Progs Plz Answer my Questions...

[jamanpasand]

Which scientific theory accounts for the virgin birth of Jesus?

How can science account for the creation of Adam from earth?

Good questions. Anajmi, try straight forward answers instead of moving around the bush. Atleast give a try. Good luck.

[Average Bohra]

Originally posted by anajmi:
What I believe is immaterial.

That is all I was trying to establish.

[anajmi]

porus,

Here is something else that will really boil your noodle. For God, anything is possible. He is not bound by scientific laws.

[anajmi]

jamanpasand,

If I am unable to give a straight answer, will you reject Allah and his messenger, if you haven't already?

If yes, then here is the straight forward answer, I don't have a clue. Welcome to kufr.

[jamanpasand]

Eve was cloned from Adam, from one of his ribs (Gen.2:2-23)... a difficult cloning to understand today, because from the cloning did not come another Adam, but Eve... another impossible cloning to understand with the science of today is the cloning of Adam himself from clay, from the dust of the ground!... and still another cloning hard to understand with the science of today is the cloning of Jesus from Mary, without the intervention of any man (Mat.1, Lk.1)...

Yes, God still keeps many mysteries from scientists... but the creation of Eve from a rib of Adam, since cloning, does not look anymore just a fairytale, but a real possibility made by God, by the Word!... and the conception of Jesus in Virgin Mary, without any man involved on it, looks now clearly a real possibility of God.

[porus]

So, if humans can clone, so can God. Of course. Now which scientific theory accounts for God?

[porus]

Sorry, it is as you say.

It is not established by science that God, Jinns and Angels do not exist.

I consider anajmi the winner, as always. I will take my leave from this now.

[porus]

Sorry, it is as you say.

It is not established by science that God, Jinns and Angels do not exist. So, clearly, they exist.

I consider anajmi the winner, as always. I will take my leave from this now.

[allbird]

>>MF wrote
Other Muslims (Shias and Sunnis) prayed in Jamaat and Bohras watched them.

Wasalaam
.[/QB][/QUOTE]

That BS Shia will never pray behind Sunni's. And if Shia imam was to conduct the namaz sunni have acted in Shirk and they have to pray again, with two extra rakaat of namaz.

I don't know what MF smoke but its affecting his MIND badly. Sunni's will never associate with Shia especially in prayers because its Shirk for them. I heard one Sunni openly state that "Shio ko Panni pelani bhe Haraam hai".

[Humsafar]

This thing is goiing in circles as usual.

I've two comments to make: 1) Porus, I understand where you are coming from when you say that the Quran is "not accessbile" given the antiquity of its language, context and history. This is true of everything. Every moment has a tranformative effect on everything. Nothing essentially remains the same. So, you're right when you say that the Quran is not accessible as intended. Who can ever know its "truth". That said, it does not mean that it is totally lost to the believers, that one cannot read it - in the original or translation - and understand its message of prescriptive morality and rituals, if not of spiritual mysticism. I would argue that the Quran as a historical tract is open to all kinds of interpretation. Its accessibility ultimately depends on the level of conciousness and enlightenment you bring to it.

2) Anjami, to attempt to prove the existence of God is to fall into the narrow scientific fallacy. There is no emperical evidence for God, only your understanding or knowledge of him, which you may arrive at, for example, through deep spirituality. God does not exist on anyone's "say so". The Quran makes many outlandish claims and you'd have a very hard time "proving" them. If your really respect the Quran you'd be wise to take its broad moral and social message and not insist on proving its every detail as absolute truth. It's losing battle, and a pointless one at that. I guess even Allah wouldn't want you to do that. It hurts Him when you insult the intelligence He gave you.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

I am not trying to "scientifically" prove the existence of God. If that were possible it would've been done already. There is a reason why believers are going to heaven according to the quran and that is because of faith. If it were possible to "scientifically" prove the existence of God, you'd already be in hell.

The discussion focussed on whether it is possible to understand the quran or not with the help of interpretations and translations. And remember, according to porus, the quran is simply a book written by a human. To say that it is not possible to understand it is, for lack of a better word (my vocabulary), stupid. Arabs during the time of the prophet spoke the quranic Arabic and a lot of them still didn't believe.

I am simply arguing that there is nothing in the quran which has been contradicted by science. Not the virgin birth of Jesus or the creation of Adam. If it is possible for "nature" to create a human out of a single cell, why is it so difficult to believe that God can create Adam out of earth?

There are some scientists, and I forget their names, who claim that given the right chemicals and proportions, it is possible to create a full grown human in a lab. These are the scientists who are trying to prove that no God exists. Unwillingly they prove, it is possible for God to create Adam from earth.

[anajmi]

porus,

So are you still interested in discussing "to experience" or have you had enough?

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

According to the disbelievers, the universe created itself out of nothing in no space and at no time. Now to believe that God can create Adam out of earth shouldn't be that much of a leap of faith now should it?

porus,

You are right, I win.

[porus]

Humsafar,

For the majority of Muslims, Quran became inacessible as soon as the Prophet died. This is confirmed by Allah himself in ayat 16:44.

16:44 gives the authority to explain the Quran to Prophet himself and none other. If you happen to be a Shia, you may believe that the authority to explain passed on to Imamas, and for Bohras, it rests with the Dai.

Also, as we discussed in another thread, majority of the Quran is mutashaabihat. Most Muslims believe that only Allah knows its meaning, and Muhammad by implication of 16:44. Shias extend this knowledge to the Dais and Imams.

Soon after the death of the Prophet, it became clear that people, even those whose first language was Arabic, had great difficulty understanding the Quran and hence tafseers started appearing. It is these tafseers and hadiths of the close companions of the Prophet, that became Quran for all practical purposes.

So, morality and laws and spiritual lessons are all derivative. Quran in inaccessible. I grant you that it is available to read in the orginal as well as translation.

No one can directly understand the original Quran except through translations and tafseers, all unauthorized by God.

As far as a lay Muslim is concerned, his Quran is simply his favorite teacher, mulla, shaikh, maulana etc.

[porus]

anajmi,

You can start another thread on "experience" by stating what you mean by the word. I hope others will participate.

That Universe came from nothing is both a theory and a conclusion of our scientific endevours. It is not accepted on 'faith'. The theory will do until another one comes along which explains better the observations of scientists.

[anajmi]

porus,

I agree it was a whole lot more difficult to understand the quran back then because of lot of things mentioned in the quran at that time appeared to be mutashabihaat to those people. As mankind progressed with the will of Allah, a lot of ayats that would've been considered mutashabihaat became clearer.

Atleast the people tried to understand the quran and help others understand it. If they had given up, using your logic, we would all have been doomed. There will be people like you around at all times as mentioned in the quran who will be discouraging people from understanding the quran. But believers will always find a way.

Besides, since, according to you, it is not possible to understand the quran, you have no understanding of what 16:44 states.

Here is something interesting in the quran. You might not understand.

007.016
YUSUFALI: He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:

007.017
YUSUFALI: "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)."

007.018
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.

007.044
YUSUFALI: The Companions of the Garden will call out to the Companions of the Fire: "We have indeed found the promises of our Lord to us true: Have you also found Your Lord's promises true?" They shall say, "Yes"; but a crier shall proclaim between them: "The curse of Allah is on the wrong-doers;-

007.045
YUSUFALI: "Those who would hinder (men) from the path of Allah and would seek in it something crooked: they were those who denied the Hereafter."

Seems to fit you perfectly.

That Universe came from nothing is both a theory and a conclusion of our scientific endevours. It is not accepted on 'faith'. The theory will do until another one comes along which explains better the observations of scientists.

Then theoretically, it is possible for God to create Adam from earth and until some other theory, more believable, comes along, I can safely say that the quran does not contradict science, right?

[anajmi]

No one can directly understand the original Quran except through translations and tafseers, all unauthorized by God.

Scientifically speaking, that is the best way to learn for those who do not know the original language. It is similar to watching a movie with subtitles. You don't enjoy as much but if your IQ is average you will get the gist of the message. Not so sure about yours.

[humane]

PORUS

You said,
''Majority of the Quran is mutashaabihat. Most Muslims believe that only Allah knows its meaning, and Muhammad by implication of 16:44. Shias extend this knowledge to the Dais and Imams.''

As you claim they have the knowledge, but the biggest tragedy is they don't share that knowledge with the masses. And whatever they share are visibly twisted to serve their own motives then where we,the masses,have to seek refuge.

Did Allah bring Islam to be left in the hands of the prophets,Imams and Dais only and not to be spread amongst the masses?

I am afraid this must not have been the purpose.

[porus]

anajmi, you accuser,

when did I dicourage anyone from understanding the Quran. In fact, it is I who gives pointers for its discussion. Unlike you, I am being polite, and ask you not to bear false testimony against me.

[porus]

Originally posted by humane:

As you claim they have the knowledge, but the biggest tragedy is they don't share that knowledge with the masses. And whatever they share are visibly twisted to serve their own motives then where we,the masses,have to seek refuge.

I do not make such claim. They do. And masses will always be their followers.

If you want to leave the herd, then you have to look for a teacher within yourself. Mystics may help. (Find something about Rumi, ibn Arabi and al-Ghazali)

[anajmi]

porus,

I apologize for being impolite. I will try to be more polite.

And yes, it is a fact that you begin a lot of discussion on the quran. It is also a fact that you discourage people from understanding the quran.

When you say that it is impossible to do something, you are in effect discouraging others from doing that which you say is impossible to do. It is communication 101.

[Muslim First]

.
Br. Alibird

I want you to come to Boston. Reserve 3 Fridays.

We will go to Wayland Mosque one day. Other Fridy we will go to Burlington Mosque. Third Friday we will go to Ashland (Shia) Mosque. I will identify Shia and sunnis praying in that mosque without rancor or hasitation. At the wedding reception of Shk. Murtada's (Ashraf Dahod) wedding Bohra, Shia and Sunni were in attendance. I have given you factual account. Shia and Sunni prayed behid a sunni Imaam. Bohras bobbed up and down by themselve except select few prayed with Shehzads.

Wasalaam
.

[Humsafar]

Porus, I've a hesitation taking 16:44 at face value – or any other ayat for that matter. Take 2:121, for example, it seems to contradict 16:44. The Quran - or any word of God - has nothing to offer in its defence but its own internal evidence. So even if the Quran says that it is inaccessible beyond the Prophet it does not mean it's true any more than its claims are true about the jinns or the prophet's ascension to the heavens or the splitting of the moon.

But of course these contradictions present obvious difficulties for the believers and perhaps that’s why they need tafseers, imams, dais and mullahs.

[anajmi]

Humsafar,

016.044
YUSUFALI: (We sent them) with Clear Signs and Books of dark prophecies; and We have sent down unto thee (also) the Message; that thou mayest explain clearly to men what is sent for them, and that they may give thought.
PICKTHAL: With clear proofs and writings; and We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them, and that haply they may reflect.
SHAKIR: With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect.

002.121
YUSUFALI: Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein,- the loss is their own.
PICKTHAL: Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieveth in it, those are they who are the losers.
SHAKIR: Those to whom We have given the Book read it as it ought to be read. These believe in it; and whoever disbelieves in it, these it is that are the losers.

I don't see a contradiction in those two ayahs. I have explained before that those who have been rejected by Allah cannot understand the quran. The quran was revealed to the prophet and he explained it to those who wanted to understand it. The prophet departed and the book remained with the believers. The believers study the book in the light of the teachings of the prophet which remain as a part of his sunnah which has been rejected by the disbelievers. I am eternally greatful to those who preserved the teachings of the prophet so that we may understand.

There were people at the time of the prophet who were explained the book and still didn't believe.

There is no problem in understanding the fundamentals of religion from the quran. The problem is with those who do not want to believe.

[porus]

Humsafar,

Before the weekend gets under way, I wanted to give you a quick response regarding 16:44 and 2:121.

Contradiction is apparent only in translation. It is not in Arabic.

16:44 commands Muhammad to explain the revelation. (The verb used is 'bayyin').

2:121, on the other hand, uses the command 'talu' and the word 'tilaawat', which is derived from 'talu'. This means recitation in a melodious voice.

Recitation is neither reading nor explaining. Recitation is done by all Muslims who do not speak Arabic. We would not call that reading either.

One more instance of how popular translations fail the Muslims.

[anajmi]

porus,

That is simply your understanding of those verses and it is incorrect. As you said it is not possible to understand the quran, so you have not understood it.

2:121 says

YUSUFALI: Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein,- the loss is their own.
PICKTHAL: Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieveth in it, those are they who are the losers.
SHAKIR: Those to whom We have given the Book read it as it ought to be read. These believe in it; and whoever disbelieves in it, these it is that are the losers.

Yusuf Ali translates it as study. pickthal says right reading and shakir says reading. You say recitation. But all say - "These believe in it". Now if you were to actually recite the quran, does it mean that you believe in it? No. Does something prevent you from reciting the quran even if you do not believe in it? No.

Think about it.

[anajmi]

One more instance of how popular translations fail the Muslims.

Translations don't fail muslims. The translator of the quran, who is a believer takes the whole picture into consideration while translating. He or she does not mistranslate. A person like you, who is a disbeliever performs a literal translation, without understanding the context. What you have translated is not the quran. Simply your understanding of it which is mistaken.

[porus]

anajmi,

We have in our local Jamaat, a young man who recites Quran in an excellent manner. He is always the reciter of choice in any Majlis. He has a good knowledge of the rules of tajweed. He is from Pakistan.

He is a believer. He does not know Arabic and cannot tell iqra from yatlu or bayyin from yatlu. While reciting (yatlu) do you think he is also reading (yaqra) and explaining (yubayyin) Quran to himself or others?

Most Bohras in Majlis do not understand Arabic. They are, I think, believers in Quran too. But do they know it apart from being able to recite it?

[porus]

And do you also think while he is reciting (yatlu) it, he is also studying (yadrus) it?

[porus]

Originally posted by anajmi:

Yusuf Ali translates it as study. pickthal says right reading and shakir says reading. You say recitation. But all say - "These believe in it". Now if you were to actually recite the quran, does it mean that you believe in it? No. Does something prevent you from reciting the quran even if you do not believe in it? No.

Now if you were to actually READ the quran, does it mean that you believe in it? No. Does something prevent you from READING the quran even if you do not believe in it? No.

Now if you were to actually STUDY the quran, does it mean that you believe in it? No. Does something prevent you from STUDYING the quran even if you do not believe in it? No.

Now if you were to actually EXPLAIN the quran, does it mean that you believe in it? No. Does something prevent you from EXPLAINING the quran even if you do not believe in it? No.