Richard Dawkins will give away The God Delusion to Muslims

[Heisenberg]

Hello Walt. Yes, and they had three sons and no daughters. Hmmm.

Hi Robert. Pic or didn't happen.

But seriously, is that the story in the Bible or are you jesting?

 

[Robert]

Hi Robert. Pic or didn't happen.

But seriously, is that the story in the Bible or are you jesting?

It’s in the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain murdered his brother and fled. Adam and Eve had another son, Seth. No daughters though. So how did the sons become fathers? Unless.....

 

[Heisenberg]

It’s in the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Cain murdered his brother and fled. Adam and Eve had another son, Seth. No daughters though. So how did the sons become fathers? Unless.....

Sounds like a miracle to me...

 

[barah_admi]

Ok, you can have the steam engine.

Indian Sikhs tell me that the Mughals were as oppressive as the Raj.

Curious that this rich elevated civilisation collapsed to the British barbarians.

You have chosen some rad-fem tropes. It is ironic that you elevate Islam as feminist when in some Muslim nations there is no concept of marital rape, women have lesser status in court than a man, cannot go out without a chaperone and in at least one case not even drive cars.

Rather, Allah is the ultimate judgemental patriarch. The Pagans did it better, they elevated the female as divine as well as the male.

If British women are becoming Muslims - a reaction to a confusing world, I imagine, presumably they like being told what to do? - then far more Muslims are becoming secular. We don’t need rules about when to put hands on knees in clubs - we just learn to read the signals in terms of vocal tone and body language about whether the woman wants sex or not.

What you call decay I call society evolving. What does the Qu’ran say about people changing gender because God capriciously put them in the wrong-gendered body? Or about making a man who is fully attracted to other men and not to women? Why deliberately torture people throughout their lives. Surely God is wicked, and therefore his rules are wrong.

No. “What God has decreed” is really what men decreed - and they were all men, look at what happened to poor Mary Magdalene - because man created God.

We can talk about progression of the Muslim world, the difference between a civilisation and religion, the impact of it all in a separate thread, if you are brave enough to make one. But let's stay on topic.

Like I said, morality in Islam is based on the right and wrong of what God has deemed to be correct or incorrect, good or bad. It can not change, although like I said there are certain aspects that are more broad and can be based upon cultural and societal practices. An example would be killing someone in a fight, where the intention was not to kill, what we would no call manslaughter. In some cultures blood money/compensation can be acceptable, in others only a jail term or some other punishment will do. However, the central premise that killing is wrong stays the same.

Now you'be brought up the example of transgenders in the modern world. Can you give me unequivoval, scientific, medical evidence that a man or a woman can actually be the opposite, although their body is one way? Up until the last decade, gender dysphoria was treated as a psychological illness, yet the science behind it never changed, what changed was the law governing it, thus changing gender dysphoria from a severe psychological condition (which it is) into a celebration.

The base reality is this, and I know because I have a medical background, that the human body is either male or female, contrary to popular belief, there is no "3rd gender" or "gender fluidity". The genetics are either XX or XY. That governs more than just your genitalia (penis or vagina), it governs the size of the heart, the shape and size of the pelvis, the size of the leg bones and muscles, along with the arms, shoulders, chest, neck, it governs facial construction, it governs the length of one's fingers, it governs lung capacity and it governs the amount and type of neurotransmitters and hormones in the body. Thinking you are the opposite of what your body is does not change a single one of those aspects.

And before you go there, no, those who are born with deformed or both types of genitalia are not a separate gender, they are suffering from a number of very, very serious conditions, some of which are incompatible with a normal life span, all of which are incompatible with reproduction.

The argument you put forward that God has put a man inside a woman's body or vice verse is plain untrue. What those people are suffering from is severe mental illness, brought on by depression linked to tragedy and abuse in their lives, along with, in most cases, alcohol and drug abuse. It should be the job of the medical industry to help them (As used to be the case) not to facilitate their mental illness by chopping off their genitalia.

Islam prevents such a thing, which is a result of majority rule, or rather, the whims of the rich and powerful that govern our laws.

 

[barah_admi]

Aren't we all children of Adam and Eve? We are all the result of incest anyway

You will have to explain that with historical evidence to back it up. THANKS.

And is this supposed to be a clever way of you telling us you want to sleep with your mother or sister?

 

[barah_admi]

There have been so many inventions that are wrongly attributed to Non-Muslims. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/muslim-inventions/
There is a book called 1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World. Haven't had the chance to read it but someone recommended it.

Exactly. Although it's off topic, but I just wanted to correct that robert guy, who likes to post but never backs up with any evidence.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Neither are any Muslim countries so your original point is moot. What I stated is that the foundations of these countries, especially Israel are far more involved with religion than any modern Muslim state and before you bring up the example of Saudi Arabia, they can claim to be religious but for anyone who has been there they know better.

The foundations of Israel might well be religious, but they don't rule 100% according to their religious texts, that was my point. No doubt there is some religion sprinkled in there, but they would probably be described as secular, same as most other countries around the world.

 

[Robert]

We can talk about progression of the Muslim world, the difference between a civilisation and religion, the impact of it all in a separate thread, if you are brave enough to make one. But let's stay on topic.

Like I said, morality in Islam is based on the right and wrong of what God has deemed to be correct or incorrect, good or bad. It can not change, although like I said there are certain aspects that are more broad and can be based upon cultural and societal practices. An example would be killing someone in a fight, where the intention was not to kill, what we would no call manslaughter. In some cultures blood money/compensation can be acceptable, in others only a jail term or some other punishment will do. However, the central premise that killing is wrong stays the same.

Now you'be brought up the example of transgenders in the modern world. Can you give me unequivoval, scientific, medical evidence that a man or a woman can actually be the opposite, although their body is one way? Up until the last decade, gender dysphoria was treated as a psychological illness, yet the science behind it never changed, what changed was the law governing it, thus changing gender dysphoria from a severe psychological condition (which it is) into a celebration.

The base reality is this, and I know because I have a medical background, that the human body is either male or female, contrary to popular belief, there is no "3rd gender" or "gender fluidity". The genetics are either XX or XY. That governs more than just your genitalia (penis or vagina), it governs the size of the heart, the shape and size of the pelvis, the size of the leg bones and muscles, along with the arms, shoulders, chest, neck, it governs facial construction, it governs the length of one's fingers, it governs lung capacity and it governs the amount and type of neurotransmitters and hormones in the body. Thinking you are the opposite of what your body is does not change a single one of those aspects.

And before you go there, no, those who are born with deformed or both types of genitalia are not a separate gender, they are suffering from a number of very, very serious conditions, some of which are incompatible with a normal life span, all of which are incompatible with reproduction.

The argument you put forward that God has put a man inside a woman's body or vice verse is plain untrue. What those people are suffering from is severe mental illness, brought on by depression linked to tragedy and abuse in their lives, along with, in most cases, alcohol and drug abuse. It should be the job of the medical industry to help them (As used to be the case) not to facilitate their mental illness by chopping off their genitalia.

Islam prevents such a thing, which is a result of majority rule, or rather, the whims of the rich and powerful that govern our laws.

Plainly untrue? How do you know? Because a book written 1600 years ago tells you? We have learned so much more since then.

If you have a medical background you will know that all foetuses begin as female, and maleness is overlaid on top of about half of them. So it follows that there is an element of genderfluidity hard-wired into us all from day one. Sexuality is linked to the hormone balance of the mother during pregnancy - if she has high testosterone a female foetus is more likely to develop into a lesbian adult, for example.

Sex is digital, but sexuality and gender are social constructs.

 

[Robert]

You will have to explain that with historical evidence to back it up. THANKS.

And is this supposed to be a clever way of you telling us you want to sleep with your mother or sister?

You want historical evidence to explain mythology?

Come on [MENTION=135579]Heisenberg[/MENTION], tell us how Thor’s hammer works in engineering terms. Then tell us how Merlin put Excalibur into the stone. While you’re at it, tell us how the world balances on the back of a giant turtle and how Atlas holds up the sky.

 

[DeadBall]

You will have to explain that with historical evidence to back it up. THANKS.

And is this supposed to be a clever way of you telling us you want to sleep with your mother or sister?

Here's the Islamic explaination since you seem to don't believe in scientific facts.

https://islamqa.info/en/245335

I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (4/337)

In the law of Adam (peace be upon him), marriage of a sister to her brother who was not her twin achieved an important and necessary purpose, which was to preserve the human race and protect it from ceasing to exist and vanishing, because if they did not get married, there would be no perpetuation of the human race. As for negative consequences, they were non-existent or hardly worth mentioning in the light of this great interest.

Daleel al-Faaliheen (2/448)

Indeed, even if we assume that these reports are not sound, and that one of them could marry his twin sister, there is no reason why that could not have been permissible for them. Allah gave permission for that on the lips of His Prophet Adam (peace be upon him). Indeed this type of marriage – whether it was to a twin sister or otherwise – was one of the necessities of life that Allah intended for His slaves, and it is not possible to imagine the perpetuation of the human race, in the way that Allah intended for them, without that. No law or reason would disallow that!

And the usual cop out

Fourthly:

"Your inability to understand that Adam and his wife on their own could have been the source of this huge number of people could be valid, if you knew for certain how long mankind has been on this earth, and the rate of reproduction in each era. But so long as all of that is unknown, it makes no sense to raise such issues. Moreover mathematics leaves no room for finding it strange, if we assume that the human race has been around for a considerable length of time, and the rate of reproduction is reasonable. "

There are other more hilarious attempts at rubbishing scientific facts especially genetics . Ripping good read.

https://islamqa.info/en/245335

 

[ManFan]

Here's the Islamic explaination since you seem to don't believe in scientific facts.

https://islamqa.info/en/245335

I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (4/337)

In the law of Adam (peace be upon him), marriage of a sister to her brother who was not her twin achieved an important and necessary purpose, which was to preserve the human race and protect it from ceasing to exist and vanishing, because if they did not get married, there would be no perpetuation of the human race. As for negative consequences, they were non-existent or hardly worth mentioning in the light of this great interest.

Daleel al-Faaliheen (2/448)

Indeed, even if we assume that these reports are not sound, and that one of them could marry his twin sister, there is no reason why that could not have been permissible for them. Allah gave permission for that on the lips of His Prophet Adam (peace be upon him). Indeed this type of marriage – whether it was to a twin sister or otherwise – was one of the necessities of life that Allah intended for His slaves, and it is not possible to imagine the perpetuation of the human race, in the way that Allah intended for them, without that. No law or reason would disallow that!

And the usual cop out

Fourthly:

"Your inability to understand that Adam and his wife on their own could have been the source of this huge number of people could be valid, if you knew for certain how long mankind has been on this earth, and the rate of reproduction in each era. But so long as all of that is unknown, it makes no sense to raise such issues. Moreover mathematics leaves no room for finding it strange, if we assume that the human race has been around for a considerable length of time, and the rate of reproduction is reasonable. "

There are other more hilarious attempts at rubbishing scientific facts especially genetics . Ripping good read.

https://islamqa.info/en/245335

If you do not mind answering, despite studying at some of the best Islamic institutions, do you think that you being pushed into religious studies at such a young age, caused you to be an atheist?

 

[DeadBall]

If you do not mind answering, despite studying at some of the best Islamic institutions, do you think that you being pushed into religious studies at such a young age, caused you to be an atheist?

No, I do not mind, however first of all let me make one thing clear, Im not an atheist, Im an anti theist, let me tell you the difference. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God and while according to me that is is 99.9% true, there is a 0.01 probability that there could still be a God and since I deal in facts and science, unless Science proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does/does not exist I will not be sure.

An anti theist is someone who is basically against all the current and past organized religions as they are all self contradictory, false and an invention of man to control the masses.

All religions proclaim to be the one and true word of God but it is mostly just a matter of where and into which religion you are born. Muslims believe Hindus are heretics, Christians think that of the Muslims, Jews think they are the chosen one and so on and so forth. Basically religion is just something you are conditioned into since birth.

Coming to your question, I would say no being pushed into religious studies did not make me an anti theist as my brother went through much of the same and he is religious. However studying religion in depth with some of the biggest scholars around certainly did act as a catalyst. Ironically I went in search of the deeper truth to prove every other religion wrong and how pure and correct Islam was. However the more I studied the more logical fallacies tended to arise and every question I asked the scholars regarding a matter they did not have a logical answer to (also led to them being irritated with the discussion due to my insistence) ended with either we were not supposed to know because we could not "handle" the information or Al A'alim Allah (God knows best). That just wasn't good enough for me.

In the end religion is all about social and traditional conditioning and most people I know just pay lip service to the religion without even knowing anything about it. They drink, perform zinaa or whatever THEY are ok with but would be the first people to attack someone for eating something forbidden or forming a jalsa regarding Khatam e Nabuwat or whatever goes against THEIR idea of religion.

Religion thrives on ignorance and that's why you see in any religion be it Islam, Hinduism etc, it is mostly the uneducated masses who take up arms, kill each other for being offended about something they have almost no idea about.

It all comes down to having the courage to see the facts objectively, swallow your pride and question the rhetoric, your tradition, your elders, your beliefs, everything that made you what you are until this point and the conviction to go through with it. I did it (still do everyday as it is a never ending journey), have made many sacrifices and paid many prices but I cannot just be satisfied in following nonsensical traditions which do not make much sense nor require much reflection on my part, I may feel happy but I would not feel free.

 

[ManFan]

No, I do not mind, however first of all let me make one thing clear, Im not an atheist, Im an anti theist, let me tell you the difference. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God and while according to me that is is 99.9% true, there is a 0.01 probability that there could still be a God and since I deal in facts and science, unless Science proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does/does not exist I will not be sure.

An anti theist is someone who is basically against all the current and past organized religions as they are all self contradictory, false and an invention of man to control the masses.

All religions proclaim to be the one and true word of God but it is mostly just a matter of where and into which religion you are born. Muslims believe Hindus are heretics, Christians think that of the Muslims, Jews think they are the chosen one and so on and so forth. Basically religion is just something you are conditioned into since birth.

Coming to your question, I would say no being pushed into religious studies did not make me an anti theist as my brother went through much of the same and he is religious. However studying religion in depth with some of the biggest scholars around certainly did act as a catalyst. Ironically I went in search of the deeper truth to prove every other religion wrong and how pure and correct Islam was. However the more I studied the more logical fallacies tended to arise and every question I asked the scholars regarding a matter they did not have a logical answer to (also led to them being irritated with the discussion due to my insistence) ended with either we were not supposed to know because we could not "handle" the information or Al A'alim Allah (God knows best). That just wasn't good enough for me.

In the end religion is all about social and traditional conditioning and most people I know just pay lip service to the religion without even knowing anything about it. They drink, perform zinaa or whatever THEY are ok with but would be the first people to attack someone for eating something forbidden or forming a jalsa regarding Khatam e Nabuwat or whatever goes against THEIR idea of religion.

Religion thrives on ignorance and that's why you see in any religion be it Islam, Hinduism etc, it is mostly the uneducated masses who take up arms, kill each other for being offended about something they have almost no idea about.

It all comes down to having the courage to see the facts objectively, swallow your pride and question the rhetoric, your tradition, your elders, your beliefs, everything that made you what you are until this point and the conviction to go through with it. I did it (still do everyday as it is a never ending journey), have made many sacrifices and paid many prices but I cannot just be satisfied in following nonsensical traditions which do not make much sense nor require much reflection on my part, I may feel happy but I would not feel free.

First of all, I respect your courage to question everything you had been told or believed.

For the issues that the scholars did not have answers to, did you search for the answers in the texts of famous scholars like Al-Ghazali or Ghamidi?

After a 1.9 million pound research conducted by Oxford, it was concluded that human beings are predisposed with a belief in God. Therefore, I believe that religion is a getaway to understanding the higher power. If you can be the best version of yourself which would mean being the best to others, than the type of religion should not matter. For all major religions preach peace and tranquility with fellow humans but rather it is external factors like political, economic, social, that cause followers of religion to go against their beliefs without realizing it.

 

[DeadBall]

First of all, I respect your courage to question everything you had been told or believed.

For the issues that the scholars did not have answers to, did you search for the answers in the texts of famous scholars like Al-Ghazali or Ghamidi?

After a 1.9 million pound research conducted by Oxford, it was concluded that human beings are predisposed with a belief in God. Therefore, I believe that religion is a getaway to understanding the higher power. If you can be the best version of yourself which would mean being the best to others, than the type of religion should not matter. For all major religions preach peace and tranquility with fellow humans but rather it is external factors like political, economic, social, that cause followers of religion to go against their beliefs without realizing it.

I have extensively studied Al Ghazali and Al Ghamdi, (not Al Ghamidi).

We can be the best versions of ourselves without being religious. I concur that we need to believe in the supernatural when things get out of control and I do not fault people for that. Hope is what keeps us going. However with religion comes a divine set of rules which cannot be challenged, quite vague and is "open to interpretation" , ripe to the corruption of man.

People go on about morals but as mentioned we do not need religion for that. My daughter has almost no religious affiliation but knows right from wrong because of what she was taught and common sense. Once you bring an omnipotent divine being into it which can NEVER be wrong then you are just opening a whole new can of worms. Especially for the uneducated masses.

 

[ManFan]

I have extensively studied Al Ghazali and Al Ghamdi, (not Al Ghamidi).

We can be the best versions of ourselves without being religious. I concur that we need to believe in the supernatural when things get out of control and I do not fault people for that. Hope is what keeps us going. However with religion comes a divine set of rules which cannot be challenged, quite vague and is "open to interpretation" , ripe to the corruption of man.

People go on about morals but as mentioned we do not need religion for that. My daughter has almost no religious affiliation but knows right from wrong because of what she was taught and common sense. Once you bring an omnipotent divine being into it which can NEVER be wrong then you are just opening a whole new can of worms. Especially for the uneducated masses.

What if your daughter comes across a situation where the right or wrong is not clear? Where her own bias might come into play? I’m sure that she has been influenced by either her fathers or mothers side of religion even if it is in the slightest way possible. No human being can be free from prejudices. I do think you need religion if you want to interact in the continuous globalistoc world that we are a part of.

 

[DeadBall]

What if your daughter comes across a situation where the right or wrong is not clear? Where her own bias might come into play? I’m sure that she has been influenced by either her fathers or mothers side of religion even if it is in the slightest way possible. No human being can be free from prejudices. I do think you need religion if you want to interact in the continuous globalistoc world that we are a part of.

What if a member of your family way killed by X (and it was true) but only one female saw it and one male did but he claimed for one reason or the other that Y did it. Seeing that she is a female her testimony would count for nothing as it would require two females to match the testimony of the male and the perpetrator would go Scott free. My daughter has enough presence of mind to rationally decide whats right from wrong without having to resort to believing in ancient fairy tales from the desert. Anyway I'm done with you, have fun living in that continuous globalist world of yours.

 

[ManFan]

What if a member of your family way killed by X (and it was true) but only one female saw it and one male did but he claimed for one reason or the other that Y did it. Seeing that she is a female her testimony would count for nothing as it would require two females to match the testimony of the male and the perpetrator would go Scott free. My daughter has enough presence of mind to rationally decide whats right from wrong without having to resort to believing in ancient fairy tales from the desert. Anyway I'm done with you, have fun living in that continuous globalist world of yours.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[ManFan]

What if a member of your family way killed by X (and it was true) but only one female saw it and one male did but he claimed for one reason or the other that Y did it. Seeing that she is a female her testimony would count for nothing as it would require two females to match the testimony of the male and the perpetrator would go Scott free. My daughter has enough presence of mind to rationally decide whats right from wrong without having to resort to believing in ancient fairy tales from the desert. Anyway I'm done with you, have fun living in that continuous globalist world of yours.

Oh. The two testimony rule does not come into effect in cases of murder, only financial matters.

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2282_commentary/

 

[DeadBall]

Oh. The two testimony rule does not come into effect in cases of murder, only financial matters.

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2282_commentary/

O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah, his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And 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. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is [grave] disobedience in you. And fear Allah . And Allah teaches you. And Allah is Knowing of all things.

فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَىٰ (So that one many remind/correct the other)

So basically, unlike the smart men, the testimony of a simpleton, single woman is not to be relied upon because they are so simple and emotional (according to various Tafseers) that their testimony simply cannot be relied upon.

As with everything religious it can all be "translated" to suit any agenda, you may claim whatever you want but that is how it has been/is/ and will always be used.

Also don't just use Google to come up with claims regarding religious texts and matters as I have had much more knowledgeable people for breakfast everyday of the week and twice on weekends on such issues.

 

[ManFan]

O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah, his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And 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. And do not be [too] weary to write it, whether it is small or large, for its [specified] term. That is more just in the sight of Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely to prevent doubt between you, except when it is an immediate transaction which you conduct among yourselves. For [then] there is no blame upon you if you do not write it. And take witnesses when you conclude a contract. Let no scribe be harmed or any witness. For if you do so, indeed, it is [grave] disobedience in you. And fear Allah . And Allah teaches you. And Allah is Knowing of all things.

فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَىٰ (So that one many remind/correct the other)

So basically, unlike the smart men, the testimony of a simpleton, single woman is not to be relied upon because they are so simple and emotional (according to various Tafseers) that their testimony simply cannot be relied upon.

As with everything religious it can all be "translated" to suit any agenda, you may claim whatever you want but that is how it has been/is/ and will always be used.

Also don't just use Google to come up with claims regarding religious texts and matters as I have had much more knowledgeable people for breakfast everyday of the week and twice on weekends on such issues.

I only ask questions because I know you are more knowledgable than me in these matters.

But I sense you do not have the time to answer all my questions.

Anyways, thanks for being so patient.

 

[DeadBall]

I only ask questions because I know you are more knowledgable than me in these matters.

But I sense you do not have the time to answer all my questions.

Anyways, thanks for being so patient.

If you had sincerely asked me a question I would have earnestly answered, which I actually did for your first query. After that you were just point scoring.

 

[ManFan]

If you had sincerely asked me a question I would have earnestly answered, which I actually did for your first query. After that you were just point scoring.

You can think of it any way you want. I wanted to know, you answered, I searched and tried to come with a different answer, you responded. What is done is done. Good day to you too.

 

[DeadBall]

You can think of it any way you want. I wanted to know, you answered, I searched and tried to come with a different answer, you responded. What is done is done. Good day to you too.

Like I said, you searched only to try to come up with a different answer just to point score instead of actually trying to understand what I was saying. Good day to to you too.

 

[barah_admi]

Here's the Islamic explaination since you seem to don't believe in scientific facts.

https://islamqa.info/en/245335

I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (4/337)

In the law of Adam (peace be upon him), marriage of a sister to her brother who was not her twin achieved an important and necessary purpose, which was to preserve the human race and protect it from ceasing to exist and vanishing, because if they did not get married, there would be no perpetuation of the human race. As for negative consequences, they were non-existent or hardly worth mentioning in the light of this great interest.

Daleel al-Faaliheen (2/448)

Indeed, even if we assume that these reports are not sound, and that one of them could marry his twin sister, there is no reason why that could not have been permissible for them. Allah gave permission for that on the lips of His Prophet Adam (peace be upon him). Indeed this type of marriage – whether it was to a twin sister or otherwise – was one of the necessities of life that Allah intended for His slaves, and it is not possible to imagine the perpetuation of the human race, in the way that Allah intended for them, without that. No law or reason would disallow that!

And the usual cop out

Fourthly:

"Your inability to understand that Adam and his wife on their own could have been the source of this huge number of people could be valid, if you knew for certain how long mankind has been on this earth, and the rate of reproduction in each era. But so long as all of that is unknown, it makes no sense to raise such issues. Moreover mathematics leaves no room for finding it strange, if we assume that the human race has been around for a considerable length of time, and the rate of reproduction is reasonable. "

There are other more hilarious attempts at rubbishing scientific facts especially genetics . Ripping good read.

https://islamqa.info/en/245335

I am fully aware of this and I was sure someone would post it but a lot of it is just speculation. The story, or stories, come from tafsir, based upon narrations by later scholars, yet none of this can be found in the Quran and the sahih Hadith (the only two sources we regard as 100% true). So what happened back then is unknown, all that is known is speculation and possible scenarios.

So I say what we Muslims say "Allah knows best." None of that has anything to do with this discussion.

 

[barah_admi]

Plainly untrue? How do you know? Because a book written 1600 years ago tells you? We have learned so much more since then.

If you have a medical background you will know that all foetuses begin as female, and maleness is overlaid on top of about half of them. So it follows that there is an element of genderfluidity hard-wired into us all from day one. Sexuality is linked to the hormone balance of the mother during pregnancy - if she has high testosterone a female foetus is more likely to develop into a lesbian adult, for example.

Sex is digital, but sexuality and gender are social constructs.

I do not understand your first line, what exactly are you referring to? And it was 1400+ years ago, not 1600. Considering you talk so much about Islam, you should get the basic facts straight.

Second, fetuses undergo many changes, at one stage there is no heart, then there is, then there is a shunt between the two sides of the heart, which then closes. If I was to walk into a hospital and say I want to go back to my fetal condition and have a shunt placed between the two sides of my heart, I'd be regarded as a mad man. So that example you have given has no basis in either science or logic.

Plus you have avoided pretty much everything I wrote. Scientifically, the genetic basis of male and female leads to many, many differences, physical and emotional. Simply believing you are a woman does not make you thus, as simple as me believing I'm an elephant doesn't grow me a trunk.

So I will ask you again (even though it is loosely of topic) WHAT is the medical, scientific and psychological evidence that YOU have, which indicates when someone thinks they are one thing, even though they are something entirely different, that they become that thing?

Like I said, the science has not changed (which is why pro gender fluidity discussions are never addressed in a scientific fashion, but in an emotive way with silly phrases such as "sex is digital"), what has changed is the law governing society for various purposes, for example, big pharma companies now stand to make billions through selling a life time supply of hormones and other such medications to those who have undergo gender surgery. There is huge money to be made in selling the tools used to carry out these surgeries etc etc.

Anyway, I'll be awaiting a detailed reply (if you want to carry on this discussion) NOT a one sentence, catchy phrase....sex is digital...jeez.

 

[DeadBall]

I am fully aware of this and I was sure someone would post it but a lot of it is just speculation. The story, or stories, come from tafsir, based upon narrations by later scholars, yet none of this can be found in the Quran and the sahih Hadith (the only two sources we regard as 100% true). So what happened back then is unknown, all that is known is speculation and possible scenarios.

So I say what we Muslims say "Allah knows best." None of that has anything to do with this discussion.

So why wasn't it just clearly explained in the Quran and Ahadeeth to avoid all these "scholars" speculating over it later on? I think the origin of the human race is quite an important issue.

 

[Robert]

So I will ask you again (even though it is loosely of topic) WHAT is the medical, scientific and psychological evidence that YOU have, which indicates when someone thinks they are one thing, even though they are something entirely different, that they become that thing?
.

DSM 5 says there is a condition called gender dysphoria.

It doesn’t say the person is mentally ill, it says their gender identity is incompatible with their birth sex and gender, and they try to correct the problem with psychiatry, hormone therapy and surgery.

I am happy to accept the word of the expert psychiatrists.

 

[barah_admi]

So why wasn't it just clearly explained in the Quran and Ahadeeth to avoid all these "scholars" speculating over it later on? I think the origin of the human race is quite an important issue.

The Quran and Hadiths has told you that Adam and Eve were created, they are the origins of the human race. Every minute detail isn't necessary.

 

[barah_admi]

DSM 5 says there is a condition called gender dysphoria.

It doesn’t say the person is mentally ill, it says their gender identity is incompatible with their birth sex and gender, and they try to correct the problem with psychiatry, hormone therapy and surgery.

I am happy to accept the word of the expert psychiatrists.

Dr McHughs (interviewed in the Wall Street Journal) is one of the premier specialists in the field, with 6 published books and over 150 published, peer reviewed journal articles and he says it is a psychological illness. Plenty of research, carried out both in the UK and US has shown that gender dysphoria is linked directly to depression and abuse, both physical and sexual. The stats also show that those who undergo these operations are still largely affected by depression, so having one's genitalia hasn't solved anything, because the underlying effects of childhood abuse, alcoholism, drugs and depression still remains.

Plus, quoting DSM 5 shows how amateurish you are in your understanding of such things. It is a book with diagnostic and statistical value, not necessarily of scientific value. Considering it is linked to the ASA, it is governed by American law, so regardless of what the science may say, they must abide by the law. So again, I'm not asking you to quote me manual, I'm asking you to provide me with the actual science, genetics, biology in general etc, that can prove that being XY actually means you are XX.

I'm still waiting and it's been a while (saddest part is I've wasted so much time on an aspect of discussion which isn't even entirely on topic, but I did not want to be rude). So, for the final time, provide me with the science.

 

[DeadBall]

The Quran and Hadiths has told you that Adam and Eve were created, they are the origins of the human race. Every minute detail isn't necessary.

Btw its Ahadeeth not Hadiths. You were the one asking for "historical evidence" and are just trolling for the sake of it once you're cornered. Just going to put you in the inconsequential bin for now.

 

[Robert]

Dr McHughs (interviewed in the Wall Street Journal) is one of the premier specialists in the field, with 6 published books and over 150 published, peer reviewed journal articles and he says it is a psychological illness. Plenty of research, carried out both in the UK and US has shown that gender dysphoria is linked directly to depression and abuse, both physical and sexual. The stats also show that those who undergo these operations are still largely affected by depression, so having one's genitalia hasn't solved anything, because the underlying effects of childhood abuse, alcoholism, drugs and depression still remains.

Plus, quoting DSM 5 shows how amateurish you are in your understanding of such things. It is a book with diagnostic and statistical value, not necessarily of scientific value. Considering it is linked to the ASA, it is governed by American law, so regardless of what the science may say, they must abide by the law. So again, I'm not asking you to quote me manual, I'm asking you to provide me with the actual science, genetics, biology in general etc, that can prove that being XY actually means you are XX.

I'm still waiting and it's been a while (saddest part is I've wasted so much time on an aspect of discussion which isn't even entirely on topic, but I did not want to be rude). So, for the final time, provide me with the science.

Well, you have been rude repeatedly, so you do want to be rude.

The premier diagnostic tool applied by the APA is “not necessarily of scientific value”. Read your post back to yourself.

I am not a psychiatrist or a surgeon. I do not set my own opinion higher than them. Unlike you, who decides something and cherry picks evidence supporting his position, I start with an open mind and allow myself to be persuaded by the experts in a given field.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Well, you have been rude repeatedly, so you do want to be rude.

The premier diagnostic tool applied by the APA is “not necessarily of scientific value”. Read your post back to yourself.

I am not a psychiatrist or a surgeon. I do not set my own opinion higher than them. Unlike you, who decides something and cherry picks evidence supporting his position, I start with an open mind and allow myself to be persuaded by the experts in a given field.

From the APA:

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder.

Even though studies have shown that trans people experience a lot of distress : https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2504261

Also, the two claims the trans community seems to embrace are:

Gender roles are social constructs.

A trans person was born with a gender different from their sex.

How can you be born with a social construct?
Some experts say something and you believe it unquestioningly makes them look like the religious prophets who were believed unquestioningly. Food for thought?

 

[Robert]

Some experts say something and you believe it unquestioningly makes them look like the religious prophets who were believed unquestioningly. Food for thought?

I don’t believe anything unquestioningly. I go with the most applicable model, and models are changed and refined by culture, even Islam where people choose to interpret scripture in different ways.

But if my dentist says I need a filling I believe him. If my solicitor suggests a course of action I follow it. If he outcome is bad I might find a different dentist or solicitor. We have experts because we don’t have the ability to learn everything ourselves. So we operate in uncertainty and seek out learned persons for advice.

As to your other question we are immediately born *into* social constructs such as gender and religion because we immediately enter society.

 

[Adijazz1706]

I don’t believe anything unquestioningly. I go with the most applicable model, and models are changed and refined by culture, even Islam where people choose to interpret scripture in different ways.

But if my dentist says I need a filling I believe him. If my solicitor suggests a course of action I follow it. If he outcome is bad I might find a different dentist or solicitor. We have experts because we don’t have the ability to learn everything ourselves. So we operate in uncertainty and seek out learned persons for advice.

As to your other question we are immediately born *into* social constructs such as gender and religion because we immediately enter society.

Looking at the criteria set by the APA, it seems removing GID from the list of mental illnesses seems more pc culture oriented than scientifically endorsed. I wonder if the same is true of homosexuality which was removed in the 70s.

 

[barah_admi]

Well, you have been rude repeatedly, so you do want to be rude.

The premier diagnostic tool applied by the APA is “not necessarily of scientific value”. Read your post back to yourself.

I am not a psychiatrist or a surgeon. I do not set my own opinion higher than them. Unlike you, who decides something and cherry picks evidence supporting his position, I start with an open mind and allow myself to be persuaded by the experts in a given field.

This is about the 5th post where you have failed to mention any scientific evidence. I have yet to mention my own personal opinion on the matter, I have quoted one of the leading doctors in the field, who knows more about this than me or you. I have also mentioned 2 separate pieces of research, I could mention even more, if I thought you were someone who could discuss this on a scientific basis, I'd even mention the links to various papers but you are hell bent on just following the crowd. This particular discussion is over.

 

[barah_admi]

Looking at the criteria set by the APA, it seems removing GID from the list of mental illnesses seems more pc culture oriented than scientifically endorsed. I wonder if the same is true of homosexuality which was removed in the 70s.

It is, the change came into effect after a change in American law, if I'm not mistaken, it occurred during the Obama administration. Circa 2008, but I may have the dates wrong.

 

[Robert]

This is about the 5th post where you have failed to mention any scientific evidence. I have yet to mention my own personal opinion on the matter, I have quoted one of the leading doctors in the field, who knows more about this than me or you. I have also mentioned 2 separate pieces of research, I could mention even more, if I thought you were someone who could discuss this on a scientific basis, I'd even mention the links to various papers but you are hell bent on just following the crowd. This particular discussion is over.

Of course I cannot provide scientific evidence to answer your non sequitur question.

Now, if you were to ask a useful question such as what the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria is, we might get somewhere.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Yup looks like homosexuality also stopped being a mental illness for nonscientific reasons

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II. (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote?