quran and science

Quranexplorer wrote: Looking at the length of this post I seriously wish if they had set a character limitation per post

Lucky for us, they are pretty lenient.

 

TG12345 wrote: It doesn't, because the probability of being wrong is only less than 50%, not 0%. This makes the law imperfect, and is proof of a human and not a divine origin. Or are you suggesting God would impress on people to use a methodology for establishing guilt that is flawed and could lead to innocent people being convicted of crimes they did not commit?The global viability of less than 50% before 6 months is the average, it does not apply to every single human being.

Quranexplorer wrote: The law was made and judged by humans and not by Allah, and is obviously imperfect to the level of any law followed by countries or organisations basing on an average figure for the minimum viability. You can't blame Allah for the human imperfection in judging these issues. Allah has left humans to use their imperfect judgement for an appointed term beyond which a perfect judgement will be established by Allah.

Hold on a second, did you say this law was made by humans? You wrote that the verse �helps man make a better judgement�, and that the Quran provided a legal framework.

 

Yet this is a legal framework that is prone to error, since after 6 months is not the minimum.

 

1. Instead of stating the obvious, Quran gives a vital information which was not available at its time of revelation, that helps man make a better judgement--even though the quoted tafsirs are self explanatory for those who look for the right cues, it is amazing to note how the Quranic verses here far exceed the normal human wisdom by mentioning a 6 months gestation. While a 9 months gestation is what usually observed and what a normal human would tend to mention, especially some 1,400 years ago, the Quran here gives a 6 months gestation which then provided for a legal framework to judge the legitimacy of a child and is now an acknowledged fact in modern times.

Why would God provide humanity with a law, which, if perfectly followed, can cause an innocent person to be found guilty of adultery? The problem of a woman who has had a baby 5.7 months (and not 6) after gestation being found guilty of adultery is not that of the judge, but of God, since He allegedly gave this verse in order to help people make �a better judgement�

TG12345 wrote: The reason seems to be is that it lowers the probability that an innocent person may be convicted to less than 50 percent. I would think that a law inspired by God would have a 0% chance of convicting an innocent person,

Quranexplorer wrote: It's only a matter of time and patience for the believer and for an unbeliever there is even no hope for a perfect judgement at all!

Won�t God�s judgement in the hereafter be perfect?

God may ask the Quran�s author what was he doing, setting 6 months as the period of gestation, and then giving that verse to people with the intention they will make it into a law.

 

 

 

TG12345 wrote: How is my data shallow? It shows that children have been born before a full 6 months have passed, thereby demonstrating that 6 months is not the minimum period of gestation.

Quranexplorer wrote: Because your wikipedia reference claiming more than 50% viability at 24 weeks gestation does not represent a true global data.

That does not change the fact that some children have been born before a full 6 months have passed.

TG12345 wrote: Great. So as we see, Maududi's commentary defines "a sound and complete child" as one who has been given birth to in a proper delivery and not an abortion. The      following legal injunctions are derived from the three verses when      they are read together: The woman who gives birth to a sound and      complete child in less than six months after marriage (i.e. in a      proper delivery and not abortion) will be declared an adulteress and      her child's lineage from her husband will not be established.

Quranexplorer wrote: I don't think so. I would say "sound and complete" means no disabilities and "in a proper delivery and not abortion" means no stillbirth. So these are two independent conditions.

  How do you know he meant this? As we have seen, there is a very miniscule chance of a baby being born that young without disabilities, so even this would not be guaranteed to work.

TG12345 wrote: My point is that if by "sound" you mean "in good condition", then no premature child before the age of 28 weeks is "sound", because they can't feed without a tube.This also casts doubt on the alleged story that a child was born after six months and lived during the time of the Caliphs... he would have needed to have been born after 28 weeks to have a chance. I don't see how the woman gets "such a wonderful indemnity". What if she gives birth to a child not 6 months after marriage, but 23 weeks after marriage? According to the law, she would be declared an adulteress.

Quranexplorer wrote: The woman get�s an indemnity because according to the wording in the legal injunctions she can argue that the child is not �sound� and hence she cannot be declared an adultress.

In that case, the minimum should be 28 weeks, not 6 months.

TG12345 wrote: Prove to me that viability before 6 months is 20%.You may have a point that the chance of not developing a disability is only 20%... but 20% is not 0. If this statistic is applicable everywhere in the world, it would mean that a law that states that healthy children born before 6 months have passed are products of adultery is correct... 80% of the time. Yet it is also wrong 20% of the time.This would mean that a guideline that God has allegedly given for establishing guilt is usually correct... but not always. So in effect this seems to be saying that even God can make mistakes, by giving advice that, if followed, will lead people to an erroneous conclusion. Either that or He likes to trick people once in a while.

Quranexplorer wrote: I told you from the beginning of this discussions that I have no time for data mining on these subjective discussions. I can just show you the way, you can do the data mining if you want.

You provided a figure of 20%. You can either show evidence of it existing, or not. It�s not that big of a deal, we both agree that most babies born at a very young age have medical problems� but 20% still is not 0%.

 

Quranexplorer wrote: As explained numerous times, any law developed and executed by humans are bound to be imperfect, whether it has been derived from divine guidance or not, that�s not the mistake of Allah, but the inbuilt imperfection of humans. The only point at which there will be a perfect judgement will be on the judgement day.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here.  I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, so if you could, please answer these questions.

1)      Do you believe God gave 6 months as a minimum period of gestation so people could use it for legal reasons to determine paternity?

2)      If not, what was the 6 month figure given for?

Thanks so much!

TG12345 wrote: Where did I say that not even one smart woman would be wrongly punished?A woman whose child falls into the 20% category of those who were born less than 6 months after marital intercourse and is not disabled, would be falsely accused of adultery.

Quranexplorer wrote: You stated a child born before 6 months cannot be �sound� due to some feeding issues and hence a woman can argue that in her favour as per the wording in the legal injunction.

If that is the case, then the minimum is 28 weeks, and not 6 months.

 

Quranexplorer wrote: Refer to previous comments explaining no perfect judgment in the human domain.

I did. Hopefully the questions you�ve answered will help clear this up.

 

TG12345 wrote: Of course, human judgements are flawed and God will make things right.However, the problem is that according to Islam, God gave people a system for establishing the innocence or guilt of a mother that is flawed in the first place, and if followed, may lead to innocent people being found guilty of adultery.

Quranexplorer wrote: Allah gave men the guidance when no information was available on the minimum gestation�which saved many from getting wrongly punished.

But the information He gave according to the Quran was wrong, since 6 months is not the minimum. I take it you believe the purpose of the verse was to be used legally and prevent people from being unjustly punished?

 

Quranexplorer wrote: There is no uniform number that can strictly define the minimum gestation period. Which means any number that you fix for a legal framework at its best is still going to be an approximation.

Correct. We know though that the number is not 6.

 

Quranexplorer wrote: The legal framework developed by believers under this guidance gives the best approximation within human judgements, which is again predominantly what is being adopted in most civil societies and the minimum 6 months gestation again is in line with the global average that is expected.

Why would Allah give just an approximation? Why not a concrete number?

 

BTW I am unaware of any Western country today using the 6 month �minimum� as a way to establish whether or not a woman who has given birth to a premature child is guilty of adultery. I wonder why that is.

TG12345 wrote: I have no idea. Perhaps they are looking at the global or their own national average. This does not take away from the reality that the minimum is less than either of these figures. Minimum is defined as the lowest possible number. So if a child is born before 24 weeks (ie at 22 weeks for example), the minimum cannot be claimed to be 24 weeks, it is now lower.

Quranexplorer wrote: That�s the problem. You have no idea, but you would still argue what you are saying is correct. Fortunately, those who made the legal framework has got some idea to think that there is no point in looking at an absolute minimum for something that is going to vary from individual to individual. So they have thought of an average figure to define the minimum which will be useful for all meaningful purposes and not an absolute minimum which has no meaning at all in such a case.

Why would the average, but not absolute minimum, be sensible???

 

Setting an absolute minimum makes perfect sense, since if you have an absolute minimum, you will know for certain whether the baby that has been born was guilty of adultery, if he or she is below this minimum. It takes every case into account and all their variables. The risk of accusing an innocent person of something she did not do is zero percent.

Setting an average minimum, on the other hand, leaves a chance that an innocent person may be accused falsely of adultery.

TG12345 wrote: If that is indeed the minimum and it is used as a criteria for establishing innocence or guilt of the mother, then yes. I have no idea if 21 weeks and 5 days is the minimum. Perhaps at some point in the future, a child may even be born earlier. I don't know what the minimum is, as I am not God.Clearly, neither is the author of the Quran, since he set a minimum that turns out is not that!

Quranexplorer wrote: Good, neither is Mr.Maududi the god, so he has made a legal framework based on his best judgement from the Quranic guidance.

So the Quran�s author �guided� him to set an incorrect minimum.

Quranexplorer wrote:  Whilst Mr. Maududi�s legal framework is in line with what is being adopted in most civil societies and the minimum 6 months gestation is in line with the global average that is expected, I have not heard 21 weeks 5 days as the minimum gestation in any legal frameworks in the world.

No. I also haven�t heard of any societies today using 6 months as a legal way to determine whether or not the mother of a child committed adultery. Most societies use an average, but not as a legal tool, like Muslims are allegedly supposed to do.

 

Quranexplorer wrote: Also if you plot a normal curve of the minimum gestation, the 21 weeks 5 days will be the left tail of that curve as a one off case. Which means majority of the cases where the actual minimum gestation is definitely more than 21 weeks 5 days will be judged unfairly in favour of the woman.�so it doesn�t make any sense in fixing the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal framework. As I explained earlier, the absolute minimum has no meaning in gestation as it is going to vary from individual to individual. So the 6 months minimum gestation as a global average conveyed from the Quranic verses makes all the more sense.

The 21 weeks 5 days will be a one off case, but it will be the minimum� which is allegedly what the 6 months is supposed to be.

You say that setting the minimum gestation as 21 weeks and 5 days is unfairly giving favour of the woman� here is an idea.

 

Let�s not use the minimum period of viability (since we have no idea yet what it is) as a way of determining a woman�s innocence or guilt!

Here is a method that has a higher success rate that setting 6 months as an �average minimum�

http://www.paternity-answers.com/history-paternity-test.html

 

 

 

 

 

TG12345 wrote: My point is that it is closer to being the minimum than 6 months.

Quranexplorer wrote: As explained above, you can�t have a legal framework with a floating minimum. It just defeats the whole purpose of the legal framework itself!

If you don�t know what the minimum is, don�t set one! Either that, or set one and then change it, as you learn more.

TG12345 wrote: Even a law where a human follows God's instructions? In other words, you are saying that following God's directions will usually lead you to a truthful conclusion, but not always.

Quranexplorer wrote: Following Allah�s instructions will always lead you to truthful conclusions�if not in this world, definitely in the hereafter.

So a judgement falsely convicting a woman of adultery because her child was born after 5.4 months and not 6 will be untruthful in this life, but will become truthful in the next? How does that work?

Quranexplorer wrote: Not following Allah�s instructions will always lead you to doom�if not in this world, definitely in the hereafter.

Agreed.

Quranexplorer wrote: Again: Will defining 21 weeks and 5 days as the minimum gestation ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases?

Probably not, but the chance of an innocent person getting wrongly convicted is smaller than if we set it to 6.

TG12345 wrote: If it is the minimum, yes. I do not know whether it is or is not, do you?

Quranexplorer wrote: You are wrong. Defining the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal frame work will not ensure 100% perfect judgement of all adultery cases as explained below: If you plot a normal curve of the minimum gestation, the absolute minimum will be the left tail of that curve as a one off case. Which means majority of the cases where the actual minimum gestation is definitely more than 21 weeks 5 days will be judged unfairly in favour of the woman.�so it doesn�t make any sense in fixing the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal framework.

Responded to above.

TG12345 wrote: I definitely agree with you that human judgement is imperfect and that God will make everything right on the Day of Judgement.Do you believe that if God's words are properly followed, they can still lead to the person following them making an error?

Quranexplorer wrote: Yes, as long as the laws are interpreted and executed by humans with their imperfect knowledge.

So then is it an imperfect interpretation that 6 months is the minimum?

TG12345 wrote: Then the worker has made an error.What if the worker uses the tool properly and it still leads him to make a mistake? Whose fault is it then- that of the worker or of the tool?I answered your question, please answer mine also.

Quranexplorer wrote: The worker's process has an inbuilt margin of error which cannot be eliminated whatever tool he uses. So he always has a possibility to make mistakes.

Yet what if he uses the tool perfectly, and it still leads to a mistake? Who is to blame?

 

Let�s say that you are very proficient marksman and you hunt coyotes to keep them away from cattle. I give a rifle with a blank and tell you to fire, and you obviously don�t kill it.

 

Was it your fault for not hitting the coyote, or mine for giving you a faulty gun?

TG12345 wrote: It clearly states that both in developing and non-developing countries, children who breastfeed for 2 years or more are healthier than those who don't.If you believe it is "shallow", show me why that is the case.

Quranexplorer wrote: If breastfeeding for more than 2 years is such a critical issue which outweighs all other pragmatic considerations with respect to the child-mother relation, then why not WHO or medical science fix an exact figure of say 5 or 10 years as the minimum mandatory breastfeeding duration?

I never said that it outweighs all other pragmatic considerations, but it is clearly an important issue and for many a matter of life and death. I don�t know why a higher set figure is not given but as we see, breastfeeding for less than 23 months is a bad idea in the developing world, and breastfeeding for more than 2 years that increases the chance of survival.

TG12345 wrote: If a mother will always try to giver her best when it comes to caring for her child and she knows that breastfeeding for at least 2 years is best for him/her, why would she not?

Quranexplorer wrote: Bingo! Instead of wasting time on the 21-24 months breastfeeding duration, if you could ask this question to all those majority number of mothers who never care to breastfeed their children, or breastfeed them for just under 12 months, that�s going to be make a real change. 21-24 months becomes so trivial in comparison to those numbers.

It is true that babies who are breastfed for less than 12 months are at a greater risk than those that are breastfed for 21 months, it is also true that babies that are breastfed for 24 months or more do better than those that are not.

 

 

TG12345 wrote: Which mother is not burdened by her child? Having a child requires a great deal of burden and sacrifice.

Quranexplorer wrote: Exactly! That�s why Allah has given the choice to the mother to make that decision on breastfeeding.

Why have a baby if you are not willing to do everything you can to help make it healthy?

Why would God set a 2 year term for breastfeeding, if we know that babies who are breastfed more than 2 years are even better off?

TG12345 wrote: Eating healthy is also not the sole reason that can decide cancer, but it's better to do so than not.The fact that breastfeeding statistics globally show that actual breastfeeding periods are lower does not mean that breastfeeding for less than 23 months raises the prospect of a child dying than breastfeeding him/her for 23 months or more.Interestingly, historically the time of weaning in many societies was after more than 2 years.http://thebabybond.com/NaturalWeaningAgeFORWEBSITE.pdf

Quranexplorer wrote: So again, if breastfeeding for more than 2 years is such a critical issue which outweighs all other pragmatic considerations with respect to the child-mother relation, then why not WHO or medical science fix an exact figure of say 5 or 10 years as the minimum mandatory breastfeeding duration?

See above.

TG12345 wrote: How could a 2 year breastfeeding duration be recommended if the period of breastfeeding and gestation is 30 months? It would follow that 2 years is only recommended for babies born 6 months premature.

Quranexplorer wrote: There comes the practical aspect which is another speciality of Allah�s instructions. Even though breastfeeding is an important aspect in child�s development, he has not made it an absolute critical requirement so that a duration of 21-24 months or even lower is still possible and the same has been proved by actual data available to us.

The data shows that children who are breastfed less than 2 years have a higher chance of getting sick than those who are fed for more than that.
It is true that children can be healthy after less than 2 years of breastfeeding� they can also be healthy after less than 12 months of breastfeeding, of just living off powdered milk. The fact however is that breastfeeding for less than 24 months and less than 12 months or not at all is more detrimental to the child than breastfeeding for 2 years or more.

TG12345 wrote: How is it that breastfeeding for 2+ years is impractical, if people had done so through the ages?If no mother would settle for something inferior when it comes to caring for her child, why accept the notion that the time of weaning and gestation is 30 months... or even that the period of suckling is within 2 years?

Quranexplorer wrote: That could be your next point for research. The actual current data speaks out loud that breastfeeding durations exceeding even 12 months is rare in many countries. As I told earlier, if you could ask these question to all those majority number of mothers who never care to breastfeed their children, or breastfeed them for just under 12 months, that�s going to be make a real change. 21-24 months becomes so trivial in comparison to those numbers.

Addressed above.

TG12345 wrote: How do you know it is the best case? Why not set it to 21 weeks and 5 days?

Quranexplorer wrote: As explained earlier, if you plot a normal curve of the minimum gestation, the absolute minimum will be the left tail of that curve as a one off case. Which means majority of the cases where the actual minimum gestation is definitely more than 21 weeks 5 days will be judged unfairly in favour of the woman.�so it doesn�t make any sense in fixing the absolute minimum as the limit for a legal framework.

It does make sense if you want to have a zero percent chance of an innocent woman being convicted. What is worse, accidentally allowing an adulteress to live or accidentally killing an innocent person?

TG12345 wrote: Maybe because someone said that the period for breastfeeding is within 2 years, and she didn't have enough information to know that it's better for her child to give him or her more time than this?

Quranexplorer wrote: Does bible also say so? I think US have a majority Christians.

Interesting that you ask. It was around three years.

 

WEAN

wen: "To wean" in English Versions of the Bible is always the translation of (gamal), but gamal has a much wider force than merely "to wean," signifying "to deal fully with," as in Ps 13:6, etc. Hence, as applied to a child, gamal covers the whole period of nursing and care until the weaning is complete (1 Ki 11:20). This period in ancient Israel extended to about 3 years, and when it was finished the child was mature enough to be entrusted to strangers (1 Sam 1:24). And, as the completion of the period marked the end of the most critical stage of the child's life, it was celebrated with a feast (Gen 21:8), a custom still observed in the Orient. The weaned child, no longer fretting for the breast and satisfied with its mother's affection, is used in Ps 131:2 as a figure for Israel's contentment with God's care, despite the smallness of earthly possessions. In Isa 28:9 there is an ironical question, `Is God to teach you knowledge as if you were children? You should have learned His will long ago!'
Burton Scott Easton

 

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/W/WEAN/

 

 

 

 

TG12345 wrote: Does the Quran say or not say to obey those in authority over you, in addition to obeying God and Muhammad?If I tell a group of people to obey what my friend Steve says and my friend Steve says something that is mistaken, whose fault is it that were led into error? Only Steve's fault, or also mine for using directing people to obey him?

Quranexplorer wrote: You rightly said �mistaken�, then does it not put some responsibility on the person who takes the advise, not to be mistaken?

So are you saying that if God tells you to accept someone�s teachings, it is your responsibility to first see whether or not this person is trustworthy?

 

Quranexplorer wrote: That�s what makes humans different from other creations�the ability to think and make own decisions�the ability to take personal responsibility.

Correct.

Quranexplorer wrote: One of the cardinal points emphasised all throughout the Quran is this concept of Personal Responsibility. Ultimately, you are responsible for all your actions�you can take advise, but then you have the personal responsibility to interpret and make your decisions�in this world maybe it is possible you can point finger at someone and try to escape. But on the day of judgement all your thoughts, intentions and actions whether you kept it secret or made it open, will be open in front of Allah, and then you will not be able to find any excuses of someone misleading you�if someone has really mislead someone else, then the misleader will be punished for his guilt, and the one who was misled will be punished if he just used it as an excuse without using the faculties Allah has bestowed on him.

Correct.

Quranexplorer wrote: I think it�s this concept of personal responsibility that differentiates us: you are looking for excuses how you need not be responsible to Allah for anything, whereas I am looking for ways how I can be best responsible to Allah in all that I do.

I can�t speak for you, but what you are saying about me is not correct. I want to be responsible to Allah, but first I need to know He is being correctly portrayed.

TG12345 wrote: I am not quoting a Quranic verse verbatim, but am saying something that sounds familiar to 39:6, except the subject is cattle and not prophets and the number given is not three but eight.39:6<span id="verse_4064__6_content">He created you from one soul. Then He made from it its mate, and He produced for you from the grazing livestock eight mates. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation, within three darknesses. That is Allah , your Lord; to Him belongs dominion. There is no deity except Him, so how are you averted?</span>Now that you have the verse cited, I will paste my question again.Tell me if this is a correct or incorrect statement."From among the messengers and prophets, God sent four to humanity"Would this be a true or false thing to say according to what Islam teaches, and why?

Quranexplorer wrote: So we have a hypothetical question and something so open for subjective interpretations. Frankly as I have stated before I am not a fan of these subjective and hypothetical stuff because it always leaves the room for someone to misinterpret. And Allah has mentioned this in Quran about people changing the sayings: Al-Baqara 2:59: But those who did wrong changed the word which had been told them for another saying, and We sent down upon the evil-doers wrath from heaven for their evil-doing. (59)

I didn�t change 39:6, I cited it as it is.

Quranexplorer wrote: Based on my limited knowledge I can say 4 were sent to humanity and there were more also.

I agree with you. Look at the bolded words. Notice how they are missing in the hypothetical verse I made up?

 

In 39:6, the author wrote that of grazing livestock, 8 mates were created. He forgot to point out what you did, that more were created also.

 

If I were to say that of the prophets, God sent down three� it would be a false statement. He sent down more than three prophets.

 

Imagine if I drew an isosceles, a right and an equilateral triangle on the board in a classroom; and after doing so, stated �of triangles, I drew two�. It would obviously not be true. I drew three triangles, not two.

 

Quranexplorer wrote: So I am not in a position to give a definitive true/false answer to your question. If you wish, instead of wasting time on such shadow questions, you could state your objective clearly and I can also try to answer fully knowing what I am answering for.

Hope it is more clear now.

 

The Quran�s author stated that of livestock, he sent down 8 pairs. However, we know that there are more than 4 kinds of livestock that God gave to humanity.

Edited by TG12345 - 29 March 2015 at 4:53pm

It doesn't help,

still no clay in our bodies in sight !


sigh: Airmano

Edited by airmano - 21 April 2015 at 1:14pm

Quranexplorer wrote: Salam TG,

Alaikum salaam, QuranExplorer. I apologize for not responding so long.

Quranexplorer wrote: I have cut down quite some flab and just kept what I thought makes sense and easy for a discussion. If you think there is something missing please feel free to add:

Thank you, and no problem.

TG12345 wrote: Hold on a second, did you say this law was made by humans? You wrote that the verse �helps man make a better judgement�, and that the Quran provided a legal framework. Yet this is a legal framework that is prone to error, since after 6 months is not the minimum.

Quranexplorer wrote: 1. Instead of stating the obvious, Quran gives a vital information which was not available at its time of revelation, that helps man make a better judgement--even though the quoted tafsirs are self explanatory for those who look for the right cues, it is amazing to note how the Quranic verses here far exceed the normal human wisdom by mentioning a 6 months gestation. While a 9 months gestation is what usually observed and what a normal human would tend to mention, especially some 1,400 years ago, the Quran here gives a 6 months gestation which then provided for a legal framework to judge the legitimacy of a childand is now an acknowledged fact in modern times.

The only problem with this is that a 6 month gestation is not the minimal one, as some children are born before 6 months have passed. The legal framework makes very clear that the 6 months are a reference to a period after a full 6 months have passed, and that this is the "minimum period". It is not the minimum period anymore.

TG12345 wrote: Why would God provide humanity with a law, which, if perfectly followed, can cause an innocent person to be found guilty of adultery? The problem of a woman who has had a baby 5.7 months (and not 6) after gestation being found guilty of adultery is not that of the judge, but of God, since He allegedly gave this verse in order to help people make �a better judgement�

Quranexplorer wrote: The law was definitely made by humans. The subject Quranic verses says 30 months gestation+weaning and 24 months weaning specifically, from which people have come to understand the 6 months figure and then set a legal framework based on that. It definitely provides for a better judgement than what would have happened if men followed their limited knowledge and set 9 months as the gestation to judge adultery. And as explained, there is no single figure that can make a 100% perfect judgement in the human domain. Your suggestion to set the absolute minimum in each case as the limit simply defeats the whole idea to set a legal limit as that is going to be a floating figure.

The "floating figure" is only such because we don't yet know what is the minimum period of gestation. This is something that an All Knowing God would know, however. Had He wanted to provide people with a minimum period of gestation, He could have easily done so, instead of the 6 month figure that we know is not the minimum.

TG12345 wrote: I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, so if you could, please answer these questions. 1)      Do you believe God gave 6 months as a minimum period of gestation so people could use it for legal reasons to determine paternity? 2)      If not, what was the 6 month figure given for? Thanks so much!

Quranexplorer wrote: Sure, I can answer to the best of my knowledge: 1.     I can�t say for sure for if Allah gave these verses for that specific purpose. But I can say for sure that the legal framework developed by humans based on these verses provided for a better judgement when the knowledge of 6 months gestation was not available in public domain.

OK, thank you. I agree that the legal framework inspired by the verse provided for better judgement than a minimum being set at 9 months. Setting the minimum at 21 weeks and 5 days however would set even a better legal framework than 6 months.

Quranexplorer wrote: 2.     Again I am not sure of Allah�s purpose as nobody can have full understanding of Allah�s plans. But personally I think there are multiple cues for men to take from these verses�if Allah says 6 months gestation for a mother and if she has exceeded this in some cases, then that makes the case for that mother to be treated even better by her child�I would rather worry if I as such a child is doing full justice to my mother in this regard�that for me is another example how Allah sets such high moral standards for men.

I am not sure if I am following what you are saying. Can you please clarify?

TG12345 wrote: Why would Allah give just an approximation? Why not a concrete number? BTW I am unaware of any Western country today using the 6 month �minimum� as a way to establish whether or not a woman who has given birth to a premature child is guilty of adultery. I wonder why that is.

Quranexplorer wrote: There is no unique concrete number which can apply to all cases.

Of course there is. It would be the absolute minimum. This is something that humans don't know, but God would.

Quranexplorer wrote: Maybe because people have access to technologies including DNA analysis to decide the legitimacy of a child.

So this would mean that there is a better and more accurate way to determine a child's legitimacy than that what was suggested in the Quran.

TG12345 wrote: Why would the average, but not absolute minimum, be sensible??? Setting an absolute minimum makes perfect sense, since if you have an absolute minimum, you will know for certain whether the baby that has been born was guilty of adultery, if he or she is below this minimum. It takes every case into account and all their variables. The risk of accusing an innocent person of something she did not do is zero percent. Setting an average minimum, on the other hand, leaves a chance that an innocent person may be accused falsely of adultery.

Quranexplorer wrote: Wrong--the very case you are judging could be the new minimum. How can you say then setting the known minimum will eliminate the chance of a woman being wronged completely?

If the minimum is an absolute one (and only God knows what the absolute minimum is), then a woman who gave birth to a child before that period of time would be guilty of adultery.

Quranexplorer wrote: Also on an average, most of the cases would have got a higher gestation, so setting the absolute minimum will now pose the risk that men are always left to bear the burden of an illegitimate child.

Which is probably why Western countries don't use the minimum period of gestation as a way to determine the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of a child. I would go by DNA testing, or find some other methods that are more reliable. I would never use the period of gestation as an indicator of a woman's guilt or innocence of adultery.
 

TG12345 wrote: The 21 weeks 5 days will be a one off case, but it will be the minimum� which is allegedly what the 6 months is supposed to be. You say that setting the minimum gestation as 21 weeks and 5 days is unfairly giving favour of the woman� here is an idea. Let�s not use the minimum period of viability (since we have no idea yet what it is) as a way of determining a woman�s innocence or guilt! Here is a method that has a higher success rate that setting 6 months as an �average minimum� http://www.paternity-answers.com/history-paternity-test.html

Quranexplorer wrote: May not be a bad idea, but I�m not a scholar to decide such things, I will leave that to the discretion of the scholars to come to a conclusion considering all aspects of the issue.

If they were to do that, it would probably mean admitting that the method inspired by the Quran for setting a legal framework to determine this issue is not the best or most accurate one to use.

TG12345 wrote: Yet what if he uses the tool perfectly, and it still leads to a mistake? Who is to blame? Let�s say that you are very proficient marksman and you hunt coyotes to keep them away from cattle. I give a rifle with a blank and tell you to fire, and you obviously don�t kill it. Was it your fault for not hitting the coyote, or mine for giving you a faulty gun?

Quranexplorer wrote: Here the marksmen is obviously not proficient, the coyote is too quick for any rifle he can possibly have. So he obviously can make mistakes even with a fully loaded rifle. But earlier he didn�t have rifle itself, now at least he has got a loaded rifle.

In the hypothesis I provided, I stated that the marksman is very proficient. A rifle with blanks would not be able to kill a coyote, since the blanks do not act like regular bullets do.

TG12345 wrote: Why have a baby if you are not willing to do everything you can to help make it healthy? Why would God set a 2 year term for breastfeeding, if we know that babies who are breastfed more than 2 years are even better off?

TG12345 wrote: I never said that it outweighs all other pragmatic considerations, but it is clearly an important issue and for many a matter of life and death. I don�t know why a higher set figure is not given but as we see, breastfeeding for less than 23 months is a bad idea in the developing world, and breastfeeding for more than 2 years that increases the chance of survival.

Quranexplorer wrote: The first question goes to all those mothers who choose not to breastfeed at all or for very low durations.

It also goes to mothers who know that breastfeeding a baby for more than 2 years is best for it, but choose not to do so.

Quranexplorer wrote: As you already agreed the necessity for breastfeeding for durations exceeding 2 years is not a critical issue that outweighs all other pragmatic considerations in this regard. The available data that actual breastfeeding durations in some societies with very low infant mortality rates are in fact far below 2 years also supports the fact that breastfeeding durations are really flexible and not the sole reason that decides infant mortality. Based on these, the argument for breastfeeding durations exceeding 2 years really sounds more of a personal opinion and something you feel nice to have.

Based on this, setting a 2 year period also is meaningless since as you pointed out, in some societies there is very low infant mortality and people breastfeed below that time.

We know that these societies are Western societies, and in the developing world (ie most of the world), breastfeeding for less than 23 months puts children at risk.

TG12345 wrote: Interesting that you ask. It was around three years. WEAN wen: "To wean" in English Versions of the Bible is always the translation of (gamal), but gamal has a much wider force than merely "to wean," signifying "to deal fully with," as in Ps 13:6, etc. Hence, as applied to a child, gamal covers the whole period of nursing and care until the weaning is complete (1 Ki 11:20). This period in ancient Israel extended to about 3 years, and when it was finished the child was mature enough to be entrusted to strangers (1 Sam 1:24). And, as the completion of the period marked the end of the most critical stage of the child's life, it was celebrated with a feast (Gen 21:8), a custom still observed in the Orient. The weaned child, no longer fretting for the breast and satisfied with its mother's affection, is used in Ps 131:2 as a figure for Israel's contentment with God's care, despite the smallness of earthly possessions. In Isa 28:9 there is an ironical question, `Is God to teach you knowledge as if you were children? You should have learned His will long ago!' Burton Scott Easton http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/W/WEAN/

Quranexplorer wrote: See even with a bible teaching of 3 years duration, the actual durations are much below even below 2 years. Do you need a better example how the Quran provides a more pragmatic approach with a flexible duration?

If the actual durations are much below even two years and this is more "pragmatic", then why did the Quran's author not set the term at one year?

BTW in past societies, children were breastfed between 2-3 years, it is only in the relatively more modern times that the length of breastfeeding is much shorter,

TG12345 wrote: So are you saying that if God tells you to accept someone�s teachings, it is your responsibility to first see whether or not this person is trustworthy?

Quranexplorer wrote: You talked about �mistaken�� I will sure take it my responsibility to avoid the �mistaken� part.

So in other words, you want to doublecheck before you follow what God tells you.

TG12345 wrote: The Quran�s author stated that of livestock, he sent down 8 pairs. However, we know that there are more than 4 kinds of livestock that God gave to humanity.

Quranexplorer wrote: As I already mentioned, you can get confused when you try to interpret a verse in isolation. To understand this 8 pair livestock concept, you need to read the verses 6-143,144 wherein Allah clearly specifies 4 kinds of livestock as sheep, goats, camels and oxen. Now with this background if you read 39.6, then it is clear that the reference is to these 4 kinds�so the objective part is clear that there is nothing wrong with the Quranic verses. Now coming to the subjective part, of course you can say according to your definition there should be more than 4 kinds of livestock. But according to Allah�s definition, he has selected the above specified 4 kinds under his definition in this instance. So it�s only a subjective matter of interpretation.

This still doesn't clear up the error. The verse says that out of cattle, God sent down 4 pairs. If I drew three triangles on the whiteboard in my classroom and told the pupils I drew two shapes, I would be wrong. I drew three, not two. Likewise, God sent down more than 4 pairs of cattle... the sheep, camels, oxen and goats are only some examples.

 Other examples would include horses and donkeys and reindeer.  Who sent them down?

Here is another question you may want to ponder: notice that in the Quran (and also the Bible, actually- although I am not claiming it is God's perfect word like I once used to believe), God sanctions marriage between first cousins.

In the Quran, daughters of uncles and aunts are listed as among the people it is permitted to marry.


33:50

O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who emigrated with you and a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

However, we know that the risk of children born with birth defects in consanguinous marriages jumps from 3-4% to 6-8%.
Does Consanguinity Increase the Risk for Birth Defects? - Jordanna Joaquina, MS, CGC's Blog - MedHelp

This is a small increase, but many countries where cousin marriage is frequently practiced have higher rates of birth defects than other countries that don't.

Many countries in the Arab world have a high prevalence children born with genetically determined disorders, higher than in other industrialized countries. Two of the reasons cited are high rates of consanguinity, and also mothers who are over the age of 40 giving birth.

Neither the Bible or Quran forbids marrying (and having marital sexual intercourse to produce children with) either first cousins, or women who are over 35. Yet we know that when this happens, the probability of birth defects rises.

Why did God not mention this, when he permitted this practice?

Why are genetic disorders common in the Arab world?
Available data suggest that genetic and congenital disorders are more common in Arab countries than in industrialised countries; recessively inherited disorders account for a substantial proportion of physical and mental handicap.1�3 6 Several factors may contribute to the high prevalence of genetically determined disorders:

• High consanguinity rates�25-60% of all marriages are consanguineous, and the rate of first cousin marriages is high (figs 1 and 2; table A on bmj.com).4 w1 In addition, isolated subpopulations with a high level of inbreeding exist. Furthermore, in many parts of the Arab world the society is still tribal.5 6 w1 This has made the epidemiology of genetic disorders complicated, as many families and tribal groups are descended from a limited number of ancestors and some conditions are confined to specific villages, families, and tribal groups, leading to an unusual burden of genetic diseases in these communities (table B on bmj.com)1 2 5
  
• The high prevalence of haemoglobinopathies, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, autosomal recessive syndromes, and several metabolic disorders (fig A and table C on bmj.com)1 2 5
  
• The rate of children with Down's syndrome in some Arab countries exceeds the 1.2-1.7 per 1000 typical for industrialised countries. This may be related to the relatively high proportion of births to older mothers in the region (up to 50% of children with Down's syndrome in the region are estimated to be born to mothers aged 40 or over)1 2 7 w3
  
• The lack of public health measures directed at the prevention of congenital and genetic disorders, with inadequate health care before and during pregnancy, particularly in low income countries2
  
• Services for the prevention and control of genetic disorders are restricted by certain cultural, legal, and religious limitations, such as the cultural fear of families with genetic diseases being stigmatised within their community and the legal restrictions on selective termination of pregnancy of an affected fetus.1 2 5 6
  Genetic disorders in the Arab world | The BMJ

Curious what your thoughts are on this.


Edited by TG12345 - 25 April 2015 at 7:46pm

There are many holy books of different religions in which there is same concept but the method of explanation is different. If we talk about Quran it is very knowledgeable holy book in which the concept of humanity are described very well and in this there is reference of scientific fact for the explanation of fact written in Quran.