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

[Voltage]

Were you taught how to make concise arguments? This is a forum, next time try to exercise what you learned in elementary composition and try to formulate a concise argument with a central comprehensive features for any one of your responses.

Secondly, I am not going to get into Western philosophy debate with you since this is not what the topic is about nor where I want to take the topic but my older argument stands. A person's personal qualities are a reflection of their values and values are the basis with which we interpret and judge truth, in other words values are our bias in the generality.This was my original premise and it is both central and a foundation of Western enlightenment. Whether your forte is philosophy or not (surprise surprise your state of atheism), this is not a debate on Western philosophy.

[Twisted_Logic]

Asalaamu alikum,

I'm of that opinion too, that the Qur'an is a HOLY book, and a book of worship, and it was send to guide man to worship Allah (swt). And we don't need science to verify the Qur'an or the existence of Allah (swt), I just find that to be more logical. Your just opening a whole load of worms when you start to get verses from the Qur'an that coincide with the findings of Science.

What do others think?

Am I wrong in thinking this way?

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.

The Qu'ran is a Holy Book, it is not a book of science. Sure, there are verses that talk about science, history and such, it is however, no substitute for it.

[Alphamander]

Were you taught how to make concise arguments? This is a forum, next time try to exercise what you learned in elementary composition and try to formulate a concise argument with a central comprehensive features for any one of your responses.

Secondly, I am not going to get into Western philosophy debate with you since this is not what the topic is about nor where I want to take the topic but my older argument stands. A person's personal qualities are a reflection of their values and values are the basis with which we interpret and judge truth, in other words values are our bias in the generality.This was my original premise and it is both central and a foundation of Western enlightenment. Whether your forte is philosophy or not (surprise surprise your state of atheism), this is not a debate on Western philosophy.

Our journey started with you inferring an UNRELATED conclusion out of UNDETERMINED premise, but you ignored when I pointed it out. You made the ASSUMPTION of me of being someone else, and offered NO reasons; then when I respectifully declared that I'm NOT who you think I'm, you made the ABSOLUTIST statement ''there is no question about that'' with the INVALID reasoning that knowing NOTHING about Islamic theology proves that I'm who you say I'm, then when I point out the FLAW in your reasoning which was, ironically, that I actually NEVER said anything about Islamic theology, you AGAIN ignored. You mispresented the Enlightenment principle on argument from authority and moral certainty in such way that made it sound as if it actually favoured Authority than the Cartesian method, I corrected you to that the Enlightenment declares the opposite of that; and then even fixed your misunderstandings of Surber-- then you demand a formulation of what you call ''comprehensive features'' in my responses? How convenient!

[AhlulbaytSoldier]

Sayyid Qutb,the one who rebelled against his ameer? May Allah safe us from fitna spiritual children of sayyid qutb

[Voltage]

Sayyid Qutb,the one who rebelled against his ameer? May Allah safe us from fitna spiritual children of sayyid qutb

We finally agree.

Hoowle, indeed now keep moving.

[Hoowle]

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.

Idiot! I'm not alphamender. You owe him (her?) an apology.

You're a mod or one of ur pals is a mod, ask him/her to do IP check and they'll confirm we're not the same.

Why would I pretend to be someone else when I was whooping your a.ss comfortably? Unlike you I have a life. I can't be glued to the PC screen 24/7 and when I do get a free time I prioritize. And frankly being on the PC is not where I'd rather spend my free time.

I just saw this thread right now and the link to the other thread. I will continue the a.ss whooping.

[RebelLion1]

Asalaamu alikum,

I'm of that opinion too, that the Qur'an is a HOLY book, and a book of worship, and it was send to guide man to worship Allah (swt). And we don't need science to verify the Qur'an or the existence of Allah (swt), I just find that to be more logical. Your just opening a whole load of worms when you start to get verses from the Qur'an that coincide with the findings of Science.

What do others think?

Am I wrong in thinking this way?

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.

The Qu'ran is a Holy Book, it is not a book of science. Sure, there are verses that talk about science, history and such, it is however, no substitute for it.

My point precisely.

[Ureysoo]

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.

well not nec. seperate them

anything thats been proven doesn't contradict with our faith

so it depends if we're talking theory or proven

Lol, Out of all what I read in this thread, lil Fah's comments makes a lot of sense. How can u lot separate religion and science?. This constant thought that "religious fundamentalism and liberal secularism" being at variance is wide off the mark, and the lines should be drawn precisely. We not obliged to adopt all the scientific theories, given that, a theory is based on limited info./assumptions and needs to be proven prior to adopting it fully. Hence, if I form my own theory and back it up with particular explanation are we forced to accept it?. All this fuss is caused because the 2-sides failed 2 understand each other, rather than being at a complete disagreement....

[Alphamander]

Why would I pretend to be someone else when I was whooping your a.ss comfortably? Unlike you I have a life. I can't be glued to the PC screen 24/7 and when I do get a free time I prioritize. And frankly being on the PC is not where I'd rather spend my free time.

He spends his entire day in here uttering nonsense and incoherent gibberish about things he understands ever so little about and then assumes everyone to be like him. Utterly stupid.

[ModerateMuslim]

voltage, you zindiq! i don't agree with any of your heresy; i make baraa from you and all of your heresy. but if you've abandoned your heretical views and are now willing to accept the muslimeen stand on this matter - then good for you, as it'll only benefit you. so if you now agree with what have posted then it means you've either changed your ways or you're the one with the reading comprehension problems. you stupid clown!

the problem with insecure muslims like you is, they neither understand islam nor science. they see science as the ultimate authority on when it comes to the truth; and this is flat out wrong and goes against the very essence of science itself. there absolutely no certainty in science! duh! for the believer, islam, on the other hand, is all about certainty and is unambiguously the truth!

but the likes of you want your beliefs to have scientific, rationale, logical legitimacy and that will simply never happen. that path only leads to deviancy and heresy. why do you zindiqs seek emaan through science/philosophy/theology, etc? why can't you zindiqs just simply accept the truth of deen al-isalm just the way the best of the companions, abu bakr (ra), accepted it, unless you claim to be better than him? can you zindiqs not accept islam without linking it to science/philosophy, etc? why is islam to you zindiqs illegitimate and unacceptable without being subjugated to greek manhaj? why can't you zindiqs not just accept a clear verse from the the book of allah swt without linking it to the hottest scientific theory and thereby riske distorting it?

for the life of me i'll never understand people who base something as paramount as their belief-system to something that's in constant flux and changes, e.g. science/philosophy!

modern science is based upon two theories that are inherently contradictory - quantum mechanic and relativity (gr). so which of the two will you zindiqs base your deen upon? lol or maybe one of the many new and exotic theories promising to unify the two into one magical theory that explains it all?

lol these zindiqs are plain stupid, i'm afraid. if we followed their heretical ways, for example, what would happen if we accept a verse from allah's book only because its similarity to the newest scientific theory but then that theory ends up being disproved? do we declare that verse to be false and reject it? and if we reject that verse do we also reject the book of allah's swt because he swt says that rejecting one verse = rejecting all of it? see where this evil manhaj leads to? this heresy of theirs isn't just stupid and (ironically) illogical and devoid of reason but also very dangerous.

[ModerateMuslim]

p.s. - voltage, since it seems like you're having some reading issues, let me again make this as clear as can.... we, the believers, utterly reject your heresy of science and the existence of allah swt, or the qur'an being the speech of the most high, being mutually inclusive. for a believer, the statement allah swt exist can never be negative, must always be positive! and islam is - and will always be - as true as it was when abu bakr as-siddiq (ra) accepted that it's the truth and the prophet saw was the messenger of the most high, i.e. when there's virtually no science. and we also reject your theological/philosophical approach to the deen of allah swt.

but when we the believers say that science can't be relied on to prove or disprove the existence of allah swt or the qur'an being from the speech of the most high it doesn't necessarily follow that we see the deen of allah swt and science being inherently incoherent and irresolvable. we do accept what science has to say when it comes to nature and its phenomenons. but when it comes to the speech of its creator allah swt we don't take on board what it has to say, positively or negatively.