Question Has Bunglawala disbelieved? [Archive]

asharee_salafi

3rd July 2008, 08:51 PM

I agree, people like him would shave their skins off to be whiter than white. But the concept of evolution is not in and of itself problematic, so long as we do not claim that Adam came from apes. But the problem with Darwinism is more than just the evolution theory. It is all about reinterpreting the origin of man in particular to question the religious version of human history, and thereby championing the secularist cause.

Nice one Abuz Zubair, please go to living room, and see my piece on evolution and why I accept it, or at least the possibility of it.

Small point, yes NEO DARWINISM is a tool of the secularists, but you haveve to understand that evolution had no religous connotations initially, and it is rather the naturalistic viewpoint as propgated by secularism which is anti God. Neo darwnism is a whole different kettle of fish to evolution.

I quite like evoultion theory and think it makes sense to accept it, I cant see it contradicting any Islamic faith, if it does, then I guess we have to stop beleiving in combustion theory because of Ibraheem AS not being burned by the fire! What idot would reject it on those grounds. People have to understand science is different to religion. They deal wwith different issues.

If we say Islaam says such and such about a scientific issue then we are saying tha Islam makes scienific hypothesis, and hence refutable statements ( pls google kark popper and refutability). Because scientific statements are mostly refutable.

Why don't yous ee the science and religion debate, how many Muslim are involved? Or how many Muslims are invited? Hardly any. Because Muslims are seen as simplistic followers of he creatinist Harun Yahya.

Although Usama Hasan, has good knowledge of these issues.

Logic lover

3rd July 2008, 08:57 PM

asharee_salafi

3rd July 2008, 09:06 PM

Quote from the Guardian article -
Mr Banglawala:

‘’You appear to insist that the theory of evolution denies the existence of a creator. That is simply not true. Science is utterly agnostic on the God question and cannot adjudicate one way or the other. It is appropriate for us as believers to discover how God created the universe around us and I personally have found it a truly wondrous experience.’’

Now, let us see how Mr Banglawala discovers or agrees with those who discover the truth or falsehood about life:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

If the theory of evolution is not kufr, please explain why not in the light of the above definition. So, who is our common ancestor? Adam as or 'the first living cell'?

Logic lover...I have already answered here and Ihave answered in the living room.

Evolution is not that simple. There are some amazing books you can by from waterstone son the topics. It will leave you in awe.

Are you saying its kufr because you think that it says Adam AS has a ape-like father? If you think evolution states this about Adam AS then you are wrong. What was before Adam Alayhisalaam? Who is to say that there were no beings on earth almost the same as Adam AS?

Science doesnt deal with divine miracles and historical events. It just deals with repeatable, testable, observable phenomena.

As for saying that science says nothing about God's existence. Thats true. Science says nothing at all about God. To say that science does is saying that God is prone to a scientific hypothesis and by neccesity refitable, because science is refutable. Please google Karl Popper and falsification.

asharee_salafi

3rd July 2008, 09:11 PM

I just read parts of that link.....VERY INTERESTING, I think bunglawala has a point here.

Why is it that they deem that evrything has natural causes but that of man? See it comes down to them mixing science with religion, thinking that religous narratives contradict scientific ones and thus thinking Adam AS inception the world is being put into danger via evolution.

Bunglawala, despite being an asswipe has a good point.

Logic lover

3rd July 2008, 09:23 PM

Does the thory of evolution assume that everything descended from the 'first living cell' which came into being by chance?

asharee_salafi

3rd July 2008, 09:41 PM

Does the thory of evolution assume that everything descended from the 'first living cell' which came into being by chance?

no. evolution doesnt say that at all. neo darwinsists ay it all came by chance. this view is unscientificand has no basis. besides all depends onw hat someone means by chance.

Abu Ikrimah

3rd July 2008, 09:53 PM

Who is to say that there were no beings on earth almost the same as Adam AS?

I think Islam is quite clear on this that there was not.

Science doesnt deal with divine miracles and historical events. It just deals with repeatable, testable, observable phenomena.

Yes, but its also subject to fraud and deception.

Logic lover

3rd July 2008, 09:56 PM

I will have to come back to you on your answer. But, for now what do you understand by 'Darwin's theory of evolution'?

asharee_salafi

3rd July 2008, 09:58 PM

I will have to come back to you on your answer. But, for now what do you understand by 'Darwin's theory of evolution'?

i dont think i could give a break down with my limite dknowledge, pls go wiki or waterstones, BUT, i do know it says nothing about Islaam or any religion. Hey did u know, many Muslims had already known evolution before darwin? its true! :)

Logic lover

4th July 2008, 09:02 AM

i dont think i could give a break down with my limite dknowledge, pls go wiki or waterstones, BUT, i do know it says nothing about Islaam or any religion. Hey did u know, many Muslims had already known evolution before darwin? its true! :)

The theory does not need to state anything about Islam or religion. One has to look how it contradicts with Islam to find out one's postion regarding it.

The thread is about Banglawala supporting the Darwin's theory of evolution. It is commonly understood by the scientific circles that Darwin's theory leads the science to accept the notion that everything evolved from a single cell, which most likely came into being by chance.

That is kufr according to the fundamenatals of Islam. It is contradictory to Tawheed Ar-Rububiyya. Once cannot support this theory of evolution (by implication these days, it means the Darwin's theory of evolultion) with a qualified statement that 'God made the ball roll'. This would imply that Allah initially created the single cell and then left the creation to sustain itself by evolving through 'natural selection', not that which is selected and decreed by Allah.

If you do not have much knowledge about the Dawin's theory of evolution, it is better for you to refrain from stating 'Banglawala has a good point', when you should have read his statement supporting the Darwin's theory. You should not also state that the matter of evolution is not simplistic to understand, so as to give impression that the matter of Rububiyya is not for laymen to delve into.

Allah knows best.

asharee_salafi

4th July 2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by asharee_salafi
Who is to say that there were no beings on earth almost the same as Adam AS?

I think Islam is quite clear on this that there was not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asharee_salafi
Science doesnt deal with divine miracles and historical events. It just deals with repeatable, testable, observable phenomena.

Yes, but its also subject to fraud and deception.

Forgive my quoting your texts if its comes out wrong. Ihave problems with my ID.

Abu Ikrimah, you say that Islaam is 'quite clear' that there were no beings on earth before Adam AS, by this I take it you mean no beings similar to Adam AS.

1. You say Islaam is 'quite clear' on this issue. Please give me the clear evidence that states that no beings similar to Adam AS existed before Allah divinely put Adam on earth.

2. Do you understand my points so far? Whether beings existed before Adam, has no bearing on the Islamic aqeedah, but if you say that Islaam has scientific stances, then you are putting Islaam in the real of emperical testing and thus doubt.

3. Do you believe that if the Qu'ran doesn't say anything about an issue, then that issue does not exist? If so what about Quantum indeterminism, Dinosaurs, the laws of thermodynamics...I think you get the point ;)

As for your second point. Yes science is subject to fraud and deception, but the actual method is pure. Some scientists may be corrupt. But how does this pove anything? Arent there tricksters amonst Muslims too? Besides frauds are always caught out in the end thats why we have scientific councils and bodies to regulate science itself.

How this proves anything is beyond me. :)

asharee_salafi

4th July 2008, 06:56 PM

Hopefully I will answer your points and take you away from evangelical creationism and away from the ranks who don't believe in the scientific method. Before I proceed, are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or are you arguing to get a better understanding of the issue? I ask because I have answered your points before hand and you continue with the rhetoric, why?

I don't blame you in a way, evangelical creationism as well as secularism has clouded the judgement of many, including Muslims.

The theory does not need to state anything about Islam or religion. One has to look how it contradicts with Islam to find out one's postion regarding it..

Yes. So how do beings existing before Adam AS contradict any Islamic text?

The thread is about Banglawala supporting the Darwin's theory of evolution. It is commonly understood by the scientific circles that Darwin's theory leads the science to accept the notion that everything evolved from a single cell, which most likely came into being by chance. ..

No one says that the initial single cell came into being by chance, only the neo darwinists. If you follow this topic, many are divided and many are coming to the view that it was not done by chance at all. There was a famous debate between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins on this. Whereby Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged that it is the laws of nature that bring about the initial beginnings of life and thus there could be life elsewhere within the universe, he beleives that life is a consequence of the universe which in turn obeys laws. Where as Richard Dawkins says that the initial 'single cell' was formed by chance, but many neo dawrinists question this view and they are in loss.

What you don't know is that evolutionists as opposed to neo darwinists/naturalists( who on a whole are not scientists like Sam Haris, Danial Dennet) dont say much about this initial period because its hard to come to testable scientific hypothesis on these issues since evolution took place billions of years ago, and secondly many, as has already been stated, have said that evolution is a property of the universe and not a fluke event.

As for chance, then again, we have to understand what you mean by chance. When someone says XYZ is done by chance, then what they mean is that they do not know the outcome of the variables. Who said that that was kufr? Just because you dont know the outcome of events?

Of course nothing happens by chance as Allah is all knowing all seeing, but to US things may happen by chance. So thats why when scientists talk of chance, they can't always say in brackets 'but its not chance to God' because science just doesnt say anything about God.

That is kufr according to the fundamenatals of Islam. It is contradictory to Tawheed Ar-Rububiyya. Once cannot support this theory of evolution (by implication these days, it means the Darwin's theory of evolultion) with a qualified statement that 'God made the ball roll'. This would imply that Allah initially created the single cell and then left the creation to sustain itself by evolving through 'natural selection', not that which is selected and decreed by Allah.

You make brash unqualified statements, both in Islaam and in science. Firstly many scientists are trying to work out how natural selection causes life. Its a big topic! Secondly, you make a mistake that even the pagan arabs did not make!

By your implication then, if I said that a cup of tea left in a room and it cools down, and I say ' it is obeying the law of thermodynamics' would you say 'you are a kafir!' ? If I told you how a cloud forms, what you say ' you are a kafir!' ?.

See Akhi, secondary causes do not nullify primary causes, when Allah says he sends down rain from the skies, even the pagan arabs knew that this doesnt mean Allah had to be in the clouds for they knew very well that just because you see a cloud giving rain doesnt contardict the fact that Allah sent the rain.

If you do not have much knowledge about the Dawin's theory of evolution, it is better for you to refrain from stating 'Banglawala has a good point', when you should have read his statement supporting the Darwin's theory.

Again, more hot air with no subtance. Who said that Darwins theory was wrong to believe in? And furthermore he did have a good point!, when he asked Adnan Oktar why he would deny a natural cause of humans on earth while on the other hand accepting that the universe had a natural beginning!
Bunglawala is a shaytaan who spoke the truth in this specific regard.

Its not about me not having knowledge on it. You clearly dont either as you dont understand what science is. :)

Neither of us should go into such topics, we have evolutionairy biologists who deal with such recourse.

You should not also state that the matter of evolution is not simplistic to understand, so as to give impression that the matter of Rububiyya is not for laymen to delve into.

Allah knows best.

Evolution is easy to understand for some, and very hard for others logic lover ;) Some find it hard to understand what science is.

As for rububiyya, then I never said this is not for laymen to delve into. rather you are bringing topics here and there which have nothing much to do with the discussion.

Allah knows best.

Logic lover

4th July 2008, 10:00 PM

asharee_salafi

5th July 2008, 05:21 PM

Ashari Salafi wrote:

''Of course nothing happens by chance as Allah is all knowing all seeing, but to US things may happen by chance.''

So, is it wrong to believe that things happen by chance (natural selection) if nothing happens by chance?

What is chance to me is not chance to God.

I go to my locla supermarket and I see logic lover, ' Oh hi logic lover! By chance I have seen you today!' . I have used a metahpor, of course that doesnt mean that Allah did not decree it.

Again, who said natural selection is based on chance, many saying that evolution is a result of a law in the universe, not chance.

You may want to read about Quantum Mechanics and chance and see how chance plays a role in it.

Again, chance to you, is not chance to Allah.

Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari

5th July 2008, 06:56 PM

Does the thory of evolution assume that everything descended from the 'first living cell' which came into being by chance?

It's a theory of origin of species.

Evolution is broader, it includes legit scientific changes within species that occur from generation to generation.

"First living cell" and any "science" of "origin" is more or less modern Western idiocy of atheistic worshipping of science (scientism) and has nothing to do with science and truth in general.

Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari

5th July 2008, 07:00 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/01/evolution.islam

For those who heard his name for the first time:

He is media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain.

asharee_salafi

5th July 2008, 07:43 PM

It's a theory of origin of species.

Evolution is broader, it includes legit scientific changes within species that occur from generation to generation.

"First living cell" and any "science" of "origin" is more or less modern Western idiocy of atheistic worshipping of science (scientism) and has nothing to do with science and truth in general.

Yes, it was karl popper who said evolution was metaphysics, how can you test past events?! the more further back in time you go the more speculation there is.

Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari

5th July 2008, 08:02 PM

I skimmed through the responses of Harun Yahya in the reference that was originally posted and I did not find any references to ID, or any other form of "scientific" counterbalance to evolution (which is good for him).

The problem is that he is making a mistake of playing on their (wrong) turf, assuming that fossile or any other records can prove anything.

The only correct approach of refuting "origin of..." theories is by stating that they are unscientific, thus moving them from "scientific" angle to philosophical angle.

We should not have to fall into a mistake of giving them a "scientific" bone.

All the evolutionists are charlatans and abuses of public resources.

Logic lover

5th July 2008, 09:37 PM

Abu Ikrimah

5th July 2008, 09:59 PM

* Do you understand my points so far? Whether beings existed before Adam, has no bearing on the Islamic aqeedah, but if you say that Islaam has scientific stances, then you are putting Islaam in the real of emperical testing and thus doubt.

* Do you believe that if the Qu'ran doesn't say anything about an issue, then that issue does not exist? If so what about Quantum indeterminism, Dinosaurs, the laws of thermodynamics...I think you get the point ;)

As for your second point. Yes science is subject to fraud and deception, but the actual method is pure. Some scientists may be corrupt. But how does this pove anything? Arent there tricksters amonst Muslims too? Besides frauds are always caught out in the end thats why we have scientific councils and bodies to regulate science itself.

How this proves anything is beyond me. :)

Assalamu Alaykum

1) I have no problem in subjecting the scientific facts that the Quran and Sunnah has to the field of empirical testing at all. In fact the Quran in all its qualities is an open challenge to mankind - so we welcome scrutiny :-)

Having said that - consider this. We know from the Quran that the sun 'swims in an orbit' - now it has only been 20 years or so that western scientists have discovered by means of looking at the 'spots' on the sun that this is in fact the case. Therefore, if this fact was put to empirical scrutiny say 50 years ago then it would have seemingly contradicted science. The point is that scientific theory is certainly not a judge of anything, and I think that Harun Yahya has done a brilliant job in proving that Evolution is theory at best.

2) I believe that if the Quran is silent on an issue then it may or may not exist. For example Dinosaurs, there is no mention, but we have scientific facts, so there is no contradiction in believing the science because our first point of reference was the Quran anyway. Plus it was not contradicted.

3) I will bring you the evidence that there was no human being on earth before Adam, inshallah.

Wassalam

Abu Abdallah al-Bulghari

6th July 2008, 04:58 AM

Brother Bulghari -

I am glad you have mentioned that the 'first cell' concept is part of the 'Origin of Species', which is Darwinism, supported by Banglawala.

So, is it right to say that this concept of Darwinism constitute kufr as it will nullify the story of the creation of human beings?

That part I am not qualified to answer. Darwinism certainly has nothing to do both with Islam and science. It's falsehood.

I know some people are trying to combine Creation of Man by Allah and Darwinism. The starting point is wrong, because they assume that Darwinism is scientific. They know that Islam and science can never contradict each other, that is why the ill-fated effort.

asharee_salafi

6th July 2008, 05:51 PM

Assalamu Alaykum

1) I have no problem in subjecting the scientific facts that the Quran and Sunnah has to the field of empirical testing at all. In fact the Quran in all its qualities is an open challenge to mankind - so we welcome scrutiny :-)

The open challenge is to produce a surah like it...I'm sorry, whats this got to do with our topic at hand?
Again, if you subject scientific facts, then you are saying ISlam is making scientific statements and hence Islaam is refutable. Did you read the stuff from Karl Popper?

Having said that - consider this. We know from the Quran that the sun 'swims in an orbit' - now it has only been 20 years or so that western scientists have discovered by means of looking at the 'spots' on the sun that this is in fact the case.

Akhi, it has not been 20 years since they realised the sun is in an orbit!!

As for the Sun swimming in an orbit, what does this mean? are you giving a tafsir via sure knowledge or something you read from maurica baucille, in fact everyone knows the sun swims in an orbit, as we see ity going through the sky...but who is to say the actual celestial mechanisms are being described here?!

http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=370&main_cat_id=31

Please read the above, if Allah says the sun is moving, then who says that this is rfering to the celestial mechanics. Brother, the Qu'ran is not a scientific textbook and never has been, stop trying to use sciences of different fields and fit them in the Qu'ran.

Therefore, if this fact was put to empirical scrutiny say 50 years ago then it would have seemingly contradicted science.

It hasnt proven anything and you have missed the point of the ayat. Who says the ayat was referig to celestial mechanics and not what we see in the sky?

The point is that scientific theory is certainly not a judge of anything and I think that Harun Yahya has done a brilliant job in proving that Evolution is theory at best.

Eh? Who said that it was not a scientific theory?! Besides brother, I hope your not one of those ' its only a theory' cretaionists.

Its only a theory that electrons exist, but if I zap you with a cattle prodder you may say otherwise!! Theories have different degrees of certainty. And 'if its only a theoy' then why creationist evangelicals, try to say the big bang is in the Qu'ran, surely thats a theory to, right?

2) I believe that if the Quran is silent on an issue then it may or may not exist. For example Dinosaurs, there is no mention, but we have scientific facts, so there is no contradiction in believing the science because our first point of reference was the Quran anyway. Plus it was not contradicted.

Right. So whats your beef with evolution?

3) I will bring you the evidence that there was no human being on earth before Adam, inshallah.

Wassalam

Looking forward to it! Before you do, pls dont give me a hadeeth and give me your explanantion on it. The question is: so what if there were beings on earth before Adam AS?

Abu Ikrimah

6th July 2008, 06:07 PM

If you subject scientific facts, then you are saying ISlam is making scientific statements and hence Islaam is refutable.

That is completely illogical bro! Are you therefore saying that there are NO scientific facts in the Quran and sunnah?

I would say there are many - such as the hadeeth of the stages of a foetus is the womb. Is that hadeeth only correct because it agrees with modern science, or, have Muslims always believed in it?

Looking forward to it! Before you do, pls dont give me a hadeeth and give me your explanantion on it. The question is: so what if there were beings on earth before Adam AS?

OK
1) What would constitute proof then?

2) If NO classical Muslim historian has ever stated that there were people on earth before Adam, I do think it is rather bold of you to think otherwise... I mean, is it just the Darwinists who have 'proved' to you that there was life, or, do you have ANY Muslim source (non modernist)

asharee_salafi

6th July 2008, 06:19 PM

That is completely illogical bro! Are you therefore saying that there are NO scientific facts in the Quran and sunnah?

I would say there are many - such as the hadeeth of the stages of a foetus is the womb. Is that hadeeth only correct because it agrees with modern science, or, have Muslims always believed in it?)

I am saying there are things which could be regarded as prophecies proving Islaam. But tha is ONE example, but that dons mean ISlaam adopts on every scientific fact we know.

Anyways, how often can science lead to facts? Hardly ever I would say.

OK
1) What would constitute proof then?

2) If NO classical Muslim historian has ever stated that there were people on earth before Adam, I do think it is rather bold of you to think otherwise... I mean, is it just the Darwinists who have 'proved' to you that there was life, or, do you have ANY Muslim source (non modernist)

1. Proof would be a hadeeth/ayat that says that no being existed before Adam AS

2. As for classical Muslim historians, then some did say that beings existed before Adam AS! Anyways, so what if they didn't? Its matter if scientifc enquiry, how would they have access to the techniques we have today. They also didn talk of dinosaurs, would say its bold ofpeople to beleive in such things without any Muslim classical scholar saying it?

As for darwinim proiving life befoire Adam AS. This is not the issue that is being discussed here, the issue it: what the big deal is if there was? :)

Abu Ikrimah

7th July 2008, 09:17 AM

But tha is ONE example, but that dons mean ISlaam adopts on every scientific fact we know.

Agreed. But that is hardly the same as saying that there are none in the Quran and the Sunnah and that if there were it would be subject to refutation and therefore Islam would be proved false (as you said).

As for classical Muslim historians, then some did say that beings existed before Adam AS!

Agreed. But did any of them say that Human beings specifically existed? That is the crux of my question.

Liberator

7th July 2008, 12:38 PM

I think the problem is that a lot of what people and 'scientists' pass off as evolution is a mixture of scientific fact and fiction.

There are certain parts of evolution that are plausible. There are other parts that are outright fantasy.

The theory of natural selection is plausible as it considers that the species that is more adapted to the environment will survive and flourish where as the less adapted will die. The example of the light and dark coloured moths in industrialised UK cities springs to mind.

Theres nothing in that that contradicts islam.

There are however other parts that are much more sinister. The evolution from one species to a totally new one for example. The discussion on punctuated equilibrium is really quite farcical. That a species would have to have undergone a sudden mutation of such magnitude, that it would transform from one species to another is nonsense. It is science fantasy and is something that is pushed intentionally to deny any intelligent being (ie a creator) behind the creation of living beings.

Remember, evolution is to forerunner of dialectic materialism which is the basis of atheist beliefs and ideologies.
Many people associate evolution with atheism and anti-religiousness.

For this reason, what benefit does it bring for bunglawala discuss and accept this belief? If he was to prove his view right, what tangible result does it bring?

I can see an adverse affect of him engaging in this dialogue and promoting these views and that is to show to people that islam is subject to the same challenges and limitations as christianity and judaism is. Evolution was referred to as 'universal acid' because it burned through every belief and custom christian europe held dear. Evolution has been used as a battering ram to break down the gates of religion and let in the false idols of secularism.

For this reason, i believe that bunglawala's short sightedness in promoting this view is doing more harm than good.

asharee_salafi

21st July 2008, 08:53 PM

Assalaam 'alaykum.

Akhi.......werent u meant to bring me some daleel for what was being discussed huh? LOL....I await that hadeeth you promised! ;) lol

Abu Ikrimah

17th August 2008, 07:28 PM

Its proving harder than I thought...

Assalaam 'alaykum.

Akhi.......werent u meant to bring me some daleel for what was being discussed huh? LOL....I await that hadeeth you promised! ;) lol

asharee_salafi

18th August 2008, 05:02 PM

AS WR WB

Looking back on my posts I had so many typos. Forgive me. If theres any clarification you need, let me know.

I think one point I didn't articulate clearly was that whether a Muslim historian said there were beings before Adam AS is not a matter of religous enquiry but a scientific one which in no way contradicts aqeedah.

The problem is if we say islaam says such and such on evolution, we will get in a rut. If you say Islaam denies evolution, then that is a scientific hypothesis and hence refutable and hence Islaam would be refutable and vice versa (Google Karl Popper and scientific falsification).

Its better to say Islaam says nothing upon the issue. the same goes for the big bang...the big bang theory is going through changes ( and soon very radical changes). if we give dawah to uncertain phenomena and then back this up with uncertain ayat we could be embarrased in teh future. Already in the west we are looked down upon by the scientific-religous debate circles. I think Usama hasan is the only one to I know who understand these issues in some depth...he's very intellectual mashaAllah.

Abu Ikrimah

22nd August 2008, 11:51 AM

I think Usama hasan is the only one to I know who understand these issues in some depth...he's very intellectual mashaAllah.

You're not serious, are you? :D

Anyway - jazak Allahu khayran for the post and there is no need to apologise for anything.

I'll keep searching, inshallah, and in the meantime I'd like to hear more of your and other peoples valuable comments.

asharee_salafi

26th August 2008, 03:39 PM

AS WR WB

Hehe, yeah Usama Hasan...I know the irony of it all....but he's part of a few 'Muslims' ( some cast doubt on his Emaan) who deal with such issues.

Logic lover

12th September 2008, 05:07 PM

AS WR WB

Hehe, yeah Usama Hasan...I know the irony of it all....but he's part of a few 'Muslims' ( some cast doubt on his Emaan) who deal with such issues.

I and many do not doubt his Iman, we are certain that he has apostated. Read the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary?commentpage=2

''Another objection that is sometimes posed is the following: doesn't evolution denigrate and insult all humans, but especially the prophets of God, by insisting that we all originate from apes? I reply that the theory doesn't insult anyone, but does remind us of the humble origins of our created form. This is nothing new or blasphemous, since numerous Qur'anic verses remind us that we are all created from "dust" via sexual discharges: "despised drops of water". Those verses clearly do not insult the prophets.'' Unquote.

So, is Usama Hasan apparently endorsing the notion that we have descended from the Apes, still your nominated person to deal the issues like Darwinism and theory of evolution?

Read the following thread please:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=15983

asharee_salafi

12th September 2008, 07:22 PM

I and many do not doubt his Iman, we are certain that he has apostated. Read the following:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary?commentpage=2

''Another objection that is sometimes posed is the following: doesn't evolution denigrate and insult all humans, but especially the prophets of God, by insisting that we all originate from apes? I reply that the theory doesn't insult anyone, but does remind us of the humble origins of our created form. This is nothing new or blasphemous, since numerous Qur'anic verses remind us that we are all created from "dust" via sexual discharges: "despised drops of water". Those verses clearly do not insult the prophets.'' Unquote.

So, is Usama Hasan apparently endorsing the notion that we have descended from the Apes, still your nominated person to deal the issues like Darwinism and theory of evolution?

Read the following thread please:

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=15983

know he's not my nominated person! lol

he is just some muslim(or ex muslim or what ever u call it) who did deal with these issues. who's your alternative, please state.

again, nothing wrog with evolution, macro or otherwise. Adam AS and his coming to earth was a miracle. I am convinced we are upon the blueprint of apes.

Logic lover

12th September 2008, 11:39 PM

know he's not my nominated person! lol

he is just some muslim(or ex muslim or what ever u call it) who did deal with these issues. who's your alternative, please state.

again, nothing wrog with evolution, macro or otherwise. Adam AS and his coming to earth was a miracle. I am convinced we are upon the blueprint of apes.

Please elaborate upon your statement ' we are upon the blueprint of Apes'.

JazakAllah.

asharee_salafi

13th September 2008, 04:30 PM

Please elaborate upon your statement ' we are upon the blueprint of Apes'.

JazakAllah.

We beleive that Adam AS was similar to human/human like species before he came to earth. He was almost exactly like his counterparts. Allah put him on earth to father our race. I was a miracle event outside the realm of science.

Logic lover

13th September 2008, 05:14 PM

We beleive that Adam AS was similar to human/human like species before he came to earth. He was almost exactly like his counterparts. Allah put him on earth to father our race. I was a miracle event outside the realm of science.

That would imply that either Adam as was not the first human being or he was the descendant of human like species (in your understanding may be 'on the blueprint of Apes'). Who were his counterparts? Where is your textual evidence for your claim please?

JazakAllah.

asharee_salafi

14th September 2008, 06:58 PM

That would imply that either Adam as was not the first human being or he was the descendant of human like species (in your understanding may be 'on the blueprint of Apes'). Who were his counterparts? Where is your textual evidence for your claim please?

JazakAllah.

Whats wrong with Adam being a descendant in terms of Allah placing him on earth to be the father of mankind? Have you actually read the thread at hand? LOL...I dont think you read a word of it!

As for the textual evidences, LOL. Again read my thread, is there any textual evidence to say that mars exists? If Not why not? (heres a hint! The Qu'ran is not a scientific textbook detailing the cosmos layout and the various species found on earth of biological beings ;) ) clicking?

Logic lover

15th September 2008, 10:11 AM

Abdullah ibn Adam

15th September 2008, 11:33 AM

The word "khalifah" - referring to Adam - only has two meanings according to the mufassirun:

[1] One group says that it is an abstract reference to generations following generations on the earth. I.e. Adam and then his children, grandchildren and so on.

[2] The other group says that it means that mankind is responsible for implementing Allah's Laws on the earth.

Logic lover

15th September 2008, 01:06 PM

None of those explanations suggests that Adam as succeded from the Apes or was on the 'Ape's blueprint'.

Abdullah ibn Adam

15th September 2008, 01:17 PM

Exactly.

Some Muslims who pursue a similar line of thinking to brother Ashari-Salafi on this issue do so because they are "embarrassed" (sometimes rightly so) at the efforts of some Muslims to try and prove creationism or disprove evolution.

However, they should consider that perhaps it is not creationism itself that is wrong, but the way that some people have misunderstood it.

I believe that while the "Muslim evolutionists" are trying to steer clear of what they view as embarrassing attempts to defend creationism, they are at the same time falling into an equally erroneous position: a certain degree of blind taqlid of western secular evolutionist scientists regarding their (i.e. the scientists') (mis)interpretation of the physical evidence based on their own athiestic and non-religious assumptions.

It might be an eye-opener for Muslims to seriously look into some of the research and conclusions made by Christian creationists in the west who come from a scientific background. While some of their conclusions are undoubtedly tainted by their particular religious bias, however in general they are far more in accordance with Islamic belief regarding world history as defined in the Qur'an and the Sunnah than the problematic assumptions of the secular evolutionist scientists.

asharee_salafi

15th September 2008, 03:04 PM

I am sorry but I have not understood your statement 'we are upon the blueprint of the Apes'. How does it relate to Adam as being the first human being created from dust (rather than descending from another species)?

LL,

1. Have you read the thread again. Yes or no?

2. Do you understand that the term 'descend' can mean many things. If you mean Adam having a father, then no. But if you mean descend, in relation to Adam AS being almost exactly the same as prior human or hominiod beings, then yes. Its very simple.

3. Tell me, does the Qu'ran say anything about the existence of mars or pluto? A simple yes and no, and then an explanantion please.

4. Do you know what the difference between a miracle event and a scientific event is? A simple yes or no.

5. Do you understand that the Qu'ran is not abook about species. It does not deal with insect life or variations in human being morphology? A simple yes or no.

6. Do you understand that the Qu'ran is not a book detailing scientific hypothesis, thus it does not detail make refutable hypothesis. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

I await the 6 yes or no questions please.

Brother_Mujahid

15th September 2008, 03:14 PM

It might be an eye-opener for Muslims to seriously look into some of the research and conclusions made by Christian creationists in the west who come from a scientific background.

As someone who was raised in the environment I can tell you: stay away from the Christian creationists. They have no scientific background and have not an intellectual leg to stand on. They think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and other such things that have long since been proven false by geology and other scientific fields. We do ourselves no favors getting involved with those people, but would only give more fuel to people like Richard Dawkins.

asharee_salafi

15th September 2008, 03:15 PM

Exactly.

Some Muslims who pursue a similar line of thinking to brother Ashari-Salafi on this issue do so because they are "embarrassed" (sometimes rightly so) at the efforts of some Muslims to try and prove creationism or disprove evolution..

Dear Brother, Have you read the thread with the accompanying articles?? Yes or no

.
However, they should consider that perhaps it is not creationism itself that is wrong, but the way that some people have misunderstood it..

Brother, please do a cursory examination of what creationism is. If you are a creatinist, you cannot be Muslim. Because a creationist,though having varying definitions, evangelical christians trying to reconcile biblical text with scientific theory. Are you an evangelical christian?

.
I believe that while the "Muslim evolutionists" are trying to steer clear of what they view as embarrassing attempts to defend creationism, they are at the same time falling into an equally erroneous position: a certain degree of blind taqlid of western secular evolutionist scientists regarding their (i.e. the scientists') (mis)interpretation of the physical evidence based on their own athiestic and non-religious assumptions..

Actually, it is the 'creationists' Muslims who have an inferiority complex with the religion and thus feel a need to scientifically prove their religion is from God.

It might be an eye-opener for Muslims to seriously look into some of the research and conclusions made by Christian creationists in the west who come from a scientific background. While some of their conclusions are undoubtedly tainted by their particular religious bias, however in general they are far more in accordance with Islamic belief regarding world history as defined in the Qur'an and the Sunnah than the problematic assumptions of the secular evolutionist scientists.

LOL. Sorry to laugh at this bit of text. Christian creationists belive the world is 6000 years old and that the dinosaurs only recently died out! Don't believe me? Please do some basic research! I would rather follow people knowledgable about evolution and life then a christian creationist!

The problem lies with harun yahya conspiracy theoriests who think that their is a sinister game being played by 99% of the world's scientists.

You use the phrase 'secular evolutionist'. Well...errr even the creatinists are secular. Secularism does not imply atheism and this is what you have to realise. Roughly 40% of scientists beleive in a God of organised religion and they definitely do not view evolution the same sense you do.

Logic lover

15th September 2008, 05:40 PM

LL,

1. Have you read the thread again. Yes or no?

2. Do you understand that the term 'descend' can mean many things. If you mean Adam having a father, then no. But if you mean descend, in relation to Adam AS being almost exactly the same as prior human or hominiod beings, then yes. Its very simple.

3. Tell me, does the Qu'ran say anything about the existence of mars or pluto? A simple yes and no, and then an explanantion please.

4. Do you know what the difference between a miracle event and a scientific event is? A simple yes or no.

5. Do you understand that the Qu'ran is not abook about species. It does not deal with insect life or variations in human being morphology? A simple yes or no.

6. Do you understand that the Qu'ran is not a book detailing scientific hypothesis, thus it does not detail make refutable hypothesis. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

I await the 6 yes or no questions please.

Answer to q1: Yes

2: Yes I do

3: No

4: Yes

5: Yes and

6: Yes

asharee_salafi

15th September 2008, 06:17 PM

so LL, whats the prob?!

Logic lover

15th September 2008, 10:23 PM

Abul Hasan

16th September 2008, 12:22 AM

We beleive that Adam AS was similar to human/human like species before he came to earth. He was almost exactly like his counterparts. Allah put him on earth to father our race. I was a miracle event outside the realm of science.

Until proven to me otherwise, that statement should start off by 'I (i.e. you) believe', because that is certainly not what I believe.

Adeel

16th September 2008, 12:52 AM

We all agree that Quran is not the book of science but signs! Even then how it cannot contain scientific facts?!

Adeel

16th September 2008, 12:55 AM

Adam was the first human whom Allah created with His Two Hands.
Asharee Salafi can you be simple on what you mean?!

Magoo

16th September 2008, 06:17 AM

we have tawheed, we have the quran, why concern ourselves about the rest of this stuff?

Logic lover

16th September 2008, 09:15 AM

we have tawheed, we have the quran, why concern ourselves about the rest of this stuff?

Good point. But, look around and see how certain people big and small are making statements concerning the creation of our father.

Abdullah ibn Adam

16th September 2008, 10:05 AM

As someone who was raised in the environment I can tell you: stay away from the Christian creationists. They have no scientific background and have not an intellectual leg to stand on. They think that the universe is only 6,000 years old and other such things that have long since been proven false by geology and other scientific fields.

It is true that not everything the Christian creationists claim is true. And not all of them agree on everything.

However, as Muslims there are some points we should realise:

First of all, the idea that the human race (not the universe) is only 6000-7000 years old is - if you investigate carefully - fully supported by the information provided in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as being strongly indicated by what is known of civilisational history. However the scientists claim that humans have existed for 2 million years, a claim which is very problematic in many ways, not least of which is the question of why is the current population of the earth inconsistent with even the most miniscule rate of population growth over 2 million years. And many of the claims put forward regarding alleged millions of years-year-old discoveries found in layers under the ground can be given a number of alternative explanations that are in accordance with the Islamic, Christian and Jewish belief regarding the flood of Nuh ('alayhis-salam) and the massive inundations and drownings that would have resulted from it. (The scientists don't accept the story of the flood of course, therefore they have to look for other more "scientific" and "logical" explanations.)

Secondly, the six days of creation (i.e. the time it took from the beginning of creation until the creation of Adam) according to a number of 'ulama, such as Imam Ahmad, Imam Ibn Jarir and others, were not 6 24-hour days, but 6 long periods of 1000 years or more. So to believe in what they call "old-earth creationism" is by no means un-Islamic.

These are only two issues, and there are many many more that could be addressed but for the lack of time and resources at the moment.

And as for these things supposedly being "unscientific", we would do well to remember that the same "scientists" to whom you are referring also happen to deny the following as "unscientific":

[1] Nuh's flood.
[2] The issue of the animals being on the ark in pairs, and then spreading out again.
[3] Yunus being swallowed by the whale. They claim that a whale could not swallow him for three days and nights, because it's throat is not wide enough to be able to do so.
[4] The splitting of the moon.

and many other things. Are we to follow their "scientific expertise" on these things too? If so, then why not just join the quilliam foundation.

We do ourselves no favors getting involved with those people, but would only give more fuel to people like Richard Dawkins.

No, I disagree. If the Christian creationists can come to conclusions that are in accordance with what we have in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then it tends to confirm the truth of what we have. In fact, I have noticed that if anything, in a number of cases the Qur'an and Sunnah actually confirm some of their findings even more than their own Bible does.

And if Richard Dawkins and his ilk don't like it, then Islamically there is perhaps nothing to say to them except for "mootoo bi-ghaydhikum" and "umsus badhr al-Laat".

Try explaining to Dawkins or any of those other human shayatin that the Qur'an states that Nuh ('alayhis-salam) lived for 950 years. This alone would be sufficient as "fuel" for them in their propaganda war against us.

I certainly believe that there is plenty of evidence - both textual and empirical - to support creationism, but of course a creationism in agreement with Islamic sources rather than a particular biased Christian worldview. But Muslims have unfortunately not yet stepped up to the task; most of them prefer to accept the theories and opinions of secular atheistic scientists without even questioning the very basis of those theories and opinions.

It is vitally important for Muslims to really look into what our Qur'an and the Sunnah actually tell us about history, and the implications that a truly Islamic look at history has on the validity of the "official" version that is trumpeted by the European atheists and secularists and accepted blindly by many Muslims whether wittingly or unwittingly.

In my opinion, Harun Yahya has done an admirable job in questioning the official scientific worldview, but I believe that he just got stuck half-way. He disbelieves the scientists when it comes to evolution, but unfortunately he believes them when it comes to other of their conclusions which although he thinks they are unrelated to evolution, are indirectly based on the assumption of the correctness of evolution.

Abdullah ibn Adam

16th September 2008, 11:16 AM

Brother, please do a cursory examination of what creationism is. If you are a creatinist, you cannot be Muslim. Because a creationist,though having varying definitions, evangelical christians trying to reconcile biblical text with scientific theory. Are you an evangelical christian?

Allah forbid that I would be an evangelical christian. However, despite its distortions, the Bible - where it agrees with or does not contradict the Qur'an - is acceptable as supporting evidence.

I am proud to define myself a Muslim creationist. That is, I believe in what is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an and authentic ahadith about the fact that Allah created the universe in six "days" (however they may be defined), about the creation of Adam, about the Qur'anic/Sunnah account of the history of the world - which the scientists deny and scoff at as being "unscientific.

I think you are out of line in claiming that a creationist can't be a Muslim! If by creationism you mean christian evangelical creationism, then of course I don't agree with everything they say. However this does not mean that we reject everything they say just to be different from them. Truth should be accepted and taken from whoever presents it to you. Why is it wrong for one Muslim to accept the findings or conclusions of an evangelical christian creationist when those findings/conclusions agree with what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, but right for another Muslim to follow the scientific dogma of atheist, secularist enemies of religion even if it conflicts with what is clearly stated in the Qur'an and Sunnah???

LOL. Sorry to laugh at this bit of text. Christian creationists belive the world is 6000 years old and that the dinosaurs only recently died out! Don't believe me? Please do some basic research! I would rather follow people knowledgable about evolution and life then a christian creationist!

It is not that irrational to believe that the dinosaurs only recently died out. There have been several cases of animals which had been thought by scientists to have been extinct for millions of years, only to be "discovered" again in the 20th century! Humans have always had stories and legends about dragons and other giant reptiles. If dinosaurs had really all died out millions of years before humans appeared on earth, then where did these stories come from? Even today, reports still persist of these creatures being seen in isolated areas of jungle etc. So they are probably more of an "endangered species" than "extinct", and Allah knows better.

As for your advice that I do a bit of basic research, then thank you for the advice but I might inform you that I was once upon a time taken in 100% by the "official" scientific view on these issues, and heavily interested in them since a very early age - an age at which few other people are even interested in knowing about such things, in fact - and it actually took me quite some time, even after I accepted Islam around a decade ago, to "de-program" myself from a lot of what I later realised was nothing but brainwashing. It was only after a long period of research in various fields that I came to the conclusions that I hold now. I was extremely reluctant at the beginning to even consider the possibility of accepting a lot of the "creationist" views which I now hold.

So thank you for your advice; however I would give you the same advice along with a suggestion to "think outside the bubble", so to speak.

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 04:09 PM

How does it prove that Adam (as) was upon the blueprint of the Apes in the light of the textual evidence suggesting contrary?

Forgive my ignorance and just point out the reason even if you think that the answer has already been given.

I am saying that there is a possibility, that human beings of a different variety, who descended from apes. And then Allah put Adam on earth, which was a miracle event. Now whether these beings existed or not, is not a religous issue. Religion doesn't affirm or disaffirm whether these beings existed, it is mater of scientific enquiry.

As for saying Adam being the blueprint of apes. Let me rephrase. We are all upon the bluepirnt of apes, in terms of we share similar characteristics. This is a fact. Apes share similar characteristics as us...whats wrong with this?

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 04:10 PM

Until proven to me otherwise, that statement should start off by 'I (i.e. you) believe', because that is certainly not what I believe.

We meaning, those who do not follow evangelical christian thought.

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 04:16 PM

We all agree that Quran is not the book of science but signs! Even then how it cannot contain scientific facts?!

Adeel. If you read the thread you wouldn't ask this. There are no such thing as 'scientific facts' just varying degrees of certainty.

Science is based on refutation. I make a hypthosis that the universe is static. This is a hypothesis that is refutable. And indeed, scientists have foudn out that the universe does expand. So hence I am refuted, but even this opinion can change. It could be the case that only some parts of the universe are expanding or parts of the universe are expanding at faster rates then others. Heck, it could even be an optical illusion!

Now if you say the Qu'ran a religous text book but contains scientific 'facts'. Then you are stating:

A) The Qu'ran makes FALSIFIABLE scientific statements, after all, 'its only a theory!'

B) You are making our religion probe to scientific testing. Some scientis can say ' You Holy Book says that everything praises him, but when we study the sun, it gives of heat waves, not praises of God'. So if you made teh religion scientifically testable, then don't be surprised if Islaam is proven false to you, via emperical means.

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 04:17 PM

Adam was the first human whom Allah created with His Two Hands.
Asharee Salafi can you be simple on what you mean?!

Yes Allah created Adam AS with his own two Hands. Ok, so? Why doe sthis mean that when Adam AS wa sput on earth, the earth was empty, devoid of any biological life? Why do you think this?

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 04:24 PM

we have tawheed, we have the quran, why concern ourselves about the rest of this stuff?

LOL...and thus reverts are leaving our religion because they are clever enough to realise the LAUGHABLE FARCE of scientific miracles and cuting a fruit in half and saying' Oh look, we have the name of Allah in here!' , we are an embarrassment to intellectual circles in the west, we fail to have any independant study on this issue but rather parrot evangelical's to the liard hole, many of our so called scholars are a joke who think that the sun literally goes round the sun and fail to understand an iota of scientific thought...but hey ' why concern ourselves about the rest of this stuff' lol.

I suppose we should take get doctors out of medical schools, get Muslims out of astronomy and physics lessons, etc after all 'why concern ourselves about the rest of this stuff'

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 04:26 PM

Good point. But, look around and see how certain people big and small are making statements concerning the creation of our father.

Well, 'making statements' about our father? Your logic is self contradictory when you yourself make them. Who says that making statements about the biological species before the time of our Father is classed as 'making statements', why is 'making statements' wrong?

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 04:54 PM

It is true that not everything the Christian creationists claim is true. And not all of them agree on everything.

However, as Muslims there are some points we should realise:

First of all, the idea that the human race (not the universe) is only 6000-7000 years old is - if you investigate carefully - fully supported by the information provided in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as being strongly indicated by what is known of civilisational history.

.

Well. I think that you are off your rocker to think that the Qu'ran stipulates how old the earth is. Sorry, where did you obtain this fabrication from? As for 6000-7000 years, okay brother, if you want to believe in superstition, thats fine. But dont ever say that Islaam says the universe is such and such years old. Because Islaam doesn't give us this information rather, this is the job of scientists. If you say Islaam says the humans have been on earth 6000-7000 years, and then this is disproven. YOU HAVE DISPROVEN ISLAM. Besides, your claim is false.

However the scientists claim that humans have existed for 2 million years, a claim which is very problematic in many ways, not least of which is the question of why is the current population of the earth inconsistent with even the most miniscule rate of population growth over 2 million years.

Scientists differ but either way, its a matter of scientific enquiry, not an Islamic issue. Gosh, when you reverted, did you think the Qu'ran was a book of timelines detailing biological phenomena?!

And many of the claims put forward regarding alleged millions of years-year-old discoveries found in layers under the ground can be given a number of alternative explanations that are in accordance with the Islamic, Christian and Jewish belief regarding the flood of Nuh ('alayhis-salam) and the massive inundations and drownings that would have resulted from it. (The scientists don't accept the story of the flood of course, therefore they have to look for other more "scientific" and "logical" explanations.)

And you embarass yourself further. Who said the flood of Nuh AS was all over the world? Again, here you go, following christianity!

As for scientists accepting whether this flood existed or not. They simply do affirm or disaffirm whether this existed because this is NOT a scientific issue. Oh brother! I wish you'd read more then Harun Yahya!

Secondly, the six days of creation (i.e. the time it took from the beginning of creation until the creation of Adam) according to a number of 'ulama, such as Imam Ahmad, Imam Ibn Jarir and others, were not 6 24-hour days, but 6 long periods of 1000 years or more.

Sorry, since when did every statement from Imam Ahmad become a shariah for us to believe in? If thats what Imam Ahmed believed, then he was definitely of the mark ! And wrong! ( like 13.7 billion years off the mark lol)

Yes 6 days can refer to 6 periods. But there is no Islamic text to say how long these were. Furthemore, we must understand that even if if it was intervals of a thousand years ( it is not and a sheer joke to think that) then what is a 1000 years before earth was made and it went round a sun to make a year after 365 days?

So to believe in what they call "old-earth creationism" is by no means un-Islamic.

Poor brother...poor brother...pls look up. Subhan Allah. May Allah guide you. You should of fully renounced christianity...

And as for these things supposedly being "unscientific", we would do well to remember that the same "scientists" to whom you are referring also happen to deny the following as "unscientific":

[1] Nuh's flood.
[2] The issue of the animals being on the ark in pairs, and then spreading out again.
[3] Yunus being swallowed by the whale. They claim that a whale could not swallow him for three days and nights, because it's throat is not wide enough to be able to do so.
[4] The splitting of the moon.

False, false,false and false again! Science does not say ANYTHING about MIRACLE events. Miracle events are odd events beyond the scientific method, thus science doesnt say yay or nay about the issue.

and many other things. Are we to follow their "scientific expertise" on these things too? If so, then why not just join the quilliam foundation.

Now your trash talking. Where does Quilliam come in this? And the irony in it all is that you are an young earth creationist! LOL

No, I disagree. If the Christian creationists can come to conclusions that are in accordance with what we have in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, then it tends to confirm the truth of what we have. In fact, I have noticed that if anything, in a number of cases the Qur'an and Sunnah actually confirm some of their findings even more than their own Bible does.

Christian beliefs maybe. But creationists, never.

And if Richard Dawkins and his ilk don't like it, then Islamically there is perhaps nothing to say to them except for "mootoo bi-ghaydhikum" and "umsus badhr al-Laat".

Sorry, what has Dawkins got to do this?? You think that anyone who disagrees with your young earth creationist buddies agrees with dawkins. There is a whole nation of authors that LAUGH at richard dawkins and the creationists. Just check Kenneth Miller, Michael Ruse, Allistair Mcgrath, Anthony Flew etc

I certainly believe that there is plenty of evidence - both textual and empirical - to support creationism, but of course a creationism in agreement with Islamic sources rather than a particular biased Christian worldview. But Muslims have unfortunately not yet stepped up to the task; most of them prefer to accept the theories and opinions of secular atheistic scientists without even questioning the very basis of those theories and opinions.

Secular atheistisc scientists? Whether they are atheistsic or not , doesnt affect how science is conducted. Science, is hard to corrupt. Rather what we differ on is the interpretation of these results i.e does it point to God or not.

You have to understand, there is no atheist conspiracy with most scientists. You must break out of this Harun Yahya, cuting a fruit open and saying 'Oh look Allah's name is in this', playing Madonna tracks backward and thinking that she is worshipping satan kind of mode off. Please switch it off. Otherwise the dawah will fail.

As for creationism again bro, stop making me laugh. You are claiming to be a christian here! Just because eh word 'creation' exists in creationISM doesnt mean that you are admitting creation happend! Some Muslims are so simplistic.

It is vitally important for Muslims to really look into what our Qur'an and the Sunnah actually tell us about history, and the implications that a truly Islamic look at history has on the validity of the "official" version that is trumpeted by the European atheists and secularists and accepted blindly by many Muslims whether wittingly or unwittingly.

NO. You need to stop thinking the Qu'ran is a book of every science that exists. Its not a scientific textbook. You have reverted tomy religion thinking the Qu;ran was a scientific manual. Its not. Its a Religious Holy Book, pls don't think anymore then that.

In my opinion, Harun Yahya has done an admirable job in questioning the official scientific worldview, but I believe that he just got stuck half-way. He disbelieves the scientists when it comes to evolution, but unfortunately he believes them when it comes to other of their conclusions which although he thinks they are unrelated to evolution, are indirectly based on the assumption of the correctness of evolution.

Harun Yahya is a joke who is has been arrested in turkey and put in jail for fraud. He has damaged the dawah in the west and made us look dumb and stupid. He has demented Muslims to such a degree that they think the Qu'ran is a scientific textbook detailing scientifc theories! ANd thus making the Qu'ran FASLIFIABLE!! Hasha Allah!

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 05:14 PM

Allah forbid that I would be an evangelical christian. However, despite its distortions, the Bible - where it agrees with or does not contradict the Qur'an - is acceptable as supporting evidence..

But you are a creationist. can I be a Muslim Jew?

.I am proud to define myself a Muslim creationist. That is, I believe in what is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an and authentic ahadith about the fact that Allah created the universe in six "days" (however they may be defined), about the creation of Adam, about the Qur'anic/Sunnah account of the history of the world - which the scientists deny and scoff at as being "unscientific..

Pardon me, you are a Muslim-Christian(creationist). Sorry, brother...I am trying to have a serious discussion with you. So stop cracking jokes which are making me fall of my chair.

I believe Allah created Adam with his own two hands, and he created the heavens and earth in 6 period. I also believe in evolution, big bang, multiverse.

.I think you are out of line in claiming that a creationist can't be a Muslim! .

Creationists are Kuffar. And the Muslims who follow them are thick.

If by creationism you mean christian evangelical creationism, .

I mean? It ALWAYS MEANS.

then of course I don't agree with everything they say. However this does not mean that we reject everything they say just to be different from them. Truth should be accepted and taken from whoever presents it to you. Why is it wrong for one Muslim to accept the findings or conclusions of an evangelical christian creationist when those findings/conclusions agree with what is in the Qur'an and Sunnah,.

Because the creationist conclusions are false and theyd ont agree with the Qu'ran. mainly because teh Qu'ran is not a scientific textbook, detaling accounts of how long humans have been on earth etc. Your earlier claim that the dinosaurs died out recently is astonishing. If we go by your time scale, hitler probably died 2 hours ago.

but right for another Muslim to follow the scientific dogma of atheist, secularist enemies of religion even if it conflicts with what is clearly stated in the Qur'an and Sunnah???.

Huhh, here we go again with your play madonna backward and hear satan chants theories again.

Scientists, for being scientists are not enemies of our religion anymore then a non Muslim doctor is for being a doctor! You keep equating secularism with science, science is no a product of this ideology, although they have progressed more then anyone else.

.It is not that irrational to believe that the dinosaurs only recently died out. There have been several cases of animals which had been thought by scientists to have been extinct for millions of years, only to be "discovered" again in the 20th century! .

If you are talking about pet lizards on indonesian islands...please we are being serious here. Please show me whichs cientists have said the dinosaurs have recenly died out? Please show me which specialist in this field ever said such a thing.

As for the 'animals' you mention, whats this got to do with dinosaurs? Or dinosaurs dying out just yesterday (according to you). Maybe your creationist friends were w watching king kong and the dinosaurs in that and got confused with reality.

.Humans have always had stories and legends about dragons and other giant reptiles. If dinosaurs had really all died out millions of years before humans appeared on earth, then where did these stories come from? Even today, reports still persist of these creatures being seen in isolated areas of jungle etc. So they are probably more of an "endangered species" than "extinct", and Allah knows better..

God. Allahu Akbar.

You have not just said that have you? Possibly I am dreaming and reading this text. Surely I am not talking to someone who is an adult here! 'Then where did these stories come from?' I say they came from a place where the sun doesn' shine! I suppose Sants Clause must also exist, nay, even the hindu elephant/monkey gods because after all 'Then where did these stories come from?' LOL. Get it?

.As for your advice that I do a bit of basic research, then thank you for the advice but I might inform you that I was once upon a time taken in 100% by the "official" scientific view on these issues, and heavily interested in them since a very early age - an age at which few other people are even interested in knowing about such things, in fact - and it actually took me quite some time, even after I accepted Islam around a decade ago, to "de-program" .

May I suggest you reprogram yourself! As for there being an 'official' scientific view. Then 'official' views never exists. Remember science is based on refutation.

.myself from a lot of what I later realised was nothing but brainwashing. It was only after a long period of research in various fields that I came to the conclusions that I hold now. I was extremely reluctant at the beginning to even consider the possibility of accepting a lot of the "creationist" views which I now hold..

Such as dinousaurs dying yesterday...

y-mughal

16th September 2008, 05:50 PM

Pardon me, you are a Muslim-Christian(creationist).

Is the fast getting to you? You have one foul mouth. The Brother Abdullah ibn Adam as always has been conducting himself with good manners throughout his exchanges with you - the least you can do is to return the compliment and stop acting as if your some kind of scientific authority where your view is final.

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 05:55 PM

Is the fast getting to you? You have one foul mouth. The Brother Abdullah ibn Adam as always has been conducting himself with good manners throughout his exchanges with you - the least you can do is to return the compliment and stop acting as if your some kind of scientific authority where your view is final.

No, my view isn't final. But some views dont have any alternative. I guess me saying the sky is blue isn't final also?

Because you have not understood the gravity of the discussion, you say what you said. This indivdiual is saying that young earth creationism fits in with the Qu'ran. Imagine if I said Kabala fits in with Islam, or seculrism fits in with Islam, what would be your reaction?

Likewise, when someone says evangelical christianity (creationism, Sarah Palin is a creationist) fits in with Islam, I show the same anger for the sake of Allah.

Problem is, you don't udnerstand the discussion, and I hope you are not another 'play madonna backwards and think you are heearing satan chanting type Harun Yahya creationist'. Are you?

Abu Ma'mar

16th September 2008, 05:58 PM

we are an embarrassment to intellectual circles in the west

Interesting.....

y-mughal

16th September 2008, 06:16 PM

Interesting.....

Usama Hasan type inferiority complex?

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 06:42 PM

Interesting.....

???

It is interesting. The question is, well you continue to embarace yourself?

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 06:44 PM

Usama Hasan type inferiority complex?

Why ? That science doesnt say yay or nay about religious beliefs? What's that got to do with Usama Hasan?

I guess the next time someone looks stupid and inhinits the dawah, and someone corrects him/her I should say ' guys, dont correct him, otherwise we will have an Usama Hasan inferiorty complex' lol.

Abu Ma'mar

16th September 2008, 07:00 PM

Usama Hasan type inferiority complex?

Seems so.

Adeel

16th September 2008, 07:36 PM

Science is based on refutation. I make a hypthosis that the universe is static. This is a hypothesis that is refutable. And indeed, scientists have foudn out that the universe does expand. So hence I am refuted, but even this opinion can change. It could be the case that only some parts of the universe are expanding or parts of the universe are expanding at faster rates then others. Heck, it could even be an optical illusion!

This is'nt the case everytime! Are you saying that every scientific fact is something which can be refuted?! there is a difference between facts and theories(which can be proven right or wrong).

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 07:53 PM

This is'nt the case everytime! Are you saying that every scientific fact is something which can be refuted?! there is a difference between facts and theories(which can be proven right or wrong).

I am saying that scientific facts hardly exist at all. Rather degrees of certainty exist. Electrons exist in theory, but if i got a cattle prodder and zapped you with it, you might thik otherwise...

Still one must, regardless of how certain or doubtful one feels regarding a particluar theory never say it is a FACt but rather say they they believe with a high degree of certainty or what ever degree they so choose. Martin Rees in his book regards the big bang model as correct to about 99% ( a figure around that) but even he can;t ever say the big bang is a fact. In fact revolutions are taking place with regards to the big bang and it is changing, rapidly.

Thats why I say to these christian-muslims (weird huh?) that dont say the big bang is in the Qu'ran, because if you do, and later the big bang is shown to be false, you have invalidated an ayat of the lord of the worlds! Allahu Akbar! Allah is free from being refuted...and this is why some have left Islaam...Thats why I feel these issues are imperative to discuss and we have to snatch the ball out of christian-creationist-muslims court. U understand now bro?

Science may lead to facts, but its theories will always remain speculational with varying degrees..

For instance, the big bang, it is almost afact, but no one ever says 'the big bang fact' they always say the 'big bang theory' in line with the scientific method. The same people, who christian-muslims quote in order to support the big bang and thus say its in the Qu'ran, are the same ones who believe in evolution more STRONGER then the big bang itself. so why are theynot consistant with what the scientists believe in?

One can't have their cake and eat it at the same time. Either the Qu'ran is a scientific textbook, and thus it is scientifically refutable, a book that has some scientific facts and some things that go against science, OR ( and this is the position of the Muslims as opposed to christian-muslims) the Qu'ran is a Holy Religious book, who's only 'scientific miracle' is that it doesnt contradict science (but neither does it state scientific hypothesis or theories).

Allah gave a book not for science, but for Tawheed. It IS a religious book, not a 'manifesto', or a 'proposal', or a scientific document, or anything else.

asharee_salafi

16th September 2008, 07:55 PM

Another point. It is the christian-muslims who have an inferiorty complex.

You find them saying that they dont eat pig because 'pigs are dirty' i.e. they have to justify their beleifs via this angle. Also, they feel a need to scientifically prove their book is from Allah. Why? Because they are the ones who feel an inferiorty complex with regards to secularism.

Abdullah ibn Adam

17th September 2008, 09:54 AM

Ashari Salafi: Wallahi I will complain to Allah on yawm al-qiyamah about your unjust accusation of me being a "Christian-Muslim". Shame on you.

You have thrown a lot of snowballs at me, and it's not easy to catch them all at once. However I believe each of them can be answered in time.

Regarding the age of the human race, I never said that the Qur'an clearly mentions how old humans have been here, rather I said:

First of all, the idea that the human race (not the universe) is only 6000-7000 years old is - if you investigate carefully - fully supported by the information provided in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as being strongly indicated by what is known of civilisational history.

Refer to al-Bukhari, you will find that there were 10 generations between Adam and Nuh. The oldest versions of the Bible (I am referring to what is known as the Septuagint") mention a total of ten generations from Adam to Nuh, and they give the total number of approximately 2250 years (+/- around 10 years) from Adam's descent to earth until the flood.

Then we have to work out how long was between the flood and Ibrahim, and even if you believe that the flood was the local one of around 3200-3100 BC described in Harun Yahya's book, then you have approximately 900-1000 years, bringing Ibrahim to around 2200 BC, at the time of Sargon of Akkad, who ruled the whole area of Mesopotamia and who most closely fits the description of the ruler known in tradition as Nimrud, who claimed divinity and debated with Ibrahim. And I could go on and on, but I don't know how much you know about ancient history so perhaps it would be unfamiliar to you.

Regarding the flood: All of the ulama agreed that it covered the entire earth. Read al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah, and see what Ibn Kathir said about those who claimed the flood was only a local event in Mesopotamia: he said that this view is kufr, and that it is only blind following of some of the zanadiqah and hindus and persians.

There are many arguments against the "local flood theory". Not least of which is if it was a local river flood, then why did Nuh's ship get swept upstream to al-Judi instead of downstream into the Persian gulf. And what about all of the animals, why couldn't they all just move to higher ground. And also, the Qur'an and ahadith clearly state that all of humankind on earth today are descended from Nuh and his 3 sons.

And I believe that the different layers of the fossil record resulted from the catastrophic flood which destroyed the earth, because in many cases they show evidences of being rapidly deposited over months rather than millions of years (but that is another topic in itself for another day in sha' Allah).

Although I differ with Harun Yahya's claim that the flood was local, I do agree with him that it happened around 3100 BC. Then we add the ten generations between Adam and Nuh - confirmed in both the Sunnah and the Bible, remember - plus Nuh's years before the flood, i.e. around 2200 years total, along with perhaps around 100 more years to balance out the rounding and approximations, and thus we come to the conclusion that Adam descended to earth somewhere between 5300 and 5400 BC.

This would identify the early Sumerian civilisation in Iraq around 4000-3000 BC, considered by many historians to be the earliest civilisation in history - as the civilisation in which Nuh, 'alayhis-salam, most probably lived and preached, although he would no doubt have travelled throughout the earth as he lived for 950 years (a fact which I'm surprised you accept, given what the scientists have said!)

Oh, and I will make du'a' for you, like you request in your sig. I will make du'a that Allah guides you to open your heart to the information given to us by Allah and His Messenger as it is regarding these matters, even if contemporary scientists might think otherwise.

Abdullah ibn Adam

17th September 2008, 11:02 AM

If you are talking about pet lizards on indonesian islands...please we are being serious here. Please show me whichs cientists have said the dinosaurs have recenly died out? Please show me which specialist in this field ever said such a thing.

As for the 'animals' you mention, whats this got to do with dinosaurs? Or dinosaurs dying out just yesterday (according to you). Maybe your creationist friends were w watching king kong and the dinosaurs in that and got confused with reality.

No, brother, I was actually referring to a kind of fish called the coelacanth. Look it up if you're unaware of the situation regarding it.

Abdullah ibn Adam

17th September 2008, 11:03 AM

And your calling me a "christian muslim" is ironic for someone who calls himself "ashari salafi"...

Abdullah ibn Adam

17th September 2008, 11:09 AM

Regarding the extraordinarily long dates of 100,000's or millions of years given by scientists on various ancient and prehistoric finds, this is concluded mainly on the basis of techniques such as radiometric dating, which itself is questionable in its accuracy. The great pyramid of giza, for instance, is universally agreed to have been built around the egyptian 4th dynasty during the rule of the pharaoh Khufu, which was around the 26th century BC. However, radiometric dating "reveals" it to be substantially older. Despite this, the historians and scientists still cling - and correctly so - to the later dating of 26th centrury BC. So if it could be wrong regarding a 3600 year old building, then how much greater is the margin for error when we're talking in millions and billions of years?

These methods of radiometric dating etc. are unreliable for the reason that there is little if any other evidence to support their conclusions. Plus, the technology used is only "interpreting" the visible evidence based on information that has already been programmed into it by human scientists living in the 20th-21st centuries - scientists who have already taken as fact that the earth is millions of years old. Think very deeply about this and how it works, and you'll realise the immense irony in it. It is like a "catch-22" situation: the "evidence" is 1 million years old, because the radiometric dating technology says so, because it has been programmed to interpret the evidence that way by scientists who already "know" that the earth is supposedly millions of years old... and so it goes on, round and round in circles.

I_Am_A_Hermit

17th September 2008, 11:21 AM

But you are a creationist.
Pardon me, you are a Muslim-Christian(creationist).

That comment bro, is completely unjustified, and wrong.

Abul Hasan

17th September 2008, 11:30 AM

Abdullah ibn Adam

17th September 2008, 11:40 AM

Here's my 0.5 cent:

What's the point of trying to reconcile science and religion, or try to prove/disprove evolution, or try to estimate how old the Earth is, or try to guess the identity of Fir'awn etc. etc. Accept whatever is in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and be silent where they remained silent. We gain nothing from vain conjecturing apart from being misguided.

Hope my 0.5 cent is worth more than the value I placed on it.
Brother Abul-Hasan:

What you said is true to an extent; certainly, when we are talking about issues of priority, there are other much more important matters.

However, I believe that these issues that we're discussing in this thread to have their place, because they are contentious issues that are often used by people to undermine the validity and truth of our religion by claiming that there are factual, historical or scientific errors in the Qur'an and Sunnah. And as you can see, many Muslims have been unwittingly deceived by contemporary "science" regarding our religion's actual clear position on these issues. This can and does result in people becoming murtaddeen from Islam.

Therefore, it is highly necessary for thinking Muslims to expose the false premises upon which much of the contemporary scientific view of world history is based, by referring to firstly to the qur'an and sunnah, then secondly to logic and common sense, and then looking at the physical evidence accordingly. This should enable us to come with a clearer idea of the bigger picture, which in sha' Allah would not be classified as "conjecture" but rather an educated ijtihad based on a more correct understanding and interpretation of the textual and physical evidences.

Abdullah ibn Adam

17th September 2008, 12:17 PM

Another thing: The "scientific consensus" is that the heavens (i.e. outer space, containing the orbits, stars, planets, everything "above" us) are FAAAAR older than the earth itself, and that everything was basically set into its orbits and proper places while the earth was all the while supposedly just a mass of lifeless space-junk.

So how do the defenders of this "scientific" theory understand the following ayah:

Al-Baqarah 29:

"He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He rose over the heaven and made it seven heavens."

"Then" (thumma) indicates sequence, i.e. the formation of the heaven into seven heavens was done after the creation of the earth and its contents. This is also affirmed by the following ayat (Fussilat: 9-12):

"Say: Do you disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two days, and you set up partners with Him? That is the Lord of the worlds!

He placed therein firm mountains from above it, and He blessed it, and measured therein its sustenance in four days, equal to those who ask.

Then He rose over towards the heaven, when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come forward, willingly or unwillingly!" They both said: "We come willingly."

Then He completed them as seven heavens in two days, and made in each heaven its affair."

So we have the earth created in two days, and the process of creating everything in it, measuring its provision, and blessing it was completed over four days (this includes the first 2 days mentioned in ayah 9). All this time, the heaven is still smoke, and its formation has not been completed yet.

Then over the 5th and 6th days, Allah completes the formation of the heavens into seven layers. Note that this happens after the completion of the creation of the earth and its contents, the measuring of its provision, and the blessing of everything in it.

Now anyone who is familiar with the "official scientific view" on the origin of the universe and the formation of the earth knows clearly that the "reality" that these "scientists" teach us is in fact completely unlike what Allah the Creator of the universe has clearly told us in these ayat.

Aamantu billaahi wa-kafartu bi-"'ulamaa" al-gharb al-kaafir.

justabro

17th September 2008, 12:32 PM

Abuz Zubair

17th September 2008, 12:42 PM

Refer to al-Bukhari, you will find that there were 10 generations between Adam and Nuh. The oldest versions of the Bible (I am referring to what is known as the Septuagint") mention a total of ten generations from Adam to Nuh, and they give the total number of approximately 2250 years (+/- around 10 years) from Adam's descent to earth until the flood.

How can you work this out? Their average age at the time wasn't 66. Noah lived for well over a thousand years, so each of those ppl in each of those generations could be more than 1000 years old, who knows?

Abdullah ibn Adam

17th September 2008, 01:04 PM

How can you work this out? Their average age at the time wasn't 66. Noah lived for well over a thousand years, so each of those ppl in each of those generations could be more than 1000 years old, who knows?

Even if we took the meaning of "generation" as referring to the complete lifespan of one generation, i.e. maximum 1000 years (see the hadith of Adam giving 40 of his 1000 years to Dawud; it is unreasonable for a number of reasons to suggest that Adam's own children could naturally live longer than him), it would still be only 10,000 years, which is still too short for the "scientific" position.

Another meaning of "generation", which happens to fit in comfortably with the Biblical (Septuagint) account, is the number of years between a man's birth and the birth of his son. The figures given in the Septuagint account (which is several centuries earlier than the Masoretic account [which has different figures] on which most modern translations are made) give an average period of around 100-200 years between each generation, i.e. the period between the births of each father and son.

According to the Bible, as well as a narration from Ibn 'Abbas mentioned in Qisas al-Anbiya, Nuh was 600 years when the flood hit, and he lived 350 years after that, totalling 950 years, as mentioned in the Qur'an.

The ayah in the Qur'an could be understood to mean that 950 years was the duration of the period of his da'wah, however a close examination of the structure of the ayah reveals the possibility that the word "labitha" could refer to his total lifespan on earth (rather than just before the flood or the period of his da'wah), and that the statement regarding his 950 years itself is parenthetical, i.e. that the statement after it referring to the flood follows on from the statement before it that Allah sent Nuh to his people, rather than that the flood itself occured after the passing of 950 of his years.

So if we accept for the sake of argument either the Septuagint account (10 generations totalling around 1650 years + 600 years of Nuh's life before the flood = 2250 years), or the maximum that could possibly be understood from the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah (10 generations totalling a maximum of 10,000 years + 950 years of Nuh's life before the flood = 10,950 years), it is still nowhere near enough to satisfy those people who are following the "scientific" line of reasoning, who speak in the 100's of thousands of years.

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 04:09 PM

Ashari Salafi: Wallahi I will complain to Allah on yawm al-qiyamah about your unjust accusation of me being a "Christian-Muslim". Shame on you.

I will reply to you later in depth...but firstly;

No, shame upon you and your christian muslim ilk. Complain all you want! I will just say that he called himself a creationist, which by definition is a christian evangelical who tries to reconcile biblical scripture with science, and you, without fear of Allah, have been making up dates that agree with biblical texts and applied them to Islamic ones...so shame on you!...damn creationist-christian-muslim.

Skillganon

17th September 2008, 04:14 PM

Salaam,

Guys lets leave this arguments in this blessed month of Ramadhaan. Easy for an argument to get heated and end up saying things you probably don't mean.

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 04:15 PM

And your calling me a "christian muslim" is ironic for someone who calls himself "ashari salafi"...

huh, id rather be an asharee_salafi then a christian-muslim!

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 04:17 PM

That comment bro, is completely unjustified, and wrong.

but creationists are christians sister! lol am i going mad here or does someone wanna come in and explain what im saying? justabro, abuz zubair?

can any person see here, how creationism is not about hw the universe came about,but refers to an evangelical christian movement!!

pls someone, anyone(!) say something! dont let these christian muslims ruin our deen and make our holy Qu'ran a refutable scientific textbook!

y-mughal

17th September 2008, 04:19 PM

I will reply to you later in depth...but firstly;

No, shame upon you and your christian muslim ilk. Complain all you want! I will just say that he called himself a creationist, which by definition is a christian evangelical who tries to reconcile biblical scriture with science, and you, without fear of Allah have been making up dates that agree with biblical texts and applied them to islamic ones...so shame on you!...damn creationist-christian-muslim.

Do you suffer from schizophrenia?

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 04:21 PM

How can you work this out? Their average age at the time wasn't 66. Noah lived for well over a thousand years, so each of those ppl in each of those generations could be more than 1000 years old, who knows?

Do you see what this christian-muslim is doing? he is putting dates upon our religion!! These dates are speculations upon speculations. So now if his dates are proved wrong, then Islaam would be. He is using science on one hand, and then disaffirming it on the other, rather like a god-of-the-gaps approach...thats why AZ, some have recently left Islaam, because of the confusions of idiots that we have here have been spreading.

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 04:22 PM

Do you suffer from schizophrenia?

No. Do you suffer from being stupid?

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 04:25 PM

Salaam,

Guys lets leave this arguments in this blessed month of Ramadhaan. Easy for an argument to get heated and end up saying things you probably don't mean.

But brother, how can I tolerate him writing dates all over the Prophets seerah and how can I tolerate him treating the Qu'ran as a scientific textbook? He himself admittd that he is an evangelical christian i.e creationist lol...

Please advise me what should I do?

Logic lover

17th September 2008, 04:42 PM

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 04:47 PM

It is better, to say the least, to refrain from calling a brother 'Christian Muslim'. That would imply, God forbid, making takfir on him.

Whilst, a Muslim should not identify himself as 'Creationist Muslim', he has the right to speak on the matters which relate to the creation of Allah. The term 'Creationist' may imply the Christians' stance on the issue of evolution and so on. But, the term in itself does not constitute kufr (unlike the term 'Secularist' for example).

I understand the danger, to say the least again, of delving into dating the creation of Adam as and other events.

I agree. Good post.

But if he says he is a creatiionist, won't that be valid for me to call him that?

When he delves into these dates, the poor brother doenst realise that he is stitching the religion for refutation, because what if those dates are wrong??

al-omari

17th September 2008, 09:34 PM

The Christians aren't disbelievers because they believe in "Creationism", but because they deify Jesus(alayhi salaam), believe in the Trinity and reject Islam.

Asharee Salafi, are you a compulsory evolutionist?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed80.html

asharee_salafi

17th September 2008, 09:45 PM

well we know this al-omari.

no im saying that evlution and islaam and any scientific theory (Well,most) are compatible with islaam, so dont make evolution an issue when its not.

Abuz Zubair

18th September 2008, 12:09 AM

I haven't been reading this thread much, and I am not really into the topic of evolution, but one thing I would point out though that it is theologically incorrect to say that Adam was created from the blueprint of apes. The Prophet SAW said that Allah created Adam in God's image.

Also, why can't it be that apes were created from human blueprint? Or even that the apes (d)evolved from human beings? Allah tells us that He turned a group of Banu Israel into apes and another into swine.

Brother_Mujahid

18th September 2008, 12:27 AM

Abul Hasan

18th September 2008, 12:31 AM

Also, why can't it be that apes were created from human blueprint? Or even that the apes (d)evolved from human beings? Allah tells us that He turned a group of Banu Israel into apes and another into swine.

I always wondered if those ape-man bones were the remains people who had earned the curse of Allah.

Subhanallah, this is a completely new perspective that I never thought about. Jazakallah khair brothers for these thought provoking observations, may Allah protect us from evil.

justabro

18th September 2008, 12:57 AM

but creationists are christians sister! lol am i going mad here or does someone wanna come in and explain what im saying? justabro, abuz zubair?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Creationism is the religious belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) that humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human), life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life), the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth), and the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe) were created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth) in their original form by a deity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity) (often the Abrahamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religion) God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) of Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism), Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) and Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam)) or deities, whose existence is presupposed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition).<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-0">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-0)</sup> In relation to the creation-evolution controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy) the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution).<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-num_1-0">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#cite_note-num-1)</sup>
can any person see here, how creationism is not about hw the universe came about,but refers to an evangelical christian movement!!
yes evangelical christians do have a chip on their shoulder about this and they have their own creationist theories that try to reconcile the bible with science, or to outright reject science in the case of the most literal ones amongst them.

I dont blame them from having a chip on their shoulder since most "Christians" today believe Adam and Eve were monkeys (wal iyyadhu billah), a heresy that most Muslims have been safe from so far, Alhamdulillah

pls someone, anyone(!) say something! dont let these christian muslims ruin our deen and make our holy Qu'ran a refutable scientific textbook!I agree with you to the extent that we should not insist on certain "theories" that we endorse as being the truth endorsed by Islam, the Qur'an, and Divine Revelation, but I don't think that should be a reason to prevent people from putting forward or considering such theories altogether.

I know that Christians have tried to use past Muslims' identification of Dhul Qarnayn with Alexander the Great to attack Islam, but so what? I dont believe Dhul Qarnayn was Alexander the Great, so it's not shaking my Islam in the least, and I dont think it should shake any other Muslim's Islam.

Yes, we should be weary of taking a theory, no matter how plausible it may seem, and endorsing it as the ultimate truth and the authoritative interpretation of our sacred texts, but so what?

On another note, I'm no expert on biology or evolutionary biology in particular, but I remember in the university, one of our economics professor gave us a lecture on how paradigms shift in a given field. The example he gave was about one of the science fields, I forget which one. After the existing paradigm was debunked before it was uprooted and replaced by the new paradigm. The reason is simple, the heads of department in all the universities had built their careers on the existing paradigm. If you did not buy into it, you could forget about being hired, much less achieving tenure.

Inevitably, almost all evolutionary biologists are atheists with a chip on their shoulder. Therefore, I will hardly take their views on evolution seriously. Evolution is at the heart of their aqidah. Just as we declare the shahadatayn, they declare, "There is no god, and monkeys are the messengers."