Is Islamic faith reasonable.

[loverOfTruth]

I am familiar with this site but had forgotten about it. Even I thought it was biased. Are you sure I quoted something from them? I know most of my quotes came from the islamic sources I mentioned but I will recheck

Remember the last quranic verse you quoted out of context and with '...' and I showed you how dishonest that was ? Shouldn't forget so fast. Check your links in this comment :
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2883592-post164.html

And by the way, you never linked any Islamic site. All of your hadith/quranic quotes come from those sites which misrepresent them. And it is not that one site - any of your claims so far had been from similar sites without actual evidence from authentic sources.

 

[Pastek]

How it is reasonable to believe in a religion began by a man who fought 68 battles, at least some offensive in nature, and committed acts some scholars suggest were atrocities?

He didn't fighted as much. It's even impossible

About "atrocities" you have to quote true hadiths.
Ask yourself the question : if someone talk about God, about justice, equality, kindness, how he could commit barbaric acts ?

You have to study hadiths correctly.

How is it reasonable to believe in a religious book written by God that has whole sections of gnostic gospels known to be uninspired and incorrect circulating in Arabia at this time copied as scripture? Or to believe in the Quran when compared to the bible, a source hundreds of years closer to the event of the crucifixion with actual witnesses, details are illogically incorrect?

In some countries, christians themselves have sometimes more Books in their Bible than others christians.
So, you can believe in something that an other christian will say : it's known to be incorrect
For exemples somes have 22 Books when others have 27 Books.

Look here for more details : Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is it reasonable to believe a religion founded on the word of one man?
A man who said he thought he was either possessed or going insane after his cave visit with an angel. The more witnesses the better

And what about Abraham ? Who was the witness when angels came to him ?
And Lot ? And Samuel ? And Mary ? Etc

How is it reasonable to believe in a religion that claims Allah fights with them when they are defeated over and over again when attacking a country (Israel) that is 1% their total combined size and they outnumber 50 to 1 at least?

It's a political matter. And Israel is not really alone.
Plus all muslims don't attack them.

 

[F0uad]

I will only answer these questions if you post them in the Dir because i can clearly see you never have studied anything, you can claim you did but if you did you would have found the answers on the first page of google.

If you have any questions regarding the battles ask them i have done some indept research on them.
Give the specific name of the War and the Hadith you make your claim off.

 

[gnostic]

The only things I found unreasonable in Islam are

• the alleged miracles that supposedly took place as stated in the scriptures or traditions,
• the alleged revelations,
• the alleged divine authorship of the scriptures

But the same skepticism place on Islam above could be placed on Judaism or on Christianity, or on any other religions for that matter.

 

[Gharib]

The only things I found unreasonable in Islam are
the alleged miracles that supposedly took place as stated in the scriptures or traditions,
the alleged revelations,
the alleged divine authorship of the scriptures

But the same skepticism place on Islam above could be placed on Judaism or on Christianity, or on any other religions for that matter.

Can you give an example of each of those cases and explain it with as much detail as you can and then explain how they are unreasonable?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Another reply that doesn't defend the points I made but rather deflects the discussion to a different religion. I am interested in what muslims think about these issues not what anyone believes about issues with the bible. BTW I am not concedeing your point I am not interested. You make a thread and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Understood. You would rather concentrate on that splinter (flaw) you see is Islam.

 

[arthra]

1robin:

Well finally an actual answer.

Well finally an actual answer. So in your view all the battles and raids that Muhammad fought were strictly defensive. I will not challenge your answers with the exception of clarity in this thread.

My comment:

An admission then...?

robin:

Well Artha I am impressed, So you don't believe any of the Quran was borrowed from any uninspired work.

Comment:

It's a story commonly known as in the story about Noah and the ark came from Sumerian sources...appeared in the Bible as in a version suitable.

The sleepers of ephesus were not from a Gnostic source:

Seven Sleepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Breathing on the clay birds:

Jesus Breathing Life Into Clay Birds

Still no Gnostic sources..

Annunciation of the Virgin Mary:

Annunciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still no Gnostic sources


robin:

Or to believe in the Quran when compared to the bible, a source hundreds of years closer to the event of the crucifixion with actual witnesses, details are illogically incorrect? Well there are many of them associated with Christ, the one you mentioned is an example but you didn't explain them you just mentioned them. I have never heard this version of the Islamic view. Are you suggesting his body did actually die.

My comment:

"...most Muslims maintain that Jesus was not crucified, but one who looked like Him was instead, based on their understanding of Qur'án 4:156. Shoghi Effendi, however, states that the Qur'ánic passage indicates that the spiritual reality of Christ was beyond crucifixion, not that His body escaped such a fate (Lights of Guidance, 1646, 1652, 1669); this resolves an apparent contradiction between Islam and Christianity. "

robin:

Once again I salute the quality and insight of your answers. I thought it was the claim of the muslim soldiers during the time of the conflicts that Allah was going to fight with them. Was your statement your view or the Islamic orthedox view. I don't know enough about the character of Allah to say what his opinion is. I was going by histories of the time that recorded soldiers marching to Israel chanting God was on their side and then going back the other way a few days later without chanting.

My comment:

And German soldiers had a belt buckle inscribed "Gott mit uns" in WWI, WWII... Was God with them?

Gott mit uns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think God was no more with them than with any army claiming to have God on their side...Muslim, Christian, Sikh or other.

 

[gnostic]

Can you give an example of each of those cases and explain it with as much detail as you can and then explain how they are unreasonable?

I find all miracles, revelations and the existence of deity/deities to be unprovable, hence unreasonable.

Miracles, in essence, defy the law of nature (or the law of physics), like magic or sorcery. Miracle (the way it is used in religious context) is unnatural and it is supernatural. They are unprovable. It is through belief and FAITH that you accept such miracles, not observable or testable evidences.

Revelations are claims of supposed prophets (or in Islam's case, messengers) or saints, to be mouthpiece of deity/deities. Again, unprovable by the nature of these religious/spiritual revelations. It is through belief and FAITH that you accept such revelations, not observable or testable evidences.

And it is through belief and FAITH that an individual would accept the existence of deity or deities. I have not seen one, heard one or spoken to one. So I find it is unreasonable for ANY religion to accept such existence of imaginary being.

And when I mean "all", eselam, then I mean ALL...so not just the islamic claims.

Miracles, revelations and the belief in one's god (or gods) are matter of one's FAITH, and not with EVIDENCES. So I don't see how I could prove something that are essentially - NOT FALSIFIABLE.

Hence, it is unreasonable to accept any miracle or revelation, as if they are real, no matter what religion you're talking about.

You will have to show me any evidence...and let me examine the evidence...before I can even consider any of the religious claim to be real. But if you are simply going to quote from any one of the scriptures or traditions, then I am not going to find it reasonable.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Understood. You would rather concentrate on that splinter (flaw) you see is Islam.

If relgion is founded on ravings of a false prophet, does that really constitute a
"splinter"? You can ask the same thing about Christianity for that matter. If they're both built on falsehoods, which is what you believe if I'm not mistaken, than they are both equally worthless.

 

[F0uad]

If relgion is founded on ravings of a false prophet, does that really constitute a
"splinter"? You can ask the same thing about Christianity for that matter. If they're both built on falsehoods, which is what you believe if I'm not mistaken, than they are both equally worthless.

Yes but if one is a ''Christian or Muslim'' and he/she would assume that he/she should attack someone's religion without looking into hes/her own religion then that person is a hypocrite, or did you not understand the verse that tumbleweed41 quoted?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Yes but if one is a ''Christian or Muslim'' and he/she would assume that he/she should attack someone's religion without looking into hes/her own then that person is a hypocrite, or did you not understand the verse that was quoted?

If Christianity and Islam are both built on falsehood then I would certainly agree that it would be hypocritical for a member of one faith to try to correct the other. If one is built on truth and the other falsehood then the person who follows truth owes it to his fellow man to speak the truth.

 

[9Westy9]

Well this has been an entertaining read so far. Can't wait to see what is posted next :beach:

 

[arthra]

Gnostic wrote above:

"Revelations are claims of supposed prophets (or in Islam's case, messengers) or saints, to be mouthpiece of deity/deities. Again, unprovable by the nature of these religious/spiritual revelations. It is through belief and FAITH that you accept such revelations, not observable or testable evidences."

Comment:

I think we need to understand what a revelation is....It is not a mere invention of some words as when a poet composes nor is it a mere literary work that is revised over time.

Examine the history of revelation and you will find recorded how the revelation was not particularly sought by the Prophet or Messenger. usually there was an unsettling realization that what was being revealed came not from their own hand or mind.. Here is where the Prophet may have human doubts and express anxiety.. Lord why me.. I am illiterate.. I am not eloquent.. even choose someone else.. my brother Aaron.. and so on. Following that is the affect on others in the circle of those around Them ...some acknowledging the revelation and some doubting it and some fighting it...

In time the circle of those affected widens to the family and larger social circles..beyond the tribe..sometimes engulfing whole nations and civilizations and epochs in it's scope..

The revelation acts as a catalyst that changes people, institutions, laws and beliefs ..these are measurable and recorded in history..

Today the world recalls Jesus but for the most part hardly mentions the Caesars.. Who was most powerful at the time? Jesus a rude carpenter and itinerate preacher or Caesar ruler of a vast empire?

The same could be said of Prophet Muhammad.. A mere orphan not born into any royalty or power... A shepherd without education or formal learning in the accepted sense of the term affects the entire Arabian peninsula and beyond in a few years a relative brief period of time.. Who recalls Heraclitis or Yazdigird III today? I do because I read about them in musty books. but if I say Prophet Muhammad everybody knows Who I am talking about.

Proofs and evidences...

 

[Gharib]

Is Islamic faith reasonable.

It's not, case closed, move on now. Christianity is, even though I am a Muslim it still is, because you are a Christian.

 

[Gharib]

I find all miracles, revelations and the existence of deity/deities to be unprovable, hence unreasonable.

Miracles, in essence, defy the law of nature (or the law of physics), like magic or sorcery. Miracle (the way it is used in religious context) is unnatural and it is supernatural. They are unprovable. It is through belief and FAITH that you accept such miracles, not observable or testable evidences.

Revelations are claims of supposed prophets (or in Islam's case, messengers) or saints, to be mouthpiece of deity/deities. Again, unprovable by the nature of these religious/spiritual revelations. It is through belief and FAITH that you accept such revelations, not observable or testable evidences.

And it is through belief and FAITH that an individual would accept the existence of deity or deities. I have not seen one, heard one or spoken to one. So I find it is unreasonable for ANY religion to accept such existence of imaginary being.

And when I mean "all", eselam, then I mean ALL...so not just the islamic claims.

Miracles, revelations and the belief in one's god (or gods) are matter of one's FAITH, and not with EVIDENCES. So I don't see how I could prove something that are essentially - NOT FALSIFIABLE.

Hence, it is unreasonable to accept any miracle or revelation, as if they are real, no matter what religion you're talking about.

You will have to show me any evidence...and let me examine the evidence...before I can even consider any of the religious claim to be real. But if you are simply going to quote from any one of the scriptures or traditions, then I am not going to find it reasonable.

You didn't give me an example, in order to see some miracles and believe them, you must get some other things sorted.

So if it is not a big task for you, I would like you to mention one 'miracle' and explain why it fails as a miracle, and if possible tell me as much as you know about that miracle from an Islamic perspective (tell me what Islam says about it)

 

[gnostic]

A shepherd without education or formal learning in the accepted sense of the term affects the entire Arabian peninsula and beyond in a few years a relative brief period of time..

While I can accept that Muhammad didn't have formal education as you say, and I can also agree with you that he didn't know how to read, I do disagree with you that he was "without education".

That's is either misleading, or gross understatement.

Yes, he was an orphan, but eventually he was brought up by his uncle, a merchant. Back then, getting into trade, is considered education, sort of like master and apprentice, whether it include reading/writing or not.

So Muhammad wasn't just a shepherd. It wasn't the only background, he had before became a prophet. Muhammad was even married to the widow, Khadijah, whose father was wealthy merchant.

I find that some RF Muslims or Baha'i tends to highlight his life as a shepherd, before becoming a prophet, but overlooking his upbringing and young adulthood as a merchant.

 

[gnostic]

You didn't give me an example, in order to see some miracles and believe them, you must get some other things sorted.

The Qur'an, Hadiths and Islamic tradition of the so-called Night Journey on a divine steed - Buraq, where Muhammad was said to travel to the "farthest mosque", usually identified as Jerusalem, before his ascent to heavens - all in a single night.

Some people Muslims believed this was actual physical journey, but how do you prove such "revelation" or journey took place, eselam?

Do you want more? I've got dozens, but I will pass them one at the time. So answer this one about the Night Journey.

 

[Marble]

Key question: Is any faith reasonable?
After all, its believe not empirical science.
Faith (any) has a different job than science: Science gives us knowledge about the visible, measurable, computable world; faith answers questions like "Where does suffering come from?", "What happens to me when I'm death?".
Science = objective, public, rational
Faith = subjective, private, irrational

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes but if one is a ''Christian or Muslim'' and he/she would assume that he/she should attack someone's religion without looking into hes/her own religion then that person is a hypocrite, ...

:clap

 

[Caladan]

How it is reasonable to believe in a religion began by a man who fought 68 battles, at least some offensive in nature, and committed acts some scholars suggest were atrocities?

In order to understand Muhammad and his followers you need to read about their movement. It is reasonable when you think of the context. Muhammad was a man of the Hejaz and his battles were in the context of this region. inter-tribal tensions and battles were not a rarity.
Likewise, the Kings of Israel and Judah were part of the geopolitics of the Near East, in which war, alliances, and tensions were a reality.

How is it reasonable to believe in a religious book written by God that has whole sections of gnostic gospels known to be uninspired and incorrect circulating in Arabia at this time copied as scripture? Or to believe in the Quran when compared to the bible, a source hundreds of years closer to the event of the crucifixion with actual witnesses, details are illogically incorrect?

Again. context is everything. I do not consider the Qur'an as an alternative to the Bible. The Qur'an was an alternative to Pre-Islamic Pagan Henotheism in the Western Arabian peninsula.

How is it reasonable to believe a religion founded on the word of one man?
A man who said he thought he was either possessed or going insane after his cave visit with an angel. The more witnesses the better.

Personally this question is valid only if a person puts an emphasis on miracles and witnesses to miracles. I look at social movements, social reforms, or changing a status quo.

How is it reasonable to believe in a religion that claims Allah fights with them when they are defeated over and over again when attacking a country (Israel) that is 1% their total combined size and they outnumber 50 to 1 at least?

I am not sure I see any relation between this and the previous part of your post. It's never simple to overly mixed political realities of today with theology.