Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About rubida

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion
  1. Evolutionist Convert (revert) To Islam?

    Umm, I don't know how you can categorically say that what drives it will remain hidden. Aren't you assuming that there is an unknowable driver? And why evolution in particular? Do you also say that what "drives" inorganic chemical reactions will remain hidden? But even if there was a "driver", if it will always remain hidden you are saying that it can never be detected. And if it can never be detected it isn't in the realm of things that science is concerned with. I don't agree that there is no purely non-prejudicial science and that there will always be bias. The Scientific Method attempts - and usually succeeds, IMHO - in maintaining genuine objectivity. I don't even see how there could be bias in (say) a hypothesis that water boils at a lower temperature at a higher altitude. (edit - you could of course say that as humans we think in a certain way determined by the physical make-up of our brains, and thus there is 'bias' in every thought we have, but within the system of human thought there is bias and not-bias, and it's this not-bias I am attributing to the Scientific Method.) Except at a quantum level, observer effects can be controlled for, and there have been some very clever experiments at quantum level which use the observer effect to gain information.
  2. Where Economists Agree

    I don't know what you mean by "store value". If you just mean that the money isn't backed by anything, you're wrong. If the money markets (the people who invest in bonds and trade currencies) decide that a country's money is overvalued - compared to what the country is worth and can produce, essentially - they will not want the bonds and will not buy the currency. The value of the currency will then fall. The central bank's interest (if any) on the bonds is negligible. I'm not sure why you think that central banks earn interest on government loans. The government raises loans by selling bonds to anyone who wants to buy them, via the central bank. You can buy government bonds if you want, and receive interest on your loan. Any time you pay someone in a different economy than yours (eg Amazon(contact admin if its a beneficial link), if you aren't American), they are in effect lending your government (ie, you) money. You might want to do some research on the charters of the various central banks (almost every country has one). In the case of the US central banking system (12 Federal Reserve banks), they are controlled by a board appointed by the President and ratified by the Congress. The board is obliged to (braoadly) follow the economic policies of the government of the day, and it would be sacked if it didn't.
  3. {sniff} Are You A Zionist?

    Yes, a two-state solution seems to be the best way forward.
  4. Where Economists Agree

    If a government raises bonds it is borrowing money on those bonds, so of course it pays interest on them. If the money was actually worthless, the interest would be worthless as well, in which case no-one would buy the bonds. The money obviously DOES have "store value", because the money can be (and is) used to buy things. Your money can buy things, can't it? Your money is the same as any other money. By the way, there was far greater inequality of wealth in England prior to the 20th century in just about any century you care to name since 1066.
  5. Evolutionist Convert (revert) To Islam?

    Actually, having thought more about it, I'll modify my stance as expressed in the above post a bit. If a supernatural being was doing something that was indistinguishable (to our most informed efforts) from evolution, you could say that creation was going on. Practically, that would allow a believer to fit evolution into their belief system (except as regards humans for some Muslims), but it would also make absolutely no difference to the way evolution is researched or hypothesized about by scientists. (Because if it DID make a difference, that difference would need to be scientifically observable.) Thanks for binging up your argument.
  6. Evolutionist Convert (revert) To Islam?

    Yes, if a supernatural being was altering genes undetectably, it would have exactly the same result as genes being altered by non-suprnatural processes. The point is that if something is undetectable it does not exist as far as science is concerned. (And ought not exist for any rational human.) If the supernatural being was altering the genes detectably then science should detect it. So far it hasn't. Evolution describes the mechanism. If you want to add an undetectable supernatural being doing something in the mechanism it doesn't make the slightest difference to the evolution hypothesis. If we cannot detect that the Flying Spaghetti Monster really decides on all apparently random events, even though some people believe it does, then there's no reason to include the FSM in the hypothesis. That's right, it was a very strong hypothesis. So "seeing" is not a neccessary part of forming a very strong hypotheis. So not being able to "see" what happened millions of years ago is not necessarily a bar to forming a very strong hypothesis about the way the species formed.
  7. A Hijabi U.s Military Commander?

    I hope my words aren't neutralised - but they are my opinion. OK, so you agree that US Muslims who pay taxes indirectly fund the US military, but you think that that is permitted? You are saying that the 15000-odd Muslims in the US military, plus the 30,000 Muslims in the Indian army, plus those in the Australian, UK, French, Thai, Danish, German, Japanese, etc militaries are actually kaffirs. Big call.
  8. Evolutionist Convert (revert) To Islam?

    Only if you would say that accepting the hypothesis that the earth is a sphere was a "leap of faith" until astro/cosmonauts saw that it was circular. And as I've already posted in this thread, the evolution of bacteria has been observed in the laboratory. And if you're unlucky enough to get an infection that is penicillin-resistent you're observing evolution at work. You're being linguistically slippery by saying that science observes objectively then implying that "observe" can only mean "see in the present", then that "seeing in the present" is the only valid evidence. We have never actually "seen" an electron but the existence of electrons is very strong hypotheses, not requiring any a-logical faith to accept. No-one alive "saw" the Battle of Trafalgar, but it doesn't require an a-logical leap of faith to accept the hypothesis that it happened. Finally, the logical "leap of faith" required to accept logically-derived propositions (such as "the sun will probably rise tomorrow" or "this egg will fall if I drop it" or "the Battle of Trafalgar happened") is one which everyone does all the time. It requires an additional "leap of faith", and an a-logical one, to believe things which are contrary to the available evidence.
  9. A Hijabi U.s Military Commander?

    As usual, add "in my opinion' to everything I say in this post. For those rules to apply you need to define "enemy". If by "enemy" you mean any non-Muslim who is fighting any Muslim for any reason, just or unjust, that would mean that giving evidence for the prosecution in the trial of a Muslim would be haram. As in the current piracy issue, are all Muslims forbidden to help in any way a ship owned and crewed by non-Muslims which is attacked by Muslim pirates? I doubt it. Ditto the pirate thing. And presumably that would mean that any Muslim who fought against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was committing a major sin. Ditto the pirate and Kuwait thing. You can choose not to pay taxes and go to jail. Funding the military IS a direct result of paying taxes. If that military happens to be engaged in a war against some Muslims, you are facilitating that war. So you would not approve of any Muslim fighting on either side of the Iran-Iraq war? Nor fighting to resist the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Or even fighting to overthrow the 'puppet' governments of the ME?
  10. Evolutionist Convert (revert) To Islam?

    Only in the sense that there will never be enough ecidence to "seal the verdict" about what goes on in black holes, or what happens at the speed of light and so on. Only in the sense that science never claims to have "sealed the verdict".
  11. Who Wrote The Bible?

    No-one claims that the Bible is the direct word of the Christian god (which is not the same being as the Muslim god). The Bible is partly the written form of the oral history of the ancient Jewish people(s), partly contemporay(ish) reporting plus some individual speils. Just because Muslims consider their holy book to be the direct word of their god doesn't mean that the same applies to all other religions.
  12. A Hijabi U.s Military Commander?

    You might want that, but it is not currently the case that there is one Muslim nation. Nor does there seem to be any mechanism for achieving it, nor even any mechanism for achieving consensus on how it would function. Nor is there any evidence that most Muslims want it. For a very long time - maybe for their entire history - the Ottoman Empire and its precursors existed because they were powerful enough to force their rulers' will on the population. Now that that power has vanished the Empire has broken up into nations, and most people in those nations seem to prefer it that way. The only way to re-establish the Empire would be to subjugate the population again. I can't see (for example) the Taliban ever conquering Indonesia and Malaysia. Or even Bangladesh. Bangladeshi Muslims would never again submit to Pakistanis because of the rape and genocide of the civil war - they would again turn to India for help if Pakistan ever attacked them again.
  13. Where Economists Agree

    At a national level, yes. If you're talking about economic inequality within individual economies, then blaming the IMF will not account for the problem in the US, for example.
  14. {sniff} Are You A Zionist?

    Because Jerusalem, which they built, is there. Because they have a historical claim on israel.
  15. Where Economists Agree

    How, then, do you account for the success of India, China and Brazil?