₦airaland Forum

Science:

The earth does shake by earthquakes. At least one major earthquake happens daily on some place on earth. Thus, the mountains or any other structures cast on earth are not preventing earthquakes, which are even common in mountainous regions.

Can we assume that "shaking" in these verses refer to the earth wobbling in space? No. Because the earth is spherical, and you can't have pegs to keep the entire sphere from shaking. Of course, you can have pegs to keep the surfaces of the sphere from shaking.

But as we can see from earthquakes, the mountains don't keep the earth surface from shaking.

4. Firm structures or mountains serve as pegs, prevent earth from shaking with us.

21:31 - And We have placed in the earth firm mountains lest it shake/quake with them.
78:07 - And the mountains as pegs

Tafsir;
21:31 - https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/21.31
16:15 - https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/16.15
31:10 - https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/31.10
78:07 - https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/78.7

Rashduct4luv:
This is misleading as even wikipedia states that 'alaqa means "The Clot" or "The Clinging Thing.

The linguistic definition of ʻalaq علق (singular ʻalaqah علقة) is "leech", "medicinal leech", "coagulated blood", "blood clot", or "the early stage of the embryo".ʻAlaq is also a derivative of ʻalaqa which means "attached and hanging to something."Professor Abdul Haleem mentions that "ʻalaq” can also mean anything that clings: a clot of blood, a leech, even a lump of mud. All these meanings involve the basic idea of clinging or sticking."

As i said to Usermane before, you atheistic blokes here are on nothing but falsehood. Keep looking for loopholes till you die. Sometimes you lie to establish the truthfulness of your falsehood.

Translation error not scientific error!

DR. GHALI
Created man from clots.

MUHSIN KHAN
Has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood).

PICKTHALL
Createth man from a clot.

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
Created man from a clinging substance.

YUSUF ALI
Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:

MUFTI TAQI USMANI
He created man from a clot of blood.

ABDUL HALEEM
He created manfrom a clinging form.

ABUL ALA MAUDUDI(WITH TAFSIR)
(96:2) created man from a clot of congealed blood.4

DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB, THE CLEAR QURAN
created humans from a clinging clot.

DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB
created humans from a clinging clot.1

I am not lying. Please read the classical tafsir I've left link to. All agree "alaqa" in this verse refers to coagulated blood. This is not simple translation problem.

As I said before, if the Qur'an did not mean blood clot, why use a term that is also used to imply 'blood clot'? And why did the earlier scholars think it is blood clot?

What you're doing at this point is reinterpretation bias. All through the middle ages, no one bothered that 'alaqa', was taught by scholars as clot, but now that embryonic studies is possible and proved no clot state for fetus, people start looking for alternative meaning to validate Qur'an.

As for your ad hominem, I think you should learn to respect differences in opinion. If you're offended with this thread, please go read a thread that praise Qur'an.

Peace.

Saucyxo:
Hmm. I believe theres one type of Islam and several types of muslims.

Several types of Muslims practicing several types of Islam - salafism, sunnism, shiism, Quranism, Ahmadiya etc. Under each type of Islam, there are further divisions and subdivisions. Even under the same subdivisions, Muslims do not agree on basics and tenets.

Since we dont live in the age of the Prophet, the Islam we have today can only be personal. In my own opinion. I think that's why intention is very emphasised in our faith. Just like how hadith, tasfir and fiqh have been cherry picked and sifted. This we know for sure.

And why should that be? Personalized Islam is subjective with conclusions often suffering from bias. Thus, the need for a formal Islam retained at least through the scripture. Unfortunately, the scriptures have their own drawback, but that's a different subject.

The only source of Islam that hasnt been cherry picked or sifted is the Quran. (I'm not trying to say the sifting and cherry picking is wrong. I'm just saying that it happened.)

Even the Qur'an has been cherry picked and sifted through. Either by re-interpretation bias or flat out ignoring certain ideas within it.

For instance, Qur'an demand husband to hit persistently misbehaving wives. Millions of Muslims will discourage hitting even persistently misbehaving wives, they'd recommend alternative approach for husbands. This is flat out sifting and cherry picking verses.

Another example, the Qur'an speaks of certain ayat abrogating others(2:106, 16:101). On direct look, this would imply some later verses of the Qur'an abrogate earlier ones. This is consensus of earlier scholars.

But come 21st century, & you find Muslims reinterpreting this as referring to abrogation of Biblical verses by Qur'an, despite the fact that Qur'an instruct Jews & Christians to abide by the Bible.

Other Muslims say this verse rather mean that previous signs or miracles revealed by Allah are abrogated or replaced by later ones, since "ayat" also mean signs/miracles. Which is not true, since Muhammad was not sent with any special 'sign' to replace previous signs.

With the Qur'an please realize;
There is no 100% guarantee that what we have today is what Muhammad left.

There is no complete copy of the earliest manuscripts from the 7th century. The supposed earliest copies lack diacritical marks, so that one word could have numerous meanings. Thus, when a few centuries after Muhammad Muslims started adding diacritic, it is not too far-fetched to claim these Muslims were basically connecting dots.

All Islam of today is our own Islam. Something that could mean something to me due to my knowledge and experiences could mean something different to another scholar due to their knowledge and experience. Scholars disagree. Everyone disagrees because at the end of the day, it's all personal.

As before, why is that? Shouldn't a religion meant for all places and times have a uniform understanding? Personal Islam works in the home and in secular countries. But outside the home, in Muslim countries that chose to govern by Islam, personal Islam goes out the window.

If you live in Saudi A/Iran/Pakistan, you have to deal with anything they pass as Islamic law, whether you believe it is part of Islam or not. They don't care about personal Islam, they care about formal Islam - the Qur'an understood via tafsir, hadith and fiqh.

Science:

When two water bodies merge, there is of course a barrier - density gradient between them. If you observe the waters, you will see a distinct boundary dividing them and think they do not transgress it to mix.

But it can be said that they transgress this boundary because they exchange water molecules across the boundary, mixing at a slow and microscopic level. Given sufficient time, these water bodies will fully mix, fully transgress the barrier.

3. There is barrier between salt and fresh water bodies or two seas' water bodies that merge, beyond which neither water bodies transgress or cross

55:19-20
He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress

Tafsir;

55:19 - https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/55.19
55:20 - https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/55.20

Science:

Gametes or sex fluids come from far below the ribs, anterior to the backbone. They come from the pelvic cavity.

2. Sex fluid or gametes comes from between the backbone and the ribs.

86:5-7 :
So let see man from what he is created. He is created from a fluid emitted. It comes out from between the backbone and the ribs.

Here again are the tafsirs; https://quranx.com/tafsirs/86.7

There are slight variation among the scholars, but all agree that Qur'an implies the fluid or gamete to come from the within the thoracic or abdominal cavities.

Science:

Babies are not developed from blood clot. Medieval sciences from Aristotle and Galen wrongly taught that blood is one state of fetal development, but modern science disproves this.

1. Babies develop from blood clot during gestation

96:2 :
Created the man from clots.

23:12-14 :
Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; Then placed him as a drop in a safe lodging; Then fashioned We the drop a clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh.

At least, from a traditional Islamic point, this is no mistranslation or misinterpretation. Here are the tafsir;

23:14 - https://quranx.com/tafsirs/23.14
96.2 - https://quranx.com/tafsirs/96.2

All of them agree that "alaqa" is blood clot. Even if we argue for alternate meaning of the word, it remain a question as to why Qur'an use the word that also mean blood clot to describe a stage of embryo or fetus, leading to erroneous interpretation.

Salaam.

There are verses of the Qur'an that have puzzled people, often leading them to doubt its divinity, infallibility and preservation.

This thread is intended to show some of these verses, so that the sincere and enlightened Muslim will be better informed and at least adopt a more realistic and pragmatic approach with Qur'an and Islam.

sino:
Let me assist you with a 'proper' interpretation for your likes, "He darkened its night" is like adjusting the contrast on your flat screen TV!

Yes, but unlike the screen, night is not a physical object emitting light rays. The verse would make more sense if we assume night is a tangible object. For now, at best we can just hope there is an alternative non-literal meaning to the verse.

You've clearly pointed out that heaven refers to sky, and we do not need special studying to know that the 'earth' faces the sky!

You know at night, the sky isn't dark, You would likely say that the earth is dark rather than saying the earth is facing the dark sky at night, and when light comes, by the 'rising of the sun', you would also likely say, the sky is still dark rather than say the earth is facing the brightened sky, which is brought about by the sun! The sky is made to be dark at night and brought out its light (sun) in the day for the benefit of those dwelling on earth! The Qur'an stated it in such a way to encapsulate the night and day so vividly you wouldn't need to have studied astronomy to understand this phenomenon!

OK, I get your point, that the sky is made dark at night. Problem is, what the verse states is "He darkened its night". We've dealt with darkening of the night, earlier. But what is the night of the sky? How can the sky have night? Remember, the sky is everything above us. Perhaps from the upper troposphere, further away from us.

Next, it seem you didn't get the issue with "brought out its light". Keep in mind that when the earth rotate, it is rotating into the light. No light is being brought. Relative to earth, the sun is fixed. So the sky above any surface of the earth in the morning is either brought into the light or has been in the light all along. The light is not brought, it is where it has always been.

Furthermore, the verses leading to this was actually stating the greatness of the creation of Allah (SWT) far and above the creation of man...Allah talks about the creation of the heavens and its significance for night and day, and the creation of the earth and how He made it inhabitable, when you reflect on how these creations are greater than man, you wouldn't be here arguing about rotation and resting place for the sun, you would submit in humility to the Creator of the universe!

I will create a thread later today on some 15 contradictions between Qur'an and Facts. It seem you don't get it. The Qur'an has issues.

A very interesting excerpt from NASA:

Why is the sky dark at night?

That question is not as simple as it may sound. You might think that space appears dark at night because that is when our side of Earth faces away from the Sun as our planet rotates on its axis every 24 hours. But what about all those other far away suns that appear as stars in the night sky? Our own Milky Way galaxy contains over 200 billion stars, and the entire universe probably contains over 100 billion galaxies. You might suppose that that many stars would light up the night like daytime!

Until the 20th century, astronomers didn't think it was even possible to count all the stars in the universe. They thought the universe went on forever. In other words, they thought the universe was infinite.

Besides being very hard to imagine, the trouble with an infinite universe is that no matter where you look in the night sky, you should see a star. Stars should overlap each other in the sky like tree trunks in the middle of a very thick forest. But, if this were the case, the sky would be blazing with light. This problem greatly troubled astronomers and became known as "Olbers' Paradox." A paradox is a statement that seems to disagree with itself.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-sky.html

Even if this address the issue of darkening of the night, it did not address the issue of the sky or heavens having night. Night is not a concept for space - sky. It is a concept for planets - solids.

EDIT: Olber's Paradox sought to understand why the sky in our view at night is dark. It doesn't explain that all of the sky, the heaven, is dark at night on earth.

Saucyxo:
Hmm interesting.

Tbh I never believed in the prohibition of music or paintings. I just assumed one fanatic made those things up and everyone followed.

Honestly I never believed any of the things here actually. My biggest issue would also be the 6 year old thing too. I don't think its true to be honest.

There are two types of Islam. There is the official and formal Islam that came to us through our ancestors - the classical Tafsir, Hadith and Fiqh. This Islam encapsulate everything I've mentioned. I can provide hadith evidence if you want.

The second type of Islam is the informal, customized or personalized Islam. The Islam that we conjure by sifting and often cherry picking through tafsir, hadith and fiqh. You might not believe that something is part of Islam, but that is your own Islam. For what you do not believe may be found in tafsir, hadith or fiqh - the formal Islam

Damage Control for Caliph Abu Bakr's Tyranny

Empyree: and what happens if you live in the West and don't pay Tax? Govt will declare "war" on you by throwing you in jail. Zakat is obligatory in Islam, therefore it must be enforced by said authority. The same way world power today enforced their will on developing countries without provocation. If they don't comply, unwarranted sanctions follow.

Hmm... I'v addressed this in detail on my thread "Qur'an: Human Rights, Freedom & Equity". There, beginning under the subheading,"Freedom of Belief and Expression" to "What is so WRONG with enforcing zakat", I devote my time to prove that the Qur'an is against forcing any Islamic ritual on anyone. I proved that also with common sense.

5. Not developing themselves.

Many men want relationship but are sorely underdeveloped. When they get rejected or dumped for being broke, lazy, irresponsible or lacking in confidence and class, they still fail to amend.

Just grow up. Start enlightening yourself and investing in your self and future.

4. Ignoring average or not so pretty women.

Most of the women that men overlook and often deride as ugly make far better soulmate than the pretty women they queue for.

Pretty women have the propensity to be selfish, because they are spoilt with excessive attention from men. They don't have to lift a finger to get men.

Average or not so hot women can't afford to be selfish, they are likelier to build themselves with manners, personality and accomplishment beyond their genes because they are not distracted by flirts, stares, texts, calls and gifts from tens of male admirers.

3. Obsessing about women & sex.

There is nothing wrong with being single or a virgin at 30. Just live your life. Bored? Lonely? Love sick? Engage yourself in creative and refreshing aspects like Music, literature, drawing and painting, sports, video games etc.

Relax, obsession only lead to hasty and poor dating choices. Take your time to observe women at friendship level for several months before asking for number or date. Dating is not just a numbers game.

Homosexuality

Some comments have surfaced so far addressing the list, supporting execution or punishing homosexuals. Here is where these comments err.

1. However immoral homosexuality may be, killing homosexuals is more immoral. Death sentence is justifiable only for murder, an homosexual has not even hurt anyone.

2. Common logic dictates a lesser crime like homosexuality befit a penalty lesser than the penalty for a greater crime like murder. A homosexual under a system founded on justice shouldn't face the same penalty as a murderer.

najib632:
Who said Jizyah is Zakat? Who said the penalty for the evasion of Zakat and Jizya is death penalty? People goto university to earn degrees in Shari'a, but here As-Sheik Ultramane Al-Nayralandwiy thinks his few sentences he can refute the works of orthodox scholars, with his ignorance of both the Qur'an and Hadith.

In my experience, many Muslim apologists justify jizya on grounds that Muslims are bound to pay zakat while non-Muslims are not. They then try to draw parallels between the jizya and zakat, in apology for jizya in civilized times.

The penalty for evading zakat or salat is death. This is because evading either of these is tantamount to apostasy in traditional Islam, the punishment for apostasy being death. Remember the hadith on Abu Bakr fighting those who withheld zakat. Remember that all the traditional schools of Islamic law declare death penalty for evasion of salat or zakat.

As for jizya evasion, I do not recall any hadith directly legalizing death sentence. I'm not really sure what the traditional schools declare. But remember, the option for non-Muslims invaded by Muslim army are three; Islam or jizya or death. But none of this changes a thing, the concept of jizya in orthodox Islam is antiquated, oppressive and biased.

As to earning university degree on sharia, this is a scam. The law of God should be accessible for lay man without spending decades of his life and so much money in the university, as if he were a student of Medicine or Rocket science.

Fourthly, why charge only non-Muslims for enjoying state protection? Most Muslims in the Islamic state do not serve in the military or police, why not also charge them for the security and protection they benefit?

Secondly, jizya has no fixed price, unlike zakat. Also, jizya may not be paid by women, unlike zakat. And also, the penalty for jizya evasion is death, just as zakat, but unlike secular tax.

Jizya ≠ Zakat ≠ Tax.

Thirdly, if the jizya is compensation by non-Muslims for enjoying protection under Islamic state, why the death penalty for jizya evadors? Why not exile them or seize some of their properties?

Please see my thread, The Puzzled's Guide to Jizya, for alternative Qur'an centric interpretation of Jizya. Also, look up Qur'an 9:29 where Jizya is only mentioned. It states nothing of Jizya being a compensation for any benefit or priviledge for non-Muslims.

Here is a summary of my refutation of Jizya:

Firstly, the Jizya is not relatable to zakat. It does not necessarily goes to the cater for the welfare of the poor, Muslim or non-Muslim. Muslims are the exclusive beneficiary of Jizya. Ironically though, non-Muslims never benefit from zakat.

What is so WRONG with enforcing Jizya

In traditional Islam, the penalty for Jizya refusal by non-Muslims is war by Muslims. Please see hadith; https://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/136.

Popular & Flawed Argument for enforcing Jizya:
"Jizya is a tax for non-Muslims under sharia, to compensate the state for protection. Especially as non-Muslims don't partake in Jihad or pay zakat."

If Muslim governments seek to cater for the poor, why not leave Muslims on zakat and impose a special tax on all the rich(regardless of faith) to raise fund for all the poor(regardless of faith)?

Or why not allot from the federal and state revenue a budget to cater for the poor? Why force Muslims to pay zakat, knowing fully well that unless zakat is paid willing, there is no divine reward for the payer?

Thirdly, zakat collected is due only for poor Muslims, in traditional Islam. While tax money is due for all of the poor.

Fourthly, zakat serves to support the welfare of the poor. While tax money serve other purposes like good roads, security, facilities and infrastructures for both rich and poor, regardless of faith.

There are thus so many differences between zakat and tax, it wouid be blatant ignorance to equate the two and to equate enforcing zakat to enforcing tax. There is enough grounds to enforce tax, but not zakat.

What is so WRONG with enforcing zakat?

Popular & Flawed Argument for enforcing Zakat;
"Zakat is Islamic tax, right of the poor. Even non-Muslim governments enforce a form of tax to support the poor with basic needs."

First zakat is not tax. It is charity and paid by only Muslims. Whereas tax is to be paid by all except the poor, regardless of faith.

Secondly, in traditional Islam, the penalty for zakat evasion is death. While tax evasion is never punished by death, at least in 21st century.

true2god:
This has always been my argument with Muslims; you cannot claim absolute monotheism and still be associating partnership between Allah and Mohammed, especially in your daily prayers and saying the shahada. All Islamic prayers involve mentioning Allah and Mohammed and you cant do this and keep claiming monotheism at the same time.

You get it. There are are a lot of issues. There is no doctrine of trinity but Muhammad is like a diety, only below the rank of Allah. That is why according to traditionalists, he can hear their greetings from his grave and he replies them. Apart from god(s), I don't know of any entity outside the physical world that hears and replies greetings of men. It is like you take away pre-Islamic Arab idols, and put Muhammad in their place.

Note that I did not touch everything polytheistic in traditional Islam. The degree of saint and tomb veneration among Shiites and Sufites is unbelievable for a monotheistic faith. But of the few I touched, even the Salafites, the self declared defenders of tawhid (oneness), are guilty.

YUNGCONCEPT11:
Maurice BUCCAILE is wrong with your own thought.
Maurice BUCCAILE has embraced the truth...
Maurice BUCCAILE is an accomplished scientist and you . U are just grooming urself. But just be careful where your mind take you to

He was a physician, not a scientist. And even if he is a scientist, how many scientists agree with him? I can't just take his every word of like Gospel. I could not verify his claims.