Support NeoGAF

[SRG01]

Wh.. Why is Magus in this thread?

Well, if you examine the verses, they all seem to be linked to things that are out of the ordinary.

Harut and Marut taught magic that would cause a break in marital relationships. The word that is used in the verse is "magic". Once again, be aware of the specific word choice. The element of mystery is in the verse.

This is also common in the story of Moses. The sticks that were used by the Pharoh's started to seem like they were moving. This illusion is referred by Allah, Moses, the Pharoh, and even the sorcerers as "magic". If it wasn't magic, then Allah would've been clear and would've called it something else. How did the sticks move? We don't know. Yet, we know it was caused by magic and that it was mysterious.

Surat 113 in the Qur'an teaches us to seek refuge from the evil of malignant witchcraft. A more literal translation says. "the evil of those who blow on knots." I'm not a witch doctor myself and I'm not familiar with these practices. However, it is apparent that they are all connected. They are all talking about a mysterious art. From the verses we know that magic can cause relationships to break and bewitchment of the eyes, we also know that it sometimes involves blowing into knots.

Authentic hadeeths also contain warnings from the Prophet (pbuh) regarding magic. I'm assuming he didn't mean those like David Copperfield.

The verses that I talked about are connected.

However, there are verses that mention magic that don't connect with this understanding. Those are the verses in which the unbelievers accuse the prophets of being magicians.

Hmm, interesting. From your examples, it would seem like that the term "magic" here is more accurately described as some sort of tricked illusion or false appearance. IIRC, the term "blowing on knots" is a trick where you seemingly undo a knot by blowing at it. I could be wrong though. Could that fit in other verses too, such as how prophets are accused of being illusionists?

 

[RiZ III]

Hmm, interesting. From your examples, it would seem like that the term "magic" here is more accurately described as some sort of tricked illusion or false appearance. IIRC, the term "blowing on knots" is a trick where you seemingly undo a knot by blowing at it. I could be wrong though. Could that fit in other verses too, such as how prophets are accused of being illusionists?

..Thats exactly what I'm saying. All the verses regarding the Pharaoh incident anyways can be easily be interpreted as tricks or illusions. The word for magic can also mean fraud or decievement as Abul A'la Maududi points out in his 6 volume "Meaning of the Quran". For example when the Quran was recited to the Arabs, some would say it was just a fraud or decievement. A lot of times these verses have been translated as saying, "this is clear magic", but that doesn't really make sense, its a better translated to fraud. "And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, those who disbelieve say of the Truth when it reacheth them: This is mere fraud/deception." 46:7

 

[Hadji]

Hmm, interesting. From your examples, it would seem like that the term "magic" here is more accurately described as some sort of tricked illusion or false appearance. IIRC, the term "blowing on knots" is a trick where you seemingly undo a knot by blowing at it. I could be wrong though. Could that fit in other verses too, such as how prophets are accused of being illusionists?

Well, yes, illusions are considered to be magic. However, in Islam there is a huge difference between illusion and slight of hand.

Also, "blowing on knots" don't have anything to do with undoing it. The blowing refers to casting a spell and sealing it with a knot. Why would the verse say, "the evil of those who blow on knots." What is so evil about undoing a knot?! Why would we be warned of those that do this if it is mere trickery?

The verse doesn't say "I seek refuge in God from those that undo knots." This context shows that this is a serious matter.

There is an authentic hadeeth by Zaid bin Arqam, a companion, that describes an instance when a spell was casted upon a knot and was later broken by untieing the knot.

Once again, hadeeth helps us make sense out of the verses that might need more explanation. Without hadeeth we would all be playing guessing games.

For example when the Quran was recited to the Arabs, some would say it was just a fraud or decievement. A lot of times these verses have been translated as saying, "this is clear magic", but that doesn't really make sense, its a better translated to fraud.

Riz, I think it is senseless to argue with translators and pushing them to make figurative translations. They try to stick with what they see as literal for a reason, so that there would be no bias.

In Arabic, Allah (swt) has chosen the word "magic" instead of "fraud". Instead of arguing why the translators chose one word over the other, why not ask "why did Allah choose this word and not that?"

 

[MeowMeow]

You guys need to seriously check out this version:

TITLE: THE HOLY QURAN WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
AUTHOR: MAULANA MUHAMMAD ALI
YEAR: 2002 EDITION
ISBN: 0-913321-01-X

You can check it out at barnes and noble or borders books and music
or order it at amazon.com

Himuro i hope you ordered it atleast.

Best simplified english translation and commentary and notes in my opinion.
Also, compact size so you can take it anywhere.

seriously,..check it out.

 

[Fuzzery]

Anyone here read a history of Muslim philosophy by MM Sharif?

 

[HotByCold]

Alright, I have a question for those who know their Qur'an.
From what I've heard the book actually try to prove stuff through logic or whatever so my question is:

How do they know that a soul exist?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Well silly, cruel and bizarre aren't exactly the 'right' traits for a religion are they?

Duh.

 

[Atrus]

A main theme of Atrus' arguments seems to be: Well if the Quran is right (and certainly I find it interesting he has not disagreed with the verses posted) then why dont we elevate Plato, Socrates/whoever to godlike status. These people spent their lives doing research and were highly advanced scientists. This is something we can see with hindsight.
Muhammad was an illeterate. He could neither read nor write. He never had any formal education and was not involved any sort of research. For someone who couldnt read and write, making statements consistent with modern scientific discoveries in such a poetic book which has yet to be matched (and indeed the Quran challenges people to come up with any verse like the ones in the Quran) such a long time ago must get you wondering how he came up with this.

I wasn't going to reply but I saw the bolded, and I don't like to have my words seem that I support this nonsense in any way. You simply read wrong. I do disagree with what you think these verses imply and have posted already that Muslims are practicing a bias in hindsight, the exact same thing charlatans have done for thousands of years so that gullible fools can be fleeced.

Wikipedia has a convenient but not completely authoritative listing of indicators regarding when people are making this bias here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

How is the Quranic verses not symptomatic of hindsight bias given the conditions? How is it not compounded by the low level of skepticism often found among religious adherents?

Also, claims that Mohammad didn't know about the Hebrew scriptures are highly unlikely. There was a significant population of Jews in Arabia at the time, and under a sensible world view, Mohammad would have learned from them or their close associates. After that it takes no effort in making shit up based on an established source (see: fan fiction).

 

[DemonSwordsman]

I wasn't going to reply but I saw the bolded, and I don't like to have my words seem that I support this nonsense in any way. You simply read wrong. I do disagree with what you think these verses imply and have posted already that Muslims are practicing a bias in hindsight, the exact same thing charlatans have done for thousands of years so that gullible fools can be fleeced.

Wikipedia has a convenient but not completely authoritative listing of indicators regarding when people are making this bias here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

How is the Quranic verses not symptomatic of hindsight bias given the conditions? How is it not compounded by the low level of skepticism often found among religious adherents?

Also, claims that Mohammad didn't know about the Hebrew scriptures are highly unlikely. There was a significant population of Jews in Arabia at the time, and under a sensible world view, Mohammad would have learned from them or their close associates. After that it takes no effort in making shit up based on an established source (see: fan fiction).

except the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate so he wasnt going around reading hebrew texts and the writing his own.

 

[Atrus]

except the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate so he wasnt going around reading hebrew texts and the writing his own.

I didn't say he read Hebrew texts. Mo is claimed to have worked as a merchant, and no doubt came into contact with Jews, close associates to Jews, or even Christians carrying on the old traditions. Plenty of opportunity to learn from them.

 

[Instigator]

except the Prophet (pbuh) was illiterate so he wasnt going around reading hebrew texts and the writing his own.

A moot point, just like Muhammad never alledgedly having had significant meetings with Jews and Christians.

But I understand from a strictly Muslim perspective, it makes no sense to contest these points. The Qu'ran claims everything Muhammad knew came from the angel Gabriel so that must be so because it is written in the Qu'ran. It is circular logic. Atrus is right to complain about the lack of critical thinking among religious circles.

If we reverse roles, you'd be equally skeptical of any man coming up to you, claiming to have had the true final word of God revealed to him from the heavens, yet bearing a striking ressemblance to the three other abrahamic religions. You'd jump to the simplest explanation for this miracle rather than take whatever his scriptures claim at face value.

Considering that the proto-Qu'ran was a series of memorized poems before it was written down by direct followers of Muhammad (and compiled by later generations), one can not claim that Muhammad didn't have a similar memory. After all, he had to remember everything the angels told him in order to tell his followers. It mirrors oral traditions in countless cultures. It also seems logical that someone who can not write things down would need a functionning memory in his daily life.

So if one even dares to entertain the possibility of Muhammad meeting Jews and Christians at an early point, one can not claim that Muhammad was unable to take anything out of those encounters, whether he knew how to write or not.

 

[MeowMeow]

How do they know that a soul exist?

There is no direct tangible evidence to show that the soul exists, in the same way there is no direct proof whether angels, or jinss, or god himself exists, but i do think there is indirect evidence....

for the soul specifically, consider this analogy (might be a crappy analogy)....

a cathode ray tube shoots electrons on a screen which forms a image (tv)
when you watch tv, you are not reminding yourself what you are seeing is jumbeled up electrons, because reminding yourself of such things is redundant and exhuasting. so you basically process the information as though you actually are seeing a person, scenery, or an animal on t.v.

also consider the mind. how do we know the mind exists? you cant show someone that the mind exists, or what exists inside someones mind. Cutting off the brain is an indirect way of prooving that the mind exists...but you cant physically measure 'the mind'
when you do cut off the brain you are seeing brain tissue and nerves, not the mind.

how about seeing a painting? you are more focused on what the painting is all about rather then what the painting is composed of. You are not reminding yourself that the painting is just brush strikes of oil paint, but rather you are APPRECIATING what the painting is about.

if you can apply these analogies to the human soul,..then you get the basic idea.
but remember, there is no direct proof that the soul exists. You have to deduce it through indirect proofs. Part of islam is to beleive in the unseen...

 

[Hadji]

I didn't say he read Hebrew texts. Mo is claimed to have worked as a merchant, and no doubt came into contact with Jews, close associates to Jews, or even Christians carrying on the old traditions. Plenty of opportunity to learn from them.

Right, however, his teachings contradicted theirs in major points but he stilled gained a good number of converts from amongst them. I'm not only speaking of leymen, but of their major scholars.

 

[Atrus]

Right, however, his teachings contradicted theirs in major points but he stilled gained a good number of converts from amongst them. I'm not only speaking of leymen, but of their major scholars.

How is this significant? History has shown people of all walks of life following ideologies pandering to their own personal perspectives rather than any evidential truth. Citing Jewish converts says nothing about the veracity of a belief, no more than Muslims converting to other religions. It's not like Mo was the first or last of these so-called "prophets" either.

All it takes is someone with some charisma and leadership, lots of spiritual appeals to blunt critical thinking, and a group of followers who wouldn't think twice before drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[RiZ III]

I didn't say he read Hebrew texts. Mo is claimed to have worked as a merchant, and no doubt came into contact with Jews, close associates to Jews, or even Christians carrying on the old traditions. Plenty of opportunity to learn from them.

Yea he probably did come into contact with Jews and Christians and might have even heard and discussed stories from them. However, there are key elements of the stories from the OT and NT repeated in the Quran which differ quite significantly and for no real reason(religious, social, political). Of course there are also those which differ and imply something (Ishmael over Isaac for example), but there are other key ones which don't and those are rather intersting.

For example, the story of creation. The Bible goes into great detail about the creation while the Quran just says six periods. Bible is focused on this earth, while the Quran is pretty clear that there is much more besides this planet. Why?? No reason, it just does. If Muhammad was just retelling stories and trying to create a monotheistic Arabia, why would he bother changing this stuff when the Jews and Christians both already believed in this story and he had gotten it from them to begin with? When discussing religion, creation is surely a topic to be covered so if he had talked to Jews/Christians, he would certainly have heard about these stories. This is just one example. Another is the flood, the Bible says global, Quran differs. Why? The flood is a very central part of the Jewish/Christian belief system, he would certainly have heard of this if he heard from them. Strange that some of these areas the Quran differs in are the areas the Christians have such a hard time defending against modern science, but of course this is just a coincidence.

Now for the Christian texts. To claim that the Quranic version of the J-man stories are garbled up version of the NT doesn't make much sense as most of the material concerning Jesus has doesn't have many clear parallels to the gospels (canonical or non-canonical). The gospels pointed out are often the ones supposedly widely in use in Arabia at the time, Psuedo-Mathew and Arabic Infancy gospel. Let me highlight some points from these gospels.

Psudo-Mathew:
-Mary and baby Jesus were protected from dragons
-Were revered by lions
-Roses blossomed where they walked
-Idols of Hermopolis fell to the ground because of their presence.

..None of these are in the Quran.

Here is the summary of the Arabic Infancy Gospel

-Birth in cave near Bethlehem
-Magi come to visit according to prediction of Zoroaster
-Mary had a home in Egypt
-They hear of slaughter of babies while in Egypt
-Jesus visits temple at age 12 and is question by a philosopher and the boy is able to explain to him the number of sphere and heavenly bodies, their positions, their aspects, and their course

Oddly enough, none of these have made it into the Quran. There is no mention of him being a carpenter, or having a father named Joseph, no mention of siblings, no mention of names of disciples, and indirectly reveals his birth being close to September as apposed to December (which of course is in no gospel, but was a commonly held tradition at Mo's time).

Huh.. strange even though Jesus is mentioned close to eighty times in the Quran.

 

[Hadji]

How is this significant?

I'm not talking about any Jewish convert, I am talking about Abdullah ibn Salam. The Jews of Yathrib called him their "greatest".

Also, I'm not aware of Mohammed traveling all that much. I believe it was once to Bilad Al Sham in the North with his uncle when he was thirteen. The second time was when he was twenty five.

I believe that those are the only times that he traveled according to what history has documented. I'm not aware that there were Jews in Makkah either.

It wouldn't really make sense for him to isolate himself in Makkah for fifteen years after his last trip to Al Shaam and then come out of no where and claim to be a prophet.

I'm going to argue that there is some truth in both Judaism and Christianity. The original source is the same. To me, that explains why the stories are similar, even though not identical.

Do you have any proof that he plagiarized from the Jews? I am yet to see any proof. All I see is unorganized thoughts. Jews being in the Arabian Peninsula isn't enough of an argument.

 

[Atrus]

Yea he probably did come into contact with Jews and Christians and might have even heard and discussed stories from them. However, there are key elements of the stories from the OT and NT repeated in the Quran which differ quite significantly and for no real reason(religious, social, political). Of course there are also those which differ and imply something (Ishmael over Isaac for example), but there are other key ones which don't and those are rather intersting.

For example, the story of creation. The Bible goes into great detail about the creation while the Quran just says six periods. Bible is focused on this earth, while the Quran is pretty clear that there is much more besides this planet. Why?? No reason, it just does. If Muhammad was just retelling stories and trying to create a monotheistic Arabia, why would he bother changing this stuff when the Jews and Christians both already believed in this story? When discussing religion, creation is surely a topic to be covered so if he had talked to Jews/Christians, he would certainly have heard about these stories. This is just one example. Another is the flood, the Bible says global, Quran differs. Why? The flood is a very central part of the Jewish/Christian belief system, he would certainly have heard of this if he heard from them. Strange that some of these areas the Quran differs in are the areas the Christians have such a hard time defending against modern science, but of course this is just a coincidence.

Now for the Christian texts. To claim that the Quranic version of the J-man stories are garbled up version of the NT doesn't make much sense as most of the material concerning Jesus has no clear parallel with the gospels (canonical or non-canonical). The gospels pointed out are often the ones supposedly widely in use in Arabia at the time, Psuedo-Mathew and Arabic Infancy gospel. Let me highlight some points from these gospels.

Psudo-Mathew:
-Mary and baby Jesus were protected from dragons
-Were revered by lions
-Roses blossomed where they walked
-Idols of Hermopolis fell to the ground because of their presence.

..None of these are in the Quran.

Here is the summary of the Arabic Infancy Gospel

-Birth in cave near Bethlehem
-Magi come to visit according to prediction of Zoroaster
-Mary had a home in Egypt
-They hear of slaughter of babies while in Egypt
-Jesus visits temple at age 12 and is question by a philosopher and the boy is able to explain to him the number of sphere and heavenly bodies, their positions, their aspects, and their course

Oddly enough, none of these have made it into the Quran. There is no mention of him being a carpenter, or having a father named Joseph, no mention of siblings, no mention of names of disciples, and indirectly reveals his birth being close to September as apposed to December (which of course is in no gospel, but was a commonly held tradition at Mo's time).

Huh.. strange even though Jesus is mentioned close to eighty times in the Quran.

Like I mentioned before, the differences can be attributed to Mo creating his own fan-fiction based on the source. This was not a new concept, the originators of the Gnostic gospels wrote their own fanfics about the childhood of Jesus as well, and Mormonism itself is based on an expanded universe fan-fiction.

You clearly have an early evidenced source in the Torah, and then you have the Quran coming in many centuries later. Which is the more reasonable assertion? That one inspired the other, or that the latter was independently conceived because an Angel flew down from heaven to dictate it?

 

[Atrus]

I'm not talking about any Jewish convert, I am talking about Abdullah ibn Salam. The Jews of Yathrib called him their "greatest".

Also, I'm not aware of Mohammed traveling all that much. I believe it was once to Bilad Al Sham in the North with his uncle when he was thirteen. The second time was when he was twenty five.

I believe that those are the only times that he traveled according to what history has documented. I'm not aware that there were Jews in Makkah either.

It wouldn't really make sense for him to isolate himself in Makkah for fifteen years after his last trip to Al Shaam and then come out of no where and claim to be a prophet.

I'm going to argue that there is some truth in both Judaism and Christianity. The original source is the same. To me, that explains why the stories are similar, even though not identical.

Do you have any proof that he plagiarized from the Jews? I am yet to see any proof. All I see is unorganized thoughts. Jews being in the Arabian Peninsula isn't enough of an argument.

Again, why is who converts significant? Constantine I converted to Christianity, Tom Cruise converted to Scientology, Ashoka the Great converted to Buddhism, and so forth. None of them validated the truth of a religion, just the preferences of the convert.

There are thousands of possibilities relating to how Mo could have come across Jewish works, and you rely on the assertion with no probability assigned because it's not falsifiable; that 'God' sent an angel to independently dictate many of the same stories in a different manner to a desert merchant in Arabia?

Here's my favorite clip from the movie The Messenger. Pay attention to what Dustin Hoffman says and consider your views in relation to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7YSlJReVM

 

[RiZ III]

Like I mentioned before, the differences can be attributed to Mo creating his own fan-fiction based on the source. This was not a new concept, the originators of the Gnostic gospels wrote their own fanfics about the childhood of Jesus as well, and Mormonism itself is based on an expanded universe fan-fiction.

You clearly have an early evidenced source in the Torah, and then you have the Quran coming in many centuries later. Which is the more reasonable assertion? That one inspired the other, or that the latter was independently conceived because an Angel flew down from heaven to dictate it?

If Muhammad did make it all up, he sure was one heck of a fan-fic writer as his description of Jesus so closely resembles that of what modern Jesus scholars have concluded the historical Jesus would have been.

Here is are quotes from two of them.

"It is much more intriguing that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is very much in conformity with the first Christian orthodoxy - the originial Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus" - Jeffery J. Butz, The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity

"There are some rather striking connections between the research I have presented in "The Jesus Dynasty" and the traditional beliefs of Islam. The Muslim emphasis on Jesus as messianic prophet and teacher is quite parallel to what we find in the Q source, in the book of James, and in the Didache. ... Islam insists that neither Jesus nor Mohammed brought a new religion. Though sought to call people back to what might be called "Abrahamic faith." This is precisely what we find emphasized in the Book of James. Like Islam, the book of James, and the teaching of Jesus in Q, ephasize doing the will of God as demonstration of one's faith." James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty

After nearly 2000 years, scholars have started to uncover the historical Jesus, and hey hey what a coincidence that his character is so darn similar to that of the Quran.
You see Atrus, this is just another one of those signs that the Quran speaks of. No matter how many though, you will keep just denying them and saying it is coincidence. Thats fine though, but at the same time you can't presume people to be stupid or blind for seeing something that you don't, for we could say the same of you for not seeing it.

edit: Ah yes hollywood, a good place to look to.

 

[Atrus]

If Muhammad did make it all up, he sure was one heck of a fan-fic writer as his description of Jesus so closely resembles that of what modern Jesus scholars have concluded the historical Jesus would have been.

Here is are quotes from two of them.

"It is much more intriguing that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is very much in conformity with the first Christian orthodoxy - the originial Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus" - Jeffery J. Butz, The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity

"There are some rather striking connections between the research I have presented in "The Jesus Dynasty" and the traditional beliefs of Islam. The Muslim emphasis on Jesus as messianic prophet and teacher is quite parallel to what we find in the Q source, in the book of James, and in the Didache. ... Islam insists that neither Jesus nor Mohammed brought a new religion. Though sought to call people back to what might be called "Abrahamic faith." This is precisely what we find emphasized in the Book of James. Like Islam, the book of James, and the teaching of Jesus in Q, ephasize doing the will of God as demonstration of one's faith." James Tabor, The Jesus Dynasty

After nearly 2000 years, scholars have started to uncover the historical Jesus, and hey hey what a coincidence that his character is so darn similar to that of the Quran.
You see Atrus, this is just another one of those signs that the Quran speaks of. No matter of many though, you will keep just denying them and saying it is coincidence. Thats fine though, but at the same time you can't presume people to be stupid or blind for seeing something for we could say the same of you for not seeing it.

Uncover the historical Jesus? There is no evidence relating to him outside of the various written works, many by unknown sources, decades after his supposed resurrection. With no accurate detail to pin on this man, how can anyone claim authority as to who this figure was in order to compare the accuracy of other sources to? Don't confuse the speculation of some for proof. Some speculate he didn't even exist at all, and I know this wouldn't be an acceptable conclusion to some would it?

You also avoided my question: Which is the more reasonable assertion? That one inspired the other, or that the latter was independently conceived because an Angel flew down from heaven to dictate it?

edit: What's wrong with using an audio-visual? If it makes a point in a neat matter it's useful. To write it off as 'Hollywood lol!' shows a position bankrupt of answers.

 

[RiZ III]

Uncover the historical Jesus? There is no evidence relating to him outside of the various written works, many by unknown sources, decades after his supposed resurrection. With no accurate detail to pin on this man, how can anyone claim authority as to who this figure was in order to compare the accuracy of other sources to? Don't confuse the speculation of some for proof. Some speculate he didn't even exist at all, and I know this wouldn't be an acceptable conclusion to some would it?

edit: And of course now that it is true that the historical Jesus is conforming so close to the Quran, you totally deny all scholarship on a historical figure of Jesus, for which evidence is certainly not lacking.
You obviously haven't read much on the subject and are basing your statement here on youtube videos and random hearsay of the internet. I'm not going to bother wasting my time arguing the subject with someone coming from such a baseless point of view.

You also avoided my question: Which is the more reasonable assertion? That one inspired the other, or that the latter was independently conceived because an Angel flew down from heaven to dictate it?

The first one certainly seems within reason sure, but there are many holes in such a theory some of which I have pointed out. You claim for these that it was just mere guess work and that all things in the universe happened by chance. I say it was all caused by Cause, an intelligent Cause.

edit: and now I must sleep.

 

[Hadji]

Again, why is who converts significant? Constantine I converted to Christianity, Tom Cruise converted to Scientology, Ashoka the Great converted to Buddhism, and so forth. None of them validated the truth of a religion, just the preferences of the convert.

There are thousands of possibilities relating to how Mo could have come across Jewish works, and you rely on the assertion with no probability assigned because it's not falsifiable; that 'God' sent an angel to independently dictate many of the same stories in a different manner to a desert merchant in Arabia?

Here's my favorite clip from the movie The Messenger. Pay attention to what Dustin Hoffman says and consider your views in relation to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf7YSlJReVM

First of all, I agree that converts don't validate the truth of a religion. Yet, you are missing the point. If Ibn Salam was the most knowledgable Jewish scholar in the Arabian Peninsula, then he would've surely known that Mohammed (pbuh) just copied ideas he found in the Old Testament. Ibn Salam's conversion ended with the Jewish people hating him and isolating themselves away from him. He converted because he believed Islam to be true.

Alright, I agree that Mohammed (pbuh) could've ended up coming across Jewish works and copying them into his own new religion. However, that is not logical. As stated before, he couldn't read or write. He traveled twice to Al Sham. He started preaching Islam fifteen years after his last venture.

All these are points against your claim that he plagiarized those stories.

Plus, his claim of being a messenger only did him harm. He was one of the most admired men in Makkah before his claim. After it, he was treated like scum. His relatives tried to assassinate him. He was exiled. His life before his prophethood was far better than what it was after.

Adding onto this, as you are assuming, if he didn't slightly change the content of Jewish and Christian scriptures, then he would've at least have a greater following. It would've been easier for him to claim to be a messenger of the Jews or of the Christians. They would've been more willing to accept his teachings. However, what he preached earned him the enmity of the pagans and the Jews.

Yes, there are tons of possibilties, as you've mentioned, but through the process of elimination, the most reasonable is to accept Mohammed's (pbuh) claim, that he is a messenger.

Do you have more specific evidences to support your argument?

By the way, cool movie.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Perhaps one of the fine posters of this forum can answer a perplexing question for me.

Someone who, a few days ago, was fervently discussing the existence of magic and sorcerers with, as his sole point of reference, a 14 century old book that he believes was dictated by an arch-angel to a desert merchant, is now asking Atrus for evidence that this desert merchant was not, in fact, the messenger of the Creator of the Universe.

My question is this: Why isn't this thread filled with LOLs, ROFLMAOs, and :lol smileys?

 

[Atrus]

1) You obviously haven't read much on the subject and are basing your statement here on youtube videos and random hearsay of the internet.



The first one certainly seems within reason sure, but there are many holes in such a theory some of which I have pointed out. You claim for these that it was just mere guess work and that all things in the universe happened by chance. I say it was all caused by Cause, an intelligent Cause.

1) Cowardly ad hominem.

How about telling me how your positions on Jesus' historicity is any more valid than those of Jesus Mythacists like Earl Doherty? There are no certainties around who this Jesus character was outside of the writings which are attributed to those close to him. The best that people could guess were those asserted during the Jesus Seminar, but again that is not proof (and has conclusions which conflict with your pro-Islam ones), just a consensus as to who this Jesus might have been. In fact, there is NO direct evidence proving Jesus did exist, so citing that some works are more accurate depictions than others is down to opinions. Clearly not a sufficient claim to state that the Quran is somehow more authoritative or accurate.

2) I did not ask for your analysis, as it's empty because there are literally thousands of scenarios to analyze. I also did not ask about your opinion as to whether the universe was intelligently designed, that's just your effort to mitigate the truth of the answer.

Next, just apply Occam's Razor to your conclusion and you'll find that we don't even need to entertain the idea of 'Angels from heaven relaying divine revelation' until we have exhausted all probable naturalistic explanations. Given the lack of a comprehensive and unbiased historical record on that era, that would be never or close to.

Now you see why adopting a 'God did it' approach first is unreasonable, and why critics find this level of thinking absurd.

 

[Atrus]

First of all, I agree that converts don't validate the truth of a religion. Yet, you are missing the point. If Ibn Salam was the most knowledgable Jewish scholar in the Arabian Peninsula, then he would've surely known that Mohammed (pbuh) just copied ideas he found in the Old Testament. Ibn Salam's conversion ended with the Jewish people hating him and isolating themselves away from him. He converted because he believed Islam to be true.

Alright, I agree that Mohammed (pbuh) could've ended up coming across Jewish works and copying them into his own new religion. However, that is not logical. As stated before, he couldn't read or write. He traveled twice to Al Sham. He started preaching Islam fifteen years after his last venture.

All these are points against your claim that he plagiarized those stories.

Plus, his claim of being a messenger only did him harm. He was one of the most admired men in Makkah before his claim. After it, he was treated like scum. His relatives tried to assassinate him. He was exiled. His life before his prophethood was far better than what it was after.

Adding onto this, as you are assuming, if he didn't slightly change the content of Jewish and Christian scriptures, then he would've at least have a greater following. It would've been easier for him to claim to be a messenger of the Jews or of the Christians. They would've been more willing to accept his teachings. However, what he preached earned him the enmity of the pagans and the Jews.

Yes, there are tons of possibilties, as you've mentioned, but through the process of elimination, the most reasonable is to accept Mohammed's (pbuh) claim, that he is a messenger.

Do you have more specific evidences to support your argument?

By the way, cool movie.

Mohammad had ears no? Paper production didn't come full swing into the Arabia until the 700's, so most of this information would have been conveyed in the oral tradition to begin with. Even Christians in Europe were hard pressed for parchment and resorted to turning Pagan works into palimpsests (scrubbing the words off, splitting a single sheet into two, and over-writing them as seen in the Archimedes palimpsest).

As far as Ibn Salam's authority is concerned even you cited it doesn't validate the truth. He may have very well thought Islam to be better than Judaism, but again so what? People convert on any number of reasons, rational or irrational and an argument from authority doesn't work given that many significant figures convert to and from religions. The pharaoh Akhenaten had a divine revelation and turned polytheistic Egypt into monotheistic Egypt during his rule, he converted and had everyone else convert. Does that mean Atenism is the true religion?

Lastly, the argument from enmity means nothing. People act on positions that are more true to themselves, often at the risk of their lives and family. Gays and Lesbians risk as much as death 'coming out', heretics and prophets risk their lives to preach their 'revelations', and so forth.

Mo wasn't the first one to claim to be a prophet, and I'm sure they all have their reasons to court death. It could have been a desire to leave a legacy, a desire for power and influence, or maybe they were just egotistical lunatics like David Koresh. Again, many reasons to risk ones life. You may personally find 'God did it' to be more reasonable, but that's because you don't want to entertain naturalistic options. It can't be helped, ignoring reasonable explanations is often part and parcel of being a religious person.

As Dustin Hoffman states at the very end of the video I showed you; "You didn't see what was... you saw what you wanted to see."

 

[Hadji]

My question is this: Why isn't this thread filled with LOLs, ROFLMAOs, and smileys?

I think it is because most of the immature GAF-ers stopped coming in here after realizing that this thread is thirteen pages long.

I find it rather interesting that the West tries to logically explain intangible things as well, but you don't see me acting immature about it.

Do you really believe that you know everything about the world, our existence, and the mysteries of the universe? Do you dismiss everything that you haven't experienced personally as a myth?

As far as Ibn Salam's authority is concerned even you cited it doesn't validate the truth. He may have very well thought Islam to be better than Judaism, but again so what? People convert on any number of reasons, rational or irrational and an argument from authority doesn't work given that many significant figures convert to and from religions.

Once again, my whole argument about Ibn Salam doesn't revolve alone around him converting. It revolves around the question, if Mohammed did plagiarize from Jewish scripts, why didn't they accuse him of doing so, why wasn't he exposed by the Jews, and why did they accept his religion as true?

As Dustin Hoffman states at the very end of the video I showed you; "You didn't see what was... you saw what you wanted to see."

Atrus, all your arguments against mine stand. However, you haven't been able to prove that Mohammed (pbuh) didn't plagiarize the Old and New Testament. You choose to accept that he did plagiarize, because if he didn't then it would mean that God does exist, which would be a bummer. However, knowing atheists, I'm assuming that you folks would probably say that Mohammed (pbuh) came up with similar stories coincidentally.

It is funny that this quote only applies to me and not to yourself. =)

 

[MeowMeow]

Atrus, you need to seriously watch that movie:

CONTACT-starring jodie foster.

just watch it...

 

[Azih]

Like I mentioned before, the differences can be attributed to Mo creating his own fan-fiction based on the source

That's not a strong statement to make and yet you're using it as a basis of your entire view of Islam. Don't you see the problem with that?

 

[Atrus]

1) Once again, my whole argument about Ibn Salam doesn't revolve alone around him converting. It revolves around the question, if Mohammed did plagiarize from Jewish scripts, why didn't they accuse him of doing so, why wasn't he exposed by the Jews, and why did they accept his religion as true?

2) Atrus, all your arguments against mine stand. However, you haven't been able to prove that Mohammed (pbuh) didn't plagiarize the Old and New Testament. You choose to accept that he did plagiarize, because if he didn't then it would mean that God does exist, which would be a bummer. However, knowing atheists, I'm assuming that you folks would probably say that Mohammed (pbuh) came up with similar stories coincidentally.

It is funny that this quote only applies to me and not to yourself. =)

3) That's not a strong statement to make and yet you're using it as a basis of your entire view of Islam. Don't you see the problem with that?

1) Pointless question. People do not need a substantial reason to convert to another religion, and there's often little to no factual basis to do so because to them it's more appealing for any number of reasons both rational and irrational. Why are there converts to Scientology, The order of the Hermitic Dawn? Aum Shinrikiyo, The Unification Church and others? People want to belong and they'll accept any amount of bullshit to belong to the people they want to.

2) You want me to prove a naturalistic cause to disprove a supernatural assumption (God did it). This is the problem I pointed out, under no reasonable mindset does someone EVER start with an unfalsifiable supernatural position. Naturalistic causes are inherently superior because they are the only causes with a probability assigned to them, no matter how small, unlike supernatural ones, and this is why the quote applies to you.

This is the viewpoint of the religious that is bankrupt of reason and functionality.

3) I'm using a reasonable explanation in contrast to the foolish and unreasonable explanation of angels descending from Heaven to reveal a message. Change the word Angels with Unicorns or Aliens, and Heaven with Dimension X and you'll see it in a manner you can recognize. It's just that for you, Angels and Heaven are keywords that pass your internal bullshit meter all too easily while the others don't.

Meowmewo: I've seen Contact, and I pointed out it doesn't help your case in the least, especially concerning the fact the story was written by Carl Sagan. An Atheist making his case that God is not needed.

 

[Hadji]

1) Pointless question. People do not need a substantial reason to convert to another religion, and there's often little to no factual basis to do so because to them it's more appealing for any number of reasons both rational and irrational. Why are there converts to Scientology, The order of the Hermitic Dawn? Aum Shinrikiyo, The Unification Church and others? People want to belong and they'll accept any amount of bullshit to belong to the people they want to.

2) You want me to prove a naturalistic cause to disprove a supernatural assumption (God did it). This is the problem I pointed out, under no reasonable mindset does someone EVER start with an unfalsifiable supernatural position. Naturalistic causes are inherently superior because they are the only causes with a probability assigned to them, no matter how small, unlike supernatural ones, and this is why the quote applies to you.

Wow. Your tone has changed quite a bit from your last post. I also think that your responses this time around are rather poor compared to your earlier ones. In fact, I really don't consider "1" or "2" to be arguments. In both cases, you've completely ignored my specific questions.

I'm not a fan of repeating myself so I'm going to stop here.

I think we've both made our cases, or at least one of us has.

 

[Sandman7]

1) Pointless question. People do not need a substantial reason to convert to another religion, and there's often little to no factual basis to do so because to them it's more appealing for any number of reasons both rational and irrational. Why are there converts to Scientology, The order of the Hermitic Dawn? Aum Shinrikiyo, The Unification Church and others? People want to belong and they'll accept any amount of bullshit to belong to the people they want to.

2) You want me to prove a naturalistic cause to disprove a supernatural assumption (God did it). This is the problem I pointed out, under no reasonable mindset does someone EVER start with an unfalsifiable supernatural position. Naturalistic causes are inherently superior because they are the only causes with a probability assigned to them, no matter how small, unlike supernatural ones, and this is why the quote applies to you.

This is the viewpoint of the religious that is bankrupt of reason and functionality.

3) I'm using a reasonable explanation in contrast to the foolish and unreasonable explanation of angels descending from Heaven to reveal a message. Change the word Angels with Unicorns or Aliens, and Heaven with Dimension X and you'll see it in a manner you can recognize. It's just that for you, Angels and Heaven are keywords that pass your internal bullshit meter all too easily while the others don't.

Meowmewo: I've seen Contact, and I pointed out it doesn't help your case in the least, especially concerning the fact the story was written by Carl Sagan. An Atheist making his case that God is not needed.

Hadjis point is not about converts. What he is saying (if I understand correctly) is that if the most knowledgable Jews of the time did not think of the Quran as a rip-off of the Old Testament, why are you making this assumption?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Perhaps one of the fine posters of this forum can answer a perplexing question for me.

Someone who, a few days ago, was fervently discussing the existence of magic and sorcerers with, as his sole point of reference, a 14 century old book that he believes was dictated by an arch-angel to a desert merchant, is now asking Atrus for evidence that this desert merchant was not, in fact, the messenger of the Creator of the Universe.

My question is this: Why isn't this thread filled with LOLs, ROFLMAOs, and :lol smileys?

LOL ROFLMAO :lol

That's not a strong statement to make and yet you're using it as a basis of your entire view of Islam. Don't you see the problem with that?

Facts are not a problem.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I think it is because most of the immature GAF-ers stopped coming in here after realizing that this thread is thirteen pages long.

I find it rather interesting that the West tries to logically explain intangible things as well, but you don't see me acting immature about it.

Do you really believe that you know everything about the world, our existence, and the mysteries of the universe? Do you dismiss everything that you haven't experienced personally as a myth?

Why do some religious people keep bringing up this canard? It's those who unquestioningly accept "God did it" as a universal explanation who dismiss other explanations, who shut themselves off from the mysteries of the universe. Accepting the supernatural means rejecting the natural.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

Do you really believe that you know everything about the world, our existence, and the mysteries of the universe? Do you dismiss everything that you haven't experienced personally as a myth?

Hadji, you're only demonstrating the extent to which you are disconnected from reality.
The things that humanity knows are known because we've bothered to look at the universe.
You think you know things because you've read them in a book, which you trust because it's written in this book that you should trust it.
That humanity doesn't know everything about the universe doesn't change the fact that faith is the best way of making sure you arrive at beliefs that are batshit insane.

And if your beliefs didn't have the label of "religion" and particularly that of "Islam" attached to them, you would have been called out on your overwhelming gullibility within a few hours of making your first post in this thread.

 

[Sandman7]

Hadji, you're only demonstrating the extent to which you are disconnected from reality.
The things that humanity knows are known because we've bothered to look at the universe.
You think you know things because you've read them in a book, which you trust because it's written in this book that you should trust it.
That humanity doesn't know everything about the universe doesn't change the fact that faith is the best way of making sure you arrive at beliefs that are batshit insane.

And if your beliefs didn't have the label of "religion" and particularly that of "Islam" attached to them, you would have been called out on your overwhelming gullibility within a few hours of making your first post in this thread.

You are implying that looking at the universe and seeking knowledge are completely disconnected with religion. A brief look at some of the major scientists of the past century will tell you that is not the case.

 

[Count Dookkake]

You are implying that looking at the universe and seeking knowledge are completely disconnected with religion. A brief look at some of the major scientists of the past century will tell you that is not the case.

Support or it didn't happen.

 

[Sandman7]

Support or it didn't happen.

Gladly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_newton#Religious_views

Also Louis Pasteur. There are more but those are the most prominent ones I could find

NOTE: I am not saying that there is a God because these scientists said so. I am merely using their names to prove that science is not held back by religion as many atheists believe.

 

[PhlegmMaster]

You are implying that looking at the universe and seeking knowledge are completely disconnected with religion. A brief look at some of the major scientists of the past century will tell you that is not the case.

What I am saying is that all the claims about reality that make the various religions what they are, and that religious people believe, weren't arrived at by looking at reality. This is a fact that is recognized not only by atheists and agnostics, but also by most religious believers, because they will always admit, when pushed into a logical corner, that their beliefs are based on nothing but faith. Even the Muslims in this thread who think that some parts of the Qur'an are amazingly accurate scientific statements don't think that this constitutes conclusive evidence for their beliefs; if it was conclusive evidence, they wouldn't need faith, no more than we need faith to believe that electrons exist.

That many scientists were and are religious believers is irrelevant. If they were successful scientists, they were rational about their scientific research, but irrational about their religious beliefs. Just like Hadji is presumably rational about most of his beliefs in his everyday life, but irrational when it comes to magic, sorcerers, angels, miracles, and the like. That religious believers manage to keep up the cognitive dissonance that is required to think in two completely different ways depending on the situation isn't evidence that faith is compatible with critical thinking, it's only evidence that many humans are good at compartmentalization.

 

[RiZ III]

Hadji, you're only demonstrating the extent to which you are disconnected from reality.
The things that humanity knows are known because we've bothered to look at the universe.
You think you know things because you've read them in a book, which you trust because it's written in this book that you should trust it.
That humanity doesn't know everything about the universe doesn't change the fact that faith is the best way of making sure you arrive at beliefs that are batshit insane.

I can't argue for Hadji here, but I've already pointed out that as far as the Quran is concerned, there are no statements in it which would force a Muslim to shut themselves in or ignore science and research. The Quran often asks mankind to look around the world, to travel, to think about the universe and how it came to be. Are the Muslims these days doing that? No not really, I think they are a bit shut in.

edit: Regarding post above, personally I think all 'miracles' could be explained through natural phenomenon if we could see and collect data on them when they occurred and that magic is just like modern magic (tricks).

 

[Hadji]

And if your beliefs didn't have the label of "religion" and particularly that of "Islam" attached to them, you would have been called out on your overwhelming gullibility within a few hours of making your first post in this thread.

Sadly, falling under "religion" doesn't really help that much. I'm assuming you didn't bother to skim the first couple of pages. As I've stated earlier, it seems that in modern times, that atheists are the most intolerant people around... or at least those that spend their precious limited life span debating with believers online.

Even the Muslims in this thread who think that some parts of the Qur'an are amazingly accurate scientific statements don't think that this constitutes conclusive evidence for their beliefs; if it was conclusive evidence, they wouldn't need faith, no more than we need faith to believe that electrons exist.

Right, but keep in mind that Muslims have reasons for accepting these beliefs other than just plain old blind faith. The scientific arguments do help, but it is not the only proof that is used.

 

[MeowMeow]

Meowmewo: I've seen Contact, and I pointed out it doesn't help your case in the least, especially concerning the fact the story was written by Carl Sagan. An Atheist making his case that God is not needed.

What does the fact of him being an athiest have to do with anything? Ive never read the book version, but even then, the movie made you re-think the way you should approach certain things. The only proof she had was the 18 hours worth of static, all they could do was beleive her that she indeed travel to the center of galaxy with no tangible direct evidence. I wanted to point out that this movie parrallels Muhammads journey to 7 heavens from the 'dome of the rock'

I am not trying to convince you that there is a god or you should beleive in the scriptures, but there are a LOT OF THINGS which your cannot have direct evidence to , yet it exists. Such as the mind. Can you proove to me that the mind exists? How do you proove something is alive? By severing your vertebrae? What about plants? They are alive, when you severe them, some species still manage to grow back. Is a virus a living thing? some say yes, some say no.

 

[Hadji]

I wonder if Himuro has read any of this stuff. xD

I'm really curious to see if any of what we said has influenced what he's reading.

 

[RiZ III]

I think he'd be better off not worrying about the squabbling in here as this thread got derailed from what he intended it to be anyways.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Gladly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_newton#Religious_views

Also Louis Pasteur. There are more but those are the most prominent ones I could find

NOTE: I am not saying that there is a God because these scientists said so. I am merely using their names to prove that science is not held back by religion as many atheists believe.

Newton and Pasteur. Way to keep current! :lol

Sadly, falling under "religion" doesn't really help that much. I'm assuming you didn't bother to skim the first couple of pages. As I've stated earlier, it seems that in modern times, that atheists are the most intolerant people around... or at least those that spend their precious limited life span debating with believers online.

That is certainly stiff competition for honor killings and beheadings.

 

[RiZ III]

That is certainly stiff competition for honor killings and beheadings.

Right because honor killings and beheadings are dictated by the Quran ::

Wow... ..

 

[Count Dookkake]

Right because honor killings and beheadings are dictated by the Quran ::

But they do seem to be in vogue among many of its more powerful readers...

 

[RiZ III]

But they do seem to be in vogue among many of its more powerful readers...

And?

 

[Atrus]

Wow. Your tone has changed quite a bit from your last post. I also think that your responses this time around are rather poor compared to your earlier ones. In fact, I really don't consider "1" or "2" to be arguments. In both cases, you've completely ignored my specific questions.

I'm not a fan of repeating myself so I'm going to stop here.

I think we've both made our cases, or at least one of us has.

Avoidance is a usual tactic employed whenever the points raised are too difficult to address in a reasonable manner. The other exit point is absurdity to the point of lunacy, that regardless of what is reasonable, religious people advocate a "Just so because it's magic/faith/belief and that's it!" mentality, often this leads to people 'jumping the shark' so to speak as Meowmeow did earlier in the thread.

The longer a conversation draws on, the greater the liklihood of the religious person going down one of the two paths. It's almost inevitable really, given that religion is not consilient with reason.

Avoiding the issue doesn't magic it away. You think that just because some holy Jewish desert-monger in the past converted, it lends even the slightest bit of support to the work is original yet fail to recognize that reasons for converting have little to do with the objective validity of the source. I've given you a handful of examples that dispute an argument from authority based on conversions, and whether you ignore it is not my concern. Your argument is missing a valid point.

The Vatican has regularly excommunicated it's clergy for conversion to other beliefs and I seriously doubt you would give the conversions and deconversions of priests, monks and archbishops (such as Bishop Bodo to Judaism) equal weighting. You've got an entire religion of Mormonism built around someone in the past pretty much lying outright, yet it gained and still gains converts from mainstream Christianity and other religions, and we haven't even approached the utter absurdity of Scientology or Raeliansm.

 

[Count Dookkake]

And?

Surely the word of god can do better than that?

 

[RiZ III]

Surely the word of god can do better than that?

...yea you're right because it does. As I've said, the Quran doesn't dictate beheadings or honor killings.