Search the Community

Scientism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism ***** Scientism is the belief System that propagates that the Scientific method(s) has No limits/Constraints and Scientific methods can be be applied to almost All aspects of life. Something that governs all aspects of human life. Is called a Religion (A way of Life). Science provides an Explanation for Everything. Is it essentially a man made religion- where Science is the deity(0nly Source of everything), its followers ( the Scientists and the followers(ummah) of these Scientists/prophets) worship Science its rituals(methods), and its results.?

Salam un Alaikum, Ya Ali a.s madad I want to ask about the status of genetically modified food in the Islamic Shariah and opinions of all sects of Islam about GM food... Is it halal or what?

Why is belief in God so widespread? The Islamic answer is that it's because mankind has a God-given fitra, or innate tendency to believe in God. This wasn't the answer atheists typically gave. For Marx, religion was something propagated by the oppressive ruling class, to control the masses, 'the opium of the people'. The 19th century anthropologist Tyler explained religion as a primitive attempt to explain life and death. For Freud, religion was a means to control the Oedipal complex, wish fulfillment, and means to control the outside world. For sociologist Rodney Stark, religious beliefs act as 'compensators' for failures to attain certain goals. Add to this list all other possible secular sociological explanations and anthropological explanations. Any one of these theories could have been proven to be the true and complete explanation, and refuted the Islamic explanation of fitra. And yet, according to the findings of contemporary Science, in the words of atheist Professor of Psychology Alison Gopnik: Islam is right: we do have an innate tendency or fitra to believe in God. It's not because of class struggle, or compensation, or brain-washing. Does this prove that God gave us this innate tendency? No, I'm not claiming that. For psychologists who aren't keen on religion, it's a mistaken innate tendency to attribute teleology and intentionality to everything - of course they aren't going to say that it's God-given. What I am claiming is that Science has confirmed a claim of religion, specifically Islam and some versions of Christianity, that we have an innate tendency to believe in God. Science has proven the existence of the fitra, in a very basic sense. This is just one of many other instances in which Science has confirmed the religious worldview in some way or another, e.g. Big Bang cosmology showing the Universe had a beginning, fine tuning in its various forms pointing to design, falsity of determinism undermining classical materialism, psi research and NDEs showing that we aren't our brains etc. The list isn't exhaustive.

Salam aleikoum, "Then eat from all the fruits and follow the ways of your Lord laid down [for you]." There emerges from their bellies a drink, varying in colors, in which there is healing for people. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who give thought." In Surah Nahl, verse 69 (16:69), Allah swt says that a healing liquid comes from the bellieS of the female bee (butuniha). If you check this link (http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=16&verse=69#(16:69:1)) you will see that butuniha means several stomachs for one single female bee. The translator should have written 'its bellies'. Science says that a female bee has indeed two stomachs, one called the honey stomach and the other being a 'normal' stomach for her own digestion. The content of the honey stomach is regurgitated into other bees mouth and then placed into a cell, this is how honey is made. According to the first link I posted below, there is a valve between the two stomachs and only the content of the honey stomach is transferred to other bees. https://honeybeesuite.com/honey-is-not-bee-vomit/ ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZlEjDLJCmg&t=98s But the Holy Quran says that the healing liquid comes from its bellies, not from its belly. I know that butuniha has several meanings but I am confused. How do you interpret this verse? Jazakh Allah khair.

Islamic studies professor refutes famous Neil degrasse Tyson video on islam and science

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم A friend of mine sent my third post in the proof for the existence of God series to a mutual friend who is a PhD student in physics. Let’s call him Muhammad. He made a comment in response: Muhammad: I decided to send him a full length reply because I intended on posting it here, as this objection is no doubt common amongst the scientifically minded.... Click here to continue reading.

The truth is that science has a bad reputation when it comes to accepting new ideas. As scientists, we like to think we are calm, objective, unbiased champions of the evidence. But if the evidence changes the paradigm, it often squanders the life's work of many proud people. This is just as true today as it was back in 1906 ... Scientists are not the paragons of mutual camaraderie we might imagine them to be – all hell-bent on uniting under one banner to seek the truth. They are human. Big intellects bring big egos. In Pursuit of Memory by Joseph Jebelli

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170920182116.htm Coral bleaching. Credit: © Richard Carey / Fotolia In the past 540 million years, the Earth has endured five mass extinction events, each involving processes that upended the normal cycling of carbon through the atmosphere and oceans. These globally fatal perturbations in carbon each unfolded over thousands to millions of years, and are coincident with the widespread extermination of marine species around the world. The question for many scientists is whether the carbon cycle is now experiencing a significant jolt that could tip the planet toward a sixth mass extinction. In the modern era, carbon dioxide emissions have risen steadily since the 19th century, but deciphering whether this recent spike in carbon could lead to mass extinction has been challenging. That's mainly because it's difficult to relate ancient carbon anomalies, occurring over thousands to millions of years, to today's disruptions, which have taken place over just a little more than a century. Now Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT's Lorenz Center, has analyzed significant changes in the carbon cycle over the last 540 million years, including the five mass extinction events. He has identified "thresholds of catastrophe" in the carbon cycle that, if exceeded, would lead to an unstable environment, and ultimately, mass extinction. In a paper published in Science Advances, he proposes that mass extinction occurs if one of two thresholds are crossed: For changes in the carbon cycle that occur over long timescales, extinctions will follow if those changes occur at rates faster than global ecosystems can adapt. For carbon perturbations that take place over shorter timescales, the pace of carbon-cycle changes will not matter; instead, the size or magnitude of the change will determine the likelihood of an extinction event. Taking this reasoning forward in time, Rothman predicts that, given the recent rise in carbon dioxide emissions over a relatively short timescale, a sixth extinction will depend on whether a critical amount of carbon is added to the oceans. That amount, he calculates, is about 310 gigatons, which he estimates to be roughly equivalent to the amount of carbon that human activities will have added to the world's oceans by the year 2100. Does this mean that mass extinction will soon follow at the turn of the century? Rothman says it would take some time -- about 10,000 years -- for such ecological disasters to play out. However, he says that by 2100 the world may have tipped into "unknown territory." "This is not saying that disaster occurs the next day," Rothman says. "It's saying that, if left unchecked, the carbon cycle would move into a realm which would be no longer stable, and would behave in a way that would be difficult to predict. In the geologic past, this type of behavior is associated with mass extinction." History follows theory Rothman had previously done work on the end-Permian extinction, the most severe extinction in Earth's history, in which a massive pulse of carbon through the Earth's system was involved in wiping out more than 95 percent of marine species worldwide. Since then, conversations with colleagues spurred him to consider the likelihood of a sixth extinction, raising an essential question: "How can you really compare these great events in the geologic past, which occur over such vast timescales, to what's going on today, which is centuries at the longest?" Rothman says. "So I sat down one summer day and tried to think about how one might go about this systematically." He eventually derived a simple mathematical formula based on basic physical principles that relates the critical rate and magnitude of change in the carbon cycle to the timescale that separates fast from slow change. He hypothesized that this formula should predict whether mass extinction, or some other sort of global catastrophe, should occur. Rothman then asked whether history followed his hypothesis. By searching through hundreds of published geochemistry papers, he identified 31 events in the last 542 million years in which a significant change occurred in Earth's carbon cycle. For each event, including the five mass extinctions, Rothman noted the change in carbon, expressed in the geochemical record as a change in the relative abundance of two isotopes, carbon-12 and carbon-13. He also noted the duration of time over which the changes occurred. He then devised a mathematical transformation to convert these quantities into the total mass of carbon that was added to the oceans during each event. Finally, he plotted both the mass and timescale of each event. "It became evident that there was a characteristic rate of change that the system basically didn't like to go past," Rothman says. In other words, he observed a common threshold that most of the 31 events appeared to stay under. While these events involved significant changes in carbon, they were relatively benign -- not enough to destabilize the system toward catastrophe. In contrast, four of the five mass extinction events lay over the threshold, with the most severe end-Permian extinction being the farthest over the line. "Then it became a question of figuring out what it meant," Rothman says. A hidden leak Upon further analysis, Rothman found that the critical rate for catastrophe is related to a hidden process within the Earth's natural carbon cycle. The cycle is essentially a loop between photosynthesis and respiration. Normally, there is a "leak" in the cycle, in which a small amount of organic carbon sinks to the ocean bottom and, over time, is buried as sediment and sequestered from the rest of the carbon cycle. Rothman found that the critical rate was equivalent to the rate of excess production of carbon dioxide that would result from plugging the leak. Any additional carbon dioxide injected into the cycle could not be described by the loop itself. One or more other processes would instead have taken the carbon cycle into unstable territory. He then determined that the critical rate applies only beyond the timescale at which the marine carbon cycle can re-establish its equilibrium after it is disturbed. Today, this timescale is about 10,000 years. For much shorter events, the critical threshold is no longer tied to the rate at which carbon is added to the oceans but instead to the carbon's total mass. Both scenarios would leave an excess of carbon circulating through the oceans and atmosphere, likely resulting in global warming and ocean acidification. The century's the limit From the critical rate and the equilibrium timescale, Rothman calculated the critical mass of carbon for the modern day to be about 310 gigatons. He then compared his prediction to the total amount of carbon added to the Earth's oceans by the year 2100, as projected in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC projections consider four possible pathways for carbon dioxide emissions, ranging from one associated with stringent policies to limit carbon dioxide emissions, to another related to the high range of scenarios with no limitations. The best-case scenario projects that humans will add 300 gigatons of carbon to the oceans by 2100, while more than 500 gigatons will be added under the worst-case scenario, far exceeding the critical threshold. In all scenarios, Rothman shows that by 2100, the carbon cycle will either be close to or well beyond the threshold for catastrophe. "There should be ways of pulling back [emissions of carbon dioxide]," Rothman says. "But this work points out reasons why we need to be careful, and it gives more reasons for studying the past to inform the present."

I like to solicit your constructive comments on the following Idea. Science has penetrated our lives and how important it has become. To the extent that some are using as a the only tool to understand the Higher realities and shunning philosophy/religion. Are we been misled here, by the glamour and newnes of something that we have just started to discover. Are we worshiping Science as new God. When man discovered fire, it was a new discovery, probably started worshiping it. Creation of the Universe(as we know of it), is been described as something out of nothing, our out of a singularity, or a single dot that contained all that we see today, and the process is described as a random process which took place over billions of years and different processed Evolved and formed new elements and stars and galaxies and basically, environment based evolution. Random, with no DNA/Map that it followed. How is it different from these processes> Potential or every thing/building blocks on everything/ existed in the following processes. Process: A fertilized human egg to full grown Human. Process: A seed to full grown giant Sequoia tree Process: Singularity to Current Universe What Science describes with much fanfare and dramatization (if you watch any Bigbang Video) Imagine a video describing the the initial stages of a fertilized human egg and all stages/periods with the development it goes(all subsystems and processes) through till it reach adulthood(full complete body). Or a growth of a Sequoia Tree seed, all steps till its a Giant Tree. We know that all the different stages of development, have a guide and its the DNA, same is true for a Sequoia Tree, it follows a map. Similarly, if you substitute the scientific terminology and fanfare with simple periods of stages and describe each stages from Singularity to what we know of the universe. Its has followed a map, its systems are growing according to a pre defined system(at a Macro level).

Salamun Alaykum. We should all feel guilty of what has been done to our Islam (Shia Islam). We have heard so many breath taking ahadeeth from Ahlulbayt(a.s) on "Knowledge" and how it is better even than the blood of martyrs. But if we see our situation in the Globe "Where are WE??" Are we even close? On one hand where our Ulema e Ekraam have established a Legacy of being THE BEST intellectually in the field of Islamic Science but on the other hand the people who are responsible to grow the community in other fields such as Tech, Medicine, Astronomy, Physics, Chemical Science etc etc and the list goes on. Why so? What has caused us be far behind those who don't deserve to be there. Holy Prophet(saws) said "Knowledge is the lost entity of a believer." And I don't remember the exact hadeeth but it goes like this - (narrated from 5th and 5th Imam(a.s)) - "Those who are not on the top among the peers and claim to be our shia have false claims, They are not our Shia." What are some root causes we are lagging behind so much? Where world is growing day by day the gap between us and them is going even even more wider. Also after the advent of Social Media the "Wonderful" has taken place. More than half of us have lost our interest + time from studies. Rather I should say We have been largely deviated. Lets draw a line of comparison between the lives of Ulema who are pursuing Islamic science as their knowledge sphere and on the contrary We who are into the Worldly Sciences. Our Greater Ulemas are so much immersed into their studies (Allamah Tabatabai (r.a) is one of the greatest examples) that they don't even have the time to talk unnecessarily. Their life is filled with knowledge and they don't show any sign of arrogance. They are the real embodiment of the lives of Prophets of Allah. But we as the follower of Wordly Science are neither immersed into it nor we are creating a legacy out of it. The families of Ulemas have a chain of Ulemas in their Lineage. But we don't have such chains. If we do have this just Imagine - "How many levels can we grow from our status quo!" I see Iran as a Global Example of how they have established a greater Legacy in Both the Spheres of lives - Religious studies and Worldly Sciences. Please if you all have any solutions of how a global student community can be setup to bring a revolution in this sphere of life then please drop your ideas. And Tag people in this post so that they do notice where are we heading!

Salam, Here's a fantastic article/manifesto for a post-materialist sciences. http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(14)00116-5/fulltext Read it carefully. Some of the scientific findings do not easily fit with Shia ideology or Islam. Let me know what you think. Thanks!

Can anyone here give me some channels/sites where I can learn more about the beliefs of Shia, Sunni, Salafi, science etc. Because Ramadan is about learning too! Now I am a Shia, and I have the proof for the Shia are right, but I want to know what my brothers believe in (But I do not think Salafi see me as a brother...)

Bismillah, Allahumma salli ali Muhammad wa aali Muhammad. Assalamu aleikum wa rahmatullah. Fakhr Razi, a well known ash'ari muhadeeth writes in his "Asas Taqdees": (I do not speak english good enough to present you a decent translation so please someone correct it!) اشْتهر فِيمَا بَين الْأمة أَن جمَاعَة من الْمَلَاحِدَة وضعُوا أَخْبَارًا مُنكرَة واحتالوا فِي ترويجها على الْمُحدثين والمحدثون لِسَلَامَةِ قُلُوبهم مَا عرفوها بل قبلوها وَأي مُنكر فَوق وصف الله تَعَالَى بِمَا يقْدَح فِي الإلهية وَيبْطل الربوبية فَوَجَبَ الْقطع فِي أَمْثَال هَذِه الْأَخْبَار بِأَنَّهَا مَوْضُوعَة أما البُخَارِيّ والقشيري فهما مَا كَانَا عَالمين بالغيوب بل اجتهدا واحتاطا بِمِقْدَار طاقتهما فَأَما اعْتِقَاد أَنَّهُمَا علما جَمِيع الْأَحْوَال الْوَاقِعَة فِي زمَان الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم إِلَى زَمَاننَا فَذَلِك لَا يَقُوله عَاقل غَايَة مَا فِي الْبَاب أَنا نحسن الظَّن بهما وبالذين رويا عَنْهُم إِلَّا أَنا إِذا شاهدنا خَبرا مُشْتَمِلًا على مُنكر لَا يُمكن إِسْنَاده إِلَى الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم قَطعنَا بِأَنَّهُ من أوضاع الْمَلَاحِدَة وَمن ترويجاتهم على أُولَئِكَ الْمُحدثين الرَّابِع أَن هَؤُلَاءِ الْمُحدثين يخرجُون الرِّوَايَات بِأَقَلّ الْعِلَل أَنه كَانَ مائلا إِلَى حب عَليّ فَكَانَ رَافِضِيًّا فَلَا تقبل رِوَايَته وَكَانَ معبد الْجُهَنِيّ قَائِلا بِالْقدرِ فَلَا تقبل رِوَايَته فَمَا كَانَ فيهم عَاقل يَقُول إِنَّه وصف الله تَعَالَى بِمَا يبطل إلهيته "And it is known that a group of disbelievers have fabricated some munkar reports and made efforts in planting them among the hadeeth schoolars. And the schoolars due to the naivety of their hearts have not rejected them but accepeted them. And what munkar is worse than reports destroying rububiya of Allah and His uluhiya? So that we must call these reports fabricated! As for Bukhari and Qusheiri (muslim) - they didn't posses the knowledge of unseen... ...And these muhadeethes reject hadeeth due to weakest reasons such as "ones loves Ali so he's rafidhi and his reports aren't accepted" or "Magad bin Juhani is a Qadaree so his hadeeth are not to be accepted". So why there was none with 'Aql among them to say that "the narrator narrates what destroys Rububiya and Uluhiya so this is not accepted"? This is really wierd!" (Asas Taqdees, 218-219)

Salamualaykum It has come to my attention that neither Atheists nor Theists believe that there was ever "nothing" to begin with, and that there was always "something". A strong argument of mine has always been the absurdity of something coming from nothing. However, Atheists do believe that something had to have existed. My question is, how do we narrow that "something" down to the God of Islam? What qualities must that "something" have and why? Just to give you an example, one quality I am sure of is that this "something" can exist without an environment. Something that doesn't need air, food or water to exist. That disqualifies every current living thing on this earth. Your input will be very much appreciated. By the way, do not forget about the quantum realm. WS

Flat Earth Model Belief assumed earth was completely flat Day and night could not happen simultaneously Earth fixed and sun orbiting the earth Myths were ripe surrounding where the sun set and rose from Model could only support a single sunrise and sunset point Model could not support different time zones across the world Spherical Earth Model Earth is almost spherical with a few minor exceptions around the poles Earth orbits the SUN Earth is spinning to give us day and night simultaneously SUN is static relative to the earth Each point on earth has its own sunrise and sunset point Different time zones supported across the world Before I present the verses of the Quran that describes the earth, I will start of with the following verse. Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:3) We verily, have made it a Qur'ân in Arabic, that you may be able to understand (its meanings and its admonitions). This verse is clearly telling us that the Quran is meant to be easily understood and not what Dr Naik assumes, by taking us around the universe. Galaxies were not understood at the time the Quran was revealed and hence would have confused the people at the time. Also, as you will notice, all suras I have pointed out were revealed in Makkah, at a time when the prophet was under immense pressure to explain every verse of the Quran clearly. Naik is using fallacy and creating his own science in the Quran. These are the Descriptive verses Sura Al-Kahf (18:47) And (remember) the Day We shall cause the mountains to pass away (like clouds of dust), and you will see the earth as a levelled plain, and we shall gather them all together so as to leave not one of them behind. Sura Taha (20:53) Who has made earth for you like a bed (spread out); and has opened roads (ways and paths etc.) for you therein; and has sent down water (rain) from the sky. And We have brought forth with it various kinds of vegetation. Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:10) Who has made for you the earth like a bed, and has made for you roads therein, in order that you may find your way. Sura Az-Zukhruf (43:38) Till, when (such a one) comes to Us, he says [to his Qarîn (Satan / devil companion)] "Would that between me and you were the distance of the two easts (or the east and west)" a worst (type of) companion (indeed)! Sura An-Naba (78:6) Have We not made the earth as a bed, Sura An-Naziat (79:30) And after that He spread the earth; These verses would only be applicable to a flat earth belief Sura An-Naml (27:61) Is not He (better than your gods) Who has made the earth as a fixed abode, and has placed rivers in its midst, and has placed firm mountains therein, and has set a barrier between the two seas (of salt and sweet water).Is there any ilâh (god) with Allâh? Nay, but most of them know not. Sura Al-Kahf (18:86) Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allâh) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness." Sura Al-Kahf (18:90) Until, when he came to the rising place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We (Allâh) had provided no shelter against the sun. Sura Yasin (36:38) And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (appointed). That is the Decree of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. Sura Yasin (36:40) It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit. All these verses support a Flat earth model that the Quran is describing. I strongly encourage you to read these Suras in their entirety, to prove to yourself that I have not taken or used any verse out of context. If you feel that I have missed any verses which describe or support a spherical model, please provide me the verses from the Quran. Any imaginations not supported by a verse from the Quran will NOT be acceptable.

For almost the entire course of the 20th century, unknown to the public, doctors and medical researchers have been proving in both laboratory and clinical testing that our own urine is an enormous source of vital nutrients, vitamins, hormones, enzymes and critical antibodies that cannot be duplicated or derived from any other source. They use urine for healing cancer, heart disease, allergies, auto-immune diseases, diabetes, asthma, infertility, infections, wounds and on and on — yet we’re taught that urine is a toxic waste product. This discrepancy between the medical truth and the public information regarding urine is ludicrous and, as the news releases you’ve just read demonstrate, can mean the difference between life and death to you and to your loved ones. When I contracted a crippling, incurable disease early in life, I used every available conventional medical and alternative healing method over the course of many years without success. When an acquaintance suggested I try “urine therapy” I though she’d lost her mind, but with no options left, I swallowed my prejudice and decided to give it a go. To my own (and everyone else’s) amazement, my healing was so rapid and so profound with urine therapy that no question remained in my mind that someone in the medical community had to know more than they were telling about this incredible body substance. And as a matter of fact, they did know more – a lot more. After many months of haunting university libraries, scanning countless microfiche files and poring over piles of medical journals, I had amassed a small mountain of astounding research studies, findings and files on the use of urine in medicine and healing, I discovered, among numerous other things, that urine, far from being a toxic body waste, was actually a purified derivative of the blood made by the kidneys which contains, not body wastes, but rather an incredible array of critically important nutrients, enzymes, hormones, natural antibodies and immune defense agents. At the end of it all, as I sat tiredly in my chair eyeing the stacks of research papers covering my desk, I realized that the medical community had pulled off one of the biggest hoodwinks in history. Take for instance the doctor who reported that “urine acts as an excellent and safe natural vaccine and has been shown to cure a wide variety of disorders including hepatitis, whooping-cough, asthma, hay fever, hives, migraines, intestinal dysfunctions, etc. It is completely safe and causes no side effects.” (J. Plesch, M.D., The Medical Press, 1947); or the oncologist who reported that “a patient with intractable ovarian cancer was treated with Human Urine Derivative and is now completely well and enjoying the rest of her life.” (Dr. M. Soeda, University of Tokyo, 1968). These remarkable findings were published in medical journals – but did you ever hear about them? And what about the immunologist who, after extensive clinical and laboratory research stated: “It was rapidly appreciated that undiluted urine administered orally was therapeutically effective for Immune Therapy and was initiated when it became obvious that an allergic condition had become uncontrollable.” (Dr. C.W. Wilson, 1983, Law Hospital, Scotland). Or the Harvard medical researchers who discovered that active “antibodies to cholera, typhoid, diphtheria, pneumonia, polio, leptospira and salmonella have been found in the unconcentrated urine of infected individuals.” (Lerner, Remington & Finland, Harvard Medical School, 1962). What abut the Scandinavian researcher who, in 1951, conclusively proved that human urine can completely destroy tuberculosis? It’s a deadly disease, and is now resistant to antibiotics. Isn’t it time someone told us that our own urine is medically proven to be anti-tubercule? Then there’s the research into wounds and burns using urea (the primary solid component of urine). As only one research study among many reported: “In America, urea has been used for the treatment of various infected wounds and it has been found to be extremely efficient…even the deepest wound can be treated effectively…. Urea treatment has been successful where other treatments have failed. For external staph infections we found urea preferable to any other dressing…there are no contra-indications to its use.” (Dr. L. Muldavis, 1938, Royal Free Hospital, London). Now these medical reports are only a few of the more than 50 research studies I compiled and published in the book Your Own Perfect Medicine, but they certainly give an indication of the importance of what we’ve never been told about urine by the medical community. As far back as 1954, the Journal of the American Medical Association (July issue) reported that “More scientific papers have probably been published on urine than on any other organic compound.” Another publication revealed that “more than 1,000 technical and scientific papers, related only to low molecular weight substances in urine, appeared in medical and scientific literature in one single year.” All this fuss about a substance that we’re told is nothing more than a body waste? I think one of the most interesting pieces of information on urine I came across was the fact that the amniotic fluid that surrounds human infants in the womb is primarily urine. Actually, the infant “breathes in” urine-filled amniotic fluid continually, and without this fluid, the lungs don’t develop. Doctors also believe that the softness of baby skin and the ability of in-utero infants to heal quickly without scarring after pre-birth surgery is due to the therapeutic properties of the urine-filled amniotic fluid. Reports on the extraordinary external benefits of urine abound as well. Medical studies relate remarkable cases of stubborn or “incurable” chronic, severe eczema that miraculously disappear with urine therapy. Because urine is both anti-viral and anti-bacterial, it’s ideal for treating cuts, wounds and abrasions of all kinds. Acne, rashes, athlete’s foot and fungal skin problems respond dramatically to urine soaks and compresses as well. (You’ll find complete instructions for using urine therapy internally and externally in Your Own Perfect Medicine.) For home use or emergency treatment care for wounds, poisonous bites or stings, and even broken bones, urine is an incomparable, proven natural healing agent that provides instantaneous therapeutic benefits under any circumstances. For years, people have said to me, “Well, I have heard of people surviving by ingesting their own urine, but I thought it was just a myth.” Myth it isn’t. Medical fact it is. As Dr. John R. Herman remarked in his article which appeared in the New York State Journal of Medicine in June, 1980: “Auto-uropathy (urine therapy) did flourish in many parts of the world and continues to flourish today….there is unknown to most of us, a wide usage of uropathy and a great volume of knowledge available showing the multitudinous advantages of this modality. Actually, the listed constituents of human urine can be carefully checked and no items not found in human diet are found in it. Percentages differ, but urinary constituents are valuable to human metabolism.” http://all-natural.com/natural-remedies/urine/

Salam 1. Do Shias do shirk and why? 2. Are the imams more worth than the prophet in a Shias eye and why? 3. WHY ARE THERE DIFFERENT ISLAMIC SHARIA LAW IN DIFFERNET COUNTRIES 4. Why do Shias love Imam Khomeini when the shah was also Muslim and after Khomeini came in Iran got messed up 5. Why do Shias just sit and learn about the imams and not about the prophets and most important of all Allah 6. Why do we have majras when most of them just destroy society 7, Everyone listen Iran is messed up the system is when shah has the country it was better why is that so 8. How do u pray the Shia way? 9. Why do Shias hit them self for imam Hussein when it's haram to hurt yourself did imam Hussein hit yourself a for me and in the Quran it says no associations exept with you and Allah. 10. If Allah is the most merciful why do people get death punishments and why do majras have to exist when most Marjas have messed up socites 11. Is it true that any imam attacked Iran or othe prophet attacked other country's for no reason i have really really been searching and looking for these answers for a long time I want some evidence to thank you brothers and sitsters

Have scientists actually found way to turn off ageing? Scientists have discovered a key cellular protein that controls the ageing process – a breakthrough that could lead to advances that slow down or even stop the ageing process. https://www.rt.com/uk/362274-scientists-breakthrough-stop-ageing/

Hi everyone, So I occasionally hear about this fluoridation of public drinking water and how it concerns some people. Ill start by saying, studying water quality is what I do just about on a daily basis, so I figure it wouldnt hurt to give thoughts. So basically, for those who aren't aware of the water fluoridation topic, public water supplies in a number of countries have fluoride additives. This compound by dental professionals is considered to help prevent tooth decay and cavities. Basically, by dental professionals, it is considered to be better for human health. On the other end of the discussion, you have people who feel as though they should have the right to choose what is in their water or not. And if the government has control of water supplies, hypothetically they could harm us if they contaminated the water we drink. Other people go further and propose ideas about fluoridated water and how it harms brain development of people, effectively brainwashing everyone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in studying water, most countries have environmental standards. Regulations that say, you cannot have X concentration of Y in the water you drink. If Y concentrations were discovered, you would typically have to shut down that water supply and clean it up. These standards are developed through referencing fluoride related research and its harmful affects. So there are a few questions I am seeking to shed light on in this topic. 1) What amount of Fluoride is harmful to us? 2) What Standards are in place for Fluoride? 3) What amount of Fluoride is our country supplying to us? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) What amount of Fluoride is harmful to us? http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/your_health/fluoridation/20160824_evidence_report_final_1.pdf http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/ So I took three documents of a number I've looked through, noted above. Everyone is free to add or reference their own. But it may help to simply have a read through them if anyone is interested. Most expansive studies appear to reach similar conclusions. Those conclusions being that higher concentrations of fluoride can harm human health and brain development, typically in children (lower body mass equates to greater affects of smaller concentrations of fluoride). Everyone is free to read the conclusions of each document and to make what they wish of them. Just out of curiosity, I did a lay persons statistical analysis of data provided in the Harvard study and derived my own conclusions from it. Basically, if anyone understands, I calculated upper and lower confidence limits of both harmful concentrations of fluoride and non harmful concentrations, then removed statistical outliers to try to give a more accurate conclusion to the data that harvard is providing. These being based on Table 1 of their research paper. Basically, and this is just my personal messing around and is by no means a conclusion of a greater value than any greater scientific organization, but... The mean concentration of fluoride in drinking water that is considered safe is 0.89 mg/L. The mean concentration of fluoride in drinking water that is considered harmful is 3.08 mg/L I would suspect that if you drink public water with a concentration of fluoride greater than 3.08 mg/L regularly throughout your life, you may be harmed. Again this is more of a lay interpretation of data. Its just me spending a half hour playing with numbers and isnt exactly an in depth analysis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) What Standards are in place for Fluoride? 3) What amount of fluoride is currently being supplied to us? This question comes down to what country you live in. If you live here in the US, each state is going to have its own standards that are applicable to EPA regulations. Currently the EPA is proposing fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L. Which is lower than the mean concentration of fluoride in of statistically safe drinking water, as per the above referenced studies. Also, there are state regulatory limits. In New York, just as an example, there is a regulatory limit of 2.2 mg/L fluoride in public water supplies. This means that, public water is regularly monitored, and should there be greater than 2.2 mg/L fluoride discovered in your public water, they will shut the water supply down until they treat the water. New York actually has some of the cleanest drinking water in the US. So basically, if you live in the US, youre likely safe in regards to fluoride in public drinking water. If you drink natural water from the earth in your own private supply well, that is a different story, however, public supply wells in most states are regulated themselves by municipalities, so even if you went to a local park, your water is likely fine. Also, so far as I am aware, even with the installation of a potable water well for private use, youre still required to demonstrate safe drinking water quality before you can legally use your well. I have stuff to do today, so I guess ill leave the topic at that for now.

SalaM, There IS life after DEATH: Scientists reveal shock findings from groundbreaking study: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/science/670781/There-IS-life-after-DEATH-Scientists-reveal-shock-findings-from-groundbreaking-study/amp Quantum Physics proves there is an afterlife : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2503370/Quantum-physics-proves-IS-afterlife-claims-scientist.html Quantum Physics proves that death is an illusion: http://in5d.com/quantum-physics-proves-that-death-is-an-illusion/

Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/ There's a billion to one chance we're living in base reality," Elon Musk http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837874/elon-musk-says-odds-living-in-simulation The Holy Quran in many places refers to this world being deceiving and nothing but a play and amusement. Talks about the things we eat here we shall eat there only that it will taste better, like something we have never tasted. So could we be living in a simulation?

I have recently been looking into the relationship or connection between modern science's concept of human origin and the concept of the Islam (in Adam and Eve). When do Muslims think Adam and Eve were created? The scientists believe humans (modern homo sapiens) came into existence around 200,000 years ago through a shared ancestor called 'Mitochondrial Eve' . They do not believe she was the only woman around at the time though (Adam and Eve were the first humans- were they the only?). Creation before Adam and Eve? Scientists believe, through finding Hominids fossils, that there were pre-human creatures similar to humans. I know there are some hadith which state there were 'Adams before Adam' and something along those lines. Also, the angels saying to Allah (on Adam) 'why do you want to create creatures which kill each other in the land' could imply something similar. Below is a picture of the fossil 'Turkana Boy'- said to be 1.6 million years old. He is very human like, How did Adam and Eve begin such a large progeny? Adam and Eve had children. How did these children have children? (in the context that Adam and Eve were the only ones created at the time) Anyone wish to add anything? Jazakallah Khair

Salam, Is there anyone here who completed their undergrad in science or is doing it? What major exactly? What are you doing with your degree in science or what do you plan on doing with it? Are you doing a masters/phD now? I would love to know. I'm really grateful to have the privilege of getting an education, but I'm feeling really stuck and a little bit hopeless tbh. There's too many options as to what you can do, but everything is just so competitive and demanding!! Also, everyone talks about going into med/pharm/dent/optometry etc after their undergrad... but is there ANYONE who went into industry? Like work in a lab or something? If so how's it like? I don't want to graduate and still be deciding on what to do ._.

Book of "The Bible, The Qur'an and Science" is written by Maurice Bucaille. he claims that the Qur'an contains scientific facts.Bucaille gives examples of astronomy, embryology, and multiple other subjects that had major advances in the 20th century. Bucaille told that the Quran is in agreement with scientific facts, while the Bible contains some verses which are opposite with self evident states in sciences . He says:" that in Islam, science and religion have always been "twin sisters" . According to Bucaille, there are big mistakes in the Bible and not a single error in the Quran. Bucaille believe that the Quran is compatible with modern science. Reader concludes that the Quran is the Word of God and how possible uneducated Arab man bring the Qur'an ? He asks if Qur'an is copy of new and old testament , how the mistakes have been mentioned in the bible has not been repeated in Qur'an.

Brothers, this video will show why Imam Al Sadiq (AS) is the real founder of modern science. All his theories are 100% correct and are being proven in our times. Enjoy - www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd5mEAPT7hE