Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

event horizon · Jul 29, 2010

If you want a reason as to why ants are the universally accepted speakers in that verse, then you should ask any Muslim and they'll explain the reason to you.

I've already argued that verse itself does not explain your interpretation - that when the verse says ants, it really refers to ants since it would be ridiculous to believe that Solomon would be able to trample a human village without even noticing.

So far, you have been unable to explain the actual verse.

shafique · Jul 29, 2010

So, you do want me to join you and reject science and believe that a fantastical event happened, even though in this case we have an alternative explanation?

May I respectfully decline your invitation and stay with those who don't reject science, as tempting as your invitation to join you in your chosen interpretation is.

So, in our discussions you are the only who has so far rejected science and chosen to believe a scientific absurdity - that the sun stopped in the sky for a day. It's fascinating how you're trying to get me to join you in believing scientific absurdities - do you really think you'll be able to get me to join you?

As I said, everytime there's a choice between a rational explanation and one that requires rejecting science, I'll choose rationality.

In this case, you haven't given any evidence to show that there wasn't a tribe called Al Naml. So why should I reject this rational explanation?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 30, 2010

So, you do want me to join you and reject science and believe that a fantastical event happened, even though in this case we have an alternative explanation?

That the tribes-people were pygmies ?

As for an explanation, why haven't you quoted a non-Qadiani commentary saying these ants were people and not ants ?

If this was so obvious, then is it that ants are universally believed to have been the participants in the verse in question ?

Surely others would have thought the speakers were people if it only took a single sentence to offer an alternative explanation.

But we can see that the verse in question does not support your explanation. I can only imagine that the Arabic does not, either.

shafique · Jul 30, 2010

Again with your fantasies?

I totally agree that you desperately want to believe in the interpretation that disregards science - that is your choice.

Unless you have any evidence that there wasn't a tribe called the 'Al Naml' (just like there is a place called 'Abu Dhabi' - father of antelope) then it comes down to a choice of whether to reject science or accept the rational explanation.

Thus far, I repeat, you are the only one who has chosen to reject science. I am amused by your desperate attempts to get me to join you.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 30, 2010

Just let me know when you find a non-Qadiani commentary that agrees with the linguistic nonsense of your missionary source.

In the mean time, perhaps you can comment on the size of the villagers. The Koran says that the ants were fearful that Solomon would trample their abode without even realizing it.

They must have been small villagers - perhaps the size of an ant ?

shafique · Jul 30, 2010

So, you don't have any evidence that there wasn't a tribe called the 'Al Naml' and insist I agree with you that we should reject a rational explanation and accept a fantastical version that means rejecting science.

Should you have some evidence that my rational explanation CANNOT apply, I'll happily review it. Asking me to side with you in rejecting science is a choice I won't make - because the rational explanation is available.

I can't see where God says that the villagers were fearful that Solomon would step on the villagers (God just says 'crush you' and doesn't use the word 'foot'), but hey this is not the first example of us disagreeing on interpretations.

At least you don't dispute the fact that between the two of us, you are the only one who has chosen to reject science and believe in a scientific absurdity - i.e. the Bible's claim that the sun stopped in the sky for a day. That explains your desperation in trying to find a way to get me to join you.

Perhaps on your next attempt?

Cheers,
Shafique

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 31, 2010

till, when they came on the Valley of Ants, an ant said, 'Ants, enter your dwelling-places, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, being unaware!'

Unaware

shafique · Jul 31, 2010

Thanks for confirming that God does not use the word 'foot'.

As for what Solomon and his army would be unaware of should they have destroyed the village is again subject to interpretation. You think it refers to little ants being crushed underfoot - I disagree with the premise and reject the irrational in favour of the rational.

But I'm glad your hypocrisy has now been fully exposed.

Your argument for believing in a scientific absurdity in the Bible is that 'it is a one-off miracle and you are being silly in asking for a scientific explanation for the sun stopping in the sky - the Bible says it happened and I believe it - it was a miracle'.

I can't see why you can't use exactly the same argument to explain your interpretation of ants speaking to Solomon? (Even though there is a rational explanation that does not require giving up science).

Care to explain?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 31, 2010

I can't see why you can't use exactly the same argument to explain your interpretation of ants speaking to Solomon? (Even though there is a rational explanation that does not require giving up science).

The Koran doesn't present the story as being miraculous.

Muslim apologists have argued this point previously:

An obvious first question is whether this is a miracle, an entirely supernatural event, and therefore not subject to scientific evaluation. Zaman expresses this conviction twice in his article:

Firstly, have you ever heard of something called a "miracle" associated with something called a "prophet"? If Moses can part the Red Sea, Solomon hearing the communication of ants is nothing. ...

The fact is that these are miracles and you aren't supposed to try and "scientifically explain" them anyways.

I agree that it would be inappropriate to subject the supernatural to scientific scrutiny. There may be some supernatural elements in the narrative. Nevertheless, not ALL parts of the story can be exempted from scientific evaluation on that basis.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/ants.htm

So the story is not presented as a miracle and subjecting it to 'scientific scrutiny is not uncalled for.

Anyways, I await your commentary from non-Qadiani sources that say the talking ants were really humans.

shafique · Jul 31, 2010

event horizon wrote:
I can't see why you can't use exactly the same argument to explain your interpretation of ants speaking to Solomon? (Even though there is a rational explanation that does not require giving up science).

The Koran doesn't present the story as being miraculous.

Huh?

You believe the Quran says that ants spoke to Solomon and he understood it. You believe the Bible when it says the Sun stopped in the sky for a day - and believe this to be 'a miracle' (and that it took place).

Are you suggesting that the Quran is saying that generally, all Prophets called Solomon can understand ants (according to your interpretation) and that this is presented as a general event? How is it 'general' if it only applies to Solomon?

You're losing young one - you can't hide the hypocrisy any longer. Sorry.

You are the only one who has so far rejected science. (And why quote from loon websites - I've been pretty clear in this thread and given you a rational explanation of the Quranic verse - you are the one who wishes to reject the rational and believe in the irrational)

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Jul 31, 2010

Do you have any credible source that agrees with your Qadiani nonsense ?

shafique · Aug 01, 2010

When you have a credible source for the existence some talking ants rather than a tribe called Al Naml, get back to me, til then I will stick with the rational explanation of the verse.

I take it you have no evidence, and therefore it is bizare that you think I will reject a rational explanation in favour of your one.

I continue to note that you are only one who has so far rejected science and believes a scientific absurdity - just because the Bible told you it happened.

I understand your frustration that you haven't got a rational explanation for the Bible's claim that the sun stopped in the sky for a day, and have to say 'it was a miracle, it did happen, the Bible says so'. Fortunately for rational Muslims, we don't have to resort to this excuse for any Quranic verse.

However, your hypocrisy is now very, very clear. Bible contains scientific absurdities - but is the Word of God, Quran does not contain absurdities but you wish it did - so that you can 'prove' that the Quran is not the word of God (for, bizarely, containing allegedly scientific absurdities like the Bible?)

Isn't your head spinning?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Aug 01, 2010

When you have a credible source for the existence some talking ants rather than a tribe called Al Naml, get back to me, til then I will stick with the rational explanation of the verse.

Are you kidding me ?

http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsir%20Ibn%20K ... 0Namal.htm

http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/027%20Naml.htm

Both commentators agree that ants were the speakers. Ali says that the passage was 'symbolic' and shouldn't be interpreted literally.

Your turn - which non-Qadiani argues that the ants were people and not ants.

shafique · Aug 01, 2010

No, I'm not kidding you.

I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that there wasn't a village called Al Naml.

I'm also not kidding when I tell you that I'll always choose the logical/rational explanation instead of rejecting science like you have done in the case of the Bible's claim that the sun stopped in the sky for a day (but to be fair, you couldn't think of a scientific explanation for that, did you?)

Thus far, I repeat, you are the only one who has chosen to reject science. I am amused by your desperate attempts to get me to join you

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique · Aug 01, 2010

May I ask whether you also believe that Donkey's can talk (I know my kids think they speak like Eddie Murphy - but they recognise this only happens in Shrek!):

Numbers 22:28-30,
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”

It appears that there are indeed some Christians that believe this literally happened (others say it was a dream or that the braying was interpreted.. etc).

Do you believe that the Bible's description of a talking Donkey literally happened? Yes or no??

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Aug 01, 2010

shafique wrote:No, I'm not kidding you.

I'm asking you whether you have any evidence that there wasn't a village called Al Naml.

I'm also not kidding when I tell you that I'll always choose the logical/rational explanation instead of rejecting science like you have done in the case of the Bible's claim that the sun stopped in the sky for a day (but to be fair, you couldn't think of a scientific explanation for that, did you?)

Thus far, I repeat, you are the only one who has chosen to reject science. I am amused by your desperate attempts to get me to join you

Cheers,
Shafique

Do you have a non-Qadiani commentary which supports your Qadiani linguistic nonsense ?

If not, why do you think Muslims and non-Muslims are pretty unanimous in agreeing that the speaker in the passage quoted was an ant instead of a villager from 'al-Naml' ?

It seems like, if the passage allowed for that interpretation, just as many (if not more) Muslims would choose the rational over the 'irrational'.

Are you saying that most Muslims are irrational ?

shafique · Aug 01, 2010

If you don't have any evidence that there wasn't a tribe called Al Naml - then you could just say so.

As I said, I'll take the rational explanation everytime. I therefore disagree with YOU - most definitely - and choose the rational explanation.

Now, do you believe in talking Donkeys as described in the Bible - as some Christians do, or do you side with the rational Christians who seek a non-literal interpretation? Which set of Christians is wrong?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Aug 01, 2010

Hey, you could have an entire nation named 'al-Naml'.

Just find a non-Qadiani source to support the linguistic nonsense of your author.

shafique · Aug 02, 2010

Why would I want to name a nation 'Al Naml' when God only says that Solomon and his army encountered a group of dwellers in a valley?

Strange boy.

As I said, until you can find any evidence that the rational explanation cannot apply, you're attempt to get me to join you and give up the rational explanation will continue to be futile.

But, everytime you ask the same questions - it gives me the opportunity to repeat my related question to you:

shafique wrote:Now, do you believe in talking Donkeys as described in the Bible - as some Christians do, or do you side with the rational Christians who seek a non-literal interpretation? Which set of Christians is wrong?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Aug 02, 2010

You mean, ignoring the verse itself which doesn't allow for your 'rational' explanation ?

Hint: You haven't answered how Solomon can crush villagers without 'noticing it'.

But seriously, by calling your explanation 'rational', are you saying that Muslims who believe that Ants really were able to communicate in complex communication (and Solomon was able to understand) are irrational for their belief ?

More, how is one to believe that your interpretation is a rational interpretation given that the vast majority of people who read this passage come to the conclusion that the speakers in the verses in question were ants ?

To me, it says that your 'obvious' and 'rational' explanation is linguistic nonsense to anyone with basic comprehension of Arabic.

shafique · Aug 02, 2010

I am indeed ignoring your chosen interpretation - and waiting for ANY evidence that the verses don't apply to a villager called Al Naml. Should you come across this evidence, let us know.

Now, do you believe in talking Donkeys as described in the Bible - as some Christians do, or do you side with the rational Christians who seek a non-literal interpretation? Which set of Christians is wrong?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Aug 02, 2010

Hint: You haven't answered how Solomon could crush villagers without 'noticing it'.

I guess you can't find a non-Qadiani source explaining your Qadiani linguistic nonsense.

shafique · Aug 02, 2010

shafique wrote:I am indeed ignoring your chosen interpretation - and waiting for ANY evidence that the verses don't apply to a villager called Al Naml. Should you come across this evidence, let us know.

Now, do you believe in talking Donkeys as described in the Bible - as some Christians do, or do you side with the rational Christians who seek a non-literal interpretation? Which set of Christians is wrong?

I'm encouraged that you can't find any evidence for your desire to believe the irrational interpretation.

But I'm curious - are you ashamed to tell us whether you one of the Christians who believe that a donkey did indeed have a conversation (literally) as described in the Bible, or whether you are one of the Christians who say it didn't literally happen?

You believe that the sun could stop in the sky for a day, as described in the Bible, so it would be interesting to see if you agree with the Christians who believe that a donkey did indeed talk.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Aug 04, 2010

My evidence is the lack of credibility your interpretation has.

Not only do mainstream Muslims not accept this supposedly valid and rational interpretation (makes you wonder why - when some liberal Muslims even go so far as to call this a myth) but the actual verse itself does not support your interpretation that the speakers in this verse were humans.

And you have not supplied one explanation how Solomon could travel through a village, crushing humans, without noticing what he was doing.

shafique · Aug 04, 2010

You could have just said you have no evidence that the rational explanation that there was a tribe called the Al Naml and that your hopes have been dashed yet again.

So:
But I'm curious - are you ashamed to tell us whether you one of the Christians who believe that a donkey did indeed have a conversation (literally) as described in the Bible, or whether you are one of the Christians who say it didn't literally happen?

You believe that the sun could stop in the sky for a day, as described in the Bible, so it would be interesting to see if you agree with the Christians who believe that a donkey did indeed talk.

Cheers,
Shafique

Berrin · Aug 04, 2010

event horizon wrote:
1. No science does not support your interpretation of these verses.

Great, so you agree with me that the Koran is scientifically wrong that ants can communicate with humans.

Let alone are capable of the complex speech/cognitive abilities the Koran accredits them with.

2. Al Naml refers to a tribe with that name.

LoL.

So your argument is that verse about talking ants actually refers to tribes people ?

Hmm, let's see the evidence.

Perhaps they're really small tribes people ?

Nowhere in quran God says that ants can communicate with humans. But in prophet solomon's case it's clear that God had given him special miracles as a prophet to understand the language of the ants. Just becouse God creates miracles out of ordinary rules of the nature he establishes doesn't mean that quran is scientifically wrong or that God doesn't run the universe without scientifict facts that we discover every day.. It's just that when God wants something to happen he just says "be" and it happens.. for that "be" to happen he doesn't always need the scientific formulation as a cause..
Have you read teleological causality
philosophy-dubai/teleological-causality-t40819.html

Anyways king/prophet Soloman was indeed one of the most blessed prophets, his life and story is very impressive too..I also enjoy reading the ancient kingdom of Israel and the amazing work of prophets of God to establish his religion amongst israelites.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2501/

I haven't followed what Shafique wrote in each post but the surah 27 An-Naml refers to ants indeed and that's where it takes its name from.
http://quran.com/27

shafique · Aug 05, 2010

Berrin - your view is exactly that of eh's when he explains why he believes the Sun stopped in the sky for a day as described in the Bible - i.e. it was a Miracle performed by God. He doesn't have a scientific explanation for the sun stopping in the sky - so 'it was a miracle' is the only explanation he gives.

I don't believe that God needs to break the laws of Nature (which He set up) to perform miracles in favour of His servants.

In the case of the Al Naml verses, there is a rational alternative to the 'it was a miracle' explanation - i.e. that the verse actually refers to a tribe called the Al Naml. It then becomes a matter of choice - whether to choose the 'it was a miracle, forget about science' angle that eh takes with the Bible, or the alternative 'God is describing an encounter with a people called Al Naml, in a valley and village named after ants'.

No rational explanation or evidence has been shown by eh which says Muslims can't choose the rational explanation.

The key word here is choose.

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon · Aug 05, 2010

Your argument is less than convincing when you can't even offer up an excuse for the verse in question.

I won't even bother with your linguistic nonsense - you can't defend it yourself.

Instead, you are simply repeating an argument that had no merit to begin with.

shafique · Aug 05, 2010

I've not argued that my rational explanation will be convincing to a person who believes that the sun can stop in the sky for a day because the Bible says so, I've only asked whether you have any evidence that the rational explanation should be rejected.

Just because you wish it wasn't a valid explanation isn't evidence.

In the absence of evidence, then it becomes a matter of choice - whether to believe a scientifically absurd description (but less scientifically absurd than the Sun stopping in the sky) or a more rational explanation (that the verse refers to a tribe called Al Naml).

Cheers,
Shafique

Berrin · Aug 05, 2010

Berrin - your view is exactly that of eh's when he explains why he believes the Sun stopped in the sky for a day as described in the Bible - i.e. it was a Miracle performed by God. He doesn't have a scientific explanation for the sun stopping in the sky - so 'it was a miracle' is the only explanation he gives.

Let's look at the purpose of miracles first..What makes a miracle "a miracle" is it’s supernatural qualities which cannot always be explained by science! The miracles of God, upon his wisdom, shared by all monotheistic religions, If we read the stories of prophets we can clearly see that In order to make each prophet credible, God granted them miracles, pertinent and understandable to the people to whom they were sent to attract them by millions to worship one and only creator and to implement and uphold the laws of him. In those times scientific research and discoveries were not advanced, as science was not used as a method for self-conviction to witness God’s existence in his every meticulous intelligent designs as we discover to be the facts/knowledge of today..
Hence the further humanity developes and monotheistic religions spread, the lesser the strength and influence of miracles become.

We can look at miracles from various dimensions too. Ie. Muslims believe that the way the Quran was formed and preserved as divine text is a continuous miracle of God. Also for instance I don’t believe that humans will create perfect humans from scratch without needing a human womb/body combination! Now, to me this is a total miracle that I think scientists will never be allowed to explain the whole process of our creation so as to not overwhelm the omnipotence/Omniscience attributes of the creator which in the end undoubtedly will lead scientists to accept the existence of a major outside force called God while of course they will be given the knowledge to cure diseases therefore prolong human life span.

When it comes to Eh’s case, he can use any excuse he wants to justify his belief in Christianity rather than islam or anything else. It doesn’t surprise me the fact that he uses God’s miracles to justify - the sun stopping in the sky for a day.. that’s simply because Christianity too was fed from the same divine source as Islam is.

Muslims shouldn’t base their dissussions with christians on the proof of what God can do and cannot “in the light of science/the law of the nature” but rather it should be on the bases that islam is the final message and religion of the same God who is the source of all monotheistic religions.
So as Muslims our only proof is the Islamic texts to convey and convince, and if we can find scientific explanations in support of quranic texts than we can use them whenever possible, otherwise we cannot challenge one religion against the other over the strength of Gods power, as islam already superseded prior monotheistic religions and that we are no longer able to assess the originality of the biblical texts since islam's arrival.

It a bit like Shafique you saying that muslims don’t eat pork becouse scientist find a lot of harm in pork meat but rather becouse God commands us to not eat it in the first place thus any scientific explanation make Islamic revelations no more worth or less then what they are other than just prop Gods statements.

I don't believe that God needs to break the laws of Nature (which He set up) to perform miracles in favour of His servants.

I don’t think God breaks the laws of nature at all. When he allows miracles he does it upon his own will or to intervene where humans are found in odd situations in which intervention becomes the part of his justice due to human free will or just by the determination of divine destiny which are all along within the knowledge of God.
ie. While most people jump to commit sucide from 200 mts high bridge, will die instantly, some will jump but survive also with minor damages as part of God’s miracle which happens over human free will and divine destiny working together- all within the knowledge of God. Otherwise scientifically we would have no choice but to suggest that someone who jumps from such hight should really die if not instantly at least through major internal damages.But this is not always an evidence..

In the case of the Al Naml verses, there is a rational alternative to the 'it was a miracle' explanation - i.e. that the verse actually refers to a tribe called the Al Naml.

Never heard of this. Can you please give me links to read?

I don’t believe that in surah where ants were referred as An-Naml was actually the name of a tribe. The verse with ants is very clear to distinguish and I feel that it does not need rational alternative as prophet Solomon and his army marched towards the area known as Sheba but not Al-Naml.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/2435/viewall/

I don't believe that God needs to break the laws of Nature (which He set up) to perform miracles in favour of His servants.
It then becomes a matter of choice - whether to choose the 'it was a miracle, forget about science' angle that eh takes with the Bible, or the alternative 'God is describing an encounter with a people called Al Naml, in a valley and village named after ants'.

Shafique I am much interested to hear how other muslims interpret your point of view?
Since English is your native language, Do you think you can go online to debate with islamreligion.com and tell us how it all went?

Thanks..
Btw, I searched the net but couldn't find relevant info to debate here other than this one :lol:

..
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... 41135.html

Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Koran And Science

Go To

Dubai Discussions

Dubai Expat Forums

Dubai Business

Dubai Tech Discussions

Dubai Classifieds