Peace.

My question is

Does "without pillars that you see" = "with pillars which you cannot see"?

If this is true, then this description is alluding to the skies/universes being held up like a canopy...This is not very "scientific" and cannot really be interpreted as a wise metaphor as if the Qur'an is really the word of God, it should explain science in simple terms, not science fiction in mystical terms.

confused

Peace.

I have read quite a lot of articles that present both sides those that defend and try to prove embryology in the Qur'an, and those that refute the claim.

Here is a pretty detailed website that goes through a book about "Qur'anic Embryology" point by point

http//embryologyinthequran.blogspot.ca/

Let me know your thoughts.

James

Peace Ayman.

I've never been very good with grammar and tenses. What do you believe 1823-24 is saying then? I tried to look up the word "shaa", but there are so many occurrences, and I can't really understand the differences in terms of what I was saying.

I think people may have missed my point, probably because I am also not the most eloquent individual. I guess it's more a question of God's interference/intervention or control over every aspect of our lives. If the future is already known to God, does that mean He knows what will happen, or that He will control what happens or doesn't happen? If a person puts in all his/her effort to accomplish a certain goal, does that even matter or make a difference if God does not will for that goal to be fulfilled?

It's a hard topic to articulate for me, but I feel like people use "God's will" as a cop out to evade responsibility quite often or they expect God to basically interfere in every minute detail of their lives. Maybe He does, I'm not sure, but I don't want to say things about God which make no sense.

Salam James,

Without any kind of hostility or derision, let me ask you this Why did you mention dictionaries in particular?

No hostility taken. )

I mentioned dictionaries because they seem like a good place to go to know the meaning of a word, especially one from another language. What other alternatives are there? I mean, I took French in school, and we learned the meanings of words and the grammar. I can only assume that these definitions are commonly accepted by French speakers and written down in dictionaries. My teachers never left us to guess what the meanings of the words were, and I hope they weren't just making things up as they went along.

Based on the common understanding of people on this forum, it would not be wise to rely on the testimonies of "muslim scholars" as to what a certain word or phrase means as they seem to have distorted much of what is in the Qur'an.

Peace Scrappy-doo.

I have started a few topics on this actually. It just is a topic that I feel applies to all of these threads, but I guess it is better to limit this to a discussion for those who are convinced of the Qur'an being the word of God.

I am still interested in what people think about the fasting period though. Right now I can see fasting mentioned as "a few days" during the "new/full moon". I am totally not getting the "complete the count" as being "fast ten days", but based on the root of shahr "full moon" seems to make more sense, even though the dictionaries seem to point to is being "new" or "being near full". The phrase "fast it" seems to be more accurate than "fast during it", in terms of translation.

I know this has been debated so many times, but I was wondering for some new thoughts or clarifications.

Peace all.

I'm having a bit of a hard time with understanding the Qur'an without referring to dictionaries. When anyone wants to learn a foreign language, they have to learn the meanings of words and grammar. This can only be done by referring to some sort of dictionary, not by trying to figure out a "logical" meaning based on the context , because the context itself will only be understood by the meanings of those foreign words...

We would do the same thing with any other foreign book, why not the Qur'an? I do not want to assume that it is the word of God because it appears to say so, and then believe that because of this the Qur'an must be unique in that a person doesn't have to understand the language, but rather depends on "logic" to figure out what it means. This seems paradoxical.

For so long I accepted that God sent scripture to guide mankind, but as the days go by and I talk more and more with people and reflect on the Bible and the Qur'an, their history, and what we have of them today, it seems strange that God would require us to learn ancient languages in order to live our lives properly and be redeemed. I'm not totally dismissing the possibility that I may just be confused and frustrated at my inability to comprehend the logic, and I would love to hear what other have to say, as they might be more intelligent than me.

God bless you all for your input.

James

Peace Wakas.

I think the link of verses you posted are regarding covering in terms of concealing or hiding, and not the same as covering/clothing. I do see what you mean though, clothing bones does carry a different meaning in the sense that it implies a "perfect fit" so to speak.

Perhaps, people can offer their thoughts on what verse 2314 is actually saying, with a breakdown of the different stages, and we can go from there?

Peace Scrappy-doo.

I'm not sure I follow the logic is saying that "It doesn't matter that the Qur'an is in Arabic. What matters is that God Almighty has given us the wherewithal to understand the message." and then post a verse about the Qur'an being an 'Arabic book.

The fact of the matter is, those whose mother tongue is not the same language as this book are required to seek out a translation that they "like" or "understand", or study 'Arabic enough to basically make their own translation. This leave a lot of room for misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and making things up as we go along, all the time assuming that the book is from the Lord.

How can someone believe a book is from God, if they can't even understand it's language?
Also, just because the book says it is from God, does that make it so?

Peace Farouk.

If we read 5/6 in context of 5/2-5 (the previous call to those who have believed), there is no way that a physical washing or cleansing would meet the need of 5/2-5 which is the establishment of masjid al-haraam. I see 5/6 as preparation of the self towards that project.

I'm sorry, I didn't really understand exactly what you meant. Could you perhaps elaborate? I'd appreciate it.

James

Peace Wakas.

I was hoping for a good discussion about this topic, but it seems as usual you just brush away anything that doesn't fit your understanding based on semantics.

Unfortunately your responses really make me feel like its not worth trying to discuss anything on this forum as you either shut people down for their questions or comments by saying they "have no proof" or you just post an article that either you wrote or agree with.

This will probably be my last post on this matter, and maybe any other matter.

Peace.

peace,

In all my studies of alleged errors in Quran, this was the strongest one. Although, after some research it's not that strong, but it is one of the reasonable ones.

I find it hard to understand how it is the strongest alleged error, but is not that strong.

We should try to look at things as objectively as possible. Given the words used in the Qur'an, it seems that is definitely referring to the development of the human being in stages.

Using the available "classical 'Arabic" dictionaries, it seems like there are not extreme variations in the interpretations/definitions of the words/grammar used in these repeated phrases.

• The best meaning of 'Alaq , in this context, seems to be - something that hangs or clings from or to something, which many people say refers to the embryo hanging from its umbilical cord.

Mudghatan, as far as I can see, can only carry the meaning of a lump of flesh.

'Ithaman = bones.

Fakasawna = to cover, wrap, dress, or to clothe.

LaHma = flesh

•

Now, as far as I can tell "khalaqna" in this verse is referring to creation as a process i.e. developing in stages. So each statement is a stage of development which leads to the next i.e. a sequence.

Below is a pretty detailed website on embryology with many pictures. It is one of many, but I thought it was a good example. It proves, to me at least, that pretty much all of the statements mentioned in the Qur'an in regards to embryology are not very accurate.

http//www.embryology.ch/anglais/iperiodembry/planmodperiod.html

In all of the literature I have read on embryology I have not found anything that can be accurately described as "a lump of flesh" turning into "bones", followed by the bones THEN being "covered with flesh". From the very early stages of the development of the embryo, muscles and bones form and develop simultaneously; the bones are always "covered in flesh".

Whether it is wrong or not will depend on the words "clothed" and "flesh". Note it does not simply say bones created then flesh created.

They may develop together, but when do the bones become clothed with flesh? and how developed is the "flesh" at this point?

Let us know what you find.

I do not think this is a matter of "how developed the flesh is at this point". That seems like a poor excuse to disregard the fact that bones and flesh are forming together, not independently.

I'd like to know what people think of the link and if they have read any books about embryology that state scientific facts.

Peace Jewishdude.

I'm not for or against rituals; I'm just trying to understand the logic in them if they are even mentioned as a "ritual", and I am trying to understand how the people who have such a problem with "ritual prayer" can be totally fine with washing and wiping parts of their bodies as a command from God.

Peace Ayman.

So the meaning in Lisaan al 'Arab is "when it is apparent and nearly full"? I thought there was solid proof that it means full moon, not "nearly full".

So far I have found "new moon" and "nearly full moon", but not "full moon". I don't mean to be argumentative, but I just want to see a straightforward definition of a word of phrase at this point. So many articles I come across seem to take meanings and then manipulate them to come to another, albeit similar, meaning that isn't specifically listed in the classical 'Arabic dictionaries.

I'm not sure if this is an honest approach to studying a book that is supposed to be clear. It seems that even the most knowledgeable 'Arabic speakers spends years, if not decades, trying to find this "clarity".

Peace.

Wakas - I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't find your response very encouraging. What I got from your message was that you don't understand how people like me have a certain mentality that is different from yours in the sense that I actually question if the Qur'an is the word of God. I feel that you might be someone who like many of us have been brought up in a household or culture that promotes the Qur'an as the word of God, and so you may never have even questioned that. I don't want to assume, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Supportpeacenotwar - I am sorry I didn't respond to your previous post; I thought I had, but I realize now it was in another thread I started.

Jewishdude - Thank you for your kind words.

Basically, I want to know if anyone has actually tried to look at the Qur'an without any preconceptions. I think that if you are born into a muslim family, this is almost impossible as the concept of the Qur'an being the word of God is so strongly instilled, it's hard to consider an alternative. I was born into a christian family and it took me years to even consider the possibility that the Bible might not be God's words. When I sat down and re-examined it with as open a mind as I could have, I found too many contradictions and unacceptable stories about the nature of God and His chosen people.

Has anyone here who was "born muslim" ever stopped to consider why they believe the Qur'an is the word of God with a sincere heart? It is my guess that the honest answer for most would only be "because my parents raised me to believe it was". Perhaps, people think they believe the Qur'an is the word of God, because of different reasons, but after realizing that the "islam" being practiced today by the majority of muslims is so backwards and pagan, maybe they weren't willing to deal with the fact that perhaps this book is not from God, and instead wanted to hold on to it by reinventing it to fit something that would be acceptable in their minds and hearts.

There are so many claims against the Qur'an. I have to admit that many of them are extremely weak and do not show a sincere examination, but rather a lack of knowledge regarding the 'Arabic language or just misunderstanding certain concepts. However, I have come across certain articles that show a striking similarity between stories in the Quran and the Talmud, Mishnah, and Apocryphal works of the New Testament that are centuries older than the Qur'an. Does it not seem strange that the oral teachings of the Jews written by various Rabbi's have stories that are not in their very own scripture (Torah), but yet can be found in the Qur'an? I personally found this surprising as I understood the Qur'an is supposed to confirm previous books of God, not words of men. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

Peace Wakas.

I honestly would say "what bond?"

I don't mean any insult or disrespect, but sometimes what makes perfect sense to you doesn't really mean anything to me. To the average reader "uphold the bond" is an extremely vague statement. If by "bond" you mean "remember God", should we not be doing that through out the day and not only as dawn and dusk, and why do we have to wash parts of our body before "upholding the bond"?

Just a side note
You are right we need to observe His methods all the time. So how can there be a fajr or any other fixed activity? there can't be one, its simple, check out the meaning of the respective words to find another meaning that best fits the quranic ayah.

The word that best fits the ayah meaning.

The quranic laws are not bonded to space and time , but to the activities/actions of men - to my knowledge.

This does not really answer my question. What does "salat" mean in 11114, 1778, 2458 in your opinion?

I don't mean to be rude, just wondering what your understanding of "salat" is according to these verses which seem to clearly indicate a specific time.

Peace 357.

Would you mind explaining how you came to "salat= following God's laws"? Are we not supposed to follow God's laws all the time and not just at "fajr" and "'isha"? I don't see how this meaning can fit in here since "salat" seems to be something observed only at specific times of the day.

Peace Wakas and mmKhan.

I have to respectfully disagree with both of you at this point.

Wakas I read the link you posted. I do not see how you came to the conclusion that "salat = reading the Qur'an". You started off by giving the dictionary definitions of the words, but then chose "reading/reflection" which are not given. Doesn't Qur'an mean reading, why have a different word to say read the Qur'an? It seems like your analysis of what is being talked of in sura 9 regarding the idolaters is quite biased. Why can't "salat" mean prayer in those verses? You pretty much said "it doesn't make sense"; that is not a reason. Could it not be saying that if the idolaters started praying (praying should be to/for God alone not matter what the method is) correctly? Why could that not be a possibility?

mmkhan "connection" doesn't really mean anything to me or an average reader. What connection?

I am not stuck on "salat = prayer", but the alternatives that have been presented so far do not make give a reader of the Qur'an a clearer definition of the word or what to do. I do not see how "salat" simply means "reading the reading"; if it did I would expect that God would have said that in clearer words, and the dictionary definitions do not seem to fit that interpretation, also the question about the Qur'an mentioning previous generations reading a book not in existence is totally illogical. Connection is definitely a more fitting definition as I can see that in dictionaries, but it seems a little loose and open to all kinds of interpretations.

Right not, here is what I can say I know "salat" involves It is to remember God at specific times of the day. Other than that, I am still studying to understand what it is exactly.

I appreciate the input as it helps to see what others understand.

Peace "justamuslim".

I see what you're saying. I've yet to do a thorough analysis of "salat" myself. I've read many articles and have studied it a bit over the past year, but cannot say that I have done a sufficient job.

As I see it right now, based on the different meanings of the root word I found in Lanes lexicon, the word "salat" may indeed have multiple meanings as one fixed meaning doesn't appear to fit every occurrence. Perhaps it means "prayer" in some verses, "blessings" in others, "support" in others, etc. In terms of the "salat" people are asked to "establish/maintain", I believe this meaning should be one specific meaning throughout those verses at least.

I was considering the idea of "salat" being a time to read/study the Qur'an, but that doesn't seem to fit with the previous generations we are told about who observed/established/maintained/upheld "salat". Although, I do see that there is a connection in 17110-111 about specific words/prayers from the Qur'an to "say". I could be just making a connection based on the word "wa" meaning "and". Perhaps these phrases are not connected as "wa" is used in so many verses.