Real İslam is only in Quran

[Norman Alexander]

And even their own religious beliefs are inconsistent within themselves, often to a ridiculous extent. Their own central holy book says specific things happened in a specific way, or that certain rules pertain to certain situations, and yet these people persist in denying these when confronted with them. Clearly they have absorbed only those parts of the "holy story" that jibes with their own prejudices, and have actively blocked out or denied the rest.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Emre_197tr, why can't Allah stop earthquakes? The Quran said he put weights down to stop earthquakes, yet earthquakes still happen.

Did Mohammad lie when he wrote the Quran? Did Allah lie to Mohammad?

Why can't you answer these simple questions?

 

[Emre_1974tr]

Emre_197tr, why can't Allah stop earthquakes? The Quran said he put weights down to stop earthquakes, yet earthquakes still happen.

?

If the purpose was to eliminate earthquakes completely, God would never have created earthquakes. The purpose here is to prevent the earth from becoming a complete hell, to curb it. To make the earth a habitable planet.

 

[JayUtah]

If the purpose was to eliminate earthquakes completely, God would never have created earthquakes.

So why do we need earthquakes at all?

The purpose here is to prevent the earth from becoming a complete hell, to curb it.

But apparently it's still a partial hell, in which innocent people die indiscriminately from things that Allah creates and does not mitigate.

Allah is unworthy of my worship.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

If the purpose was to eliminate earthquakes completely, God would never have created earthquakes. The purpose here is to prevent the earth from becoming a complete hell, to curb it. To make the earth a habitable planet.

But that is not what the Quran says.

Holy Quran:

31:10 He created the heavens without pillars or supports; you see them. And He placed on the earth weights and supports so that it would not shake you and make you stagger, and He spread therein all kinds of animals. And We sent down water from the sky, and there We caused every kind of generous and fruitful pair to flourish.

Earthquakes cause the earth to shake. The Quran does not say that Allah put weights on the earth to eliminate earthquakes temporarily. The Quran does not say that Allah put weights on the earth so prevent it becoming hell. The Quran does not say Allah put weights on the earth to make it a habitable planet.

If Allah wants us to shake us and have us stagger, then why does the Quran state that Allah put weights on the earth to stop us from shaking and staggering?

If Allah does not want to shake us and have us stagger, why did he create earthquakes, say that he put weights on the earth to stop us from shaking and staggering, and yet we still shake and stagger from earthquakes?

Based upon what is said in the Quran and what happens in real life, either Allah lies, Mohammad lies, the Quran lies, or there is a combination of any of the three.

 

[Scorpion]

Unfortunately, people do the same thing in the field of religion. They accept the orders and words of so-called experts without questioning them. However, in every subject, you should research, reason and find the truth yourself.

The orders or so-called information given to you by the people at the top may be wrong and bad, intentionally or unintentionally. In this world of trial, you must reach the truth by your own will.

As far as I can see all Imams collude in a collective lie. The Quran says the sun and the moon both swim in an orbit. Imams must know the Quran really means the sun orbits the earth, but they all lie and say it means the sun orbits the galaxy.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

All troubles and disasters are actually Allah's punishment for us. But if we struggle against these disasters and overcome them, what we deserve this time will be beauty.

When? How long do we have to wait for this promised beauty? Humanity has been suffering from troubles and disasters for all of recorded history. When does Allah finally stop with the constant punishments, and start being nice to us?
Another thing: what are we being punished for? Has Allah said what the victims of traffic accidents, cancer, shark attacks or rape did, so they can repent and reform? I am not aware of this happening. It is grossly unfair, cruel and vile of a supposedly just, loving and merciful god to punish people and not tell them why they are being punished. If we consider the victims of large-scale disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis, is your god meting out collective punishment? Was every single person who died in the 2004 tsunami being punished? All of them? What crime did they commit?

Finally, you say this, but you don't actually know it's true. Prove that human tragedies are because your god is punishing us. Show what the crimes were. Show what lessons anyone has learned from this gratuitous misery, and how they could have learned them,considering they were dead. Were their loved ones somehow supposed to guess what they had done to deserve their fates, and change their ways?
Otherwise, this is just victim-blaming with a rancid side order of smug sanctimoniousness.

 

[Emre_1974tr]

Yes. Incidentally, the Holy Quran again corrects the errors in the false Bible by saying that the moon, sun and earth move in different orbits.

Holy Quran

36:40 The sun is not required to overtake the moon, nor will the night precede the day; each of them is swimming in its own orbit.

(Note that the Arabic word kul (all) refers to more than two bodies and it should include the sun, the moon, and the reference planet from the expression "night and day." It is also noteworthy that the Quran frequently uses the expression, "alternation of night and day" rather than "rotation of the Sun," pulling our attention to the rotation of the planet around itself. See 21:33; 27:88; 39:5; 68:1; 79:30.)

6:96 [He is] the One who causes the dawn to break; and He has made the night to be [a source of] stillness, and the sun and the moon to run their appointed courses [all] this is laid down by the will of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

14:33 and has made the sun and the moon, both of them constant upon their courses, subservient [to His laws, so that they be of use] to you; and has made the night and the day subservient [to His laws, so that they be of use] to you.

36:38 The sun runs to a specific destination, such is the design of the Noble, the Knowledgeable.

21:33 He is the One who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each swimming in an orbit.

39:5 He created the heavens and the earth with truth. He rolls the night over the day, and He rolls the day over the night. He committed the sun and the moon, each running for an appointed term. Absolutely, He is the Noble, the Forgiving.

(The verb yuKaWiRu (rotates, rolls around) used in the verse clearly indicates the roundness of the earth. See 21:33; 27:88; 36:40; 68:1; 79:30.)

 

[Scorpion]

39:5 He created the heavens and the earth with truth. He rolls the night over the day, and He rolls the day over the night. He committed the sun and the moon, each running for an appointed term. Absolutely, He is the Noble, the Forgiving.

(The verb yuKaWiRu (rotates, rolls around) used in the verse clearly indicates the roundness of the earth. See 21:33; 27:88; 36:40; 68:1; 79:30.)

verse 36.38 says, the sun runs to a specific destination: This cannot be if the sun is in a consistent orbit. It has no destination.

verse 21.33 says, the sun and moon float in an orbit. But verse 21.32 says the sky is a roof.

verse 36.40 says, it is not for the sun to overtake the moon ,nor does the night outstrip the day. They float in an orbit: But this denies the eclipse and the fact the sun and moon can both sometimes be seen during the day.

verse 79.30 says, and after that he spread the earth: Which indicates the earth is flat.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

No, you're the ignorant one. You do not come to a conclusion by reasoning yourself, you are just a robot who believes what you are told from above in the chain of command. If you had actually researched and thought for yourself, you would have realised what terrible traps the current vaccines are.

Odd, are you sure you have the sentence typed out the right way?
I got to my reasoning by studying chemistry, specializing in biochemistry/genetics, graduation in such a field, then doing a PhD in a field specifically focussing on RNA genetics, and followed by a few years of postdoc in that field before moving to teaching. In that time I have done numerous experiments with RNA (including mRNA) and extensively followed the literature, so in my opinion I came to my conclusion by actual, factual research.

You on the other hand base your life on a 1600 year old book of fairy tales without ever considering they might be just wrong. To me that far more equates ignorance.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes that's why Emre hasn't responded to a single actual criticism of his Holy Book, but he took two pages to argue some translation nitpicking that wouldn't matter either way.

It doesn't matter if the goddamn flying donkey was a real flying donkey or a metaphorical flying donkey, the whole story surrounding it is still 100% nonsense. It's like arguing how controlled a collapse has to be to be a "controlled collapse" with a Truther. It doesn't matter if you win this nitpick you're still wrong.

He won't address anything that he can't hairsplit even though both sides of the hair are still dumb. Just like he won't response to this.

He's going to stand there and not engage until he can argue about a "technicality" that doesn't matter to his overall point. The worst kind of self proclaimed "expert."

 

[JayUtah]

In that time I have done numerous experiments with RNA (including mRNA) and extensively followed the literature, so in my opinion I came to my conclusion by actual, factual research.

I don't think Emre has the slightest clue what higher education is actually like. But of course in anti-vaxx circles, "do your own research" is code for steeping yourself in a curated mix of propaganda sites and videos. All these sources lure you in with the belief that what they teach you are the real facts that the Bad Guys don't want you to know. Nah, you don't need an MD or a PhD to get the "simple" truth. It's just like religion: it peddles easy, rote answers and somehow convinces you that you're superior for regurgitating it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

As far as I can see all Imams collude in a collective lie. The Quran says the sun and the moon both swim in an orbit. Imams must know the Quran really means the sun orbits the earth, but they all lie and say it means the sun orbits the galaxy.

The Sun does orbit the galaxy. And it orbits the Earth too from this frame of reference. Another way of looking at is that the Sun and Earth co-orbit the galaxy while orbiting each other. Technically the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun either. The barycenter of the solar system is a point close to the Sun. Both the Sun and Earth (and all other planets etc.) orbit this point.

All this stuff about what orbits what is just splitting hairs. The Koran accurately describes what the Sun does relative to the Earth, which is what mattered to the people of the time.

But more importantly the Koran provided moral guidance and a legal framework that helped maintain a stable society. You could say why have a God then, and the answer is that a higher authority was needed - one that couldn't be corrupted by every power-seeker trying to twist the law to suit himself. Having a monotheistic god was a big improvement too, over the multiple gods and other magical stuff people were constantly inventing.

Sure it would be better for rationality if the Koran went totally secular, but that wasn't going to happen back then - and the World still isn't ready for it now. It's not that long ago that Christianity was in the same place. In the 1960's when I grew up practically everyone believed it (or least pretended to) and it didn't cause any great harm because most people understood its purpose.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"The Earth doesn't orbit around the Sun, technically the Earth and Sun both revolve around a shared barycenter which is equidistance to the two bodies divided by their respective mass" is like the whole "The Earth isn't flat, the Earth isn't a sphere, the Earth is a very slightly flattened ellipsoid because of rotation causing it to bulge in the middle" level of Issac Asimov's "Wronger than both" theorem.

The Quran isn't some special almost kind of right because it says the Earth and Sun "Swim."

 

[Agatha]

Will you all please remain civil.

We have dedicated threads for discussions of vaccines, so do not derail this one.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Scorpion]

The Sun does orbit the galaxy. And it orbits the Earth too from this frame of reference. Another way of looking at is that the Sun and Earth co-orbit the galaxy while orbiting each other. Technically the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun either. The barycenter of the solar system is a point close to the Sun. Both the Sun and Earth (and all other planets etc.) orbit this point.

All this stuff about what orbits what is just splitting hairs. The Koran accurately describes what the Sun does relative to the Earth, which is what mattered to the people of the time.

But more importantly the Koran provided moral guidance and a legal framework that helped maintain a stable society. You could say why have a God then, and the answer is that a higher authority was needed - one that couldn't be corrupted by every power-seeker trying to twist the law to suit himself. Having a monotheistic god was a big improvement too, over the multiple gods and other magical stuff people were constantly inventing.

Sure it would be better for rationality if the Koran went totally secular, but that wasn't going to happen back then - and the World still isn't ready for it now. It's not that long ago that Christianity was in the same place. In the 1960's when I grew up practically everyone believed it (or least pretended to) and it didn't cause any great harm because most people understood its purpose.

The Quran does not accurately describe what the sun does. it should be obvious that Muhammad thought the earth was flat and the sun orbited it. I am saying Imams all lie and and claim he meant the sun orbits the galaxy.

I have posted the following hadith which proves this many times, but I am told Emre does not believe in the hadiths.

The quran says the sun orbits the earth, therefore it is not from God.

when the quran says, at surah 21.33 and 36.40 and 36.38 that the sun has an orbit, Imams falsely claim this is a great revelation, because Muhammad knew the sun had an orbit in the galaxy. But the quran is actually saying the sun orbits the flat earth and is reset every dawn , and I can prove it with the following hadith.

Hadith Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:
Narrated Abu Dhar:

The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed). that is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing." (36.38)

As can be seen it says that if the sun changed direction it would rise in the west. But if the sun changed direction in its orbit in the galaxy it would make no difference to the sun rising in the east, because it is the rotation of the earth that causes the appearance of the sun in the east. The hadith is clearly saying the sun orbits the earth, and it is a fuller explanation of verse 36.38 in the quran.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But the quran is actually saying the sun orbits the flat earth and is reset every dawn , and I can prove it with the following hadith.

Well there's you problem.

Hadith

Ḥadīth is the Arabic word for things like a report or an account (of an event).  For many, the authority of hadith is a source for religious and moral guidance known as Sunnah, which ranks second only to that of the Quran...

Unlike the Quran, not all Muslims believe that hadith accounts (or at least not all hadith accounts) are divine revelation. Different collections of hadīth would come to differentiate the different branches of the Islamic faith. Some Muslims believe that Islamic guidance should be based on the Quran only, thus rejecting the authority of hadith; some further claim that most hadiths are fabrications (pseudepigrapha) created in the 8th and 9th centuries AD, and which are falsely attributed to Muhammad. Historically, some sects of the Kharijites also rejected the hadiths, while Mu'tazilites rejected the hadiths as the basis for Islamic law, while at the same time accepting the Sunnah and Ijma. Muslims who criticise the hadith emphasise that the problems in the Islamic world come partly from the traditional elements of the hadith and seek to reject those teachings.
Because some hadith contain questionable and even contradictory statements, the authentication of hadith became a major field of study in Islam

 

[JayUtah]

Every single religion I've studied enough to speak competently about exhibits a hierarchy of canonicity in its writings. Every religion too seems to have volumes of collected commentaries and sayings that enjoys at least partial—but often highly disputed—authority. As Joe Morgue notes, these commentaries or pseudo-canon are often more accessible and therefore govern day-to-day beliefs and practice. And more often than not, sectarianism turns on differences in the acceptance of canon. I think it's wise to scrutinize the nuance.

If a Muslim tells me, "I don't believe in the Hadith," I'm okay with that. If that same Muslim says, "I follow only the Qur'an," and implies—as Emre has done—that this insulates him from error and vicissitude, I'm just going to quietly laugh. What I see broadly is that pseudo-canon is often approached rationally. Those parts that make sense seem to persist in thought and belief, if not in direct quotation. Those parts that don't make sense are ignored or downplayed. Insofar as this constitutes a rational process, I don't see why skeptics should take issue with it. It's evidence that people are thinking about what they believe and why, even if there still remain axiomatic disagreements between them and (probably atheist) skeptics.

In my mind, it's rarely useful to try to pin outlying religious beliefs on people that they don't actually hold. "If you're a Muslim, then you have to believe in the Hadith," just turns the debate into rancorous apologetics and improvident "gotcha!" ploys. I've sat on enough rugs in enough mosques with enough imams to contemplate that there is reasoned approach to belief in Islam. And also to realize the actual problems with the religion. There are enough of those to not need to resort to straw men. A black-and-white approach to canonicity strikes me as one of those straw men.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again the question of WHY, what purpose God's word being this open to interpretation serves and why God doesn't clarify everything hangs over all of this, one big never answered question.

Why does God speak in riddles and parables and "Game of Telephone" level translations stacking, all through third parties with their own agendas who can't agree? What purpose does this serve?

Why does God just not tell us himself, clearly and concisely? As I said earlier if these rules are so important why doesn't God snap his fingers and make it so there's a Bible on my nightstand, written in clear, non-parable direct English with no translation errors or stuff that needs some soothsayer with his own agenda to interpret for me, clearly laid out with an index and a glossary and a 1-800 number I can call if I have questions?

It, like many things, remains a question I am waiting for an answer on.

 

[JayUtah]

And again the question of WHY, what purpose God's word being this open to interpretation serves and why God doesn't clarify everything hangs over all of this, one big never answered question.

I agree. I consider that a separate issue, but one that I think is more important. On the one hand, literally every written text requires interpretation relevant to some desired question. Jurisprudence requires this. Philosophy requires this. If you've ever read Newton's original text, even physics and engineering require this. So I think there's abstract value in trying to understand how different people approach extracting meaning from text.

On the other hand, religion tries to set itself apart precisely on the claim of being infallible. If the stakes are really that high, why hide meaning? Why rely on an informational apparatus that is inherently prone to error? For me that leads to the higher question of why bother at all with religion. If religion is just as susceptible to misinterpretation as rational processes of science and philosophy, I'll stick with the process that at least acknowledges and tries to correct for its own shortcomings.

Why does God speak in riddles and parables and "Game of Telephone" level translations stacking, all through third parties with their own agendas who can't agree? What purpose does this serve?

I can't answer confidently for Islam. But in Mormonism there is a curiously gnostic to this question: Mormons are judged according to the knowledge they have. Religious knowledge is coded so that one must reach a certain level of discernment before one understands what's being said and is therefore responsible for obeying it. Among other things, this provides an off-ramp for such people as the developmentally disadvantaged. No, it's not a particularly satisfying answer. But at least some religionists have thought about it.

We're told the Qur'an is filled with wonderful poetry and imaginative prose, because that's what's worthy of an all-powerful Allah. But at the same time it has to speak plainly to its original audience: roving bands of illiterate nomads. You can't have both. It can't be both Longfellow and assembly instructions for your office chair.

Why does God just not tell us himself, clearly and concisely?
* * *
It, like many things, remains a question I am waiting for an answer on.

Exactly. On the one hand the religionists tell us these are the most important things for us to know. Our station for all eternity (in most cases) hangs on the proper execution of God's commandments. Yet on the other hand they are sometimes couched in near-Nostradamian levels of obfuscation, almost guaranteeing widespread misinterpretation. That leads to the gyrations we see in this thread and others about how to reconcile claims of simplicity and unanimity with the empirical evidence of diversity.

I suspect your private answer to that question is the same as mine: religion is bunk. There's no higher or grander truth trying to make itself known through unnecessarily veiled text. It's a bunch of ancient pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-history that mortals co-opt to exercise control over the masses. Create a god whose judgment you fear, and devil who embodies people we don't like, and you have the recipe for a terrible oligarchy. It's the philosophical equivalent of UFO photos: the sine qua non is that they be indistinct and open to a variety of interpretations, thus giving the interpreters power.