h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

does a Muslim have the right to judge someone who claims to follow Islam to be not a Muslim?

The man you used to defend the accuracy of Qur'anic medical information teaches that that information derives in large part from Galen. If you don't like his teachings, discard the support you claimed from him. Demonstrate the complete accuracy of Qur'anic medical information for yourself. If you wish to demonstrate that the information did not derive from Galen, study Galen and demonstrate that he was not a source, *based on the texts* or abandon your contention that Qur'anic medical information was sui generis in its time. Until you have studied Galen, your position on Qur'anic medical information is indefensible and without foundation.

""""does a Muslim have the right to judge someone who claims to follow Islam to be not a Muslim?"""

Yes, if anyones states the Quran is not the full word of God.

Professor Moore said:

"It is clear to me that these statements must come to Muhammed from God"

http://books.google.com/books?id=MgbVSWaX8KEC&pg=PA10&dq=dr+k+moore+quran#PPA10,M1


Can you give me a link for Dr Moore stating that this comes from Galen?

Already did, Stan. I'm done with this until you show yourself qualified to discuss it.

OK...so the Quran tells us that embryos are like leeches. This can be interpreted in two ways:

a) They are anatomically identical to leaches, even down to features that can only be observed by modern microscopes.

b) They look a bit like leeches. Kinda - red and slimey and blobby.

b) is certainly correct. We can award the Quran some points for that. a), though, is untrue. Certainly their structures show *some* similarities to thise of leeches at some developmental stage. This is true of all animals (ontogony recapitulates phylogeny). However...human embryos and leeches are very easily distinguishable, both at the macro and micro anatomical levels. The Quran can be forgiven for the comparison: it's poetry, not a medical textbook. But if eminent scientists have - for who knows what motivation? - made such statements...then they are absolutely barking mad.

Stanley: I really don't want to pull rank or patronose you (don't worry your pretty little head over it)...but some of the people you're in comversation with here are scientifically literate,

Hi Stanley,

Astronomy:

>>Are you telling me that these people believe that the stars are fixed like lamps in a solid sky and occasionally fall to Earth? That the Sun orbits the Earth and sets in a muddy puddle?
>No thats Dr Giff saying it.

No, that's the glorious Quran saying it:

We decked the nether heaven with lamps
41:12
We have beautified the world's heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils
67:5
And he followed a road till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout.
18:85-6

Per your comment that I should read the footnotes and look at the context in order to discover the True Meaning of the Quran:

Say, "You disbelieve in the One who created the earth in two days, and you set up idols to rank with Him, though He is Lord of the universe." He placed on it stabilizers (mountains), made it productive, and He calculated its provisions in four days, to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants
41:9-10

Footnotes: The 'days' of creation represent a yardstick. Thus, the physical universe was created in two days, while the calculation of provisions for all the creatures on earth required four. This also teaches us that there is life only on this planet Earth.
http://www.submission.org/suras/sura41.html

So that Quran teaches a six-day creation, like the Bible but entirely unlike modern science. I also see now the Quranic basis for your sudden obsession with Star Trek.

>Giff, just because you lack understanding, doesn' mean its wrong.

No, it's beacuse I understand it that I can see it is wrong.



Embryology:

From your link:
>If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones...

I would have to question the competence of any embryologist who agrees with the statement that at (or around) 42 days an embryo can hear and see, since the embryo has neither eyes nor ears at that stage. Look for yourself:
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/17.html
(Angel not visible in photo.)
Nor is there a sudden change in the skin, flesh and bones at 42 days (or any other stage).

>Eddy Eddy Edddy! As Proffessor Moore has stated this can only be known by observing with a microscope and you can find out when they were invented.

At 42 days, a foetus is 1.0 - 1.3 cm long. If Prof Moore considers this to be 'microscopic' then I think you have an accurate judgement as to his competence.

>The development stages of the embryo by appearence are described perfectly in the Quran.

No they're not. Where are pharyngeal arches mentioned? Where is the embryonic tail mentioned? Where does it say when the heart, fingers, brain or spine are formed? In fact, it says the embryo develops from a 'clot', which is untrue. Sura 86:5-7 says semen comes from 'between the ribs and the loins' (or 'between the spine and the viscera', depending upon translation), which is also untrue, and fails to mention sperm or eggs.

>after he read the Quran he then observed it under a microscope and was stunned to find out it was like a 'leech'

Again, I refer you to my link with photos of distinctly un-leech-like embyonic development, and my comments above querying Dr Moore's competence. I note also that the more common translation is 'clot', not 'leech', and that other translations are also possible.



Other:

>The Greeks thought some Goddess got bit on her breasts whilst breastfeeding and thats why the stars were formed and it was named the Milky Way. The Quran doesn't have any of these old wives tales.

No, the Glorious Quran simply says that the moon was split in two by Mohammed - something mysterious unnoticed by any of his contemporaries.

>Care to tell me how this [evolution] was in known in the Quran?

It's not referenced once in the entire Quran.

Gif

Hi anhaga,

>I have to say that I don't think the verse cited ages ago about the orbits of the sun and the moon said anything about them being in the same orbit

Quite right, they are each in separate orbits according to the Quran:
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor doth the night outstrip the day. They float each in an orbit.
36:40
This reflects the commonly-held belief at the time that there were seven clear crystal domes in the heavens, each with one of the 'planets' (meaning: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn - all the heavenly bodies that aren't stars) - see Sura 67:3. These were within (or, in the Quran, outside) another solid dome that contained all the stars.

>Here are some scientists *named Steve* who accept evolution

So does Stanley, though, remember? He said he would if we showed him a Sura Like It; I linked to http://suralikeit.com/.

Gif

>Effers, help me out here.<

Hi jwf. Not sure if I'm helping you out, but I'll try and explain a bit of what I mean by 'prayer'.

I certainly don't go in for and putting hands together stuff such as we used to do at school assembly; and then it was hands held low and loosely together with head bowed and eyes closed, but peeking now and then. For me now that would have specific connotations of believing there really was some sort of entity to pray to. And I don't believe that.

On the rare occasion I do it now it's usually eyes closed, no bowed head, no outward speaking, but an inner speaking, *as if* I were talking to something like the God I once believed in as a child. It's kind of an inner dialogue with myself I'd say, if I were to try to analyse it. And yes it can be therapeutic when feeling intensely upset about something, and a good safety valve, considering I am someone who is regularly affected by very intense emotions. I would also do something similar as a child when alone...

I think this idea of an 'inner dialogue' can be very helpful, as if talking to someone/something else when alone and feeling very upset and distressed.

And I'm with you on the importance of *some* rituals for the sake of ritual, eg when we had a minute's silence in the streets of London, a week after the 7/7 bombings, and all the traffic came to a standstill. People stood still all together with one another in a very busy area, coming out of offices and shops. It was an excellent thing to take part in.

Stanley,


Not if you are god who created it/them. He could simply have told Mo about all the things too small to be seen by the human and Mo could have put the information into the Quran, after all it is the word of a god.

Once, again, the 'reality' of the situation, if one postulates that god is all-knowing, is ignored and the situation is brought back to only what humans are capable of.

Effers;

Well, that is how prayer tends to work when someone prays to a god to help them sort out personal problems. It allows themselves to bounce the problem around.

A student friend many years ago who was a god-squadder had problems, she prayed and said to me god would sort things out for her. I didn't bother saying to her that *she* will sort it out herself and she should have the confidence and self-awareness that she will sort it out herself. But of course the church doesn;t want people to realise that as they will start taking control of their own lives and realise that they not a god gets things done.

Yes 3Dots that's interesting what you say about *people taking control of their own lives* I had a period of psychotherapy in the past. And I was very lucky that the woman I did it with was highly intelligent and skilled. When it's done well it's very much about the therapist acting like a 'mirror' for what the person is saying and giving the power to the person to do the best they can to recognise their own abilities to deal with stuff. The ego of the therapist should be purely as if an extension of the person, based on what they are saying.

It's quite a tricky art I'd say, and plenty are probably not very good at it, and may start letting their own ego lecture people about what they should do to sort out their problems.

Like I say I was very lucky though and have enormous respect for her skill. I learnt loads from the actual process. Interestingly it is very ritualistic. The session ends strictly after 50 minutes, what's known as the analytical hour. It always in the same room with the chairs set up facing one another.

I felt very lucky and privileged to get this on the NHS. I happen to live in the catchment area of the top psychiatric research hospital in the UK. And it was great at the end that the woman said she learnt so much from *me* from the process. And there was no hint of her saying that in any patronising way or just saying that to make me feel good. I to, reckoned I gave her every bit as much as she gave me.

Thanks Effers! I hope others will feel more comfortable about commenting now. The 'eyes down and closed' posture is often the common practice suggesting submission, humility, fear. The 'eyes up and open' posture is more one of delight, adoration, trust. What a whirled of difference! Surely worth some comment.

I'm sorry you don't take the physical aspects of palm to palm pressure more seriously because I'm sure there is a psycho-physical connection. Anhaga (above) has admitted a possible 'meditative' factor. Have to wonder why people are afraid to try it out and report their findings/feelings.

Some people are not afraid to talk about these things.
Scroll down this link for the video report:
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/strange/article_212231386.shtml
"...they believe the Cheeto is a reminder of their blessings from God and not just some funny looking Cheeto."


~jwf~

the efficacy of prayer as a way of influencing the world outside has been scientifically studied: it is a remarkable ineffective 'engine' -- a 'terrible instrument' indeed .*

I don't have any particular doubt that prayer does have an effect on the one praying, and it is likely a positive effect sometimes.


_______________________
for the use of 'engine' as a term for prayer, please see J. F. Forrest's discussion of Milton's 'Lycidas' http://books.google.ca/books?id=D91C5T5eFx8C&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=two+handed+engine+at+the+door&source=bl&ots=1_jnyNelS9&sig=8ET4ULB4AepwQBGm6CttLVWuQQo&hl=en&ei=iCgUSpHQAY3GtAOuwODfDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPA131,M1

Yes I think it is quite interesting to try to separate the actual act from the cognition behind it. Obviously for 'believers' it's a literalist act from 'mouthgate' to Prince Emmanuel, referring to your link, anhaga. For me it is a metaphorical act...and in complete accordance with what means most to me, an 'acting out' as it were, but in an internalised way, rather than smashing things up in a rage, and therefore a quiet, although despairing affirmation of self when vulnerable.

Prayer is simply a placebo for the person praying or the person being prayed for who KNOWS they are being prayed for and believes in 'the power of prayer'.

Studies have shown that prayer has no effect on hospital patients - a scientific study was carried out on this with a rather good procedure set in place.

Isn't that sort of what I said, 3Dots?


So, how about those hospital chaplains?

Yeah but prayer means different things to different people. I'd love to see a study done on my way. I compare it to something else I sometimes do, usually when feeling very happy though, reciting a poem I love out loud. And it has to be a poem I love with my heart as much as my mind...although the two are always linked for me. Something by Auden or Browning often hits the spot, touching something deep. Singing to myself whilst listening to music I love is also a bit like it.

There is most defo something about certain ritual I love, but it has to touch me...not just something lacking rhythm.

I find stuff like this impossible to describe properly, because it has to do with the emotions. It's a bit like my reluctance to speak more about my particular feeling for nature and having it analysed to death here.

I don't quite know how studies could be done that would produce meaningful results on stuff like this? As Einstein said, when asked, if all could eventually be explained by science, said yes, but it was irrelevant because it would be like describing Beethoven's 9th as an air pressure curve.

Yes, Effers. That's what I mean about the meditation thing. I have poems of that sort as well. But if I take a moment to find my happy place by reading The Wanderer, for example, what happens is that *I* get to my happy place -- some old guy stuck friendless and cold on the seashore doesn't get relief because I do it.

I'm sure the Lord's Prayer works the same way for millions -- it takes each individual to their happy place. But it doesn't put food on the table of the world's hungry.

Ah, yes, the Lord's Prayer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0thRUS1wUw

F

and I always thought the best way to describe Beethoven's Ninth was as a really, really big German tavern song.

>But it doesn't put food on the table of the world's hungry.<

Oh well I'm sure Edward the Bonobo will soon be along to tell us stupid Romantics how that is meant to happen

Personally so long as I have a good supply of alcohol and tobacco, a few meds, a few oysters I'll get by on a bit of bread and water and what I can hunt and gather in my garden.

No seriously, the best bit of religious rigmarole I like is that 'man cannot live by bread alone'

Crikey no, how can anyone live without oysters, or elk in your case?