Ask About Islam

[KWED]

The Bible is a collection of "independent" scrolls, so your argument is somewhat flawed.

No it isn't. It was collected and compiled as I single document with a single agenda. The Bible is a single source. If you are claiming that it was compiled from a variety of independent sources, then you need to present those sources.

 

[KWED]

That is an illogical comparison.

To say that a book in which a vast number of people accept as based on actual history is no different to a book which is accepted by everyone is an insult to our intelligence.

i.e. it is one of your loved fallacies

No religious text is accepted by everyone as historically accurate and true (and even ones that are accepted by some as such can be shown to be historically or factually inaccurate).
The point (which you seem to have avoided addressing) is that simply because something is written in a popular book does not mean that it is therefore true. There needs to be independent corroboration from sources not connected to or influenced by the record in question. It really is pretty basic stuff.

 

[KWED]

It's not incoherent to me.

Are you going to explain why it is not incoherent, and show the flaw in my argument - or is this just another unsupported assertion?

You claim that "greed" is abstract, so it's no surprise to me that you have no idea what @Link was getting at.

Greed is an abstract concept. It does not even have a universal, objective definition. All emotions are abstract concepts.
Perhaps you don't understand what "abstract" means in this context?

 

[KWED]

No women on this earth is equal to a man.

Oh dear.

I would say that things are equitable.
if a Muslim women is to work, her money is her money. She does not have to give him anything.

So not equitable then.

They are allowed many things in Islam that were there way before the west had it...like voting,

Can you quote the passage in the Quran or sunnah that gives women the vote?
Thanks.

They were all there over 1400 years ago whereas the west had to fight for their rights.

So you consider women in Saudi Arabia (whose constitution is the Quran and sunnah) to have more rights than women in the Netherlands or Sweden, for example?

 

[MyM]

No science demonstrates we come from H Heidlbergensis who came from H Antecessor , then Ergaster, Erectus, and several other hominids who eventually are not hominids but some type of tree ape.
Looks like the Quran says we came from clay. There are over 100 myths that use that creation myth :
Creation of life from clay - Wikipedia

It looks like the OT/NT are a syncretic blend of Egyptian, Mesopotamisn, Hellenistic and Persian myths. But you seem to feel this religion is actually true. What evidence to you use to support your beliefs or is this just something you have decided to take on faith?

I wouldn't say that Quran tells us "exactly how we were made" because clay is not an exact description. Science has given us a model of how we were created but they have never said we can not come from apes?
Homo Sapien are of the classification sequence Primates. From there branched Haplorhini, Simiiformes, Catarrhini, Hominoidea, Homininae, Hominini, Human. Homininae branched out to also form great apes. Our closest classification, Hominini branched Chimpanzees.

You seem to reject evolution so that's not even going to register with you but the point is that there is science to explain some of this and some of what you say is not correct.

so what evidence is convincing for you.

Allah swt says in the Quran that he created every living thing from water.

If you want to debate evolution, please go to that thread to debate, I am not here to debate evolution. That is not what my thread is about.

In the Quran, there are many things that have shown true and are proven true. Embryology, Astronomy, waters, etc. I don't need scientific evidences to prove my belief in my Creator. It is all around if one can see.

In Islam, The Quran is a book of fact.

 

[KWED]

Allah swt says in the Quran that he created every living thing from water.

The Quran also states that man was created from clay - so a clear contradiction there.

If you want to debate evolution, please go to that thread to debate, I am not here to debate evolution. That is not what my thread is about.

What is Islam's position on the evolution of humans from earlier species?

In the Quran, there are many things that have shown true and are proven true. Embryology, Astronomy, waters, etc. I don't need scientific evidences to prove my belief in my Creator. It is all around if one can see.

All those things were already know by earlier Greek, Roman, Persian, etc philosophers. There is nothing miraculous about repeating stuff that other people already know.

In Islam, The Quran is a book of fact.

So you claim that every event mentioned in the Quran actually happened.
If any event mentioned in the Quran was conclusively proved to have not happened, what would your response be?

 

[Sheldon]

What I said was actually a Google search, you want to attack Google for not knowing their stuff? Huh?

I'm afraid I simply don't believe that Google would get it that wrong, please provide a link to support your claim.

 

[Sheldon]

If you mean idiotic arguments then yes, and the one claiming pigs are dirty animals was extremely idiotic, which was why I was minded to respond to the idiocy of it.



Thad's a no true Scotsman fallacy, and a rather weak attempt to create a negative stereotype. I guess address the specific is too difficult for you, so you make a sweeping derogation.



Not entirely sure what that means, but I have found over many years that theists often make irrational claims and arguments, invoking known common logical fallacies, basic errors in reasoning. As of course you have done here, more than once, but at least I have done you the courtesy of explaining this, and why your arguments are irrational. Which is more than you have done, merely attacking those making the arguments, and trying to demand they don't contribute to a public debate.

I just use the same silly arguments you guys do toward believers.
There is as little logic sense in your answers toward believers as I am using toward you guys here.

Your post contained several known logical fallacies, I pointed them out and explained that, do you really think simply denying that, and making a false and unevidenced allegation is a credible answer? By all means then, quote any part of my post that you claim has violated any principle of logic, and explain why. If you think you can bluff your way out of this, by using the word logic as pure rhetoric, then you are very mistaken.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
So he took the time to offer an explanation for you, as you were incorrectly defining a known logical fallacy, and you respond with this trite jejune ad hominem.

This vapid and petty response is what's risible here. Oh and statement is one word. Also it is clear you are the one who can't handle others offering a different viewpoint, as you are the one who has tried to demand others don't post, no atheist has done that to you.

Fancy words you using...

Which words are you struggling with? You know you can Google simple word definitions right? In the mean time maybe you could make some effort to address the rest of the post, as I find it hard to believe you don't understand any of the words used. So your response is obviously just more obfuscation, and hand waving.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no sin in adultery or prostitution if you don't follow a religion that "proscribes it", either.

Correct, though this does not of course mean that one views behaviours as morally acceptable, just because one does not believe in superstition like sin. Rather one would assess morality based on the consequences of an act, and whether it was pernicious.

However, as far as @Link is concerned, they are all transgressions of "the law" .. sins.

Fine, as I have said, you can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy. However that was not was disputed, what was argued against was the false claim that pigs are "dirty animals, and eating pork is harmful", which is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[Link]

That provides no evidence for God whatsoever. First there already are over 1 billion Christians and 1 billion Hindu who in your mind worship the wrong God. Over 1 billion Hindus worship a false God. Yet they have a functioning society, have a moral system, virtues. Humans create our standards for what is good and bad, it's part of the evolutionary process. Animals also have this sense or they would not be able to function as successful groups. Another problem is different cultures have vastly different concepts on what is good and bad. Even religions have denominations that vastly disagree, Including Islam. Radical Islam completely disagree on what God wants and how to judge and act upon that judgement. Clear evidence that humans make all this up.
Islamic groups follow a religious book and secular communities also create laws and morals and follow them.
Beyond this world there is no need for judgement. We do not have souls. That is an ancient way of looking at reality that does not have actual evidence.

You already believe in a God so you superimpose the idea that we need a supreme judge. Your argument for God is no better than "look at the trees" there must be God.....

Now you say you have absolute proof for God, and it happens to be the God in your religion. Then people in every single other religion say no your religion is wrong and it's their God. Or it's your religion but you don't agree with the interpretation? That is far from "absolute" anything. Religious people say they have an absolute judge then cherry-pick laws according to what they think should be used or ignored? Again, this shows we make it up in our mind, the Gods, the rules, standards.

Differences in morality is all attack on morality as well. If you don't believe morality, then yeah, there is no proof of God. But this argument is still strong because most people know morality exists and is not an illusion nor are we an illusion.

 

[Link]

There is no sin in adultery or prostitution if you don't follow a religion that "proscribes it", either.
However, as far as @Link is concerned, they are all transgressions of "the law" .. sins.

Honestly, I meant it more as a joke. Saying they might like it because they know Muslims don't eat it. It's a way to rub in our faces how delicious it is, it's because it's sin to us, it tastes all that much better. I didn't think people would take the comment that serious.

 

[Link]

We need evidence for a God and evidence for a soul before it's justified to believe.

If we have a soul, it would be evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

That's how they know so much about fallacies..
That's the only tactics they've got. They have no "meat" to discuss.

We get it, you just don't care that your responses are irrational. However others are free to disagree, and see the significance for claims that invoke known common logical fallacies.

They believe in "not believing".

Like that for trite nonsense for instance, which so clearly violates the law of non contradiction. Anyone can unknowingly be irrational, especially if they are ignorant of common logical fallacies, but you and other apologists actually seem to revel in being irrational, as if it represents a compelling response.

 

[Link]

The Quran also states that man was created from clay - so a clear contradiction there.

What is Islam's position on the evolution of humans from earlier species?

All those things were already know by earlier Greek, Roman, Persian, etc philosophers. There is nothing miraculous about repeating stuff that other people already know.

So you claim that every event mentioned in the Quran actually happened.
If any event mentioned in the Quran was conclusively proved to have not happened, what would your response be?

Tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a) talks about dominant genes and recessive genes. It doesn't use the word genes but explains the concept. Now no one knew that back then except on Authority of Ahlulbayt (a). It was not a scientific fact till recently.

If you are interested I will quote it.

 

[Sheldon]

So you're simply trolling then, now that is a violation of forum guidelines. Also why would you want to, what do you imagine that says to people about your beliefs, that the best response you have is to troll those who offer critical scrutiny of your claims?

No I am not trolling,

Honestly I dont take you serious in discussion

Those seem like two oddly incongruous replies for start, and lets take another look at your post, as it certainly gave the impression you were trolling.

i having a blast bugging the hell out of you and the others in your non-believers gang

This is fun....

That certainly seems like you were claiming to have been trolling to me, else why you gleefully claim to be "having a blast bugging the hell out of" other posters? Then claim it is fun?

 

[Link]

@KWED

Then he asked: O Muhammad, how is it that sometimes a child resembles his maternal uncle and not the paternal uncle? And sometimes he resembles his paternal uncle and not the maternal? He (S) said: He resembles one whose fluid is dominant over the other.

 

[Sheldon]

That is an illogical comparison.

On the contrary, it is perfectly sound reasoning.

To say that a book in which a vast number of people accept as based on actual history is no different to a book which is known by everyone to be fantasy is an insult to our intelligence.

Except that is not remotely what I said is it, so you have just used yet another straw man fallacy, so ironically whilst my comparison was perfectly rational, your response is demonstrably irrational, again.

i.e. it is one of your loved fallacies

What is a fallacy, and which fallacy? Simply making a bare accusation isn't very compelling now is it. The fact is a piece of biblical text was cited as a record of an event, so the context of my comparison was specifically addressing that claim, what is irrational about that exactly? The fact one book is believed as true, while the other broadly accepted as fiction is precisely why I used the comparison, to illustrate that a written account of something is not evidence on its own, that it is true. The claim you assigned to me is a straw man, as I never claimed the "books were no different." So ironically you are the one whose post is yet again demonstrably irrational.

 

[KWED]

Tafsir Hassan Al-Askari (a) talks about dominant genes and recessive genes. It doesn't use the word genes but explains the concept. Now no one knew that back then except on Authority of Ahlulbayt (a). It was not a scientific fact till recently.

If you are interested I will quote it.

The principles behind selective breeding were known long before Islam was invented.

But feel free to quote the passage and we can see what it actually says.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
You misunderstand.
Link claimed that non-Muslims find pork so delicious because it is a sin to eat it.
But obviously it is not a sin to non-Muslims, so the argument was incoherent.

It's not incoherent to me.

Oh good grief, he didn't claim it was did he, he very specifically explained whom it was incoherent to and why, and yet you respond with yet another straw man.

You claim that "greed" is abstract, so it's no surprise to me that you have no idea what @Link was getting at.

Except he did understand it perfectly, and saw that it contained an obvious contradiction, and you have failed to understand that. Greed is a subjective idea for a start, and so it also be an abstract one, though one could argue that it's effects can be real. It is abundantly clear you have a pretty facile understanding of abstract concepts.