Every kind of similitude....

mquran

i pretty sure the ayahs in the Quran are symbolic. For example, the descriptions of the earth and fetuses (as leeches) are also symbolic descriptions. They have to be symbolic because people wouldn't understand them. Imagine how long the Quran would be if God decided to tell us how babies grow or how mountains form. And no one would understand it.

Could they be understood in other than a biological dimension? Why do people keep looking to the skies and use phrases like 'keep our feet on the ground' ?

And about miracles, i don't believe in them. There is nothing that can break the laws of the universe. God created the universe. He created the laws that govern it. Why would he have to break His own laws to prove His existence? that's what people don't understand. That's why they look of miracles and supernatural events to prove the existence of God. And because miracles don't exist, all the "miracles" in the Quran are symbols.

How do you know that 'the laws of the universe' doesn't include what you call 'miracles' ?

phoenix1

peace mquran

that's exactly why they're called "miracles"(as opposed to "normacles") and "supernatural." They go against nature which GOD created.

and i don't understand what you mean by biological dimensions. But i was just giving you an example from the Quran. There are more, but most of them you deny as being symbols and allegories.

Fahad1

And about miracles, i don't believe in them. There is nothing that can break the laws of the universe. God created the universe. He created the laws that govern it. Why would he have to break His own laws to prove His existence? that's what people don't understand.

salam.
they are not miracles,but signs . and they are not breaking the laws of God . which law do they break ? can u tell us ?

mquran

that's exactly why they're called "miracles"(as opposed to "normacles") and "supernatural." They go against nature which GOD created.

Thanks for the 'normacles' thing. I actually laughed over breakfast. Saladin's voiced what would have been my response though.

and i don't understand what you mean by biological dimensions. But i was just giving you an example from the Quran. There are more, but most of them you deny as being symbols and allegories.

Ok, lets change it to 'physical dimensions' and include some 'scientific verses'. 27/88 tells us that mountains look to be still but they actually pass away as the clouds do. Many choose to take this verse as a 'miracle' because of the movement of tectonic plates. Lets not forget however the the ayaat of al-quraan resonates BOTH in the horizon and in the self. So what is 'mountain' in the self? Therein comes a metaphorical side.

Leyla

Salaam!

I also think, like mquran, that 41/53 is decisive when we want to understand the nature of how the qur'?n verifies itself.

We all know the verses that constantly remind us to use our minds, to understand ourselves. The qur'?n calls those who do not believe in it and its Lord people who do not know/do not understand.
This means, in effect, that the qur'?n never asks for blind faith. It says that we can discover the proof for its accuracy.
From this we can easily deduce that to limit the relevance of the qur'?nic stories to some historical miracles would be quite inconsistent with the way the qur'?n verifies itself. In most cases we would not be able to prove or disporve these occurences.

But that does not mean that miracles are not to be taken as having happened. On miracles and normacles I also agree with mquran and saladin.
I once had an interesting talk with a friend of mine who happens to be involved in the study of higher physics. I once asked him what higher physics would say if indeed the sea would part in front of you. Would they say that this is impossible?
His response was that they would not say that.
Higher physics formulates so called miracles in measurements of mathematical possibilities. They would say that while it is unlikely that the sea would part as such, it is not totally impossible.
If I let a ball fall out of my hand it is within the highest possibility that it will fall to the ground. But there is always a slight mathematical possibility that it would not.
Modern physics does not talk about fixed natural laws anymore. So called perceived natural laws are only seen as highest mathematical possibilities these days but not as neccessary occurances.
Everyone interested in this should read some little introductory works about quantum physics and the like. Using google will suffice already to find enough.
So, miracles do indeed belong to the way All?h created this universe. They are exceptions to the rule but not impossible.
Miracles are not against science. They are just against our usual assumptions.

Bye,

Leyla

mquran

Leyla We all know the verses that constantly remind us to use our minds, to understand ourselves. The qur'?n calls those who do not believe in it and its Lord people who do not know/do not understand.
This means, in effect, that the qur'?n never asks for blind faith. It says that we can discover the proof for its accuracy.

Agreed. One of the characteristics of the abdurrahmaan isThose who, when they are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as if they were deaf or blind; (25/73)

From this we can easily deduce that to limit the relevance of the qur'?nic stories to some historical miracles would be quite inconsistent with the way the qur'?n verifies itself. In most cases we would not be able to prove or disporve these occurences.

Agreed. "Historical momentousness" is an affliction which prevernts people from seeing thier own momentousness. Their own nafs is the issue, not Muhammad or Jesus's nufus.

Miracles are not against science. They are just against our usual assumptions.

Rationalism is the disease of the quraniyoon, I opine. We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan. Parwez, in an unusual manoeuver, used history to explain chapter 105, al-fiil. You can see the obvious deviation from his usual methodology. I would have loved to explore this subject with him but alas, I was too late (20 years too late).

Leyla

mquran Rationalism is the disease of the quraniyoon, I opine. We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan. Parwez, in an unusual manoeuver, used history to explain chapter 105, al-fiil. You can see the obvious deviation from his usual methodology.

Yep. Furthermore, there is a problem none of us will be able to escape completely
We all are easyly willing to take for granted what is taken for granted in our timeperiod and culture and with which we were raised.
Rationalism is unfortunately taken for granted today and people totally equate it with being modern.
Of course, this was not always the case in all timeperiods and it still is not in all cultures. Other cultures would have taken very different things for granted and would have projected them on the qur'?n.
Every culture and every timeperiod, of course, thinks that "they finally got it", that they are "the most evolved" and "the most progressive". Every culture and every timeperiod is horribly vain when it comes to this. But of course this vanity is not objective in any way.

So, what?s the way out? Not submitting to cultural or temporary conditioning as much as possible by finding a criterion of knowledge that will not submit to the several but not objective things taken for granted in different timperiods and cultures.

A second problem that is difficult to escape is that the label "rational" is itself one which can be interpreted in several ways that inr eality have few to do with true ratio.
E.g. Most people talk about a "rational worldview" when talking about a worldview that came from modern science.
Many people these days are very proud to have a "rational worldview". However, how did they come to this rational worldview? Through using their own ratio ..... ????? Very rarely!!!!
I don?t know any person who claims to have a so called rational worldview and who personally went through all the experiments of Kepler, Galilei and Newton and through the reasonings of Einstein to verify their truth with their own ratio and within their own experiences.
Most people claiming to have a "rational worldview" just simply have a blind faith. A blind faith in what was taught at school, taught by parents, spread in the media. They assume that these things must be right .... but they didn?t go through the hard work to find out for themselves.
So, actually, most people who claim to have a rational worldview are just simply blind believers and not much more ... and that?s what`s called rational these days.

What?s the way out here? To find a criterion of wisdom that will not ask for blind faith but for seeing its verification in our own experiences.

All?h Hafiz,

Leyla

phoenix1

peace

about the miracles. Yes i do believe in "normal miracles." These are miracles that can happen but are rare. Like someone surviving cancer. Or a team being down 3-0 at the end of the first half (im talking about futbol BTW) and then winning 3-4. Those are "miracles." What i disagree with is the idea of supernatural miracles. Where things go against logic.
So what is logic? logic is the understanding and reasoning we have based on the way the world acts. Its the world God created. Governed by his laws. So logic is actually God's laws. They can't be bent or broken. This NOT the matrix.
About the sea parting, as Leyla pointed out. It can possiblly happen. But what are the chances of a human parting it?
But the key word here is "possibly". Possibly, God doesnt exist. Possibly, the Quran is completely wrong. And the thing about science is that nothing is "absolute truth." Nothing we know, no fact, no theory, is absolutely true, according to science. So, there is a possibility that the theories of physics are wrong, and thus there is a possibility that anything can happen against them. Maybe. But if that was true, God would give us some kind of sign. Something that would tell us that the "supernatural" can occur. So far, i seen nona dat.
So here, i'm not following blind faith in anyone's teachings. Not even the Quran. I have looked at the world through my own eyes and understood it with my own mind. From what I've experienced, no miracles exist.

Leyla

Peace Phoenix!

So, there is a possibility that the theories of physics are wrong, and thus there is a possibility that anything can happen against them. Maybe. But if that was true, God would give us some kind of sign. Something that would tell us that the "supernatural" can occur. So far, i seen nona dat.
So here, i'm not following blind faith in anyone's teachings. Not even the Quran. I have looked at the world through my own eyes and understood it with my own mind. From what I've experienced, no miracles exist.

Well, then your approach is surely not the worst one. At least it is much better than the approach of those people who will believe every kind of strange story that they are told from second hand.

Personally, when I look at my life I see that things occured to me that seemed so extremely unlikely and wonderous that I would call them occuring against all possibilities. They were no physical miracles, though. Just occurences and so called "coincidences". But when thinking about them they impress me as much as a mountain starting to fly right in front of me would.
Maybe sometimes its just a matter of perspective. Maybe if you would have experienced the same you would not perceive these occurences as as much miraculous as I do now.
Maybe it is just a matter of personal characters.
What I can simply say is that while I never needed a mountain starting to fly in front of me or a sea parting, I definitely needed those unlikely occurences right at the time they happened.
So I already have a sign that very very unlikely things are possible when one is really in need of them. And maybe sometimes a people really is in need of the sea parting in front of it .... .
I just haven?t seen it yet.
Hmm, but who knows. Maybe one far day I will be in need of a parting sea and then this experience may enter my horizon .... wink

By the way, some scientists of modern physics would say that the newest findings of physics are not just a sign but definit proof that anything could happen against the supposed natural laws. Unfortunately, I am not deep enough into that stuff to comment on that or to form a sure opinion. I am only a lay reader of that stuff.
I just want to mention it because it it as much an opinion voiced in the modern scientific world as anything else.

But it is exactly this vastness of opinions in modern science that tells me that the truth of the qur'?n is more solid than the truth of any temporal phase of modern science.
So, until I have a definit qur'?nic evidence that the stories of the qur'?n are never to be taken literally (I already agreed that there is definitely a nonliteral archetypical meaning to them) and are only metaphorical I will rather put my trust into the qur'?n's report than into some supposed or true rationality.
This because the qur'?n has already proven itself as true in my own experiences and through my own mind and I would betray that verification if such a sure evidence didn?t enter my experiences yet as well.

Maybe this evidence will enter my own experiences one day. Or maybe the sea will part in front of me ....

peace again,

Leyla

phoenix1

peace Leyla,

why do you need the sea to part in front of you? If you think that's supposed to strengthen your faith, then I would say you're wrong because the parting of the sea go against God's laws. God doesnt have to do some supernatural magical stuff to prove His existence to you. I really don't understand why people need, or want to sea supernatural occurances to strengthen their faith.
Those rare things that happen at just the right moment are, in my opinion, just coincidences. If you think about it, if the opposite would have happened, you would never know. You would accept your life the way it was and move on. And sometimes it does happen that even though the odds of something good happening to you are pretty good but something bad happens. People ignore those coincidences. These coincidences happen around us all the time, and that's what I call fate. So i don't really know what i'm trying to say anymore, but i think its that "miracles" are all around us. They are everywhere. Good or bad, they're there. And because everything in God's world is a "miracle." That means there are really no "miracle miracles."
And that's the point i'm trying to make. God's world itself is a miracle enough for us. We don't need something extra, or something that goes against reality itself for us to have faith in God.
And that's what the supporters of creationism fail to see. They want supernatural. They can't appreciate God's creation the way it is.

Leyla

Peace Phoenix1!

why do you need the sea to part in front of you?

I myself said I don?t need it.
And I can?t see myself needing it.
And it never happened to me.
But who am I to know about my future?

Those rare things that happen at just the right moment are, in my opinion, just coincidences. If you think about it, if the opposite would have happened, you would never know. You would accept your life the way it was and move on. And sometimes it does happen that even though the odds of something good happening to you are pretty good but something bad happens. People ignore those coincidences.

No, sorry. I?m definitely talking about something else. I am talking about very decisive things.
I would give you an example if I could. However, then I would have to reveal too many things about my personal life and I am not prepared to do so here.
So, let?s settle the issue. All I can say here should be treated as hearsay by you anyhow until you make your own experiences. I just simply have received other impressions. So, again, I think your approach is definitely not bad!!

And because everything in God's world is a "miracle."
And that's the point i'm trying to make. God's world itself is a miracle enough for us. We don't need something extra, or something that goes against reality itself for us to have faith in God.
And that's what the supporters of creationism fail to see. They want supernatural. They can't appreciate God's creation the way it is.

I totally agree with you here!
You are very very right about this!

However, to me that does not automatically lead to

That means there are really no "miracle miracles."

Bye,

Leyla

phoenix1

peace

what do you mean when you say "you're approach is not bad" or that my approach isn't the "worst one?"

Leyla

I mean that if your approach is based on

I have looked at the world through my own eyes and understood it with my own mind. From what I've experienced, no miracles exist.

I will have to respect it and I can respect it. As I said, it is much better than the approach of those who trust any kind of wonderous hersay. I won?t judge your experiences. They are yours.

However, I can not accept this approach as my own because it does not reflect its own truth within my own experiences in life and especially within my experiences with the truth of the qur'?n.

And I would agree with mquran when he says

We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan.

That?s all I mean

unknownuser

And I would agree with mquran when he says

We need to able to say 'i dont have enough information to opine on that' instead of creating false epistemologies and projecting them upon al-quraan.

That?s all I mean

You mean when mquran nitpicks words out of general statements made and falsly projects them upon al-quran, huh? Very funny.

Leyla

Sorry, Danish.
Just some seconds ago I tried put together a translation of 9/30 for you.
But here it now becomes unfortunately very evident to me as well that it is not very fruitful to discuss with you at all.
This thread here does not even have the least to do with your discussion with mquran. Why do you carry it over here??
Very mature behaviour that you show!
Can?t you try to have an intellectual discussion without taking it personal ???
What comes next ?? verbal ad hominem attacks??
How old are you ???
And you`re calling mquran a crybaby ???!!!!!
Please, this last post of you has really betrayed you!

unknownuser

Sorry, Danish.
Just some seconds ago I tried put together a translation of 9/30 for you.
But here it now becomes unfortunately very evident to me as well that it is not very fruitful to discuss with you at all.
This thread here does not even have the least to do with your discussion with mquran. Why do you carry it over here??
Very mature behaviour that you show!
Can?t you try to have an intellectual discussion without taking it personal ???
What comes next ?? verbal ad hominem attacks??
How old are you ???
And you`re calling mquran a crybaby ???!!!!!
Please, this last post of you has really betrayed you!

Leyla, you don't own this forum nor this thread. I don't care what your relationship is with mquran, but no need to spew hatred, bad mouth me and get too personal. Just like you have the nerve to engage on another thread where you defend mquran helplessly, I too defended myself about correcting what you said in here, understand. What's your problem?

Just some seconds ago I tried put together a translation of 9/30 for you.

Your trying to put together was half baked and dodgy, just like mquran. 930 in its entirety, missy??? Now lets have it.

Leyla

Just like you have the nerve to engage on another thread where you defend mquran helplessly, I too defended myself about correcting what you said in here, understand. What's your problem?

The problem is that what I said in here was answering phoenix1 with agreeing on something that mquran had answered to a previous answer of mine to phoenix1.
These answers had nothing whatsoever to do with you!

And you may speculate about my reasons for defending mquran as much as you like. I do have several. But the most important one, and the one that IS very relevant to your discussion is
That I know that his methodology to study the qur'?n is the best one that I have ever come across. And I have definitely come across a lot of methodologies.

Do what you like with that. I don?t spew hatred. I don?t hate you. I ust wanted to communicate as mature but also as direct as possible were in my own view your faults lie.I?m sorry if that sounded too rude.

Your rude answer came before I was able to finish my translation. And I don?t have much appetite to do it anymore. Just some hints for a clever mind like yours

al-yah?d - related to hud? (guidance)
an-naSara - related to naSr (help)
uzayr - related to wazara (to carry a ministry)
masih - derived from a root meaning to touch

Missy ???

Whatever, I will definitely leave that whole issue now and wish you peace.

unknownuser

Just like you have the nerve to engage on another thread where you defend mquran helplessly, I too defended myself about correcting what you said in here, understand. What's your problem?

The problem is that what I said in here was answering phoenix1 with agreeing on something that mquran had answered to a previous answer of mine to phoenix1.
These answers had nothing whatsoever to do with you!

Neither was your post on the other thread anything to do with you. But since you got yourself engaged by relentlessly supporting mquran, I did the same here. I have every right just as you. Keep this in mind when discussing on open public forums.

And you may speculate about my reasons for defending mquran as much as you like. I do have several. But the most important one, and the one that IS very relevant to your discussion is
That I know that his methodology to study the qur'?n is the best one that I have ever come across. And I have definitely come across a lot of methodologies.

That's your opinion and I have mine. No wonder he was banned once for his unreasonable/unquranic behaviour.

Do what you like with that. I don?t spew hatred. I don?t hate you. I ust wanted to communicate as mature but also as direct as possible were in my own view your faults lie.I?m sorry if that sounded too rude.

Missy ???

Whatever, I will definitely leave that whole issue now and wish you peace.

You do the same but don't forget to translate 930 in its entirety as requested on the other thread. It's about time I get some answers outa ya guys instead of dodging around.

Leyla

Neither was your post on the other thread anything to do with you.

Huh??? How can a post of mine have nothing to do with me ???

No wonder he was banned once for his unreasonable/unquranic behaviour.

By the way, just in case you don?t know
THAT`S what?s called an ad hominem attack.

You do the same but don't forget to translate 930 in its entirety as requested on the other thread. It's about time I get some answers outa ya guys instead of dodging around.

Wow, you edit and change your posts faster than I can answer them. Impressive!

Peace, peace, peace. I?m gone.

unknownuser

Neither was your post on the other thread anything to do with you.

Huh??? How can a post of mine have nothing to do with me ???

Huh??? Same here.???

No wonder he was banned once for his unreasonable/unquranic behaviour.

By the way, just in case you don?t know
THAT`S what?s called an ad hominem attack.

Facts, not ad hominem. Can't take the truth? Talk about defending, supporting and venerating mquran!!!

You do the same but don't forget to translate 930 in its entirety as requested on the other thread. It's about time I get some answers outa ya guys instead of dodging around.
Wow, you edit and change your posts faster than I can answer them. Impressive!

Yes, impressive and quite effective.

Peace, peace, peace. I?m gone.

Peace, thank GOD.