Is Islam in accordance with rationality and science?

[shawn]

BobX:
Ironically, we seem to have switched sides. Remember how this started: with rodgertutt saying that if temporary evil is the only way to get to permanent good, the good outcome retroactively transforms the evil into good; me saying, no, the evil in the past can never be changed by whatever happens later, it is forever the evil that it is; and you taking rodger's side?

It is brings to mind the fact that when in the movies, a villain is especially evil, and the protagonist is severely oppressed, yet rises up and defeats the evil, the audience will after state that the movie was good. But this is due to the characters being extreme.
If the characters are weak or bland, then the audience will state that the movie was not good.

Some say the end justifies the means.
Others say that the means are just as important as the ends.
I am of the mind that the path you traveled to arrive at your destination is as important as the destination itself.

 

[farhan]

As far as deen & science are concerned, their reason d'etre dont overlap. Science is a corpus of methodologies & accumulated knowledge whose sole purpose is to make sense of the phenomenal world, to have an easy life. Deen is supposed to teach you what you cant possibly know with your intellect, & guide you towards the invisible yet very powerful principles of felicity (thats the best translation I could do of Arabic sa'ada/falah). Deen by definition teaches you the unseen, it just touches the phenomenal world tangentially, & that too usually as an example. Science almost always snobbishly denies the existence of any such thing as the unseen.

More importantly, science/rationality is a relative concept. There is a proven science (Like matter & Energy are interconvertable), & a huge amount of stuff that's science-fiction used by people with as much dogmatic fervour as their opponents use their "only divine book". Rationale is as ambiguous term as "four sided shape". It can be any thing from square to tetrahedron. Modern western rationalism is just one version of what can be considered as rational. IN my experiences with sufis, I realised that they were as rational as the "really rational people", just a few octaves higher, & more "awake".

Saying Science proves Islam is like saying light bulb proves the Sun. I've been there myself, but now it feels too ridiculously puerile. The whole thing reeks of Identity crisis more than rationalism.

And yet, Quran doesn't go against any empirically supported fact. If it were just a hodgepodge of Greek, Persian & Indian lore, it would. And thats the miracle.

The alaqa thingy. I've studied both english & arabic as second & third language. The thing with IE languages is that their words arnt that much connected with their roots. In English I was told to memorize tenses & vocab. Nobody told me that hospitality & hospital come from the same root. I was just told to memorize them.

With Arabic, the first thing I was taught were the roots. Jn means hidden, so jin means hidden entity, jannah means land that's hidden by greenery (orchard), janin means human being thats hidden (embryo) etc. Arabic still gives much more importance to roots that IE languages. Its the adjective that names the noun. For example Arabs have got dozens of words for camel, white canel, yellow camel, pregnant camel, the camel that only gives birth to female, the list goes on. Now in English I am using two nouns to signify a concept, in Arabic, its gonna be an adjective that has somehow been used as a noun, despite the fact that it is still an adjective, & the camel is just implied, its not in the word.

Same with Alaqa. The word literally means clinger. Its widely used in Persian & Urdu as Mu-al-laq, meaning something that clings or hangs or even levitates. And yet it is used for blood clot, leach etc in Arabic, because of their act of clinging.

The Quran simply says a clinging thing, you can call it a blood clot, leech, zygote, UFO anything. And since teaching man what he has been made from is not the reason d'etre of Quran, this apparent ambiguity of meaning doesnt diminish its utilitarian value. what Quran says is that you come from a petty clinging thing, & then you think you are self-sufficient/all-mighty, & mock you creator........dont be such an idiot.....cuz like it or not, eventually you will return to me. Which is all perfectly right.

 

[c0de]

.

Hmm.... looks like this thread finally got interesting (took a couple of weeks though).



@ Bob


Now that Farhan is here, you can argue linguistics with him till the cows come home. It seems like he has answered all your objections with historical and linguistic examples.

As for the rest:

Ironically, we seem to have switched sides.

Not quite.

In our last argument I was arguing that when God uses the "ends justifies the means" approach He is not committing evil, as He has the power to reward finite pain with infinite pleasure. So, mathematically, there is no "evil" in God's plan.

In this argument, my position is that the same does NOT apply to mankind. Because mankind can never compensate the victims of progress. This is why utilitarianistic ideals are always morally wrong.

But you are still gripped by the dead hand of a book from fifteen centuries ago,

Newsflash dude: everyone is holding on to something, even the atheists.

A timely metaphor: China was the greatest ancient civilization in the world. But once the Han Dynasty codified the Five Classics as what every mandarin had to learn, it froze, and so, China remained an ancient civilization at heart, all the way through the 19th century, while the rest of the word went through medieval times and finally China could not help but get pushed around by the moderns. Since Mao, China is trying to jump from ancient to modern and never go through a medieval period-- and I wish them luck on that. Just so: Islam was the greatest medieval civilization in the world. But once "the gates of ijtihad were closed", it froze, and so, you remain a medieval civilization at heart, and cannot help but get pushed around by the moderns.

This is textbook orientalistic thinking. I reject it completely. Even though it seems (at first) to be sympathetic to the third world consciousness, there is a deep bias here: that the only way to progress is to follow the path the West did.

For one, it completely ignores all the harsh facts of this path that I have been highlighting. You cited Mao as a positive example for China, forgetting the horrors he perpetrated on the Chinese people, all in the name of modernity.

Secondly, it assumes a fairy-tale romantic notion of European ascension, as if all that put it on top was "the enlightenment" and all the rest was rainbows and candies.

Also, it assumes that all good in this world can only be achieved via a complete rejection of traditions. Forgetting the fact that the "ijtihad" is itself a tradition (a revolutionary tradition).

The reason why Muslims fell was because they rejected the good and corrupted it. They fell to materialism and all the evils thereof, not because they didn't pursue it with enough gusto. And the same will happen to the West.

Let us honor the memory of all those who suffered so that you can travel to China, without having to walk all that way, without getting murdered along the way, and live in a house there, eating enough, dressing nicely, using tools and furnishings, and even talking to an aggravating American on the opposite side of the planet through a magic box.

If I had a choice to live today, with all these modern wonders, OR to live 1400 years ago, in Medinah, with the Prophet, I would chose the later option without thinking twice.

So I don't have any interest in "honoring the memory" of all those who perished to build the walls of this invisible prison that people call "modernity".

 

[bob x]

Deen is supposed to teach you what you cant possibly know with your intellect, & guide you towards the invisible yet very powerful principles of felicity (thats the best translation I could do of Arabic sa'ada/falah). Deen by definition teaches you the unseen, it just touches the phenomenal world tangentially, & that too usually as an example. Science almost always snobbishly denies the existence of any such thing as the unseen.

On the thread "Phone call with a Muslim missionary", c0de and I discussed quantum physics (go back a few pages before we got sidetracked onto slavery and Sumerians), and how science has been forced to recognize that there must be something "hidden" (not observable in the usual ways, not readily studied by the scientific method), since the material universe by itself does not suffice to explain what will happen next at any time. The "snobbish" attitude you talk about is from people who really don't know the science, but have built up some kind of fictional picture of science in their heads.

But I insist on this: no human knows anything more about the invisible than any other. I reject the notion that God needs to use "messengers" and furthermore think that the whole concept that everybody else is supposed to be enslaved to these few specially favored humans to whom God gave revelations denied to the rest of us gives a very bad picture of God. As Abraham Lincoln replied to a pious lady who wrote him urgently about a "revelation" she had had from God about how Lincoln should conduct the war: "I believe that if the Almighty had a message for me, on a subject so connected to my duty, that He should be as capable of directing to me, as to you." God gave me, and you, and every one of us, equal capacities for seeing what is true and right, and if God needs me to understand some particular thing, He would reveal that to me, and not to someone in Arabia fifteen centuries away from me, to be relayed to me by the very unreliable means of a book in a language I can barely puzzle out, as interpreted by people I have no reason in the world to consider trustworthy.

And yet, Quran doesn't go against any empirically supported fact. If it were just a hodgepodge of Greek, Persian & Indian lore, it would. And thats the miracle.

It certainly LOOKS like a hodgepodge of Greek, Persian, and Indian lore, on the topic of embryology-- until you decide that the words don't have the meanings which the people of Muhammad's day thought they had, and change them into something else, to make it fit the "empirically supported facts". That is not a miracle, just pulling a rabbit out of a hat when I saw you put the rabbit in.

The alaqa thingy. I've studied both english & arabic as second & third language. The thing with IE languages is that their words arnt that much connected with their roots. In English I was told to memorize tenses & vocab. Nobody told me that hospitality & hospital come from the same root. I was just told to memorize them.

That is just a deficiency in the way English is taught nowadays: not just "English as a Second Language", how it is taught in our own schools. My father made sure that I understood all about roots, and how to use them to figure out words I had not met before, but which were related to words I knew; and he said that was how things used to be taught.

But my point was that the different derivatives of a root are not all interchangeable. Muhammad "giving praise", Ahmed "praise", and Mahmud "praised" are all from the h-m-d root but each has a different meaning. Things that "stick" together to form a larger thing are called "sticks" (it is clearer in German where Stueck is a "piece" of anything; only in English do we reserve "sticks" to mean "pieces of trees" in specific) but something is "sticky" (like thick mud) when it "sticks" to itself.

Same with Alaqa. The word literally means clinger. Its widely used in Persian & Urdu as Mu-al-laq, meaning something that clings or hangs or even levitates. And yet it is used for blood clot, leach etc in Arabic, because of their act of clinging. The Quran simply says a clinging thing, you can call it a blood clot, leech, zygote, UFO anything.

No, muallaq is something that "sticks" to (or clings to, etc.) something else; that is the word that means "clinger". That is not the meaning of alaqa which is something that "sticks" to itself; it does not mean "clinger", it means "clot" or "clump" (of blood or mud) and meant "leech" because a leech was believed to be congealed mud (another kind of "clump"). You cannot take any derivative of alif-lam-qof and assign to it the specific meaning of any other derivative: if Muhammad meant to say muallaq he should have said that, instead of saying something which everyone at the time understood to mean that he was saying the embryo formed by the blood congealing into a clot (the idea of the time, from a hodgepodge of Greek, Persian, and Indian lore).

And since teaching man what he has been made from is not the reason d'etre of Quran, this apparent ambiguity of meaning doesnt diminish its utilitarian value. what Quran says is that you come from a petty clinging thing, & then you think you are self-sufficient/all-mighty, & mock you creator........dont be such an idiot.....cuz like it or not, eventually you will return to me. Which is all perfectly right.

I could respect this, on those terms: "OK, this was not good science, but it didn't need to be, since God has given us brains to figure out embryology in the fullness of time; it was just expressing, in the ideas of those times, which were close enough and did not have to be exactly right, the point that we come from almost nothing, and should be humble and thankful to God for the wonderful process by which we grow from there."

But I cannot respect something like: "The proof that the Qur'an knows what it is talking about, when it speaks of the invisible, is how exactly correct it always is wherever it speaks of the visible." No, it isn't; Muhammad appears to have been exactly as ignorant as anyone else of his period.

 

[bob x]

Brother/Sister although not used in case of direct decadents, it is sometimes used in a bit similar circumstances. Like when you want somebody to be recognized as a part of a clan. If one says brother of Tamin, or brother of Mudar, Mr.Tamim/Mudar havebeen dead for hundreds of years, but this phrase here means from the clan of tamim/mudar, not brother/nephew of him.

Can you show me any example of such a usage? I have only seen "son" and "daughter" used in such a manner. The clan of Ghassan (rulers of part of Arabia in the late Jahiliya) were called Banu Ghassan, the "sons" (literally, of course they were great-great-(however many greats)-grandsons) of Ghassan, and there are tons of examples of that usage, but I have never heard of "brothers of Ghassan" for anything except contemporaries of Ghassan.

Infact in the days of Muhammad some Christian guy had asked him the very same question, & was answered satisfactorily. It is somewhere in sahih muslim. Had this been such a big issue, Jews would definitely have got their hands onto it, & used it to discredit him. Quraish hadbeen searching for such flaws in Quran for a long time. They had even send delegations to Jews to get questions from them that only a Jew or God could be able to answer. If they had found such a mistake, they would have publicized it all over the Arabian peninsula, gathered people & annihilated muslims. None of that ever happened.

Even the Christian king of Ethiopia called Quran's description of Mary/Jesus "the exact truth" compared to the Euro-Christ-mythos created by Paul & Constantine.

This self-congratulatory story-telling would be more believable if we also had the other side, but we do not have anything recorded from the Jews and Christians of what they had to say about Muhammad. How is it that the king of Ethiopia did not convert, if what you claim is true? Ethiopia remained staunchly Christian and never considered Islam.

The Jews most certainly did bring up the "sister of Harun" passage as a criticism of the Qur'an quite early. I don't know when it was first raised, but it is one of the old chestnuts, like the two genealogies of Jesus as a "contradiction" in the Bible (of course, Christians will tell you that is no contradiction, with all kinds of excuse-mongering; and Muslim responses about the "sister of Harun" sound no better).

Well yes & no. Greatest civilisation freeze because they run out of their capacity to..... well, be liquid. Thats a natural process that has nothing to do with codifications.

It has EVERYTHING to do with codifications. Once you say, these are the rules and you cannot change or question them, you are not "liquid" anymore.

The thing is, that book doesnt prevent anybody from thinking or prospering. Yes, theories are made around it, & they sometime do that

The Qur'an was a path forward for the Arabs of the Jahiliya period. It does not lead forward anymore: it drags you back.

Now that Farhan is here, you can argue linguistics with him till the cows come home.

I will
Are we also done arguing about exactly how many thousands of years ago this or that technological level of Sumerian development was? I learned a few things.

In our last argument I was arguing that when God uses the "ends justifies the means" approach He is not committing evil, as He has the power to reward finite pain with infinite pleasure. So, mathematically, there is no "evil" in God's plan.

Not "no" evil. If there are only a finite number of Fermat primes, they still are what they are, despite the existence of infinitely many other numbers that aren't.

This is textbook orientalistic thinking. I reject it completely. Even though it seems (at first) to be sympathetic to the third world consciousness, there is a deep bias here: that the only way to progress is to follow the path the West did.

Follow your own path. I'm fine with that. But Islam doesn't look like a "path" anymore: more like a nostalgic wish to go backwards.

You cited Mao as a positive example for China, forgetting the horrors he perpetrated on the Chinese people, all in the name of modernity.

I did not cite him as a "positive" example; I threw his name in precisely as a reminder of how much pain and suffering the decision to wrench China into a new pattern required. But could China stay as it was?

Secondly, it assumes a fairy-tale romantic notion of European ascension, as if all that put it on top was "the enlightenment" and all the rest was rainbows and candies.

Who is this "it" that is assuming any such thing? Nothing that I wrote assumed anything like that.

If I had a choice to live today, with all these modern wonders, OR to live 1400 years ago, in Medinah, with the Prophet, I would chose the later option without thinking twice.

Well, you don't have such a choice. Move forward, from where you are, or die.

 

[c0de]

Are we also done arguing about exactly how many thousands of years ago this or that technological level of Sumerian development was? I learned a few things.

Yea I was getting pretty bored of that too.

Not "no" evil. If there are only a finite number of Fermat primes, they still are what they are, despite the existence of infinitely many other numbers that aren't.

finite pain for infinite pleasure dude. Your complaints are literally infinitely insignificant (just like Ivan's).

Follow your own path. I'm fine with that. But Islam doesn't look like a "path" anymore: more like a nostalgic wish to go backwards.

The "path" people see when they see Islam is not Islam.

I did not cite him as a "positive" example; I threw his name in precisely as a reminder of how much pain and suffering the decision to wrench China into a new pattern required. But could China stay as it was?

What is that if not a positive example? You are showing Mao as a necessary evil.

Who is this "it" that is assuming any such thing? Nothing that I wrote assumed anything like that.

Well, if you are using Mao as an example of what China needed, then you kinda are implying that (no?) You might want to clarify your position on the issue, because that is the impression that I got.

Well, you don't have such a choice. Move forward, from where you are, or die.

Move forward into the Abyss... yes, alas.

No, it isn't; Muhammad appears to have been exactly as ignorant as anyone else of his period.

Yea, I guess that's why he ended up being the most influential person in history then, huh?

It has EVERYTHING to do with codifications. Once you say, these are the rules and you cannot change or question them, you are not "liquid" anymore.

So by that argument, no nation should ever form a constitution.

 

[bob x]

What is that if not a positive example? You are showing Mao as a necessary evil.

But evil. And while change was necessary for China, I'm not sure it had to come at the price of quite such a large stack of corpses; that was Mao's decision. But, it is impossible to know about historical what-ifs: could there have been a less bloody Chinese revolution? Revolutions do vary in their level of violence. The American revolution had a rather low "butcher's bill", as such things go, but only because we deferred some really hard questions, slavery the #1 example, so it would be more realistic to say we paid a lot of the butcher's bill late, "with interest and penalties".

Well, if you are using Mao as an example of what China needed, then you kinda are implying that (no?)

That they had to copy-cat Europe? That isn't how it worked out in China, in terms of political organization or social mores. Yes, learning how to use newly invented technical means to make life easier is preferable to remaining in ignorance about them, but what you do with them is up to you.

Move forward into the Abyss... yes, alas.

On the contrary, it is if you refuse to move forward, but instead try to go backward, to some fantasized Golden Age, that you will end up in the Abyss instead.

Yea, I guess that's why he ended up being the most influential person in history then, huh?

See my post to Farhan: that he exerted such influence despite no particular learning is a better case for a "miracle", in my view, than any dubious claim that he knew everything.

So by that argument, no nation should ever form a constitution.

Not one without any provision for amendment, although it is a delicate balance to make sure it is neither too easy nor too hard to amend. If there is no way to amend at all, that guarantees stagnation, which guarantees weakness and poverty, which guarantees that you will be pushed around by other countries. Of course, if it is not allowed to amend, people will try to dishonestly amend, by saying that the words don't mean what everybody always understood them to mean before, so you can pretend that nothing really changed-- but you already know my opinion about such procedures.

 

[c0de]

But evil.

And yet "necessary" ?

You sure about that?

Not one without any provision for amendment

You are stepping into dangerous territory here. What about something like "All men are created equal"? Do you think an amendment to such a principle should be allowed, under any circumstances?

If you say yes (by popular vote), then you are supporting a tyranny of the majority. If you say no, then you are contradicting your own argument.

Catch 22 bud ;-)

On the contrary, it is if you refuse to move forward, but instead try to go backward, to some fantasized Golden Age, that you will end up in the Abyss instead.

The first century in the Islamic calender was not the materialistic "golden age" that orientalists love so much.

And I know there is no "going back". But if I had the option to live under the first and last true republic, lead by a prophet of God, I would. That's all I was saying.

See my post to Farhan: that he exerted such influence despite no particular learning is a better case for a "miracle", in my view, than any dubious claim that he knew everything.

Who is claiming that "he knew everything"??

I am sure Farhan was not saying that, and neither am I. He was a prophet, that's all. He did what God told him to do. He had no powers or foresight of his own. That is the Muslim view.

 

[bob x]

And yet "necessary" ?

You sure about that?

No I'm not, as I discussed. Surely something had to change in China, but the "butcher's bill" seems more than was really needed.

You are stepping into dangerous territory here. What about something like "All men are created equal"? Do you think an amendment to such a principle should be allowed, under any circumstances?

If you say yes (by popular vote), then you are supporting a tyranny of the majority.

Right here in California, the state constitution can be changed by a simple "50% plus one" vote, and equality indeed was abolished, for me and any other homosexual, in just such a manner.

There is a definite issue about how easy, and how hard, it should be to change something, and the level of difficulty must depend on what kind of principle you are changing. The problem with the Qur'an is that you cannot change the rules on how to divide the inheritance of someone's estate any more than you can change the principle of being charitable to the poor: there is no overarching moral guideline for how to tell what is eternally right and wrong from what is culturally contingent and only intended for a particular time and place; everything is on the basis of "God said so!" and, to make it worse, you believe that God will never send you another prophet again so you are stuck with whatever was told to 7th century Arabians.

The first century in the Islamic calender was not the materialistic "golden age" that orientalists love so much.

"Materialistic"??? Who has ever described early Islam in such terms? When I warned against fantasizing about what a "Golden Age" it was, I meant things like this description:

the first and last true republic

Come on, "military dictatorship" would be more accurate, if equally anachronistic. That revolution had a "butcher's bill" too, you know. And if you are going to credit Muhammad for all the "influence" he continues to have had in succeeding centuries, then you need to charge him with the continuing "butcher's bill" as well; it would be a difficult question whether Muhammad or Mao produced the larger stack of corpses. I see you are not one of those Muslims who favors continuing to increase the bill, but don't pretend the bill was zero.

Who is claiming that "he knew everything"??

I am sure Farhan was not saying that, and neither am I. He was a prophet, that's all. He did what God told him to do. He had no powers or foresight of his own. That is the Muslim view.

You are claiming his words were "God's" words and therefore perfect. That is blasphemy and idolatry, to call any man's utterances words from God. It may have been a necessary evil for Muhammad to speak as if God, to accomplish the revolution that Arabia needed, but that is an orange from which all the juice has been squeezed.

The pre-Muslim hanafi said, "There is no God but The God, and no partner should be added to Him." This was a dig at the Christians, but applies to Islam as well.

 

[c0de]

No I'm not, as I discussed. Surely something had to change in China, but the "butcher's bill" seems more than was really needed.

"seems" ??? The death of 30 million "seemed" more than necessary?

WoW ...

Why is it that when it comes to God, you seem incapable of accepting any pain whatsoever, but when it comes to humanity, you start talking like Dr. Strangelove?

by the way, lets stop using China as an example, before this forum suddenly disappears behind the great firewall of China (or worse). And switch to Russia or something.

Right here in California, the state constitution can be changed by a simple "50% plus one" vote, and equality indeed was abolished, for me and any other homosexual, in just such a manner.

You didn't answer the question.

I asked whether you think such amendments should be allowed, under any circumstances (yes or no).

The problem with the Qur'an is that you cannot change the rules on how to divide the inheritance of someone's estate any more than you can change the principle of being charitable to the poor: there is no overarching moral guideline for how to tell what is eternally right and wrong from what is culturally contingent and only intended for a particular time and place; everything is on the basis of "God said so!" and, to make it worse, you believe that God will never send you another prophet again so you are stuck with whatever was told to 7th century Arabians.

Please answer the question before you continue this posturing. Right now your position is ambiguous.

"Materialistic"??? Who has ever described early Islam in such terms? When I warned against fantasizing about what a "Golden Age" it was,

Why do you keep saying that I think it was some "golden age"? The Islamic "golden age" came under the Moors and Abbassids. And I would choose the Prophet's time over the "golden age" for the opportunity to live with the Prophet, not for anything else.

Come on, "military dictatorship" would be more accurate, if equally anachronistic. That revolution had a "butcher's bill" too, you know. And if you are going to credit Muhammad for all the "influence" he continues to have had in succeeding centuries, then you need to charge him with the continuing "butcher's bill" as well; it would be a difficult question whether Muhammad or Mao produced the larger stack of corpses. I see you are not one of those Muslims who favors continuing to increase the bill, but don't pretend the bill was zero.

Please explain to me what you think the "butcher's bill" of the Prophet was.

As for the term "true republic" it was not my own, but was used by a British historian, whose name escapes me. Not Hart, who also mentioned the Prophet as the most influential in history, but someone who came well before him who was the first one to make this claim.

You are claiming his words were "God's" words and therefore perfect. That is blasphemy and idolatry, to call any man's utterances words from God. It may have been a necessary evil for Muhammad to speak as if God, to accomplish the revolution that Arabia needed, but that is an orange from which all the juice has been squeezed.

The pre-Muslim hanafi said, "There is no God but The God, and no partner should be added to Him." This was a dig at the Christians, but applies to Islam as well.

Again with your opinions??

Don't mind if I just ignore them.

 

[bob x]

"seems" ??? The death of 30 million "seemed" more than necessary?

Outbreaks of famine and anarchic violence (the Taip'ing convulsion probably cost more than 30 million) killed millions of Chinese periodically throughout the late-imperial and Nationalist periods. Foreign invasions and impositions humiliated and exploited the populace, and in the case of Japan, also killed millions. These things would have kept on happening if China did not change. Could it have changed sufficiently for the people to live more safely, prosperously, and proudly, without as much violence? Probably: I think Mao was excessive. But who can tell about "what if"? The past is not changeable.

Why is it that when it comes to God, you seem incapable of accepting any pain whatsoever, but when it comes to humanity, you start talking like Dr. Strangelove?

In either case, the pain IS WHAT IT IS. The outcome does not make the evil less evil, in either case. That is all I am saying.

by the way, lets stop using China as an example, before this forum suddenly disappears behind the great firewall of China (or worse). And switch to Russia or something.

An even sadder case, since the butcher's bill in Russia (smaller in absolute numbers, but similar in proportion to the population) did not even buy them very much progress.

You didn't answer the question.

I asked whether you think such amendments should be allowed, under any circumstances (yes or no).

You are posing one of the most subtle questions in the field of law, not one to be answered in a one-liner.

EVERY law treats people unequally. Laws against theft discriminate against people who want to take things: here we use "discriminate" in its morally neutral sense "to make distinctions, in favor of one over another", as a wine-taster or food-taster who can subtly distinguish the finest from similar products is said to have "discriminating taste"; the morally condemnatory sense of the word is called "invidious discrimination". US constitutional law sets four criteria for determining how difficult it ought to be to change the laws and create new discriminations:

1. Are we discriminating against a "voluntary action" or against an "immutable characteristic"? When the law discriminates against thieves, you can avoid being discriminated against by: not stealing. When the law discriminates against blacks, you cannot avoid being discriminated against, if you are black. So we do not regard these two kinds of "discrimination" as being alike. If you can avoid the discrimination by not voluntarily putting yourself in the disfavored class, the law need only have a "rational basis". The Jewish law contains some commandments called choq (I think? bananabrain would know the exact term) which are not justified in terms of any other principle, they are "just because": like not mixing meat and dairy products. Such a law would not be allowed in the US, without some "rational basis" that states why it hurts anybody for me to eat a cheeseburger, or helps the society if there is a general ban on cheeseburgers. But if any such basis at all can be stated, a law against a voluntary action is perfectly OK.

If the law discriminates against an immutable characteristic:
2. Are we discriminating against a "sizable group", or a "small minority"? If the disfavored class has numbers on its side, it should be able to pursue the ordinary political process if the law is unfair. There are a lot of laws which treat men and women differently, often though not always to the disadvantage of women, who slightly outnumber men in fact. If the law has majority support anyway, it might be presumed that a lot of women agree that the overall benefits of the law make it acceptable despite some burden on themselves. There still must be some suspicion of a law that discriminates against someone for a condition like gender which is not the "fault" or "choice" of the person in any way, so it is said that such a law is "subject to heightened scrutiny" to see if the political process has been rigged in some way, but courts are really vague about when such laws should be disallowed.

If the law discriminates against an immutable characteristic of a small minority:
3. Are we discriminating against an "isolated" class? (as opposed to one integrated into the society)
and 4. Is there a history of "odium"? (emotional antagonism against the disfavored class)
These questions are more ambiguous than 1 and 2. But if the minority has a chance to use the political process, pleading their case with the majority that they are treated unfairly, there is less suspicion about the law than in the case of a minority which is ostracized and despised. A law which is all about preserving isolation and odium should never be upheld; in a less extreme case, a law discriminating against an immutable minority must "serve a compelling state interest." For example, the military has a strict ban against color-blind people becoming fighter pilots. This meets tests 1 and 2 for invidious discrimination (it is a genetic trait they cannot change; and there are very few of them) but not 3 and 4 (they are scattered randomly, and all have friends and family among the normal-sighted to help plead their case if they are treated unfairly; and there is no history of treating them contemptuously). We ask then whether the military's concern about them not seeing instrument panels precisely is a "compelling" one, and since the military is vital to us, we defer to their judgment. A ban on color-blind people entering some other profession where their sensory defect might make it a little harder to do their jobs would not be upheld; they should be accommodated where it is at all practical to do so.

A case that I, and most modern commentators, think was decided very wrongly was Kobayashi v. US in which the Supreme Court upheld the roundup and detention of all people of Japanese descent during World War II. At least we didn't murder any of them, but it was still tragic. The immigrants had chosen the United States, whatever sentimental attachment to home they retained ("When father and mother are fighting, do you want one of them to beat the other?" one asked. "No, you just wish they would stop fighting!"), and the second generation were born here, citizens, many of them intensely patriotic (some were allowed to prove their loyalty by volunteering for the military: a few used in the Pacific as interpreters, large units of them sent to Italy, where they compiled a very brave record). The court found the interest in stopping any possibility of espionage "compelling" although Italian-Americans and German-Americans (some of whom actually did spy) were not similarly treated; said the Japanese had "infiltrated" our society: a very "invidious" way of saying they were assimilated and integrated, which was not really true, as they continued to be socially shunned and subjected to insulting slurs and vicious stereotypes. This was all about "isolation and odium" and should never have been allowed.

Why do you keep saying that I think it was some "golden age"? The Islamic "golden age" came under the Moors and Abbassids. And I would choose the Prophet's time over the "golden age" for the opportunity to live with the Prophet, not for anything else.

By the "Golden Age" I mean whatever time YOU think is the best, which for you would be the Prophet's time; especially if you have exaggerated notions of its good features and minimized perceptions of its bad. Calling it a "republic", regardless of where you got that term from, is at the least rather misleading: did Muhammad win a majority vote in Mecca? And you seem to want to pretend there were no battles and no deaths:

Please explain to me what you think the "butcher's bill" of the Prophet was.

Do you also pretend there have been no wars and no deaths in the subsequent history of the Islamic world? You want to credit Muhammad for his influence on all that history.

Again with your opinions??

The opinion that no man is worthy to be treated as if he were God is not mine alone. Calling a man's words "God's" words is doing just that.

 

[c0de]

These things would have kept on happening if China did not change.

So, it was all in the name of positive change, and so it was okay?

In either case, the pain IS WHAT IT IS. The outcome does not make the evil less evil, in either case. That is all I am saying.

But what you are saying is insignificant when it comes to the case of God, and very significant when it comes to the case of man. And that's all im sayin.

You are posing one of the most subtle questions in the field of law

I know, i've studied it.

EVERY law treats people unequally.

So your own position is ambiguous. Neither you, nor any actual legal theorist like Fuller or Hart can come up with answers to the questions I posed.

My point being: until you get your own theory in order, refrain from pointing fingers at my scripture.

Calling it a "republic", regardless of where you got that term from, is at the least rather misleading: did Muhammad win a majority vote in Mecca?

He did in Medinah, and that is where he lived. That is where he is buried.

And you seem to want to pretend there were no battles and no deaths:

(LoLz) Are you trying to lecture me on Islamic history? Like you are trying to lecture on Arabic linguistics? (by the way, where's the arabs when you need 'em? hello? any arabic speakers on this forum??)

Those wars were defensive. The prophet never fought a single aggressive battle.

Do you also pretend there have been no wars and no deaths in the subsequent history of the Islamic world? You want to credit Muhammad for his influence on all that history.

Influence does not equal responsibility. What came afterwords was due to materialistic corruption, not Islam. I've discussed this with a multitude on this forum, and I have no interest in going over it again.

The opinion that no man is worthy to be treated as if he were God is not mine alone. Calling a man's words "God's" words is doing just that.

(LoLz) you really think I care what your (and whoever else's) opinion on the issue is, don't you? (Cuz I don't, sorry.) I know who I worship, and who I follow. And I know the difference between the two.

 

[c0de]

.

p.s.


Bob, here's a question. Is it possible that the reason why you find scripture to be such an anathema is due to the fact that it considers homosexuality a sin? And you just find it easier to reject scripture altogether, rather than conform yourself to its principles, or see yourself as a sinner?

To clarify my own position: unlike the claims of some, homosexuality isn't anymore evil then regular fornication. Those gay-bashers have singled it out as something especially evil, but it really just another fault in the human specimen, like any other. But it is a fault, according to scripture, and maybe this is why you want to reject it completely?

 

[bob x]

So, it was all in the name of positive change, and so it was okay?

It may have all been in the name of positive change, but much of it was purely negative, not a contribution to bringing about the needed change. Whether the change could have come about in some other way is, as I keep saying, an impossible counterfactual hypothetical to answer.
But I have never been saying "it's OK"; the suffering IS WHAT IT IS, regardless of what happens afterwards.

But what you are saying is insignificant when it comes to the case of God, and very significant when it comes to the case of man. And that's all im sayin.

OK. If it comforts you to believe that God will create infinite good in the "hidden" world to come, I certainly have no wish to try to talk you out of that aspect of your faith, nor would I even consider it an unreasonable belief, since I do accept that there must be "hidden" aspects to the universe. Such a belief does not, for whatever reason, have much power to bring comfort to me, but we just have different mental make-ups, that's all.

I know, i've studied it.

So you ought not have expected a one-liner answer.

So your own position is ambiguous. Neither you, nor any actual legal theorist like Fuller or Hart can come up with answers to the questions I posed.

I gave what I thought was a quite long-winded answer, and not from any "theorist" but from actual practicioners of law (did you know that I had a law license once? I found it a depressing field to work in, and abandoned it long ago); I can of course get even more long-winded on the topic if you like (surely you know me well enough by now that I can become long-winded on any topic ). I don't accept your criticism of it as "ambiguous": naturally I believe that every new case that arises must require thinking about it to come up with a proper resolution; I do not believe that there could be a codified algorithm, which would come up with the right answer to every question of this kind that may arise in the future, and will never need to be modified or re-thought.

My point being: until you get your own theory in order, refrain from pointing fingers at my scripture.

Your scripture requires you to discriminate against kaffir (which I regard as wrong right from the start), but specifies three types of non-Muslims who are not to be regarded as such: Jews, Christians, and Baptizers(?). Right away there is a problem, since the third word is a rare derivative of a root "to dip" and uncertain of meaning; probably for some sects of Aramaic and Arabic speakers not affiliated to the Christians but practicing ritual cleansings with water, of which the Mandaeans of southern Iraq are the last survivors. Other sects tried to claim to be the "Sabians" the Qur'an spoke of, in order to escape being kaffir, but the Zoroastrians for example were not accepted as such and mostly fled to India. Re-defining "Sabian" is another case of "amending" the Qur'an (dishonestly, in my view) by finding new meanings for difficult words.

Another approach is to say that the list of three "peoples of the book" is just meant to give three illustrative examples of the concept, and not to be an exhaustive list, which also runs into some problems with whether the wording of the Qur'an can be read thus. But it would allow for tolerance of the Zoroastrians, as people who had their own Scriptures and Prophet, and believe in the Unity of God, and a Last Judgment with similar ideas about what kind of good conduct will make it go well for you then, etc. The Baha'i, Druze, Ahmadiya, and Sikhs could be accepted similarly: but there is a problem in that these were Muslims, who changed by accepting a later prophet (the Ahmadiya deny that their position really represents a rejection of the finality of Muhammad, but that involves a lot of special pleading), and "apostates" are certainly to be discriminated against; or in the case of the Sikhs there was a reconciliation of some Muslims and some Hindus, and consorting with kaffir is even worse than apostasy. But what about Buddhists, who do not generally conceive of Unconditioned Mind as a personal deity (and therefore do not call their teachers by any title like "prophet") or think that everyone's "judgment" will all come at one time, and in the case of Zen, also do not regard "Scripture" as essential (making it hard to call them people of "the book")-- but do share notions of what good and bad conduct is?

It would be one thing if you could say: "Muhammad's words were meant for the specific conditions in Jahiliya-era Arabia, when many of the heathenish cults not only were based on crude and ignorant views of how the world works, but also led to bad conduct, and so they had to be suppressed. But that was then and this is now, and we should only condemn other religions nowadays if a cult (Scientology, say) leads to exploitation and abuse of people." Can you "amend" the Qur'an that way? Islam in general seems quite unwilling to view anything in the Qur'an as tied to its time, place, and culture. This is what I meant when I agreed with the sentiment that Islam is "intolerant" by nature (while accepting that it has not always, or even generally, been a "persecuting" faith).

He did in Medinah

I would be fascinated to hear more about this election in Medinah. Who were the other candidates, and what were the vote totals?

Those wars were defensive. The prophet never fought a single aggressive battle.

As I said to farhan, we only get one side of the story, the other side having mostly been killed off. But even assuming the deaths were necessary, does that make it all OK?

Influence does not equal responsibility. What came afterwords was due to materialistic corruption, not Islam. I've discussed this with a multitude on this forum, and I have no interest in going over it again.

No, I don't need or want to go all through that either, but you know there is a strong whiff of "No True Scotsman" about this line of argument. All those deaths in the Chinese and Russian revolutions? "Real" Communism wasn't responsible for that, only for the good parts of what happened... and the Crusaders and Inquisitors and witch-hunters weren't "real" Christians... slave traders weren't "real" capitalists either, you know...

I know who I worship, and who I follow. And I know the difference between the two.

God didn't give you the Qur'an; humans did. You believe that most humans are to "follow" a small select group of favored humans: you follow not only Muhammad, crediting him with the authority to speak for God, but also, since Muhammad didn't give you the Qur'an either, a small army of "experts", crediting them with the authority to speak for Muhammad.
Lincoln said, "I do not believe that some people were naturally born with spurs on their feet, and others born with saddles on their backs," but that is how you see God as having created the human race.

 

[bob x]

Is it possible that the reason why you find scripture to be such an anathema is due to the fact that it considers homosexuality a sin?

I already rejected scripture-based systems of knowledge and commandment-driven systems of morality when I was a child, long before I had any gleaming of sexuality. I was a voracious reader from the age of three, and my parents made sure I had books of all kinds: lots of Asimov and other sci-fi, and Asimov's popularizations of science; Greek and Norse myths, and stuff about Rome; a child-safe version of the Arabian Nights plus King Arthur, Robin Hood etc.; and a giant book of Bible stories going through all of it, with maps of the lands of the 12 tribes and illustrations by the great artists. But as my parents were not believers, I was not raised to think of the Bible as metaphysically different from other books, and I found "church" people (particularly anti-evolutionists and hellfire preachers) repellent from the beginning.

I did not get to the Qur'an or Eastern religious texts until college. I tried at one time to be a "true believer" Buddhist but have never really been more than a "cafeteria" Buddhist since skepticism is just ingrained in my mental make-up. The Qur'an I found a rather tedious read (sorry!), a not-very-good knockoff, "Pepsi" to the Bible's "Coke"; it is certainly vastly, hugely superior to such "scriptures" as the Book of Mormon or Dianetics (for both of which "tedious" is a serious understatement), but was never something I'd put on my "top shelf", more on the level of Bhagavad Gita.

 

[bob x]

And c0de, you know as well as I do that Islam has got to stop generating people like this

 

[c0de]

And c0de, you know as well as I do that Islam has got to stop generating people like this

Okay, that's just unfair man. You can't say that Islam is what generates people like that anymore than you can say that scientology generates people like Tom Cruise... (okay, bad example, but u know what i mean)

OK. If it comforts you to believe that God will create infinite good in the "hidden" world to come, I certainly have no wish to try to talk you out of that aspect of your faith, nor would I even consider it an unreasonable belief, since I do accept that there must be "hidden" aspects to the universe. Such a belief does not, for whatever reason, have much power to bring comfort to me, but we just have different mental make-ups, that's all.

I think this is a case of "agree to disagree" then i guess.

So you ought not have expected a one-liner answer.

Just cuz I asked for a one-line answer doesn't mean that I expected one dude ;-)

I don't accept your criticism of it as "ambiguous":

You might not accept it, but the state of the matter is in fact ambiguous, and I will tell you exactly why it is ambiguous: (and this time I will use practical examples and leave theory aside, if you prefer) because judges in practice are always more inclined to give the verdict that they think the mob is most likely to accept.

Perfect example: Nazi Germany. No one can deny that their judiciary basically acted like an inquisition committee. But why? Not because Hitler was breathing down their neck, but because the PEOPLE supported hitler.

The same is the case with gay-marriage. Why did the Canadian judiciary allow it, and the Americans didn't? Is the question itself any different in Canada then in the U.S? If not, then why the contrary verdict? Because the people in Canada are more tolerant of homosexuality, while the judges in the US are afraid to pass the law for fear of, well, a heap of rotten eggs at the least, and assassination at the most.

This is the extent of humanity's capacity to provide "justice." It's a joke! It is a good thing you left the practice of law. My grandfather was a lawyer as well and he left the practice after being disillusioned as well.

Now, this might only be one of those myths, but I have heard that in law school, the first thing they teach the students is that they are here to learn "law" not justice. If they are interested in talking about justice, then they are in the wrong place and should seek to enroll in a philosophy course. Even if this is a myth, it sound about right.

Your scripture requires you to discriminate against kaffir

Does it?

I am living among billion plus "kaffirs" in China right now, who do not fit into any category of "people of the book" or the "sabiens". Now tell me, how am I required by my scripture to discriminate against them?

Even if the situation was reversed and there were a billion muslims and one kaffir. How does the Quran "discriminate" against them? The Quran itself doesn't even specify a tax per head, most of that comes from superlative literature outside the Quran and written much later. During the Prophet's time, there were many non-Muslims (some even enemies) living in Medinah, and they were not discriminated against.

I would be fascinated to hear more about this election in Medinah. Who were the other candidates, and what were the vote totals?

The prophet was "elected" to become the leader in Medinah, by the people of medinah. The election was in the form of an invitation by the people who provided refuge to the Prophet and accepted his mediation in their disputes at a time when the Muslims numbered no more than 60 (I think) and were at their weakest possible state of power (non-existent actually). How could the prophet have forced his leadership on Medinah at this point if he did not have the majority vote??

At that moment, if there was no majority in Medinah to support the Prophet, there was no way the Muslims could have been taken in, under the threat of war from the Quraish.

But even assuming the deaths were necessary, does that make it all OK?

Well, duh! Of course it makes it okay. What are you like some hippie pacifist? (lol)

Killing to defend yourself is not wrong (as long as you kill only combatants and not start suicide bombing).

All those deaths in the Chinese and Russian revolutions? "Real" Communism wasn't responsible for that, only for the good parts of what happened... and the Crusaders and Inquisitors and witch-hunters weren't "real" Christians... slave traders weren't "real" capitalists either, you know...

And I don't blame Christianity for what "the Grand Inquisitor" did. And I dont blame communism for what Stalin did either. There are some ideologies which are just built on oppression and discrimination, like nazism. But Islam, clearly, is not one of those types of ideologies.

God didn't give you the Qur'an; humans did.

No, I'm pretty sure it was God. (occasionalism, remember?)

 

[farhan]

..........

 

[farhan]

On the thread "Phone call with a Muslim missionary", c0de and I discussed quantum physics (go back a few pages before we got sidetracked onto slavery and Sumerians), and how science has been forced to recognize that there must be something "hidden" (not observable
in the usual ways, not readily studied by the scientific method), since the material universe by itself does not suffice to explain what will happen next at any time. The "snobbish" attitude you talk about is from people who really don't know the science, but have built up some kind of
fictional picture of science in their heads.

Science should essentially be doing that. Because there cant be a time when humans would know everything, which means that there is forever "still something unknown". But its not just common people who go against that, one of the most famous examples is Mr.Dawkins. Most probably its the renaissance mindset that prevents even scientists from accepting anything spiritual. Ofcourse if I just replace the word spiritual with non-material, scientists wont have any problem with that. It's the European cultural baggage IMO.

But I insist on this: no human knows anything more about the invisible than any other.

You can never be sure about that. Have you talked to people who see "things"?

I reject the notion that God needs to use "messengers" and furthermore think that the whole concept that everybody else is supposed to be enslaved to these few specially favored humans to whom God gave revelations denied to the rest of us gives a very bad picture of God.

God's apparent absence is required for you in order to make you capable & responsible. There is a very important word here, khalif, One who takes care of his superior's responsibilities in his absence. His absence is necessary for the development of your submitting free will. Otherwise you would become an angel, always in contact with him, like a robot. Of course its all metaphysical musings, "I cant prove, You cant refute" kind of things.

And where did enslavement com from. Did Abraham enslave anybody? Did Moses enslave anybody? Yes people do enslave other people, & they can use anything as an excuse, or no excuse at all. You think you are free?

God gave me, and you, and every one of us, equal capacities for seeing what is true and right, and if God needs me to understand some particular thing, He would reveal that to me, and not to someone in Arabia fifteen centuries away from me, to be relayed to me by the very unreliable means of a book in a language I can barely puzzle out, as interpreted by people I have no reason in the world to consider trustworthy.

Nope, we don't have equal capacities to do anything. He has revealed many things at many places for many people across the planet. Take a look at them all. If you are humble enough, he will guide you. Key is humility.

It certainly LOOKS like a hodgepodge of Greek, Persian, and Indian lore, on the topic of embryology-- until you decide that the words don't have the meanings which the people of Muhammad's day thought they had, and change them into something else, to make it fit the "empirically supported facts". That is not a miracle, just pulling a rabbit out of a hat when I saw you put the rabbit in.

well my Quranic embryology days are long gone, don't feel the urge right now to look into my archives, so I wont be able to comment on that. AFAI remember, there is no problem there either.

That is just a deficiency in the way English is taught nowadays: not just "English as a Second Language", how it is taught in our own schools. My father made sure that I understood all about roots, and how to use them to figure out words I had not met before, but which were related to words I knew; and he said that was how things used to be taught. But my point was that the different derivatives of a root are not all interchangeable. Muhammad "giving praise", Ahmed "praise", and Mahmud "praised" are all from the h-m-d root but each has a different meaning. Things that "stick" together to form a larger thing are called "sticks" (it is clearer in German where Stueck is a "piece" of anything; only in English do we reserve "sticks" to mean "pieces of trees" in specific) but something is "sticky" (like thick mud) when it "sticks" to itself.

Sometimes thay are, sometimes they arnt. Common subject from HMD would be hamid, common object would be Mahmood. And of course they arnt interchangeable, since one means praiser, the other means praised. Ahmad in Ahmada form means "he praised" . In Ahmadun form it would mean "he who praised", its derived noun (mazid feh) from basic noun. Usually its used to make an intransitive verb transitive, & to add some meaning of conclusion to it. Muhammad means "one who is immensely praiseworthy". Ahmad & Hamid can be used interchangeably to varying extents. Other words cant.

No, muallaq is something that "sticks" to (or clings to, etc.) something else; that is the word that means "clinger". That is not the meaning of alaqa which is something that "sticks" to itself; it does not mean "clinger", it means "clot" or "clump" (of blood or mud) and meant "leech" because a leech was believed to be congealed mud (another kind of "clump"). You cannot take any derivative of alif-lam-qof and assign to it the specific meaning of any other derivative: if Muhammad meant to say muallaq he should have said that, instead of saying something which everyone at the time understood to mean that he was saying the embryo formed by the blood congealing into a clot (the idea of the time, from a hodgepodge of Greek, Persian, and Indian lore).

Literally alaqa means "(that masculine singular) clung/hung/suspended". The form used in the verse in Alaqin which is genitive masculine singular indefinite noun, meaning more or less clinger. There is no other meaning in it. Its an attribute used as noun. Just like calling a light bulb a shiner. Quran would be at mistake only if it used the word blood-clot there, which it didnt. Muallaq is formed on the same structure from ALQ, as muhammad from HMD. There is much more emphasis on the act of hanging in this word.

I could respect this, on those terms: "OK, this was not good science, but it didn't need to be, since God has given us brains to figure out embryology in the fullness of time; it was just expressing, in the ideas of those times, which were close enough and did not have to be exactly right, the point that we come from almost nothing, and should be humble and thankful to God for the wonderful process by which we grow from there."

But I cannot respect something like: "The proof that the Qur'an knows what it is talking about, when it speaks of the invisible, is how exactly correct it always is wherever it speaks of the visible." No, it isn't; Muhammad appears to have been exactly as ignorant as anyone else of his period.

Its not science at all...period. And yet it would be a scientific mistake only if you can conclusively prove it. Just because a word means two things & one would be right other would be wrong doesn't mean its wrong. It would be wrong only if it used the word that only meant wrong thing(s).

Muhammad didn't use the wrong words, unlike Aristotle or Galen. May be he was just too clever, may be he was a prophet. One cant be that clever to combine concepts from four different civilizations with no proper education, & that too without google. And then produce it in the form of refined poetry.

Can you show me any example of such a usage? I have only seen "son" and "daughter" used in such a manner. The clan of Ghassan (rulers of part of Arabia in the late Jahiliya) were called Banu Ghassan, the "sons" (literally, of course they were great-great-(however many greats)-grandsons) of Ghassan, and there are tons of examples of that usage, but I have never heard of "brothers of Ghassan" for anything except contemporaries of Ghassan.

Banu Ghassan means sons of Ghassan. Lets say Mr.Ghassan was well known for his bravery, & 1000 years later some other guy comes who is equally brave. In this sense brother can be used. I don't have any example though, you'll have to ask a native speaker.

This self-congratulatory story-telling would be more believable if we also had the other side, but we do not have anything recorded from the Jews and Christians of what they had to say about Muhammad. How is it that the king of Ethiopia did not convert, if what you claim is true? Ethiopia remained staunchly Christian and never considered Islam.

The Jews most certainly did bring up the "sister of Harun" passage as a criticism of the Qur'an quite early. I don't know when it was first raised, but it is one of the old chestnuts, like the two genealogies of Jesus as a "contradiction" in the Bible (of course, Christians will tell you that is no contradiction, with all kinds of excuse-mongering; and Muslim responses about the "sister of Harun" sound no better).

Jews had asked about Zul-qarnain, Joseph, people of the cave, & most probably Solomon's magic, Christians debated about Jesus' divinity. Aaron's sister seems to be a modern chestnut.

According to the Islamic history sources, King of Ethopia did convert. His people didn't. Ofcourse you wont believe that, neither would I if I were you.

It has EVERYTHING to do with codifications. Once you say, these are the rules and you cannot change or question them, you are not "liquid" anymore.

Nope. Civilizations are created by capable people, who bring abundance. Abundance makes next generation in capable (they dont move their lazy ass because they are gonna get everything anyways), so in their laziness they codify everything. Which creates even more incapable next generations. It has to do with abundance & the intoxication/laziness that follows it.

BTW no codifications will be equally destructive. So a little bit of it is necessary, to keep humans between a beast & a robot.

The Qur'an was a path forward for the Arabs of the Jahiliya period. It does not lead forward anymore: it drags you back.

Quran helped Persians to continue their journey. It made Turks a civilization. It caused a very different evolution for many Indians & SE-Asians. Apparently it still shows path to many Europeans & Americans. I don't see no dragging back. If somebody wants to sleep & use Quran as a justification, then Quran isnt responsible for that.

Follow your own path. I'm fine with that.

path to where? Where & why are you heading?

But Islam doesn't look like a "path" anymore: more like a nostalgic wish to go backwards.

Are we actually moving forward now a days? What exactly is a forward? To me the modern world seems more like an organized stampede, where everybody is running because everybody else is too. There is no forward, its a noctambulistic-merry-go-round

 

[bob x]

Science should essentially be doing that. Because there cant be a time when humans would know everything, which means that there is forever "still something unknown".

Precisely my objection to the concept of Muhammad as a "final" prophet.

Most probably its the renaissance mindset that prevents even scientists from accepting anything spiritual. Ofcourse if I just replace the word spiritual with non-material, scientists wont have any problem with that. It's the European cultural baggage IMO.

It has to do with the history of religion opposing every major new discovery, particularly heliocentrism and evolution but in other cases as well, out of a belief that we should freeze our knowledge to the level of the ignorance when Scriptures were written thousands of years ago. Harun Yahya is a parallel in the Islamic world.

Have you talked to people who see "things"?

I used to BE one of them. In my previous autobiographical post, I told how as a child I regarded the Bible as just one more fascinating collection of mythological and folklore stories, and vehemently rejected Christianity; I was a big fan of science, and became a "smarty-pants atheist" of the Dawkins type, not just rejecting religion myself, but eager to argue against religious people and show them why they were wrong. But to continue the story:

In my late teens, I began to have visionary seizures (I use the term "seizures" advisedly: I was never diagnosed, but I am sure this was a neurological condition) and swung completely in the opposite direction, to a hyper-religious megalomania. My religion at the time (I will not go into the belief-system) could be summarized, "There is no God but The God, and *I* am His Prophet!" A fearsome prophet indeed I was; my duties included bringing peace to the Middle East: during the embassy-hostage crisis, I offered myself to Khomeini in exchange, and he released one of the hostages; after Sabra and Chatila, I denounced Menachem Begin, demanding and receiving his resignation as Prime Minister. But before my visions ceased, I had some which "deflated" me: it is hard to explain, if you have never felt the intoxicating sense of importance which can accompany some insanities (paranoids feel it too: if the CIA is out to get you, why then, you must matter a lot!), but I rather abruptly came to perceive that I was not "all that" and, really, was quite a small creature in the universe. I turned to Buddhism, whose talk of the unreality of the "ego" was a helpful cure for the pridefulness that had become a spiritual sickness for me.

There is a very important word here, khalif, One who takes care of his superior's responsibilities in his absence. His absence is necessary for the development of your submitting free will. Otherwise you would become an angel, always in contact with him, like a robot.

Was Muhammad a robot?

Did Abraham enslave anybody? Did Moses enslave anybody? Yes people do enslave other people, & they can use anything as an excuse, or no excuse at all.

I don't see any stories where Abraham acted like a slaver, but Moses is said to have killed a lot of people for rejecting his revelations.

He has revealed many things at many places for many people across the planet. Take a look at them all. If you are humble enough, he will guide you. Key is humility.

I have always tried to look at them all, and indeed (see above) I have found humility to be important. The Qur'an just doesn't do much for me.

Common subject from HMD would be hamid, common object would be Mahmood. And of course they arnt interchangeable, since one means praiser, the other means praised.

If a passage in the Qur'an said hamid would you approve of substituting the meaning of mahmud to make it true?

Literally alaqa means "(that masculine singular) clung/hung/suspended". The form used in the verse in Alaqin which is genitive masculine singular indefinite noun, meaning more or less clinger. There is no other meaning in it.

No, in Muhammad's time and for centuries afterward, alaqa was not used for things that cling/hang/suspend from something else, rather for "congealed" things which cling to themselves: a "clot" of blood or "clump" of mud.

Quran would be at mistake only if it used the word blood-clot there, which it didnt.

It did not say an alaqa of dam "blood"; but it was understood by those Muhammad spoke to as meaning congealed blood rather than congealed mud or some other substance.

Muallaq is formed on the same structure from ALQ, as muhammad from HMD. There is much more emphasis on the act of hanging in this word.

And this isn't the word used, but the embryologists want to substitute the meaning of muallaq although they acknowledge that Muslim scholars in the time immediately after Muhammad knew alaqa as a word with a different meaning.

Just because a word means two things & one would be right other would be wrong doesn't mean its wrong. It would be wrong only if it used the word that only meant wrong thing(s).

Exactly. The word used means what Greek science taught people of the time, and didn't bear the meaning that is now wanted to fit modern science.

One cant be that clever to combine concepts from four different civilizations with no proper education, & that too without google. And then produce it in the form of refined poetry.

I would not know about the poetry, since Arabic has largely defeated me. We have a saying "Poetry is what is lost in translation", and the Qur'an is notorious for losing its very heart when rendered in another language, unlike the Bible, which has always traveled very well. In English it comes across as very repetitive, "To the good people, good things happen, and to the bad people, bad things happen, indeed very bad things to the very bad people, and very good things to the very good people," blah blah blah over and over, and if there are poetic nuances in the original, I can't know them.

Lets say Mr.Ghassan was well known for his bravery, & 1000 years later some other guy comes who is equally brave. In this sense brother can be used. I don't have any example though

Well that's the problem. I've never seen an example like that either, and when this passage is challenged, there never seems to be any example produced.

Jews had asked about Zul-qarnain, Joseph, people of the cave, & most probably Solomon's magic, Christians debated about Jesus' divinity. Aaron's sister seems to be a modern chestnut.

I thought the embryo was the modern chestnut, and sister-of-Harun the ancient one. Whatever. We could talk about Dzu al-Qarnain, and whether it's Alexander the Great or someone else, and how it looks like a really ignorant fairy-tale, but: I'm sure there is a whole list of standard excuses for that one too, just like Christians have for all the Bible conundrums; and you would probably think they were good excuses, while I wouldn't, so it would just be a waste of time.

According to the Islamic history sources, King of Ethopia did convert. His people didn't. Ofcourse you wont believe that, neither would I if I were you.

If so, Ethiopians should mention it in their histories, with of course a hostile spin on the story about how he was a wicked traitor or whatever, like Christian sources on Julian the Apostate (emperor a couple generations after Constantine, converted back to paganism). With no other source, it is difficult to put much trust in yours.

Are we actually moving forward now a days? What exactly is a forward? To me the modern world seems more like an organized stampede, where everybody is running because everybody else is too. There is no forward, its a noctambulistic-merry-go-round

Well, I'm having a good ride. Sorry your part of the world cannot figure out how to do this.