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=Essay: Rejecting the "Aisha Was Older" Apologetic Myth|2=[[File:Muslim, Christian and Jew.jpg|160px|link=Rejecting Dr David Lieperts Aisha Was Older Apologetic Myth]]|3=Some well-intentioned people are claiming that "Most scholars for the last 1200 years suggest Aisha was 11-14 at the time of the consummation of her marriage to Muhammad", and one person even provided a link to an apologetic piece by Dr. David Liepert at the Huffington Post titled, "Rejecting the Myth of Sanctioned Child Marriage in Islam".
Apparently the arguments raised by Liepert and others have given many the false impression that Aisha's age is a long contested issue in Islam, and that it is a valid argument over interpretation that could eventually lead to reforms within mainstream Islam. The problem I have with this, is that it is certainly not an argument over interpretation.
The text clearly say one thing and one thing only. For anyone with a little knowledge on the subject and who has actually read the source material, it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. For people like Liepert, simply lying about what sources say may be effective in apologetic pieces, but they are useless if the intentions behind them are to reform the religion. ([[Rejecting Dr David Lieperts Aisha Was Older Apologetic Myth|''read more'']])}}</option>




Revision as of 22:46, 18 February 2014

Also see: Template:Pictorial-Islam

Diseases and Cures in the Wings of Houseflies
Error creating thumbnail: Unable to save thumbnail to destination

The thesis put forward by some Muslims is that it has recently been proven by modern science that flies carry not only pathogens but also the agents that limit these pathogens, thus proving the fly wing hadiths that tell us "If a fly falls into one of your containers [of food or drink], immerse it completely before removing it, for under one of its wings there is venom and under another there is its antidote." They principally identify these agents to be bacteriophages, though they also sometimes refer to fungi. The scientific evidence does not support the veracity of the fly wing hadiths for many reasons, including: (1) Bacteriophages are not limited to any specific wing of the fly. (2) Bacteriophages in the natural state and concentration are not antidotal to bacterial diseases, particularly for temperate or lysogenic phages. (3) Bacteriophages are ineffective against non-bacterial diseases carried by flies, meaning even if the wings were to provide you with an antidote to bacterial diseases, they could infect you with another non-bacterial disease (i.e. dipping a fly into your drink is not good advice). (read more)

Retrieved from "http://wikiislamica.net/index.php?title=Template:Pictorial-Islam-options&oldid=104102"