Muslim interpretations?

[buckr02]

A few weeks ago I started researching the Islamic religion, because I felt it was important to be able to defend Catholicism and to be knowledgeable in other religions. Otherwise, I just appear “close-minded.” When I first started researching, I learned of the science in the Koran which “could not have been known at the time” and the reasons Muslims believe in the Koran so devoutly.

The first bit of information I came upon was the “evidence” from embryology. After hearing their arguments, I admit I was impressed. It all seemed very interesting and I wanted to learn more.

Here’s where the problem arose - I did about five minutes of research.

Does it amaze anyone else how far the Islamic people are willing to stretch the words of the Koran to produce “indisputable evidence” that it is the word of God?

Take this argument I was having with someone over the word “AAalaqatin.” They began by “defining” this word (although later I found out they didn’t) as meaning “clot.” I found out that the medical thought of the time was that embryos were formed by the clotting of the menstrual blood by the semen, and this is where the word “clot” arose. They believed humans actually came from blood clots, which is completely wrong. When I explained this to the person with whom I was arguing, he had no way to defend and so said that you have to understand the word “AAalaqatin” (as he spelled it, I do not know if this is the correct spelling or not). According to him, “AAalaqatin” does not mean “clot,” but rather “something that clings.” So now I’m wondering, how often do their definitions change to fit what they are trying to prove? Circular reasoning, anyone?

So I’m curious if anyone has encountered this type of attitude with any Muslims before? This is now beginning to bother me, because it’s like there is no way to argue with them because they just change their definitions and interpretations at will.

And we’re the close-minded ones…

 

[Tic_Toc]

It’s not just Muslims that say that their holy book has stunning medical advice proving it’s the divine word of God. I’ve been around fundamentalist Christians who say the Bible was ahead of its time because angels told women not to drink while pregnant (I think in the story of Samson). They also claim that the Bible also explains the Grand Canyon by means of the Great Flood and that dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible as “the great leviathon” mentioned in Psalms. Yep. It’s not just Muslims that do that.

The title of this thread is pretty offensive, though.

 

[AgnosTheist]

if you would read the verse carefully you would notice that the koran assumes that the bones developed first before the flesh. muslims cant get out of that one.

 

[dolphinlove]

If its not too late, id change the title, this thread might get closed… maybe…

 

[buckr02]

if you would read the verse carefully you would notice that the koran assumes that the bones developed first before the flesh. muslims cant get out of that one.

That was another issue I noticed. I have yet to discuss this with anyone, however.

I also noticed their interpretation of another word, which means “chewed meat” or “chewed substance.” Someone was trying to compare it to chewed gum, but what shape can you NOT make out of gum? It’s the most abstract thing to say.

Sorry about the original title, I put it there as my own little inside joke with my friend and meant to change it, but forgot.

 

[dolphinlove]

No need for sorry about the title to me, others, like the mods, might find it offensive…

 

[ralphinal]

What I would love is for the Muslims (or those who think that Nostradamus predicts the future) to show us the NEXT discovery. Tell us now what we are missing and let us study it. DO not go after the fact and force meaning into things.

 

[Kadaveri]

Take this argument I was having with someone over the word “AAalaqatin.” They began by “defining” this word (although later I found out they didn’t) as meaning “clot.” I found out that the medical thought of the time was that embryos were formed by the clotting of the menstrual blood by the semen, and this is where the word “clot” arose. They believed humans actually came from blood clots, which is completely wrong. When I explained this to the person with whom I was arguing, he had no way to defend and so said that you have to understand the word “AAalaqatin” (as he spelled it, I do not know if this is the correct spelling or not). According to him, “AAalaqatin” does not mean “clot,” but rather “something that clings.” So now I’m wondering, how often do their definitions change to fit what they are trying to prove? Circular reasoning, anyone?

It actually means both, the same rootword is used to refer to leeches in Arabic (because they cling onto you), and it can mean a blood clot as well.

I’m not really interested in pushing any ‘scientific miracles’ in the Qur’an as it’s not my topic, but if you want to know what `alaq means then that’s a very basic explanation.

 

[ralphinal]

It actually means both, the same rootword is used to refer to leeches in Arabic (because they cling onto you), and it can mean a blood clot as well.

I’m not really interested in pushing any ‘scientific miracles’ in the Qur’an as it’s not my topic, but if you want to know what `alaq means then that’s a very basic explanation.

You, and a couple of the other Muslim posters on here, have been consistant about not using the “science miracles.” Is there a reason that some feel they are so much more compelling? Why is it not your topic? Do a lot of Muslims know about this meathod or condone it?

 

[buckr02]

It actually means both, the same rootword is used to refer to leeches in Arabic (because they cling onto you), and it can mean a blood clot as well.

I’m not really interested in pushing any ‘scientific miracles’ in the Qur’an as it’s not my topic, but if you want to know what `alaq means then that’s a very basic explanation.

That’s my point, they’re using multiple definitions so obviously one of them is going to fit into the stretched interpretation and once one of the words is shown to have no merit, that definition is done away with and others are used and even sometimes new ones are made. I read about a new definition given to one the terms describing the embryo only recently, which fit into modern discoveries more nicely. If I remember which one that is, I’ll post it.

I also don’t mean to sound like I know all the answers, as I’ve only recently started researching this. But already, after only three weeks or so, I’m picking up on these twisted interpretations and bland statements.

 

[inJESUS]

Do a lot of Muslims know about this meathod or condone it?

yes many do adopt this method of science and eloquence but what arguments should they give when the previous scriptures warn about differing teachings thus they are corrupt and do not prophecize Muhammad?

to the OP,

According to Muslims, the Quran puts the Arabic Grammar rules not vice versa…this is applied to word meanings as well when words are given their opposite meaning otherwise the Quranic statements are wrong…so when it comes to grammatical mistakes or word meaning, do not argue for the Quran is the head, so to speak. Yet you can argue the arguments presented, which were known before Muhammad.

 

[meedo]

A few weeks ago I started researching the Islamic religion, because I felt it was important to be able to defend Catholicism and to be knowledgeable in other religions. Otherwise, I just appear “close-minded.” When I first started researching, I learned of the science in the Koran which “could not have been known at the time” and the reasons Muslims believe in the Koran so devoutly.

The first bit of information I came upon was the “evidence” from embryology. After hearing their arguments, I admit I was impressed. It all seemed very interesting and I wanted to learn more.

Here’s where the problem arose - I did about five minutes of research.

Does it amaze anyone else how far the Islamic people are willing to stretch the words of the Koran to produce “indisputable evidence” that it is the word of God?

Take this argument I was having with someone over the word “AAalaqatin.” They began by “defining” this word (although later I found out they didn’t) as meaning “clot.” I found out that the medical thought of the time was that embryos were formed by the clotting of the menstrual blood by the semen, and this is where the word “clot” arose. They believed humans actually came from blood clots, which is completely wrong. When I explained this to the person with whom I was arguing, he had no way to defend and so said that you have to understand the word “AAalaqatin” (as he spelled it, I do not know if this is the correct spelling or not). According to him, “AAalaqatin” does not mean “clot,” but rather “something that clings.” So now I’m wondering, how often do their definitions change to fit what they are trying to prove? Circular reasoning, anyone?

So I’m curious if anyone has encountered this type of attitude with any Muslims before? This is now beginning to bother me, because it’s like there is no way to argue with them because they just change their definitions and interpretations at will.

And we’re the close-minded ones…

The root of the word ''Alaqah ‘’ in arabic is ‘‘alaq’’ which means ‘‘hangs’’.

In teh context of the uoran it means the the clot hanging from the mother’s uterus which would later become a baby.

He didnt lie to you nor beated around the bush . In any language there are words that have a meaning in abstract and meaning in context.

hope i helped,

salam

 

[buckr02]

Thanks meedo,

You happened to say the very thing that I have an issue with, however.

In teh context of the uoran it means the the clot hanging from the mother’s uterus which would later become a baby.

When is there ever a clot? As one man reasoned, the word clot is used because the embryo resembles a clot, but during development, the embryo never actually is a clot.

 

[buckr02]

You, and a couple of the other Muslim posters on here, have been consistant about not using the “science miracles.” Is there a reason that some feel they are so much more compelling? Why is it not your topic? Do a lot of Muslims know about this meathod or condone it?

What is this method you’re talking about? Do “science miracles” mean the idea that there are scientific facts man could not have known at the time of the writing of the Koran?

 

[inJESUS]

What is this method you’re talking about? Do “science miracles” mean the idea that there are scientific facts man could not have known at the time of the writing of the Koran?

yes, which means that the Quran must be divine. Embryology , however, was known by Greeks.

 

[ralphinal]

What is this method you’re talking about? Do “science miracles” mean the idea that there are scientific facts man could not have known at the time of the writing of the Koran?

Some Muslims hold to that concept. However, none of them have ever predicted a scientific discovery. They have been applied after the fact as “proof.”