48,466
edits
[unchecked revision] | [checked revision] |
mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
It is also our observation that their tactics are as follows: | It is also our observation that their tactics are as follows: | ||
#If a word has multiple meanings or translations, they will choose the one that suits them best at the time, ignoring all the rest as if they never existed. | #If a word has multiple meanings or translations, they will choose the one that suits them best at the time, ignoring all the rest as if they never existed. | ||
#If unable to come up with a valid response, they will claim that only a genuine intimacy with Classical Arabic will enable the proper understanding of a given verse and then, rather ironically, proceed to argue in the English | #If unable to come up with a valid response, they will claim that only a genuine intimacy with Classical Arabic will enable the proper understanding of a given verse and then, rather ironically, proceed to argue in the English language. | ||
#They will add complexity to an otherwise ‘simple’ verse without explanation nor justification. An example is the extension from ‘peg’ to ‘isostacy’ to ‘stabilize the crust/lithosphere/earth’ | #They will add complexity to an otherwise ‘simple’ verse without explanation nor justification. An example is the extension from ‘peg’ to ‘isostacy’ to ‘stabilize the crust/lithosphere/earth’. | ||
#They will switch from the ‘literal’ to ‘metaphorical’ case whenever convenient. A sure sign of loss will be when they claim that the Qur'an is not a book of Science but [[Islam and Scripture|Scripture]], despite previously or concurrently promulgating the validity of ‘Qur'anic Science’. | #They will switch from the ‘literal’ to ‘metaphorical’ case whenever convenient. A sure sign of loss will be when they claim that the Qur'an is not a book of Science but [[Islam and Scripture|Scripture]], despite previously or concurrently promulgating the validity of ‘Qur'anic Science’. | ||
edits