Thanks again Noon!

Thank you Noon, that's exactly what I was looking for.

EDIT Sorry, I have one more question, what do the (s/m) (m/s) mean?

Peace, and thank you for your response Noon, but I am still not sure why in 411, is translated as "son" in the first instance and "child" the second?

Selam noon.

I was wondering if you could help me with something?

Wife1/8 = 3/24
Daughters 2/3 = 16/24
Father 1/6 = 4/24
Mother1/6 = 4/24

Total = 27/24

I understand the math you used to solve this. I just want to know what makes your translation correct?

411 directs you The God in your children to the male like share the two (feminine) so if be females above two (feminine) so for them two thirds what left and if she was one so for her the half and for their parents to each one from them the sixth from what left if is to person walad/son so if not is to person waladun child/born and heirs person?s parents (if only parents) so to his mother the third so if is to person ikh'watun brothers/siblings (at least one male present) so to his mother the sixth from after a will have made in it or judgment your parents and your children not you know which of them closer to you benefit obligation from The God indeed The God is Knowing Wise

Why is translated as "son" in the first use and "child/born" in the second?

Right or wrong is subjective...
That's why the guidance is related to 'reciprocity'..
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

So if someone wants to be killed it is ok for them to kill? Substitute the word kill with rape, hurt, rob, enslave.

Is there a subjective point of view where taking an innocent life or molesting a child can be considered right? I think at best it can be a necessary evil.

Salaam,

So, you're saying dictators are trying to be equal to Allah?

Selam bro.

While there were and probably still are dictators who saw themselves as gods it is not what I was saying.

My view is that the form of govt. is not as important as the quality of the leaders. Since we have no way of ensuring the quality of the leaders, all forms of govt. are open to corruption and therefor not ideal.

When things need to be done a dictatorship is the most efficient way of getting them done, as long as he knows what he is doing. That's why many democratic govts. have "emergency powers", it allows them to cut through the red tape and get things done in an emergency.. like a dictator.

So under ideal leadership, a dictatorship in my opinion is the best form of govt.

To be honest the fate of good atheists is something that bothers me because the Koran does seem to indicate that their good deeds will not help them. However there are several instances of God mentioning hell but then leaving a "loophole" by saying "except those whom I choose". So perhaps the good atheists will be among those.

<b>It's quite clear that we don't need faith to be good people. I wish the Koran said something about it....</b>

While I agree that some people can be good without faith I don't believe humanity as a whole can be. Without God what is right or wrong becomes subjective. So while you can say "I think this is right/wrong" you could never say "This is right/wrong", because you are a fallible man just like me, why should I consider the same things as right or wrong as you do when you might of made a mistake in your belief? Since God makes no mistakes this option is not available to those who believe.

On my first read through of the Koran I took notes so I will attempt to contribute to your thread by sharing some of my notes here. Since I do not speak Arabic and must rely on English translations I'm sure I have gotten many points wrong and would appreciate any corrections.

214. And when they fall in with those who believe, they say We believe; but when they go apart to their devils they declare Lo! we are with you; verily we did but mock.?

• When I first read this I had the impression that it was referring to people who would publicly pretend to uphold and be for religion and belief in the God, but then in secret would be working against Him. I think the more proper interpretation is that this sentence is referring to people who say they believe but while claiming belief knowingly give in to their vices. To ?believe? in God is not to simply accept His existence but to follow His way, so when we say that we believe then we don't follow His way, we are declaring through our actions that we are really with our devils(vices) and that when we said we believed we were mocking God.

2200. Now some men there are who say, 'Our Lord, give to us in this world'; such men shall have no part in the world to come.
2201. And others there are who say, 'Our Lord, give to us in this world good, and good in the world to come, and guard us against the chastisement of the fire'; those -- they shall have a portion from what they have earned; and God is swift at the reckoning.?

• God warns us against praying for materialistic things in this world, that these things come at the cost of the hereafter. He also instructs us on what we should be praying for, which is basically that he visits good upon us in this world and in the next and to forgive our sins so that we do not face punishment in hell.

2241. There shall be for divorced women provision honourable -- an obligation on the godfearing.?

• As Muslims it is our obligation to care and help provide for divorced women.

2256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.? -

The part I want to go over in this passage is ?The right direction is henceforth distinct from error?. This tells us(as opposed to modern atheistic philosophy) that there is a distinct line between right and wrong, that right and wrong are objective in nature and not subjective.

320. So if they dispute with thee, say 'I have surrendered my will to God, and whosoever follows me. And say to those who have been given the Book and to the common folk 'Have you surrendered?' If they have surrendered, they are right guided; but if they turn their backs, thine it is only to deliver the Message; and God sees His servants.?

• A Muslim has a duty to inform others of our beliefs to help guide them to God, however if they turn away our duty ends there, we are not to take on any other role besides that of a messenger. So basically the role of judge and/or punisher is not for us, we are to leave that to the All Knowing.

3158. What though ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered??

• This line is asking us the question, what does it matter if you are killed or die (of course assuming we believe and lead righteous lives)when upon our deaths our existence will be elevated to a far greater station. Many people hold it against God, or even try to show it as proof of his non-existence that some good people and even children die early. However, when you look at it from the perspective this line is suggesting then we see that our sorrow at the passing of an innocent or a loved one is mostly if not wholly, selfish. What we are truly morning is not that a loved one is dead, but that they are no longer in our lives for us to share experiences with, or to make our own experience of this life more enjoyable etc.

3182. God is never unjust unto His servants.

• Many people do not like the idea of belonging to a higher being, I think this is mainly due to pride. I think a good analogy is the relationship between a dog and it's owner. It is fine for a person to own a dog as long as that person treats the dog right, if the dog is beaten and abused by its owner most people can see the wrongness of these actions. It is the same with us, there is no wrong, or degradation to us having an owner/master as long as we are treated well. I can anticipate many people taking offence at being compared to a dog but in reality the relationship between dog and man and God and man is a flattery. A dog is much more important to its owner than a man is to God. A dog can inflict harm on man; which is to be respected, it can protect us, guard our property, herd our livestock, rescue us from danger, guide the blind, help us hunt for food etc. We can do none of that for God.

Any way I will stop here, I think my post is getting too long

Selam Taro

Very interesting thread.

<b>As for the thief, both male and female, you shall cut from their resources - as a penalty for what they have earned - to be made an example of from God. God is Noble, Wise.</b>

This verse doesn't mention cutting off of hands?

<b>If the interpretation of the above mentioned verses is correct, this suggests that chastity and good judgment goes hand in hand. And this would mean that a man/woman must maintain his/her chastity if he/she wants to possess the ability to what is judge right from wrong and what true from false. Therefore chastity seems to be of utmost importance in islam.</b>

You wrote this about Joseph, I had a slightly different interpretation of the passage. Joseph knew that if he gave into temptation then he would be of the ignorant. I thought it was because he would knowingly disobey God by having premarital sex. So the lesson I got for it is that the deliberate disobedience of God is ignorance(the wrong path).

@Timur, How do you know the proper place is the equinox?

@Taro, Even if it is as you say, the problem of no sunset remains.

@Good logic, having the option to feed someone to make up for breaking the fast doesn't change the fact that these people are missing "what is best" for them.

Peace all.

Selam bro.

<b>What I mean by keeping "will of God" out of the equation - is refraining from explicitly mentioning "will of God" in science discourse - I am not meaning forgetting God. God IS always part of the "real" equation - but for the purpose of science we choose to keep this implicit.</b>

I understand what you mean, I just disagree with it for a couple of reasons.

1. While this may be how you look at science, it is certainly not how the majority of modern scientists go about their business. God is not being kept implicit, and this is especially true in Darwinian evolution, God is being excluded.

2. I don't see how keeping God implicit serves science, I have asked you several times to enlighten me on this point.

<b>In study of climatology or astronomy - do we deliberately keep the words "by will of God / by law of God" implicit or not? If you find an honest answer to that you should understand what I am saying.</b>

I don't think you understand what modern science is mate.. The more accurate term is the "Natural sciences". It is the study of the natural world, what we can observe and measure, there is no room in it for the immaterial, the unobservable. Like I said before the will of God is not being kept implicit, it is being excluded. Every modern scientific theory attempts to explain our reality without resorting to the supernatural(God).

<b>The key words are the ones highlighted in red - "physically /mechanically involved". I believe God sustains us somewhat like we sustain our imagination - He is way above physically /mechanically getting involved in this creation.</b>

You are right, I misunderstood this since I took it for granted that we all agree God is immaterial. When you said physically/mechanically involved I thought you meant you didn't believe God was involved with the mechanics of creation. My apologies.

<b>Many christian creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. But in reality there is no evidence that supports this claim. Since this claim has no basis in reality, I think this claim is worthless. </b>

While I don't know if there is or is not evidence supporting the 6,000 year belief, their is certainly strong evidence that the current methods used for dating the age of the Earth are very flawed.

I agree with what you say about evolution vs creation.

I am glad to see you have chosen to take a more amicable tone. )

<b>LoL as much as you may ? this is what I believe ? God personally sustains the entire concept we call ?existence? and everything that happens on earth. Starting from each movement of atom to each supernova happens per God?s will. Flip of coin is not an exception.

If your idea of God is someone who selectively chooses to intervene in some ?important? events of our life and reluctant to the mundane ones ? then our conception of God is strikingly different.</b>

I agree He is the Sustainer. My idea of God in this context is "someone" who created the laws of the universe, so each atom in the universe obeys His law. I don't think He is telling each atom what to do at every moment. At the same time I have no doubt that He could do as you believe.

<i>754 - Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority) He draweth the night as a veil o'er the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession <b>He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command.</b> Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!</i>

God governs the law(s) and His creation obeys them.

The other problem is that if we were able to calculate the variables(weight and density of the die, density of the surface it is being rolled on, friction, wind, gravitational pull etc.) we could accurately predict how the die will land. This would mean that we know the mind of God, which is obviously unfathomable to us. But in reality we just have an understanding of His laws, not His self.

<b>Yes as soon as we put "the will of God" into the equation; not before that. For study of science and mathematics we usually take a deliberate choice not to put "the will of God" into the equation and adopt a materialistic perspective.</b>

Not really.

Firstly the will of God is always in the equation.

Secondly the laws of Mathematics and Physics are Gods law. God decided that 1+1 should equal 2 and it does, that doesn't mean He is causing 1+1 to equal 2 every time someone punches it into a calculator, the law is set, there is nothing anyone can do to break it.

<b>If understanding the varying perspective of ?randomness? is too abstract for you ? let me give you other examples ? per science day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth about its axis. But Qur?an says Allah turns the night into day and the day into night. While we believers wholeheartedly believe the later to be true ? we do not debate the claim of science because we agree that earth?s motion causes day and night - from a strict materialistic perspective. But we do know that's HOW it happens, not WHY it happens - we know it happens because of God?s will, but we keep this perspective implicit.</b>

Mate, something is either random or it isn't. If from your perspective something seems random then there is something wrong with your perspective.

Another way of saying <b>"per science day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth about its axis."</b> is "Day and night are determined by the laws of physics that govern the rotation of Earth".

Another way of saying <b>"Allah turns the night into day and the day into night."</b> is "Day and night are determined by the laws of physics that govern the rotation of Earth".

Can you explain how removing God from anything can make that thing better?

Also, we do know why something is happening, because that thing is subservient to Gods Law. We also know why God made the Law the way it is, because that is the best choice to make. I guess we just don't know why it is the best choice.

<b>According to the textbook and what they teacher says, it rains when cloud droplets grow and combine to become so large that their fall speed exceeds the updraft speed in the cloud, and they then fall out of the cloud ? this is possibly mechanically correct, but we have enough wisdom to understand that it happens per will of God. (implicit)</b>

If God doesn't exist science tells us how things work. If God does exist science tells us how God makes things work, there is no need to to separate God from the equation if you believe He exists.

So for this example you could say "According to scientists this is how God makes it rain" and then proceed to explain the stuff about the droplets etc.

<b>for all possible likelihood even in the more accurate mechanically correct version of ?origin of species? theory (be it ?the function creates the organ? theory or whatever) ?God?s will? is still going to remain as implicit.</b>

Agreed.

<b>In fact if a theory has God physically /mechanically involved in arranging DNA strands to create a life from ? I would absolutely protest that because that would portray God as a ?heavenly being? limited in time and space.</b>

How so? this seems to contradict your earlier statement "God personally sustains the entire concept we call ?existence? and everything that happens on earth. <b>Starting from each movement of atom to each supernova happens per God?s will."</b>

<b>God is not a being limited in time and space ? He is the originator of the heavens and the earth, time and space ? when He decrees a command He only asks it to be and it is. From a materialistic perspective sometime it looks like a random event ? sometimes it looks like application of Newton?s law of physics ? sometimes it looks like application of theory of relativity. From my theological perspective, nothing is random ? nothing is law driven ? everything is a manifestation of God?s will.</b>

It seems to me God has clearly chosen to manifest His will in the form of laws. It is easy to say "nothing is law driven", it is not so easy to actually live your life as if you truly believe it is so. Otherwise you should be incredibly surprised every time you drop something and it goes down instead of up.

Of course, God knows best.

Peace.

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now. )

Not saying this is the case with you but I think a lot of people see certain numbers because they look out for them.

For instance my favourite number is 86 for some reason, so I see it a lot, but I also see lots of other numbers everyday that don't stand out to me because they don't have a meaning to me.

Peace SoA

I don't think your point is valid..

While I agree with a lot of what you say, there are parts of the Koran which are falsifiable, I don't see why we should not apply the scientific method to those particular parts?

For example I can watch superman and accept he has supernatural powers, yet at the same time be critical of his ability to turn back time by reversing the rotation of the Earth because of our understanding of reality.

Sure he can stop a speeding train or bullet or leap the tallest buildings, if he is strong/fast enough, but changing the rotation of the earth will never reverse time.

While I agree we should not try to show that the Koran is the work of God because it contains "scientific miracles" I don't see why we cannot apply the scientific method to applicable parts to see if there is a flaw in it?

I mean, if the Koran says that mountains act as stabilising pegs yet geologists can demonstrate that mountains in fact destabilise the earth then there is a good indication the Koran is not the word of God.

If the Koran says all living creatures are made from water and biologists find a living being that isn't, again this is a good indication that it is not the word of God.. no?

I also see fasting as a challenge, and it does have proven health benefits when done right.

Yes it is harder to control your mood but that is part of the challenge. When you can control your emotions while you are hungry, controlling your emotions when you aren't becomes much easier.

It's kinda like how baseball players use an extra heavy bat to practice with so that the normal bat they use feels lighter to them.

However if it is affecting the health/safety of you or the people around you then it shouldn't be done imo.

<b>but I do understand there are two forms of negation in your sentence.</b>

Yes I see what is causing your confusion, never the less the question

Why is it incorrect to say "No one knows God"? is a valid one.

If I asked why is it not incorrect to say "No one knows God"? then there is a double negative. But even then the sentence still has meaning. If I said it that way it would produce a positive making the meaning why is it correct to say "no one knows God"

Like you said "In some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative sense; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation"

Anyway, if it will make you happy I will ask it in a different manner..

Why is saying "No one Knows Allah" more correct then saying "No one knows God"?... Please don't tell me you think because I said "no" twice in this sentence that there is a double negative.

From the wiki link you gave

Because of this ambiguity, double negatives are frequently employed when making back-handed compliments. <b>The phrase "Mr. Jones was not incompetent." will seldom mean "Mr. Jones was very competent"</b> since the speaker would have found a more flattering way to say so. Instead, some kind of problem is implied, though Mr. Jones possesses basic competence at his tasks.

<b>not about incorrect to say no one knows Allah. . . but it is correct to say no one knows Allah.</b>

lol, that's not how double negatives work mate, but I admire your confidence.

You said it is correct to say "No one knows Allah" but object to the statement "No one knows God"

Therefor you believe it is incorrect to say "no one knows God". There is no double negative.

<b>1. What is the alternative theory that can counter theory of evolution and be more consistent with Qur?an and simultaneously make sense.</b>

Why must there be a counter theory for evolution to be wrong?

<b>2. How and where Qur?an is contradicting the evolution theory.</b>

It depends which version of evolution you are talking about.

<b>One major alternative theory seems to be ?We don?t know?. </b>

"We don't know" is not a theory.

<b>Does Qur?an Contradict Evolution </b>

Again, it depends on which version of evolution you are talking about. Since God can do anything we could fit evolution theory into the Koran as long as the Koran doesn't specifically say "evolution is bs". You are trying to scientifically justify evolution while admitting that there is a being involved that is not bound by the laws of science and on top of that you claim you are too "unsmart" to understand the science anyway.

<b>Some of you proposed me scientific reasoning on why evolution cannot be true. For those ? if you know you have solid scientific and logical proofs to debunk established ideas ? please do go to science journals etc. and establish your point. Once you have done that I will be eagerly waiting in line to congratulate you ? but as long as you have not done that your propositions remain only as an individual?s opinion. </b>

As much as we are all desperate to impress you, what will your congratulations mean if by your own admission, you do not have the intellect to understand what is being discussed?

<b>Unfortunately I am not an expert in evolutionary biology so I am not in any position to accept or reject your scientific arguments. You are smart enough ? you can reject collective consensus of scientists ? good for you; sad for me - I am not as smart as you ? so I tend to rely on the collective consensus of scientists unless it contradicts my faith.</b>

I agree, this is very sad.

<b>Believe me I am really that unsmart - if, based on some new found data, the scientists today reach a consensus that the inside of the moon is indeed a giant marshmalow - I am really naive enough to believe them because it does not contradict my faith.</b>

No need to tell me twice, I am convinced.

<b>So, in this forum, I am sincerely not looking for scientific or mathematical arguments on why evolution cannot be true - save your research for your PhD thesis ? please bring me evidence from Qur?an.</b>

Given your attitude, I sincerely do not care what you are looking for, I will do what I like with my research and find your assumption that this thread is about you to anyone except you quite amusing. If I find something you say illogical I will point it out, feel free not to read or respond to my posts.

This is the topic
"I would like to know my the point of view of the members of this site on the subject of Evolution.

By Evolution I mean , Darwinian evolution, evolution by natural selection."

And that is what I have been discussing.

<b>What is the best example of a random event? Flip of a coin? Throwing a dice may be, right? Do I believe these events as random? Yes, I do.</b>

While these things seem random to us they are not truly random, our brains just cannot calculate all the variables, there is nothing truly random in our universe, at least not that we know. The closest thing is nuclear decay, but even that is not truly random since the rate of decay is always the same. I apologise for adding more science to the discussion.. but I think you will be glad to know that there is scientific consensus on this(except most scientists regard nuclear decay as actually random since they cannot predict which particular atom will decay at any given moment).

<b>But at the same time I know that when I flip a coin ? whether it would be head or tail is decided by God.</b>

If you mean that it is decided by the laws of physics that God created then sure, if you mean that you think God personally guides the coin or die every time someone flips/rolls it then lol.

<b>That is the fundamental difference between atheist and believer thought process. So, when an evolutionary biologist says life came out of inorganic matters as a random event ?

An Atheist would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order. Whereas
A Believer would understand life came out of inorganic matters without any definite plan or prearranged order other than will of God (implicit).
</b>

Is there a collective consensus of linguists who agree with this statement or is it your individual opinion on randomness? Can you support it using the Koran.. or a dictionary?

Also, soon as you put "the will of God" into the equation randomness is gone. Are you even reading what you write? What plan could be more definite than the will of God?

good luck to your kids with their test.