1
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Our new baby girl, Rahaf :)
« on: December 28, 2020, 07:17:02 PM »
May Allah bless Rahaf with good health and guidance!
Congratulations!
-Mclinkin94
Congratulations!
-Mclinkin94
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Youtube / Re: Quran's perfect preservation proven via manuscripts Playlist
« on: August 11, 2020, 02:36:53 AM »
Jazakallah khair!
The work that you do and your persistence in archiving is always appreciated! If I could offer some thoughts about the Quran's preservation for future readers:
It is important to understand Allah's promise when it comes to the Quran:
[Quran 2:106] We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?
[Quran 15:9] Indeed, it is We who sent down "the Dhikr" and indeed, We will be its guardian.
The nonbeliever claims that this verse is referring to the bible. However, when looking at the context, there is no mention of the bible or the people of the book. The subject of these verses is the Quran (see 15:1 and 15:6 which uses "Dhikr" to refer to the message the prophet Muhammad received). And this is Allah's message that indeed he will personally guard this Dhikr the prophet Muhammad received.
[Quran 75:16] Do not hasten your tongue [O Muhammad], to hasten with recitation of the Qur'an.
[Quran 75:17] Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its recitation.
This verse is Allah telling the prophet Muhammad do not worry about the Qur'an, ALLAH HIMSELF will personally collect it and recite it. This is Allah's promise that he himself will personally collect the Quran and recite it. So Allah promised he would collect the Quran and ensure it is recited the way he wants it to be. Allah had an influence in the Quran after the prophet Muhammad just as he promised--and thus Allah is the one who will compile the Quran and put it together. Allah, as he promised, ultimately ensured the Quran we have today is the one he wanted us to have, just as he promised and just as he promised he would protect it (15:9). And in 2:106, Allah said he has the option to abrogate or cause a verse to be forgotten...
So no, the "history" doesn't matter. Allah said he himself would ensure the Quran, it's compilation and its preservation. So in the end, ultimately, regardless of the history or instances of human error, Allah is the one who compiled the protected the Quran in the form we have today. Allah's intervention was in place to compile the Quran we have today and have it recited the way it is. Thus the Quran we have today is one that was compiled and recited by Allah as he promised it would be, regardless of the errors of humans, in the end, through his complex interventions, Allah ultimately made the Quran the way he wanted it to be (the way it should be) and he will be its guardian. Done. End. Resolved.
Now, let's address the manuscripts: Those manuscript variations had to do with small spelling errors or different readings, nothing significant at all...
This is nothing new, and a deep level analysis of all this data will lead you to the conclusion the Quran is indeed preserved. You need to look at both sides of the argument and do your research. I trust that after your humble research, you will find it like me and many others that even with the manuscripts we have today, that indeed the Quran has been preserved.
^ and this manuscript talk is even assuming Allah did not (in the end) personally ensure the Quran's compilation, recitation and preservation...
Through human errors, Allah could've distinguished the correct Quran from the false Quran using the companions of the prophet and other scholars at the time and influenced them and ensured they'd pick the correct Quran to recite and compile it the right way--and the in the end, Allah's interventions ultimately led to the Quran we have today being the correct one as he promised.
What I'm saying is, suppose in the future, we find a terrible manuscript (one that is NOT like the ones we have today--the ones we have today testify to the Quran's authenticity), but let's say we find really bad manuscripts with many errors and variations. Even amongst a sea of human errors, in the end Allah is the one who was responsible for the Quran's compilation, recitation and preservation--and ultimately ensured the final copy of the Quran is the right one he wanted. Allah did it, in the end. He distinguished the correct Quran from the errors and then allowed the correct Quran to be propagated. So even if that is the case that there are problematic manuscripts (and it's not the case) but EVEN IF it were the case, Allah personally made the correct Quran come out of all of this in the end through his complex interventions. As I said in my first post: Done. End. Resolved.
One may argue "but this makes the Quran unfalsifiable through manuscripts". And I agree. So stop trying to falsify it--it cannot be done through manuscripts (as they even admit).
The work that you do and your persistence in archiving is always appreciated! If I could offer some thoughts about the Quran's preservation for future readers:
It is important to understand Allah's promise when it comes to the Quran:
[Quran 2:106] We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?
[Quran 15:9] Indeed, it is We who sent down "the Dhikr" and indeed, We will be its guardian.
The nonbeliever claims that this verse is referring to the bible. However, when looking at the context, there is no mention of the bible or the people of the book. The subject of these verses is the Quran (see 15:1 and 15:6 which uses "Dhikr" to refer to the message the prophet Muhammad received). And this is Allah's message that indeed he will personally guard this Dhikr the prophet Muhammad received.
[Quran 75:16] Do not hasten your tongue [O Muhammad], to hasten with recitation of the Qur'an.
[Quran 75:17] Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its recitation.
This verse is Allah telling the prophet Muhammad do not worry about the Qur'an, ALLAH HIMSELF will personally collect it and recite it. This is Allah's promise that he himself will personally collect the Quran and recite it. So Allah promised he would collect the Quran and ensure it is recited the way he wants it to be. Allah had an influence in the Quran after the prophet Muhammad just as he promised--and thus Allah is the one who will compile the Quran and put it together. Allah, as he promised, ultimately ensured the Quran we have today is the one he wanted us to have, just as he promised and just as he promised he would protect it (15:9). And in 2:106, Allah said he has the option to abrogate or cause a verse to be forgotten...
So no, the "history" doesn't matter. Allah said he himself would ensure the Quran, it's compilation and its preservation. So in the end, ultimately, regardless of the history or instances of human error, Allah is the one who compiled the protected the Quran in the form we have today. Allah's intervention was in place to compile the Quran we have today and have it recited the way it is. Thus the Quran we have today is one that was compiled and recited by Allah as he promised it would be, regardless of the errors of humans, in the end, through his complex interventions, Allah ultimately made the Quran the way he wanted it to be (the way it should be) and he will be its guardian. Done. End. Resolved.
Now, let's address the manuscripts: Those manuscript variations had to do with small spelling errors or different readings, nothing significant at all...
This is nothing new, and a deep level analysis of all this data will lead you to the conclusion the Quran is indeed preserved. You need to look at both sides of the argument and do your research. I trust that after your humble research, you will find it like me and many others that even with the manuscripts we have today, that indeed the Quran has been preserved.
^ and this manuscript talk is even assuming Allah did not (in the end) personally ensure the Quran's compilation, recitation and preservation...
Through human errors, Allah could've distinguished the correct Quran from the false Quran using the companions of the prophet and other scholars at the time and influenced them and ensured they'd pick the correct Quran to recite and compile it the right way--and the in the end, Allah's interventions ultimately led to the Quran we have today being the correct one as he promised.
What I'm saying is, suppose in the future, we find a terrible manuscript (one that is NOT like the ones we have today--the ones we have today testify to the Quran's authenticity), but let's say we find really bad manuscripts with many errors and variations. Even amongst a sea of human errors, in the end Allah is the one who was responsible for the Quran's compilation, recitation and preservation--and ultimately ensured the final copy of the Quran is the right one he wanted. Allah did it, in the end. He distinguished the correct Quran from the errors and then allowed the correct Quran to be propagated. So even if that is the case that there are problematic manuscripts (and it's not the case) but EVEN IF it were the case, Allah personally made the correct Quran come out of all of this in the end through his complex interventions. As I said in my first post: Done. End. Resolved.
One may argue "but this makes the Quran unfalsifiable through manuscripts". And I agree. So stop trying to falsify it--it cannot be done through manuscripts (as they even admit).
3
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Does "Khamar" mean you can't have Ice Cream?
« on: August 07, 2020, 02:33:53 AM »
I also recently learned that not all Ice Cream uses Vanilla Extract, some use artificial flavorings and so on. So it is totally avoidable. Also the Quran does say to do the best we can to avoid these things.
4
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Does "Khamar" mean you can't have Ice Cream?
« on: August 06, 2020, 02:39:54 AM »
A lot of ice cream uses a little bit of vanilla extract which has 35% alcohol in it.
Does "khamar" mean alcohol or does it mean a substance that intoxicates you? If you drink regular drinking water for example, there will be trace amounts of alcohol in the water (there may even be a molecule or two of Lead for example--not significant, but it's there)--so how are you supposed to avoid alcohol?
Maybe the issue isn't "alcohol" but substances that intoxicate? So drinking water, while it has alcohol is not significant enough to intoxicate and so is okay to eat. Likewise, Ice cream which uses vanilla extract is not enough to intoxicate and so is okay to eat?
Does "khamar" mean alcohol or does it mean a substance that intoxicates you? If you drink regular drinking water for example, there will be trace amounts of alcohol in the water (there may even be a molecule or two of Lead for example--not significant, but it's there)--so how are you supposed to avoid alcohol?
Maybe the issue isn't "alcohol" but substances that intoxicate? So drinking water, while it has alcohol is not significant enough to intoxicate and so is okay to eat. Likewise, Ice cream which uses vanilla extract is not enough to intoxicate and so is okay to eat?
5
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Addressing the alleged contradictions of "Allah creating everything in pairs".
« on: August 03, 2020, 02:29:44 AM »
One more thing I wanted to add:
"feeha" can be taken as "in it" and "inside it". Both are possible understandings. I am not saying this verse definitively says "inside it" rather than "in it"--I'm saying it could be either! I say that this verse is a miracle because Allah made it ambiguous to both satisfy 7th century dualistic dispositions, yet the verse was worded in such a weird way that also allows for such an interpretation to support modern dispositions! Only Allah would know exactly when to be ambiguous and yet even within the ambiguity, the other valid interpretation of the verse allows the verse to be perfectly agreeable with science (double fertilization). This verse was so perfectly written; it was so carefully written and it is a sign/evidence that it is from Allah. The only thing we can say to this is Subhanallah!
If the verse simply said "and the fruits are made in pairs, male and female". It would not be agreeable with science and it would be a scientific error. Yet Allah knew this and was able to word it in such a brilliant and careful way. How did Muhammad know to do this and word it this way? He didn't! It was Allah--such an amazing sign from Allah.
I also want to direct your attention to this important verse here:
[Quran 55:52] In both of them are of every fruit, two pairs.
This verse's context is talking about heaven/paradise, not on Earth. And notice how this verse says the fruits in paradise are gendered. But when Allah was discussing the fruits on Earth, he was careful not to say this and instead said "inside them are 2 pairs". Again, I ask how did Muhammad know to conveniently say this when talking about the fruits on Earth? He didn't! It was Allah! This is a sign from Allah.
"feeha" can be taken as "in it" and "inside it". Both are possible understandings. I am not saying this verse definitively says "inside it" rather than "in it"--I'm saying it could be either! I say that this verse is a miracle because Allah made it ambiguous to both satisfy 7th century dualistic dispositions, yet the verse was worded in such a weird way that also allows for such an interpretation to support modern dispositions! Only Allah would know exactly when to be ambiguous and yet even within the ambiguity, the other valid interpretation of the verse allows the verse to be perfectly agreeable with science (double fertilization). This verse was so perfectly written; it was so carefully written and it is a sign/evidence that it is from Allah. The only thing we can say to this is Subhanallah!
If the verse simply said "and the fruits are made in pairs, male and female". It would not be agreeable with science and it would be a scientific error. Yet Allah knew this and was able to word it in such a brilliant and careful way. How did Muhammad know to do this and word it this way? He didn't! It was Allah--such an amazing sign from Allah.
I also want to direct your attention to this important verse here:
[Quran 55:52] In both of them are of every fruit, two pairs.
This verse's context is talking about heaven/paradise, not on Earth. And notice how this verse says the fruits in paradise are gendered. But when Allah was discussing the fruits on Earth, he was careful not to say this and instead said "inside them are 2 pairs". Again, I ask how did Muhammad know to conveniently say this when talking about the fruits on Earth? He didn't! It was Allah! This is a sign from Allah.
6
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Addressing the alleged contradictions of "Allah creating everything in pairs".
« on: August 02, 2020, 01:27:22 AM »
Part of the miracle is that Allah used the word "inside" when referencing the double pairings in fruit. "inside" ("fiha" in Arabic) also seems to be an unnecessary thing to say if Allah was just saying 'fruits, he made them pairs'--rather, Allah instead put the word "inside", which directs our attention to something happening inside fruits, rather than fruits having genders. The specificity of Allah's use of language in this verse is very telling.
Why didn't Allah say "fruits are created in pairs, male and female"? That would be a scientific error--there is no such thing as a male or female strawberry. But Allah avoided saying that and instead said "INSIDE" them, there is a double pairing. This is very telling as to who the author of the Quran is.
Why didn't Allah say "fruits are created in pairs, male and female"? That would be a scientific error--there is no such thing as a male or female strawberry. But Allah avoided saying that and instead said "INSIDE" them, there is a double pairing. This is very telling as to who the author of the Quran is.
7
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Addressing the alleged contradictions of "Allah creating everything in pairs".
« on: August 01, 2020, 10:39:16 PM »
If you notice in both verses it says: zawjayni ith'nayni
In Arabic, there are three types of nouns:
- Singular
- Dual
- Plural
(In English, there is only singular and plural)
Zawjani is a dual noun. Ith'nayni is also a dual noun.
https://imgur.com/a/GWLDCyN
So even if "Zawjani" is translated as "kinds" rather than "pairs", it is in dual form--so it means "2 kinds" which means the same thing as a "pair". Thus the verses that say "zawjayni ith'nayni" would be saying "two kinds two". It is using the number 2 twice. 2 x 2.
Some English translators have picked up on this, for example: In translating 13:3, Yusof Ali writes "and fruit of every kind He made in pairs, two and two". Other English translators have also written "two pairs"--see: Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, T.B.Irving, Abdul Hye, Abdul Majid Daryabadi, Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali, Syed Vickar Ahamed, Farook Malik, Dr. Kamal Omar, Maududi, Ali Bakhtiari Nejad, A.L. Bilal Muhammad, Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli, Mir Aneesuddin etc.
Allah could've just simply said "and fruits he made Zawjani" which would say "fruits made in pairs"--but Allah didn't say that. He added the redundant word "ith'nayni". It is clear from the science what Allah is referring to--double marriages, double mating, double fertilization IN fruit. Notice how the verse says "Fiha" which means In/inside. It is saying INSIDE the fruit there are double pairings of mates. Male and female gametes/cells are inside the fruit. It is not a contradiction at all--in fact, given the deliberate seemingly unnecessary redundancy of using "Ith'nayni" in 13:3, Allah is pointing to that redundancy INSIDE fruits. Literally double spouses; double fertilization.
As a side note, notice how the Quran does not rule out the existence of a multiplicity of double fertilization in fruits (eg. Fruits can have multiple seeds--each seed is doubly fertilized)--it just said inside fruits, there are double matings. It didn't say how many double matings are occurring, as thus, it does not explicitly rule them out. It's kind of like saying: "In plants, there is X"<---When I say this, I am not ruling out that plants also have Y--I just said they have X in them: that is a true statement.
In Arabic, there are three types of nouns:
- Singular
- Dual
- Plural
(In English, there is only singular and plural)
Zawjani is a dual noun. Ith'nayni is also a dual noun.
https://imgur.com/a/GWLDCyN
So even if "Zawjani" is translated as "kinds" rather than "pairs", it is in dual form--so it means "2 kinds" which means the same thing as a "pair". Thus the verses that say "zawjayni ith'nayni" would be saying "two kinds two". It is using the number 2 twice. 2 x 2.
Some English translators have picked up on this, for example: In translating 13:3, Yusof Ali writes "and fruit of every kind He made in pairs, two and two". Other English translators have also written "two pairs"--see: Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar, T.B.Irving, Abdul Hye, Abdul Majid Daryabadi, Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali, Syed Vickar Ahamed, Farook Malik, Dr. Kamal Omar, Maududi, Ali Bakhtiari Nejad, A.L. Bilal Muhammad, Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli, Mir Aneesuddin etc.
Allah could've just simply said "and fruits he made Zawjani" which would say "fruits made in pairs"--but Allah didn't say that. He added the redundant word "ith'nayni". It is clear from the science what Allah is referring to--double marriages, double mating, double fertilization IN fruit. Notice how the verse says "Fiha" which means In/inside. It is saying INSIDE the fruit there are double pairings of mates. Male and female gametes/cells are inside the fruit. It is not a contradiction at all--in fact, given the deliberate seemingly unnecessary redundancy of using "Ith'nayni" in 13:3, Allah is pointing to that redundancy INSIDE fruits. Literally double spouses; double fertilization.
As a side note, notice how the Quran does not rule out the existence of a multiplicity of double fertilization in fruits (eg. Fruits can have multiple seeds--each seed is doubly fertilized)--it just said inside fruits, there are double matings. It didn't say how many double matings are occurring, as thus, it does not explicitly rule them out. It's kind of like saying: "In plants, there is X"<---When I say this, I am not ruling out that plants also have Y--I just said they have X in them: that is a true statement.
8
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Are these contradictions in the Quran?
« on: August 01, 2020, 09:13:09 PM »
Allah probably told him both things.
As an example:
Imagine you speak to an Emperor and you ask who he is, he replies "I am the Emperor, descendant of Ferghus The Great, Sovereign over the land of Granicus".
It is not a contradiction to say the Emperor said "I am the Emperor, Descendant of Ferghus the Great" or that the emperor said "I am the Emperor, Sovereign over the land of Granicus". Both are what the Emperor said, it's just the case that they do not describe the full thing the emperor said, it only describes what the emperor partially said. Likewise, the conversation between Allah and Moses could've been long and complex and Allah is mentioning two attributes he mentioned to Moses in that conversation.
As an example:
Imagine you speak to an Emperor and you ask who he is, he replies "I am the Emperor, descendant of Ferghus The Great, Sovereign over the land of Granicus".
It is not a contradiction to say the Emperor said "I am the Emperor, Descendant of Ferghus the Great" or that the emperor said "I am the Emperor, Sovereign over the land of Granicus". Both are what the Emperor said, it's just the case that they do not describe the full thing the emperor said, it only describes what the emperor partially said. Likewise, the conversation between Allah and Moses could've been long and complex and Allah is mentioning two attributes he mentioned to Moses in that conversation.
9
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Addressing the alleged contradictions of "Allah creating everything in pairs".
« on: August 01, 2020, 03:33:11 AM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosperm#:~:text=One%20sperm%20nucleus%20fertilizes%20the,fertilization%20develops%20into%20the%20endosperm.
"One sperm nucleus fertilizes the egg cell, forming a zygote, while the other sperm nucleus usually fuses with the binucleate central cell, forming a primary endosperm cell (its nucleus is often called the triple fusion nucleus). That cell created in the process of double fertilization develops into the endosperm. Because it is formed by a separate fertilization, the endosperm constitutes an organism separate from the growing embryo."
Now, what does the Quran say?
Some fruits, Allah put in them double marriages (Zawj= pair, marriage). Hmm...double marriages inside fruits, double mating inside fruits--fruits have double mating within them...double fertilization within them...
"One sperm nucleus fertilizes the egg cell, forming a zygote, while the other sperm nucleus usually fuses with the binucleate central cell, forming a primary endosperm cell (its nucleus is often called the triple fusion nucleus). That cell created in the process of double fertilization develops into the endosperm. Because it is formed by a separate fertilization, the endosperm constitutes an organism separate from the growing embryo."
Now, what does the Quran say?
Some fruits, Allah put in them double marriages (Zawj= pair, marriage). Hmm...double marriages inside fruits, double mating inside fruits--fruits have double mating within them...double fertilization within them...
10
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Addressing the alleged contradictions of "Allah creating everything in pairs".
« on: July 31, 2020, 11:46:13 PM »
In other words, we see a "double marriage", "double mating", "double pairing"--double fertilization IN some plants!
Here is a good resource talking about how double fertilization evolved in "FLOWERING PLANTS" (Angiosperms)--fruit comes from flowering plants.
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/32%3A_Plant_Reproductive_Development_and_Structure/32.2%3A_Pollination_and_Fertilization/32.2D%3A_Double_Fertilization_in_Plants
Here is a good resource talking about how double fertilization evolved in "FLOWERING PLANTS" (Angiosperms)--fruit comes from flowering plants.
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/32%3A_Plant_Reproductive_Development_and_Structure/32.2%3A_Pollination_and_Fertilization/32.2D%3A_Double_Fertilization_in_Plants
11
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Addressing the alleged contradictions of "Allah creating everything in pairs".
« on: July 31, 2020, 11:40:20 PM »
Let's start with:
[Quran 36:36] Exalted is He who created (in) pairs all things.
This is an example of the inferiority of the English translation compared to the original Arabic. This verse does not say "in" pairs all things. Rather, if you look at a word for word translation, it says "the pairs", not "in pairs". That is, Allah created "all the pairs" of the Earth.
[Quran 51:49] And of all things We created two pairs...
In Arabic, (مِنْْ) “min“ could mean "some of"
Definitions: from, some, some of .
Some of, of. Indicating a segment of; a portion of. In other words, "Some of all things we created pairs" in essence: "a part of all things are made into pairs".
[Quran 13:3] and from all of the fruits He made therein two mates
Same thing as above. A part of all the fruits have in them pairs. In other words: of all the fruits, there are pairs within them (fi-ha). This could be referring to some of the fruits with seeds which are diploid (have two sets/pairs of chromosomes, from the male and female components of the plant)
Believe it or not, this verse is a significant MIRACLE. It is something, the prophet Muhammad could not have known! Let me explain. This verse uses the terminology "zawjayni ith'nayni"--which is weird terminology. Zawjayni means "two"/"pair" and Ith'nayin also means "two". That means 4 in total! (2 pairs)! What???! That doesn't make any sense?!! Actually it does:
Double fertilization: "The launch of seed development in flowering plants (angiosperms) is initiated by the process of double fertilization: two male gametes (sperm cells) fuse with two female gametes (egg and central cell) to form the precursor cells of the two major seed components, the embryo and endosperm, respectively." From: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00452
This is a peer reviewed scientific article, so cut the BS from those atheist websites that claim this Quranic verse is a contradiction because plants only have 1 sperm and 1 egg and that no plants have 2 pairs of sperm and eggs. WRONG THEY ARE!! Double fertilization happens in some fruits (not single fertilization, DOUBLE fertilization). I cannot believe the stupidity and ignorance of anti-muslim apologists and the BS they spew on their websites and forums!
Now, did 7th century Arabs have a concept of double fertilization? How did Muhammad (pbuh) know??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to be that Allah is appealing to 7th century Arabs' astonishment with duality/dualism of the world and is saying "you see that thing that you are astonished by?--Allah created it". Allah said this in such a way to appeal to 7th century Arabs' dispositions while not making it a contradiction for future generations. If Allah said "and everything that exists in the heaven and the Earth are made in pairs", that would be a clear scientific error, but notice how the Quran was careful to avoid this. It is only human interpretation that messes things up; It is only the English translators that mess things up.
[Quran 36:36] Exalted is He who created (in) pairs all things.
This is an example of the inferiority of the English translation compared to the original Arabic. This verse does not say "in" pairs all things. Rather, if you look at a word for word translation, it says "the pairs", not "in pairs". That is, Allah created "all the pairs" of the Earth.
[Quran 51:49] And of all things We created two pairs...
In Arabic, (مِنْْ) “min“ could mean "some of"
Definitions: from, some, some of .
Some of, of. Indicating a segment of; a portion of. In other words, "Some of all things we created pairs" in essence: "a part of all things are made into pairs".
[Quran 13:3] and from all of the fruits He made therein two mates
Same thing as above. A part of all the fruits have in them pairs. In other words: of all the fruits, there are pairs within them (fi-ha). This could be referring to some of the fruits with seeds which are diploid (have two sets/pairs of chromosomes, from the male and female components of the plant)
Believe it or not, this verse is a significant MIRACLE. It is something, the prophet Muhammad could not have known! Let me explain. This verse uses the terminology "zawjayni ith'nayni"--which is weird terminology. Zawjayni means "two"/"pair" and Ith'nayin also means "two". That means 4 in total! (2 pairs)! What???! That doesn't make any sense?!! Actually it does:
Double fertilization: "The launch of seed development in flowering plants (angiosperms) is initiated by the process of double fertilization: two male gametes (sperm cells) fuse with two female gametes (egg and central cell) to form the precursor cells of the two major seed components, the embryo and endosperm, respectively." From: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00452
This is a peer reviewed scientific article, so cut the BS from those atheist websites that claim this Quranic verse is a contradiction because plants only have 1 sperm and 1 egg and that no plants have 2 pairs of sperm and eggs. WRONG THEY ARE!! Double fertilization happens in some fruits (not single fertilization, DOUBLE fertilization). I cannot believe the stupidity and ignorance of anti-muslim apologists and the BS they spew on their websites and forums!
Now, did 7th century Arabs have a concept of double fertilization? How did Muhammad (pbuh) know??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to be that Allah is appealing to 7th century Arabs' astonishment with duality/dualism of the world and is saying "you see that thing that you are astonished by?--Allah created it". Allah said this in such a way to appeal to 7th century Arabs' dispositions while not making it a contradiction for future generations. If Allah said "and everything that exists in the heaven and the Earth are made in pairs", that would be a clear scientific error, but notice how the Quran was careful to avoid this. It is only human interpretation that messes things up; It is only the English translators that mess things up.
12
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Bacca is Mecca in Psalm 84:6
« on: July 26, 2020, 06:10:24 PM »
So what I'm saying is, thank you for pointing out that this is in the present tense.
What we know for example is that all events are in the past. So if I say "how could they be a party of the people if they write laws that impose serious hardship" I am talking about their previous actions and their tendency to do this.
So 2:75-2:79 is not just a one time thing that the Jews did, but it is reflecting their past behavior and their tendency to corrupt the words of Allah.
What we know for example is that all events are in the past. So if I say "how could they be a party of the people if they write laws that impose serious hardship" I am talking about their previous actions and their tendency to do this.
So 2:75-2:79 is not just a one time thing that the Jews did, but it is reflecting their past behavior and their tendency to corrupt the words of Allah.
13
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: Bacca is Mecca in Psalm 84:6
« on: July 26, 2020, 05:57:08 PM »
Thanks for the article!
I just wanted to say something about 2:75-2:79
The verse right before (2:74) mentions how the Jews hearts hardened after Moses' time. And then 2:75 asks a rhetorical question, "do you think the Jews will believe when they distort the words of Allah after they understood it"? You are exactly correct that this is about the continual defiance of the Jews from after Moses' time (2:74). That means they have been playing this game with their scriptures after Moses' time and they continue to do this.
As an analogy, let's say you are admonishing a political party for their actions and you say "how could they be a party of the people if they write laws that impose serious hardship", this is talking about their previous actions and their continuance in this behavior etc.
Quran 2:75-2:79 hints and alludes to the Jewish tendency to tamper with the word of Allah especially when considering the overall theme surrounding the context of these verses of the Jews' general defiance against Allah. These verses do not mention if those corruptions made it into the bible, however in conjunction with 4:157 and other verses that contradict the Torah/Bible, we learn that the Jewish tendency and attempts to corrupt the word of Allah ultimately made it into the text of their scriptures!
This is an unequivocal proof that the Quran teaches they have corrupted their scriptures.
I just wanted to say something about 2:75-2:79
The verse right before (2:74) mentions how the Jews hearts hardened after Moses' time. And then 2:75 asks a rhetorical question, "do you think the Jews will believe when they distort the words of Allah after they understood it"? You are exactly correct that this is about the continual defiance of the Jews from after Moses' time (2:74). That means they have been playing this game with their scriptures after Moses' time and they continue to do this.
As an analogy, let's say you are admonishing a political party for their actions and you say "how could they be a party of the people if they write laws that impose serious hardship", this is talking about their previous actions and their continuance in this behavior etc.
Quran 2:75-2:79 hints and alludes to the Jewish tendency to tamper with the word of Allah especially when considering the overall theme surrounding the context of these verses of the Jews' general defiance against Allah. These verses do not mention if those corruptions made it into the bible, however in conjunction with 4:157 and other verses that contradict the Torah/Bible, we learn that the Jewish tendency and attempts to corrupt the word of Allah ultimately made it into the text of their scriptures!
This is an unequivocal proof that the Quran teaches they have corrupted their scriptures.
14
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: They used to make fun of us for saying mountains are pegs, LOL!
« on: July 25, 2020, 01:48:13 AM »15
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Re: They used to make fun of us for saying mountains are pegs, LOL!
« on: July 25, 2020, 01:30:50 AM »
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube
