one of the major Quran translators, translates Sulb as loins in this verse.

Your second comment on "gushing" is nonsensical. The Quranic verse with respects to the male, claims that man is created from the sperm issued from the loins. Loins refers to the penis/testicles of a man. Sperm is emitted from both the testicles and penis of a man. Case closed.

Moreover, the old translations are pretty much accurate for that verse if we observe different translations. However, modern translators attempted to reconcile it with modern science by trying to shift the reference frame.

Sahih International
Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.
Muhsin Khan
Proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs,
Yusuf Ali
Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:

Those are reliable translators in the Muslim world. Saying that it is just a grammar difference and an error of one author seems to be hogwash.

I never claimed it was an error by "one author", simply that it was a grammatical/linguistic error. You declaring this is "hogwash" isn't a rebuttal to the argument I've laid out, and neither is pointing out that some Quranic translators translate it a different way. You would need to provide evidence that shows I am categorically wrong in my assertions, or that the "scholars" above have considered this position, but for some concrete reason, opted for another translation.

As it stands, we cannot say with any degree of certainty, that the Quranic verse in question clashes with modern scientific thought.

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. Let me summarize all the problems with your apologetic:

(1) Subjective, baseless interpretation: The verse doesn't mention the abdomen area which is called in Arabic 'Faraj", or if the verse wanted to talk about the bones, would be "3itham Al-Faraj." You're making this connection without linguistic evidence, so it is a subjective interpretation on your behalf which you need to support with evidence.

(2) Grammatic error: If you want to talk about two liquids, then you have to explain why it says water in singular form (In Arabic "Ma-in") and not (Ma-2ayn) which stands for two waters or liquids.

(3) Yusuf Ali is an expert on classical Arabic, and so are the other translators. To say that they all fell for a simple linguistic, grammatical error is insulting to me as an Arab, as it seems to imply that Arabs are idiots at their own language, especially that the verse we are discussing is written in simple Arabic. My appeal to those translators is justified as they are authorities on translation of classical Arabic, and given that it describes the dominant view.

(4) The "Salb" in Arabic cannot be used for the abdomen area, but is used for either the lions or the backbone, but most likely the backbone, because "Salb" is also an Arabic adjective that means "very hard or solid". While the tar2ab is mostly definitely the ribs but could even be the 'breastbone" as the ribs extend from the chest downwards but stay above the pelvic area.

In summary, your interpretation seems to be a Texas sharpshooter fallacy that is based on the strategy of using wrong definitions of keywords with the addition of some metaphoric language to change the original meaning of the verse without sufficient evidence. That's why I think it is hogwash.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 6:31:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The fact that it takes quite a bit of "interpretation" in order to make Muhammad's silly idea about ovum and sperm make any sense and that you all spend so much time on these issues which have zero importance to the world yet take up quite a bit of Muslim intellectual energy as this debate is going on lot's of forums, Muhammad's "science" ideas that Muslim idol worshipers must defend.

When you are idolators and all Muslims are, you are out of touch with modern reality and certainly modern science. Idol worship forces you to defend 7th Century knowledge that Muhammad held against the normal evolution of human knowledge acquisition. The irrational belief system in Islam that wants to say Muhammad as a 7th Century supposedly illiterate man knew more about the world than later science which is absurd. Only blind faith religious fundamental fanaticism can hold such illogical beliefs in the face of modern science but that's what we're dealing with here, blind faith fundamentalist believers who beliefs from the ancient past are facing their End Times in our times.

But hey, you Muslims can always order some more kentucky fried chicken and clog your arteries as well as your brains.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 10:28:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You don't seem to be understanding what I am arguing for, and therefore, are having trouble rebutting my claims in any substantive way. Part of this is likely my fault, for not portraying my position in a clearer way.

Here's a link that, in essence, describes the position I am outlining. If you have any specific issues after reading it, we can continue.

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com...
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 11:17:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 6:31:03 PM, biomystic wrote:
The fact that it takes quite a bit of "interpretation" in order to make Muhammad's silly idea about ovum and sperm make any sense and that you all spend so much time on these issues which have zero importance to the world yet take up quite a bit of Muslim intellectual energy as this debate is going on lot's of forums, Muhammad's "science" ideas that Muslim idol worshipers must defend.

When you are idolators and all Muslims are, you are out of touch with modern reality and certainly modern science. Idol worship forces you to defend 7th Century knowledge that Muhammad held against the normal evolution of human knowledge acquisition. The irrational belief system in Islam that wants to say Muhammad as a 7th Century supposedly illiterate man knew more about the world than later science which is absurd. Only blind faith religious fundamental fanaticism can hold such illogical beliefs in the face of modern science but that's what we're dealing with here, blind faith fundamentalist believers who beliefs from the ancient past are facing their End Times in our times.

But hey, you Muslims can always order some more kentucky fried chicken and clog your arteries as well as your brains.

Kfc
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 12:14:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:28:55 PM, HPWKA wrote:
You don't seem to be understanding what I am arguing for, and therefore, are having trouble rebutting my claims in any substantive way. Part of this is likely my fault, for not portraying my position in a clearer way.

Here's a link that, in essence, describes the position I am outlining. If you have any specific issues after reading it, we can continue.

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com...

Talk about double speak pathetic apologetics. Nowhere in that article did the clown refuting the accepted translation ever trabslate the two words in question. Obviously a muslim liar, that doesn't do the muslim cause any good at all.

Obvious lies are so easy to see when your eyes are open and not blinded by dogma.
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 7:01:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
That IS the problem with all fundamentalist religions and Muhammad's Islam certainly is a fundamentalist held religion, unlike either Judaism but quite like fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity. Their Scriptures are not to be taken lightly but dogmatically which inevitably leads to conflicts with those around them who disagree. In Muslim countries Muslims can get away with dogmatic beliefs but once they venture into non-Muslim lands which do not hold the dogmas they run immediately into the conflict between dogma and reality. Like here where Muslims haven't a clue that they are exposing their religious beliefs as primitive superstition that actually still believes such nonsense that magician's tricks like fire-walking are "proof" of Allah over every other god or non-god. That sort of thinking went out in the West with the Enlightenment and then Age of Reason and then Age of Science and Technology which we are in now. It's like the Scopes Monkey Trial dragged into today's world. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with fundamentalist believers because they cannot budge mentally from the tape going through their heads of their Scripts they must obey or face Hell. How do you argue with people afraid of eternal torture if they stray from their fundamentalist beliefs? You can't. And if the fundies have weapons at their disposal and their religion encourages violent religious warfare, then we have today's Muslim world in which Muslim fundamentalists are at war even with fellow Muslim fundamentalists. And always at religious war with non-Muslims.