Sunday 9 November 2008

Islam was NOT spread by the sword

"He (Muhammad) said: "Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn't it time that you recognize that I am God's apostle?" He answered, "As to that I still have some doubt." I (Abbas) said to him, "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head," so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 547)


The Response:

The Muslims came in the fath of makkah [opening of makkah] because the quraysh broke the treaty of al hudaiybiyah which implied that they and their allies shouldn't fight each other - but the Quraysh did (by supporting the Bakr [Quraysh's allies] against the Khuza'ah [Muslims allies].)

Since fath al makkah never had still occured [the muslims still encamped outside Makkah, they were still in a state of war. So when Abu Sufyan came out to see which army had settled outside Makkah, he found out it was the Muslims. Since they never had no peace treaty now, he could be killed - since they were in a state of war against each other. Furthermore due to his continuous warfare against the Muslims [with him being the commander of Quraysh in the battles of Uhud, Ahzab, and many more.]

So his death would be justified, and he only wasn't killed because he became Muslim (so his past errors were forgiven.) If they did kill him, it wouldn't be because he rejected Islam, but because of his war crimes and him still being in a state of war with the Muslims. [the war ended when the Muslims opened Makkah, not before this.]




Abu Bakr said: "You asked me for the best advice that I could give you, and I will tell you. God sent Muhammad with this religion and he strove for it until men accepted it voluntary or by force." (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 668-669)

The Hadeeth you mentioned is weak, as Imam al-Haithami said in, Majma` az-Zawa-id (5/186). One of the narrators, Esa Ibn Sulaiman, is weak, while Esa Ibn Atiyyah, another narrator, is unknown.

Even if the Hadeeth is held as authentic, it is not what the enemies of Islam wish it means. All what the Hadeeth says is that some people became Muslim on their own, meaning they did not fight against Islam and Muslims before accepting Islam. Some others, meanwhile, became Muslim after they were defeated in battle. Thus, they accepted Islam ‘Kurhan’. It is well-known that Mu`awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, may Allah be pleased with him and with his father, accepted Islam willingly. Yet, another unsubstantiated Hadeeth claims that Sa`d Ibn Qais said to Mu’awiyah that he and his father became Muslim ‘Kurhan’; [Siyaru A`lami an-Nubalaa, by adh-Dhahabi].

This word, ‘Kurhan’, does not mean by force, but it pertains to ‘dislike; hatred; discomfort’. Obviously, one can dislike Islam but still become Muslim for different reasons, such as seeking financial compensation or to be hypocrite, or for simply knowing Islam is the truth and wishing to practice it so that they may love it later on. There is another meaning found in another Hadeeth collected by al-Haithami in, Majma az-Zawa-id (9/77), which states that Abdullah Ibn Abbas said to Umar Ibn al-Khattab, “The Messenger of Allah died while he was pleased with you. You then supported the Caliph after him, following the way of Allah’s Messenger. You then used those who came willingly against those who turned away, until people entered Islam willingly or Kurhan.” Obviously, this Hadeeth, which is Hasan, is in reference to fighting reverts from Islam during Abu Bakr’s Khilafah. Proof: Ibn Abbas said next, “Then, the Caliph (Abu Bakr) died while he was pleased with you.” It is well-known historically that Abu Bakr’s Khilafah was almost entirely spent fighting reverts from Islam (al-Murtaddun). These are people who entered Islam outwardly but their hearts did not enter Islam completely. When the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, died, they reverted from Islam thus committing a major crime for which they were fought and forced to reenter Islam or be killed for committing the crime of reversion from Islam.

Dear Brothers: always challenge those who claim that Islam supports forced mass-conversion to it to bring real evidence to one incident in which the Prophet of Allah, salla allahu alaihi wa-sallam, or the Four Khulafaa forced any nation or tribe to become Muslim under threat of death. ‘Kurhan’ does not only pertain to physical force, it also applies to dislike and discomfort. If ‘Kurhan’ only means being forced under threat of physical pain or death, then what meaning would that give to Allah’s Statement, {We commanded man to be kind to his parents, his mother carried him Kurhan and gave birth to him Kurhan}.

As-salamu alaikum warahmatullah
Jalal Abualrub


http://www.islamlife.com/forum/viewt...&thread_id=370

... When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Apostle is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah. (Bukhari: volume 5, book 59, number 643, Khan) "

if we see the hadith - we come to realise that Jarir (radhiAllahu anhu) actually warned this fortune teller once not to carry on with his evil or he would be killed - then he was left alone, but again he continued - thats why the 2nd time he was actually going to be killed, unless he repented [by becoming Muslim].

So the man was warned against this evil practise, since magicians and witches also face the death penalty in Islam. The hadith also shows that he never got killed straightaway. But when he continued, then he had to repent or face the death penalty. Because we know soothsayers do spoil peoples lives and make them doubt their faith, like magicians and witches cause evil.


http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?p=18108#post18108


Saturday 1 November 2008

arab dress clothes 7th century + miswak / siwak / siwaak








http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/200px-PLATE8CX.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/200px-PLATE8DX_foruth_sixth.jpg

7th century arab clothes / dress

islam spread by sword?

This response, by a non muslim (christian evangelist i think) further strengthens a muslims stance [which might be useful for copying and pasting in debates inshaAllah]:


In this formulation the claim was that jihad was better than secular conquest. Unlike Alexander the Great, Mohammed incorporated people in a polity in which they had the option of being saved, in which they had the ability to see for themselves, in which they could choose to become true believers. But it left inner conviction as something over which the individual had full control.

This argument ought to be easy for modern people to understand, or at least Americans, for they also tend to think that war can be legitimated by a high moral purpose - as long as that purpose hasn’t got anything to do with individual faith. The moral purposes they have in mind are wholly secular, not the lower level of religion, and the salvation they talk about is in this world. But they too tend to be eager to rescue other people by enabling them to become more like themselves: richer, freer, more democratic.


What do you do when your fingers are itching to intervene, when you have the power to do it, when you are sure you are right and you are convinced that the victims will be grateful - quite apart from all the advantages that may redound to yourself from intervening? Aren’t you allowed to use force? Indeed, aren’t you obliged to use it? Is it right to save people against their will? Should you force them to be free? If you say yes to these questions, you are in effect a believer in jihad.

“Jihad”: idea and history - Patricia Crone

Saturday 11 October 2008

9 year old young woman mother with child


9 year / yr old young woman mother with child

thai





http://www.archive.org/details/9YearOldYoungThaiWomanMotherWithChild


http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/thaigalhx9.jpg













http://www.scribd.com/doc/12868006/Refuting-the-Islamaphobes-Claim-that-Prophet-Muhammad-was-a-Pedophile

http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-muhammad/book-refuting-islamaphobes-claim-prophet-muhammad-pedophile-1441.html

http://forums.almaghrib.org/showthread.php?t=32081&page=1

Thursday 24 April 2008

Physical Descriptions of the Four Imams from 'Siyar A'lam an-Nubala''

Physical Descriptions of the Four Imams from 'Siyar A'lam an-Nubala''

1 - Abu Hanifah an-Nu'man bin Thabit:


Abu Yusuf said: "Abu Hanifah was well-formed, was from the best of people in appearance, the most eloquent of them in speech, the sweetest in tone, and the clearest of them in expressing what he felt."

Hamad bin Abi Hanifah said: "My father was very handsome, dark, had good posture, would wear a lot of perfume, was tall, would not speak except in reply to what someone else had said, and he - may Allah have Mercy upon him - would not involve himself in what did not concern him."

[6/535]


2 - Abu 'Abdillah Malik bin Anas:

'Isa bin 'Umar said: "I never saw anything white or red that was more beautiful than the face of Malik, or any clothes whiter than Malik's."

And a number of people relate that he was tall, firm, serious, blond, had a white beard and hair, had a large beard, was balding, and would not shave his moustache, as he considered this to be a form of mutilation.

It is said that he had blue eyes, and some of this was narrated by Ibn Sa'd from Mutarraf bin 'Abdillah.

Muhammad bin ad-Dahhak al-Hizami said: "Malik's clothes were clean and soft, and he would constantly wear different clothes."

al-Walid bin Muslim said: "Malik would wear white clothes, and I saw he and al-Awza'i wearing black and green caps."

Ashhab said: "When Malik would wear a turban, he would wrap part of it under his chin and would leave the ends of it hanging between his shoulders."

Khalid bin Khidash said: "I saw Malik wearing a cap, and I saw him wearing woven clothes."

Ashhab said: "If Malik would wear kohl for a necessity, he would remain in his house."

Mus'ab said: "Malik would wear 'Adani clothes, and he would wear perfume."

Abu 'Asim said: "I never saw a Muhaddith with a more handsome face than Malik's."

It is said: "He was so light colored that he was blond. He had wide eyes, a raised, pointed nose, and he would let his moustache grow long based on 'Umar's curling of his moustache."

Ibn Wahb said: "I saw Malik dying his hair with henna once."

Abu Mus'ab said: "Malik had the most handsome face of the people, the widest of eyes, the whitest skin, and was the greatest of them in height - all in the strongest body."

al-Waqidi said: "He was well-formed, would not dye his hair, and would not enter the public baths."

Bishr bin al-Harith said: "I entered upon Malik and saw him wearing a cap that was worth about 500 dirhams."

Ashhab said: "When Malik would wear a turban, he would wrap part of it under his chin and would leave the ends of it behind his back, and he would scent himself with musk and other scents."

[7/396-397]


3 - Abu 'Abdillah Muhammad bin Idris ash-Shafi'i:

Ibrahim bin Buranah said: "ash-Shafi'i was serious, tall, and noble."

[8/391]

az-Za'farani said: "ash-Shafi'i visited us in Baghdad in the year 95. He stayed with us for a few months, then left. He would dye his hair with henna, and he had thin cheeks."

Ahmad bin Sinan said: "I saw him with a red beard and hair - i.e. he used to dye them."

[8/415]


4 - Abu 'Abdillah Ahmad bin Hambal:


Ibn Dharih al-'Ukbari said: "I requested to see Ahmad bin Hambal. So, I greeted him, and he was an old man who dyed his hair. He was tall and extremely dark."

Muhammad bin 'Abbas an-Nahwi said: "I saw Ahmad bin Hambal with a handsome face, well-formed, and dyeing his hair with henna that was not too dark. He had black hairs in his beard, and I saw his clothes extremely white. When I saw him, he was wearing a turban and an izar."

[9/438]

'Abd al-Malik al-Maymuni said: "I do not know that I have ever seen anyone who wore cleaner clothes, was more attentive to trimming his moustache and grooming the hair on his head and body, or wore purer and whiter garments than Ahmad bin Hambal."

[9/454]

One man said: "In Khurasan, they did not think that Ahmad resembled a human being. They thought that he resembled the Angels."

[9/456]

al-Fadl bin Ziyad said: "I saw Abi 'Abdillah in the winter, and he was wearing two shirts with a colored vest between them, and maybe he was wearing a shirt with a heavy sweater. And I saw him with a turban over a hood and heavy outer garment. So, I heard Aba 'Imran al-Warkani saying to him: "O Aba 'Abdillah! All of these clothes?" So, he laughed and said: "I cannot stand the cold," and he would also wear the hood without a turban."

al-Fadl bin Ziyad said: "I saw Abi 'Abdillah in the summer wearing a shirt, trousers, and robe."

[9/461]



http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-history-biographies/134265875-physical-descriptions-four-imams-siyar-alam-nubala.html

Wednesday 27 February 2008

Terrorism?

Alot of People don't know where the Muslims stand today, with all these attacks going on - we're all confused. Is this terrorism a part of Islam? What should the Muslims really be doing?


We know there's quite alot of verses in the Qur'an which call against killing and harming innocent people;


Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind
, and whoso saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

[Qur'an 5:32]




So it's mentioned that killing one person unjustly is like killing all of mankind, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of mankind.


Now some people are still confused, are we supposed to be kind to non muslims? The answer for this is also in the Qur'an:


Allah/God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just.

[Qur'an 60:8]



So Allah/God is telling us that He does not stop us from dealing kindly and justly with the people who don't fight us for our faith. He encourages us to be kind and just towards them, and He loves that.




But then there's some people who twist the words of the Qur'an and argue that Muslims are allowed to kill the people who attack Muslim lands. Does this mean that the non fighters should be fought aswell?

Let's look at what the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said;


The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade the killing of non-combatants. Ibn `Umar, a Companion of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), said: “I saw the body of a slain woman during one of the battles of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so he forbade the killing of women and children.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]


This narration shows how it's forbidden to kill people who are not fighting the Muslims, and this includes the innocent people who are living their daily lives within the lands we're living in. Such as the UK, Europe, USA etc.


And even when defense is allowed in Islam, innocent people are not to be killed either;


Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to say the following words to his troops before sending them to war: “Go forward in the name of Allah. Do not kill an elderly person, nor a child, nor a woman, and do not exceed the bounds.” [ al-Muwatta’]




More info:

IslamReligion.com






maybe if we as Muslims can speak out to others - condemning the kind of stuff which is wrong, our lives as Muslims might become abit more easier insha Allah (God willing.) Smile

Terrorism?

Alot of People don't know where the Muslims stand today, with all these attacks going on - we're all confused. Is this terrorism a part of Islam? What should the Muslims really be doing?


We know there's quite alot of verses in the Qur'an which call against killing and harming innocent people;


Whosoever kills a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind
, and whoso saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.

[Qur'an 5:32]




So it's mentioned that killing one person unjustly is like killing all of mankind, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of mankind.


Now some people are still confused, are we supposed to be kind to non muslims? The answer for this is also in the Qur'an:


Allah/God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loves those who are just.

[Qur'an 60:8]



So Allah/God is telling us that He does not stop us from dealing kindly and justly with the people who don't fight us for our faith. He encourages us to be kind and just towards them, and He loves that.




But then there's some people who twist the words of the Qur'an and argue that Muslims are allowed to kill the people who attack Muslim lands. Does this mean that the non fighters should be fought aswell?

Let's look at what the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said;


The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade the killing of non-combatants. Ibn `Umar, a Companion of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), said: “I saw the body of a slain woman during one of the battles of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so he forbade the killing of women and children.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]


This narration shows how it's forbidden to kill people who are not fighting the Muslims, and this includes the innocent people who are living their daily lives within the lands we're living in. Such as the UK, Europe, USA etc.


And even when defense is allowed in Islam, innocent people are not to be killed either;


Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) used to say the following words to his troops before sending them to war: “Go forward in the name of Allah. Do not kill an elderly person, nor a child, nor a woman, and do not exceed the bounds.” [ al-Muwatta’]




More info:

IslamReligion.com






maybe if we as Muslims can speak out to others - condemning the kind of stuff which is wrong, our lives as Muslims might become abit more easier insha Allah (God willing.) Smile

The Order of the creation of the heavens and earth - error in Qur'an?



http://islamtoday.net/english/show_d...id=23&q_id=829

Question: Does the Qur’ân teach us that the Earth was created first and then the heavens were created? Would this not contradict with our current scientific knowledge?

Answered by the Scientific Research Committee - IslamToday.net




The Qur’ân does not go into detail about the mechanics of the creation of the universe. Its focus is on the fact that Allah created everything and on reminding us of all the blessings that we have in what Allah has created for us.


The verses in question are the following:

“It is He who created for you all that is in the Earth, then turned to the heaven and made them seven heavens. And He has knowledge of all things.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 29]

“Say: Is it that ye deny Him who created the Earth in two days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of all the Worlds. He set within it mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings upon the Earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four days alike for (all) who ask. Then He turned to the heaven and they had been smoke. He said to it and to the Earth: ‘Come willingly or unwillingly.’ They said: We come willingly.’ So He completed them as seven heavens in two days…” [Sûrah Fussilat: 9-12]


It is important to note that the word thumma” – translated in the above-mentioned verses as “then”does not always indicate chronology. Al-Razî, in his commentary on verse 29 of Sûrah al-Baqarah, states that in this verse, the word thumma it is not indicative of chronology. He writes:

The word “then” (thumma) is not here for chronological order, but merely to enumerate blessings. It is like when one man says to another: “Did I not give you great benefits, then raised your status, then repelled your opponents?” It may be that some of what he mentioned later took place first. The same can be said here. [Mafâtîh al-Ghayb (2/143)]
Al-Baydâwî writes:
Perhaps the word “then” (thumma) here is to indicate the disproportion between the two creations and the greater merit of the creation of the heavens over the creation of the Earth. This is like when Allah says: “Then (thumma) he had been among those who believed”. This is not to indicate its occurring later chronologically. [Tafsîr al-Baydâwî (1/27)]


Keep in mind that these commentators lived a long time ago (roughly 800 years back). They had no reason to worry about the scientific implications that we worry about today, because our current scientific knowledge about the formation of the universe and planets was not around back then. They were only concerned with the linguistic meaning of these verses and were speaking from a purely linguistic perspective.

These verses are simply not discussing the sequential order of the events of creation.

And Allah knows best.

Tuesday 26 February 2008

If God is the All-Knowing, then why does He test us?

If God is the All-Knowing, then why does He test us?


God knows all that has happened, all that is happening and all that will happen. That's a fundamental belief, since God implies Perfection - therefore Perfection means that He has to have knowledge of ALL His creation.


So why does He test us?


The response is simple; He knows the answers, but we don't - and since the test is for us, we need to strive to earn His pleasure by obeying Him and His Messengers'. By striving for this target - we hope to be successful in this life and the next. That's His Promise to His obedient servants.


An examiner knows the answers to all the questions he puts forward to his students, the students work hard to achieve the grades they need. Although they know that the exam has already been planned out, the student has to work sincerely and put effort into his/her work to get the desired grades.

Those who attempt to work hard, sincerely - their efforts will not go to waste, whereas those who are too lazy and dont' even attempt to get a good grade - then they'll lose. They'd never know what grade they would have got, if only they had attempted it! They might have been successful.







26:

this mini article will discuss how true Messengers of God don't lie or decieve people.. since this is not an attribute of a true Messenger of God.

26: [i ask u for no wage]

Aayaat - [signs]

The word 'aayaat [plural]/aayah [singular]' (in arabic) which is commonly translated as 'verse' by many people isn't as accurate as you may think.

The word aayah/aayaat actually mean's 'sign/s.'



Now some people try to attack the Qur'an and Sunnah and claim that it's not 'proof' that it is from God, or other concepts which require faith.


Muslims might respond that the Qur'an and Sunnah prove that God exists, but then people who deny the Divine sources of Qur'an and Sunnah may attack back and ask whether the person can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell God. And if we are not able to - then that is not 'proof.'



Other words mentioned in the Qur'an as signs are 'bayinaat' - which comes from the root word Bayna - which means 'between.' So the bayinaat which God gave to His Messengers' would be a sign between both parties - the disbelieving and believing - to show a miracle which no-one could surpass at any time in history, except a Messenger of God.

Even magicians could not surpass this level. And there are many miracles such as the miracles of Moses allowing his people to pass through the Nile, the cures which Jesus son of Mary was able to perform, i.e. wiping the eyes of a blind man with his hand and the man seeing again. Or even the miracle of the Qur'an revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) - none has ever been able to come up with anything similar to it in any time of history, and the challenge remains open till today - to produce a minimum of just 3 verses to match it. If it wasnt from the Lord of the Worlds, then why isn't anyone to compete with it in any way?

Indeed all these are signs from the Most High, the Wise.




So looking back at the concept of aayah/aayaat or bayinaat - we see that Allah has given us many signs which help us come closer to a conclusion.


Imagine going on a journey, there will be lots of signs/aayaat as you pass by - you can choose to follow the signs and reach your destination, or you can deny them and prefer your own way. Even though the signs are for your benefit, no-one should force you to follow the correct path. But they should be sincere and kind hearted enough to warn you that you are heading the wrong way.

Going down the wrong path will take you to the wrong destination - simply because there is only one way to get to the correct destination - & this is by following the signs which are given to you.


Is then one who walks headlong, with his face grovelling, better guided,- or one who walks evenly on a Straight Way?

[Qur'an 67:22]







Saturday 23 February 2008

So, what is free will anyway?

So, what is free will anyway?

Free will is a very difficult matter. At first sight it might appear contradictory to causality and determinism; but is it really? One of my main arguments against religion I used to have back when I was an atheist, was that the human psychology works by causal processes stimulated by outside occurrences, and there is thus no such thing as free choice. It is like comparing the human mind to a computer program. It does what it is programmed to do, and thus is not free. As I reconsidered these arguments later in life however, I came to the conclusion that no proof nor indication can be found in the fields of neuro-psychology that confirms this view. Our current knowledge on the human mind is way to limited. There is definitely still more then enough room for interpreting the mind as free. Of course I grant that us humans do experience basic, instinctive impulses and desires that drive us, however, we can deny these urges by choice! Take fasting for example. Denying ones basic urges to eat for a full day. And that is what true freedom of choice means. That is why someone who choses to ignore his lusts and urges, and instead choses to follow religion acquires the greatest degree of freedom one can have. Because what you do then is ignore your causal body, and follow your spiritual soul. In other words, the choice boils down to this: be a slave of your urges, and needs, or be a slave of God.

One objection some might still have, is that religion says there is determinism, and that the future is already set. However there's a big semantical problem here that I explain in the page dedicated to time. the word "already" is nonsensical in that sentence because it is a word derived from a presentists point of view. If we include layers of time into this objection, we find that the statement becomes: "At the time1 that I haven't made a choice yet1 the future1 is already2 determined." So it isn't really "already" decided in the sense that we have no saying in it, since that already refers to secondary layer of time. It is already2 decided because an observer outside of time1 would see which course of action we will1 take. That has no bearing on the causality of this time. And it certainly doesn't mean our window of opportunity to choose has passed. The reason the future is set is because our choices are know. n other words, are choices are included into the determination, so the determination does not negate us having a choice.

So, what is big bang anyway?

So, what is big bang anyway?

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/fundamentalism.htm

The big bang theory, is a theory in cosmology that explains how the universe evolved from it's primitive state up to it's current. It does not explain how the universe was created, or what caused it to exist. It simply explains how the universe behaved after it was created! People often ask, if God created everything, what created God? Well big bang has the same problem, if big bang turned the universe into what it is today, what created the big bang? You see the game can be played at both sides. At least I never propose that believing in God answers this question. That's a strawman argument used by atheists. Some on the other hand do claim that big bang solves the paradox of beginning of existence, while it obviously does not. So big bang does not serve as an alternative for not believing in God. In fact the Qur'an even describes the beginning of the universe, and it's constant expansion in a similar way.

So, what is big bang anyway?

So, what is big bang anyway?

The big bang theory, is a theory in cosmology that explains how the universe evolved from it's primitive state up to it's current. It does not explain how the universe was created, or what caused it to exist. It simply explains how the universe behaved after it was created! People often ask, if God created everything, what created God? Well big bang has the same problem, if big bang turned the universe into what it is today, what created the big bang? You see the game can be played at both sides. At least I never propose that believing in God answers this question. That's a strawman argument used by atheists. Some on the other hand do claim that big bang solves the paradox of beginning of existence, while it obviously does not. So big bang does not serve as an alternative for not believing in God. In fact the Qur'an even describes the beginning of the universe, and it's constant expansion in a similar way.

So, what is evolution anyway?

Well since so many things evolve, evolution could refer to practically anything. The evolution I want to talk about here is the biological one. But even there we encounter a need to be more specific. So lets start with some definitions:

  • Biological evolution.
    This general term can be split up into two separate theories:
    • Evolution of life out of lifeless matter a.k.a. abiogenesis.
      This is the theory on how life evolved out of lifeless matter on earth.
    • Evolution of the different species.
      This is a group name for several other theories such as the theory of genetic mutation, survival of the fittest, genetic drift, and so on. These theories can be mainly categorized into three segments:
      • The theory of micro evolution progresses.
        How genetic drift trough variation and mutation creates new breeds of a certain specie that then grow larger in numbers trough survival of the fittest.
      • The theory of macro evolution progresses.
        How mutations on a genetic level can cause new species.
      • The theory of common descent.
        How trough micro and macro evolution all existing creatures evolved out of the same ancestral being. This is not a scientific theory but a historical one. In other words it doesn't tell us something about the nature of physics, or the physics of nature, instead it speculates on how the currently existing organisms have evolved in the past.


How dare you!?

As you might have noticed evolution has been a hot topic for decades, ever since the beginning of it, and it continues to be widely discussed today. And all to often proponents of evolution like to create the illusion as if the debate on evolution is a debate of science vs. religion. But let's look at what's really at stake shall we?

The theistic agenda.
Let us say for the argument that as an extreme example tomorrow every single little thing that falls under biological evolution is true, how would that change the theist his paradigm? Well it wouldn't change a lot. even in the worst case scenario that all turns out to be true, intelligent design (ID) still rescues religion. Like I explain here, our current scientific knowledge on causality still leaves more then enough room for divine powers to be at the source of it. So from that viewpoint God creating species miraculously is just as much as an act of God as God creating them trough his habitual enforcement of physical law. So this means nothing really changes, at least not for Muslims. Christians on the other hand would have some problems, since their scripture includes specific details which would be rendered false by this. However the late Catholic pope John Paul did publish an open letter (it was covered in BBC news) stating that these specific details from the book of genesis were added by the Catholic church when the Bible was compiled in order to answer questions that they weren't able to answer at that time.

The atheistic agenda.
Now, again for the sake of argument let us assume the opposite extreme, that tomorrow every single part of biological evolution turns out to be false. How would that alter the atheists paradigm? Well the atheist would have some major unsolved mysteries in his paradigm. Although some might be fine with that, others their paradigm might crumble. As it is today, the misuse of randomness as a counter against the anthropic argument is already a bit of a stretch, as explained here. But if on top of that, the whole lot of theories under biological evolution fall away; the counter simply can't be stretched that far. The atheistic paradigm would have a huge gap there. I argue atheists would automatically start to formulate their personal beliefs of what did happen. Now these beliefs may vary from alien conspiracy theories, to philosophical abstract visions or classical religious views. Nevertheless each self aware atheist will start to wonder about this and think about alternative explanations. I think this qualifies as a major change of paradigm. And that is something most people do not like. Changing paradigms is scary due to the uncertainty of what the change will lead to. The human psyche has a natural fear for everything that is unknown. So changing paradigms means that during the transition you need to consider your whole world as unknown. Not an easy thing to do.




Let there be science

Like I said, all to often proponents make it look as if anyone who disagrees with any part of biological evolution; is someone who disagrees with science itself. An often used comparison is that evolution is just as much of a "theory" as gravity is. But how much weight does that argument carry? Well to avoid sweeping generalizations, let's consider the current status of each part:

Abiogenesis Hypothesis which is incomplete, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.
Micro evolution Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Macro evolution Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
Common descent Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.

People who feel I have made an error here and think that Abiogenesis and common descent are either testable, falsifiable or proven,.. Feel free to present your case on my forums.

So my personal beliefs are that, several species were created metaphysically, and that those ones after that they were created all evolved into an even larger variety of creatures. I trust the scientific accuracy of the theory of micro and macro evolution, but I argue that they simply don't cut it to fill in common descent. As for abiogenesis, there are many scientific objections why that is unlikely.

Now getting back to the comparison with denial of gravity, if it is directed to someone who denies the possibility of micro and macro evolution, then I agree completely. To deny them is similar to denying gravity. If however someone denies Abiogenesis and common descent -like I do- then the comparison is inapt. These two are not scientific theories, denying them does not go in against science. Now often the reply I get is that I'm simply compromising the parts that are proven, and blindly deny those that are not. A witty reply, but another way to look at it is that the parts of biological evolution that could be considered as somewhat incompatible with religious doctrine are "coincedently" the same that are not proven. Both arguments however are emotive. From a rational perspective both parties would have to agree that the validness of one theory has no bearing on the validity of another, not even if they are in the same field or have overlapping parts. Each theory should be judged on its own merits.




Out of thin air, and prebiotic soup

Well as stated before, since there are a lot of gaps here, this is closer to hypothesis rather then theory. Some scientists speculate that it happened, but they failed to explain how it happened. In other words, it's strictly speculation at this point. there's no proof, no falsifiability and no testability. In all common sense, we should even label this as science. The hypothesis though, do have a scientific character, but let us take a closer look at those.

The biggest challenge to the theory is DNA or RNA. Even the most primitive life forms -viruses- consist out of RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no knowledge of previous life can be past down. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first being to have it to. Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is speculating on how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter. But we encounter a paradox a bit similar as the chicken or the egg problem. Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids: RNA and DNA. This information is used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on proteins to direct many of the reactions required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox. Nucleic acids are made with the help of proteins and proteins are made with the presence of their corresponding nucleotide sequence. So which of those two was first? The chicken or the egg?

In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids. However, much larger percentage of substances harmful to life were mixed with it. Next to that the experiment does not account for all required amino acids to make proteins, and the experiment also does not explain how these amino acids would then go on to form the required proteins. The experiment also showed some of the building blocks for nuclide acids, but again does not account for how they could have formed DNA/RNA. Furthermore, there were both left handed as right handed isomers, whereas only one type is common in biology.

Now, often people reply this was just one week the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true. But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would be 200m or 300m even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run a distance of 100m on that longer track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance. Likewise; the many years that earth existed does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. In other words, the amount of time available, as long as it is enough, has no bearing on the chemical possibility of it happening. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.

But that's just the beginning next to the shortcomings of the experiment a lot of criticism can also be formed as to how representative it was. The experiment did not contain oxygen, since oxygen generally oxidizes anything it comes in contact with. It's quite destructive. No oxygen however, means no atmosphere and also no ozone, which is formed by oxygen. Ozone blocks us from UV light from the sun. Without ozone we'd be bombarded by it. And UV-light breaks down ammonia, one of the major components of the experiment. So I guess you're catching my drift by now. Either the experiment should have contained oxygen, to account for the presence of ammonium or we have to explain the high presence of ammonium despite the lack of ozone.

Another angle to looking at it -panspermia- is even more far fetched. Rather then just only lightning striking continually for a week on the same spot, it speculates that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But the presence of peptides still doesn't explain creation of life. Furthermore not any meteor fits the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply shifts the problem away from earth rather then answering it.

So I think you would see by now that the process is unlikely, not because it has a number of different possible outcomes, but rather because the circumstances allegedly giving this outcome are insufficient to explain the process as self-evident.







One big happy family

Just as with abiogenesis, common descent is closer to hypothesis rather then theory. And just like abiogenesis, it's strictly speculation at this point. There's no proof, no falsifiability and no testability. The hypothesis is based on the sweeping generalization that since some organism evolved from one another, all must have evolved from the same one.

Let us continue where I left off in abiogenesis. The very first lifeforms; was it a virus, or a one-celled organism. If it was a virus, how was it able to be sustained without a host for long enough until it evolved into a one-celled organism? If it did evolve into a one-celled organism, how come the one-celled organism wasn't immediately killed by the presence of the viruses. Viruses generally kill cells. Some might not kill animals or people, but that's only because we have enough cells, and can spare the cells that are killed by viruses, and because we have the mechanisms to defeat the virus. But how did this first one-celled organism survive among it's un-evolved brothers and sisters? But more importantly, how would a virus evolve into a one-celled organism. Even the most simple one-celled organism is incredibly complex when looked at from a chemical level. It requires very specific molecules to be build in very specific manners at very specific places. It's like suggesting that a fully operative factory with working personal was created from a tornado by first passing trough a scrapyard and then passing trough a cemetery. even if you have the right components, the tornado lacks the methodology to form it into something workable. In biology we call this irreducible complexity. This refers to an organism or part of an organism that is complex in the sense it has multiple components, but the components by themself have no function. Because of survival of the fittest, useless components will not evolve. the only way is if all components are created at once. That is why the organism is thus irreducibly complex; it has to have been created at once as it is, not in multiple steps. A much more detailed explanation of this, can be found in this movie: Intelligent Design - Unlocking the mysteries of life.

This irreducibly complexity does not occur only on the chemical level, but can also be found on a much larger level; with organelles and organs. Although I do grant that most organs and organelles could evolve into more complex organs and organelles, at some point, the very first version of most of them would have some degree of irreducible complexity to do what it is supposed to do. A common case discussed in this line of argument is the eye. For the eye to do what it's suppose to, it needs several components, a lens, muscles to adjust it, light receptors, nerves, and so on... Recently a reply has been formulated that speculates on how mollusks could have evolved from eye-less to seeing, by intermediate steps. The speculation goes that it went from pigment rich skin, light sensitive spots, light sensitive cavities, light sensitive cavities with liquid in it, light observing with liquid and a lens. And some of the needed intermediate steps have been found among the mollusk. However the speculation is incomplete. Each change should have been possible from a single genetic mutation. So is it possible for a snail to go from light sensitive to light observing cells and at the same time evolve the necessary neural changes for the light impulses to be registered, let alone to make sense? Some might reply, well they could have adapted to the new type of impulses. But somebody who claims that doesn't really understand what adaptation means. Adaptation in biology, is a variation on survival of the fittest. It explains how a feature can be preserved after it mutated. It does not account for the origin of the new feature. So replying to me that they could have adapted is like saying there was a secondary mutation to take care of it. Which brings me back to my original statement, that the organ is irreducible complex since it would have to rely on multiple mutations at once. Similar arguments can be made for all other steps, as well as for other organs and organelles. But more importantly, not only does common speculate that an organ like the eye evolved naturally against all odds, it also speculates that this unlikely event occurred multiple times for multiple species. The mollusk for example, are speculated to be from a different branch as the insects; so the evolution of mollusks eyes cannot be used to account for insect eyes, which are a lot more complex by the way. The same goes for other species; who allegedly formed eyes completely independently.

And we can find irreducible complexity at yet an even larger scale when considering abilities of species. Certain abilities, like flying, breathing underwater, breathing above water, digesting, reproducing trough cell division, reproducing trough male and female, all these abilities rely on multiple organs and characteristics. That is to say that some animals, or at least some type of animals like fish, bird, mamels, reptiles,... are irreducibly complex. They requires multiple organs and features to do what they generally do. A single of those features does not have a function, and the ability requires multiple features.

Next to making comparisons, some try to enter the fossil record as proof for common descent, the argument goes, that fossils show up in certain layers of ground which in term are linked to certain eras in time. If you then make a timetable of which time the fossilized creatures lived in, it matches the timetable that common descent proposes. Well first of all, that's hardly any proof, all it does is proof which creatures lived at which time, it doesn't proof which evolved into which. Creationists might just as well claim that this proves when certain animals were created. The fossil record does not favor common descent over creation. In fact quite the opposite can be said, the fossil has many issues that reflect bad on common descent. Like the cambrian explosion. and era where there's a sudden high concentration of entirely new species, as opposed to the slower pace of other eras. Another problem are the large number of missing links. There are so many proposed intermediate species missing, that some scientists have started suggesting that rather then a slow step by step evolution, there must have been "jumps" to. But that's of course very unlikely. A mutation that carries benefit is in itself unlikely, many mutations at once that carry some benefit is close to impossible.

A simular argument, is that if you make a tree of heritage, based on similarities in DNA between creatures, then you have more or less a similar tree to the tree of descent that common descent proposed. But this information is actually false. First of all, only the genome of 4 animals has been decoded so far. (Humans, chimp, mouse and fly). So we're far from making a thorough comparison, more detail about comparing DNA is in the next section. Basically what they compare are karyotypes, not DNA. But even then, the argument is a false. When DNA was discovered, and they started comparing karyotypes, the three they got contradicted the earlier proposed three of descent! It was a fresh start for evolution and they had to revise the whole theory. The current three of descent is based on this comparison of karyotype, and not confirmed by it!





You've grown up to be quite the man, you have.

Evolution of mankind is a very specific and dominant part of common descent. Although several proposed links by the three of common descent provide interesting debates, I feel that this one is most appropriate for two reasons. The firs one being that it is most relevant in this context, the second being that it is the link in the chain that is most studied and documented, and thus provides for a much more in depth analysis. Some people are under the impression that this part of common descent is proven, but that is far from true. I'll attempt to discuss some of the commonly used flawed arguments.

Argument from comparison:
This is perhaps the most dominant argument. But it is a slippery slope. The argument holds that things who look alike, must have evolved from one another. That is off course uncertain. Similarity could just as well mean that they were created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. The similarity does not prove one belief to be more likely than the other. Also note that the comparisons are usually made in the wrong way. For example, many of the alleged intermediate species between ape and human, are argued to be human afterall. Here are some proposed missing links:
* Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
* Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
* Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
* Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
The false claims from Richard leakey and Donald C Johanson that the australopithecus walked erected has been refuted and it seems the Australopithecus is closely related with urangutans which according to evolutionists is from a different branch then the one mankind origenated from.

* Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago (proposed in the 60's as first humanoid that walked erecte and used tools). New discoveries in 80's showed a different picture and Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace said that this was in fact nothing more then An Australopithecus habilis. So it's just another extinct african ape.

* Homo rudolfensis 1.9 to 1.6 million years ago. It refers to a single fragmented skull found in Kenia. However most scientists have accepted it again as nothing more then Australopithecus habilis.

* Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago. Although this skeleton is exactly the same as human, evolutionists have classified it as a transendiery specie, based on the small skullcontents (900-1100 cc) and because of the big eyebrows (of the skull). However, there are humans alive today with that skullcontents (i.e. Pygmees), and that have such eyebrows (i.e. Australian aborigenals)! So there is no reason to assume these skelletons are a missing link, they are just humans. In fact the New Scientists of 1998 14 march even wrote an excelent article of how Homo erectus had the technology to build and use transport ships.

* Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago. Again there's no reason to assuùme they weren't human, in fact many researchers have even concluded that they are exactly the same as Australian aborigenals. They even found skeletons of them showing that they lived up to recently in villages in Italy and Hungary. The dramatic pictures of hary human-like apes you found in schoolhandbooks are just indulgance into imagenation, remmeber we've only found skelletons.

* Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago. Erik Trinkus, paleontologist of university of mexico writes: detailed study of the skelleton of the remains of the Neandertalensis with modern man show that nothing in the anatomy of the Neaderthalensis such as movement, manipulation, intelect and linguistic capabilities are inferior to that of modern man.

Now I'm not going to claim there's some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here, and that evolutionists purposely create false intermediate species. But perhaps people are just looking so hard for these unfound missing links that they start to see things that aren't there. We need to remember species have both a genotype and a phenotype. The genotype are the genes they carry, and the phenotype are physicals characteristics a specie has. To give an example, a person can have the genotype for both blue as for brown eyes, in other words he has both the genes that causes eyes to be blue, as the gene that causes eyes to be brown. However he will only have one phenotype, he will only have brown eyes. Since evolution takes place on a genetic level, we should compare genes, and not skulls.

The stereotype reply you get to this is: well chimps do have 99% of there DNA in common with mankind right? Isn't that comparing genotype rather then phenotype? My answer is; "No, that is false information!". There is not a 99% similarity between human and Chimp DNA. In fact you will find that even two brothers will have less then 99% similarity except for identical twins. The 99% similarity is not with DNA, but with karyotypes! So what's the difference? DNA are long strings of Nucleic acids. However these strings are not stored in the nucleus like spaghetti's in a casserole. Instead the strings are wound up and held into position by histones to form Chromosomes. When you align all chromosomes of a specie you have what we call a karyotype. So when you compare karyotypes. So what we are comparing is not really DNA, but just the method of how DNA is packed. If chimps have similar karyotypes, that means they use histones in a similar method as we do, that does not mean we have similar DNA. In fact you could say that this comparison is just a comparison of phenotypes, like comparing skulls rather then comparing genotypes.


Argument from ERV's:
ERV stands for endogenous retro virus. This is a virus that has embedded itself into DNA and gets passed on generation after generation. We share some alleged ERV's with chimps. It is thus suggested as proof for our common descent, that we both must have originated from a specie that was infected by this virus. The first problem with this argument is that it's hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn't come with a tag attached saying: "This is an ERV". It could be that some genes which we expect to be ERV's aren't ERV's but something completely different, or it could even be junk genes, byproduct. That is because a virus will rarely be embedded in it's complete form. To explain this, let my use a simplified example. Imagine a woman who has a flu and the virus gets embedded and passed on to a fertilized egg cell. This is of course unlikely because the common flu virus is usually not located near the ovaries, but indulge me for the sake of argument and simplicity. The child would have a flu in every single cell of his body. His cells would constantly reproduce this virus, and spread it throughout it's body. You can imagine this fetus doesn't have a fighting chance from the start on. No, for an ERV to be passed down trough generations, it has to be rendered harmless first. So how do you recognize it as a virus after this rendition to harmless junk then?

A second problem of the argument, is it's slippery slope again. What if both chimps and humans were infected by the virus, and both got ERV's in a similar fashion? After all, given their similar physiology, that seems reasonable enough right? Well the reply from evolutionists is, that the ERV is specific in a certain locus (place on the genes) and it is improbable for both chimps and humans to create an ERV at the exact same spot. However, I disagree. There is a recent discovery at the university of Pennsylvania US that shows a human DNA-associated protein that would dictate where on the DNA AIDS is to be inserted. The protein called LEDGF would travel along with the retrovirus in it's mantel and then modulate where in the human genome the virus is inserted. So if retroviruses can be locus specific, then loci-specific ERV's is no longer a problem for creationists. It is then a matter of simple causality; similar results by similar processes.

Argument from unintelligent design:
This isn't really scientific but philosophical. The argument goes like this: "Creation is flawed, in the sense that it's poorly designed. There are many shortcomings and imperfections. If we would have truly been created, we would have been perfect rather then imperfect." There are however tons of things wrong with this. First of all, we need to look at the term perfection. Does it refer to an Utopian perfection, or rather as-good-as-it-gets kind of perfection? For those referring to an Utopian perfection, I gladly present my counter-arguments against the flawed argument from the paradox of omnipotence. For the other interpretation of imperfection, we have to note that judgment of perfection and imperfection is very subjective. For example, would perfection include immortality? what if it is our purpose to stay here only temporarily in the first place, wouldn't a mortal design then be more appropriate over an immortal one? Who's to say that we aren't perfect, in the sense that this is as good as it can be? The only way to make this argument work, is to hypothesis an alternative design, and then illustrate the advantage such an alternative design would have over the current design. A completely different design from scratch is of course way to hard for our limited minds, let alone that we could do a meaningful comparison of such a design and the current. Therefor most proponents of this argument have restricted themselves to slight variation on the current design.

An example I have encountered in the past is the position of the vas deferens. The vas deferens is the duct that carries sperm to the ejaculatory duct. The problem with it is that it lies all the way around the ureter, which makes surgery at the prostate challenging. This is because during development, the testicles drop down, thus pulling the duct around the ureter. Now to this argument I reply, bringing an alternative design is not as simple as making a drawing of how it should end up. If any proponents of unintelligent design feel that this alternative design is possible they should do a better job at defending their viewpoint and show us that this alternative is possible in the first place. In other words, show us how your design is workable, from genotype to phenotype, not only in phenotype. When this is done, and we have a full script, only then we can begin discussing which of the two designs is best and keep all circumstances under consideration. Now even if the alternative design turns out to be workable I suspect that the difficulties and complexity that it brings with them will outweigh the surgeon's convenience. Especially when you take in consideration the small percentage of people, from the dawn of mankind up until now, who ever have surgery done at the prostate.

A second example I have encountered in the past is the blind spot of the eye. Here even more then in the case of the vas deferens, I question the possibility of a design without it. The blind spot is very intrinsic to the mechanism of the eye, and is an effect created by a very vital part of the eye. Designing an eye without a blind spot is thus very challenging. Furthermore, the blind spot of each eye is compensated by the second eye. So the "flaw" in design isn't really problematic if you look at the totality, a set of eyes. Also note that there is a difference between the optical blind spot -a gap in the vision of the eye created by a spot where there are no visual receptors due to the positioning of the nerves- and the blind spot of a vehicle -a space around the vehicle that is from the driver's position despite the use of mirrors- in case you were wondering.

Argument from useless design:
This is a bit similar to the argument of unintelligent design, but more simplistic. It argues that species have body parts that have no use, which is a waste. Of course adding a useless part in a design isn't the same as dumb design, but it wouldn't be considered as smart either. However I argue that there are no useless body parts, and that every part of our body has a function. Several parts have been suggested by proponents. Although I grant that some of those suggested parts are not vital for survival, that doesn't mean they are completely useless. People can even live after limbs have been amputated, but that doesn't mean an extra arm is useless.

As always, if you feel I missed anything important here, or you have an argument which you think cut's the mustard, feel free to bring it up at my forum.




http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/Chromatin_Structures.png






Monday 18 February 2008

Evolution & cells - by an amazin bro - steve aka abdul fattah! :D

This brother's just a hero! :D Alhamdulillah plz check these links..

http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htm





FreeScienceLectures'! About Cells n DNA n stuff! Cells are an amazing design of Allah, the Originator of the Heavens & the Earth!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5UoKYGKxxMI

Thursday 14 February 2008

Questions which Science will never be able to Answer?

Questions which Science will never be able to Answer?


1 & 2 - A question which science can not answer is the existence of a Creator or God. Yet this still does not deny the existence of One. Another question which science will not be able to answer is the concept of Revelation, and whether God really communicates with His creation. Both these questions will be addressed below:


Science is what we observe, hear, smell, touch, and taste. We use our senses and see the world, and universe around us. According to many believers in God, science is the pattern in which we see God’s creation. We believe that science can be truthful, or it can be in error - because it is simply man’s observations.

As believers in a God, we believe that this God has sent guidance for mankind, through a messenger - since God is capable of informing mankind whatever He wishes. He does not have to show Himself, since part of faith and belief is to believe in the unseen. However, the guidance which He sends surpasses all other works, i.e. the Qur’an discusses the Big Bang and many other scientific facts from over 1,400 years ago. Using science, we were able to understand them verses, and this is what enhances belief in God and His revelation to His messenger (who was an an unlettered man - who never knew how to read or write.) Since this theory was only discovered within the early 1900s, believers in the Qur'an will feel that this truly is a book sent down by God, since it is quite hard for an unlettered man to randomly guess this concept, and many many others over a millenium and a half ago, a man about who Lamartine in “Historie de la Turquie” wrote:


“Orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a culture without images, founder of 20 terrestrial empires and 1 spiritual empire.

That is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?”

(Lamartine in “Historie de la Turquie”)

http://wamy.co.uk/bd_m.htm
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/49891-man-muhammad-may-god-s-peace-upon-him-quick-intro-start-here.html


A man who it's been authentically narrated - never lied in his life, not even once - who was known as the 'Most Trustworthy' by even his enemies. Without a doubt, getting a message from someone so honest, coming with a truth which is proven even 14 centuries later makes a person believe that this man was sent as a servant and messenger of God, conveying to mankind what is good, and calling away from what is evil. Informing mankind that we are responsible for our deeds, and that we will return to the One who gave us life on a final day, and be questioned about all that we did in this temporary life. Then either be rewarded or punished for that.

This explains and shows the justice of God, and that although there may be people doing acts of injustice in this world - God is not unaware of what they do, and that they will be responsible before the Most Just. This is an explanation for those who may question why God allows people to have a choice between good or bad within this temporary life. Again, this does require faith - but with logical arguments such as - if God can give us life once, can't He give it again? And other examples of how God sends down rain and brings the dead land back to life with all sorts of different fruits and plants as sustenance for us etc. Faith does not contradict logic and reasoning, and since it answers many questions which people are unsure of - many choose to follow and believe in it.

Some things to think about on evolution...

Asalaamu alaikum wr wb.


This sites really nice masha Allaah. It discusses the evolution and some unanswerable questions for evolution. I've discussed that Islamically, humans didn't evolve off monkeys or other animals (based on Qur'an and Sunnah) - however there is not much mention of how other animals came into being - did they evolve or not? Only Allah knows, so it isn't really a problem for us to deny or believe whether animals/plants etc. evolved or not.


But just as a anti-evolution viewpoint, this is really interesting masha Allah:

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/ATHEIST/evolution/index.htm







A Peer Review is explanations of all the different theories compared - then maybe a conclusion which i came up with? Please check this one.

A Peer Review is explanations of all the different theories compared - then maybe a conclusion which i came up with? Please check this one.


Peer Review:


The main theory throughout the world before the Big Bang was not too clear, some people argued that the universe was created directly as it is today. While other philosophies argued that the universe was existent forever without a beginning. The Big Bang theory gave another understanding of the universe and argued that the universe began from one area and began to expand from there, into the universe which we have existent today. This has been discussed earlier on, so i will try to discuss the other theories put forward.



Some people say that the universe around us was created in the form it is today. They believe that this is how the universe began, and was created by God. They argue that the universe only came into existence by an Originator, and that it is kept in order and being sustained for such a long period of time, and that this is why they believe that it is in the control of God. This is also known as the 'Creationist' theory, although creationists do have a wide range of opinions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html



Some Philosophers throughout the times tried to argue that the universe had been existent eternally without a beginning. They claimed that it was infinite, but weren't really able to give a full scientific explanation for it. This started off with the likes of Aristotle, and certain people throughout the times have believed in this theory. This could not be proven nor disproven, but when Edwin Hubble theorised the Big Bang and argued that the universe was expanding from a central point - the view of the universe being eternal did not remain too strong.

The Big Bang is the strongest theory among the mainstream today, and may well remain this way for quite a while.


http://www.egs.edu/resources/aristotle.html




The study of Edwin Hubble has disproved those who believe in an eternal universe, it has also given a better explanation to how the universe may have started - and how it has reached the state it is in today. Some will argue that the universe has gone through a process of eternal contractions and Big Bangs , however - this goes into metaphysics and therefore requires faith - therefore this is not science and cannot be proven or disproven. But since science is based on proof and evidences, this theory cannot be scientific.


Then there are some who believe that the Big Bang was caused by a Perfect, Flawless and Wise Originator. They believe in Him as God, who is Eternal and outside of His creation, He is controlling the affairs of the universe and sustaining it. They believe that this requires faith, but they know that this belief joins all the missing jigsaw pieces to the missing answers for all the questions which have been asked. Some may question who created this God - the response to this is that God is Perfect in every way, He is not like His creation - who are dependant upon others - His Perfection implies His Lordship (one who is Perfect cannot be created since that would imply that they are dependant upon another), and this is why we take Him as a God, and this is why we believe in Him.

What was Man created from?

What was Man created from?


The allegation is as follows:

What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.
Original creation

19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?

The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:
Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)

Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1


Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:
If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation
(SOURCE)

21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)
The following link also comments on this:
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_58.html


Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:
Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:


"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.


"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin".
(SOURCE)
And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:
The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;



  • something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
  • a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)
Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah.
(SOURCE)

These explanations make it evident that each verse is describing different stages in the creation of man.

'Before' the Big Bang?

'Before' the Big Bang?


Some people have tried to argue that 'before' this universe, there was already another universe which had contracted (became smaller.) It had become so small that it was in the form of a dense fireball. People say 'before' (with speech marks around the word Before) because Time in this universe began after the Big Bang.

They argue that this was the cause of the Big Bang which formed our universe that we are living in today, and the way this dense fireball became this universe was by expanding itself (the Big Bang occuring.)


They try to use this to argue against those who believe that God caused the Big Bang, and they argue that instead - all matter has always been forever - without a starting. And that these expansions and contractions have been occuring forever to form universes.



We just respond to this that;

1) There isn't any proof for this, since the 'other' universe is not visible to us - due to the fact that this universe is 'caused' because that one 'contracted' in the first place. Therefore this is simply an opinion, but isn't really backed up with much proof. It's just a hypothesis without any proofs.


2) Even if that is true, even if it is proven somehow. Then this still does not matter since Allah has been creating things forever, since He is Eternal without a beginning.

So He can create what He wills, through whatever way He wills. If this means creating one universe from another, then sure - why not? He creates humans from other humans, so why can't He create a universe from another universe? He has the power and He is the Wise, All Knowing.





Continued...


This is a Christian site, but still, you can check this section out insha Allah:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html#n01


Atheists cannot prove any other universes were before this universe since there is no proof for it;

Although there are atheistic scientists who believe that the universe existed before the Big Bang, I must make it clear that they present no evidence for this belief, since none exists! This kind of belief is metaphysical in nature as indicated in an article from the The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.®:

"Appeals to multiple or 'parallel' cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic 'Big Bang/Crunch' oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."1

http://lifeorigin.org/rul_disc.htm


The Origin-of-Life Foundation should not be confused with "creation science"or "intelligent design" groups. It has no religious affiliations of any kind, nor are we connected in any way with any New Age, Gaia, or "Science and Spirit" groups. The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. is a science and education foundation encouraging the pursuit of natural-process explanations and mechanisms within nature.

So this quote is from a non biased source - not pro religious, nor pro atheist.



Metaphysical is something which is outside the realms of science, so science can't prove it or disprove it. Most of the time it's to do with things which aren't physical, which require belief.

Definition of Metaphysical:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3A+metaphysical&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a


Metaphysical: Literally, beyond the physical realm, beyond that which we can realize or discover with our five senses. Also, a branch of philosophy which studies the “beingness” or inherent nature of reality.
www.himalayasaltcrystal.com/glossary.htm


Something which we can't discover with out 5 senses is not science. And is therefore something metaphysical.