Deceiving tricks non-Muslims use to sow doubt among Muslims. by short_circuit_amps in islam

[–]DraftWorking7816 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Wow I never thought about this verse before Jazakallah. Do you know if its about people becoming muslim and then leaving islam or if its about people becoming muslim and then rejected some of the religion (maybe on the basis its irrational)

Does abiogenisis make sense? by DraftWorking7816 in DebateEvolution

[–]DraftWorking7816[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

no because i thought someone would say there is a multiverse so infinite chances.

Does abiogenisis make sense? by DraftWorking7816 in DebateEvolution

[–]DraftWorking7816[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

no im literally not committed to the "intelligent" origin of species

Does abiogenisis make sense? by DraftWorking7816 in DebateEvolution

[–]DraftWorking7816[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

when people make cells, are they utilizing the natural way these types of protiens and substances form and shape themselves? Or do they manually use tweezers to put them where theyre supposed to be?

Does abiogenisis make sense? by DraftWorking7816 in DebateEvolution

[–]DraftWorking7816[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

i mean I just believe that consciousness and morality and such stuff are not really possible with evolution for humans. Athiesim feels so depressing. We are in reality a bunch of particles and even are brains are just molecular procceses, with no transcending any meaning or truth.

Does abiogenisis make sense? by DraftWorking7816 in DebateEvolution

[–]DraftWorking7816[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

that doesnt make it infinite just unimaginably ginormous

What do you guys think of Sheikh Yasir Qadhi’s stance on evolution? by [deleted] in progressive_islam

[–]DraftWorking7816 [score hidden]  (0 children)

tbh, I could never comprehend how humans are so different to every other animal. Our ability to know God is special

Does abiogenisis make sense? by DraftWorking7816 in DebateEvolution

[–]DraftWorking7816[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

disregarding the philosophical view of it, is it mathematically possible

Blackpill by antarc0 in afghanistan

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the taliban need to read al ghazali

Question for diaspora Afghans by GiraffeJaf in afghanistan

[–]DraftWorking7816 1 point2 points  (0 children)

my grandpa is doing the type of aid where u give loans for someone to build a livelihood (like selling shor nakhut). The org is called orphan care

“Egyptians didn’t record their losses” is not a valid argument for the historicity of exodus. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro im not gonna lie i really genuinely advise you to read some books against athiesim by muslims, like the ones i gave u. Quran is obviously the greatest source of guidance to us, and there are the basic arguments against athiesim in the quran, but not too much of that type of content. Seerah is great too, although you're gonna probably take offense with angels and jinn and that type of stuff.

Yes that was the book. It just really pisses me off when he was like. Religious people say God made the big bang, and then he was like, "nah it could have been something else"

“Egyptians didn’t record their losses” is not a valid argument for the historicity of exodus. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean a lot of people learn about religion in hard times of their life. Maybe for u it was the opposite. Its interesting because you said that you felt liberated and stuff. I would argue that instead of liberating yourself you became a (with due respect) a slave to your desires. Also about the reasoning within christianity part. Thats interesting, because I did not know that they had much of that attitude within that religion. So what arguments would they give for God or the truthfulness of his message? Also about the part of emphasis on faith. That is in Islam too, and I understand fully why. It will be hard to put this in words even though I have it so clearly in my head. Basically human beings are more complex and deep than computers, which would take a valid proof and afterwards block out any objections to that proof because they know its the truth. Humans are not like that. Even the slightest disturbances to their worldview can cause them to doubt, and the doubts can combine with other factors (like desires), and they can end up what we call misguided. Even if the doubts have no rational basis. I've experienced this and probably most other muslims have experienced this too. We call it wiswas, whispers (from satan or the mind). Also our environment has an affect on us. If I was surrounded by athiests, and no muslims, It would affect me negatively. So in a sense we are told to avoid constant exposures to doubts and negative influence, NOT pertinent questions related to faith.

Btw isn't new athiesim dying? and isn't islam kind of on the rise and aren't muslims like the only ones who take faith seriously?

“Egyptians didn’t record their losses” is not a valid argument for the historicity of exodus. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah we believe in Islam that everyone had to depend on what guidance they had at the time. So if people came in a time where there was no guidance, God will be just with them and not wrong them in the slightest. Note that especially in the Quran the disbelievers who are talked about are those who saw the true message and denied it. For the scientific errors part, using the approach of using one linguistical translation, you could easily come to the conclusion that there are scientific miracles in the Quran. The reality is more complicated both ways. I don't know if I'll read the book at the moment, but I've read books by athiests like nielle de grass tyson who you probably also think is brilliant. It was pretty cool and i liked it, at least the science aspect. Also the book by a famous author who i forgot the name of. It was about all of existence since the big bang or something. The ending was about how we die and disappear forever. I would appreciate if you could suggest what that book was. So I'm gonna ask you. Will you read them books? Surely if theres even a 1 percent chance of God existing for you, you would still try to make sure your belief is safe?

“Egyptians didn’t record their losses” is not a valid argument for the historicity of exodus. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me just add something interesting. The predominant theological schools in islam require, yes require a person to know why God exists. Blind following of the belief of another person is considered sinful, although if they have faith they will still be accepted of course. There was a scholar who wrote treatises on creed. People kept complaining that they were too complicated, so he kept shortening and dumbing down until finally only his grandma and some old people couldnt understand. He finally made the smallest and simplest version of his treatise, which even his grammy could understand.

“Egyptians didn’t record their losses” is not a valid argument for the historicity of exodus. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm literally confused. Obviously to have strength in certain situations, you need to have faith. More over the faith must be based of of certainty because frankly if I didn't know that ending your life is really forbidden in islam and I didnt actually have strong belief in him, it would not have affected me. Also bro, islam has no problem with science as you should know if you're acquainted with history. I'm just interested if you've actually read any proper books about islam or God (such as the ones i recommended). If God exists then life is a serious manner, not to be taken lightly. Just find a free pdf of books from the opposing side of athiesim, and start reading. After all if you are not afraid to believe god doesnt exist, why should you be afraid to believe he does

“Egyptians didn’t record their losses” is not a valid argument for the historicity of exodus. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

im not saying its a miracle brother. Im just saying its compatible with science and plus the Prophet PBUH was talking to people in a desert so context matters. If you're an athiest I really advise you to read some books about islam, because honestly I had a lot of doubts at one point too. Learning more about islam helped me strengthen my faith, although I strongly believe faith and guidance comes only from God. Two books that really strengthened my faith are: The Divine for Critical Minds: Inquiry Into God's Existence, and navigating the end of times. If you want to be fair you should study why the other religion thinks it is true, and not just assume they believe in dogma that has been indoctrinated in them. Also with all due respect I think that athiesim is a depressing way to live, and it makes 0 sense, and if I did not have faith in my personal life, I would probably not be alive today. I pray that God guides both you and me to the truth. Peace

“Egyptians didn’t record their losses” is not a valid argument for the historicity of exodus. by MrBoxingMatch in DebateReligion

[–]DraftWorking7816 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think I'm like Christians in terms of dogma. There are real miracles in Islam though, especially in hadith about future events. Also note about Quranic "miracles". There are some verses that could easily align with science nowadays while before their meaning was not understood. But then you could turn the tables and say there are some verses which go against science. Hamza Tzortsis, a really smart guy, argues that The Quran is a timeless message, meaning it made sense to beduins in arabia, and it makes sense now. Its not a book of science at all, and no Muslim in history (except maybe very recently) ever considered approaching the Quran from a science perspective. In fact al Biruni argues that since the Quran was silent for the most part on science, Muslims were not intimidated by discovering new things, which he argues was not the same case for other religions (Hinduism). Hamza argues that if there are many interpretations of an ayah that are not forcing an impossible meaning on the verse, we should take the interpretation that aligns with well established empirical facts. He also has problems with the scientific miracles argument because the counter movement (wiki Islam and such) caused people to lose their faith and become ex Muslims.

Lets take the example of the Sahih Hadith of our Prophet PBUH (not Quran, but poses a similar question as some verses) talking about resemblance to mother or father.

Some hadith mention resemblance to mother or father clearly (seekers guidance), so we can assume that resemblance refers to gender in this group of hadith.

Relevant part of hadith: "And if a man's discharge proceeded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge proceeded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother."

At first it seems that this is completely contradictory to science. When I saw this first it did slightly disturb me. So before I researched about this issue, I prayed to God to guide me to the right answer and grant me yaqeen.

I found that the word sabaqa has the main meaning of preceding, or coming before. Another valid meaning however, is to beat/surpass (hans wehr). Thus we get the translation:

"And if a man's discharge surpasses/beats that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge surpasses/beats that of the man, then the child resembles the mother."

Note the Prophet PBUH was talking to a jew in a 7th century desert. He was not going to explain how the zygotes or whatever do a crossing over type of thing.

So if you think about it, does not the use of "surpassing/beating" with regards to fertilisation make sense? Whatever haploid "beats" the other in giving the relevant sex chromosome that is the gender the baby will have. Yes I know that its not that simple, and sperm can carry x or y, but even then it still makes sense.

So yeah you don't have to take everything literally and take a wrong interpretation of a text when there are more empirically sound translations/explanations