Is there any evidence for the Truth of Islam ?

[Agnostic75]

.......I hope you can put a better argument than the animals statement. There are a lot of other things that animals do but that does not mean a more conscious and intelligent being should do the same. I should not comment further as I do not remember details much past this yet. I still have to study this issue further myself.

I was not implying that everything that animals do is suitable for humans to do, or for that matter, that everything that humans do is suitable for animals to do. I was only addressing the claim that some religious conservatives make that homosexuality is not "natural," meaning not a part of nature. Many people are not aware of how widespread homosexuality is among animals and birds. Several years ago, I was having some discussions at another website with a person who opposed homosexuality among humans, and claim that animals do not practice homosexuality. When I provided him with evidence of lots of homsoexuality among animals and birds,

If a God exists, and opposes homosexuality, I do not have any idea why he would need to force many animals and birds to practice homosexuality, and want all homosexuals to be celibate for their entire lives.

Writings would be a very limited, and often ineffective means for a God to communicate with humans since he could easily show up in person if he wanted to, thereby eliminating a lot of needless confusion. Word of mouth messages among humans can also be needlessly confusing. Logically, in order to prevent lots of needless confusion, and occasional wars even within Islam, there is no adequate substitute for freqauent tangible, personal appearances, that is, assuming that God wishes to communicate directly with humans.

 

[PolyHedral]

How do you reason the world would be a better place? Without belief in God?

Please explain what you mean by saying honour killings are sanctioned by religion. If someone does something and states that their religion sanctions such. Does that count? How do you evaluate what is to be blamed.

I have never seen an atheistic value system include any concept of "honour." It is obviously impossible to honour-kill without one.

More importantly, God's commandments are the major justification behind discrimination, bigotry, various forms of hate crime, and lots of other unpleasant acts that I'd rather not happen. Although there are aesthetic examples, that 1) doesn't excuse the religious ones, 2) they're formed around the same sort of structure of sacrificing things because a "higher power" commands it. The only difference is that that higher power is (say) "the good of Communism," instead of God.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

loverOfTruth;2854086]If you don't know the difference between 'God Knowing it' and 'God Causing it' - I don't know what to tell you.

Im just trying to understand what you are telling me.

Ok, so he did not know if it was gonna get corrupt or not, so he caused it to be corrupt?

And how do you know the Koran is not corrupt now?

It's not only about being different from other books. It transcends anything human like and what else ? That's what we have been discussing throughout the thread. Please go back and read it all. I can't repeat myself anymore.

you haven't been repeating anything, you just haven't clearly answered any of my questions.

How does the Koran transcend any human like things if it has signs of history, geography and science, all being human concepts?

If so then The Bhagvad Gita transcends anything human like also.

I already stated it - read it again ("And as part of the 'Signs', it contains information about Science, History"). Some of the signs are historical while others of various other kinds as I have stated, for example, Scientific and so many more categories. So you can't call it a History book.

Ok, ill make it simple for everyone, please answer in a yes or no only, no big posts please.

Does the Koran contain any scientific Facts?
Does it contain any history?
Does it contain any Geography?
Does it contain any biography?
Did Allah Know that his knowledge will be corrupted?
Did Allah cause this corruption?
Did Allah guard his knowledge it in the vary beginnings?
Is Allah Arrogant in praising his own Book?

 

[Rational_Mind]

I have never seen an atheistic value system include any concept of "honour." It is obviously impossible to honour-kill without one.

More importantly, God's commandments are the major justification behind discrimination, bigotry, various forms of hate crime, and lots of other unpleasant acts that I'd rather not happen. Although there are aesthetic examples, that 1) doesn't excuse the religious ones, 2) they're formed around the same sort of structure of sacrificing things because a "higher power" commands it. The only difference is that that higher power is (say) "the good of Communism," instead of God.

I have felt that even non-Muslims that I have discussed honour killings with were already aware it has nothing to do with religion. I did not even mean to hint at all that it appears in Atheistic value system. And I would not say that it not appearing there does not make that value system any better.

Moreover, it would appear that your statements seem to hint that bad conduct is justified for a higher power. Does that not show that it is an excuse? Do people really kill their family members because they believe God instructs told them to? Do people really kill innocent human beings because they believe God told them to do so? Because there are many minor and easier things that they do not follow as per their religion even though they are aware of them. So really, do they do it because they believe it to be religious? Or maybe they have some sort of cultural pressure or enjoyment in exercising some cruelty in the name of something else. For example, the blasphemy law in Pakistan has constantly been shown to be consistently if not always used to settle other disputes. Such as over land or money. And they are most often used against Muslims themselves. Are they truly doing it because they feel God instructed them so or they are taking revenge for something else? Will removing Religion change these people or will they find some other excuse? Also what will happen with the people who do not do such conduct because of their strong faith in Religion? There are Muslims in Pakistan that throw Quran in the trash and then blame it on other Ahmadi Muslims to have them punished under the blasphemy law. So really what inspired them, religion? Because they just threw it in the trash to apply a law that apparently belongs in it. The violent protests over Quran burning in Afghanistan are done despite Quran clearly instructing that God does not like disorder, were they doing it out of love of the book that they claim to follow, or they just want to have some "fun"?

Do any established states come to your mind that were in an era of peace and were based on Atheistic value system? Do any established states come to your mind that were in an era of peace that were based on a God obeying value system?

(These questions are in no way to attack your views as they may not even be your views, just to provoke thought. Please do not mind.)

 

[McBell]

One thing that Lover of Truth expressed without fully going into detail about was that no man can recreate the Qu'ran. For him, and any of those who share the belief, I wish to know by what standards you base this on. If someone were to match it, how would it be judged? Otherwise, if you just deny that anything can, that is a presupposition and is not an argument by any standards.

Anyone mind sharing?

It is based on them simply not accepting anything as better.
period.

It is the same as the Hovind Challenge.
It sounds like an actual honest challenge, but you look at it you realize it is nothing more than a gimmick.

Link

 

[loverOfTruth]

One thing that Lover of Truth expressed without fully going into detail about was that no man can recreate the Qu'ran. For him, and any of those who share the belief, I wish to know by what standards you base this on. If someone were to match it, how would it be judged? Otherwise, if you just deny that anything can, that is a presupposition and is not an argument by any standards.

Anyone mind sharing?

The issue being language specific, I admit that this is the hardest one to answer even though it is a very valid question. So even though only an arab can fully appreciate the beauty and the high standards of the Qur'an, non-arabic speakers can get a glimpse of it; thanks to some work done by some wonderful individuals. However, I would not put the question as in 'by what standard the Qur'an can be judged to compare a match'? But rather 'what makes the standard of the Qur'an so high that nothing can match it '? (Forgive me for trying to be a perfectionist)

"The Qur'an can only be described as a unique expression of the Arabic language. This is due to its unique literary form, linguistic genre, matchless eloquence and its unparalleled frequency of rhetorical features. The uniqueness of the Qur'ans language forms the backdrop to the doctrine of I’jaz al-Quran, the inimitability of the Qur’an, which lies at the heart of the Qur’an’s claim to being of divine origin."[Taken from : http://www.theinimitablequran.com/] Basically, it is about the perfection in choosing the words, context, tense, eloquence, style etc. and so many other linguistic features such as transitioning from poetry to prose and vice versa. And all those while maintaining the beautiful rhyme/rythm. You will know what I am talking about when you see the examples.

You should probably start by watching the parts 4-6 of Nouman Ali Khan's lecture on the Brilliance of the Book for some quick examples. By all means watch part 1 - 3 if you have time and interested in some background on Arabic language and literature. Search for the following on YouTube :
Brilliance Of The Book - Nouman Ali Khan - Part 1 of 6
(replace the 1 with whichever part you want to watch)

If you didn't understand the video and would rather read or for more examples, please visit the following : http://www.theinimitablequran.com/accuracyadequacy.pdf

And for those who are more serious about finding out more details and perfections of the language of the Qur'an, please visit : :: The Inimitable Qur'an ::
(But I warn you - it will get real heavy.)

I would add one more point in support of the claim of literary miracle of the Qur'an. Please note that the Qur'an was not revealed as one book in one single act of revelation. It was revealed in stages over a period of 23 years (one or more verses at a time) to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). Sometimes they were revealed based on circumstances, for example, occasionally when non-believers would question Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) about something, a revelation came as a response. And finally, once all the revelation of 6000+ verses were complete, the complete order of the book was given (which was different from the chronological order of revelation). Why should all that matter ? Let's look at the following example.

The very first revelation that Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) received is in the first few verses from Sura(chapter) al-'alaq (96:1-5) which reads as follows (note : Surah #96 after the reordering) ...
"Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created-
Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,-
He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-
Taught man that which he knew not."

The remainder of Sura 96, which has total 19 verses (after reordering), was revealed on some later occasion(other verses were revealed in between). Now let's read verses 6-8 of the Surah 96:
"Nay, but man doth transgress all bounds,
In that he looketh upon himself as self-sufficient.
Verily, to thy Lord is the return (of all)."

Now read the above verses (1-8) all together. Do you see the continuity, the context and so on ? This is just one example. Imagine all the possible combinations when you try to reorder 6000+ verses. Do you really think it is humanly possible to come up with 6000+ verses (situational and not) chronologically over '23 years' and 'thereafter' assign the order of 'all those 6000+ verses' and yet maintain all the perfect literary characteristics(the rythm, ryhme and many more etc.) and yet again without any mistakes or contradictions in the book. I think humans will have hard time re-arranging few hundred verses just to avoid mistakes and maintain the continuity and context let alone the perfectness of all the other features. Plus, even those individual revelations (verses) before re-ordering were as miraculous and perfect as the entire book after the re-ordering. Go figure - why it transcends anything human like.

Hope this answers your questions. Peace.

 

[fishy]

Edit for clarification:-Is this information correct? In relation to Sayyidna Zayd bin Thabit?

1. First he verified the verse with his own memory.
2. Sayyidna Umar, Radi-Allahu anhu, who was a Hafiz, was also in charge of the project and he verified it, too.
3. Then, before the verse could be accepted, the two reliable witnesses had to testify that it was written in the presence of Prophet Muhammad Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam.
4. After that, written verses were collated with the collections of different Companions.

The Compilation of the Qur'an

 

[Daviso452]

The issue being language specific, I admit that this is the hardest one to answer even though it is a very valid question. So even though only an arab can fully appreciate the beauty and the high standards of the Qur'an, non-arabic speakers can get a glimpse of it; thanks to some work done by some wonderful individuals. However, I would not put the question as in 'by what standard the Qur'an can be judged to compare a match'? But rather 'what makes the standard of the Qur'an so high that nothing can match it '? (Forgive me for trying to be a perfectionist)

"The Qur'an can only be described as a unique expression of the Arabic language. This is due to its unique literary form, linguistic genre, matchless eloquence and its unparalleled frequency of rhetorical features. The uniqueness of the Qur'ans language forms the backdrop to the doctrine of I’jaz al-Quran, the inimitability of the Qur’an, which lies at the heart of the Qur’an’s claim to being of divine origin."[Taken from : http://www.theinimitablequran.com/] Basically, it is about the perfection in choosing the words, context, tense, eloquence, style etc. and so many other linguistic features such as transitioning from poetry to prose and vice versa. And all those while maintaining the beautiful rhyme/rythm. You will know what I am talking about when you see the examples.

You should probably start by watching the parts 4-6 of Nouman Ali Khan's lecture on the Brilliance of the Book for some quick examples. By all means watch part 1 - 3 if you have time and interested in some background on Arabic language and literature. Search for the following on YouTube :
Brilliance Of The Book - Nouman Ali Khan - Part 1 of 6
(replace the 1 with whichever part you want to watch)

If you didn't understand the video and would rather read or for more examples, please visit the following : http://www.theinimitablequran.com/accuracyadequacy.pdf

And for those who are more serious about finding out more details and perfections of the language of the Qur'an, please visit : :: The Inimitable Qur'an ::
(But I warn you - it will get real heavy.)

Hope this answers your questions. Peace.

Couldn't have made it simple? Darn

 

[fishy]

Lets recap.

You claim that "The message in the Qur'an has indeed been preserved from the time of the messenger till current time" and further, that this is evidence of your contention that this proves beyond doubt that the Qu'ran is the word of Allah, since Allah promised to preserve the Qu'ran for all time.

You further contend that this "unbroken chain" is attested to in a passage I quoted from a Hadith and from a quote from a tafsir you produced.
In particular Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201: and Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 9:129, (9:128 perhaps, since that is the surah referred to in my quote)
I haven't been able to determine the relationship between tafsir and hadith, sorry. My guess is that the Hadith I quoted was an historical record and that the tafsir you quoted was an explanation of that Hadith passage or others.

You further contend that I am being dishonest and producing information I have obtained from disreputable anti-islamic websites, even after I presented evidence of the International Islamic University Of Malaysia as the source for my quotes.

In my opinion, the information contained in the quotes supplied by each of us points to an attempt by people after the fact to present a picture of the unrelenting attempt to track down every scrap of the original Qu'ran, thus proving it being unchanged from the time of the prophet.

Unfortunately, as evidence it seriously lacks credibility because of the very obvious contradictions within each of the sources, between those two sources and other sources regarding the criteria necessary for inclusion in the "official" Qu'ran. Unfortunately the official Qua'ran, as far as I know, is the version of the Hafiz. That is the memorised version, traceable all the way back to the time of the prophet, generation and name by generation and name. Is this a valid obversation?

I need a response to this, the last question at least, before we can continue this discussion. Will you accept?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Couldn't have made it simple? Darn

I know - I really wish it was simple, even for myself . But unfortunately the subject matter makes it complex. Btw, I have edited the post to add some more points.

 

[Agnostic75]

I know - I really wish it was simple, even for myself. But unfortunately the subject matter makes it complex.

If a God wanted to communicate directly with humans, including through writings, I assume that he would make that simple, not complex.

 

[loverOfTruth]

If a God wanted to communicate directly with humans, including through writings, I assume that he would make that simple, not complex.

I think you misunderstood my point - I was not saying the Qur'an was complex (if you just read the translation). If you want to delve into the linguistic nature of the Qur'an in its original language - it is obvious that you have to invest some time and effort to do so. That's for any book - if you want to analyze/talk about the details of grammar, you have to know grammar really well. But you can read a book perfectly well, without being an expert in grammar (so to speak).

 

[Agnostic75]

I think you misunderstood my point - I was not saying the Qur'an was complex (if you just read the translation). If you want to delve into the linguistic nature of the Qur'an in its original language - it is obvious that you have to invest some time and effort to do so. That's for any book - if you want to analyze/talk about the details of grammar, you have to know grammar really well. But you can read a book perfectly well, without being an expert in grammar (so to speak).

Nevertheless, if God preferred that all theists be Muslims, he would show up tangibly, publically, and say so, and would enable everyone in the world to instantly be able to understand Arabic. Life is much too short, and time is much too precious, to presume that a loving God exists who wants to communicate directly with humans, but needlessly refuses to show up in person, thereby preventing lots of needless confusion.

Logically, if a God exists, some kind of deism is the best choice for a worldview.

Humans have existed for at least tens of thousands of years. During the majority of that time, writings did not exist. Five thousand years ago, what did God tell people about how he wanted them to lives their lives, and which people, all people, or just some people? Even today, some people who live in remote jungle regions have never heard of the Koran, and will not hear about it before they die. Obviously, word of mouth communication among humans is often a very inefficient method for people to learn about God.

 

[fishy]

Edit for clarification:-Is this information correct? In relation to Sayyidna Zayd bin Thabit?

1. First he verified the verse with his own memory.
2. Sayyidna Umar, Radi-Allahu anhu, who was a Hafiz, was also in charge of the project and he verified it, too.
3. Then, before the verse could be accepted, the two reliable witnesses had to testify that it was written in the presence of Prophet Muhammad Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam.
4. After that, written verses were collated with the collections of different Companions.

The Compilation of the Qur'an

Could you please answer this?

 

[fishy]

Lets recap.

You claim that "The message in the Qur'an has indeed been preserved from the time of the messenger till current time" and further, that this is evidence of your contention that this proves beyond doubt that the Qu'ran is the word of Allah, since Allah promised to preserve the Qu'ran for all time.

You further contend that this "unbroken chain" is attested to in a passage I quoted from a Hadith and from a quote from a tafsir you produced.
In particular Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201: and Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 9:129, (9:128 perhaps, since that is the surah referred to in my quote)
I haven't been able to determine the relationship between tafsir and hadith, sorry. My guess is that the Hadith I quoted was an historical record and that the tafsir you quoted was an explanation of that Hadith passage or others.

You further contend that I am being dishonest and producing information I have obtained from disreputable anti-islamic websites, even after I presented evidence of the International Islamic University Of Malaysia as the source for my quotes.

In my opinion, the information contained in the quotes supplied by each of us points to an attempt by people after the fact to present a picture of the unrelenting attempt to track down every scrap of the original Qu'ran, thus proving it being unchanged from the time of the prophet.

Unfortunately, as evidence it seriously lacks credibility because of the very obvious contradictions within each of the sources, between those two sources and other sources regarding the criteria necessary for inclusion in the "official" Qu'ran. Unfortunately the official Qua'ran, as far as I know, is the version of the Hafiz. That is the memorised version, traceable all the way back to the time of the prophet, generation and name by generation and name. Is this a valid obversation?

I need a response to this, the last question at least, before we can continue this discussion. Will you accept?

Could you please respond to this?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Ok, so he did not know if it was gonna get corrupt or not, so he caused it to be corrupt?

And how do you know the Koran is not corrupt now?

How does the Koran transcend any human like things if it has signs of history, geography and science, all being human concepts?

If so then The Bhagvad Gita transcends anything human like also.


Ok, ill make it simple for everyone, please answer in a yes or no only, no big posts please.

Does the Koran contain any scientific Facts?
Does it contain any history?
Does it contain any Geography?
Does it contain any biography?
Did Allah Know that his knowledge will be corrupted?
Did Allah cause this corruption?
Did Allah guard his knowledge it in the vary beginnings?
Is Allah Arrogant in praising his own Book?

loveroftruth, can i get some clarifications on my previous questions.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to loverOfTruth:

Even one of your own sources said that his own writings about the Koran and embryos does not necessarily indicate divine inspiration.

If Kim Ung-Yong was a Muslim, would you use him as evidence that God gave him his amazing abilities? You can read about him in an article at Kim Ung-yong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I have never read about any child prodigy that had the abilities that Kim Uny-Yong had. He is possibly unique among all child prodigies who have ever lived. Where did Archimedes get his amazing scientific knowledge from. Probably no one in the world at that time knew even close to as much as he knew about science.

Why did you only use sources about embryos that accept an Abrahamic religion?

If the Koran says or implies that homosexuals should be imprisoned, or up put to death, which happens in Islamic republics, that is immoral, and barbaric. No loving God would condone such a thing.

 

[Pink Top Hat]

There is no such thing as proof (of anything) outside of pure logic, mathematics, and alcohol. All you have is evidence. And most things have some evidence for them, but not enough evidence for them.

What I find funny is athiests spending years on Religious Forums trying to convince people not to believe in God . Makes no sense at all wasting all that time and effort.
It's like someone joining a tea drinkers forum who only drinks coffee and never drinks tea spending days weeks and years trying to convince the tea drinkers to drink coffee

 

[Looncall]

What I find funny is athiests spending years on Religious Forums trying to convince people not to believe in God . Makes no sense at all wasting all that time and effort.
It's like someone joining a tea drinkers forum who only drinks coffee and never drinks tea spending days weeks and years trying to convince the tea drinkers to drink coffee

This is disingenuous.

What people believe affects what they do. If believers kept their notions strictly to themselves, no-one would care. In fact, they do not, and we get things like holy wars, stifling of beneficial medical research, and the mental distress that arises from the morbid guilt that religions impose.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Sorry Agnostic75, I haven't forgotten about you - just not getting time to give a long reply.

Message to loverOfTruth:

Even one of your own sources said that his own writings about the Koran and embryos does not necessarily indicate divine inspiration.

Why did you only use sources about embryos that accept an Abrahamic religion?

I am sure no regular scientist wants to be in the middle of a global controversy. So I wouldn't be surprised if one of the sources change his opinion to get away from the controversy. And notice he doesn't reject it or say the statements are false - all he says is ' not necessarily indicate divine inspiration'.

I haven't used only abrahamic sources. Go back and check the link I provided with quotes from a variety of Scientists. They come from all sorts of backgrounds including Japan, India, Thailand etc. You can't claim that they are all from Abrahamic Faith. And even then I have explained that being from Abrahamic Faith in no way makes them positively biased towards the Qur'an.
And listen to the debate that I am linking at the bottom of the post, he even gives sources from 2010/2011.

If Kim Ung-Yong was a Muslim, would you use him as evidence that God gave him his amazing abilities? You can read about him in an article at Kim Ung-yong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I have never read about any child prodigy that had the abilities that Kim Uny-Yong had. He is possibly unique among all child prodigies who have ever lived. Where did Archimedes get his amazing scientific knowledge from. Probably no one in the world at that time knew even close to as much as he knew about science.

Why limit it to Kim Ung-Yong and Archimedes ? What about Einstein, Newton and so many more great discoverers/inventors in the world ? We believe that God created every single human being - muslim or not. And God gave brains to everyone - to some little, to some a little more and yet to some extra ordinarily more - and some of us uses it and accomplishes the unthinkable and some don't. So even if he is 'not' a muslim, I would say that God gave him his abilities.

If the Koran says or implies that homosexuals should be imprisoned, or up put to death, which happens in Islamic republics, that is immoral, and barbaric. No loving God would condone such a thing.

Again, homosexuality is a sin just like adultery is. And no where in the Qur'an it says that all homosexuals should be put to death. As I have mentioned before, what the Islamic countries do may or may not represent true Islam. However, punishment for adultery is stoning to death just like in the mosaic law but with strict conditions attached (and that is what most people miss). Do you know the conditions ? You need 4 upright witnesses before the punishment will be enforced. Now, how many people do you think commit adultery in front of 4 people(even in the most liberal of societies) ? Thus, the point is to stop the influencing/encouragement of the increase in moral decay in the society, when people are so arrogant and corrupt as to do such things in public. "The idea is not to enforce the punishment and make people suffer; rather the objective is to prevent harm, corruption and immorality in the society. Thus, legal punishments act as deterrents more than actually get people punished." You can read more details here.
The legal penalty for fornication


Hope this answers most of your questions. But you can watch this debate(as you have asked for once) for more:
[youtube]lu8rdspMFJ8[/youtube]
Embryology in the Quran [God: Fairytale or Truth? - Debate: Dr Lars Gule vs. Hamza Tzortzis] - YouTube

And by the way, I have seen a lot of people use terms like 'confirmation bias' and 'forer effect' without actually dealing with individual cases/evidences. I think that is just taking the 'easy way out' without having an educated debate with supportive arguments. I can also claim that those people suffer from 'belief bias'. No, it has nothing to do with faith/religion - it is a cognitive bias. "The subjects, however, exhibited belief bias when they rejected valid arguments with unbelievable conclusions, and endorsed invalid arguments with believable conclusions. It seems that instead of following directions and assessing logical validity, the subjects based their assessments on personal beliefs." [From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_bias]

Thanks and Peace.