Quran and age of Universe

LOL the common agree upon understanding of the meaning of science and scientific theory!!!!!!!!



Now as you are surely bright enough to know such meanings so why are you playing games?

Sorry, I thought of you as a reasonable person arguing in good faith. I was evidently wrong.

I am feeling sadly the same toward you.........

No sweat, to each his blind spots.

For the record, I don't think bad of Darwin because the Nazis developed some particularly crude and sadistic version of natural selection and applied it to the people under their control. Any theory can be misunderstood and misapplied, even the best ones.

A few examples of what Enst Haeckel and his Nazi pupils got wrong about evolution:

1. the idea that human races can be described as distinct species having evolved separetly. Darwin was -- rightly -- of the opposite opinion that we're all one human species. There's zero (0) interbreeding issues between, say, vikings and zulus, meaning there's zero inter-species barrier. We're all one species called Homo sapiens. There's no such things as Homo arianicus, judaicus or africanus.

2. The idea that there is some ideal gene mix, white of course, the best for all eternity and in all circumstances, and moreover that this ideal gene mix can be known and enforced as normative by the State. In actual fact, genes are just better or worse respective to one another in a specific environment. Environments change over time. New diseases, new threats, new enemies and predators evolve all the time. The climate and the ecology and even the continents change over time. And of course no country is homogenous in climate and natural environment: there are mountains and valleys and plains, etc. Therefore there is no such thing as an ideal set of genes. In fact, the best scientific option to maximise the survival chances of a population is to maximize its genetic diversity, not try and get a nation of clones.

3. The idea that Darwinism is applicable to human societies as is, literally. That implies the idea that "race" or genetics matter in politics, at the national and international levels, i.e. that History and which nations prevail in it are primarily determined by the genetics of said nations. In actual fact, the governance systems and the culture of nations - their economic, human, social and intellectual capital is what determine historical success, not genes.

Are not satan and the temptations of life, One and the same, maybe?

Thankyou for your time, compiling these posts.
namaste

How did they misunderstand Darwinism?



Are you saying human societies are not subject to the laws of nature as those laws are understood by Darwin and his fellow believers in Darwinism?

I like your interpretation of islam, habib.
But is it correct?

There are islamic-schisms that vary in interpretation/s - Why is this, please?

Of course they are, inasmuch as a new disease will kill off the people that are most susceptible to it and not the others, thus affecting society in miriads of way.. Or like climate change or catastrophic earthquakes affect societies.

My point is simply that genetics play no role in historical success. To the extent that some form of Darwinism is applicable to human societies and their historical evolution, it would have to be markedly different from the natural, ecological based version. Such a truly social form of Darwinism would deal not with a competition between genes, but between ideas. It would examine how political, religious and cultural ideas are produced and disseminated, and constantly compete for our attention and support. How companies and products compete on the marketplace. How scientific theories compete for adherence to facts, these sorts of things. Karl Popper saw the world like this, like a giant market place of ideas.

Why is it different when everything is just the result of natural processes?

Because our nature is not limitted to genes, it also include consciousness, inventivity, knowledge, language, morality, etc. And ideas do not behave as genes.

Yes yes....and we can push for higher levels of consciousness which few do because few know they exist because they have been poorly led by a FAILED INTELLIGENTSIA! ....this is all so obvious.....but what is to be done about the ignorant...most of whom are the way they are because they want to be......because they are stupid fucks who dont mind servicing Evil?

Are ideas natural?

I guess it depends upon what you consider natural, or on how you define it. Personally I think ideas are perfectly natural and core to what makes us human, but I also think they work very differently and independently from genes. Therefore the idea of improving the human species (or any sub-population of humans, e.g. the Germans) by way of eugenism misses a big part of what makes us humans: our intellect. It's an idea that treats men as mice, but we're not mice.

These are two different things in my understanding and are often confused to be the same. I guess an example can explain it better.

Suppose you are sitting in a park and you noticed that the person sitting on the bench next to you forgot his wallet which has $1,000 cash and some credit cards. This wallet becomes your temptation, Satan whispers is your ear that you have every right to keep the wallet but your inner self (nafs) warns you that you should call the person and give him his wallet. This example illustrates the temptation you have, the whisper from Satan to encourage the evil and warning from your inner self (nafs) to do the right. If you have nafs is at peace then you will not listen to the whisper from Satan. If your inner self or nafs is the one which urges to do evil then you will listen to Satan and keep the wallet.

This is a simple example and now you can apply this on bigger scale such as plotting to kill someone to get his property. The property of someone else is temptation, Satan whispered in your ear and you inner self listened to the whisper and started plotting to kill the person.

I hope this explanation helps to see the difference.

Angels and demons - Jekyll and Hyde - Ego and AlterEgo - Nafs and satan - Positive and negative.

All these opposing forces are 'self-supporting'

Rid One=Rid both.

Take the 'Narrow' path.

Let 'true' Light shine where Egolight dare not endure.

namaste

Generally it is believed by many, if not all Muslims and in particular by non-Muslims that there is one authentic interpretation of the Qur'an. It is far from true. Even the closest companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) differed from each other in understanding various verses. Also, since there is no concept of official church in Islam no one interpretation can command following of a majority of Muslims, let alone all Muslims. There is hardly any major issue on which Muslim scholars do not differ. These differences, more often than not are due to different interpretations of the Qur'anic text.

It is because of this that every sect or school of thought has its own orthodox and liberal followers. There is Shi'ah orthodoxy or Sunni orthodoxy, Isma'ili orthodoxy or Bohra orthodoxy, Hanafi orthodoxy or Shafi'i orthodoxy and so on. It is not only this, there are now scholars with modern and liberal thinking and are looking at the Qur'anic text from modern and liberal perspectives. And some feminists or those working for empowerment of women read the Qur'an from the feminist point of view.

There are various reasons for this. Firstly, the Qur'anic text is very rich and can be understood in ways more than one. Secondly its language often tends to be symbolic or allegorical and hence these symbols and allegories carry rich social and cultural meanings and its shades of meaning can change with different socio-cultural backgrounds. Thus, often social and cultural factors can often play an important role in understanding of the Qur'anic text. Thus, those scholars who have been brought up in modern societies with its own intellectual traditions tend to understand the text differently from those who studied the text under medieval ethos and its own intellectual traditions.

I like to listen to several religious scholars and then form my own opinion based on what makes sense to me after listening to these scholars. When it comes to Quran, I love the way Noman Ai Khan explains Quran. I also hear Yasir Qadhi and Omer Suleiman. Listen to their lectures and I am sure you will benefit a lot.

An inspirational post, Habib.

That's also how the bible is described, not so eloquently though.

namaste

Well it depends on your religious belief system. You can't get rid of angels even if you got rid of demons ( talking from Islamic point of view). It all comes down to how you define purpose in life. To me it is a test and there are always going to be temptations and fight with our inner self. That is why Prophet Muhammad PBUH said that the greatest Jihad ( struggle) is the Jihad against our own selves. And of course that is a difficult and narrow path but will lead to ultimate success.

I agree with Muhammad - A jihad against our own 'SELVES' 2 of - Not 'SELF' 1 of.
EGO and ALTEREGO are those 2 'SELVES' - The Moral-EGO and the Immoral-EGO.

I, once aspired to my moral-ego's delight, believing I was heading in the right direction - It was not the 'right' path.

You, being the best version of 'you' imaginable - Is still you (Ego) leading the way, Not God.

'you' above is generic - Includes me, you, them, etc.

I see Muhammad's 'selves' as I, above, show - How do you see it, please?
namaste