Now if a Christian believes him to be god, which many do, does that make him a different god to Islam?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Islam - Q&A lOTl Let's clear things up
- Thread starter SquiddyCracker
- Start date
- Status
Now if a Christian believes him to be god, which many do, does that make him a different god to Islam?
Wikipedia, Khan Academy...anything. I know not everyone takes biology in high school, but there are so many sources out there for anyone to learn even just the basic concepts.
To know that shit like this is out there ruined my day.
Only Muslims who haven't studied science or haven't read up on evolution.
Also one of the reasons Evolution hasn't filtered down in across Muslim majority countries is the establishment feel threatened by non-theological attempts to ascertain truths and Muslim leaders often sided with the religious authorities for political reasons. Thus what occurs is a retardation and stagnation of thinking in parts of the muslim world.
I believe Evolution.
religious matters?
What is the Quran described as?
"We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything, and a guidance and mercy and good news for those who submit."
How did it describe the prophet saw and his authority
'No by your Lord, they shall not become true believers until they make you judge in all disputes amongst them.'' [An-Nisaa, 4: 65]
'And take whatever the Messenger has brought to you and refrain from whatever he has forbidden you.'' [Al-Hashr, 59:7]
Now even if one was to just look at an issue such as Riba (Interest) which is clearly forbidden in the quran with multiple verses how can this be implemented by someone who doesnt believe in such a thing.
Or are you saying the sharia doesnt apply today?
kobashi100
Banned
the prophet (saw) made it clear what the ruling system is and should be when he established the islamic state in medina and before he passed.
No this mean you cannot force non muslims to convert to Islam. It is not talking about the rule of islam on state level
So your saying the 4 rightly guided caliphs were all wrong?
Also are you saying that Muhammad (saw) was the only person allowed to rule by the sharia?
I dont see how you can come to that conclusion..
Also your gonna have to show me some scholars from any of the 4 schools of thought who support this whole Islamic secularist state ideology.
No this mean you cannot force non muslims to convert to Islam. It is not talking about the rule of islam on state level
So your saying the 4 rightly guided caliphs were all wrong?
Also are you saying that Muhammad (saw) was the only person allowed to rule by the sharia?
I dont see how you can come to that conclusion..
Also your gonna have to show me some scholars from any of the 4 schools of thought who support this whole Islamic secularist state ideology.
RustyNails
Member
I studied evolution in school in a conservative muslim country. There are some who dont see a conflict and some who do. But its not a deeply divisive issue
Maninthemirror
Banned
The four caliphs ruled on the Quran and Hadeeth matters for muslims and on secular laws of the lands on non muslims. There was complete freedom of religion. There was no Islamic state it was the caliphate which was for muslims. The only difference being a number of conversions happened under the 4 caliphs
Though it is true that after the four caliphs some muslim leaders started to act like islamic leaders on all people as a state religion, that was the corruption of power unfortunately
RustyNails
Member
Because after the 5th Caliph, the Caliphate turned into a quasi kingdom where power was passed through hereditary system rather than through shura council, the general assembly of elected representatives. I am not sure if it ever returned to form.
Out of the triune God in Christianity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost)...the Muslim would share the same God as the "Father", except in Islam God's names are in accordance with his attributes, but in essence you can call him by whatever you like, as long as the name is fitting. As mentioned, in Islam Jesus (pbuh) is seen as a prophet of the "Father" in heaven.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
kobashi100: Appreciated that you are answering questions, but it'll be even more helpful if you could state what denomination of Islam you identify with/your answers are representative of.
kobashi100
Banned
yes it was an islamic state. non muslims were allowed freedom to worship as the sharia guarantees this right.
not sure where your getting this whole secular law for non Muslims in the islamic state.
So they could do all the above but in private. Non muslims couldn't go out on the street for example drinking alcohol or open a shop selling it.
apologies. Sunni muslim
ZiZ
Member
no, committing one sin is bad, committing two is worse.
LaserBuddha
Member
Considering that pigs aren't a particularly "filthy" animal to begin with, I don't think it would make a difference. But that's logic talking.
Necromanti
Member
And with the risk of parasites from undercooked pork, I would say that salmonella poisoning from inadequately cooked chicken is a much greater and common risk. It's not really objective in terms of what's considered "unclean" or risky.
It's also weird that God didn't ban animals than can kill you if you eat them. It would have been useful if he had also compiled lists of things like poisonous mushrooms or talked about the mercury levels of different fish. But nah, fuck all that, pigs are dirty (I bet he wanted all the bacon for himself). Unfortunately, the Qur'an seems to focus on the Middle East which to me is proof that it isn't the world of God, but the word of Arab men. A real God would have made a book that includes the entire world.
Allah should have predicted the salmonella. Also, fish must be frozen in the US before being sold due to all the parasites. Fish very commonly carry them anywhere in the world. But god singles out pigs. Well, except when he spoke to the christians, it was ok for a little while.
Necromanti
Member
Well, technically, it's a carryover from the word of Jewish men (with the handling of pigs, especially). Kosher and halal food (and slaughtering), for example, have more similarities than differences.
I'm surprised the Judeo-Christian god didn't let them go extinct with the dinosaurs. The speciesism is a tad disturbing.
Yes it carries from Jewish law but a lot of stuff was changed. I'm pretty sure seafood is halal in Islam. The Qur'an also made camels halal even though they aren't kosher since Arabs depended on them so much. So there isn't any divine being determining this, it's all based on economical reasons. Also since Arabs didn't know about most animals on the planet, the list of banned animals is pretty small. I'm pretty sure the Qur'an doesn't talk about New World animals, or animals found in Australia. It's also weird that he banned alcohol specifically but not other drugs specifically too. Why doesn't he talk about tobacco?
But honestly, I find it weird that God would even ban certain animals. He created them so why ban them? Let humans decide for themselves what they want to eat.
Dude wikipedia?
I think someone else said it....laws describe something...theories explain them. It doesnt mean they are always correct though. You get where I'm coming from? They aren't 100% correct.
I'm gonna paste in a conversation i had with a friend, he is A, i am B. Please share your opinions should you care to read, he brings up a lot of good points on the definitions of theory and facts in science...
A: "In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions"
Some more scientific definitions:
-A fact is a data point: "Apples fall to the ground".
-A law is a "what" explanation: "Apples fall to the ground with a force proportional to their mass".
-A theory is a "why" explanation: "Apples fall to the ground with a force proportional to their mass because objects with mass create a curvature of space-time"
B: "Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge," - I agree with most of what you said...but the fact is they still call it a theory, and some of those theories have not been proven, like the first 2 i mentioned...and besides, I was never one for dictionary definitions. The Theory of Evolution has not been proven, nor has the Big Bang, or other theories in Science, instead though, there is evidence that suggests they could be the most 'reliable' things to believe...BUT it still doesnt take that away from the fact they are theories, and a lot of dumb asses (not yourself) go around reppin em like they are 100% true.
A: A "theory" is an explanation; a set of facts that explain phenomena. Thoroughly tested and critically analyzed. It's not something you choose to believe, doesn't change it's existence. It's there, tangible, physically observably.
B: from that first sentence of yours, it already has an inherent weakness. A set of facts that when they come together provide a plausible explanation that could be taken as fact, but they dont prove it to be definite fact, its just logical explanation, somethings aren't logical, the beauty of the universe.
A: True, I think I just realized what you're trying to get at, you are right about that weakness. Theories can have varying degrees of certainty, but in science, they are never as nebulous as a mere "guess". There is always some evidence to back them up. Some theories are young enough that we don't yet have enough evidence to be certain about them, and some are rock solid.
Natural selection is a theory of evolution which explains how evolution happens. It is not a guess. Something can be both a theory and a fact. Of course, these are always open to new evidence and the evidence must be applied to the theory and will either further uphold it, or debunk it. But this evidence must undergo the very same testing and critical analysis as the original theory contained. So therefore, you cannot deny a "scientific theory", unless you can come up with a contradictory "scientific theory".
"They don't prove it to be definite fact"
How can you say you want "definite facts" yet claim "somethings aren't logical"? Isn't that self defeating? Facts are explained by logic. Everything can be explained with logic. Just because we haven't managed to understand and explain everything yet, doesn't mean we won't. We sure know a lot more now than we did a century ago. And we're only getting closer.
I may have veered off your point there. But you are not wrong about theories. Point is, with so much evidence, I'd take a "scientific theory" over an ancient scripture.
B: Some facts arent explained by logic. Like if you were to do something illogical out of choice, because choice is what we have, we can do something illogical and cause it to be a fact.
Only the middle bit veered off, that last one was interesting.
And standard, they arent a mere guess, of course not.
It continued from there also..but a bit off topic, more into psychology lol.
Hope that was not too long winded. Wording though plays a part in everything thats well...written down, which a lot of people will ignore, things like 'explanation' 'choice', 'if' etc
I am not knowledgable enough in relation to the other theories you mentioned, but what is mentioned above should provide my standpoint on them, everything is plausible... when it comes to things with no definite answer it boils down to personal belief and opinion, i am sure there are some non religious people who find things wrong with 'scientific' theories.
Also, after our conversation last night, I was thinking why people only take the last 100 years of (any) history and apply it as if it has been around since the beginning of that group of people. I mean, look at the 'dark ages' that we were told in school nothing happened...it was a huge time of innovation and enlightment of science in the Islamic world... I don't think anyone can say that islam should be or is incompatible with science.
Sorry bud cant access youtube at the moment...or google for that matter, yay for China! If you found it hilarious then I'm pretty sure the guy may have some messed up interpretation of things...
The inherent difference i talk of is in my response above, about freedom of choice, not doing things purely for means of survival etc...and from a spirtual sense, the soul. And I'm not saying it excludes humans from evolution...
What I have said is that there are Islamic scholars working on ways to find out how the two can be compatible, because as earlier stated, one came before the other...
And as others in this thread have said, it is not a very divisive issue...because we (on both sides) dont know the full answer. What I myself am saying really boils down to opinion, I take scientific theory, religious texts, and come up with my own decision...doesn't make me right or wrong on the issue, neither are you, because as said, neither side has a definite answer...yet.
Brings me to current debate on pork. I dont think its only the cleanliness in the common sense of the manner that makes it forbidden. Flu comes from pigs...it originates in chickens which when farmed with pigs transmits to them...they carry it to humans because of the genetic similarities, as it cant go from chicken to human directly. This is also among the reasons.
Personally, I dont eat pork because I dont like pigs. I don't get why people think fat ugly pink things that roll around in mud all day are cute. I also will not eat something that has no regard for itself, like Sam jackson says at the end of Pulp Fiction...
Yes a lot of animals eat shit, some chickens do, but it is not in their nature nor is it common tendency, whereas it is in a pigs tendency to eat whatever you give it, example...my old dog didnt eat certain things, like chocolate, because he knew it would make him sick...a pig wouldnt give a shit. I've had crocodile which is (correct if wrong) haraam, but I did it because i think crocodiles are bad ass...so I was like hell yeah bring it on.
Also Kingfire, sorry i didnt address the points about women, yes that is precisely what it says in the Quran...but the things you mentioned after, are interpretations from misogynistic assholes, who most likely have political agendas or influences. They don't even appear to use any thought but instead just chat some shit like they are God.
I have no answer to why 2 women are required, I think though, that it may be along the lines of that, as is tendency, women talk a lot more, ie gossip etc, so words can easily be misconstrued or changed. Men don't do this as much.
Now I'll probably get the whole oh you sexist asshole thing...why does that have to happen only when such conversations regarding theology are concerned...
Go talk to a woman and tell me she don't gossip. I grew up with all women...I love women...but I know they love to chat. This is my opinion on why the 2 woman thing is there. I'd have to read up on it a lot more though...
Also, like I said...I automatically dismiss Wahabi and Salafi doctrines, ideas, interpretations, and a lot of the time...people.
I have no answer to why 2 women are required, I think though, that it may be along the lines of that, as is tendency, women talk a lot more, ie gossip etc, so words can easily be misconstrued or changed. Men don't do this as much.
Now I'll probably get the whole oh you sexist asshole thing...why does that have to happen only when such conversations regarding theology are concerned...
Go talk to a woman and tell me she don't gossip. I grew up with all women...I love women...but I know they love to chat. This is my opinion on why the 2 woman thing is there. I'd have to read up on it a lot more though...
Also, like I said...I automatically dismiss Wahabi and Salafi doctrines, ideas, interpretations, and a lot of the time...people.
Pigs roll in mud because they lack sweat glands and need to cool themselves off through extraneous methods. They do it because they have regard for themselves and don't want to overheat and die. They are actually highly intelligent animals; among the smartest.
Also, not all theories are equal, some are more supported than others. To dismiss theories in general because some of them are weak is ignorant. Many theories, such as evolution and germ theory, are so well supported that believing that they aren't fact requires delusion. Theories explain things that happen. If the theory is bad, the thing that it was trying to explain doesn't cease to exist. We have copious evidence supporting evolution, and natural selection is observable.
Also, from a scientific standpoint, a lack of evidence is not carte blanche for belief. If you can't explain something, obviously you can say it's magic, but don't be upset when people come in, test it, and explain it.
Your friend seems reasonably on target with his explanations and definitions, though he makes some mistakes.
This right here suggests whenever you hear the word "theory" when used in a scientific context you are mentally (and incorrectly) inserting the layman version of the word. They mean completely different things.
Read through this again http://www.notjustatheory.com/
A scientific theory, by definition, has been proven.
In scientific terms, an unproven explanation of phenomena is called a "hypothesis". You could also arguably substitute for the scientific hypothesis a word like "guess" or the layman "theory" (though hypothesis has the distinction of making a testable prediction, which is not necessarily a component of a guess).
Apparently not. That doesn't mean you can just make up new definitions for words, or use definitions out of context.
Yes, it has. We have observed the fact of evolution, and the resulting theory of evolution which has been developed and scrutinized for over 100 years is one of the most tested, well documented, and well supported scientific theories in existence.
The theory of evolution has been "scientifically proven".
The fact of evolution, including the descent of man, is well explained and supported by the theory of evolution. There is no controversy. There is not even a competing hypothesis meeting a scientific standard.
Rejection of the theory of evolution while accepting any other scientific theory can only arise from either ignorance or denial.
Your friend makes a misstep here. A scientific theory is not "a set of facts that explain phenomena". That is like saying "a theory is a set of facts that explain facts" which is both circular and incorrect.
Facts, in scientific terms, are merely observations. They are not an "explanation" in and of themselves, and they cannot be grouped together in any way to become an explanation.
An explanation in the form of a scientific theory can only be arrived at through the proposition of a falsifiable hypothesis, testing against the predictions of that hypothesis, analysis of results, and ongoing gathering of evidence to test accuracy.
As mentioned above, a group of facts do not form a "plausible explanation" nor a "logical explanation".
This doesn't mean anything in the context of the words being used.
Your friend misses the opportunity to teach you about a "hypothesis" here to further define what a scientific theory is and correct your misuse of the word.
In scientific terms, your friend is wrong. Facts and scientific theories are two different things.
Your friend is wrong. You are wrong about theories.
You are muddling the usage of words here. Doing something behaviorally illogical does not mean that behavior cannot be explained through scientific theory or "logical analysis" (your friend kind of strayed here too given his usage of the word logic is off anyway).
Hope that helps clarify things for you. If not, read this and this again.
It is a commandment in the quran:
nd bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon.
Albaqarah 282
It was also affirmed in a hadith;
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
Mario good response...thanks. I learnt some things there as I have learnt in this thread... a lot of points im gonna agree to disagree...dont want to turn this thread into something its not.
However, I do know what hypotheses are and I do not agree that rejection of scientific theory in this instance is out of ignorance or denial. I accept most major points of the theory of evolution.
Then again, my Physics teacher came up with quite a popular (at the time) alternate theory to the Big Bang. I guess thats where I get this from..
I'm not dismissing theories. Or science at all for that matter...I love the subject and studied it quite a lot, it was just time ago so im rusty, hence flawed arguments. If you've read anything of what I have previously said, I completely accept natural selection, and the theory of evolution, however with the latter I don't think we came from monkeys, and actually, this isnt even from a religious perspective, I do and think what I want to... so I will agree to disagree here.
As for pigs..the rolling around in the mud bit I know, I used it in the context of people thinking they are cute..
I meant why and the reasoning behind it...it was in your response but not the bolded bit
Cheers dudes. Im out of this thread now. Let it get back to what it was intended to be...
However, I do know what hypotheses are and I do not agree that rejection of scientific theory in this instance is out of ignorance or denial. I accept most major points of the theory of evolution.
Then again, my Physics teacher came up with quite a popular (at the time) alternate theory to the Big Bang. I guess thats where I get this from..
I'm not dismissing theories. Or science at all for that matter...I love the subject and studied it quite a lot, it was just time ago so im rusty, hence flawed arguments. If you've read anything of what I have previously said, I completely accept natural selection, and the theory of evolution, however with the latter I don't think we came from monkeys, and actually, this isnt even from a religious perspective, I do and think what I want to... so I will agree to disagree here.
As for pigs..the rolling around in the mud bit I know, I used it in the context of people thinking they are cute..
I meant why and the reasoning behind it...it was in your response but not the bolded bit
Cheers dudes. Im out of this thread now. Let it get back to what it was intended to be...
Christians did have dietary restrictions on pork, they were eventually lifted for the sake of missionaries who couldn't always eat what they wanted to. Early Christianity was basically a continuation of Judaism.
Some sects have similar restrictions to Judaism on Shellfish or non-fish marine animals. A small number of animals are banned by name, a lot more are banned by "attribute" (Can't eat carnivores for example). So if there's an animal that is newly discovered that falls under a carnivorous predator, you can't eat it. Besides, there wouldn't have been a name for those animals in Arabic back then (Don't eat this thing you might see in about 1000 years, it has big teeth and a funny tail).
Also if it was purely economical pigs would be legal, makes no sense to cut out another source of food.
There is a similar blanket ban on any substance that alters consciousness, this does cover drugs besides alcohol. The Quran mentions "Any Intoxicant", not just alcohol. Tobacco isn't an intoxicant to most sects.
1) Hijab is never mentioned in the Quran. Neither is covering your head. Not once.
2) Different sects have different lists of approved Hadiths
3) Islamic scholars come to the consensus that a soul is placed into a fetus after 120 days, so why would abortion in the first 4 months not be permissible? (Source: http://www.ilmgate.org/when-does-the-soul-enter-the-fetus/ )
Humans are categorically descended from Anthropoidea, a common "monkey" ancestor that gave rise to modern "New World Monkeys" and "Old World Monkeys", the latter of which are common ancestors for humans and all other modern apes. Here is a quick 11 minute breakdown to show you the specifics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
If you aren't rejecting this from ignorance or a "humans are special" religious basis, then on what scientific grounds do you reject the theory of evolution which includes the descent of man and make the claim that "humans did not come from monkeys"?
Furthermore, are you claiming humans didn't evolve from anything at all, and were "created"? If so, on what scientific grounds do you make that claim?
O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.
AL Ahzab 56.
MadraptorMan
Member
The whole not being abused thing didn't really pan out, huh.
ZiZ
Member
1) yes it was. in truth I think people (whether for or against) put too much emphasis on this issue when there are much bigger issues that need more care.
2) follow the hadiths of your sect then, the point is you shouldn't just say, I'm not going to follow hadiths. or just not follow a hadith because it doesn't suit you.
3) I'm not a scholar, it could be permissible in the first 4 months.
CornBurrito
Member
However Islam apparently calls for the death of those that convert out of it.
Honestly from the answers in this thread presented so far, Islam seems pretty cool for the most part. However calling for the death of apostates makes it irredeemably vile in my eyes.
Maninthemirror
Banned
No it doesnt.
"Those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor guide them in the (right) way" (4:137).
If the punishment for apostasy was death wouldnt the Quran avoid the cycle shown above and ask Muslims to kill after first instance of disbelief?
Clearly the punishment is Allah's forgiveness in the hereafter is gone for the person only after cycling through acceptance and rejection again and again. Thats all. No death
And again
"And a party of the People of the Book say: Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe, in the first part of the day, and disbelieve in the latter part of it, perhaps they may turn back" (3:72).
Wouldnt the Holy Prophet put the Jews to death if Islam supported death for apostasy?
So yeah, no death for apostasy, if muslims and clerics do support it, its in contradictory hadeeth which dont overrule the Quran, those are the fundamentalist clerics like Ikramah
Ikrama... The opponent of Hadhrat Ali... Supporter of khawarij...ikramah was a renouned scholars of the Abbasids, who opposed a lot
Of things about Hadhrat Ali. Hadeeth were man written accounts. Ikramah is not a reliable source
The big leap of logic between "you are deemed unfit/unclit/whatever by God" and "okay, therefore we will have to kill you now" is insane. How it is overlooked is beyond me. And it is a recurring practice between many different religions. Sometimes not regarding to killing, but judgment in itself is bad enough.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Correct translation is molested, raped, physically abused. Again showing that Islam views that some men have malicious intent and only think about sex when they see women even if they are muslim or non muslims, essentially corrupted men. The hijab is a recommendation to cover their beauty so men don't even think of women such way by being attracted to their physical beauty. You can see in society today how many men like those still exist who take a look at women and pursue her for sex and then disregard her, aka just using her for sex and moving on. This is the prevention from it
I have a question. Not a muslim but I'm well studied in religion in general including Islam. I see some muslims try to reconcile evolution and Islam when they are not compatible ideas, regardless of what back flips certain people may do. Considering it goes to this extent, why is there some form of concious effort going on in trying to make the religion into something it's not? Why not just exit it if it comes to that point? I understand community pressure, and it's not something simple to do, but there seems to be an effort by a minority of muslims in trying to portray some liberal, adapting version of Islam which may as well not be Islam anymore. Why go to this extent?
CornBurrito
Member
Are you claiming that Terra Firma is lying or spreading misinformation by accident?
At the very least, in my eyes Sunni Islam is irredeemably vile for demanding the death of apostates.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Spreading misinformation as no man has the right to take the matters of God in his hands especially apostasy so yes it is misinformation. Its not his fault its some clerics who do this and thus people who accept it without research and common sense
CornBurrito
Member
Interestingly enough, Terra Firma made the claim that two Muslims, even from separate countries, would hold the same beliefs.
:/
Aren't they? You're taking as settled the whole crux of the debate and making some very deliberate assumptions about the nature of religion to boot.
Who is making this determination about what the religion is in the first place?
You mean Hanafi Sunni Islam right? It's always good to be specific.
Maninthemirror
Banned
I would listen to what cleric said but then read the Quran first, hadeeth related to it , if the hadeeth contradicts the Quran you see the source of the Hadeeth and see if its reliable.
You see all muslims believe Quran is the word of God but they also all accept Hadeeth is written by men as a historical side study of the life of the Holy Prophet and men make mistakes or have other issues. Use only hadeeth whose source is trustworthy and there is no contradictions in all examples of this with Quran
Thats called research, blind faith is no faith, to believe what you believe you need to back it up by researching all the time
RobotMafia
Banned
I just wanted to highlight this gem. The paragraph below it is amazing too.
CornBurrito
Member
Whatever sect Terra Firma is speaking for. He said Sunni. I don't know which type.
They're not. I'd love to see someone on here who thinks they are explain their thought process. Either your interpretation of the quran is in the literal sense within the context of its times, or it's in the metaphorical sense in which case we involve the language of arabic in a more lyrical manner. Whichever way you go about it, you cannot reconcile these two ideas.
If we're going the former route, you'll at least have consistency. The latter route and the book can't stand on its own in general as a proper guide. Now if you decide to involve various sects and denomonations, then you need to explain their thought processes, many of which sometimes give more precedence to their sect leaders or founding ideology rather than the quran itself. In this case, it's basically a get out clause for most people since they won't know everything, or in other cases may not be aware of other contradictions. In this sense, we'd be at the stage where it is best left to internal Islamic debates which would be a waste of time.
So, let's stick to the quran only. I know there are muslims on this board who believe evolution to be correct. How do you reconcile the two and how do you approach your religion?
How so? I mean you're making a claim here, but I don't see your evidence in support of it.
Where does that say Head, Hijab, or mention to cover your head? Bring down over yourself could just mean cover your body?
freenudemacusers
Member
lol
- Status