Questions for Muslims posting here

  • Thread starter Thread starter kristin2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Americanrevert said:
**Kristin,

I gave you scientist’s views…I am no scientist but you say you are…go read what I have given you and do your own research. You can sit there and say all you want and claim all you want but at least be honest and fair about what I have given you. You have your own theory to be sure, but that does not cancel out what I have given you from genuine known scientists. I never heard of you as well as many scientists out there, but what I have posted is this thread, you contact these scientist and have it out with them!!! you can go over everything you wish with non scientist muslim people, maybe so you can claim to sound superior and Allah only knows, but I am sitting here telling you to make the claim against those non muslim scientists* I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE NAMES OF. *** This should be MORE INTRIGUING YES??? non muslim makin these claims???

Thank you

americanrevert
Click to expand...
You gave a bag of scattered fragments. I’m familiar with many of them because dealing with Muslims, in and out of the Muslim world, I’m familiar with some of the wild claims they advance as proof of the Quran (while of course, trying to gloss over the bits they don’t want to talk about). I don’t know of any Christian, ever, who promoted science as a “proof” of the Bible, though the Bible has been proven right, over and over.
 
rationally said:
**

First, whatever substance found (so far) in the Holy Qur’an that is taken/recognised/claimed by Muslims as uptodate scientific in nature, does not really require a peer review process**, as it does not actually need a high caliber scientist’s explanation/investigation. A person with basic science and Arabic knowledge can easily understand and recognise that substance as definitely scientific that was not really known before.

So credit goes to the Holy Qur’an no matter what and whether scientific peer magazines of the West recognise this fact or not due to politics or any other reason.

This fact is one of the factors that has made Islam fastest growing religion in the World today among educated people, even in the USA.
Click to expand...
Oh?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=267322

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.
Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.

The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world. Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.

A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.

Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.

More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.
Botros played the key role in exposing this obscure and embarrassing issue and forcing the ulema to respond. Another guest on Hala Sirhan’s show, Abd al-Fatah, slyly indicated that the entire controversy was instigated by Botros: “I know you all [fellow panelists] watch that channel and that priest and that none of you [pointing at Abd al-Muhdi] can ever respond to him, since he always documents his sources!”
Incapable of rebutting Botros, the only strategy left to the ulema (aside from a rumored $5-million bounty on his head) is to ignore him. When his name is brought up, they dismiss him as a troublemaking liar who is backed by — who else? — international “Jewry.” They could easily refute his points, they insist, but will not deign to do so. That strategy may satisfy some Muslims, but others are demanding straightforward responses from the ulema.

But the ultimate reason for Botros’s success is that — unlike his Western counterparts who criticize Islam from a political standpoint — his primary interest is the salvation of souls. He often begins and concludes his programs by stating that he loves all Muslims as fellow humans and wants to steer them away from falsehood to Truth. To that end, he doesn’t just expose troubling aspects of Islam. Before concluding every program, he quotes pertinent biblical verses and invites all his viewers to come to Christ
Botros’s motive is not to incite the West against Islam, promote “Israeli interests,” or “demonize” Muslims, but to draw Muslims away from the dead legalism of sharia to the spirituality of Christianity. Many Western critics fail to appreciate that, to disempower radical Islam, something theocentric and spiritually satisfying — not secularism, democracy, capitalism, materialism, feminism, etc. — must be offered in its place. The truths of one religion can only be challenged and supplanted by the truths of another. And so Father Zakaria Botros has been fighting fire with fire.
article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTUwY2QyNjA0NjcwMjExMzI2ZmJiZTEzN2U1YjYyZjE=&w=MA==
 
Rationally,

And others

Here is a link to a story about the Pontifical Academy of Sciences from a non-Catholic source. You will see that it does indeed number Nobel laureates among its members.

discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/18-how-to-teach-science-to-the-pope/?searchterm=pontifical

Quote:

Over the years its membership roster has read like a who’s who of 20th-century scientists (including Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Erwin Schrödinger, to name a few), and it currently boasts more than 80 international academicians, many of them Nobel laureates and not all of them Catholic—including the playfully irreligious physicist Stephen Hawking.

Incidentally Rationally, did you know that only one Muslim has ever received a science Nobel Prize? That was** Abdus Salam**. He received it in 1979 along with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow for his work on the weak nuclear force.

Ironically in 1974 the Pakistani legislature declared that Ahmadis were not Muslim. Salam, an Ahmadi, left Pakistan in protest. So technically he may not have been a Muslim at the time he received his prize. Nonetheless he quoted the koran in his acceptance speech.

Do you believe that Ahmadis are Muslims Rationally?

Salam once wrote:

“There is only one Universal Science; its problems and modalities are international and there is no such thing as Islamic Science just as there is no Hindu Science, nor Jewish Science, no Confucian Science, nor Christian Science".

Salam also explicitly warned against trying to read the big bang into koranic verses.

So Muslims who make up a quarter of humanity are able to produce just one Nobel laureate in science. They disown him.

He did not believe in any scientific miracles in the koran.

Angelos

LOL, thank you for that gem about the bees!

Yes, this is typical of the dissimulation you see among Muslim “scholars” (so-called).

Dolphinlove,

Thank you for bringing Angelos to this thread.
 
Angelos said:
Hello Kristin2007,

Welcome to the forum, and pleased to meet you.

As a former Muslim, I am familiar with these claims concerning the nature and reliability of the Islamic Scripture. I call them “claims” because they are never proven to be true. Although most Muslims refer to a few vague verses of the Koran as “scientific facts revealed to mankind 1400 years ago” and pretend to be honest by citing a few scientific authorities to support their suppositions, they can never prove that scientists endorse the scientific miracles in the Koran. This is because Muslim scholars always check the latest discoveries in any field of science before going to their scripture and searching there a vague verse the meaning of which can be twisted and adapted to the latest discoveries. Thus, Muslims implicitly acknowledge that it is impossible to know the so-called scientific miracles/mysteries in the Koran before scientists discover something new. In other words, the Koran is uncannily independent on the efforts and studies of some scientists, most of whom are not even Muslims. 😉

Muslim scholars/writers/commentators generally use the following techniques while working out miracles from some verses of the Koran, and all these techniques are related to the notion of perversion:
  1. Choose a vague verse that is open to multiple interpretations with no preciseness due to its lack of context.
  2. Choose a verse and ignore its context which reveals its true sense having nothing in common with scientific discoveries.
  3. If the Koran has several and similar verses on the same issue, choose only the one that can be misinterpreted and ignore the others.
  4. Ascribe linguistic and cultural peculiarities of a language (Arabic) to the Koran and its teachings.
  5. Choose mistaken translations of the Koran.
  6. Make use of the grammatical features of the Koran.
  7. Ignore the fact that the Koran uses many notions metaphorically.
  8. Ignore the fact that the Koran uses many words with multiple senses.
I shall get back soon and start posting my articles to rebut all the supposed scientific miracles of the Koran.

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
Ahmad Kasravi called the Quran “a tree with a thousand fruits” because, as he pointed out, those Muslims like our posters here go out and find a scientific discovery and tape it onto the Quran, like tapping fruit on a tree from which it did not come. His sharp criticism (which got him killed in open court) is translated into English.
amazon.com/Islam-ShiIsm-Ahmad-Kasravi/dp/0939214393/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221429316&sr=1-3
 
Nicolas said:
Big Bang theory:

Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke…(The Noble Quran, 41:11)

“And the firmament, We constructed with power and skill and verily We are expanding it. (The Noble Quran, 51:47)”
Click to expand...
Muhammad is simply saying that the universe is vast and not that it is expanding

YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the** vast extent** (thereof).
SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample

The fact that the universe is vast is prosaic and obvious. There is no mention of expanding universe in this verse. Any illiterate man could look around himself and see the world is vast. To the ancient people even the Earth looked vast. To us it looks very small. Some modern translators of the Quran have tried to give a scientific spin to the Quran and have translated the word continuity stating that the universe is expanding. This is not true. The word مُوسِعُونَ has no such connotation

i copy pasted this from www.faithfreedom.org
 
If you ask anyone who speaks Arabic,he/she will tell The word مُوسِعُونَ is a continuous verb in Arabic…meaning “We are expanding”…
 
Isa_Almisry said:
Ahmad Kasravi called the Quran “a tree with a thousand fruits” because, as he pointed out, those Muslims like our posters here go out and find a scientific discovery and tape it onto the Quran, like tapping fruit on a tree from which it did not come. His sharp criticism (which got him killed in open court) is translated into English.
amazon.com/Islam-ShiIsm-Ahmad-Kasravi/dp/0939214393/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221429316&sr=1-3
Click to expand...
👍 very nice metaphor. Thanks.
 
Nicolas said:
If you ask anyone who speaks Arabic,he/she will tell The word مُوسِعُونَ is a continuous verb in Arabic…meaning “We are expanding”…
Click to expand...
than you must be calling (Mohammed) Marmaduke Pickthall,
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Mohammed Habib Shakir liars or incompetent scholars.
 
trustme80 said:
Muhammad is simply saying that the universe is vast and not that it is expanding

YUSUFALI: With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of pace.
PICKTHAL: We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the** vast extent** (thereof).
SHAKIR: And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample

The fact that the universe is vast is prosaic and obvious. There is no mention of expanding universe in this verse. Any illiterate man could look around himself and see the world is vast. To the ancient people even the Earth looked vast. To us it looks very small. Some modern translators of the Quran have tried to give a scientific spin to the Quran and have translated the word continuity stating that the universe is expanding. This is not true. The word مُوسِعُونَ has no such connotation

i copy pasted this from www.faithfreedom.org
Click to expand...
Muslims cannot concur on the accurate translation of a single verse, which is another problem they must solve. However, some scholars make use of these different translations to justify their theories about the scientific miracles in the Koran. The Koran version I have reads:

Surah 51:47-48
We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof). And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!

The apparent parallelism between the words “heaven” and “earth” (which are mostly used in the Koran as pairs) does not allow the verse to have any association with the scientifically proven expansion of the universe. The Koran refers to the vast space/sky simply because it also refers to the laying out of the earth in the same manner.

Additionally, the verb used in this verse is not likely to connote or denote the scientific expansion in question since the word expansion denotes a systematic movement with no limitation in space. The following Koran verse refutes this possibility:
**
Surah 35:41**
Lo! Allah graspeth the heavens and the earth that they deviate not, and if they were to deviate there is not one that could grasp them after Him. Lo! He is ever Clement, Forgiving.

Since Allah grasps the universe and prevents its movement, there is no place in the Koran for the scientific notion of expansion.
 
rationally said:
Are you a scientist/referee and a linguist?
Click to expand...
Hi. I’m a linguist. What would you like to know?

What Kristin has said regarding the scientific peer review process is true, and works just the same in linguistics and other social sciences as it does in the lab coat and clipboard sciences.

If I wanted to publish an article concerning the supposed divinity of the Arabic language, for instance, I would need to submit it to a linguistics journal for peer review. It would be slaughtered and I know beforehand that it would be (since no linguistic research supports or can support such a claim), but this is still what I would have to do if I even want a chance to be taken seriously by the linguistics community around the world.

I have met several Arab and Muslim linguists, by the way. Not one of them ever claimed to me or anyone else that I know anything about scientific miracles of the Quran, probably because they know how science works and don’t want to be laughed all the way back to Riyadh for suggesting something so silly.
 
Isa Almisry

I am indeed indebted to you for your post #41. Botros is obviously a remarkable – and brave - man. My prayers go with him.
 
rationally said:
How did you miss Ahmed H. Zewail?
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1999/

By the way how many Jews are Nobel winners?

lol
Click to expand...
i think there’s plenty of them 😃

Literature
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer

Chemistry
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1972 - William Howard Stein
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Rober Fogel
1994 - Harsanyi, John C.
2001 - Stiglitz, Joseph E.
2001 - Akerlof, George A.
2002 - Kahneman, Daniel

Medicine
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - David Baltimore
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B. Lewis
1997 - Prusiner, Stanley B.
1998 - Furchgott, Robert F.
2000 - Kandel, Eric R.
2000 - Greengard, Paul

Physics
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1995 - Martin Perl
1996 - Osheroff, Douglas D.
1996 - Lee, David M
1997 - Cohen-Tannoudji, Claud

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
 
kristin2007 said:
Incidentally Rationally, did you know that only one Muslim has ever received a science Nobel Prize? That was** Abdus Salam**.

Ironically in 1974 the Pakistani legislature declared that Ahmadis were not Muslim. Salam, an Ahmadi, left Pakistan in protest.

Do you believe that Ahmadis are Muslims Rationally?

He did not believe in any scientific miracles in the koran.
Click to expand...
**Salaam did not believe in any scientific miracles in the Koran? Because he is not a Muslim…very simple.LOL

Now was Einstien a Jew or a Catholic? Did he believe in any scientific miracles of his Holy Bible that are claimed by Christians?**
 
rationally said:
**Salaam did not believe in any scientific miracles in the Koran? Because he is not a Muslim…very simple.LOL

Now was Einstien a Jew or a Catholic? Did he believe in any scientific miracles of his Holy Bible that are claimed by Christians?**
Click to expand...
One, for Einstein, the OT and the Tanakh are close enough for purposes of this argument. So in that point there wouldn’t be any difference.

Btw, scientific miracle, in the sense you are using it, is an oxymoron. A miracle is no difference from the regular ordering of the universe in that God does both. The difference of a miracle is that is a sign, which is outside the bounds of science, to be more specific empirical science.
 
Sorry Rationally,

You are correct.

I did miss Ahmed Zewail.

Does he believe in scientific miracles in the koran?

NB: If Salam was not a Muslim then we are back to only **one **Muslim science laureate.

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

Why are you specifically interested in JEWISH science Nobelists?

I have noticed that Muslims appear to have a Jew obsession.
 
BTW Rationally,

Between 1990 and 2007 there were about 160 science Nobel Laureates. I am counting economics as a science but the argument does not change much if you exclude economics.

Of the 160, nearly a quarter, 39 to be precise, were Jewish.

That ought to feed your Jew obsession.
 
kristin2007 said:
IMPORTANT QUESTION:
Why are you specifically interested in JEWISH science Nobelists?

I have noticed that Muslims appear to have a Jew obsession.
Click to expand...
Just a question, you know…since you seem so obsessed with Muslims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top