Quran burning: Obama apologizes

kiranr wrote:
I have made this point, but, i will make it again.

Arabs had made great advances in science in the past. I do not consider such discoveries being included in the Quran as a miracle or an act of god.

im not sure i quiet understand what you mean exactly but if you're saying that Arabs included the discoveries they made in the quran then i'd just like to note that Arabs made these discovered after the emergence of Islam and not before

Ancient Egyptians : We were deceived.

zizzle wrote:

kiranr wrote:
I have made this point, but, i will make it again.

Arabs had made great advances in science in the past. I do not consider such discoveries being included in the Quran as a miracle or an act of god.

im not sure i quiet understand what you mean exactly but if you're saying that Arabs included the discoveries they made in the quran then i'd just like to note that Arabs made these discovered after the emergence of Islam and not before

This pretty much...

zizzle wrote:

im not sure i quiet understand what you mean exactly but if you're saying that Arabs included the discoveries they made in the quran then i'd just like to note that Arabs made these discovered after the emergence of Islam and not before

Well, many of these discoveries had happened, almost simultaneously maybe, in ancient civilizations in India too. And i am quite sure all around world, people were discovering many fascinating phenomenon. It just so happened that these got included in Quran.

Atleast, that is how i would like to believe it based on the limited knowledge that i have.

zizzle wrote:

kiranr wrote:
I have made this point, but, i will make it again.

Arabs had made great advances in science in the past. I do not consider such discoveries being included in the Quran as a miracle or an act of god.

im not sure i quiet understand what you mean exactly but if you're saying that Arabs included the discoveries they made in the quran then i'd just like to note that Arabs made these discovered after the emergence of Islam and not before

Arr..

1) Alot of scientists were called heretics during that age, because of their criticism of Islam (look it up). They basically worked and succeeded instead, not because of religion

2) Arab world by then was mostly a Christian/Non-Islam civilisation. Syria had a strong base of translators who took knowledge by translating ancient Greek texts. Persian/Sassanid Empire also being non-Muslim had a lot of developments.
Arabs then during Caliphate Age also took things like Trigonometry/Algebra/Maths from Indians,etc and inventions from Chinese,etc. Then developed it. They were not inventors, but rather worked with given materials of other civilisations I mentioned above.

RealGunner wrote:

free_cat wrote:

RealGunner wrote:

che wrote:

other than that, if you feel you've got time... http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Erroneous-Science-and-Contradictions-in-Quran.htm

it's a website so apply the usual pinch of salt but still...

A website which is filled with 90% crap about how Islam is the root of all evil and actually has a logo of twin towers collasping. Not to mention it has a partnership with another website called Jihad Watch


looks completely legit, and must have True facts in it.

We can easily check if what the website says it's true or not. Can you or some muslim provide a link to a valid and 100% accepted translation in english of the Quran?

It's not about the translation, but the website's agenda and what it is trying to preach.

They "errors" they are talking about are laughable at best, Their explanation only talks about things which they want to pick on, and not the full story. In a nutshell, they are Picking on small things and sensationalising it just to make it look like hard solid facts

So, you can't provide a 100% accepted and valid link to a translation?

It seems that, in the end, as you have to consider "the whole" and interpret every bit according to the rest... then you simply can finally interpret whatever you want from the Quran! Genius!

I dont see how u guys can put religion and science in one sentence. BTW ,all the humans are the same crap.Its about the individuals not their nation.Every nation has its douches and geniuses.

zizzle wrote:No, god is not monoglot according to islam. According to Islam Moses and Abraham spoke to god and they did not speak Arabic but the languages of their people. According to islam there is only but a few Arab prophets, 4 to be acurate, other prophits spoke the languages of their people.

So why Arabic? Why Arabia? The answer of the first question is simple, why not Arabic ? eventually god's revelation has to come in A language so your question applies to every language there is. However if pre Islamic Arabia was known for one thing its their spoken litriture. Poets were held in the same regards as scientists and their words have survived until today, plus Arabia is the perfect place to demonstrate the power of islam coz in a few hundred years it turned the most vicious, devided and backwarded of civilizaions into the most advanced and civilized on earth, while given to an already powerful nation Islam wouldnt have been credited with such an impact

I don't think you're giving Sumer, Babylonia and Mesopotamia - often considered the cradles of civilization - enough credit here. They existed many hundreds of years before the rise of Islam.

As for "vicious, divided and backwards civilizations" ... I don't even know what to say.

Now for evolution...Who do you think is mightier, a god who repeates the act of creation every time he desires to add a new creature to this earth, or a god that creates everthing with 1 master stroke like the big bang ?

Neither of these propositions relate to evolution.

Senor Penguin wrote:
I don't think you're giving Sumer, Babylonia and Mesopotamia - often considered the cradles of civilization - enough credit here. They existed many hundreds of years before the rise of Islam.

As for "vicious, divided and backwards civilizations" ... I don't even know what to say.

the point here is not how Islam changed the world but how it was the sole reason that elevated the most backwarded civilization on earth into the most advanced one. this is not saying that the islamic civilization is the most advanced in the history of man kind but im only pointing out at the impact of islam (answering your question of why Arabs and im saying because their transition from bad to great helps illustrate the positive impact of islam)

Senor Penguin wrote:

Now for evolution...Who do you think is mightier, a god who repeates the act of creation every time he desires to add a new creature to this earth, or a god that creates everthing with 1 master stroke like the big bang ?

Neither of these propositions relate to evolution.

Actually they do, because of i believe i'd rather believe in a god that had a master plan than a god who creates as he pleases.

ps: Islam and Evolution are not contradictory

Grande_Milano wrote:

zizzle wrote:

kiranr wrote:
I have made this point, but, i will make it again.

Arabs had made great advances in science in the past. I do not consider such discoveries being included in the Quran as a miracle or an act of god.

im not sure i quiet understand what you mean exactly but if you're saying that Arabs included the discoveries they made in the quran then i'd just like to note that Arabs made these discovered after the emergence of Islam and not before

Arr..

1) Alot of scientists were called heretics during that age, because of their criticism of Islam (look it up). They basically worked and succeeded instead, not because of religion

2) Arab world by then was mostly a Christian/Non-Islam civilisation. Syria had a strong base of translators who took knowledge by translating ancient Greek texts. Persian/Sassanid Empire also being non-Muslim had a lot of developments.
Arabs then during Caliphate Age also took things like Trigonometry/Algebra/Maths from Indians,etc and inventions from Chinese,etc. Then developed it. They were not inventors, but rather worked with given materials of other civilisations I mentioned above.

1- Name a civilization that did not build on what the previous civilizations achieved. It's true the islamic golden age started by translation sponsored by the islamic state and done by jews and christians, but you'd be stupid if you think that all what Arabs did was translate

2- If i'm to list the genuin inventions of the islamic civilization i'd need two threads just to get started. But since we're at it, Avencinna's books on medicine were considered valid until the 16th century ffs. Logarithm says hello, and Coffee used to be called Arab wine. Your welcome universe

3- There will always be those who are against change and advancement in every civilization, but unlike the church, the islamic state was supportive of science and scientists

Isn't Algebra and Medicine enough?

Too bad a lot of Islamic countries have outlawed progress by now. Well, at least you can sleep tight knowing that half the US is trying to outlaw progress there as well. It's only fair.

that's how it eventually happened, the decline only started when the influence of fundamentalists who labled science as the work of the devil started growing. From there it's just downhill. How history repeats itself...

zizzle wrote:that's how it eventually happened, the decline only started when the influence of fundamentalists who labled science as the work of the devil started growing. From there it's just downhill. How history repeats itself...

And people mistake that for the fault of Islam, I really feel with the Muslims on that regard. Here you have a religion that managed 1400 years of progress and was, by all accounts, a bit more peaceful than Christianity (so not that peaceful, but certainly not advocating war) - and it all goes down the shitter because of a couple of crazy fundamentalists backed by crazy dictators backed by even crazier fundamentalists backed by someone somewhere with too much money and time on their hands.

It's ridiculous. That's the great advantage Chrsitianity had: as retarded as the Vatican acts, having one central authority of your faith forces moderation over time. Sure, we bitch and moan when the Vatican moderates progress, but they certainly don't want to go backwards. They have their own astronomers (not astrologists, astronomers) there by now, who contemplate what alien life would mean for the Jesus.

And then you have countless Islamic scholars who advocate peace and are fine with science and progress, but the craziest ones just scream the loudest. It doesn't help as well, that most secular governments in the Arab regions of the world were dictators backed by the West. The West should've stayed out of that shit. Backing Mubarak and the Shah was the biggest favour we could've done the fundamentalists. Hell, arming the Taliban and backing the Shah is biting us in the ass to this day, all in the name of what? Fighting Communism?

And let's not forget that the people who suffer most under the heel of Islamic extremists are moderate muslims, also known as 95% of muslims.

Sure, they're still a bit traditionalist for the most part, but that's because many of them come from rural areas. Just go to western Istanbul and try to convince young people to not drink their Raki.

I generally argue against all religion, but people somehow making Islam out to be more "primitive" than, say, Christianity can go suck on some kind of poisonous frog only found in the deepest of jungles.

Peace.

PS: Make no mistake though, I will go balls-out calling countries like Malaysia or Saudi Arabia more primitive than Europe. Not because they're inhabited by Neanderthals, but because their governments are run like the mercantilist City-States of the early Renaissance at best, late middle ages if we're being a bit more harsh.

Sure, they got fancy air conditioning and I'm pretty sure their Hotels have plasma TVs, but until you manage to give people equal rights and have fair and equal elections, you can go suck on something I'll determine later as well.

This isn't meant to insult any Saudi Arabian or Malaysian citizens. Unless you're a member of house Saud or something, in which case you better catch the next flight to Brazil, head for the Amazon, and find yourself the most colourful frog you can find, and suck on that bitch.

VivaStPauli wrote:PS: Make no mistake though, I will go balls-out calling countries like Malaysia or Saudi Arabia more primitive than Europe. Not because they're inhabited by Neanderthals, but because their governments are run like the mercantilist City-States of the early Renaissance at best, late middle ages if we're being a bit more harsh.

Sure, they got fancy air conditioning and I'm pretty sure their Hotels have plasma TVs, but until you manage to give people equal rights and have fair and equal elections, you can go suck on something I'll determine later as well.

This isn't meant to insult any Saudi Arabian or Malaysian citizens. Unless you're a member of house Saud or something, in which case you better catch the next flight to Brazil, head for the Amazon, and find yourself the most colourful frog you can find, and suck on that bitch.

hahahaha al saud giving people equal right's thats insane buddy
there busy flushing their money on lousy crap (not sure about this one )
ethnic cleansing in yemen and bahrain
and well playing monopoly in mecca and maddena tbh

That's my point, mate

We've elected a lot of scum over the years, but from where I sit I got quite a lot of rights.

Even though Viva is in denial of no faith, I am a fan

Great post on the last page

RealGunner wrote:Even though Viva is in denial of no faith, I am a fan

Great post on the last page

+1

dansik wrote:

Where are the apologies from the Lebanese for killing the civilians?

After the brave Lebanese army kicked the fateh el eslam terrorists out of Lebanon,they put posters all over beirut with the victims' pictures. They also apologized several of times(don't ask for a source,I'm quite sure that CNN and co don't find the army's general's apology worthy of reporting) for the lives of those who died.

zizzle wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:

zizzle wrote:

kiranr wrote:
I have made this point, but, i will make it again.

Arabs had made great advances in science in the past. I do not consider such discoveries being included in the Quran as a miracle or an act of god.

im not sure i quiet understand what you mean exactly but if you're saying that Arabs included the discoveries they made in the quran then i'd just like to note that Arabs made these discovered after the emergence of Islam and not before

Arr..

1) Alot of scientists were called heretics during that age, because of their criticism of Islam (look it up). They basically worked and succeeded instead, not because of religion

2) Arab world by then was mostly a Christian/Non-Islam civilisation. Syria had a strong base of translators who took knowledge by translating ancient Greek texts. Persian/Sassanid Empire also being non-Muslim had a lot of developments.
Arabs then during Caliphate Age also took things like Trigonometry/Algebra/Maths from Indians,etc and inventions from Chinese,etc. Then developed it. They were not inventors, but rather worked with given materials of other civilisations I mentioned above.

1- Name a civilization that did not build on what the previous civilizations achieved. It's true the islamic golden age started by translation sponsored by the islamic state and done by jews and christians, but you'd be stupid if you think that all what Arabs did was translate

2- If i'm to list the genuin inventions of the islamic civilization i'd need two threads just to get started. But since we're at it, Avencinna's books on medicine were considered valid until the 16th century ffs. Logarithm says hello, and Coffee used to be called Arab wine. Your welcome universe

3- There will always be those who are against change and advancement in every civilization, but unlike the church, the islamic state was supportive of science and scientists

I can give you facts about how many scientists were proclaimed heretics. Also a lot of claims of developments were false (Algebra, Trigonometry, first flying object, weight clock, optics etc)

As for civilisation-Shumer was first and built by farmers

of course some scientists would be called heretics, it happens even today, but the fact that these scientists were working under and sponsored by the islamic state should end the debate. You're not gonna run with the opinion of the loonies are you ?

As for the false development, i learned not to make a claim without having a credible source, so go ahead....

where did i say arabs were the first civilization ?

zizzle wrote:

Senor Penguin wrote:

Now for evolution...Who do you think is mightier, a god who repeates the act of creation every time he desires to add a new creature to this earth, or a god that creates everthing with 1 master stroke like the big bang ?

Neither of these propositions relate to evolution.

Actually they do, because of i believe i'd rather believe in a god that had a master plan than a god who creates as he pleases.

ps: Islam and Evolution are not contradictory

The theory of Evolution itself has nothing to do with God, theology or philosophy, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

It is, however, in direct conflict with some of the Suras in the Quran which speak of Adam & Eve and the way man was created. But as always, one can digress from literal interpretation and justify whatever belief(s) one pleases.

Which begs the question: What makes my metaphorical interpretation better/more correct than the interpretations of heretics and others? That is, of course, if one is so humble as to question oneself ...

the reason why im bringing god into evolution because i think evolution is the process of creation.

Evolution by itself is not a sufficient explanation of the origin of life on earth in my humble opinion, for example, how did the first living cell get the motive to replicate ? if we replicate only for the purpose of survival then that cell needed to experience death before it could try to beat it

as for your last question, that's not a question i can answer,my interpretations could be wrong after all. But i could also be right as well, and after all we're talking about religion so a little bit of faith is needed

The possibility of replication is one of the defining properties of "life". So there is no need for a "motivation" as such.

Life was beginning at the moment some armino acid, by chance, assembled in a way that made it duplicate, the rest is the game of chance, probability, and inevetability, that we call evolution.

Damn it's magnificent.

Other than that, I actually welcome interpreting Evolution as the process of creation. At least that'd make religious people accept science, at which point I no longer have a deep problem with religion, so good for all of us.

well when the Quran describes creation it's always a process, though we take it for granted that it's within god's power to create things in an instant. Anyway i've met alot of Muslims who believe in evolution and it was my father who sparked my interest in it when he told me as a kid that wales used to walk on land and they later changed into sea creators.

If we're gonna accept that reproduction was a function of the first living cell then why did living creators give up the much simpler and more efficient identical and asexual reproduction ? Obviously at the moment evolution does not have the answer of everything though that is not saying that it wont in the future. However as it stands both believers and atheists rely on faith for the answers of these questions. You believe that science will eventually have all the answers (though there is always the possibility that it wont) and we put our faith in god. See, we're not different after all, but our belief should not stop us from learning more because if religion is truly the word of god then science should not pose a threat to our faith

Because asexual reproduction doesn't allow for the re-arrangement of attributes within just one generation - sexual reproduction does. It's an evolutionary advantage, especially for organisms that live longer, like multi-celled organisms.