paarsurrey wrote:For Ethics, Morals and Spiritual guidance the proper tool is Word of Revelation from God Allah YHWH. The Mill of the "Scientific Method" is a clumsy tool in this connection.
Further, Quran does not claim to be a Book of Physics or Chemistry or Biology etc; it is for guidance of the human beings in matters Ethical, Moral and Spiritual. It is very much mentioned in the very first chapter of Quran.
Hi, Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Why doesn't the Koran claim to be a book on science? AFAIK, it does contain statements about the natural world around us (like where does the Sun set). If the Koran is supposed to be revelation from an all-knowing entity, than is surely cannot contain falsehoods, wouldn't you agree?
I think that the Koran is not
claimed to be a science book because it cannot be claimed as one: science has shown it to be in error. Don't you agree?
Also, why the different formulation? You say that the Koran doesn't
claim to be a scientific book, but it
is a moral and ethical guide. Why did you use "is", when clearly the Koran is only
claimed to be a moral guide. You are only claiming it to be one. Why do you claim that the Koran
is established to be the proper tool for morality? How did you establish that?
It doesn't matter what your book mentions, since its divine origin (and the existence of any deities) is in question. Your book can mention that it is a book of ethics, but it doesn't matter what the book claims: any claim can be disregarded the same way the verse about the Sun setting in a pool of mud is disregarded. The Koran mentioning it being anything doesn't make it so. Wouldn't you agree?
Later, in a discussion about the verse on slaying the unbelievers, you mention the verses and the context:
paarsurrey wrote:“So you do slay the unbelievers wherever you find them?”
He was referring to much quoted verses of Quran in the West; out of context though; verse # 4:89/90 and 9:5/6.
I explained that the context does not make it a general statement for every disbelievers but a specific statement befitting the Meccans of that time only who were at war with Muhammad, and the situation at hand; and as such it was truly rational.
If one sees the above verses together with the five preceding and five following verses for the context; the matter becomes obvious.
You may verify it yourself; no compulsion however.
I did verify, and the verses don't seem to make it relate to the Meccans only. Can you point out the exact verse?
But there is another point raised in one of the verses:
4:92 wrote: It is not for a believer to kill a believer unless (it be) by mistake. He who hath killed a believer by mistake must set free a believing
slave, and pay the blood- money to the family of the slain, unless they remit it as a charity. If he (the victim) be of a people hostile unto you, and he is a believer, then (the penance is) to set free a believing
slave. And if he cometh of a folk between whom and you there is a covenant, then the blood-money must be paid unto his folk and (also) a believing
slave must be set free. And whoso hath not the wherewithal must fast two consecutive months. A penance from Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.
(my bold)
There could be a number of things to take issue with, but the most glaring to me is that this verse implies slavery. Do you think it is ethical to have slaves (=
a person held in servitude as the chattel of another)? And why do the believing slaves have to be freed? Why not the hardest working slaves, for example?
Thanks!
by 
