Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

The Black Stone

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I judge things like any other human being does. If what I read does not contradict anything else I've already accepted as true, it is logically sound and is true if it is proven to me to be historical.

But the hadith does contradict your understanding of what a stone is. Does it not?

If I was not present for an event or do not have the means to recreate an experiment, then the words of others are all I have to go on and therefore the only thing I can do is try to be discerning enough. I honestly doubt that everything you accept as fact in the fields of geology or biology is because you have personally overseen every experiment in the history of those fields, but rather you accept as true what you have read in books written by others whom you feel are trustworthy and whose conclusions are logical to you because they fit in with everything you else you have previously accepted as fact. If one can do so with the natural and corporeal, why no the supernatural?

What i place trust in, is people using the same methodology that i do. For example, if i see a stone, and i say "its grey and has a hardness of 8 and leaves a white streak and consists of a silica matrix, and it is 400 milliion years old created by the so and so orogeny", other people will question me, and if this stone is indeed how i describe it, no human being will be able to refute this, because it is physically real.

With your example of an angel turning into a stone. Youre saying "this stone is created from the transformation of an angel...and then theres a blank spot where we lack evidence and understanding of how that could be" and so, people will look at the stone and say, well i think its just a normal stone like the other trillions of stones. And people would throw it in the trash. And thats the end of it.

So there is absolutely a difference between the way you and I are defining our truths.

Not at all. First off, I'm not arguing about the stone changing color at all. However, I must point out that just because you have physical evidence that sin doesn't change the color of a stone based on other stones, doesn't necessarily mean anything because we are not talking about the other stones of the world and whether they can change color based on our sins but whether this was the case with the Black Stone and what exactly does the Black Stone contain or do that other more readily available stones don't.

Well, youre arguing in favor of the truth of a hadith, which in suit means youre arguing that an angel turned into a stone which changed color based on human sins.

And as for "what exactly does the Black Stone contain or do that other more readily available stones don't."

Im willing to bet that, ifi we could look at this stone, it would consist of elements just like all other stones, and based on the description, im willing to bet wed be able to find out how old it is too. And not only that, im almost certain we could figure out where it came from as well (given that were allowed to look at it).

You are right, what we can touch and see is easily more credible than hearsay. But the argument isn't that the Black Stone isn't a stone. By all means of the definition of what a stone is, it is a stone. The argument is what the stone contains, either in physical properties or spiritual properties, that is unique to it alone or is extremely rare to find in very many other stones. And if the stone is said to contain something that exists, but cannot be seen by the naked eye or so easily felt by mere touch, even when dissected, then the means to prove this or disprove this, lie solely within the realms of historical scholarship and the examination of personal experiences that supposedly support this view.

Based on our knowledge of what a stone is, i highly highly highly doubt there is anything detectably different about it that would make it unique in comparison to other stones. With that said, theres a pretty decent chance that this stone simply spurted out of a volcano, or if it is a meteorite, depending on its composition we can determine how in space it formed. Believing an angel turning into it and then its physical elements hold a supernatural connection to the sins of man that made this single stone transform its color is a huge huge statement that is far beyond anything that can be said about any other stone on earth, such a thing cant even be called a stone because its not. Part of the definition of what a stone is, includes what its origins are. If this stone is made of cooled magma, then it came from cooled magma. If this stone truly is a transformed angel, i wouldnt even call it a stone, and i wouldnt even begin to attempt pondering why it appears to be made of cooled magma but in reality isnt made from cooled magma. The whole thought processes and logic behind it just doesnt make any sense.

Basically, we can know if a rock came from rock origins, all rocks on earth come from rock origins and by looking at them we can tell what rock origins the rock came from. A rock made of sand came from a sandy place, a rock made of magma came from a magma place :P etc. When you say a rock came from angel origins, or that an angel turned into the rock, or the rocks composition has this supernatural connection to sin, its just beyond anything anyone could ever logically support using evidence. For example, did the magma spurt out of a volcano, then turn into an angel, then turn back into magma and cool to become a rock? or did the angel transform into magma then cool then...well...no need to continue. Not only that, but it contradicts logical evidence of what it is. So still, youre taking hearsay over what we can touch and see.

Take for example me, I believe I have a soul, a spiritual self, that defies all scientific laws as they are in this realm. This soul dwells within my body, but even when you cut open my body, you can't see it or analyze it as you can my flesh. Yet I still believe it exists based on the words of people of the past I would have trusted with my life as well as based on my own personal experiences. So it is not problematic for me to believe that the Black Stone could contain some sort of spiritual power of a similar, if not exactly the same nature.

If a soul does exist, it does not defy any scientific laws that i know of. What scientific laws are you referring to? Also, the difference between a soul, and this stone is, the stone is physically in front of us and we can look at it and tell what it is and where it came from and how old it is and what its made of. What it is, can be defined by what its made of. What its made of, are things we commonly refer to as constituents that may be a part of a "stone". We do not call a stone an angel, nor an angel a stone, nor do we know how the two could be related. But we do know that stones can be made of cooled magma, thus we can know that the rock came from x origin. and not an angel. Not only that, but we can tell, based on its color it came from magma that was X meters deep, and it formed at X time. We logically and through physical reality and testing, know where, when, how and what a stone is. So to say the stone is not a stone, defies our logic of what the stone is. Which is essentially what youre doing. Every aspect of this concept defies our logic of what stones are. So are we unreasonable or, is it more probable to be wrong about what a stone is? or is it more probable that something on the other side of the table is questionable? One side has logic, reason and evidence. The other defies logic and reason, and does not have evidence.

ok now, i am truly done responding. If you want, i would be more than happy to create another topic for this discussion though, and again i hope i havent offended any readers.

(wasalam)

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

iSilurian, I think you are still not quite understanding what I am trying to say. I was not backing up ANY hadiths of the Black Stone at all. I was simply saying that I draw my conclusions based on what I've studied of people's own experiences and research into the Stone, just as I do with anything else, and that every other human being does. Again, I doubt you accept as fact what you do concerning the field of geology because you have recreated every experiment and environment in which so and so you read about made their observations, but you accept what they say they saw because you trust their opinion and research even though you may not have recreated the same experiment yourself and may not even have the means to do so.

Say a person undertakes an experiment to test a theory of his which yields the results he was searching for to prove his theory or say he stumbled upon a unique discovery in the process of an experiment that no one else had seen before. He makes his discoveries known to you. However, you are unable to recreate the experiment he did yourself due to not having the tools to do so. What do you do? Do you take his word for it when he tells you what happened, do you reject what he says as a lie or misunderstanding on his part, or do you withhold your judgement until you can obtain the means to experience what he did for yourself? It's the same situation with the religious. If someone says the Black Stone heals people who kiss it, or is an angel, or changed color because of our sins or whatever based on either their own testimony or personal experience/observation or the testimony of another, you are faced with the same choices. What determines which choice you make are previous choices you have made on what you accept as facts that cannot be contradicted. It's the same exact situation, it doesn't matter whether one falls under the label of "supernatural" or "natural."Though we may be at different destinations, we start off on the same road before parting ways.

The reason I put forth the example of the human soul was because it represented how some sort of spiritual force could reside unseen and seemingly untouchable within physical matter. A doctor cannot examine a person's soul on an operating table like he does the flesh the soul dwells in. But yet the soul is what makes the body cease to be just a lifeless hunk of matter. Everything the body is capable of is due in part to the spiritual force that puts it into motion. But with our physical eyes and hands, we cannot see or touch the soul as we do the body of flesh. What I was trying to say was the Black Stone may be something similar to the human body. At first glance it is just a rock, but within it there may be a spiritual power that causes it to act a way little to no rocks can. But of course, because I actually believe in the concepts of spiritual dimensions, the soul, angels, etc such a thing is logical to me. The only way to convince me that it isn't logical would be to first convince me that there is no such thing as a human soul, or God, or angels, or spiritual forces that can reside within ordinary objects thus making them extraordinary. If you don't already believe in angels, of course it would be hard to believe the stone is an angel. But if you believe in them, you believe it's more possible than someone who doesn't believe in them. I'm not trying to back up any particular hadith, I'm just trying to say that the supernatural explanations behind seem more reasonable to us than you for various reasons such as what we've already decided amongst ourselves to be universal truths. And those we don't agree with we considered to be possible more than non-Muslims would have.

Hopefully that at least makes my position easier to understand.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In relation to this particular Hadith, people have physical evidence that rocks do not change color much less based on sin of humanity. This isnt exactly a common story. And what youre saying is, you believe that it does, without evidence. Rather than judging the hadith based on what is in it, youre judging the hadeeth based on who wrote it. Which, logically doesnt seem wise.

Other than that, ty though

And ty for the Hadith Nader

Theres actually a video now that i think of it. Let me dig it up.

However, we can get around the issues described in this video, by using certain methods in how we determine truth.

Isilurian

Would you beleive me if i said that the Rock (Sajdaga) this particular one was from the sand of Kerbala we pray on (because we have to place our head on something natural) It turned red on the Day of Ashura. It was brown and it started turning Red.

http://www.panjtan.org.au/

Message the centre and ask em about it there were over 100 witnesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I doubt you accept as fact what you do concerning the field of geology because you have recreated every experiment and environment in which so and so you read about made their observations, but you accept what they say they saw because you trust their opinion and research even though you may not have recreated the same experiment yourself and may not even have the means to do so.

I trust in outside published research, because i know its is peer reviewed, ie it is observable, testable, and the tests are repeatable in labs. That is why i accept certain things that i read. You on the other hand, are accepting something that has not been scrutinized in this mannor. Im just describing the difference between what i accept without seeing, and what you accept without seeing. On top of that, these "experiments" came from a time in which people didnt even scrutinize eachother. dig that. The methods you and i use are very different.

Say a person undertakes an experiment to test a theory of his which yields the results he was searching for to prove his theory or say he stumbled upon a unique discovery in the process of an experiment that no one else had seen before. He makes his discoveries known to you. However, you are unable to recreate the experiment he did yourself due to not having the tools to do so. What do you do? Do you take his word for it when he tells you what happened, do you reject what he says as a lie or misunderstanding on his part, or do you withhold your judgement until you can obtain the means to experience what he did for yourself?

If it defies other experiments, then you reject the claim. If it does not defy other research, then you withold your judgement untill you can obtain the means to experience his experiment. What you are doing, is youre accepting his experiment, even as it goes against logic and physical reality. You are not rejecting the hadith, you are not indifferent to the hadith, you are supporting the hadith, ie supporting the mans experiment. Which is unscientific.

It's the same situation with the religious. If someone says the Black Stone heals people who kiss it, or is an angel, or changed color because of our sins or whatever based on either their own testimony or personal experience/observation or the testimony of another, you are faced with the same choices. What determines which choice you make are previous choices you have made on what you accept as facts that cannot be contradicted. It's the same exact situation, it doesn't matter whether one falls under the label of "supernatural" or "natural."Though we may be at different destinations, we start off on the same road before parting ways.

If were faced with the same choices, were surely not making the same decisions. youre accepting the mans experiment against other experiments, even though the mans experiment cannot be examined.

"what determines which choice you make are previous choices you have made on what you accept as facts that cannot be contradicted."

and this, is absolutely not true. In science, when you discover something that is counter intuitive to previous discoveries, you loop back to the drawing board. You do not forge ahead and continue to build upon logically flawed concepts. In this situation, you simply do not make a decision. And if you are not able to demonstrate how the flawed logic works together with outside research, then you take the default of claiming uncertainty. You do not continue to claim it as truth. Thats just not how science works :P.

The reason I put forth the example of the human soul was because it represented how some sort of spiritual force could reside unseen and seemingly untouchable within physical matter.

At first glance it is just a rock, but within it there may be a spiritual power that causes it to act a way little to no rocks can

This is pure speculation. You are basically saying that you read, that another man wrote that another man heard that heard another man, that a person had an experiment in which they could not replicate that defied logic, reason and evidence. And you as a believer in the supernatural automatically accept this particular event.

The reason, that using your example of belief in the human soul is flawed, is because i believe in the human soul too, and i believe in the supernatural as well, but this is no reason for me to believe in a person who heard from a person who wrote about a person who performed a unique experiment that defied logic and reason and could not be replicated. Ttheyre independent concepts. You are doing more than simply deriving an answer based on hearsay, youre deriving an answer based on hearsay that defies what we know, and on top of that, youre claiming it as truth, whereas i would simply say, its a possibility (improbable, but possible none the less), and i would say that we simply dont know.

Because thats the truth, we dont know. We dont even have the beginning experiments that would lead to knowing. And if it defies a number of other concepts, then we have to be honest and at the very least say that it may not be true. Would you agree with that?

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ and the video of the stone that Imam Hussain (as) head was kept, has blood coming out on day of Ashura. Obviously you will believe its a trick while all muslims believe its real

Im sure there are muslims who would not simply believe such a thing. But yes, i would say that it is most likely fake. If such a thing is real though, and you demonstrate it to be real, you could essentially transform the way the world analyzes things which would be groundbreaking.

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
If were faced with the same choices, were surely not making the same decisions. youre accepting the mans experiment against other experiments, even though the mans experiment cannot be examined.

"what determines which choice you make are previous choices you have made on what you accept as facts that cannot be contradicted."

and this, is absolutely not true. In science, when you discover something that is counter intuitive to previous discoveries, you loop back to the drawing board. You do not forge ahead and continue to build upon logically flawed concepts. In this situation, you simply do not make a decision. And if you are not able to demonstrate how the flawed logic works together with outside research, then you take the default of claiming uncertainty. You do not continue to claim it as truth. Thats just not how science works

iSilurian, logic is completely subjective to the individual. One person's sense of what is logical is completely based on the sum of their own knowledge. You say the hadiths don't make logical sense, but you judge them based on your own sense of what is real and logical. Again, I can't comment on whether the hadith about the stone being an angel is true, but let's just say for the sake of argument I do. You say such a thing is illogical, but how do you reach the conclusion that it is illogical? The idea that it could be incarnated angel is perfectly reasonable to me if it is indeed historical. Why? Because I believe angels are as real as you and me. I don't think angels are in anyway illogical. But because perhaps you don't believe in them or on the fence about them, such an explanation is less reasonable to you. However, I will admit that when speaking of angels and geology, geology deals with things more common and physical. The experiment to prove something in the field geology and the ability to recreate those experiments to double check your results is a far more easier task in geology. But just because it is harder to do the same in the field of angels, experimentation is much harder to undertake let alone recreate, because you are dealing less with the corporeal and more with the incorporeal and supernatural, I don't by any means think of them as impossibilities, just not easy tasks. But that's probably just me. Geology is easier than study of angels because it deals with what is available to everyone in this realm whereas experiences with angels are bit rarer. But rarity does not equal illogical nor does a limited presence of physical matter as I believe there is still existence well beyond physical matter entirely. At least that's the way I see things.

There is also another thing. We accept the Imams and the Prophet Muhammad as authorities. We accept them as individuals who knew what they were talking about, so if anyone comes forth with words attributed to them, we're more inclined to accept it if we can trace through a chain or reliable and trustworthy narrators who we feel would not willfully lie on the subject matter being discussed. Whereas you don't really accept them, at least not like we do, so Muhammad or the Imams relating such tales is not enough to convince you they are truth, even if the words can actually be traced all the way to them perfectly.

I reiterate, I am not supporting any hadith that anyone in this thread has posted about the stone, nor am I criticizing any. I HAVE NO OPINION ON THE BLACK STONE AT THIS TIME OTHER THAN THE IDEA THAT KISSING IT BRINGS BLESSINGS AND IT IS AS OLD AS ADAM'S TIME. At this moment, that's all I believe is true about the stone. As far as it being an angel, I have no opinion whatsoever because I have not yet studied the grading of the hadith that say it is an angel incarnated as a stone.

I trust in outside published research, because i know its is peer reviewed, ie it is observable, testable, and the tests are repeatable in labs. That is why i accept certain things that i read. You on the other hand, are accepting something that has not been scrutinized in this mannor. Im just describing the difference between what i accept without seeing, and what you accept without seeing. On top of that, these "experiments" came from a time in which people didnt even scrutinize eachother. dig that. The methods you and i use are very different.

I think you have very little knowledge on hadith science if you think that none of it was ever peer reviewed. I suggest you perhaps open up a topic asking how hadith narrations work and are graded because it is certainly not what you might think. The one difference hadith have with say the Bible is that there are various grades of hadith based on the chains of narrators. Someone can't just come forward and say "Muhammad said this..." and expect it to be accepted as credible. Hadith don't work that way at all.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to post
Share on other sites

You say the hadiths don't make logical sense, but you judge them based on your own sense of what is real and logical.

Its more than just my own sense, its the compilation of senses of thousands of people and its presented in an indisputable way. Its based on what is physically real. Also, im not saying hadiths dont make logical sense, im saying this particular hadith doesnt make logical sense. Im sure there are hadith that do make sense and im sure there are some that do not. I think most muslims would agree with that.

You say such a thing is illogical, but how do you reach the conclusion that it is illogical?

Rocks, in particular for the case of this stone. It is an igneous rock, which means it is derived from elements of a mafic magma. This is what is logically and factually known about igneous rocks. It is logically true, the studies have many applications which demonstrate their truth, and these demonstrations can be used for future predictions and applicable developments.

That which goes against applied reality, is something we should be skeptical about. And surely absolutely not claim as truth, unless we have more than hearsay that it is. Similar to, anumbis, the egyption god with the head of a dog. Why is it illogical? Its illogical because we know what dogs are, we know what humans are. It defies the applications made from research of what dogs and humans are, and it trumps the discoveries made by predictions of knowing what dogs and humans are. The god defies what we know to be real, and so, everyone should be skeptical about the existance of anubis. And nobody should claim anubis is absolute truth without some form of evidence.

But rarity does not equal illogical nor does a limited presence of physical matter as I believe there is still existence well beyond physical matter entirely. At least that's the way I see things.

Yes, but even this concept is independent of angels turning into stones. I mentioned before, its one thing to believe in God, but its a completly different thing to believe in things which contradict what we know.

Whereas you don't really accept them, at least not like we do, so Muhammad or the Imams relating such tales is not enough to convince you they are truth, even if the words can actually be traced all the way to them perfectly.

Well, you should understand that, its not just me who does not "accept" them. Even people of your own religion do not accept specifics of the 12 Imam. And, about your actual comment. The people, these Imams are not geologists. They arent going to know that a mafic rock comes from mafic magma. Especially if this rock came from the time of Adam, arguably 60 thousand years ago. Nobody in Muhammads time, nor people of today are going to know anything about this rock. But do you know who will know about the rock? Thats right, the scientists. So, the reason i am not convinced when a person sees a rock and claimes an angel turned into it, is because this person i highly doubt knew anything about rocks, and not only that but if hes alive in the time of Muhammad, he wouldnt know anything about a stone that came from the skies in the time of Adam. And so, i can apply what we do know about stones in reality that is undebatable. And i can know things about the rock. So why would anyone give up this knowledge and accept hearsay? Its almost like backtracking on what we know.

I reiterate, I am not supporting any hadith that anyone in this thread has posted about the stone, nor am I criticizing any. I HAVE NO OPINION ON THE BLACK STONE AT THIS TIME OTHER THAN THE IDEA THAT KISSING IT BRINGS BLESSINGS AND IT IS AS OLD AS ADAM'S TIME. At this moment, that's all I believe is true about the stone. As far as it being an angel, I have no opinion whatsoever because I have not yet studied the grading of the hadith that say it is an angel incarnated as a stone.

Thats fine, you should understand though, that you, as a shia, give credence to other shias who do promote and support and claim this hadith as truth. In science, scientist often combat pseudo science, it keeps random mythology and hearsay out of our group. Everyone should review their own groups as well, so if you do look into this, please let me know what your conclusion is.

I appreciate your honest responses btw.

60000 years? I believe that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. Anyway, this is a hadith that is reliable based upon its chain of narrators. It is not completely authentic (or Sahih).

And again, you don't understand our position and who our major personalities are (as). But I'll let it slide.

Check out my video of genetic Adam, its in the interfaith discussion section. If youre honestly curious about where ii got the number of 60 thousand years.

I stated that I wrote a thesis on a person with situs inversus. Let's say that, through chance, another student of medicine dissects someone else who has situs inversus. Then later a different medical expert dissects someone with their organs in the "correct order." According to the scientific community of this place, the person who does not have his/her organs inverted is abnormal.

The prevalence of situs inversus varies among different populations but is less than 1 in 10,000 people.[1]

Situs inversus is generally an autosomal recessive genetic condition, although it can be X-linked or found in identical "mirror" twins.[2]

Well its obvious that its the reversed being which is abnormal, and even this doesnt defy physics nor our logical understandings as an angel turning into a rock which changes color based on human sin does. This is a terrible analogy to anything related to the discussion. You cant relate physically real understood concepts, to physically unreal poorly understood concepts. ie relating anatomy to angels transforming into rocks, is a bad relation. Due to this nature, i ignored it the first time you brought it up.

One can believe that because of the nature of the historical people (who are proven to have existed) who predicted things correctly, acted piously, and knew scientific information that was not discovered yet--the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the 12 Imams (as).

Objection, speculation. The greeks also has some amazing knowledge for their time, but it had nothing to do with their faith nor their religion.

Also, again, belief in God is a different concept than belief that angels turn into magical stones.

Edited by iSilurian
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

I did not say that I believe that an angel turned into a stone since it does not matter to my religion. I am neutral on this. I just provided a hadith about al-Hajar al-Aswad (the Black Stone) found in a hadith book.

What I do believe is that we are too kiss or point at it during the pilgrimage, that it is slightly younger than when the Prophet Adam (as) existed, and that it turned from white to black.

The example I provided was meant to show that scientific truth cannot be based upon logic and that fact cannot be based upon observation.

Well, your analogy of the person with the reversed organs did demonstrate fact based on observation. As a matter of fact its well understood what the situation is.

And thanks for being honest about the angel turning into a stone, i guess ill just say what i mentioned to Jinn.

You as a shia, actually let me just copy paste.

"Thats fine, you should understand though, that you, as a shia, give credence to other shias who do promote and support and claim this hadith as truth. In science, scientist often combat pseudo science, it keeps random mythology and hearsay out of our group. Everyone should review their own groups as well, so if you do look into this, please let me know what your conclusion is."

alrighty. thanks for your honesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Rocks, in particular for the case of this stone. It is an igneous rock, which means it is derived from elements of a mafic magma. This is what is logically and factually known about igneous rocks. It is logically true, the studies have many applications which demonstrate their truth, and these demonstrations can be used for future predictions and applicable developments.

None of us are arguing that that is untrue. None of us. But the argument is not about how stones are formed, but whether the Black Stone is a rare case. We would never dispute the obvious scientific laws that have been proven to be present on Earth, but we are saying that the Black Stone is something different and does not follow the common scientific laws of other stones on this planet.

Well, you should understand that, its not just me who does not "accept" them. Even people of your own religion do not accept specifics of the 12 Imam. And, about your actual comment. The people, these Imams are not geologists. They arent going to know that a mafic rock comes from mafic magma. Especially if this rock came from the time of Adam, arguably 60 thousand years ago. Nobody in Muhammads time, nor people of today are going to know anything about this rock. But do you know who will know about the rock? Thats right, the scientists. So, the reason i am not convinced when a person sees a rock and claimes an angel turned into it, is because this person i highly doubt knew anything about rocks, and not only that but if hes alive in the time of Muhammad, he wouldnt know anything about a stone that came from the skies in the time of Adam. And so, i can apply what we do know about stones in reality that is undebatable. And i can know things about the rock. So why would anyone give up this knowledge and accept hearsay? Its almost like backtracking on what we know.

But in our belief, we believe they could know that a mafic rock comes from mafic magma, if God revealed such a truth them or if they had observed such events themselves. They just would use the language they know and speak to describe the process. Let us say, hypothetically, you are walking on a mountain side and friend accompanying you picks up a strange rock and says that when the mountain becomes angry these rocks appear out of the dried pools of liquid fire that spew forth from its peak. Does the use of such seemingly primitive language make the observation false? Not at all, but you can't expect a person from a different time, a different nation, and a different language to describe a scientific process using terminologies they are not familiar with. Just because you describe a scientific process with more technical terminology and foreign languages doesn't make it more intelligent than the shaman who has made the same observation with different terminologies you aren't used to. That's just arguing semantics. Whatever words the two of you choose to use, you are describing the same process. It's only when someone says the mountain is "alive" or guarded by angels that there is an actual argument with a point to make.

The Imams and the prophets are not geologists, they're something much more and have access to a source of knowledge that can let anything they want to know be known to them so they may relate this knowledge to us. This is why if words attributed to them can actually be perfectly traced to them, we accept them because if anyone can give us knowledge of that which is both seen and unseen in this universe or any universe for that matter, it is them. They are the divine confirmation. None of us argue about that, what we do argue though is which words are indeed theirs. There's a difference. Neither do we believe knowledge they give illogical or false or a misunderstanding. Their wisdom and knowledge is infallible and nothing they said, that was actually their own words, and not words falsely attributed to them, is unbreakable truth. It's not that we don't believe in "common sense" we just believe there are things that are also beyond what we often consider common sense and if anyone knew what was beyond "common sense" it would be them. So one thing all Muslims here agree, despite where we may differ, is what words we believe were really the Imams' or the prophets' and that the Black Stone, in some manner, is beyond common earthly science and contains some sort of spiritual power within it.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Sorry, to double post, i just wanted to correct my last paragraph:

Their wisdom and knowledge is infallible and everything they said, that was actually their own words, and not words falsely attributed to them, is unbreakable truth. It's not that we don't believe in "common sense" we just believe there are things that are also beyond what we often consider common sense and if anyone knew what was beyond "common sense" it would be them. So one thing all Muslims here agree, despite where we may differ, is that words proven to really be the Imams' or the prophets' are without contradiction and that the Black Stone, in some manner, is beyond common earthly science and contains some sort of spiritual power within it.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23
Link to post
Share on other sites

None of us are arguing that that is untrue. None of us. But the argument is not about how stones are formed, but whether the Black Stone is a rare case. We would never dispute the obvious scientific laws that have been proven to be present on Earth, but we are saying that the Black Stone is something different and does not follow the common scientific laws of other stones on this planet.

on the basis of hearsay. And when you say "rare", were talking, 1 in one quintillion and beyond :P. but ok yes.

. Let us say, hypothetically, you are walking on a mountain side and friend accompanying you picks up a strange rock and says that when the mountain becomes angry these rocks appear out of the dried pools of liquid fire that spew forth from its peak. Does the use of such seemingly primitive language make the observation false? Not at all, but you can't expect a person from a different time, a different nation, and a different language to describe a scientific process using terminologies they are not familiar with. Just because you describe a scientific process with more technical terminology and foreign languages doesn't make it more intelligent than the shaman who has made the same observation with different terminologies you aren't used to. That's just arguing semantics. Whatever words the two of you choose to use, you are describing the same process. It's only when someone says the mountain is "alive" or guarded by angels that there is an actual argument with a point to make.

Are you saying that, the concept of an angel turning into a stone could perhaps be non literal?

The Imams and the prophets are not geologists, they're something much more and have access to a source of knowledge that can let anything they want to know be known to them so they may relate this knowledge to us.

According to hearsay

This is why if words attributed to them can actually be perfectly traced to them, we accept them because if anyone can give us knowledge of that which is both seen and unseen in this universe or any universe for that matter, it is them. They are the divine confirmation.

None of us argue about that, what we do argue though is which words are indeed theirs. There's a difference. Neither do we believe knowledge they give illogical or false or a misunderstanding. Their wisdom and knowledge is infallible and nothing they said, that was actually their own words, and not words falsely attributed to them, is unbreakable truth.

It's not that we don't believe in "common sense" we just believe there are things that are also beyond what we often consider common sense and if anyone knew what was beyond "common sense" it would be them. So one thing all Muslims here agree, despite where we may differ, is what words we believe were really the Imams' or the prophets' and that the Black Stone, in some manner, is beyond common earthly science and contains some sort of spiritual power within it.

Even when analyzing whos words the hadith are from, it is still hearsay verses the improbably odds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Well, I'm not sure. I wouldn't put it as impossible for the stone to change color. It's just I don't see the color black as always representing "evil" My avatar should make it somewhat clear that I believe that "darkness" represents evil in and of itself any more than light represents always represents righteousness. So it's not so much the idea that the stone could change color, either through a natural scientific occurrence or spiritual intervention, that I am skeptical of, so much as that I am skeptical of the notion that the stone's black color must be due to some sort of evil occurrence.

Well metallic rocks which are light colored do become oxidized (like rusting) with time and exposure and and become dark colored

Also I find this page intersting lol though it is anti Islamic one : http://www.bible.ca/...ite-worship.htm

In the first sermon of the nahj al balagha Imam Ali (as) tell us about the importance of Hajj and the Kaaba. Its less to do with any power of the stone and more to do with the Kaaba being a symbol of the divine throne

Allah has made obligatory upon you the pilgrimage (hajj) to His sacred House which is the turning point for the people who go to it as beasts or pigeons go towards spring water. Allah the glorified made it a sign of their supplication before His Greatness and their acknowledgment of His Dignity. He selected from among His creation those who on listening to His call responded to it and testified His word. They stood in the position of His Prophets and resembled His angels who surround the Divine Throne securing all the benefits of performing His worship and hastening towards His promised forgiveness. Allah the glorified made it (His sacred House) an emblem for Islam and an object of respect for those who turn to it. He made obligatory its pilgrimage and laid down its claim for which He held you responsible to discharge it. Thus, Allah the glorified said:

". . .And (purely) for Allah, is incumbent upon mankind, the pilgrimage to the House, for those who can afford to journey thither. And whoever denieth then verily, Allah is Selfsufficiently independent of the worlds" (Qur'an, 3:96).

Edited by JimJam
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a man maybe a geologist on egypt who called for the analysis of the stone but he was not supported by many

And they say a man called RIchard Deperton ? Had examined the black stone ?

Also I find this page intersting lol though it is anti Islamic one : http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-meteorite-worship.htm

hm, well what were gonna need is actual peer reviewed work. Ill take a look though, ty.

Well metallic rocks which are light colored do become oxidized (like rusting) with time and exposure and and become dark colored

I dont know why people keep trying to make sense of this scientifically :P.

It was supposedly milky white, and now we can see that its jet black.

This is nothing natural, i can assure you. Its not a case of fluorescence, its not a case of oxidation nor reduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hm, well what were gonna need is actual peer reviewed work. Ill take a look though, ty.

I dont know why people keep trying to make sense of this scientifically :P.

It was supposedly milky white, and now we can see that its jet black.

This is nothing natural, i can assure you. Its not a case of fluorescence, its not a case of oxidation nor reduction.

(I am just generally speaking here, not trying to address anything specific here)

Well, Scientifically the world was once flat! Science is and has never a standard, scientific 'facts' change from one generation to the next. You are talking as if even the most fundamental principals once held as the most paradigm (accepted view) of science have not changed throughout history, and even modern history at that.

Furthermore, to compound this you are assuming God has to work within the bounds of this constantly 'changing' (as we know it) subject, therefor putting God on the same level as the creation by subjecting him to the same rules. And if God is the same as the creation, via subject to the same rules, then there really is no need for him to be worshiped.

Edited by Glow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Scientifically the world was once flat! Science is and has never a standard, scientific 'facts' change from one generation to the next. You are talking as if even the most fundamental principals once held as the most paradigm (accepted view) of science have not changed throughout history, and even modern history at that.

Thats not true, there has never been a scientific publication supporting a flat earth. Scientists 300+ years ago didnt use the current scientific method we have now, they were more like philosophers than scientists. Generally speaking, views really have not changed much since certain methodologies have been taken. And also, we arent talking about quantum mechanics, were talking about the angels turning into rocks and sin manipulating the color.

Furthermore, to compound this you are assuming God has to work within the bounds of this constantly 'changing' (as we know it) subject, therefor putting God on the same level as the creation by subjecting him to the same rules. And if God is the same as the creation, via subject to the same rules, then there really is no need for him to be worshiped.

I dont understand your second statement. Everyone needs to quit making up excuses trying to side swipe accepted science :P. First i have someone saying that the rock could have been fluorescent which didnt make sense, then another person brought up oxidation which also doesnt make sense, now youre claiming that scientists believed the earth was flat, which is unassociated to modern times. Also, on top of that, it was the Christians who brought that about, the concept had nothing to do with science as we currently know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...again if you were sincere about learning, everyone here has tried explaining what they feel it is. If your concept of Tawheed (oneness in Allah) is flawed than there is no way you would understand what the stone represents. Thats why muslims believe it right away while obviously atheists wont. To understand supernatural one is supposed to have belief in the Creator of supernatural first. Again, we believe it came from Heavens(you dont believe in it), it changed color (you disbelieve), send by Allah(you disbelieve) hence you find it funny and hard to understand. Some of us tried to reach you differently and attempted to explain it scientifically that its possible for stones to change color (not saying this is true for black stone, not arguing about how long it has changed color for) but simply trying to establish a common ground that stones can change color, again you found our logic flawed.

Its part our fault that we are trying to explain something which is mystical to someone who has no belief in it, and trying to find all ways to justify it. Simply put we believe that it came from Heavens and it changed color, we have given our hadiths as the reasons for why it is like this.

Believers have hard time understanding evolution, atheists have hard time understanding supernatural.

Lakum deenukum waliya deen

Link to post
Share on other sites

...again if you were sincere about learning, everyone here has tried explaining what they feel it is. If your concept of Tawheed (oneness in Allah) is flawed than there is no way you would understand what the stone represents. Thats why muslims believe it right away while obviously atheists wont. To understand supernatural one is supposed to have belief in the Creator of supernatural first. Again, we believe it came from Heavens(you dont believe in it), it changed color (you disbelieve), send by Allah(you disbelieve) hence you find it funny and hard to understand. Some of us tried to reach you differently and attempted to explain it scientifically that its possible for stones to change color (not saying this is true for black stone, not arguing about how long it has changed color for) but simply trying to establish a common ground that stones can change color, again you found our logic flawed.

Its part our fault that we are trying to explain something which is mystical to someone who has no belief in it, and trying to find all ways to justify it. Simply put we believe that it came from Heavens and it changed color, we have given our hadiths as the reasons for why it is like this.

Believers have hard time understanding evolution, atheists have hard time understanding supernatural.

Lakum deenukum waliya deen

I am not a disbeliever in Allah, nor am i against the concept of heaven. But angels turning into stones sounds a bit odd to me, and so i disbelieve in it. But yes, its fine, no worries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh i am sorry i assumed you are an atheist since it says that under "religion"

Its ok, i have atheist, agnostic and deist, depending on the God, because, in reality we are all atheists in regards to certain Gods, at the same time i try to stick with the deist title, while being agnostic toward less understood Gods that reside in between the two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

...again if you were sincere about learning, everyone here has tried explaining what they feel it is. If your concept of Tawheed (oneness in Allah) is flawed than there is no way you would understand what the stone represents. Thats why muslims believe it right away while obviously atheists wont. To understand supernatural one is supposed to have belief in the Creator of supernatural first. Again, we believe it came from Heavens(you dont believe in it), it changed color (you disbelieve), send by Allah(you disbelieve) hence you find it funny and hard to understand.

Lakum deenukum waliya deen

If it is true that it was sent by God, why do you think that Allah allowed it to be desecrated in the past?

Do believers have a theory as to why Allah might have allowed such great indignity ?

*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...