the concept of god

[Layth]

Science changes according to evidence, whilst religion demands the evidence conform to it.

You mention that as if religion and science are mutually exclusive.

There is a consensus amongst the scientific community that evolution is a fact of science. This is not an argument for evolution but an argument against the claim that scientists are in discord regarding the main scientific theories. The consensus is comprised of all the major scientific communities around the world and the percentage is around 98% in favour of evolution. This is of course built upon the astounding evidence for evolution with which whom you deny because of its clear conflict with your strong held religious beliefs. Muslims don't make a big deal about Germ theory, atomic theory, theory of gravity and some would even claim that the Big Bang theory is described in the Quran. There's an interesting cognitive dissonance in claiming not to be a blind follower but conveniently denying that which does not support your religious presumptions even though they contradict the evidence.

http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/02/FT_16.02.12_darwinDay_420px.png

Bring me one undeniable evidence for the theory of evolution. I'm waiting for Darwinian scientists to publish at least one case of mutation where an organism acquires new genetic information; gene duplication does not count. Honestly, this is all evolution means behind all the Darwinian jargon. This was the response of your god, Dawkins, who was confronted with this question. Instead of answering it, he stammered before taking a moment of pause before proceeding to completely strawman the questioner and digress from the topic which was genetic information.

You have also made arguments for religion which in reality is arguments against religion.

The consensus is comprised of all the major scientific communities around the world and the percentage is around 98% in favour of evolution.

About a century or two ago, there was a similar figure for scientists who espoused the notion that the universe had no beginning, but now it's "big bang" eh. Argumentum ad populum, is that the best you can do? You're not a very bright Europhile are ya?


In all honesty, you're a quite boring Europhile sxb. Try a little harder

 

[Layth]

@Layth you are just proving my point with this

Any denomination that adheres strictly to the Qur'an and Sunnah, using it as the basis for drawing rulings will never stray. Most of the "other" denominations of Islam directly contradict the Qur'an and Sunnah (e.g. Shia's hit themselves when self-harm is explicitly forbidden in the Qur'an).

It is a good comparison because there are so many disputes when it comes to interpretations of Quranic texts. It doesn't matter whether there is one way of viewing Islam or whether the content itself isn't subject to change as a result of these disputes, that's completely irrelevant. I'm not interested in the disputes, I'm merely pointing out that there isn't a consensus among Muslims. This isn't rocket science. Anyone can understand that people don't agree with each other 100% procent, even if the majority has the correct view. Now, if Muslims accepted criticism in this theological realm, maybe they would stop bombing each other.

What if every scientist rejected the evolution theory in union tomorrow because a new theory has been conjured up that's perhaps more convincing (according to them anyway)? You'd follow suit right? Even though you don't understand what the new theory is all about and never will... Nor did you understand the old theory that has been discarded


Yeah...Indeed hypothetically you are right. History has shown that theories are subject to being revised, rejected or completely disproved with the advent of new information. In that sense, I'd have to accept.You make it seem like that I'd lose sleep over it. I don't see science as a religion. I welcome new information. This dhogon thinks that changes in scientific theories will suddenly make me believe in a God again

As if the theory of evolution was the sole reason I left the deen. Wallahi you are killing me sxb. Most atheists don't even have a firm grasp of all the fundamental scientific theories as you mentioned. Telling them that something has changed with their worldview won't make them come back crawling to the religion of their parents nor affect them in any kind of way. BRB calling sick tomorrow because the theory of evolution has been discarded.


The core, unchanging worldview of Muslims does not handicap scientific progression. My evidence is the Islamic golden age.

Horta weren't you the one saying that the djinns are behind modern technology?. I rest my case


Free will is either an aspect of the immaterial soul or part of our biological makeup (which means we don't really have free will)


True, As I've already said. The fundamental part that directly influences the wide range of choices we can make, are biologically determined (genes, environment etc).So we don't have free will in its broadest sense of the concept.However, there are scientists and philosophers who are arguing for compatibility and others who are invoking Heisenberg Uncertainty principle to argue for free will. The iffy thing about it is that they need to clearly and distinctly define what they mean by free will.

I've already chosen for a practical stance, if you bothered to read it. By the way there is no such thing as ''immaterial soul''. Dualism was buried a long time ago in the scientific community sxb Descartes is still my nigga though

How long were you preparing to write this bit of text? Because I edited that time back.


Anyway, you're a walking contradiction. Stupid Europhile

 

[simulacrum]

How long were you preparing to write this bit of text? Because I edited that time back.

It took me some time on my mobile

 

[simulacrum]

@Inquisitive_ Horta do you know Eric Dubay?

 

[Inquisitive_]

@simulacrum

Ofcourse I do, him and Mark Sargant and the rest joined the bandwagon in the last 3 years so roughley, but the whole thing exploded last year, I was a flat earther for a decade now, all the materials flying around everywhere, I used to read during my commutes to the quackademic institutions and work.

People back then thought I was crazy, but now the way it's going, very soon you will be thought as crazy, I remember 8 years ago smashing some astrophysics chap in a debate, he even conceded but said something remarkable, "my reputation and my career are over if I ever come out with this"

Despite the fact I turned him into a believer by a very simple fact, the argument from curvature did 70% of the job, but the one that turned him was the Europhile Eratosthenes measure of the earth circumference, he measured it relying on 'parallel' sun light, because if the sun is really million miles away the lights would always come in at a parallel angle, from there he was able to measurable the circumference which they use until this day about 25000miles

From there using simple trigonometry taught at school you can work out the curvature, which is 8 inches per mile squared, there is even a curvature calculator on google you can use, and you should be able with google earth to see the expected elevation/curve which you never seen if you calculate over distances, many videos on it.

But back to the 'parallel' sun light discussion which Eratosthenes used to measure the circumference, I showed the astrophysicist chap (working on his PhD) images of sun lights coming in scattered towards the earth from many different locations (suggesting the sun is close).

He argued this was due to 'refraction' of the atmosphere, to which I responded but Eratosthenes relied on 'parallel' light for measurement of the circumference, so which is true? either his measurement was wrong and the earth is far bigger, or the sun is very close and not million miles away and the heliocentric model is wrong?

This was enough for him to convert because you cannot argue your way out of this problem, this was done without getting involved in the complex 'sextant' measurement techniques of how to judge distance of objects.

Over the decade I have met many such people, whom agreed with me, but never come out, I even have him on here message me privately, but they hide, it's normal, rising above group-think/dogma and the idea what others think of you is not easy, I understand, but I rather the world is against me, then perpetuate something I am not convinced by.

 

[The_Cosmos]

You mention that as if religion and science are mutually exclusive.



Bring me one undeniable evidence for the theory of evolution. I'm waiting for Darwinian scientists to publish at least one case of mutation where an organism acquires new genetic information; gene duplication does not count. Honestly, this is all evolution means behind all the Darwinian jargon. This was the response of your god, Dawkins, who was confronted with this question. Instead of answering it, he stammered before taking a moment of pause before proceeding to completely strawman the questioner and digress from the topic which was genetic information.








About a century or two ago, there was a similar figure for scientists who espoused the notion that the universe had no beginning, but now it's "big bang" eh. Argumentum ad populum, is that the best you can do? You're not a very bright Europhile are ya?


In all honesty, you're a quite boring Europhile sxb. Try a little harder

Religion and science are mutually exclusive and I have provided evidence from the Quran to show this, which you have conveniently ignored to address. I have provided clear claims made by the Quran which contradicts the scientific evidence provided.

As for the claim you demanded that I should provide. It seems you are not really interested in the wider concept of evolution but instead you want to focus on bits and pieces that you believe provide a case for dismissing evolution even though you just ignore the wider base of evidence for evolution. Nonetheless, here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....n-only-destroy-information/amp/?client=safari

Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.

Most biologists would see this as a gain in information: a change in environment (the availability of cow’s milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.

Richard Dawkins is only a man and thus his opinions are his own. I admire him and his outspoken nature of religion but that does not mean I view him as a god or whatever. If he is wrong, he is wrong. The prophet says that summer and winter are affected by the inhaling of hell, literally, but then you lot invoke some hidden knowledge that nobody figured out yet or whatever to try and justify what is clearly bullshit.

I don't know if you have reading problems because I have clearly stated that I am not using that argument to try and justify evolution, I'm using that argument to rebuke the notion that there is a discord among scientists on the consensus of the major scientific theories. I'll provide my quote:

"There is a consensus amongst the scientific community that evolution is a fact of science. This is not an argument for evolution but an argument against the claim that scientists are in discord regarding the main scientifictheories."

That's what I said!



You've questioned my intellect, which is kind of ironic from a man who believes the Earth was created before the heavens as described in the Quran. I have provided evidence for this claim and it would do you well to return to my previous comment to see it.

You can call me boring but you have proved a point that I made about the religious. You conveniently stepped over all the material that I have provided against your religion, all the material to rebuke the idea that religion and science can compliment each other. You literally refused to address them by ignoring them.

 

[Layth]

Religion and science are mutually exclusive and I have provided evidence from the Quran to show this, which you have conveniently ignored to address. I have provided clear claims made by the Quran which contradicts the scientific evidence provided.

You did not provide evidence from the Qur'an that Islam and science are incompatible, you jackass. One generally accepted interpretation of the word "spread" is that what's intended is from our perspective.

Shaykh ash-Shanqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

If the scholars of Islam affirm that the earth is round, then what would they say about the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Do they not look at the camels, how they are created?

And at the heaven, how it is raised?

And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm?

And at the earth, how it is spread out?”

[al-Ghaashiyah 88:17-20].

Their response will be the same as their response concerning the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water” [al-Kahf 18:86] – that is, as it appears to be in the eye of the beholder, because the sun sets on one country, but remains up in the sky for another, until it rises from the east on the following morning. So the earth looks flat in every region or part of it, because of its immense size.

I don't think I've ever come across a scholar who's used these ayahs as a basis for supporting the flat earth theory (though I believe the earth is flat). In reality, to believe whether the earth is flat or not is not a matter of faith in Islam; a Muslim is free to hold whatever opinion they want in this regard, like every other matter that does not pertain to faith.

As for the supposition that the Qur’an claims semen emanates from between the backbone and ribs, this is simply a lie. This is the problem with Europhiles; they don’t understand the Arabic language but they want to give tafseer of the Qur’an for us. You need to study nahw, sarf, balaagha, ma’anaa, etc. for 20 years at least before you can interpret verses, you kalb.

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

If Islam and science are incomparable, how did the Muslim world surpass their non-Muslim peers in scientific discovery and advancement? I'll wait.

I’ve explained why Islam, instead of handicapping scientific progress, will actually encourage us to further investigate matters; we’re literally ordered to do so in the Qur’an.

You might (foolishly) say "b-but Muslims are told to believe Allah created the earth, so they can't investigate, period". The exact opposite is true. It would actually be a noble endeavor (even Islamically) to investigate the origins of the universe since it could be a means of confirming what was said in the scripture and strengthening our faith in Allah (SWT).

As for the claim you demanded that I should provide. It seems you are not really interested in the wider concept of evolution but instead you want to focus on bits and pieces that you believe provide a case for dismissing evolution even though you just ignore the wider base of evidence for evolution. Nonetheless, here you go:

Get this through your thick skull: what’s meant by evolution (in a nutshell) is genetic mutations, as in organisms acquiring new genetic information. This has never been observed, ever. How can they acquire new traits without new genetic information? How can speciation in it’s truest sense occur if no new genetic information is added?

It’s well-known that genetic information can be destroyed; there’s evidence for this; but there’s NO evidence that information can be added… lol.

I ask you for evidence for evidence of evolution on a genetic level and this is the best that you can give me? Dameer waxid.

Richard Dawkins is only a man and thus his opinions are his own. I admire him and his outspoken nature of religion but that does not mean I view him as a god or whatever. If he is wrong, he is wrong..

What the actual f*ck? How is any of this relevant? Empty rhetoric! This is not about opinion(s), this is about the fact that no biologist, including Dawkins can provide evidence for a case of genetic mutation.

I don't know if you have reading problems because I have clearly stated that I am not using that argument to try and justify evolution, I'm using that argument to rebuke the notion that there is a discord among scientists on the consensus of the major scientific theories. I'll provide my quote:

"There is a consensus amongst the scientific community that evolution is a fact of science. This is not an argument for evolution but an argument against the claim that scientists are in discord regarding the main scientifictheories."


That's what I said!

Maybe you’re the one with reading problems, because I’ve merely mentioned that there’s many different versions of evolution, I did not say that majority scientists are in disagreement regarding the validity of evolution (though the word evolution is quite vague). Go back and read what I wrote. Scientists generally accept a theory until it’s proven wrong, that still doesn’t make the theory right; they may also believe in different versions/narratives of these theories. "Theories are like toothbrushes... Everyone has one, and nobody wants to use anyone else's."

There were many outrageous theories that were once accepted in the scientific community, until they were proven wrong.

You repeat the same shit like a broken record, even though most of what you vomit is utter garbage. I’m waiting for the next pile of crap you will plagiarise from WikiIslam.

It appears any dose of medication we're providing for this patient is only exacerbating his already near-fatal condition.



Edited.

 

[The_Cosmos]

You did not provide evidence from the Qur'an that Islam and science are incompatible, you jackass. One generally accepted interpretation of the word "spread" is that what's intended is from our perspective.

Shaykh ash-Shanqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

If the scholars of Islam affirm that the earth is round, then what would they say about the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Do they not look at the camels, how they are created?

And at the heaven, how it is raised?

And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm?

And at the earth, how it is spread out?”

[al-Ghaashiyah 88:17-20].

Their response will be the same as their response concerning the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water” [al-Kahf 18:86] – that is, as it appears to be in the eye of the beholder, because the sun sets on one country, but remains up in the sky for another, until it rises from the east on the following morning. So the earth looks flat in every region or part of it, because of its immense size.

I don't think I've ever come across a scholar who's used these ayahs as a basis for supporting the flat earth theory (though I believe the earth is flat). In reality, to believe whether the earth is flat or not is not a matter of faith in Islam; a Muslim is free to hold whatever opinion they want in this regard, like every other matter that does not pertain to faith.

As for the supposition that the Qur’an claims semen emanates from between the backbone and ribs, this is simply a lie. This is the problem with Europhiles; they don’t understand the Arabic language but they want to give tafseer of the Qur’an for us. You need to study nahw, sarf, balaagha, ma’anaa, etc. for 20 years at least before you can interpret verses, you kalb.

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

If Islam and science are incomparable, how did the Muslim world surpass their non-Muslim peers in scientific discovery and advancement? I'll wait.

I’ve explained why Islam, instead of handicapping scientific progress, will actually encourage us to further investigate matters; we’re literally ordered to do so in the Qur’an.




Get this through your thick skull: what’s meant by evolution (in a nutshell) is genetic mutations, as in organisms acquiring new genetic information. This has never been observed, ever. How can they acquire new traits without new genetic information? How can speciation in it’s truest sense occur if no new genetic information is added?

It’s well-known that genetic information can be destroyed; there’s evidence for this; but there’s NO evidence that information can be added… lol lol lol. If you’re claiming this is an acquired trait, surely it must reflect on the subjects’ genome. Why don’t scientists use this to settle this matter for good? Because there’s no evidence for it.

I ask you for evidence for evidence of evolution on a genetic level and this is the best that you can give me? Dameer waxid.


What the actual f*ck? How is any of this relevant? Empty rhetoric! This is not about opinion(s), this is about the fact that no biologist, including Dawkins can provide evidence for a case of genetic mutation.


Maybe you’re the one with reading problems, because I’ve merely mentioned that there’s many different versions of evolution, I did not say that majority scientists are in disagreement regarding the validity of evolution (though the word evolution is quite vague). Go back and read what I wrote. Scientists generally accept a theory until it’s proven wrong, that still doesn’t make the theory right; they may also believe in different versions/narratives of these theories. "Theories are like toothbrushes... Everyone has one, and nobody wants to use anyone else's."

There were many outrageous theories that were once accepted in the scientific community, until they were proven wrong.

You repeat the same shit like a broken record, even though most of what you vomit is utter garbage. I’m waiting for the next pile of crap you will plagiarise from WikiIslam.

It appears any dose of medication we're providing for this patient is only exacerbating his already near-fatal condition.

You did not provide evidence from the Qur'an that Islam and science are incompatible, you jackass. One generally accepted interpretation of the word "spread" is that what's intended is from our perspective.

Shaykh ash-Shanqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

If the scholars of Islam affirm that the earth is round, then what would they say about the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Do they not look at the camels, how they are created?

And at the heaven, how it is raised?

And at the mountains, how they are rooted and fixed firm?

And at the earth, how it is spread out?”

[al-Ghaashiyah 88:17-20].

Their response will be the same as their response concerning the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water” [al-Kahf 18:86] – that is, as it appears to be in the eye of the beholder, because the sun sets on one country, but remains up in the sky for another, until it rises from the east on the following morning. So the earth looks flat in every region or part of it, because of its immense size.

I don't think I've ever come across a scholar who's used these ayahs as a basis for supporting the flat earth theory (though I believe the earth is flat). In reality, to believe whether the earth is flat or not is not a matter of faith in Islam; a Muslim is free to hold whatever opinion they want in this regard, like every other matter that does not pertain to faith.

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I state that you conveniently pick and choose what to respond to from my arguments whilst ignoring the rest. First of all, I have made no mention of a flat earth argument against the Quran. Here is what I actually said:

Praise be to Allah.

The Holy Qur’an indicates in two places that the earth was created before the heavens. That is in the verses in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He Istawa (rose over) towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything”

[al-Baqarah 2:29]

And:

“Say (O Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)): Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days and you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the ‘Alameen (mankind, jinns and all that exists).

He placed therein (i.e. the earth) firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance (for its dwellers) in four Days equal (i.e. all these four days were equal in the length of time), for all those who ask (about its creation).

Then He Istawa (rose over) towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: ‘Come both of you willingly or unwillingly.’ They both said: ‘We come, willingly’”

[Fussilat 41:9-11].

"Al-‘Allaamah Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shinqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

First of all, it should be understood that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked about reconciling between the verse in Soorah Fussilat and the verse in an-Naazi‘aat, and he responded by saying that Allah, may He be exalted, created the earth first, before the heaven, but it was not spread. Then He rose over towards the heaven and fashioned it as seven heavens in two days, then He spread the earth after that, and placed in it mountains, rivers and so on."

Source: https://islamqa.info/en/70217

As is clearly stating in the quotation of my actual arguments, the Quran clearly articulates an unscientific claim which is that the Earth was created before the heavens.

Please, address the arguments I make instead of ones you imagine. Stop the straw man!

As for the supposition that the Qur’an claims semen emanates from between the backbone and ribs, this is simply a lie. This is the problem with Europhiles; they don’t understand the Arabic language but they want to give tafseer of the Qur’an for us. You need to study nahw, sarf, balaagha, ma’anaa, etc. for 20 years at least before you can interpret verses, you kalb.

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

You try to rebuke my claims on the grounds of wrong translation, which can't be right if you take into account that this comes from the most widely accepted Muslim Quranic translations. I will be providing evidence from Muslim sources and one from a scientist named William Campbell.

Here we find that Man is made from a 'gushing fluid' that issues from the adult father during the 'now' of the reproductive act, from a specific physical place 'between the loins and the ribs.' (other translations have backbone instead of loins)

Since the verse is speaking of the moment of adult reproduction it can't be talking about the time of embryonic development. Moreover, since 'sulb' is being used in conjunction with 'gushing fluid', which can only be physical; and 'tara'ib' which is another physical word for chest or thorax or ribs, it can't be euphemistic. Therefore, we are left with the very real problem that the semen is coming from the back or kidney area and not the testicles.

Dr. Bucaille, as a physician recognizes this problem only too well, so he wiggles and squirms (as he accuses the Christian commentators of doing) and finally after quoting the verse as we have seen it translated above says, 'This would seem more to be an interpretation than a translation. It is hardly comprehensible'. This is the second time he has called the Qur'an obscure or hardly comprehensible when there was a problem.

Therefore, let us look at the translations which I have been consulting. Those made by Muslims are:

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Egyptian, 1946 with a preface from 1938
'He is created from a drop emitted—proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.'

Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, English, 1977 (translation probably 1940)
'He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs.'

Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Pakistani, 1971
'He is created from a fluid poured forth, which issues forth from between the loins and the breastbones.'

Muhammad Hamidullah, French, 1981 (10th Edition, completely revised)
'Il a été créé d'une giclée d'eau sortie d'entre lombes et côtes.'
He was created from a spurt of water coming out between the loins and ribs.

Made by a non-Muslim: D. Masson, French 1967
'Il a été créé d'une goutte d'eau répandue sortie d'entre les lombes et les côtes.'
He was created from a drop of spread out water coming out between the loins and the ribs.

That these five translations are exactly equal is perfectly obvious to every reader even if he does not know French or the original Arabic.

The above comes from Dr William Campbell refuting Dr Bucaille.

Prominent Muslim transnationals:

Yusuf Ali: proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

Pickthal: that issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry: issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar: which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa: from between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan: proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs.

Malik: that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP: that issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds: it comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

I will provide a well respected Muslim source to back up my argument.

The sulb (translated above as backbone) is the back, according to the consensus of the commentators. As for the taraa’ib(translated above as ribs), the scholars differed as to what it is and where it is located.

Imam at-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The commentators differed as to what is meant by at-taraa’ib and where they are located. Some said that the word at-taraa’ib refers to the place where the necklace goes on a woman’s chest. This was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas, ‘Ikrimah and others.

Others said that the taraa’ib is the area between the shoulders and the chest. This was narrated from Mujaahid and others among the early generation.

Yet others said that what is meant is that it emerges from between a man’s back and upper chest. This was narrated from Qataadah.

And there were other opinions which suggested that it refers to the arms, legs or eyes, or that it refers to the ribs that are below the back, or that it refers to the essence of the heart.

Then he – i.e., at-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) – said: The correct view concerning that, in our opinion, is the view of those who said that it is the place where the necklace goes on a woman’s chest, because that is the well-known usage in the Arabic language and in Arabic poetry.

This view that was favoured by the imam of the mufassireen (Qur’an commentators), that what is meant is a man’s backbone and the taraa’ib of a woman, which is the place where her necklace goes, is also the view that was favoured by Imam al-Qurtubi in his Tafseer (16/343, 5/20) and by al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer in his Tafseer (8/375). It was also favoured by al-‘Allaamah Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shanqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) who said:

It should be noted that Allah has explained that some this water, which is the nutfah (sperm drop), comes from the sulb, i.e., it is the man’s water, and some of it comes from the taraa’ib, i.e., it is the woman’s water. This is what is referred to in these verses in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“So let man see from what he is created!

He is created from a water gushing forth

Proceeding from between the back-bone (as-sulb) and the ribs (at-taraa’ib)”

[at-Taariq 86:5-7].

Because what is meant by as-sulb is the man’s back and what is meant by at-taraa’ib is the woman’s taraa’ib, which is the place where her necklace goes.

https://islamqa.info/en/118879

There's also a Hadith which is a bit more explicit.

The Prophet (pbuh) said, "Allah will say to the person who will have the minimum punishment in the Fire on the Day of Resurrection, 'If you had things equal to whatever is on the earth, would you ransom yourself (from the punishment) with it?' He will reply, Yes. Allah will say, 'I asked you a much easier thing than this while you were in the backbone of Adam, that is, not to worship others besides Me, but you refused and insisted to worship others besides Me."
Sahih Bukhari 8:76:562

If Islam and science are incomparable, how did the Muslim world surpass their non-Muslim peers in scientific discovery and advancement? I'll wait.

I’ve explained why Islam, instead of handicapping scientific progress, will actually encourage us to further investigate matters; we’re literally ordered to do so in the Qur’an.

This is a fallacious argument. The scientific advancement of the Islamic world during the golden age is thanks to the genius of the scientists and not the religion itself. Muslims scientists at the time made a distinction between their religion and science. There's nothing wrong with that distinction. Nonetheless, you're making a terrible argument. I mean, what happened afterwards? I'll let Neil Degrasse Tyson explain:

Get this through your thick skull: what’s meant by evolution (in a nutshell) is genetic mutations, as in organisms acquiring new genetic information. This has never been observed, ever. How can they acquire new traits without new genetic information? How can speciation in it’s truest sense occur if no new genetic information is added?

It’s well-known that genetic information can be destroyed; there’s evidence for this; but there’s NO evidence that information can be added… lol lol lol. If you’re claiming this is an acquired trait, surely it must reflect on the subjects’ genome. Why don’t scientists use this to settle this matter for good? Because there’s no evidence for it.

I ask you for evidence for evidence of evolution on a genetic level and this is the best that you can give me? Dameer waxid.

Wow! You accuse me of getting my sources from unsubstantiated websites but here you are making an argument that creationists love to espouse. Very interesting...

Essentially the argument is vague. What is it that you mean by information and why can't gene duplications be counted? Nonetheless, gene duplication isn't the only way that new genetic information evolved. One other way and the simplest is point mutations. Instead of me clogging down this post with many writing, I'll allow this video below to give you the gist of what I am saying. Here it is:

Maybe you’re the one with reading problems, because I’ve merely mentioned that there’s many different versions of evolution, I did not say that majority scientists are in disagreement regarding the validity of evolution (though the word evolution is quite vague). Go back and read what I wrote. Scientists generally accept a theory until it’s proven wrong, that still doesn’t make the theory right; they may also believe in different versions/narratives of these theories. "Theories are like toothbrushes... Everyone has one, and nobody wants to use anyone else's."

There were many outrageous theories that were once accepted in the scientific community, until they were proven wrong.

It seems you have no idea what your even arguing against (not surprising since your beliefs are entirely built on faith which is essentially blind). Evolution in its most basic definition is:

"The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

The details of evolution may have variations but the essential and basic understanding of evolution is not under question. The definition above is the basic understanding of evolution which is backed up by the evidence from transitional fossils and DNA evidence.

Anyways, I will be adding in two hadiths which add to the other evidence I have provided. Here they are:

Hadith no: 512
Narrated / Authority of: Abu Huraira
The Prophet said, "In very hot weather delay the Zuhr prayer till it becomes (a bit) cooler because the severity of heat is from the raging of Hell-fire. The Hell-fire of Hell complained to its Lord saying: O Lord! My parts are eating (destroying) one another. So Allah allowed it to take two breaths, one in the winter and the other in the summer. The breath in the summer is at the time when you feel the severest heat and the breath in the winter is at the time when you feel the severest cold."

http://ahadith.co.uk/chapter.php?cid=36&page=2

Narrated Anas:

When 'Abdullah bin Salam heard the arrival of the Prophet at Medina, he came to him and said, "I am going to ask you about three things which nobody knows except a prophet: What is the first portent of the Hour? What will be the first meal taken by the people of Paradise? Why does a child resemble its father, and why does it resemble its maternal uncle" Allah's Apostle said, "Gabriel has just now told me of their answers." 'Abdullah said, "He (i.e. Gabriel), from amongst all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews." Allah's Apostle said, "The first portent of the Hour will be a fire that will bring together the people from the east to the west; the first meal of the people of Paradise will be Extra-lobe (caudate lobe) of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her." On that 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of Allah." 'Abdullah bin Salam further said, "O Allah's Apostle! The Jews are liars, and if they should come to know about my conversion to Islam before you ask them (about me), they would tell a lie about me." The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and 'Abdullah went inside the house. Allah's Apostle asked (the Jews), "What kind of man is 'Abdullah bin Salam amongst you?" They replied, "He is the most learned person amongst us, and the best amongst us, and the son of the best amongst us." Allah's Apostle said, "What do you think if he embraces Islam (will you do as he does)?" The Jews said, "May Allah save him from it." Then 'Abdullah bin Salam came out in front of them saying, "I testify that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." Thereupon they said, "He is the evilest among us, and the son of the evilest amongst us," and continued talking badly of him.

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 546:

 

[simulacrum]

@ Inquisitive I respect people that don't rely too heavily on authority (scientism). You did your own experiments which has led you to draw your own conclusions. When I ask laypeople why the earth is round. They are flummoxed beyond belief and can't defend it like astronomers or those who have thought about it more in-depth. That's why I encourage being more informed about ones beliefs so that you can defend and argue for it at least. Like Wittgenstein said ''Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen''. If one has little knowledge about the subject, it's better to suspend judgement until you have gathered the necessary information.

What I found convincing about the spinning spherical earth and it also has a great explanatory power to boot, is the axis tilt theory which perfectly accounts for the seasons we are experiencing, night/day, why certain areas are warmer. In addition it is also falsifiable. Flat earthers, on the other hand seem.to have ad hoc explanations to account for the seasons that are not predictive, testable and falsifiable.


For me personally, it doesn't really matter whether the earth is flat or not. It won't affect me at the slightest. As a matter of fact, It would be hilarious if NASA was really exposed and it turns out there were lying all this time. But I highly doubt it would happen. I think Flat-Earthers care more about it than those who the think the earth is round. That's why they are so dogmatic and aggressive.

 

[Layth]

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I state that you conveniently pick and choose what to respond to from my arguments whilst ignoring the rest. First of all, I have made no mention of a flat earth argument against the Quran. Here is what I actually said:

Source: https://islamqa.info/en/70217

As is clearly stating in the quotation of my actual arguments, the Quran clearly articulates an unscientific claim which is that the Earth was created before the heavens.

Please, address the arguments I make instead of ones you imagine. Stop the straw man!

What on earth do you mean “strawman” you nacas? You did not even specify where you was going with those verses, I assumed you was trying to push a flat-earth narrative for Islam because you’ve done the exact same thing using the same verses on Inquistive’s thread, you absolute moron.

I’ll quote what you’ve said before, tell me whether your argument is perceptible:

"Al-‘Allaamah Muhammad al-Ameen ash-Shinqeeti (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

First of all, it should be understood that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) was asked about reconciling between the verse in Soorah Fussilat and the verse in an-Naazi‘aat, and he responded by saying that Allah, may He be exalted, created the earth first, before the heaven, but it was not spread. Then He rose over towards the heaven and fashioned it as seven heavens in two days, then He spread the earth after that, and placed in it mountains, rivers and so on."

You only quoted them. You didn't not state that a scientific error was made. You do not have any evidence that it's a scientific error.

You try to rebuke my claims on the grounds of wrong translation, which can't be right if you take into account that this comes from the most widely accepted Muslim Quranic translations. I will be providing evidence from Muslim sources and one from a scientist named William Campbell.

The above comes from Dr William Campbell refuting Dr Bucaille.

Prominent Muslim transnationals:

Yusuf Ali: proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

Pickthal: that issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry: issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar: which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa: from between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan: proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs.

Malik: that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP: that issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds: it comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

I will provide a well respected Muslim source to back up my argument.

https://islamqa.info/en/118879

There's also a Hadith which is a bit more explicit.

There's a difference between translation and interpretation. If you translate Arabic directly to English, many of the times it does not actually make any sense, or it would lead one to draw erroneous conclusions from the translations.

Anyway, this was already refuted on my last post . I don’t know if you’re illiterate or just clinically retarded:

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

Lane’s Lexicon says:

Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)

All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is peculiar to women.

It’s well known that the word “sulb” in Arabic also means loins but Europhiles would prefer to pick a definition that suits their whims and to mislead the people. I ask you right now, go on google translator and translate this word صلب

I’m not interested in these modern translations, they mean nothing to me. I’d rather refer to scholars and mufasirreen (including the companion of the Prophet, Ibn Abbas) who are authorities and are actually well-versed in this area:

Tafseer al-Jalalayn says:

Issuing from between the sulb, of the man, and the tara’ib, of the woman. (Tafseer Al-Jalalayn)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas says:

That issued from between the sulb of the man and the tara’ib of a woman.
(Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas)

There's also a Hadith which is a bit more explicit.

The Prophet (pbuh) said, "Allah will say to the person who will have the minimum punishment in the Fire on the Day of Resurrection, 'If you had things equal to whatever is on the earth, would you ransom yourself (from the punishment) with it?' He will reply, Yes. Allah will say, 'I asked you a much easier thing than this while you were in the backbone of Adam, that is, not to worship others besides Me, but you refused and insisted to worship others besides Me."
Sahih Bukhari 8:76:562

This hadith does not support your argument. Use simple logic: if every human being are a product of their immediate father’s sperm; how can we have been carried by Adam (AS) when we was born millennia later? Wallahi you’re a clown.

We don’t know what’s exactly meant by this but it’s not what you’re hoping it is.

Some Muslims are saying that this is referring to the “hox genes” (not that I'm saying it's conclusive, just illustrating a point):

“Consider the words “in the backbone of Adam.” Congruent with the backbone of Adam was the DNA pattern, the Hox genes, for all humanity. Genetic scientists have already determined that all humanity has descended from the same two parents, and that the Hox genes have been inherited from one common ancestor. Intentional references to the area along the spine and to the tail bone (the area of the Hox genes) are used in my given selections from the Qur’an and Hadith, which, of course, are centuries older than DNA science.”

This is a fallacious argument. The scientific advancement of the Islamic world during the golden age is thanks to the genius of the scientists and not the religion itself. Muslims scientists at the time made a distinction between their religion and science. There's nothing wrong with that distinction. Nonetheless, you're making a terrible argument. I mean, what happened afterwards? I'll let Neil Degrasse Tyson explain:

Look here you pea-brained Europhile. My point was science and religion are not mutually exclusive and that Islam does not handicap or forbid scientific progress, got it?

Essentially the argument is vague. What is it that you mean by information and why can't gene duplications be counted? Nonetheless, gene duplication isn't the only way that new genetic information evolved. One other way and the simplest is point mutations. Instead of me clogging down this post with many writing, I'll allow this video below to give you the gist of what I am saying. Here it is:

Absolutely no evidence whatsoever, all I heard was empty, demagogic rhetoric, mere hearsay. Gene duplication does not count, no matter how many times you duplicate the genome of a fish, it will never acquire the genes required to walk on two feet. Gene duplication =/= new genetic information (that reflects on the organism acquiring new traits).

Narrated Anas:

When 'Abdullah bin Salam heard the arrival of the Prophet at Medina, he came to him and said, "I am going to ask you about three things which nobody knows except a prophet: What is the first portent of the Hour? What will be the first meal taken by the people of Paradise? Why does a child resemble its father, and why does it resemble its maternal uncle" Allah's Apostle said, "Gabriel has just now told me of their answers." 'Abdullah said, "He (i.e. Gabriel), from amongst all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews." Allah's Apostle said, "The first portent of the Hour will be a fire that will bring together the people from the east to the west; the first meal of the people of Paradise will be Extra-lobe (caudate lobe) of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of the child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her." On that 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of Allah." 'Abdullah bin Salam further said, "O Allah's Apostle! The Jews are liars, and if they should come to know about my conversion to Islam before you ask them (about me), they would tell a lie about me." The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and 'Abdullah went inside the house. Allah's Apostle asked (the Jews), "What kind of man is 'Abdullah bin Salam amongst you?" They replied, "He is the most learned person amongst us, and the best amongst us, and the son of the best amongst us." Allah's Apostle said, "What do you think if he embraces Islam (will you do as he does)?" The Jews said, "May Allah save him from it." Then 'Abdullah bin Salam came out in front of them saying, "I testify that None has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah." Thereupon they said, "He is the evilest among us, and the son of the evilest amongst us," and continued talking badly of him.

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 546:

Yes...?

:siilaanyosmile:

 

[The_Cosmos]

What on earth do you mean “strawman” you nacas? You did not even specify where you was going with those verses, I assumed you was trying to push a flat-earth narrative for Islam because you’ve done the exact same thing using the same verses on Inquistive’s thread, you absolute moron.

I’ll quote what you’ve said before, tell me whether your argument is perceptible:



You only quoted them. You didn't not state that a scientific error was made. You do not have any evidence that it's a scientific error.

There's a difference between translation and interpretation. If you translate Arabic directly to English, many of the times it does not actually make any sense, or it would lead one to draw erroneous conclusions from the translations.

Anyway, this was already refuted on my last post . I don’t know if you’re illiterate or just clinically retarded:

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

Lane’s Lexicon says:

Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)

All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is peculiar to women.

It’s well known that the word “sulb” in Arabic also means loins but Europhiles would prefer to pick a definition that suits their whims and to mislead the people. I ask you right now, go on google translator and translate this word صلب

I’m not interested in these modern translations, they mean nothing to me. I’d rather refer to scholars and mufasirreen (including the companion of the Prophet, Ibn Abbas) who are authorities and are actually well-versed in this area:

Ibn Katheer writes in his tafseer (commentary) of the Quran:

It (fluid) emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer)

Tafseer al-Jalalayn says:

Issuing from between the sulb, of the man, and the tara’ib, of the woman. (Tafseer Al-Jalalayn)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas says:

That issued from between the sulb of the man and the tara’ib of a woman.
(Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas)


This hadith does not support your argument. Use simple logic: if every human being are a product of their immediate father’s sperm; how can we have been carried by Adam (AS) when we was born millennia later? Wallahi you’re a clown.

We don’t know what’s exactly meant by this but it’s not what you’re hoping it is.

Some Muslims are saying that this is referring to the “hox genes” (not that I'm saying it's conclusive, just illustrating a point):

“Consider the words “in the backbone of Adam.” Congruent with the backbone of Adam was the DNA pattern, the Hox genes, for all humanity. Genetic scientists have already determined that all humanity has descended from the same two parents, and that the Hox genes have been inherited from one common ancestor. Intentional references to the area along the spine and to the tail bone (the area of the Hox genes) are used in my given selections from the Qur’an and Hadith, which, of course, are centuries older than DNA science.”


Look here you pea-brained Europhile. My point was science and religion are not mutually exclusive and that Islam does not handicap or forbid scientific progress, got it?



Absolutely no evidence whatsoever, all I heard was empty, demagogic rhetoric, mere hearsay. Gene duplication does not count, no matter how many times you duplicate the genome of a fish, it will never acquire the genes required to walk on two feet. Gene duplication =/= new genetic information (that reflects on the organism acquiring new traits).



Yes...?

:siilaanyosmile:

What on earth do you mean “strawman” you nacas? You did not even specify where you was going with those verses, I assumed you was trying to push a flat-earth narrative for Islam because you’ve done the exact same thing using the same verses on Inquistive’s thread, you absolute moron.

I’ll quote what you’ve said before, tell me whether your argument is perceptible:



You only quoted them. You didn't not state that a scientific error was made. You do not have any evidence that it's a scientific error.

It seems you are clearly detailing your scientific illiteracy here. You have claimed on many occasions that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but here you are defending a scientifically inaccurate statement.

It's well known that many ancient civilisations have perceived a geocentric view of the world and have thought the Earth is separate from the universe, the Quran is no different it seems. You have demanded I provide evidence against the idea that the Earth being created before the heavens?? Are you serious?! You have called me a moron yet here you are, defending the indefensible. The heavens, which is clearly referring to the universe, is not separate from the Earth. The Earth is a product within the universe. The universe is around 14 billion years old and earth is around 4 billion years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely that means the universe came before the Earth? Interesting...

Of course now your next best move is to either accept the science or reject the implication of the word 'heavens'. I'll be presuming that you will argue that heavens does not mean universe.

There's a difference between translation and interpretation. If you translate Arabic directly to English, many of the times it does not actually make any sense, or it would lead one to draw erroneous conclusions from the translations.

Anyway, this was already refuted on my last post . I don’t know if you’re illiterate or just clinically retarded:

The phrase “mâ’ dâfiq” (emitted fluid) is not restricted in meaning to sperm but is used in Arabic for both the sperm and the egg. Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary on this verse, writes: “It emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both.”

…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.

Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

Lane’s Lexicon says:

Tara’ib: … most of the authors on strange words affirm decidedly that it (tara’ib) is peculiar to women. (Lane’s Lexicon, p.301)

All of the major commentaries of the Quran confirm that the tara’ib is peculiar to women.

It’s well known that the word “sulb” in Arabic also means loins but Europhiles would prefer to pick a definition that suits their whims and to mislead the people. I ask you right now, go on google translator and translate this word صلب

I’m not interested in these modern translations, they mean nothing to me. I’d rather refer to scholars and mufasirreen (including the companion of the Prophet, Ibn Abbas) who are authorities and are actually well-versed in this area:

Ibn Katheer writes in his tafseer (commentary) of the Quran:

It (fluid) emanates from the man and the woman, and with Allah’s permission, the child comes forth as a product of both. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer)

Tafseer al-Jalalayn says:

Issuing from between the sulb, of the man, and the tara’ib, of the woman. (Tafseer Al-Jalalayn)

Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas says:

That issued from between the sulb of the man and the tara’ib of a woman.
(Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafseer Ibn Abbas)

So none of what I wrote to you from a well respected Muslim site counts? Nonetheless, I'll answer anyways.

It seems you haven't done a good enough research my friend.

Definition of Loins via the oxford dictionary is as follows:

The part of the body on both sides of the spine between the lowest (false) ribs and the hip bones.

Lane's Lexicon translation of the word 'Sulb':

and any portion of the back containing vertebrae: (S, MSB, TA [and particularly the lumbar portion; the loins:] and the back [absolutely]

Now let's look at the tafsir of Ibn Kathir:

(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said, (Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).''

Source: http://www.alim.org/library/quran/AlQuran-tafsir/TIK/86/1

I've found your arguments copied and pasted from online as it resembles the exact same thing they wrote, almost word for word. I can't pinpoint exactly where as there are several sites using the exact same arguments. It seems you've been caught doing what you've accused me of doing.

Absolutely no evidence whatsoever, all I heard was empty, demagogic rhetoric, mere hearsay. Gene duplication does not count, no matter how many times you duplicate the genome of a fish, it will never acquire the genes required to walk on two feet. Gene duplication =/= new genetic information (that reflects on the organism acquiring new traits).

Well your clearly not interested in what science actually has to say if you brush aside anything anybody says. It seems I'm going to have to explain it to you myself.

As the video has clearly and beautifully illustrated, researchers at the Dr Richard Lenski Lab, have observed a hundred different mutations in bacteria but they also observed a beneficial point mutation in an E. coli. An A in its DNA code, was switched to a T. This gave the bacteria the ability to reproduce much faster than the others and within about a year, it managed to pretty much wipe out all the rest.

This is something that has been observed and the evidence is clear. There are other such cases of similar background. Nonetheless, you'll still make some claim because you're not interested in science. You're only interested in disproving a scientific theory which completely rebuked the myth that human beings are the result of Adam's children mating with each other. Something which completely defies scientific understanding.

Anyways, I'll leave you to your fairytales.

Yes...?

:siilaanyosmile:

More proof that religion and science are incompatible and thus contradict each other. The hadiths I provided are clear evidence of that. One of them states that the resemblance of the child depends on who ejaculates first. This is of course, nonsense. The other claims that summer and winter are dependent on the inhaling of hell. Again, nonsense. Seasonal changes are due to the Earth revolving around the sun.

You have shown yourself incapable of wanting to have a civil discussion. You keep insulting me when nobody insulted you. It seems, the evidence is too overwhelming.

 

[The_Cosmos]

@Layth

Interestingly enough, Qur'an 86:7 is similar to another erroneous theory proposed by Hippocrates in 5th century BC (1000 years before Islam). Hippocrates taught that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis.

 

[Layth]

You have claim on many occasions that science and religion are mutually exclusive but here you are defending a scientifically inaccurate statement.

Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Show me where I've claimed that religion and science are mutually exclusive. Quote me.

The Earth is a product within the universe. The universe is around 14 billion years old and earth is around 4 billion years old. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely that means the universe came before the Earth? Interesting...

No evidence whatsoever.

I've found your arguments copied and pasted from online as it resembles the exact same thing they wrote, almost word for word. I can't pinpoint exactly where as there are several sites using the exact same arguments. It seems you've been caught doing what you've accused me of doing.

Why don't you simply copy an brief excerpt of what I wrote and Google search it? Surely you'll find the sources. That's if you're truthful.

So none of what I wrote to you from a well respected Muslim site counts? Nonetheless, I'll answer anyways.

It seems you haven't done a good enough research my friend.

Definition of Loins via the oxford dictionary is as follows:

The part of the body on both sides of the spine between the lowest (false) ribs and the hip bones.

Lane's Lexicon translation of the word 'Sulb':

and any portion of the back containing vertebrae: (S, MSB, TA [and particularly the lumbar portion; the loins:] and the back [absolutely]

Now let's look at the tafsir of Ibn Kathir:

(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said, (Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).''

Source: http://www.alim.org/library/quran/AlQuran-tafsir/TIK/86/1

Are you ok in the head? Do you honestly think words only have one definition? Loins could also mean "the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power".

"The term also has become euphemistic for human genitals because of their prominence in that anatomical region. Because of this euphemistic use of the term, the article of clothing that is worn around the genital area has been named a loincloth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loin



Even with Google search, you're failing; this is epic.

E. coli. An A in its DNA code, was switched to a T. This gave the bacteria the ability to reproduce much faster than the others and within about a year, it managed to pretty much wipe out all the rest.

I've searched for the highlighted part thoroughly, even using Google scholar and wallahi I could not find a single source.

There are other such cases of similar background.

Kindly share them with us.

More proof that religion and science are incompatible and contradict each other.

How is it more proof? What the f*ck? You're actually not making any arguments. "Aha! science and religion are not compatible" *doesn't provide any evidence*.

Use simple logic: if every human being are a product of their immediate father’s sperm; how can we have been carried by Adam (AS) when we was born millennia later? Wallahi you’re a clown.

Lol not to sound disingenuous, but wallahi I put this there on purpose, I was going to send it without including that part (the point would have still stood) but I threw it in just to see how strong your capability for logical thinking is and you failed.

Technically speaking our DNA traces back to our earliest ancestor, so it’s reasonable to say we were being carried by Adam (AS) but it still doesn’t support your argument. There's nothing to suggest that the Qur'an claims sperm is carried above loins, namely "backbone" and other areas.

 

[Layth]

@Layth

Interestingly enough, Qur'an 86:7 is similar to another erroneous theory proposed by Hippocrates in 5th century BC (1000 years before Islam). Hippocrates taught that semen comes from all the fluid in the body, diffusing from the brain into the spinal marrow, before passing through the kidneys and via the testicles into the penis.

Hippocrates did not say it comes from the "backbone" (not that Islam supports the notion that sperm is produced in this region) specifically did he? Stop regurgitating bulshit that you're finding online.

 

[Layth]

Lol I don’t know why I didn’t do this in the beginning but after a quick search, I found out that the person who has translated that hadith did the same mistake as some of those who have translated the ayah that you brought up before.

حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا غُنْدَرٌ، حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي عِمْرَانَ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَنَسَ بْنَ مَالِكٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ يَقُولُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى لأَهْوَنِ أَهْلِ النَّارِ عَذَابًا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ لَوْ أَنَّ لَكَ مَا فِي الأَرْضِ مِنْ شَىْءٍ أَكُنْتَ تَفْتَدِي بِهِ فَيَقُولُ نَعَمْ‏.‏ فَيَقُولُ أَرَدْتُ مِنْكَ أَهْوَنَ مِنْ هَذَا وَأَنْتَ فِي صُلْبِ آدَمَ أَنْ لاَ تُشْرِكَ بِي شَيْئًا فَأَبَيْتَ إِلاَّ أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي ‏"‏‏

The word used in this hadith is also sulb (صلب)

Wallahi these incorrect translations are truly problematic. Surely if you read ibn Hajr's "fath al bari" a sharh (explanation) of Sahih al-Bukhari you will not be drawing these outrageous conclusions.

 

[Layth]

@The_Cosmos accept your karbash niyoow

Let's debate about free will, determinism, etc.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Show me where I've claimed that religion and science are mutually exclusive. Quote me.



No evidence whatsoever.


Why don't you simply copy an brief excerpt of what I wrote and Google search it? Surely you'll find the sources. That's if you're truthful.


Are you ok in the head? Do you honestly think words only have one definition? Loins could also mean "the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power".

"The term also has become euphemistic for human genitals because of their prominence in that anatomical region. Because of this euphemistic use of the term, the article of clothing that is worn around the genital area has been named a loincloth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loin



Even with Google search, you're failing; this is epic.


I've searched for the highlighted part thoroughly, even using Google scholar and wallahi I could not find a single source.



Kindly share them with us.


How is it more proof? What the f*ck? You're actually not making any arguments. "Aha! science and religion are not compatible" *doesn't provide any evidence*.



Lol not to sound disingenuous, but wallahi I put this there on purpose, I was going to send it without including that part (the point would have still stood) but I threw it in just to see how strong your capability for logical thinking is and you failed.

Technically speaking our DNA traces back to our earliest ancestor, so it’s reasonable to say we were being carried by Adam (AS) but it still doesn’t support your argument. There's nothing to suggest that the Qur'an claims sperm is carried above loins, namely "backbone" and other areas.

Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Show me where I've claimed that religion and science are mutually exclusive. Quote me.

This is a mistake I made that I quickly noticed after I proof read what I wrote. What I was supposed to say:

It seems you are clearly detailing your scientific illiteracy here. You have claimed on many occasions that science and religion are not mutually exclusive but here you are defending a scientifically inaccurate statement.

It seems you began writing your reply before I've seen the error. This was a fault my part, I admit. I'll proof read next time before I actually submit what I write.

No evidence whatsoever.

You've questioned my intellect on many occasions but here you are, yet again, defending the Quran even though I've clearly shown that it contradicts well established science.

Nonetheless, here is my proof:

"In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number."

"A 2013 map of the background radiation left over from the Big Bang, taken by the ESA's Planck spacecraft, captured the oldest light in the universe. This information helps astronomers determine the age of the universe."

For more information go on this website:

http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Are you ok in the head? Do you honestly think words only have one definition? Loins could also mean "the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power".

"The term also has become euphemistic for human genitals because of their prominence in that anatomical region. Because of this euphemistic use of the term, the article of clothing that is worn around the genital area has been named a loincloth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loin



Even with Google search, you're failing; this is epic.

Very interesting... I know the term can be understood as you have described it, however, this is not how it was understood and is contradicted by another verse which backs my definition of that word. (Note: my definition is from the oxford definition). Here is the verse:

"Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters [...] and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins"
Qur'an 4:23

When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants...
Qur'an 7:172

Tafsir:

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

(That issued from between the loins) of a man (and ribs) the ribs of a woman.

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

issuing from between the loins of the man and the breast-bones of the woman.

Ibn Kathir:

(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said, (Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).''

Yusuf Ali: proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

Pickthal: that issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry: issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar: which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa: from between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan: proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs.

Malik: that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP: that issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds: it comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

All of the above translations are the most popular English translations. The people responsible for these translations have studied the Quran and they clearly contradict pretty much everything you just said.

This is becoming very laughable for you. I have given you:

1) English translations

2) Oxford dictionary definition of the term loins

3) Tafsir that corroborate my points

4) Quranic verses that corroborate my definition of the word loins.

I've searched for the highlighted part thoroughly, even using Google scholar and wallahi I could not find a single source.



Kindly share them with us.

Everything I've stated is in the video but I'll provide evidence to save you the trouble because I know you won't watch it.

It has a Wikipedia page (so much for google eh).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It's in there, go check it out warya

Technically speaking our DNA traces back to our earliest ancestor, so it’s reasonable to say we were being carried by Adam (AS) but it still doesn’t support your argument. There's nothing to suggest that the Qur'an claims sperm is carried above loins, namely "backbone" and other areas.

Oh mate, you should not have done that!

When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants...
Qur'an 7:172

When an atheist is schooling a Muslim on Islam

 

[The_Cosmos]

@The_Cosmos accept your karbash niyoow

Let's debate about free will, determinism, etc.

Please, don't kid yourself. The Karbash only came from the atheists.

 

[Layth]

You've questioned my intellect on many occasions but here you are, yet again, defending the Quran even though I've clearly shown that it contradicts well established science.

Wallahi you're a bold-faced liar.

Nonetheless, here is my proof:

"In 2012, WMAP estimated the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years. In 2013, Planck measured the age of the universe at 13.82 billion years. Both of these fall within the lower limit of 11 billion years independently derived from the globular clusters, and both have smaller uncertainties than that number."

Let me guess, this is evidence because they said so? He actually believes this picture is real . Even if we say it was real for argument's sake, there's no evidence that the so-called radiation is a left-over of something that happened (supposedly) billions of years ago!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It's in there, go check it out warya

Nothing about an organism acquiring new genetic information.

Very interesting... I know the term can be understood as you have described it, however, this is not how it was understood and is contradicted by another verse which backs my definition of that word. (Note: my definition is from the oxford definition). Here is the verse:

"Forbidden unto you are your mothers, and your daughters, and your sisters [...] and the wives of your sons who (spring) from your own loins"
Qur'an 4:23

When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants...
Qur'an 7:172

Tafsir:

* تفسير Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

(That issued from between the loins) of a man (and ribs) the ribs of a woman.

* تفسير Tafsir al-Jalalayn
{ يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ ٱلصُّلْبِ وَٱلتَّرَآئِبِ }

issuing from between the loins of the man and the breast-bones of the woman.

Ibn Kathir:

(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said, (Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).''

Yusuf Ali: proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.

Pickthal: that issued from between the loins and ribs.

Arberry: issuing between the loins and the breast-bones.

Shakir: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Sarwar: which comes out of the loins and ribs.

Khalifa: from between the spine and the viscera.

Hilali/Khan: proceeding from between the back-bone and the ribs.

Malik: that is produced from between the loins and the ribs.

QXP: that issued from between tough rocks and mingled dust.

Maulana Ali: coming from between the back and the ribs.

Free Minds: it comes out from between the spine and the testicles.

All of the above translations are the most popular English translations. The people responsible for these translations have studied the Quran and they clearly contradict pretty much everything you just said.

This is becoming very laughable for you. I have given you:

1) English translations

2) Oxford dictionary definition of the term loins

3) Tafsir that corroborate my points

4) Quranic verses that corroborate my definition of the word loins.

Those same verses also use the world "sulb". Nah, definitely you're retarded.

You act like you know more about Islam, yet (ironically) you've refuted yourself. Wallahi if this is not a case of Dunning-Kruger effect, I don't know what is. You cannot read Arabic because if you could, you would see that it says "sulb". You're illiterate in both Arabic and English.

Oh mate, you should not have done that!

When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants...
Qur'an 7:172

When an atheist is schooling a Muslim on Islam

I don't know if you're illiterate or the karbash is getting to your head. I said ABOVE THE LOINS (AS IN THE GENITAL AREA), NOT FROM THE LOINS.

Please, don't kid yourself. The Karbash only came from the atheists.

Wallahi you're either delusional or genuinely retarded... Or maybe both!

Also, @Inquisitive_ will gladly test you over video chat about these theories, do you accept the challenge? Why do you run away from this challenge? He will question you to test whether or not you have true understanding of these theories (we know you don’t) or whether you’re just a blind following charlatan, a scoundrel who merely regurgitates the words of his gods and concedes to whatever they espouse as if it were the gospel truth

You will be exposed for what a fool & charlatan you are; in fact you’ve already done a good job at that yourself. You’ve got the internet at your disposal and you’re still failing to define simple words; this is remarkable!

Even though in this debate, the odds were stacked against me (it was truly not a fear debate) and you still lost. Why was it not fair? Simply because you were throwing verses and ahadith at me & I had to write lengthy refutations (utilising the explanations of scholars) of each one of conclusions that you’ve wikiIslam & other Islamophobic websites have drawn from them myself.

Don’t ever fucking come on here trying to tell us “SCIENCE!” “EVIDENCE” when you don’t even understand the (usually ostensible) evidences and explanations of these theories yourselve, motherfucker. You want us to just take people’s word for stuff and become blind followers like yourself huh?

You have a slow Europhile intellect and take very long to reply even though you’re bashing (UK slang) the f*ck out of Google search . You’re literally wasting my time

I’m done here man. It’s past my bedtime and I have too much to do tomorrow. I’m out.

 

[Layth]

(Note: my definition is from the oxford definition).

Don't know how I missed this. I don't think I'll ever come across a dumber Europhile. I just wanted to add this before I irrevocably jet:

loins: the region of the sexual organs regarded as the source of erotic or procreative power:
‘he felt a stirring in his loins at the thought’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/loin

Loins: the part of the body that is above the legs and below the waist,especially the sexual organs:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/loin

Loins ----> (1) : the pubic region (2) : the reproductive organs

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loin

Khalas