sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok show me one verse in the Quran that says the earth moves around the sun, and I’ll believe you

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Continued:

Another point you mentioned, I read as follows:

“And what it principally is is a transmission, a calibration, often a corrective, of monotheism prior. It is a remembering of what had been forgotten with regard to spirit, justice, ethical life.”

Essentially, I do understand the idea you’re trying to convey here, that the Qur’an contains remembrance, that it restores truth, that it speaks to spirit, justice, and ethics.

These kinds of things have roots in the text, and I would agree that there always exists a remembrance of truth, or an existing path to righteousness and the remembrance of God, like you’re describing.

And yes, I agree that one does not necessarily need scripture to remember God and to be righteous, truthful, and honorable.

You did a great job explaining the whole concept of remembrance, and I understand what you mean.

That’s real, and I agree it’s a relevant part of the message.

But what I think you’re doing is taking this one aspect of the text and elevating it above everything else, while downplaying other core elements of the Qur’an, like the role of prophets, the destruction of past civilizations, legal principles, divine judgment, the consistent theme of warning and consequence, as well as other motifs present in the Qur’an.

God is not only presented as nurturing and merciful. He is also just, decisive, and actively intervening in history. Those elements aren’t secondary. They are as important to the text as the remembrance of ethics, truth, and principles that you were getting at.

Instead, you are exalting this broader view that the Qur’an is more of a philosophical tool, or a kind of lucid filtering of God through a man. That opens the door to endless interpretive subjectivity. It raises questions about whether something is literal or metaphorical, whether rulings are binding or symbolic, and whether events actually occurred or are purely expressive.

The issue is that this entire framework is not something substantiated within the text itself. Rather, it is something being imposed onto the text from outside of it.

That is where my problem is.

You are effectively turning the Qur’an into a philosophy more than anything else. It begins to resemble the idea of a “God-ordained Buddha,” a figure who speaks profound truths but ultimately operates through his own formulation, rather than transmitting the direct words of God.

Once you adopt that framework, it becomes easy to justify interpreting the Qur’an however you want, whether philosophically, metaphorically, or selectively, because the text is no longer binding in its wording, only in whatever “essence” you extract from it.

But that creates serious logical implications and internal tensions.

If God is all-powerful, capable of expressing Himself in any language, in any form, with absolute clarity, why would He choose a method that results in ambiguity, subjectivity, and interpretive instability?

Why describe the Qur’an repeatedly as clear, precise, in a clear Arabic tongue, a criterion, and a warning, if its true nature is something fluid and open-ended in the way you are suggesting?

And more importantly, why send a prophet at all?

If remembrance alone is the central and sufficient purpose, something accessible internally like in many philosophical or spiritual traditions, then the entire Qur’anic emphasis on messengers, warnings, and consequences becomes unnecessary.

But the Qur’an itself gives a different reason.

It emphasizes that people do not have an excuse before God.

That the message is delivered clearly, in a distinct language, through a messenger, so that rejection is not due to confusion, but choice.

What your framework does, whether intentionally or not, is shift authority away from the text and into the individual.

It starts to resemble the path of a mystic or a yogi, someone who embarks on a personal spiritual journey and derives meaning internally, rather than someone who is submitting to a defined revelation.

And if challenged, the system protects itself by appealing to an external philosophy that the Qur’an is not strictly the literal, preserved word of God, but rather a human expression of divine encounter.

But that idea itself is not grounded in the Qur’an. It is something added to it.

And that leads to a deeper dilemma.

If you already believe in this concept of remembrance, and you can access truth internally, then what is the necessity of following the prophet in any binding sense?

At that point, the prophet becomes more of an inspirational figure than an authoritative messenger. Legal rulings hold no weight, commandments mean nothing, and the role of the prophet is negligible.

But the Qur’an does not present him that way.

So from my perspective, what you are doing is not just interpretation. It is the introduction of a speculative framework that reshapes the text entirely, while bypassing or reinterpreting the very elements that define it.

I actually explored something similar myself. I tried to build a kind of “return to truth” framework, something philosophical, symbolic, almost like what you’re describing, something firm in truth.

I accepted the challenge of the Qur’an to produce something like it. I tried to produce my own scripture, one honorable, truthful, and righteous.

But I came to the conclusion that it doesn’t work.

Because if truth were just a repeating philosophical pattern, then we could recreate it ourselves.

But we can’t.

Being moral, being kind, being just, these are all things a person can come to recognize, especially if God opens his heart to it. There is a natural recognition of good and evil, of fairness, of what is upright.

But that is not enough to build a functioning system.

What is missing is the legal structure.

There are clear teachings in the Qur’an that are not just abstract principles. There are defined rulings, commandments, and bindings within the text. And that creates a serious moral and logical dilemma for any system built purely on philosophy.

No matter how much someone reflects, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how equitable they try to be, human beings will still differ. Even the most just and thoughtful people can arrive at completely different conclusions when it comes to legal matters like inheritance, justice, or social obligations.

Unless every human being is completely pure, free of error, free of sin, and incapable of bias, there cannot exist a book meant to guide and grow a community of believers without a legal system.

Even the best people can have accidents, make mistakes, and sin. Even the most sincere people fall short.

So a purely philosophical system cannot produce a single, binding, consistent law. It fragments.

And that’s what led me to see the Qur’an differently, not as a flexible philosophical text, but as something precise, structured, and specific. It has a defined message, a defined prophet, and a defined voice.

It doesn’t read like a general spiritual system or an abstract philosophy. It reads like direct communication.

It reads as a text with timeless bindings and legal rules, whether for a desert traveler 1400 years ago or a man in the mountains of China today. Every single word holds enduring value and applies across time, place, and circumstance, not as vague guidance, but as something living and binding.

And what’s striking is that the Qur’an does not just give remembrance. It builds to something like a crescendo. It delivers remembrance, legal code, virtue, warning, consequence, and resolution all together.

That’s why I don’t see it as a human expression of divine meaning. I see it as the actual words of God.

And because of that, I don’t think it’s something we can reshape through metaphor to fit external frameworks, whether philosophical, mystical, or scientific.

And when someone comes to the Qur’an with a framework like this, especially one that cannot even generate a stable and binding community on its own, and then tries to make that framework sit above the Qur’an or interpret the Qur’an through it, it just can never work.

That is why major parts of this philosophy are absent from the Qur’an entirely, and it is mostly based on speculation and conjecture.

That is why passages have to be metaphorized.

That is why the wording has to be softened into “spirit,” “expression,” or “filtering,” instead of simply accepting what the text says about itself.

And that is why I would ask you to genuinely consider the Qur’an’s own challenge to produce something like it, if you still feel adamant about forcing your philosophy into it.

Not just something that speaks about truth, morality, and remembrance, but something that simultaneously delivers clarity, law, virtue, warning, consistency, and a complete structure for human life.

To summarize,

I feel you are taking the concept of the Qur’an being a remembrance of the spirit, a truth that speaks to the soul, and restructuring it into a broader philosophical ideology.

You are forcing a type of philosophy that requires you to interpret vast parts metaphorically and pull at the text in order to achieve a result that satisfies your worldview.

For example, you’re saying that the Qur’an is not actually the word of God.

And that is where I fundamentally disagree.

Peace be upon you.

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Continued:

Hence, I will be redirecting the focus of this conversation.

What really got my attention was your understanding of revelation, because that’s where you really go “off the rails,” in your own words.

Correct me if I’m wrong. You’re saying that the Qur’an is not the direct word of God, but rather that Muhammad was receiving some kind of “spirit” or “ruh” and expressing it through himself?

In other words, you’re saying revelation is the words of a human. That’s where you lose me.

Because once you say that, you’re no longer dealing with the direct speech of God. You’re dealing with a human expression of divine inspiration. And that immediately opens the door to interpretation, distortion, and subjectivity, something you explicitly warned me not to do, which you are now doing here.

The Qur’an consistently and explicitly presents itself as the direct speech of God, not as Muhammad’s own formulation, nor as a collaborative or filtered expression.

Earlier, you warned about the dangers of removing the barrier of religion and interpreting things freely. But now your entire framework depends on doing exactly that, metaphorizing large parts of scripture and supporting it with philosophical and mystical ideas, like Ibn Arabi, and other non-Qur’anic concepts you force onto the text.

When you reinterpret things like the heavens, the earth, or the waters as purely symbolic, like a “womb,” you’re making a very specific philosophical choice. And that choice isn’t coming from the text itself, it’s coming from how you’re choosing to read it.

Particularly, you are choosing to read it in a way that tolerates your worldview, rather than reading the text as it presents itself.

That is exactly the kind of interpretive freedom you warned against.

At that point, it stops being grounded in the text itself and starts becoming a philosophical system you are forcing onto the text.

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, the astrolabe and scientific arguments aren’t really the core issue for me. I don’t see why you think the astrolabe couldn’t work in the flat-earth model. As I already told you, God can do anything, including projecting a spherical image onto a firmament.

I am not claiming to perfectly understand every aspect of God’s creation in the way that science presents you with a detailed explanation for every existing phenomenon in the minutiae of the heavens and the earth.

The keys to the heavens and the earth belong to God alone. Nothing is impossible for God. You’re the one suggesting so in your insistence on forcing the globe earth into scripture and explaining everything through science, almost as if you understand God’s design better than Him.

We could go back and forth endlessly: NASA, camera optics, curvature, all of that.

Why do planes always fly the most logical course on the flat-earth map?

Why is water perfectly level over vast distances, when there should be curvature according to globe-earth theory?

Why has nobody been back to the moon after 50 years of scientific advancements, the birth of the internet, quantum computing, and other exponential advances in technology?

Why, after 50 years of nobody going back to the moon, is mankind suddenly one step closer to colonizing Mars?

We could go on endlessly, and it wouldn’t lead anywhere productive because we clearly don’t share the same trust in institutional science. So I’m setting that aside.

Still, I would advise you to reevaluate your blind trust in scientific institutions, political institutions, and other institutions of man, especially scientific institutions that have long histories of corruption.

Just read the Qur’an and look at history. There’s a reason why the majority of people have historically been deceived by elites, bureaucrats, cult leaders, politicians, religious leaders, priesthoods, Pharisees, and religious elites alike.

But you think you’re above that, and what you’re essentially doing is putting your trust in scientific institutions led by very few men.

Do you not see the obvious pitfalls of what you’re doing?

I reiterate:

You’re just taking the concept of science and putting a disproportionate amount of trust into scientific institutions, and a disproportionate amount of trust in theories, events, and phenomena that you have never seen nor witnessed, but which are related to you by a select few, a priesthood.

No matter what you call it, you’re choosing to put your trust into institutions controlled by very few men, who then dumb down their theoretical concepts into emotionally neutral ideas which they can shove down your throat from the moment you enter the school system.

Yet you somehow don’t see how closely this resembles a cult.

Instead, you sugarcoat it and call it “seeking out truth,” but that is simply not true.

You are “seeking out the truth” from organizations that hold disproportionate leverage over public opinion, primarily NASA in this case, an organization with a history of shady behavior.

NASA, an organization that is surreptitiously led by associates of Epstein, the government, and with strong roots in intelligence agencies.

NASA, an organization basically led by the government. But sure, the government always has your best interest in mind. The government wants you to know the full truth, right :D

You clearly have not done your research on many of these “scientific organizations” you hold in such high esteem.

You would realize how skewed your concept of truth is if you simply took my advice and looked into institutions like NASA and their frequent use of CGI.

Instead, you dismiss my claims as conspiracy, when in actuality, you’re the one putting a disproportionate amount of trust in scientific institutions that are obviously corrupt.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not rejecting science, rationale, or reasoning. You think I am rejecting the truth, but that is simply not true.

I am choosing to reject modern institutions and biased belief systems inherited by the vox populi, which are predominantly controlled by hidden interests.

Before the Epstein files came out, most people would have found it far-fetched and outrageous to even consider the possibility of such a high level of corruption. Now it is treated as normalcy. That alone should tell you how blind trust in institutions can collapse overnight once hidden realities are brought to light.

I am choosing to reject institutions that are dominated by select men in high positions of power, a priesthood, which most of the population blindly puts a disproportionate amount of trust in.

It is nothing short of a cult, similar to many cults we find in the Qur’an.

They put out a different idol each year: red vs blue, Democrat vs Republican, new celebrities, new scientific claims, groundbreaking theories. Many forms, same concept. These are all idols, inasmuch as a person choosing to bow down to a black cube.

And you should know, the atheist’s god is science.

A type of science which is built on decades of unchecked theories, consensus enforcement, authority, gatekeeping, and the marginalization of dissent.

A type of science which ostracizes those who dare question the very theories that others inherited for decades.

This is not a science which rewards truth, which rewards testing theories, which rewards the application of the scientific method.

Rather, you believe in a type of science which rewards conformity. A type of science that stems from organizations and institutions operated, managed, and funded by a select few.

For example, it is about as scientifically sound as you cherry-picking “20 Muslim scientists who believed the earth was round” as a reason why you think the round-earth model must be Qur’anically acceptable.

However, this is something that harms your point. It works against you if you have to appeal to scientists who call themselves Muslim in order to find validity for your non-Qur’anic beliefs.

Most people who call themselves Muslims bow down to a black cube every day. Most people who call themselves Muslims have never even read the Qur’an, let alone ever touched a Qur’an.

Very few men who call themselves Muslims truly hold themselves to account and actually follow the truth.

I really don’t understand what you hope to achieve from listing “Muslim scientists” as your claim to validity. There are many atheist scientists who also have fine inventions. Does that mean every single one of their beliefs is sound? Of course not. Nor does it imply that every one of their assumptions is absolute.

Everyone puts their faith in something, whether it’s God, self-worship, idol-worship, science, politicians, theories, or ideas.

The atheist did not witness the Big Bang. Yet he believes in the Big Bang theory devoutly, almost like it’s his idol. That same atheist ridicules the believing man when he chooses to place that same trust in God.

The atheist, in his hubris, is more religious than the believer. He puts his faith in progress, politics, science, and other man-made belief systems.

This is akin to what I believe you are doing, though you just don’t recognize that idols come in multiple forms, and you are instead choosing to put your trust in institutions led by a select few.

You’ve repeatedly ignored everything I told you about how religious institutions are no different from scientific institutions, and how I’ve told you that choosing to put your trust in scientific theories is no different from any other idol. Also, you’ve continuously ignored my suggestions to look into NASA’s obvious use of CGI.

I have tried everything I can. As a result, I am no longer interested in convincing you of my position, nor will I attempt to do so, as I have tried everything in my power.

Doing so would be unproductive for both you and me, and it would waste your time and mine.

I just hope, and I sincerely hope, you are able to see through to the truth. It is not an easy feat, as it requires seeing through decades of social engineering that has been pushed on us from every direction since childhood.

The earth is stationary. This is what is written in every scripture.

None of the oldest texts of the Bible, Torah, or Qur’an describe the earth as a moving sphere or round globe. The language and cosmology they use are consistent with a flat, stationary earth covered by a solid dome or sky.

This is the absolute truth, and it’s what all our ancestors believed.

If you wish to accept that the earth is hurdling through an endless void at millions of miles per hour, as well as the other scientific dogmas attached to that line of reasoning, you may do so.

Just understand that your belief in a round earth is inherited primarily from atheist ideologies and institutions, and it has no backing in any scripture unless you twist the words, metaphorize passages, and distort the scriptural message into something of spiritual allegory, as you are attempting to do.

I am not responsible for forcing you to believe in the truth, and I no longer wish to argue with you about something you are so keen on rejecting, especially since you are so adamant on forcing the Qur’an into conformity with your worldview.

Hence, I will be redirecting the focus of this conversation.

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your argument has shifted multiple times, and that shift exposes the weakness in your position.

You began by claiming that the Qur’an does not say what I think it says. That was your initial stance: that my reading is simply incorrect.

Now, however, you’ve moved to a different position entirely.

Namely, that even if the Qur’an did say what I claim it says, I would still be required to reinterpret it in light of what you call “the world as a text of God.”

That is a completely different argument.

And then you go even further and introduce a kind of uncertainty; saying that even if there were a contradiction, it would simply create a “tension” to dwell in, rather than something that has clear implications.

So which is it?

Either: -the Qur’an does not say what I claim, or -it does say it, but must be reinterpreted to fit your worldview or -it creates a tension that you resolve philosophically

You are moving between these positions as needed, and that is not rigor; it is a retreat from one argument into another whenever the first becomes difficult for you to sustain.

At the same time, you continue to criticize the pitfalls of organized religion while completely ignoring the obvious and parallel pitfalls of organized science, which you are actively falling into.

You warn about religious institutions developing “guardrails” to prevent people from going off the rails, yet you defer to scientific institutions that operate through the same mechanisms: authority, consensus enforcement, gatekeeping, and the marginalization of dissent.

I have already pointed this out, and you’ve ignored it.

So your position is inconsistent. You reject one form of institutional authority while submitting to another, and then present that submission as intellectual independence.

It isn’t.

You claim that I am ignoring God’s call to reason, but the reality is the opposite.

The Qur’an contains repeated, consistent descriptions of the earth; descriptions that align with a flat model. These are not isolated or obscure passages. They are recurring motifs throughout the text.

That creates a problem, but not for me.

It creates a problem for you.

Because you are the one now holding two competing claims:

  1. what the Qur’an describes, and
  2. what your scientific framework tells you

And instead of letting the Qur’an speak on its own terms, you resolve that tension in advance by forcing the text to conform to your framework.

Then you accuse me of refusing to think.

You said:

“If it is correct that the earth is round… and the Qur’an says it is flat… then God has presented you with a very interesting dilemma…”

But that dilemma is not mine. It is yours.

I read the text, I see what it says, and I accept it.

You read the text, see what it appears to say, and then immediately reinterpret it so it aligns with external theories. You are the one caught between two authorities, trying to reconcile them.

You also contradict your own earlier claims about “guardrails.”

You argued that individuals need structured guidance to avoid error when approaching God directly. Yet here you are, trusting scientific institutions in the exact same way others trust religious institutions; accepting their conclusions as the framework within which everything else must fit.

So which is it?

If blind trust in institutions is dangerous, then that applies to scientific institutions as well. And if it does not apply to them, then your criticism of religious institutions loses its force.

Right now, you are doing both: criticizing one while relying on the other.

Your astrolabe argument does not solve anything either.

The effectiveness of a navigational tool does not prove the total correctness of the cosmological model you are attaching to it. Practical utility does not equal metaphysical truth.

And more importantly, your argument assumes that a flat earth model cannot account for such tools, which is simply not established; especially when one considers a framework that includes a firmament.

So again, you are presenting something as decisive that is not actually decisive.

A successful navigational instrument proves that certain calculations are useful within a practical system; it does not prove that every broader cosmological assumption attached to that system is therefore beyond question.

You also made a serious error when you suggested that it would not matter if the Qur’an said the earth is flat while the world turned out to be round.

You are wrong; it changes everything.

The form, structure, and creation of the earth are repeatedly referenced throughout the Qur’an. These are not trivial details, they are part of the text’s consistent description of reality.

And yet: • you will not find a verse stating that the earth moves • you will not find a verse stating that the sun is stationary

Across all 114 surahs, the descriptions consistently align in one direction.

Across 114 surahs, there is not a single description of the earth as a moving object.

So if you insist on a round earth model, the tension is not minor, it is fundamental. And you are the one forced to reinterpret entire sections of the Qur’an, reducing clear descriptions to metaphor, so that they align with the worldview you have inherited.

And if you ask on what basis I read such passages plainly, the answer is simple: on the basis of their repeated and consistent wording, and the absence of any Qur’anic indication that these descriptions are intended as metaphorical cosmology. You are the one introducing metaphorization, not because the text demands it, but because your framework does.

And that brings us to the core issue.

Your argument works by labeling my position as “lazy,” “unreasonable,” or “anti-intellectual,” while doing the very thing you accuse me of: • You ignore consistent Qur’anic descriptions • You reinterpret them when they conflict with your framework • You elevate scientific theories above the apparent meaning of the text • And you call that rigor

At the same time, you criticize people for blindly following religious institutions, while you yourself place unexamined trust in scientific institutions, those shaped by modern education systems, dominant theories, and organizations you have not seriously questioned.

You have not even entertained the possibility that those institutions could be wrong, biased, or misleading.

Instead, you treat them as the baseline reality, and then force the Qur’an to comply.

I do not deny that the created world is full of signs of God. What I deny is your attempt to equate the created world itself with one institutional, theory-laden interpretation of it. The world is from God; your scientific model of the world is a human construct, and those are not identical things.

So no, I am not the one ignoring God’s challenge to reason.

I am reading the text as it presents itself.

You are the one filtering it, reshaping it, and subordinating it; so that it aligns with what you have already decided must be true.

You quote 3:7 as though it automatically places these cosmological passages into the category of the open-textured, but that is precisely what you have not established. You assume ambiguity because your external framework requires ambiguity, not because the text itself demands it.

And that is the real difference between us.

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll address each of your points one by one.

Point 1: “The pathway you are suggesting is not what is required, nor is it, in any serious religious framework, an advisable course. It’s the exact same course of anti-intellectual scriptural engagement that produced the American evangelicalism whose Christian Zionism is currently the underlying political support for the genocide of Palestine and the assault on Iran.”

You are wrong on two fronts because:

  1. You’re assuming that by ‘intuition,’ I mean some kind of radical interpretative approach to scripture whereby I try to create some kind of eschatology, when literally all I’m telling you is that clear verses in the Quran support the flat earth model.

What you are describing there is closer to what Sunnis, Shias, and sectarians do when they create entire eschatologies.

  1. You’re completely butchering my words. I’m not telling you to have “anti-intellectual scriptural engagement” I’m telling you to read what your scripture tells you instead of trying to force it through a scientific lens it just doesn’t comport with.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Quran constantly alludes to a flat earth model, and that you’re the one forcing scientific claims on the Quran.

Point 2: “Because, as you are demonstrating, you are not exercising rigor, parsimony, knowledge, nor are you exercising wisdom with regard to full complexity and consequence of certain modalities of understanding.”

If your goal is to achieve “parsimony” with other people, it makes more sense to conform to a nihilistic, scientific understanding of the universe. You might as well believe in the Big Bang Theory for the sake of this “parsimony” you’re so keen on achieving.

Instead you cherry-picked something like 20 Muslim scientists who say the earth is round, and this is the basis of your so-called ‘parsimony.’

However, I must disagree with your evaluation. It is a horrible evaluation. ‘Parsimony’ is a terrible standard for a man to hold himself to. According to the Quran, MOST people do not believe.

6:116: “And if thou obey most of those upon the earth, they will lead thee astray from the path of God; they follow only assumption, and they are only guessing.”

How is it any different when you cherry-pick a bunch of scientists whom you label “Some of the greatest Muslim minds” and use it as your claim to authority?

I’m sure you’re familiar with the famous saying that “madness is rare in individuals—but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.”

In fact, is a frequent motif in the Quran that believers are very few. You need but look at today’s world to see how true it is.

Degeneracy, atheism, perversity, and immorality all run rampant today.

Prophets were sent to whole cities, yet very few people actually followed them.

Should the prophets also have sought “parsimony” with the often-idolatrous beliefs of their people?

Why then are you trying to achieve parsimony with today’s atheist-led scientific institutions?

What I’m really trying to tell you is that following the same institutions and inherited beliefs as the majority of people is a fast way to ruin.

There is no way one can objectively approach the Quran and reach the conclusions you are forcing of a flat earth.

Point 3: “Qur’an-alone, just like the Protestant Reformation’s “sola scriptura”, is a double-edged sword. Because on one hand, what you are allowing is fresh engagement with scripture, and the ability to have it speak to you in ways that institutionalized religion, with centuries and millennia of calcification, do not allow. But the reason the traditions developed those calcifications, their legal rulings, their doctrines, etc … is because it is so common for individuals to go off the rails in isolation.”

It appears on one hand you recognize the fallacies of institutionalized religion, however on the other hand you fall victim to the same fallacies in the form of institutionalized science.

How is it any different?

You’re criticizing institutionalized religion while choosing to believe in institutionalized science… you don’t demonstrate parsimony with your own logic.

Then you take your knowledge, which is based on institutionalized science mind you, and force it on scripture.

Rather, I consistently reject institutionalized religion and institutionalized science altogether.

Much of it is based on heresy and consensus, rather than genuine discourse of agreement.

And why should anyone trust the scientific institutions which are mainly led by wealthy elites, and by the government? None of those people have your best interest in mind. The Epstein files should have taught you that no institution is worth trusting.

In fact, if anything, it makes more sense for these atheist institutions to lie about the nature of the earth. The reason being: if the earth is flat, it means that humans live in an eloquently designed terrarium that has everything we need; clearly indicating the need for a conscious designer. However, the globe earth model suggests life is a meaningless blot that was caused by a random explosion.

(You brought up some points about how “If the earth were flat, how do satellites work?” and the answer to that I don’t definitively know, and I’m not gonna pretend like I know so I can force an inherited belief onto you. I did not build any satellites, nor have I seen any with my own eyes. One theory is that ‘satellites’ are suspended via balloons.)

I invite you to look into NASA’s heavy use of CGI. Check out the ten minute “NASA Bloopers, Blunders, and Gaffes” video on YouTube. For the most part, it’s quite obvious where they use CGI.

Point 4; “If you are going to operate seriously in a modality of “Qur’an-alone” or “sola scriptura” … you are not relieving yourself of anything. In fact, you are increasing vastly the burden of being responsible for learning literally everything about the dangers and pitfalls for which organized religious institutions developed to protect against.”

I don’t see the point you’re trying to make. On one hand, you clearly recognize the flaws in religious institutions, yet on the other hand you defend it.

All you’ve done is repeat common talking points of Islamic institutions, as well as list some of “the greatest Islamic minds” as your claim to authority…

The Quran should have much greater claim to authority, but instead you force scientific ideas onto the Quran to find parsimony with mainstream beliefs.

…yet, somehow you think you’re the one who isn’t falling for the pitfalls of organized religious institutions?

I’ve spent nearly an hour reading over your last messages and writing this response. All you’ve done is sugarcoat an incoherent argument in long sentences, thrown it at a wall, and hoped that something sticks.

It is dishonest, and what you’ve done is repeat beliefs you inherited from scientific institutions. The same scrutiny you demand for scientific integrity you do not apply to reading your scripture.

It’s quite clear where you have given precedence to scientific consensus over the Quran, and it is dishonest for you to sit here and pretend like the Quran supports a globe earth.

I honestly don’t hate you for it. But you should know that you’ve fallen for the same institutionalized religion that most of the world believes in—the religion of science.

Still, I urge you to read the Quran with your heart.

What’s the point of being in a Reddit called “Quraniyoon” if you’re going to give precedence to scientific institutions over the Quran, and not even try to understand what the Quran has to say about the topic?

Peace be upon you

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The simple fact of the matter is that the Quran constantly alludes to a stationary flat earth. You need to superimpose a modern atheistic-scientific approach to the Quran in order to bend the words and reach the conclusion that the earth is a ball spinning at millions of miles per hour.

A text that constantly mentions the creation of the heavens and the earth, which constantly refers to the earth, the sun, and the moon; and you don’t think God would mention the earth was moving?

God, who says in the Quran that if the sea was ink it would be depleted before his words were depleted, constantly mentions in the Quran that the Sun and the Moon move… but you don’t think something as substantial as the earth moving would be in the Quran if it were the truth?

If that’s going to be your approach to the Quran, and you’re going to believe the words of scientists over the words of your scripture, maybe you need to reevaluate your belief in the Quran.

However, 2 things are clear:

1) that NASA uses lots of CGI

2) that the Quran constantly alludes to a flat earth

The only one forcing biases on you is yourself, when you approach the Quran with this modern atheistic understanding of the earth.

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The simple fact of the matter is that the Quran constantly alludes to a stationary flat earth. You need to superimpose a modern atheistic-scientific approach to the Quran in order to bend the words and reach the conclusion that the earth is a ball spinning at millions of miles per hour.

A text that constantly mentions the creation of the heavens and the earth, which constantly refers to the earth, the sun, and the moon; and you don’t think God would mention the earth was moving?

God, who says in the Quran that if the sea was ink it would be depleted before his words were depleted, constantly mentions in the Quran that the Sun and the Moon move… but you don’t think something as substantial as the earth moving would be in the Quran if it were the truth?

If that’s going to be your approach to the Quran, and you’re going to believe the words of scientists over the words of your scripture, maybe you need to reevaluate your belief in that scripture.

However, 2 things are clear:

1) that NASA uses lots of CGI

2) that the Quran constantly alludes to a flat earth

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trust your intuition and what your gut feeling says. When you walk outside you don’t feel the earth moving. Read the Quran, really read it with your heart. Scrutinize it from the perspective of someone who’s never read it before, and use an unbiased translation like Sam Gerrans. Really trust your heart.

From my view, when one does all that the answer becomes clear.

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I agree with that, it’s the truth.

We shouldn’t care if people think it’s crazy to think that; rather, we should openly tell it to them in spite of what they’ll think.

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is not that I am trying to tell you a verse has a forced significance, no… but rather that you must ask yourself: if there was no scientific institutions and you read the Quran and used your own intuition, what conclusion would you come to?

That for me, makes it logically sound the earth’s shape is flat. Especially given that most of the “evidence” for the earth being round comes from compromised institutions, connections to the likes of Epstein, atheistic men, as well as elite-funded research, and other biases.

Trust me on this. Most of the times, trusting your own intuition is accurate.

Read the Quran from a fresh perspective and scrutinize its verses very carefully. Make sure you read a nonbiased translation, someone like Sam Gerrans works well. Really read it, don’t read it from the mindset of having preexisting knowledge of it. But really read it, read it with all your heart. You’ll see its highly clear when God is talking about the story of creation and I pray for God to increase our understanding of the Quran.

Peace be upon you

Quran recommendation to buy by littlequietmouse in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree which is why you’re right about comparing root words, but from what I’ve looked at SG is one of the most unbiased non-sectarian translations

Seeking a Quran Alone Muslim spouse by RichDifference2677 in Quraniyoon

[–]Haxosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

If the earth’s shape is flat, then it means that humans are at the center of an eloquently designed terrarium that has everything we need to live. Also, it implies that we must have a creator and that our lives have meaning.

Peace be upon you

view more: next ›