What's new

Islam and the theory of relativity etc...

MIG

MIG

PakPassion Administrator
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Runs
43,972
Ok chaps ( propeller heads and those with Physics A Levels etc ):

Pls go to this link:

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

and tell me that the calculations there make sense - if they do, this will be a "discovery" of stupendous proportions !

Here is some part of the website

Relativity in Quran (Koran)

Einstein's theory of special relativity states that the speed of light in vacuum (outside matter and gravitational fields) is always the same (at 299792.458 km/s). It is the time and space that vary according to the speed of objects; that is, faster objects experience slower time (Time Dilation). Also, general relativity states that time passes slower near bigger mass (in stronger gravitational fields). The whole theory of relativity revolves around this concept.

Surprisingly, the Quran (Koran, the book of Islam) states that:

Speed of Light is always the same at 299792.5 km/s
Faster objects experience slower time (Time Dilation)
Time passes slower near bigger mass (General Relativity)
Pulsars and Black Holes
Wormholes (Length Contraction)
Gravitational Lensing

Einstein's theory of relativity proves the Quran right.
Click to expand...

Go to the link below:

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

and let me know what you think
 
Last edited:
subhanallah it was really great this shows islam is true religion
thank you for this
 
zabardast......truely amazing how everything adds up and is proven by the so called science after centuries.......fascinating stuff.....!!!!
 
There is so much more.....
Science is NOT proving islam true. Come on. Science is merely following, we don't need it to prove that islam is the true religion.......well depends on your faith. There are many more things that have been recently discovered by science that were in the quran 1400 years ago, such as embryonic development, mountain structure, cloud descriptions, solar system info etc etc.
 
Last edited:
i remember when i was in college, read a book on scientific wonders of Quran. The person wrote that book in the early 20th century and proved that ether theory is mentioned in quran. i think after that some battameez scientists proved ether theory wrong!
 
Precisely, theories should never be used to prove Qur'an right, only established facts.
 
Way I see it, its an effort to convert possibly a rhetorical piece of literature into justifiable scientific research.

We do take Quran in a literal sense a lot.
 
the theory about speed of light makes sense.The black hole and pulsar theory is interesting.I am not sure about the rest.

however the only verse that matters to be scientifcally in the quran is

[Quran 51.47] And the heaven, We built it with craftsmanship and We are still expanding.

nothing else even comes close
 
Bump for Strike Mian!!!

Ok Strike - go crazy and refute all this for me - I look forward to it...
 
cinderella said:
there is so much more.....
science is NOT provinng islam true. come on. science is merely following, we don't need it to prove that islam is the true religion.......well depends on your faith. but there are many more things that have been recently discovered by science that were in the quran 1400 years ago. such as embryonic development, mountain structure, cloud descriptions, solar system info etc etc.
i can post the exact material if you are interested.....
Click to expand...

Not true. Embryonic development was shown by Hippocrates 900 years before Mohammed!!! Ancient Greek medicine was translated into Arabic and taught by Mohammeds peers.

Why dont you people EVER read around a subject. It is almost pointless trying to have a rational dsicussion with you, you read one bit about the Koran and thats it, you dont bother reading any more.
The Koran does not describe mountain construction it has no info on the solar system and its knowledge of the embryo predates Islam by hundreds of years. ::J
 
I will tell you what is SO irritating about these "debates" and that is that you people refuse to stick by rules.

When I posted Koranic verses showing that the Koran says a day to God is 1000 years and then later that it was 50,000 years, I was told in no uncertain terms that in Arabic the term translated to "day" means "period" and that this "period" can be ANY length of time.

Now when it suits an argument, that term is once more returned to meaning "day". How convenient.

Tell me whether the translation means day or period (of indefinite time) and then we can all debate on a level field.

Oh and the "proof of relativity" in the Koran is apparently this:

"They challenge you to bring forth that torture and Allah will not break His promise; a day of your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count."

That above is apparently (according to this site) proof of Einsteins theory of relativity.:)))
 
But how about answering the issues/points in that link without worrying about what others have said in other threads ? To me ( and I am not as well read as some others ) it makes some logical sense - which bits do you not agree with ( and pls, this is a sensitive matter to a lot of us who are Muslims so answer without ridiculing our holy book, if you may)
 
MenInGreen said:
But how about answering the issues/points in that link without worrying about what others have said in other threads ? To me ( and I am not as well read as some others ) it makes some logical sense - which bits do you not agree with ( and pls, this is a sensitive matter to a lot of us who are Muslims so answer without ridiculing our holy book, if you may)
Click to expand...

Well I really dont know what to say. I mean if ANYONE thinks that this:

"They challenge you to bring forth that torture and Allah will not break His promise; a day of your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count."

Is an outlining of Einsteins theory of relativity then I am speechless. There is no point in me trying to tell someone it does not show relativity at all and that there is no relation, because someone who can possibly think the above quote is explaining or even referring to Einsteins work is so delusional I would never be able to get through to them.

If that is relativity then basically EVERY high level of physics and any other science has been predicted and explained hundreds of times before its official discovery by many men. I could pull Shakespeare quotes out that are as accurate as that.

It is not an attack on Islam or the Koran to say that the points made on that site are utterly fallacious. They take a vague, metaphorical sentence and then add 2 and 2 to make 789 rather than 4.
Not one element of relativity or its complex workings is present, all we have is the idea of time being different in hell than on earth. And this was simply trying to explain how terrible hell would be.
 
OK - fair enough - Thanks Strike - as I mentioned before, I am not an expert on the theory of relativity so really not much I can do but take your word for it - unless someone else jumps in this thread and presents a counter argument.

Also you mention Shakespeares quotes - are you saying this in jest or do you have examples ?
 
Well my point is that any old vague, poetic line or passage can be interpreted to me far more than it says...so to use Shakespeare as an example..

So here:

"The miserable have no other medicine but only hope." is predicting the discovery that positive thinking can aid recovery in those where traditional medicine is failing.

Here is a modern link to show what Shakespeare predicted:
http://www.cancersupportivecare.com/Yana/support.html

If I trawled through lots of Shakespeare quotes I could find things that I could twist to say that meant more than they did, or read "science" into them.
As I have shown on the other thread Hippocrates spoke of the embryo in the exact level of detail as the Koran hundreds of years before Mohammed was born, and yet numerous Muslims believe that the Koran shows incredible knowledge of embryonic development.
It baffles me that people have no desire to learn and read around topics and to actually test the things they are told.
 
Strike said:
Well I really dont know what to say. I mean if ANYONE thinks that this:

"They challenge you to bring forth that torture and Allah will not break His promise; a day of your Lord is like a thousand years of what you count."

Is an outlining of Einsteins theory of relativity then I am speechless. There is no point in me trying to tell someone it does not show relativity at all and that there is no relation, because someone who can possibly think the above quote is explaining or even referring to Einsteins work is so delusional I would never be able to get through to them.

If that is relativity then basically EVERY high level of physics and any other science has been predicted and explained hundreds of times before its official discovery by many men. I could pull Shakespeare quotes out that are as accurate as that.

It is not an attack on Islam or the Koran to say that the points made on that site are utterly fallacious. They take a vague, metaphorical sentence and then add 2 and 2 to make 789 rather than 4.
Not one element of relativity or its complex workings is present, all we have is the idea of time being different in hell than on earth. And this was simply trying to explain how terrible hell would be.
Click to expand...

Alright, personally I don't take Quran as science for me, it is much more. But those who find these claims don't really pull it out of nowhere.

The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years. (Quran 70:4)


So angels experience one day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years. If you are familiar with theory of special relativity, give this time dilation, we can calculate the speed at which that object traveled. So we can verify if agnels accelerated upto the speed of light. This can be verified in two minutes via simple math.

change in t =[ (change in t sub initial) / square root of (1-(v^2/c^2))]

Change in t sub initial is the time experienced by angels (1 day).

change in t is the time as measured by humans (50,000 lunar years x12 lunar months/lunar year x 27.321661 days/lunar month).

v is the velocity of angels in this case (which we will calculate and compare to speed of light)

c is the known speed of light in a vacuum = 299792.458 km/s

Now, we can solve for velocity,
v = c x square root of (1-(change in t initial squared / change in t squared))

Using that verse I quoted,

v = c x (1^2/ (50,000 x 12 x 27.321661)^2))
=299792 km/s

This time difference clearly shows that outside gravitational fields angels accelerated up to the speed of light, actually slightly less as they have mass.

I have an exam in 10 minutes, I'll elaborate on other verses mentioned here later inshaAllah.
 
Last edited:
cinderella said:
Alright, personally I don't take Quran as science for me, it is much more. But those who find these claims don't really pull it out of nowhere.

The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years. (Quran 70:4)


So angels experience one day while humans will measure it as 50,000 years. If you are familiar with theory of special relativity, give this time dilation, we can calculate the speed at which that object traveled. So we can verify if agnels accelerated upto the speed of light. This can be verified in two minutes via simple math.

change in t =[ (change in t sub initial) / square root of (1-(v^2/c^2))]

Change in t sub initial is the time experienced by angels (1 day).

change in t is the time as measured by humans (50,000 lunar years x12 lunar months/lunar year x 27.321661 days/lunar month).

v is the velocity of angels in this case (which we will calculate and compare to speed of light)

c is the known speed of light in a vacuum = 299792.458 km/s

Now, we can solve for velocity,
v = c x square root of (1-(change in t initial squared / change in t squared))

Using that verse I quoted,

v = c x (1^2/ (50,000 x 12 x 27.321661)^2))
=299792 km/s

This time difference clearly shows that outside gravitational fields angels accelerated up to the speed of light, actually slightly less as they have mass.

I have an exam in 10 minutes, I'll elaborate on other verses mentioned here later inshaAllah.
Click to expand...

I do not wish to be rude, but do you even understand the equations you just wrote? Or did you just copy them off the site in question?

Let me point out that the Koran says that a day is 1000 years. Then that it is 50,000 years. I stated this as a criticism of the books consistency and was told that "day" meant "period" and had been mistranslated into the English day.

So it is an indefinite time period. You are picking and choosing what it means to suit your argument. Either the term means "day" or it means "period" (of indefinite time). Decide which one you want and we can debate it.
 
Strike said:
It baffles me that people have no desire to learn and read around topics and to actually test the things they are told.
Click to expand...

Its not that Strike - someone makes a statement which we LIKE to hear ( as humans do ) and we accept on face value as it suits us. Then someone, like yourself, comes along and refutes it line by line - which is fine - why is that such a problem ? Not all people have time on their hands to analyse such documents and since they are not basing their faith on these documents, that is quiet understandable.

Anyway, I think we have detained you long enough - pls feel free to part take in other threads - we dont want to turn you into a specialist Islam "denier" type person :)

Cheers
 
MenInGreen said:
Its not that Strike - someone makes a statement which we LIKE to hear ( as humans do ) and we accept on face value as it suits us. Then someone, like yourself, comes along and refutes it line by line - which is fine - why is that such a problem ? Not all people have time on their hands to analyse such documents and since they are not basing their faith on these documents, that is quiet understandable.

Anyway, I think we have detained you long enough - pls feel free to part take in other threads - we dont want to turn you into a specialist Islam "denier" type person :)

Cheers
Click to expand...

Yeah you're are right, it is human nature to seek comfort and also to accept that which is pleasing.

Cindarella - you are aware that those equations are nonsensical? A light year for example a distance of metres that determines how far light would travel in a human year.
Now your equations attempt to assert that something travelling somewhere for a set time is a distance. but it does not work like that.

So lets say the angels are travelling at the speed of light and they travel for one day. The only way this relates to a number of years on earth is if we know the distance travelled. You are trying to determine mathametical equations without the necessary information.

If it said the angels travel from Jerusalem to Egpyt in a certain time. We could work out the distance travelled and the speed and assert what speed it was.
But you are not giving a distance just two time scales. A day and 50,000 years, but light years are not measurements of time (despite the name) they are mathematical references to distances, that are determined by lights speed.

When you are discussing angels, you could say that a day to them is 50,000 years to a human, because an angel lives in another dimension, or it moves far slower and its existence is not measured the same, it is an intangible.
 
Let me point out that the Koran says that a day is 1000 years. Then that it is 50,000 years. I stated this as a criticism of the books consistency and was told that "day" meant "period" and had been mistranslated into the English day.

So it is an indefinite time period. You are picking and choosing what it means to suit your argument. Either the term means "day" or it means "period" (of indefinite time). Decide which one you want and we can debate it.
Click to expand...

This is a good point.

The word "day" means different things in different context. The Qur'an has to be seen as a whole book, and in its historical context. Any attempt of analysing a verse in isolation, or the Qur'an as a book in isolation will fail.
 
Strike said:
I do not wish to be rude, but do you even understand the equations you just wrote? Or did you just copy them off the site in question?

Let me point out that the Koran says that a day is 1000 years. Then that it is 50,000 years. I stated this as a criticism of the books consistency and was told that "day" meant "period" and had been mistranslated into the English day.

So it is an indefinite time period. You are picking and choosing what it means to suit your argument. Either the term means "day" or it means "period" (of indefinite time). Decide which one you want and we can debate it.
Click to expand...

Manners are hardly important when the truth is concerned. Considering I just took a physics exam, I'd hope I have some idea of what I am talking about.

I'll get to that verse in a sec.

Strike said:
Yeah you're are right, it is human nature to seek comfort and also to accept that which is pleasing.

Cindarella - you are aware that those equations are nonsensical? A light year for example a distance of metres that determines how far light would travel in a human year.
Now your equations attempt to assert that something travelling somewhere for a set time is a distance. but it does not work like that.

So lets say the angels are travelling at the speed of light and they travel for one day. The only way this relates to a number of years on earth is if we know the distance travelled. You are trying to determine mathametical equations without the necessary information.

If it said the angels travel from Jerusalem to Egpyt in a certain time. We could work out the distance travelled and the speed and assert what speed it was.
But you are not giving a distance just two time scales. A day and 50,000 years, but light years are not measurements of time (despite the name) they are mathematical references to distances, that are determined by lights speed.

When you are discussing angels, you could say that a day to them is 50,000 years to a human, because an angel lives in another dimension, or it moves far slower and its existence is not measured the same, it is an intangible.
Click to expand...

The verse in my earlier post was a dilation of time v time. This one is of time v distance.
"He (Allah) rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up? To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning". (32:5)

This information can also be calculated to reach the speed of light.

But right now, I'd rather focus on the "50,000" and "1,000" years question. It's fine if you think that people are looking for something which is not there, but when you think there is false info/contradictions, we must clear them up.

Firstly, thee verses (that will follow) indicate that Allah's time is incomparable to earthly time. The 1000 years and 50000 years are earthly time, or a very very long time.

"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! but Allah will not fail in His promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning". (22:47)

This is to point that Allah (swt) will not fail in His promise, and a period in the sight of Allah is like a thousand years of your reckoning.

"He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up? To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning". (32:5)

This verse indicates that a period required for all the affairs to go up to Allah (swt), is a thousand years of our reckoning.

"The angels and the spirit ascend unto Him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years". (70:4)

This verse means that the 'period' required for angels and the spirits to ascend unto Allah (swt) is fifty thousand years.

That's like if I said it takes me 2 hours to get to Houston and 6 to get to Chicago. Is that a contradiction?
 
Last edited:
cinderella said:
That's like if I said it takes me 2 hours to get to Houston and 6 to get to Chicago. Is that a contradiction?
Click to expand...

It is not remotely like that. You have ignored the fact that it repeatedly uses the word "day". And now you tell me that both 50,000 and 1,000 years can be used to show that it predicts the speed of light. No it cannot.

I am looking forward to you posting your own equations in regards to this and not those ripped off another site, which were inherently flawed.
 
Strike said:
It is not remotely like that. You have ignored the fact that it repeatedly uses the word "day". And now you tell me that both 50,000 and 1,000 years can be used to show that it predicts the speed of light. No it cannot.

I am looking forward to you posting your own equations in regards to this and not those ripped off another site, which were inherently flawed.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that we already established that "yaum" in Arabic, while is commonly translated to "day" also means a period, a length of time.
View the message, read it entirely, and think about it a bit.
 
Last edited:
MenInGreen said:
Ok chaps ( propeller heads and those with Physics A Levels etc ):

Pls go to this link:

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

and tell me that the calculations there make sense - if they do, this will be a "discovery" of stupendous proportions !

Here is some part of the website



Go to the link below:

http://islam.speed-light.info/relativity_quran.htm

and let me know what you think
Click to expand...


Einstein's theory of relativity proves the Quran right.
Na ahuzobilla hai Min Zalik.

Its the Quran, that proves Einstein's theory of relativety right. Backto the topic I will actually stay away from this as I know nothing about P. As a matter of fact I hated sceince subjects in Schools.

That should do it. Yes I was wrong. I should never talk to anybody in that manners. :|
 
Last edited:
cinderella said:
I was under the impression that we already established that "yaum" in Arabic, while is commonly translated to "day" also means a period, a length of time.
View the message, read it entirely, and think about it a bit.
Click to expand...

Right so in other words we are agreed that the passage...
"The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years"

Translates litertally to say:

"The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a PERIOD OF TIME, the measure of which is fifty thousand years".

So it does not have any bearing on time scales, differing periods of time between angels and humans or speeds travelled. In literal terms it states that the period of time it takes angels to ascend is 50,000 years.

That is the end of that discussion then isn't it?
 
Strike said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Man its that simple. I do not know about your fiath. But as muslims we have to beleive in every word of Quran as absolute truth. Quran is the book of Allah and what ever Allah said in Quran is absolute truth. There is no questioning it. Those who question it are not muslims any more. :15:
 
May I suggest 'Strike' you listen to these debates before jumping to any conclusions. URL is:

http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Lectures&d_op=viewdownload2&cid=2

I am referrring to 'Quraan and modern science Part 1 and 2'. It is a debate that Zakir Naik did with one of the most recognized christian. We can talk about this after you hear the debate, because, that will put things into perspective.
 
Last edited:
ShowStopper said:
Einstein's theory of relativity proves the Quran right. :12:
Na ahuzobilla hai Min Zalik.
What in the blue hell do you mean by this :12: You need Einstein theories to prove the Quran right? Quran was, is and ever will be right. Its the Quran, that proves Einstein's theory of relativety right. Backto the topic I will actually stay away from this as I know nothing about P. As a matter of fact I hated sceince subjects in Schools.
Click to expand...

Get a hold of yourself and keep it civil - we dont need any more hot heads in this forum or this world.
 
Strike said:
Right so in other words we are agreed that the passage...
"The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is fifty thousand years"

Translates litertally to say:

"The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a PERIOD OF TIME, the measure of which is fifty thousand years".

So it does not have any bearing on time scales, differing periods of time between angels and humans or speeds travelled. In literal terms it states that the period of time it takes angels to ascend is 50,000 years.

That is the end of that discussion then isn't it?
Click to expand...

I don't really care much for the "theory of relativity" in the Quran, as I said in my earlier post, I was simply showing their point of view and where they are coming from.
 
Hogwash.

Theory of relativity is a mere theory~ a theory is something that has yet to be proven and accepted by science itself.

When theory of relativity becomes a law, it might be worthwhile to agrue on this.
 
American Desi said:
Hogwash.

Theory of relativity is a mere theory~ a theory is something that has yet to be proven and accepted by science itself.

When theory of relativity becomes a law, it might be worthwhile to agrue on this.
Click to expand...
spot on :19:
 
It should be "the Quran proves Einstein's theory of Relativity right"
 
lahori2 said:
It should be "the Quran proves Einstein's theory of Relativity right"
Click to expand...

Yeah it could be, but unfortunately the Koran does not mention anything that even remotely resembles the Theory of Relativity, so it would be a lie. Oh well..
 
http://www.quranicstudies.com/article76.html#7

On the baseless charges of plagirism from the anciant greek physicians. Although I have not read all of the other thread on this very topic I saw Hipocrates mentioned again and again and thought I would share this with you guys. It is not the first time I have seen this criticism.
 
z10 said:
hypocrite = munafiq

hipocrates is an ancient greek scientist
Click to expand...
yes, thats why i asked *hypocrite &Hipocrates* i thought both were the same but i knew i was wrong :D...cheers!
 
MecnunK said:
http://www.quranicstudies.com/article76.html#7

On the baseless charges of plagirism from the anciant greek physicians. Although I have not read all of the other thread on this very topic I saw Hipocrates mentioned again and again and thought I would share this with you guys. It is not the first time I have seen this criticism.
Click to expand...

Garbage. Of course Hippocrates was not accurate, he wrote his work hundreds of years before Jesus was born, and I have to say I love the conjecture of "it was probably not written by Hippocrates, but many other men" :))) :))) :))) :)))

Let me get this right, despite there being ZERO evidence that Hippocrates did not write it, but plenty of evidence to say he did, this site thinks that "probably" he did not. Well that is like me saying "Mohammed probably did not relate everything we see in the Koran".

The point is that Hippocrates identified emrbyonic develpment as happening in 3 stages. Just like the Koran.
The Koran barely goes into any other detail, it does not even mention the womans egg, but Hippocrates' writings at least talk of "what the woman gives" being mixed with "what the man gives".

Neither are highly accurate and nor would we expect them to be, because they are ancient writings on something that is quite complex medical knowledge.
Both mention 3 stages and that is not far off the end of their technical aspects.
In fact reading through that site it becomes quite clear that the Indian writings also contained the idea of the bloody clot referred to in the Koran...
It does not damn the Koran one bit. What it does show is that ALL of the emryonic development mentioned in the Koran was already in existence in both Greek and Indian cultures.
 
Strike said:
Garbage. Of course Hippocrates was not accurate, he wrote his work hundreds of years before Jesus was born, and I have to say I love the conjecture of "it was probably not written by Hippocrates, but many other men" :))) :))) :))) :)))

Let me get this right, despite there being ZERO evidence that Hippocrates did not write it, but plenty of evidence to say he did, this site thinks that "probably" he did not. Well that is like me saying "Mohammed probably did not relate everything we see in the Koran".

The point is that Hippocrates identified emrbyonic develpment as happening in 3 stages. Just like the Koran.
The Koran barely goes into any other detail, it does not even mention the womans egg, but Hippocrates' writings at least talk of "what the woman gives" being mixed with "what the man gives".

Neither are highly accurate and nor would we expect them to be, because they are ancient writings on something that is quite complex medical knowledge.
Both mention 3 stages and that is not far off the end of their technical aspects.
In fact reading through that site it becomes quite clear that the Indian writings also contained the idea of the bloody clot referred to in the Koran...
It does not damn the Koran one bit. What it does show is that ALL of the emryonic development mentioned in the Koran was already in existence in both Greek and Indian cultures.
Click to expand...

Garbage? Unfortunate response as it is abundantly clear for an objective reader that quran did not plagirise Greek physicians theories and writtings.

Many of writings attributed to Hipcrates are not actually his, stated by neutrals and non muslims.Only a dozen or so can be actually genuinely attributed to him. You can check for yourself.

The point is slightly lost on me, so what if Hippocrate actually did write them and was right or wrong? Muhammed (pbh) was unlettered as a man living in a barbaric tribe who used to bury their daugthers so unlikely he would have had access to such reading materials and also there is the matter of him choosing Hipocrates's or Galen's works (who followed Hippocrates) version of events over any other. A bit chancy is'nt it? He would have been more likely to choose the magic and supperstition of the day.

Quran is not a book on embryogeny or science for that matter as explained by others and any scientific facts are incidental and part of overall instruction given in a language the people could at the time understand.

As for technical asthetics or unclarity one doctor Moore would disgaree given that he makes his living from this field and also it would be a stretch to believe that he has not come across the name of Hippocrates and his treatise.

There is also a passage in the quran (I forget the exact refernce or ayat) where it says space is being expanded? Did they also know that during the seventh century?

I am sure you have already discussed te coiling/merging of night and day etc when most people believed the earth was flat so I will not go into it.

You need also to pay particular attention to probability. There are hundreds of explanations possible for various workings, processes and behaviours yet Muhammed (pbh) managed to choose the correct ones on various topics during the 7th century? Given all different passages or lines in the ayats that could be contrused as vaguely scientific or how things work as instruction to mankind there is an extremely high probability that atleast some of the things written would be totally wrong and disproven without any discourse or argument if teh author has been a man living in the 7th century in a desert tribe.
 
Strike said:
Yeah it could be, but unfortunately the Koran does not mention anything that even remotely resembles the Theory of Relativity, so it would be a lie. Oh well..
Click to expand...

Reminder:- its Quran with Qaaf, not koran :30:
 
MecnunK said:
Garbage? Unfortunate response as it is abundantly clear for an objective reader that quran did not plagirise Greek physicians theories and writtings.

Many of writings attributed to Hipcrates are not actually his, stated by neutrals and non muslims.Only a dozen or so can be actually genuinely attributed to him. You can check for yourself.

The point is slightly lost on me, so what if Hippocrate actually did write them and was right or wrong? Muhammed (pbh) was unlettered as a man living in a barbaric tribe who used to bury their daugthers so unlikely he would have had access to such reading materials and also there is the matter of him choosing Hipocrates's or Galen's works (who followed Hippocrates) version of events over any other. A bit chancy is'nt it? He would have been more likely to choose the magic and supperstition of the day.

Quran is not a book on embryogeny or science for that matter as explained by others and any scientific facts are incidental and part of overall instruction given in a language the people could at the time understand.

As for technical asthetics or unclarity one doctor Moore would disgaree given that he makes his living from this field and also it would be a stretch to believe that he has not come across the name of Hippocrates and his treatise.

There is also a passage in the quran (I forget the exact refernce or ayat) where it says space is being expanded? Did they also know that during the seventh century?

I am sure you have already discussed te coiling/merging of night and day etc when most people believed the earth was flat so I will not go into it.

You need also to pay particular attention to probability. There are hundreds of explanations possible for various workings, processes and behaviours yet Muhammed (pbh) managed to choose the correct ones on various topics during the 7th century? Given all different passages or lines in the ayats that could be contrused as vaguely scientific or how things work as instruction to mankind there is an extremely high probability that atleast some of the things written would be totally wrong and disproven without any discourse or argument if teh author has been a man living in the 7th century in a desert tribe.
Click to expand...


Mohammed DID have access to Hippocrates' writings, read into it. One of his friends had studied Greek medicine. Anyway what if he hadn't any links to it?
So what? All it would mean is that Mohammed was a smart man who had written about something that other smart men had already stated HUNDREDS of years before.
Hardly mind blowing is it?

And as for you misguided analysis of probablity. Numerous "scientific" statements in the Koran have been shown to be wrong. UNfortunately these are then deemed to be misread..in fact the passages are argued to be so ambiguous that it would be impossible to prove them wrong as they apparently dont actually state anything with any verve.
 
Which friend, can you please point to some reference or name , thanks.

That would make him extremely smart, no a veritble genius then given things like expansion of space, movement of sun/moon, ant behaviour, creation of universe from single point (sundering of heaven & earth, supporting the big bang theory), etc etc I could go on but wont since I can detect your lack of enthusiasm... Why would anyone put something so many outlandish things (at the time) in the book when the beliefs of the day ran contrary to it.

My misguided analysis on probability? *lol* I did not do any analysis but rather asked you pay attention to the concept. Numerous scientific errors, well as I have stated although it is not a book on science instruction still I am not aware of anything that is so wrong that it nullifies the book in any shape of form by today's science standards.

He did pretty well for an illitirate man who could not read or write, actually majority of Arabs of the day were illitirate.

On misreading well it is in arabic and most criticisms or explanations are usually done on translations therefore if there is an issue that requires addressing then we need to seek the root meanings of the root language.

Either way I think you seem to have made up your mind on the issue so thanks for the discussion and I leave you with the words of Sir Francis...It is a little knowledge of science that makes you an Atheist, and it is an in-depth study of science that makes you a believer in God Almighty.
 
...It is a little knowledge of science that makes you an Atheist, and it is an in-depth study of science that makes you a believer in God Almighty.
Click to expand...


thats just brilliant...post of the week that!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MecnunK said:
It is a little knowledge of science that makes you an Atheist, and it is an in-depth study of science that makes you a believer in God Almighty.
Click to expand...

As I sometimes tell people who some times ask me some nonsense questions about science and religion. "Today's Science is still at a stage of infancy when it comes to religious matters". So the "beleivers of minds like Strike" will always think of religion as a strange Phenomenon, the answers and understandings of which is beyond their heads.

Allah says where all the human's thinking and knowledge ends My Religion begins from there. Perhaps a guy with more Islamic knowledge can further elaborate on this.
 
Last edited:
comma said:
as mec said - Proof
Click to expand...

Prove Mohammed received the revelations. Prove Mohammed did not have sex with Aisha when she was 9 as it states in the Bukhari Hadith.
You see you are totally inconsistent, you demand cast iron proof for things that go against your beliefs and for those things that support your beliefs no proof is needed.

It is documented that both Greek and Indian medical texts were available and read by those around Mohammed.
Even here there is mention of Mohammed having medical advisers and of those in Islamic culture translating the Greek works:
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeII/chap4.html

There are other less significant areas where things such as Honey that were highly recommended by Mohammed can be shown to have earlier medical support from both Egypt and Greece. It does not mean Mohammed stole them, but it means there was nothing new or incredible about his people viewing such a thing in the positive terms they did..
http://www.honey-health.com/honey-14.shtml

Why dont you read something other than that which just toes the line with everything you were told to believe as a kid?
 
Prove Mohammed received the revelations..
Click to expand...
The Qur'an 's challenge is there. Answer it.

Prove Mohammed did not have sex with Aisha when she was 9 as it states in the Bukhari Hadith
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of other historical narrations (since this is a historical incident) such as in Tarikh Ibn Ishaq which states that when Abu Bakr (Aishah's father) became a Muslim, she was a young girl of 5 or 6. Abu Bakr is considered one of the earliest converts to Islam, if not the first. The marriage with Aishah took place in Madinah, in a year after the migration. Which means Aishah was at least 14 or 15 years old. In addition, there are other historical reports to suggest she was even older, closer to 18 or 19 years old.
 
Strike said:
Prove Mohammed received the revelations. Prove Mohammed did not have sex with Aisha when she was 9 as it states in the Bukhari Hadith.
You see you are totally inconsistent, you demand cast iron proof for things that go against your beliefs and for those things that support your beliefs no proof is needed.

It is documented that both Greek and Indian medical texts were available and read by those around Mohammed.
Even here there is mention of Mohammed having medical advisers and of those in Islamic culture translating the Greek works:
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeII/chap4.html

There are other less significant areas where things such as Honey that were highly recommended by Mohammed can be shown to have earlier medical support from both Egypt and Greece. It does not mean Mohammed stole them, but it means there was nothing new or incredible about his people viewing such a thing in the positive terms they did..
http://www.honey-health.com/honey-14.shtml

Why dont you read something other than that which just toes the line with everything you were told to believe as a kid?
Click to expand...


flawed argument
 
"Prove Mohammed received the revelations. Prove Mohammed did not have sex with Aisha when she was 9 as it states in the Bukhari Hadith.
You see you are totally inconsistent, you demand cast iron proof for things that go against your beliefs and for those things that support your beliefs no proof is needed."


I didn't ask for this spiel. Irrelevant.

"It is documented that both Greek and Indian medical texts were available and read by those around Mohammed.
Even here there is mention of Mohammed having medical advisers and of those in Islamic culture translating the Greek works:
http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/books/sci/history/AHistoryofScienceVolumeII/chap4.html"

Firstly, where is the author of that site drawing its references from??
 
We can prove Aisha was not 9 however what is the relevance of this? As for proof pretaining to receipt of revelations, well the proof is there for all to see, pick up the quran and read with an open heart and it becomes supremely manifest that no human hand could have fashioned it however I believe I know where the disconnect is. You, I believe are an athiest? and science of today, (theories I amy add) is your yardstick of measurement regards veracity of faith, and Islam in particular and the various anti-islamic websites you refernce ;) whereas my yardstick is religion of Islam. Just because a website says Muhammed had medical instruction or had peers who excelled in medical knowledge is quite frankly garbage as you would yourself put it. It is documented that Muhammed (pbh) was unletterd and came amongst desert barbarians who worshipped idols and killed their daughters.
 
Right so let me get this right....
The "proof" is that erm...well...you all believe it and that proves it. :))

And you are not required to provide any proof of anything that is written because apparently it is obvious. But for anything I have quoted from historical references and academic resources it is not enough proof. :)) Right well that pretty much ends the point of that discussion.

Oh and z10 mate, simply saying "flawed argument" but not highlighting a single flaw or offering one rebuttal is rather weak, and I am still waiting for you to actually respond to the multitude of points I raised in our genetics "debate" in which your proof centred around copying other peoples articles and passing it off as your own work.

And in regards to Aisha if the proof of her age is all there, could someone explain why the Bukhari Hadith repeatedly states that Mohammed married her at age 6 and consumated the marriage when she was 9?

Do I take it that you all ignore the Bukhari Hadith oh and the Sahih Muslim Hadith too? Because they both state her age quite clearly and numerous times. If you can prove this is nonsense, then you have proved that two of the major Hadith are inaccurate and unreliable.
Thats fine so long as you dont ever refer to the same books for guidance.
 
its a flawed argument because you're assertions are irrelevant, as comma has said
 
Strike said:
Right so let me get this right....
The "proof" is that erm...well...you all believe it and that proves it. :))

And you are not required to provide any proof of anything that is written because apparently it is obvious. But for anything I have quoted from historical references and academic resources it is not enough proof. :)) Right well that pretty much ends the point of that discussion.

Oh and z10 mate, simply saying "flawed argument" but not highlighting a single flaw or offering one rebuttal is rather weak, and I am still waiting for you to actually respond to the multitude of points I raised in our genetics "debate" in which your proof centred around copying other peoples articles and passing it off as your own work.

And in regards to Aisha if the proof of her age is all there, could someone explain why the Bukhari Hadith repeatedly states that Mohammed married her at age 6 and consumated the marriage when she was 9?

Do I take it that you all ignore the Bukhari Hadith oh and the Sahih Muslim Hadith too? Because they both state her age quite clearly and numerous times. If you can prove this is nonsense, then you have proved that two of the major Hadith are inaccurate and unreliable.
Thats fine so long as you dont ever refer to the same books for guidance.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? You said that the prophet had a friend who was literate in greek medicine and that he himself had read it. All i am asking, without the need for your hysterics, is where's the authenticity of your claim. References??
 
by the way, from where did Hazrat Aisha come in from ? whats the relevance in the whole context here.. ?
 
cavin420 said:
by the way, from where did Hazrat Aisha come in from ? whats the relevance in the whole context here.. ?
Click to expand...

The relevance is that I am asked for proof for every single assertion or comment and that if I then show some it is not enough but on any other issue the likes of comma can post something as if it is fact and show not one shred of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafi_ibn_al-Harith

From that link read about the Academt of Jundishapur. Harith Ibn Kalada, was a doctor and became a companion and contemporay of Mohammeds. The academy had a wealth of works including those of Galen.

Ibn Abi Usaybia wrote the biographies of 400 Muslim medical scholars, and in "Classes of Physicians" and similarly al-Qifti wrote in "History of the Philosophers" that Mohammed was close with Kalada who was trained in Greek and Indian medicine at Jundishapur.
Here is a link on their works, go to the 1203 and 1248, and seek to read their work.
http://www.muslimheritage.com/timeline/chronology.cfm

This same information is also in this book:
M. Z. Siddiqi's Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature.
 
in the last link, chronology starts from 800AD. Prophet(PBUH) had already died long time b4 this. who were those 400+ muslim medical scholars?
 
Last edited:
Strike said:
The relevance is that I am asked for proof for every single assertion or comment and that if I then show some it is not enough but on any other issue the likes of comma can post something as if it is fact and show not one shred of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafi_ibn_al-Harith

From that link read about the Academt of Jundishapur. Harith Ibn Kalada, was a doctor and became a companion and contemporay of Mohammeds. The academy had a wealth of works including those of Galen.

Ibn Abi Usaybia wrote the biographies of 400 Muslim medical scholars, and in "Classes of Physicians" and similarly al-Qifti wrote in "History of the Philosophers" that Mohammed was close with Kalada who was trained in Greek and Indian medicine at Jundishapur.
Here is a link on their works, go to the 1203 and 1248, and seek to read their work.
http://www.muslimheritage.com/timeline/chronology.cfm

This same information is also in this book:
M. Z. Siddiqi's Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature.
Click to expand...


One question for you? Who knows about Islam more a Muslim or a Non-Beleiver? I don't want you to write a whole dam page on this just simply answer my question in short.
 
ShowStopper said:
One question for you? Who knows about Islam more a Muslim or a Non-Beleiver? I don't want you to write a whole dam page on this just simply answer my question in short.
Click to expand...


That is not really a fair question....just because a person is muslim does not mean that they know more than all non muslims about islam....there are people who are not believers and yet study islam their whole lives.

But as far as Strike is concerned as a neutral observer i get the impression that he does have some knowledge of the Koran....and whether you agree with his posts or not in the many debates he has been a part of, i get the impression that the posts are his own words....ie he has done some research and actually read the Koran as opposed to some people just copying and pasting from anti islamic sites. I think he deserves some credit at least.
 
jatt13 said:
That is not really a fair question....just because a person is muslim does not mean that they know more than all non muslims about islam....there are people who are not believers and yet study islam their whole lives.

But as far as Strike is concerned as a neutral observer i get the impression that he does have some knowledge of the Koran....and whether you agree with his posts or not in the many debates he has been a part of, i get the impression that the posts are his own words....ie he has done some research and actually read the Koran as opposed to some people just copying and pasting from anti islamic sites. I think he deserves some credit at least.
Click to expand...

Thankyou I appreciate that. And yes my posts are my own words. But I am happy to admit that there will be people here with a greater knowledge on the topic than me, but I have also spoken to many Muslims who state a belief in the Koran and Islam but know very little about it. They are followers because that is how they were raised.

I would also like to point out that I am not on some anti Islamic mission, I do enjoy debating theology and I have in the past only really done so with Christians as I have studied the Bible to a good degree also.

Anyway off to watch the second half of the Czech game.
 
cinderella said:
Quran* not Koran.
Click to expand...

Sorry...i am not familiar with the spelling, however i did type in Quran...but then the spell check on this site corrected me...saying that it is Koran...i just went with the spell check
 
jatt13 said:
Sorry...i am not familiar with the spelling, however i did type in Quran...but then the spell check on this site corrected me...saying that it is Koran...i just went with the spell check
Click to expand...

Those people who study Islam their whole lives still lack behind in knowledge terms from those who study and practice Islam their whole lives. The best thing would be for both of you guys to find a good Islamic cleric and ask him all your questions and discuss with him anything you want to know. Refering to webpages and studying Quran by your own self will get you no where. Just like the Bibil will be best tought to you by a church, Quran can only be tought the best in Mosque or Madrassa by a muslim Cleric.
 
Strike said:
\but on any other issue the likes of comma can post something as if it is fact and show not one shred of proof.
Click to expand...

when the comma speaks, its either a fact or it becomes one.
 
Last edited:
Strike said:
The relevance is that I am asked for proof for every single assertion or comment and that if I then show some it is not enough but on any other issue the likes of comma can post something as if it is fact and show not one shred of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafi_ibn_al-Harith

From that link read about the Academt of Jundishapur. Harith Ibn Kalada, was a doctor and became a companion and contemporay of Mohammeds. The academy had a wealth of works including those of Galen.

Ibn Abi Usaybia wrote the biographies of 400 Muslim medical scholars, and in "Classes of Physicians" and similarly al-Qifti wrote in "History of the Philosophers" that Mohammed was close with Kalada who was trained in Greek and Indian medicine at Jundishapur.
Here is a link on their works, go to the 1203 and 1248, and seek to read their work.
http://www.muslimheritage.com/timeline/chronology.cfm

This same information is also in this book:
M. Z. Siddiqi's Studies in Arabic and Persian Medical Literature.
Click to expand...
with all due respect, i think asking for proof is fair enough as this is ones religion your on about, so to back it up with some substance does make sense and they/we have every right to ask for it. you seem quite knowledgable so you should know there are sources which are not authentic nor reliable.
Another thing i have noticed is , as how you deviate from the the thing being discussed and chuck something new in, is it because your one of those who belive "Attack is the best form of defence" ?
i really do appreciate your input/questions, and no doubt i myself, along with others have learned alot from this thread, this is a healthy discussion apart from a few posts here n there :19:
 
cavin420 said:
you seem quite knowledgable so you should know there are sources which are not authentic nor reliable.
Click to expand...


:91: :91:

strike and knowledgeable, yeah! ;)
 
comma said:
these people dont want to learn showstopper. theyre merely jesters
Click to expand...

Thats why I am not going much into details, because I do not want to harm my Eman talking to them. One thing they will never understand( and my other muslim brothers should also take a note.) is Islam can't be discussed, because discussions are only for those thing which have good and bad sides to them, and the Science MY FOOT.

As I said earlier "when it comes to Islam its(science) still at very infant stage". And one question to JATT and STRIKE. Do you beleive in miracles? if yes don't Miracles go against science theories? If not then how can a 6 years old baby girls stay under tons of rubble for days with no food and water and still come out alive perfectly healthy?
 
ShowStopper said:
Thats why I am not going much into details, because I do not want to harm my Eman talking to them. One thing they will never understand( and my other muslim brothers should also take a note.) is Islam can't be discussed, because discussions are only for those thing which have good and bad sides to them, and the Science MY FOOT.

As I said earlier "when it comes to Islam its(science) still at very infant stage". And one question to JATT and STRIKE. Do you beleive in miracles? if yes don't Miracles go against science theories? If not then how can a 6 years old baby girls stay under tons of rubble for days with no food and water and still come out alive perfectly healthy?
Click to expand...

I am going to strongly disagree on that one waisay
 
ShowStopper said:
Thats why I am not going much into details, because I do not want to harm my Eman talking to them. One thing they will never understand( and my other muslim brothers should also take a note.) is Islam can't be discussed, because discussions are only for those thing which have good and bad sides to them,


and why not ? ?
Click to expand...
 
cavin420 said:
with all due respect, i think asking for proof is fair enough as this is ones religion your on about, so to back it up with some substance does make sense and they/we have every right to ask for it. you seem quite knowledgable so you should know there are sources which are not authentic nor reliable.
Another thing i have noticed is , as how you deviate from the the thing being discussed and chuck something new in, is it because your one of those who belive "Attack is the best form of defence" ?
i really do appreciate your input/questions, and no doubt i myself, along with others have learned alot from this thread, this is a healthy discussion apart from a few posts here n there :19:
Click to expand...

Perfeact Just perfact. :14: And they forget one thing no matter how strong your offence is with baseless defence you will always be dessimated. :16:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BouncerGuy
Mass IT outage hits companies around the world as planes grounded and train services affected
Replies
31
Views
508
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Bhaijaan
Narendra Modi: A true global leader - The ultimate statesman and ambassador of peace
3 4 5
Replies
331
Views
5K
I think therfore I am
I
A
Measuring the bowling speed of Pacers from 70s and 80s
Replies
19
Views
420
RedwoodOriginal
RedwoodOriginal
K
The differences behind the creation of Pakistan and Israel and why those cannot be compared
Replies
76
Views
1K
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
FearlessRoar
Pakistan in the field of Science and Technology
Replies
44
Views
2K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
Back
Top