Template:Pictorial-Islam-options: Difference between revisions

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[checked revision][checked revision]
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>Also see: [[Template:Pictorial-Islam]]</noinclude><!-- HELP NOTES: Each option tag handles one random story --><choose>
<noinclude>Also see: [[Template:Pictorial-Islam]]</noinclude><!-- HELP NOTES: Each option tag handles one random story --><choose>
<option weight="1">{{Pictorial-Islam|1=Qur'an and Semen Production (Qur'an 86:7)|2=[[File:Hippocrates.jpg|190px|link=Quran and Semen Production]]|3=This article analyzes the various attempts to show that the Qur'an correctly describes semen production from between the “sulb” and the “tara’ib” in verse 86:7.
There are at least seven distinct classes of explanations, and none of them are supported by modern scientific knowledge and are frequently conflicting. For example, Ibn Kathir refers to tara’ib as a female organ, while other tafsirs claim it belongs to the man. Another conflict is the definition of sulb to mean either the backbone or the ‘hardening’ of the loins. ([[Quran and Semen Production|''read more'']])}}</option>





Revision as of 21:20, 9 February 2014

Also see: Template:Pictorial-Islam

To You Your Religion and To Me Mine (Qur'an 109:1-6)
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination

This article analyzes the apologetic claim that Surat al-Kafiroon (the Disbelievers, Atheists) advocates religious tolerance and freedom. When read in context, like many other verses misinterpreted for apologetic purposes, Surat al-Kafiroon advocates the opposite of what is sometimes claimed. This surah is not a proclamation on religious tolerance and freedom or a recognition of religious pluralism. In fact, this surah unequivocally forbids inter-faith dialogue and advocates an "us versus them" mentality between Muslims and disbelievers. This is how the surah is understood by mainstream Islam and the majority of its classical and contemporary scholars. Furthermore, if the historical context were to be ignored, it would still remain an abrogated verse superseded by "the verses of fighting". (read more)