The new Islam megathread part 3

[Mr Goose]

I appreciate your posts, because you write your opinions and beliefs without any hatred, and that's always a pleasure to answer to an intelligent post .

 

To me, his theory doesn't reflect the truth since I believe God has created a man and a woman and that we all come from this couple Adam and Eve.

 

This will be an evidence for me and the theory of creationnism for you, the same way Darwin's work stays for me a theory and not an evidence.

 

I thought that would be you line. Your error comes from (reading creationist leaflets/websites) and the misunderstanding of the actual meaning of "theory"

 

In common language usage a "theory" falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty. It is above a hypothesis but below a law. This is not the scientific usage. A scientific theory is (to quote a 1967 philosophy dictionary)

 

"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts and tested hypotheses."

 

No amount of validation actually changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. It just provides more observations to back up the theory. It may not be true everywhere. So when we talk about the theory of evolution, theory of gravity, the theory of electromagnetism, we are not expressing reservations about its truth.

 

DNA sequencing evidence testifies that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. In the same way that you or I cannot directly observe the earth going round the sun, it is still a “fact” it happens.

 

To detail - the theory of gravity is still being debated, but the existing of "gravity" is not debated! The theory of evolution is being refined all the time, but the fact that evolution has occured and still occurs is agreed.

 

The ONLY people who do not accept evolution are those with a religious reason - in the same way that the earth going round the sun was not accepted by chrsitainity for so long

 

I don't want to get drawn in to another evolution debate, but you perhaps you could come one of my lectures sometime?

 

If you don't, PM a list of "academic" papers/religious leaflets which support the anti evolution stance and I can tell you where they misrepresent the truth or scientific logic

 

Cheers

[lh123]

I have already seen some debates evolutionism vs creationism on the tv (none parties were muslim).

Some things for me would make some sense like the evolution of some species who migrated to radically different climates, hence the evolution of their appearance and features. I would call it adaptation.

The same way if I go live in Africa, my skin will become tan and a 100 of generations after me, with the mixing with other africans, this generation will have developped the features of africans.

But it is very strange how a monkey can become a human, and my question would be, why on earth are there still monkeys out there, why "they" haven't evolved??

 

Where do you give your lectures? Is there a q and a session after, or is it just a speech? I might be interested indeed .

[yeliz]

Selam Ih123

 

Really nice that you have joined the debate.

 

It would be really good if we could go on to discuss how Islam is the way forward, I think some people have had the sway of the thread for long enough now.

 

Being a muslim for me is a very positive experience, reading the Qur'an, praying and reseaching Islam is like sunshine for me, and also being able to listen to other muslims and their understanding of Islam.

 

There has been much distortion about Islam in this thread, but it only serves to make me more steadfast in my faith.

[plekhanov]

I am not interested in debating with someone who does not bring anything to the conversation. In many ways you have distorted what i initially wrote.

if you want a glimpse of what the islamic society has brought to the western world, I refer you a book "1001 inventions, Muslim heritage in our world".

I purchased it after seing an exposition in London last year, exposition made by both muslims and non muslims.

That you feel the need for such a book simply reveals just how insecure you are in the face of the non-Islamic worlds massively superior record in knowledge creation.

 

Are you seriously still trying to argue that Islam has a better record of knowledge creation than post enlightenment western society? In the few centuries since the enlightenment human knowledge has soared to unprecedented heights helping create a world in which an unprecedented number of people enjoy an unprecedented standard of living.

 

In that short time it has amongst other things put men on the moon, created telephones and then mobiles phones, anti-biotics, bicycles, the haber process....

 

Newtonian physics, electromagnetism, evolution, quantum mechanics, calculus, relativity... are just a few of the great monuments of human knowledge developed in relatively recent history outside the area of the world dominated by Islam. What equivalent contributions to human knowledge has the Islamic world produced in the same time period or ever? You've got this book so it should be easy for you to come up with examples.

 

As for me saying that the states ruled by muslims are not islamic, this is not my own thought, but what true and unbiased scholars also think.

And these "true and unbiased scholars" get their authority to declare what is and isn't an Islamic state from where exactly?

 

The Islamist rulers of Iran and Taliban which until recently ruled Afghanistan for example certainly seem very committed to attempting to impose their understanding of Islam upon others, even when doing so makes it harder for them to take and hold on to power. If they aren't Islamic people committed to creating Islamic states then what are they and what is your authority for declaring them to be so?

[lh123]

Selam Ih123

 

Really nice that you have joined the debate.

 

It would be really good if we could go on to discuss how Islam is the way forward, I think some people have had the sway of the thread for long enough now.

 

Being a muslim for me is a very positive experience, reading the Qur'an, praying and reseaching Islam is like sunshine for me, and also being able to listen to other muslims and their understanding of Islam.

 

There has been much distortion about Islam in this thread, but it only serves to make me more steadfast in my faith.

 

 

Wa alaykum salam (may peace be on you for those who don't understand arabic)

 

It is very important to get rid of the misconceptions and unfortunately, most of the time, it's the muslims themselves who are destorting Islam.

I wish the muslim community would actually behave in the way that is required by Islam, because actions speak louder than words.

I hope that the growing ummah (community, people) and the youngs who more and more abandon silly and unislamic traditions, will portray a better and more accurate of what Islam really is and what positive it can bring to mankind.

 

By the way, I am still very young and learning, as we all are, so there are a lot of things that I wouldn't be able to answer, but I pray God that all what I said so far was accurate and that I didn't lie about His last Revelation.

 

Wa salaam brother/sister (?)

[lh123]

That you feel the need for such a book simply reveals just how insecure you are in the face of the non-Islamic worlds massively superior record in knowledge creation.

 

Are you seriously still trying to argue that Islam has a better record of knowledge creation than post enlightenment western society? In the few centuries since the enlightenment human knowledge has soared to unprecedented heights helping create a world in which an unprecedented number of people enjoy an unprecedented standard of living.

 

In that short time it has amongst other things put men on the moon, created telephones and then mobiles phones, anti-biotics, bicycles, the haber process....

 

Newtonian physics, electromagnetism, evolution, quantum mechanics, calculus, relativity... are just a few of the great monuments of human knowledge developed in relatively recent history outside the area of the world dominated by Islam. What equivalent contributions to human knowledge has the Islamic world produced in the same time period or ever? You've got this book so it should be easy for you to come up with examples.

 

 

And these "true and unbiased scholars" get their authority to declare what is and isn't an Islamic state from where exactly?

 

The Islamist rulers of Iran and Taliban which until recently ruled Afghanistan for example certainly seem very committed to attempting to impose their understanding of Islam upon others, even when doing so makes it harder for them to take and hold on to power. If they aren't Islamic people committed to creating Islamic states then what are they and what is your authority for declaring them to be so?

 

 

I am not insecure, I just try to speak with references.

 

It's funny how you put together Iran and Talibans... For the mainstream Islam which is sunni, the shia Iran would be a kaafir state (unbelievers). The talibans are from the wahabbi sect formed by al Saud clan about 200 years ago (very new if we take in account that Islam started 1400 years ago).

 

Of course that if there would be a caliph (only way to have an islamic state with corporal punishments I have to remind you), he would install a muslim state WITH islamic laws (undistorted!!!). This state or empire would also have to let other religions live in peace and have their own social and cultural system run free. The non muslims would then pay a tax called jiziya, and this is because they are exempt from giving the compulsory zakah (the charity), and do not have to take part in the muslim army. It is a tax that should not burden someone, nor does it make him less than anyone else. In return, he gets the protection of the muslim state.

[lh123]

Sorry people, I have to make a move now, so I won't be able to answer your posts straight away.

Take care you all.

[flamingjimmy]

Selam Ih123

 

Really nice that you have joined the debate.

 

It would be really good if we could go on to discuss how Islam is the way forward, I think some people have had the sway of the thread for long enough now.

 

Being a muslim for me is a very positive experience, reading the Qur'an, praying and reseaching Islam is like sunshine for me, and also being able to listen to other muslims and their understanding of Islam.

 

There has been much distortion about Islam in this thread, but it only serves to make me more steadfast in my faith.

 

Now that you've got a new friend, perhaps your feeling a little less insecure and will actually make a response to the excellent points raised by Mr. Goose and Plek?

 

I've noticed you only seem to respond to the weak arguments put forward by the BNP crowd, and ignore anything coherent. Like Plek asked earlier, what does it tell you that the only way you can make Islam look good is by comparing it to the BNP?

[yeliz]

Any and all religions followed in societies which had yet to develop into highly complex cultures, settled in towns with an agricultural base. Relatively contemporary examples would include religions followed by aboriginal Australian groups, amazonian indians and nomadic tribes the world over.

 

 

Err yes I can and I just did. My post was intended to prompt you to actually go and look up the definition of 'civilization', realise how wrong you were and retract your claim. I obviously over estimated your willingness to actually try to learn anything.

 

 

tab1 is frustrated because I'm using reason, evidence and an ability to read and respond to what people actually post to kick his lying arse.

 

HE SAID PRE-CIVILISATION.

 

I obviously over estimated your ability to see what was wrote in front in front of you.

[plekhanov]

HE SAID PRE-CIVILISATION.

 

I obviously over estimated your ability to see what was wrote in front in front of you.

You said:

 

Pre- civilisation, there were no religions, I don't know where you are going with this.

 

A statement which revealed your ignorance of what the word 'civilisation' actually means. That someone else used the term 'pre-civilisation' first doesn't magically turn your false statement into a true one.