Islam and evolution

evolution is proven true. How does this affect remaining world religions such as Islam?
The likes of Al Ghazali said that reason is still inferior to Allah's word and must therefore not be taken as truth if it conflicts with the Qur'an.
Any more takes on this?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    therefore islam is proven true.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How can you prove Islam true?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        op already did

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How?

          https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/why-islam-is-the-fastest-growing-religion-in-japan-7e44a8672560

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stay on topic please.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              LULZ is a Japanese site?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because of central asian immigrants?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >fastest growing religion
            I hate this argument so much. It proves nothing. There was a time Mormonism was growing rapidly, but are we all going to believe now you can become a god after death and get your own plane? Similarly, if I start my own religion and get another sucker to join it, that's 100% growth, but it does not make me a prophet.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              israelites have more numbers than Mormons. That’s how irrelevant Mormons are outside of US. I bet if you go to India and China people wouldn’t even know what a Mormon is

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lol that'd be like saying Christianity is true because it's the most popular religion in the world

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://muslimheritage.com/pibla-back-to-qibla/

            I don't care what you say. I've posted a comprehensive rebuttal anyone can read for himself. But by all means go on, the longer you go with such easily disproven theories, the more anti-islam rhetoric will be viewed with suspicion of incompetence.

            shameful display

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The origin of Islam in Petra has much more support historically and archaeologically than does Mecca.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Truth is truth..

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. And the Petra theory is laughable to a serious historian.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Since you are so more wise than the average his poster, why don't you tell us why?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                https://muslimheritage.com/pibla-back-to-qibla/

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I challenged you to explain it, and you didn't. The offer is still open. If you won't then I will have no choice but to view your argument as abandoned.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don't care what you say. I've posted a comprehensive rebuttal anyone can read for himself. But by all means go on, the longer you go with such easily disproven theories, the more anti-islam rhetoric will be viewed with suspicion of incompetence.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thank you for gracefully abandoning your arguments. You are welcome to resume discussion when you learn to copypaste.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                cope

                If reading is too difficult for you, you can watch things.
                https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEJMLhtoQWIRXK9o-hv6eyNXxUpEeb5X_

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the rent free playlist
                what's the matter, trying to weasel your way out of this one, shamefully trying to muddy the waters? not going to happen under my watch.

                >Dr David King, a 79 yr. old scholar, and considered the world authority on the Qibla, wrote a paper, entitled ‘The Petra Fallacy’, against Dan Gibson in December 2018 concerning his research on the misdirected Qiblas.
                He really had to, because much of what Gibson found confronts most of what King has taught for years, and people were beginning to question his authority on the subject. So, this 54-page paper was to have stymied Gibson’s findings; yet, it did quite the opposite.
                The problem was that Gibson did something which King had never done; between 1979 – 2004, he spent his time among the Bedouin in Arabia and Jordan, and went physically to find the Qiblas of all the earliest mosques…over 100 of them.

                In contrast, King only went to one mosque physically, preferring instead to copy the opinions of later Muslim scholars for his material on the Qiblas.
                Interestingly, Gibson’s motivation initially had nothing to do with the Qiblas. He couldn’t understand why so much of the geography in the Qur’an did not fit the geography and the peoples living around Mecca; yet, this city is where everyone has assumed it all happened.
                For instance, the Qur’an refers to the prophet (almost always unnamed) incurring daily contact with people from Thamud (24 times), with people from Ad (23 times), and with people from Midian (7 times); yet, they all lived 600 miles too far north of Mecca, the city this prophet was supposedly living.
                Gibson also noticed that according to the Qur’an and to the Islamic Traditions, the prophet's city was in a valley, had streams, and fertile fruits, and olive trees, all of which do not exist in Mecca.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Therefore, because these oddities piqued his curiosity, he went to all of these places in Arabia to investigate these problems, and subsequently in 2011 wrote the book entitled ‘Qur’anic Geography’.

                In his travels, however, he came across many ancient ruins of mosques. While investigating them he found that they all had Qibla walls (note: these are easy to find as they were always the longest wall, in order to accommodate the many people who prayed in a long straight line, which always faced towards a sanctuary). Yet, the earliest mosques he looked at (up to 706 AD) all had walls facing Petra, in Jordan, and not Mecca; yet, Mecca was supposedly the city referred to in the Qur’an (Surah 2:149) and in the Islamic Traditions, which was chosen as the Qibla in 624 AD, over 80 years earlier.

                Interestingly, Surah 2:149 does not use the word ‘Mecca’ at all, but merely says to face the ‘al Masjid al-Haram’ (the place of bowing, towards that which is forbidden).

                Because these earliest Qiblas were not facing Mecca, but Petra, Gibson decided to write his book entitled ‘Early Islamic Qiblas’ in 2017 highlighting these earliest misdirected Qiblas, based on the over 100 mosques he physically observed, and using the coordinates of their Qibla walls, employing the technology of the Astra satellites (the most accurate measurements which are available today).

                Initially, he noticed that most of these earliest mosques were facing a multiplicity of directions; yet, none of them were facing Mecca, which he knew confronted both the Qur’an and the Islamic Traditions.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                One would think that the reason for these various directions was that these early Muslims were simply ignorant and didn’t know how to face a city which was hundreds, and even in some cases thousands of miles away.
                That would be the conclusion of most people, and was certainly the conclusion of Dr King; but it was not the conclusion Gibson found. He noticed something which someone who had actually physically been there would have noticed; namely, they didn’t face a multiplicity of directions at all, merely 4, and all four had a reason; something King, in his years of research had never considered.
                David King of course, obtained Gibson’s book to critique it. In his illustrious career, he himself only physically went to one mosque to investigate it. Thus, neither he, nor anyone else had done the ‘ground-work’ Gibson had done.

                Remember, I don't need to hide behind longwinded articles to get my point across. I believe in truth and I am posting it for all (including you, kiddo) to look at.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Therefore, because these oddities piqued his curiosity, he went to all of these places in Arabia to investigate these problems, and subsequently in 2011 wrote the book entitled ‘Qur’anic Geography’.

                In his travels, however, he came across many ancient ruins of mosques. While investigating them he found that they all had Qibla walls (note: these are easy to find as they were always the longest wall, in order to accommodate the many people who prayed in a long straight line, which always faced towards a sanctuary). Yet, the earliest mosques he looked at (up to 706 AD) all had walls facing Petra, in Jordan, and not Mecca; yet, Mecca was supposedly the city referred to in the Qur’an (Surah 2:149) and in the Islamic Traditions, which was chosen as the Qibla in 624 AD, over 80 years earlier.

                Interestingly, Surah 2:149 does not use the word ‘Mecca’ at all, but merely says to face the ‘al Masjid al-Haram’ (the place of bowing, towards that which is forbidden).

                Because these earliest Qiblas were not facing Mecca, but Petra, Gibson decided to write his book entitled ‘Early Islamic Qiblas’ in 2017 highlighting these earliest misdirected Qiblas, based on the over 100 mosques he physically observed, and using the coordinates of their Qibla walls, employing the technology of the Astra satellites (the most accurate measurements which are available today).

                Initially, he noticed that most of these earliest mosques were facing a multiplicity of directions; yet, none of them were facing Mecca, which he knew confronted both the Qur’an and the Islamic Traditions.

                One would think that the reason for these various directions was that these early Muslims were simply ignorant and didn’t know how to face a city which was hundreds, and even in some cases thousands of miles away.
                That would be the conclusion of most people, and was certainly the conclusion of Dr King; but it was not the conclusion Gibson found. He noticed something which someone who had actually physically been there would have noticed; namely, they didn’t face a multiplicity of directions at all, merely 4, and all four had a reason; something King, in his years of research had never considered.
                David King of course, obtained Gibson’s book to critique it. In his illustrious career, he himself only physically went to one mosque to investigate it. Thus, neither he, nor anyone else had done the ‘ground-work’ Gibson had done.

                Remember, I don't need to hide behind longwinded articles to get my point across. I believe in truth and I am posting it for all (including you, kiddo) to look at.

                >Michael Lecker's review of Gibson's Qur'ānic Geography in the Journal of Semitic Studies from 2014, ends with the sentence: "This book’s imaginative writing may have its followers, perhaps even in academic circles. But the study of early Islamic history is better served by small steps, one at a time."[8] Historian Daniel C. Waugh wrote a skeptical review in The Silk Road, in which he asks, "Is there anything in this rambling, self-published book that is to be taken seriously?"[9]

                This is the exact same case as the syro-aramaic reading of the Quran. An amateur that can't parse data properly thinking they have finally debunked Islam. Embarrassing.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gibson_(author)

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Please don't overcomplicate things over a desperate desire of having an upper hand and forcing discussion where it's not there

                Refute the arguments made or suffer humiliation kiddo.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >debunking the legitimacy of your sources and opening your eyes to other, more valid sources is forcing discussion and over complicating things.

                This is your brain on atheism

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                imagine that, instead of laying low and wait it out like most do, you decide to come back and double down? I'm sorry, it's not valid, but I'll answer anyways since I can and I'm superior:

                The man you listed has not addressed the work being discussed here and neither have you. I know you can't address the post because you would have replied with something by now.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >muh deboonking
                The quran has already been deboonked.
                >muddy pool
                >math errors in inheritance that no imam can explain
                There you go.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >muddy pool
                What's the problem? You think the Sun rises out of Japan because it's the land of the rising Sun?
                >math errors in inheritance
                No such thing.
                https://yahya-j408.medium.com/inheritance-laws-in-the-quran-calculator-included-there-are-no-contradictions-8d8725f21f37

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What's the problem? You think the Sun rises out of Japan because it's the land of the rising Sun?
                succulently gratifying that you didn't even realize that by trying this method of weaseling out of the conversation you gave my argument even more weight

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                cope

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lol

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Baffled?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No response to this, and you'd think muslims were brave.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Neat

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the rent free playlist
        what's the matter, trying to weasel your way out of this one, shamefully trying to muddy the waters? not going to happen under my watch.

        >Dr David King, a 79 yr. old scholar, and considered the world authority on the Qibla, wrote a paper, entitled ‘The Petra Fallacy’, against Dan Gibson in December 2018 concerning his research on the misdirected Qiblas.
        He really had to, because much of what Gibson found confronts most of what King has taught for years, and people were beginning to question his authority on the subject. So, this 54-page paper was to have stymied Gibson’s findings; yet, it did quite the opposite.
        The problem was that Gibson did something which King had never done; between 1979 – 2004, he spent his time among the Bedouin in Arabia and Jordan, and went physically to find the Qiblas of all the earliest mosques…over 100 of them.

        In contrast, King only went to one mosque physically, preferring instead to copy the opinions of later Muslim scholars for his material on the Qiblas.
        Interestingly, Gibson’s motivation initially had nothing to do with the Qiblas. He couldn’t understand why so much of the geography in the Qur’an did not fit the geography and the peoples living around Mecca; yet, this city is where everyone has assumed it all happened.
        For instance, the Qur’an refers to the prophet (almost always unnamed) incurring daily contact with people from Thamud (24 times), with people from Ad (23 times), and with people from Midian (7 times); yet, they all lived 600 miles too far north of Mecca, the city this prophet was supposedly living.
        Gibson also noticed that according to the Qur’an and to the Islamic Traditions, the prophet's city was in a valley, had streams, and fertile fruits, and olive trees, all of which do not exist in Mecca.

        Therefore, because these oddities piqued his curiosity, he went to all of these places in Arabia to investigate these problems, and subsequently in 2011 wrote the book entitled ‘Qur’anic Geography’.

        In his travels, however, he came across many ancient ruins of mosques. While investigating them he found that they all had Qibla walls (note: these are easy to find as they were always the longest wall, in order to accommodate the many people who prayed in a long straight line, which always faced towards a sanctuary). Yet, the earliest mosques he looked at (up to 706 AD) all had walls facing Petra, in Jordan, and not Mecca; yet, Mecca was supposedly the city referred to in the Qur’an (Surah 2:149) and in the Islamic Traditions, which was chosen as the Qibla in 624 AD, over 80 years earlier.

        Interestingly, Surah 2:149 does not use the word ‘Mecca’ at all, but merely says to face the ‘al Masjid al-Haram’ (the place of bowing, towards that which is forbidden).

        Because these earliest Qiblas were not facing Mecca, but Petra, Gibson decided to write his book entitled ‘Early Islamic Qiblas’ in 2017 highlighting these earliest misdirected Qiblas, based on the over 100 mosques he physically observed, and using the coordinates of their Qibla walls, employing the technology of the Astra satellites (the most accurate measurements which are available today).

        Initially, he noticed that most of these earliest mosques were facing a multiplicity of directions; yet, none of them were facing Mecca, which he knew confronted both the Qur’an and the Islamic Traditions.

        One would think that the reason for these various directions was that these early Muslims were simply ignorant and didn’t know how to face a city which was hundreds, and even in some cases thousands of miles away.
        That would be the conclusion of most people, and was certainly the conclusion of Dr King; but it was not the conclusion Gibson found. He noticed something which someone who had actually physically been there would have noticed; namely, they didn’t face a multiplicity of directions at all, merely 4, and all four had a reason; something King, in his years of research had never considered.
        David King of course, obtained Gibson’s book to critique it. In his illustrious career, he himself only physically went to one mosque to investigate it. Thus, neither he, nor anyone else had done the ‘ground-work’ Gibson had done.

        Remember, I don't need to hide behind longwinded articles to get my point across. I believe in truth and I am posting it for all (including you, kiddo) to look at.

        So is this supposed to imply all islamic history is made up or what are the implications of this

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Holes in their historical narrative.
          That + their muh perfect preservation and you basically have the breeding grounds for a crisis of faith.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          islamic reeing, anon. It's fun to see (from a distance, and wear a flak jacket)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nonsense. Where is the "Great Mosque of Petra"? Early qiblas supposedly facing Petra were likely actually facing the temple mount of Jerusalem instead, which was the original direction of prayer for muslims. Petra is due south of Jerusalem and in between there and Mecca. There is no theological or even historical significance of Petra in Islam and no ONSITE archeological evidence to support revisionist claims regarding the city.

        >the rent free playlist
        what's the matter, trying to weasel your way out of this one, shamefully trying to muddy the waters? not going to happen under my watch.

        >Dr David King, a 79 yr. old scholar, and considered the world authority on the Qibla, wrote a paper, entitled ‘The Petra Fallacy’, against Dan Gibson in December 2018 concerning his research on the misdirected Qiblas.
        He really had to, because much of what Gibson found confronts most of what King has taught for years, and people were beginning to question his authority on the subject. So, this 54-page paper was to have stymied Gibson’s findings; yet, it did quite the opposite.
        The problem was that Gibson did something which King had never done; between 1979 – 2004, he spent his time among the Bedouin in Arabia and Jordan, and went physically to find the Qiblas of all the earliest mosques…over 100 of them.

        In contrast, King only went to one mosque physically, preferring instead to copy the opinions of later Muslim scholars for his material on the Qiblas.
        Interestingly, Gibson’s motivation initially had nothing to do with the Qiblas. He couldn’t understand why so much of the geography in the Qur’an did not fit the geography and the peoples living around Mecca; yet, this city is where everyone has assumed it all happened.
        For instance, the Qur’an refers to the prophet (almost always unnamed) incurring daily contact with people from Thamud (24 times), with people from Ad (23 times), and with people from Midian (7 times); yet, they all lived 600 miles too far north of Mecca, the city this prophet was supposedly living.
        Gibson also noticed that according to the Qur’an and to the Islamic Traditions, the prophet's city was in a valley, had streams, and fertile fruits, and olive trees, all of which do not exist in Mecca.

        >For instance, the Qur’an refers to the prophet (almost always unnamed) incurring daily contact with people from Thamud (24 times), with people from Ad (23 times), and with people from Midian (7 times); yet, they all lived 600 miles too far north of Mecca, the city this prophet was supposedly living.
        Those passages are all referring to different prophets (nabiyin) sent to different peoples at different periods of time, Not to Muhammad.ﷺ

        >‘al Masjid al-Haram’ (the place of bowing, towards that which is forbidden).

        Masjid al-Haram is translated as the Sacred Mosque, not Forbidden, and refers to the site of the Kaaba, in Mecca.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          seethe baby

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        when did it the qibla change

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nonsense. Where is the "Great Mosque of Petra"? Early qiblas supposedly facing Petra were likely actually facing the temple mount of Jerusalem instead, which was the original direction of prayer for muslims. Petra is due south of Jerusalem and in between there and Mecca. There is no theological or even historical significance of Petra in Islam and no ONSITE archeological evidence to support revisionist claims regarding the city.

          [...]
          >For instance, the Qur’an refers to the prophet (almost always unnamed) incurring daily contact with people from Thamud (24 times), with people from Ad (23 times), and with people from Midian (7 times); yet, they all lived 600 miles too far north of Mecca, the city this prophet was supposedly living.
          Those passages are all referring to different prophets (nabiyin) sent to different peoples at different periods of time, Not to Muhammad.ﷺ

          >‘al Masjid al-Haram’ (the place of bowing, towards that which is forbidden).

          Masjid al-Haram is translated as the Sacred Mosque, not Forbidden, and refers to the site of the Kaaba, in Mecca.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >evolution is proven true
    Nah.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    my dad said we couldn't have evolved from apes because apes still exist

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Evolutionism cults were created by God who called them universities.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >evolution is proven true

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The likes of Al Ghazali said that reason is still inferior to Allah's word and must therefore not be taken as truth if it conflicts with the Qur'an.
    This is the exact polar opposite of what al-Ghazali and the Ash'arite school believed.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Empirical evidence and reason is not certain knowledge, but it is still knowledge. The only certain knowledge is the uncreated Word of Allah. I believe this is the Ash'ariyya response. Regarding evolution, the Qur'an does not mention the creation of animals, but it mentions the creation of man. So a popular Ash'ariyya position is that all animals evolved over time through the will of Allah, except Adam who was created specifically and perhaps created similar to the biology of primates that were already on Earth through the will of Allah.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    But some of the Abbasid philosophers got to the conclusion that reason through jihad can even trump the Quran, so it depends on the interpretation I guess.
    But it does conflict with the currently popular Salafi and generally conservative interpretations.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >evolution is proven true
    no it isn't, change and adaptation =/= evolution and progress

Your email address will not be published.