The Qur’ān and Scientific Truth (Sayyid Qutb, ra)

[Voltage]

Hoowle, the only epic failure here is the fact you have been forced to resort to Alphamander and bold your writing to as a mask rather than respond to that Islam and science topic. If your inability to respond to that forced you to cover your tail, it is the mystery of the world why that fear does not translate into recognizing the power of God instead of mere contributors on a forum.

On your response, there is nothing to respond to here. Sayid Qutb was neither a scholar nor recognized as such by Islamic historians and scholars. He was merely a political activist who was affected by the decadence of America and the Egyptian state response to his political activism. He is not an Islamic scholar and never was recognized as such.

[Muhammad bin Harti]

The Quran teaches about science. It mentions the formations of clouds, the individuality of fingerprints, and the relationships of salt and fresh water bodies. This is 1000 years before your beloved Benjamin Franklin and other "scientist" knew their left hand from their right hand.

You f-king dumb americans.

[Voltage]

that's exactly the problem. take for example the seven layers of heaven mentioned in the book of allah swt - they have nothing to do with the earth's atmosphere as the deviants claim. this a major deviance as they've lied upon allah's speech.

the deviants only want to accept the deen through reason and logic - and with the limitation of science, not to mention human comprehension abilities - that will never happen. so these people embrace a deviant creed that goes against the book of allah swt and the sunnah of the prophet saw.

Where is your fear emanating from and yes if I must be honest, it is fear. You know I think you might be more shacky in your religious foundation than Hoowle/Alphamander and to be honest I am not surprised, you have jumped to activism without even understanding or learning what you are fighting for. It is like an anti-abortion activist going crazy bombing locations and stuff without really understanding why abortion is harmful. The only thing he has is a sense of "understanding" it is against Christian teaching.

That's the predicament you are in and I will not be surprised if I ever hear you have left Islam, although I do not wish that future on you.

The fact of the matter is, science, rationality, knowledge of the world, etc are part and parcel of Islam. Again Islam is a complete way of life unlike Judaism/Christianity, etc which are mere religions. The Qur'an unlike the Bible is not just a "Holy Book". You are absolutely incorrect. The Qur'an is more broad than spirituality and the relationship between Man and his Lord. Qur'an is a constitution, and indictment of the way we must live our world. It is both theological as well as scientific and administrative. This is what I mean when I say you are more activist than scholarly and your inability to comprehend such base understanding of what you profess shows me atleast your ignorance and even vulnerability in this manner.

The prophet said his proof and miracle is the Qur'an and within the Qur'an God says time and time again "his signs are everywhere". Scientific proofs within the Qur'an are the signs God is talking about. Science is not only the development of the rocket, science is the advancement of knowledge, the gathering of knowledge and anything in the Qur'an with respect to this is both a proof and a sign that strengthens and defends this deen.

[RebelLion1]

I'm of this opinion now as well, simply because scientific theories are never 100% correct and can be found to be wrong, in that case, are we gonna conveniently reinterpret another verse in the quran just to coincide with a new theory? I think it's best to separate the two, religion and science.

anything thats been proven doesn't contradict with our faith

so it depends if we're talking theory or proven

Most theories are never one 100% proven especially when it comes to theoritical physics, there are countless research done to disprove them and as scientific knowledge develops,they could be disproved.

Big bang theory is still a theory, what if 10 years down the line, it's shown to be incorrect, do we then reinterpret the quran? My point isn't the quran has no scientific basis, scientific laws at the end of the day are created by allah. But we have to be a little careful when we start mixing science and religion, at the risk of making a mockery of both.

[Voltage]

Put on your critical thinking caps people. You are stressing against things no one stressed.

[Alphamander]

Hoowle, the only epic failure here is the fact you have been forced to resort to Alphamander and bold your writing to as a mask rather than respond to that Islam and science topic. If your inability to respond to that forced you to cover your tail, it is the mystery of the world why that fear does not translate into recognizing the power of God instead of mere contributors on a forum.

Again, devoid of logic. I'm NOT Hoowle. Undetermined premises, wrong conclusions, false assumptions... how many times do you have to fail before you realise that you have AT ALL failed?

On your response, there is nothing to respond to here. Sayid Qutb was neither a scholar nor recognized as such by Islamic historians and scholars. He was merely a political activist who was affected by the decadence of America and the Egyptian state response to his political activism. He is not an Islamic scholar and never was recognized as such.

As someone who endeavours to reconcile faith and science, you should have known that the truth or the falsity of claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant; AND for something to be ''scholarly'' doesn't has to be written by a ''scholar''. Go to the local library and pick a basic book on logic instead of making fool of yourself in this forum for indefinite times a day.

[ModerateMuslim]

loool activism?

voltage, stop talking shid and fear allah swt. you've lost the plot, you dumbass.

It is both theological as well as scientific and administrative.

the only thing worth responding to.

since you've dismissed what sayyid qutb - may allah swt accept among the shuhada - had to say on this matter because you don't consider him to be a "scholar", if you're really a sunni - which i doubt - then i'll post what the four imams of ahl us sunnah wal jamah had to say about your corrupt creed and methodology.

Imam Malik said:

“Whoever seeks the religion through Kalâm becomes a Zindiq! And whoever seeks money [through alchemy] becomes bankrupt. And whoever seeks the strange narrations becomes a liar!”

Malik used to say also:

“Kalâm concerning the religion I hate. And the people of our land (i.e. Madinah al-Munawwarah) have not ceased to detest it and to prohibit from it, like the idle speech founded in the opinion of Jahm and al-Qadar and everything that resembles that. And speech (kalâm) is not liked, except when it has action under it. So as for speech (kalâm) concerning the religion of Allah and concerning Allah ,the Mighty and Majestic, then silence is beloved to me. For I have seen the people of our country prohibiting from speech concerning the Religion, except that which has action under it.”

From Hammad b. Abi Hanifah its related:

“My father, may Allah have mercy upon him, entered upon me one day and with me were a group from the Ashab al-Kalâm, and we were arguing at a door. So when I heard him approaching the house, I went out to him. So he said to me: ‘O Hammad, who is with you?’ I said: ‘So and so, and so and so, such and such, and such and such’, and I named to him those who were with me. Then he said to me: ‘O Hammad, leave alone Kalâm.’ He said: ‘And my father was not a man who mixed things up, nor was he from amongst those people who commanded something, then prohibited it.’ So I said to him: `O father, did you not used to command me with it?’ He said: ‘Yes, O son of mine, and today I prohibit you from it.’ I said: ‘And why is that?’ So he said, ‘O my son, verily these retarded ones are from the people of Kalâm, from amongst those who you will see that they used to be upon one word and one religion, until Satan came between them. So now you find amongst them enmity and differing, so be upon clarity’”

Imam al-Shafi’i’s famous statement:

““My judgment with respect to the partisans of Kalâm is that they be smitten with fresh leafless palm branches, that they be paraded among the communities and tribes, and that it be proclaimed: “This is the punishment of him who has deserted the Book and the Sunna, and taken up Kalâm!

Imam al-Shafi’i said also:

“My judgement concerning them is the judgement of ‘Umar upon Subaygh!

Imam Ahmad said during the Mihna:

“I am not a person of argumentation or Kalâm. I am only a person of narrations and reports.”

[ModerateMuslim]

let me make this as clear as i can - science isn't a part of our emaan!!! no muslim should seek emaan from it.

you don't want to be like this deviant and say stuff like this.....

.....all the scientific facts in the Qur'an are proof of the existence of God.

---i person who's of an opinion like this, has deviated greatly from deen al-islam. and allah's refuge is sought from such statement and others like it.

[Voltage]

There is no question about it, you are Hoowle.

Also, your ignorance on Islamic theology and traditions is showing through. Islam is not akin to a person without an electrical engineering degree writing a book or starting a website on an electrical engineering subject. For you to make such a ludicrous assertion shows why I did not take you seriously before and am not taking you seriously now as well. You are simply a child and childish in thinking.

But the really ironic thing is you a follower of European enlightenment not understanding base principles that founded and kept it rooted. You said:

As someone who endeavours to reconcile faith and science, you should have known that the truth or the falsity of claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant;

Truth has everything to do with the qualities and bias of the claimant. That was a founding principle of European enlightenment. The whole revolt against the Church and older tradition during enlightenment was based on the qualities and bias of the Church and all the other thinkers prior who were influenced by those qualities and bias. Have you studied hermeneutics? Have you ever read Surber? One's relationship to and bias either within or against whatever knowledge is being discussed is in fact the biggest judgment within any body of knowledge, in this case truth. Of this Surber said "this raises up a rather complex set of questions regarding the position of the critic with respect to the cultural formations that she or he is addressing". Such questions dealt with inquiries such as whether one is looking at the trtuh from outside or within (are you a Muslim contesting an Islamic argument or non-Muslim contesting an Islamic argument), how is that viewpoint factored in (is the Muslim looking from sectarian perspective or the non-Muslim looking from Christian perspective), and is unwitting bias being reproduced that you originally set out to dispel (is the Sunni Muslim looking from sectarian perspective criticizing Shiaism on matters even Sunnism is vulnerable to or the Christian attacking Islam for qualities Christianity is vulnerable to), etc etc etc. So in fact by your own chosen philosophy, Western post-enlightenment philosophy, it is indeed so that the "truth" is directly related to the qualities, bias, and judgment of the claimant. It is why there is such an emphasis on "source", and established "fore-projections". Ignorant even in what you espouse are you not?

[Voltage]

let me make this as clear as i can - science isn't a part of our emaan!!! no muslim should seek emaan from it.

you don't want to be like this deviant and say stuff like this.....

.....all the scientific facts in the Qur'an are proof of the existence of God.

---i person who's of an opinion like this, has deviated greatly from deen al-islam. and allah's refuge is sought from such statement and others like it.

What a dramatic charlatan. I think the misunderstanding here is the fact you seem confused about the term "science". Before I progress, please explain to me your definition and the context in which you use "science" with respect to Islam.

I am just looking for your personal opinion.

[ModerateMuslim]

voltage el dumbo, just keep silent and you'll avoid insha'allah from further incriminating yourself with more kufriyat talk. truly silence is golden in your case. .(-:

[Voltage]

If I needed a certificate of denial or affirmation with respect to my state of Islam identity, I would have testified to your powers and not Allah (swt) so you either answer the question or take your ignorance-based drama elsewhere.

Please explain to me your definition and the context in which you use "science" with respect to Islam.

[ModerateMuslim]

there's not a single verse in allah's book that we accept because it's in agreement with science/reason/logic/theology.

and science plays no role whatever in our emaan in allah swt.


but science and all wonderments of the universe are one of the many signs that islam is the truth and that we're upon the truth - although the battle of badr should be more than sufficient for the believer.

“We shall show them Our signs across all horizons and within themselves, until they
clearly see that this [revelation] is the truth.” (41: 53)

[Voltage]

there's not a single verse in allah's book that we accept because it's in agreement with science/reason/logic/theology.

and science plays no role whatever in our emaan in allah swt.


but science and all wonderments of the universe are one of the many signs that islam is the truth and that we're upon the truth - although the battle of badr should be more than sufficient for the believer.

“We shall show them Our signs across all horizons and within themselves, until they
clearly see that this [revelation] is the truth.” (41: 53)

Go back to everything I have said please and see if we disagree. It is apparent now you have two fundamental problems:

1. Reading comprehension.

2. Buufis.

[Alphamander]

There is no question about it, you are Hoowle.

WRONG! ONCE more you demonstrated how ignorant you are YET proud and coercive of it.

Also, your ignorance on Islamic theology and traditions is showing through.

WRONG! I said almost NOTHING about Islamic theology, so, bogus, that alone shows you are making things up. Why don't you come up with a better story for your baseless assumptions?

Islam is not akin to a person without an electrical engineering degree writing a book or starting a website on an electrical engineering subject. For you to make such a ludicrous assertion shows why I did not take you seriously before and am not taking you seriously now as well.

WRONG! Never said it; or did you not comprehend what I actually said? Or perhaps are you just typing for the sake of it?

You are simply a child and childish in thinking.

Well, that is an irony. You make almost unrelated conclusions out of undetermined premises; I show them, and you utter gibberish. You make an assumption without any basis; I point it out, then you type gibberish. Now, you even goes to accuse me of being IGNORANT of things I said NOTHING about. That, my little friend, is childish.

But the really ironic thing is you a follower of European enlightenment not understanding base principles that founded and kept it rooted.

WRONG! How do you know that I'm a follower of European Enlightenment? ANOTHER one of your INDEFINITE number of assuptions.

As someone who endeavours to reconcile faith and science, you should have known that the truth or the falsity of claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant;



Truth has everything to do with the qualities and bias of the claimant.

No, it doesn't. When person makes a claim, the claim is either true or false, provided that we are not talking about the Continuum Hypothesis. Now, if a person presents an argument, the argument SHOULD neither be accepted nor denied on the basis of the personal qualities of the claimant. Simple logic. Go with vain and futile hope and try to disprove it.

That was a founding principle of European enlightenment. The whole revolt against the Church and older tradition during enlightenment was based on the qualities and bias of the Church and all the other thinkers prior who were influenced by those qualities and bias.

WRONG! The founding principle of European Enlightement was questioning that argumentum ad verecundiam, as such which the Church claimed, and moral certainty were not the way to arrive at the truth. They were followers of Descrates principles of human knowledge which one starts with a simple axiom and doubts all things then uses the sieve of logic and reason until arriving at point of the sought truth. In Cartesian philosophy, one DOESN'T judge the falsity or the truth of a claim under the mirror of one's qualifities. That is exactly the OPPOSITE of the whole point of enlightment. Now, I demanded the reason you never even attempted to comment on what the original poster said but rather bluntly rebuffed it without even attempting to say something about it. Your answer was that the guy who wrote it was not an scholar but a politician. AND that is exactly the argument from AUTHORITY of which the enlightenment was against and won against.

Have you studied hermeneutics? Have you ever read Surber? One's relationship to and bias either within or against whatever knowledge is being discussed is in fact the biggest judgment within any body of knowledge, in this case truth. Of this Surber said "this raises up a rather complex set of questions regarding the position of the critic with respect to the cultural formations that she or he is addressing". So in fact by your own chosen philosophy, Western post-enlightenment philosophy. It is indeed so that the "truth" is directly related to the qualities, bias, and judgment of the claimant. It is why there is such an emphasis on "source", and established "fore-projections". Ignorant even in what you espouse are you not?

WRONG! Surber's point was that the legitimacy and coherence of the VALUE distinction must be questioned. One's needs and interests are a determining factor in the choice of facts considered in any study. Thus, a value judgment typically lies behind one's selection of RELEVANT facts. That DOESN'T mean the truth or the falsity of the claim is necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant. It means propositions are socially embedded and must be understood CONTEXTUALLY. How exactly is this helping you AT ALL?