List Anything Islam Has Right?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Oh, please. If you want to know what it really feels like to not be safe in America, drive a car with a Trump bumper sticker on it in one of the “tolerant” leftist strongholds like San Francisco or Portland.

Car With Trump MAGA Bumper Sticker Spray Painted, Tires Slashed In SF

Police: Trump bumper sticker triggered vandalism

Or try protesting a neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville; watch out for cars. Better yet, why don't you try walking past a neo-Nazi rally with your yarmulka on if you have one? Neo-Nazis should never be allowed to feel safe.

 

[Thinking Homer]

You're not really going to get anywhere comparing different subjective faith based systems and demanding an objective answer about which one is "right". The one that is "right" is the one the individual has faith in.

Is the truth something so subjective? So if I believe that the earth is flat, and you believe that the earth is round, we are both right according to our beliefs? Truth by definition is exclusive, which can be attained through logic and reason, even when we are dealing with things like spirituality and faith. Your religion/faith should be coherent with the realities of this world, otherwise it is a false religion. Science has been a big driver regarding this, and every single religion has gone under great scrutiny with regards to what they teach about the origins and nature of the world, how we came into being, and so forth.

Your assumption is that there is no way to test whether a religion is true or not. The epistemology of religion and science is different, but it does exist. If a supposed prophet claims that he has received a divine revelation, and makes a prophecy that is objectively testifiable, would that not be such a method? If that prophecy happens to come true in the future, we can either attribute it to chance, or give him the benefit of doubt that he indeed received a revelation from the Divine. However if the prophecy does not come true, we can scrap him as being a false prophet, and the religion he teaches as being false.

Take Christianity for example. Taking into account that Jesus was a real person (to which many ancient historians agree), the Gospels make mention of prophecies written centuries before in the Hebrew Bible, which was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The fact that Jews do not believe in Jesus, allows the Tanakh to be a valuable, unbiased source of prophetic text, which supports the divine nature of Jesus as a true prophet.

The one fact that always intrigued me as a Christian was how the Bible was written over 1400 years, by 40 different authors, in different historical contexts, and yet they carried the same message of a coming Messiah (From Genesis through to Revelation). For me, that is enough evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired by God, and that my faith is true.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Is the truth something so subjective? So if I believe that the earth is flat, and you believe that the earth is round, we are both right according to our faiths? Truth by definition is exclusive, and something that can be attained through logic and reason, even when we are dealing with things like spirituality and faith. Your religion/faith should be coherent with the realities of this world, otherwise it is a false religion. Science has been a big driver regarding this, and every single religion has gone under great scrutiny with regards to what they teach about the origins and nature of the world, how we came into being, and so forth.

Your assumption is that there is no way to test whether a religion is true or not. The epistemology of religion and science is different, but it does exist. If a supposed prophet claims that he has received a divine revelation, and makes a prophecy that is objectively testifiable, would that not be such a method? If that prophecy happens to come true in the future, we can either attribute it to chance, or give him the benefit of doubt that he indeed received a revelation from the Divine. However if the prophecy does not come true, we can scrap him as being a false prophet, and the religion he teaches as being fake.

Take Christianity for example. Taking into account that Jesus was a real person (to which many ancient historians agree), the Gospels make mention of prophecies written centuries before in the Hebrew Bible, which was fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The fact that Jews do not believe in Jesus, allows the Tanakh to be a valuable, unbiased source of prophetic text, which supports the divine nature of Jesus as a true prophet.

The one fact that always intrigued me as a Christian was how the Bible was written over 1400 years, by 40 different authors, in different historical contexts, and yet they carried the same message of a coming Messiah (From Genesis through to Revelation). For me, that is enough evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired by God, and that my faith is true.

I was specifically (and, I think, clearly) talking about faith based, i.e. inherently subjective, belief systems. You can believe what you like, that your faith is "true" but from an OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE pov, it's no more or less true than anyone else's.
There is objective evidence about whether the world is flat or not. There is no objective evidence about which religion or denomination is right.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I suppose religion that centers around a good cup of coffee while having discourses can't be all bad.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Comparatively to other religions like Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc, the Quran is very basic in terms of if we push people in one direction, they will go that way; the reality works 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction', so it is very naive in comparison.

Tho some of the Sufi writers then have more metaphysical concepts from the eastern Dharmic understandings, this didn't start within the Quran alone.

I accept the Quran as a testimony, and have read it multiple times... I know the One God Most High, which is defined as Allah in the Quran, and I'm a loyal servant.

The idea you don't know Christianity (John, Paul, and Simon) is purposely made up, and fits prophecy in the Tanakh; shows that your comprehension isn't at the level of the Tanakh, which proves the point.

Assuming I'm assuming isn't wise...

Plus it even states the reason for asking the thread, is to see after 'years of study' if there is anything missed.

Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, Dharma, Jainism, Sikhism, etc.

In my opinion.

I won't do this.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Islaam is correct in valuing and teaching charity, solidarity and fraternity. I have reservations about the tribalistic form that they take.

Same for family values, with stronger reservations.

In my opinion, much/most of what is not correct in Islam is tribalism and has no Quranic support at all. I think that the best Muslims, the most knowledgeable, were in Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, though they have been "wagging the dog" for years.

I find the OP post so angering that I'll have to stay out of it for a while.

 

[Thinking Homer]

I was specifically (and, I think, clearly) talking about faith based, i.e. inherently subjective, belief systems. You can believe what you like, that your faith is "true" but from an OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE pov, it's no more or less true than anyone else's.
There is objective evidence about whether the world is flat or not. There is no objective evidence about which religion or denomination is right.

I feel like you have missed my point completely. There are certain 'truths' written in religious texts that can be objectively verifiable by comparing them with what we observe in the world. In Christianity that would be the resurrection, which was objectively verifiable by eye witnesses at the time [1 Corinthians 15:3-8](now we rely more on archaeological and historical evidence). Most religious texts have something written in them with regards to cosmology, and with the technology we have today, we can verify whether these claims are true or not. Take Islam for example, this is what Muhammad said about the Earth and the universe in the 6/7th century:

Quran's Geocentric Universe and Flat Earth – Abdullah Sameer

There are 7 Earths (Surah 65:12, Sahih Bukhari / Volume-3 / Book-43 / Hadith-634)
The Earth is spread out like a flat carpet (Surah 20:53, 71:19)
(These Earths are stacked on top of each other)
The universe is divided into 7 layers (heavens) that lie above the sky (Surah 71:15). The stars (lamps/lanterns) lie in the lower heaven (Surah 67:5) and the moon lies on the same plane (Surah 71:16). [This would make the stars as close to the Earth as the moon.]
The sky is held up by invisible pillars (Surah 13:2), and can collapse and fall down on someone (Surah 34:9).

Of course the Bible is not free from such criticisms, and one of the major debates is the 6 day creation story, and whether it is to be taken literally or figuratively (Old Earth vs Young Earth debate among Christian scholars). The difference here is that the Genesis story leaves much for abstract interpretations, whereas the claims in the Quran are very specific.

 

[YmirGF]

What proof? The only proof provided is "Don't you see Sun and Moon in the sky".

Mohammad believed that one day the sun would rise in West after Allah refuses it the permission to rise in the East (or so he said). Did he know that the two orbits are some 150 million kms. apart? And the splitting of Moon!
The Qur'an and Modern Science: Does the Sun orbit the Earth According to the Qur'an?

For what it is worth @Aupmanyav the link provided is horrific. I'd find a better rebuttal myself.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I feel like you have missed my point completely. There are certain 'truths' written in religious texts that can be objectively verifiable by comparing them with what we observe in the world (hence . In Christianity that would be the resurrection, which was objectively verifiable by eye witnesses at the time [1 Corinthians 15:3-8](now we rely more on archaeological and historical evidence). Most religious texts have something written in them with regards to cosmology, and with the technology we have today, we can verify whether these claims are true or not. Take Islam for example, this is what Muhammad said about the Earth and the universe in the 6/7th century:

Quran's Geocentric Universe and Flat Earth – Abdullah Sameer

There are 7 Earths (Surah 65:12, Sahih Bukhari / Volume-3 / Book-43 / Hadith-634)
The Earth is spread out like a flat carpet (Surah 20:53, 71:19)
(These Earths are stacked on top of each other)
The universe is divided into 7 layers (heavens) that lie above the sky (Surah 71:15). The stars (lamps/lanterns) lie in the lower heaven (Surah 67:5) and the moon lies on the same plane (Surah 71:16). [This would make the stars as close to the Earth as the moon.]
The sky is held up by invisible pillars (Surah 13:2), and can collapse and fall down on someone (Surah 34:9).

Of course the Bible is not free from such criticisms, and one of the major debates is the 6 day creation story, and whether it is to be taken literally or figuratively (Old Earth vs Young Earth debate among Christian scholars). The difference here is that the Genesis story leaves much for abstract interpretations, whereas the claims in the Quran are very specific.

You're incorrect. Christianity is no more "objectively verifiable" than any other religion.

 

[Thinking Homer]

You're incorrect. Christianity is no more "objectively verifiable" than any other religion.

Well I guess for you religion is just a blind leap in the dark then. Im sure the atheists must be ecstatic...

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well I guess for you religion is just a blind leap in the dark then. Im sure the atheists must be ecstatic...

As is yours, if you wish to put it like that. That's why faith it's a faith, not a science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For what it is worth @Aupmanyav the link provided is horrific. I'd find a better rebuttal myself.

How come, YmirGF, not that I am too much interested in rebutting Islam.

 

[YmirGF]

How come, YmirGF, not that I am too much interested in rebutting Islam.

You didn't actually read it, did you. It's pathetic. (To be kind.)

 

[Ellen Brown]

You didn't actually read it, did you. It's pathetic. (To be kind.)

I don't think that Islam is any more "rebut able" than any other belief.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What proof? The only proof provided is "Don't you see Sun and Moon in the sky". And the splitting of Moon!

Mohammad believed that one day the sun would rise in West after Allah refuses it the permission to rise in the East (or so he said). Did he know that the two orbits are some 150 million kms. apart?

As I said I am not too much interested in rebutting Islam, though sometimes I indulge in it. Islam is what it is. Only that the above was quite funny. So I quoted it. And "Seeing sun and moon in the sky" does not in any way prove existence of God. Splitting of moon is another thing that may have impressed the Arabs but it does not impress me.

You have read the Qur'an? Do you believe that Allah SWT is the one God?

Yes. For your second question - Has anyone given a proof of that (other than what Mohammad proclaimed)?

.. talks about UFOs well, ..

Talks about Jinnat and many other things. Talks about how Mohammad was afflicted by black magic and did not know whether he had sex or not for six months.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't think that Islam is any more "rebut able" than any other belief.

Our friend @Aupmanyav posted a link to a really bad "rebuttal" to a couple of specific Islam claims. Hence, I asked him if he'd actually read it. It's among the worst of its kind that I've ever come across. It was more refuting the Qur'an in light of current scientific understanding and that is fair, if it is done well.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you know where the qualities ascribed to Allah are not equal to Brahman; other than the plagiarized Hebraic ideas?

You know, Brahman for me is not a God. It is the substrate (of the universe and all things in it).

It was more refuting the Qur'an in light of current scientific understanding and that is fair, if it is done well.

What is wrong with scientific understanding? Was Allah unaware of that? Why did Allah or his Prophet say such funny things?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Our friend @Aupmanyav posted a link to a really bad "rebuttal" to a couple of specific Islam claims. Hence, I asked him if he'd actually read it. It's among the worst of its kind that I've ever come across. It was more refuting the Qur'an in light of current scientific understanding and that is fair, if it is done well.

I am uncomfortable trying to be a debater. My true nature is that I'm a sub, but certain past events now prevent me from functioning in that role.

 

[Thinking Homer]

As is yours, if you wish to put it like that. That's why faith it's a faith, not a science.

This is a quote by Greg Koukl: "So let's set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite of faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality." He goes on to say that there is such a thing as irrational faith. For example if you are having an operation, you would put faith in your doctor that he would do a good job. That would be a rational faith. However if your friend, who did not even study Medicine, decided to operate on you and you believed that they would do a good job, that would be an irrational faith.

Like I mentioned before in my previous post, religious texts are not scientific textbooks so you cannot apply the scientific method to disprove/prove its claims. However (like I mentioned in my previous post) there are ways of confirming certain aspects of the text as science continues to advance (The field of study is called religious epistemology). Yes you need faith to believe in your religion, I agree with that completely. But if your religion describes a worldview which is incoherent and inconsistent with what you see around you, and you believe in such a religion, that would be an irrational faith. As such, believing in your religion need not be a blind leap in the dark. Logic and reason can go a far way as to what is true and what is false.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

This is a quote by Greg Koukl: "So let's set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite of faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality." He goes on to say that there is such a thing as irrational faith. For example if you are having an operation, you would put faith in your doctor that he would do a good job. That would be a rational faith. However if your friend, who did not even study Medicine, decided to operate on you and you believed that they would do a good job, that would be an irrational faith.

Like I mentioned before in my previous post, religious texts are not scientific textbooks so you cannot apply the scientific method to disprove/prove its claims. However (like I mentioned in my previous post) there are ways of confirming certain aspects of the text as science continues to advance (The field of study is called religious epistemology). Yes you need faith to believe in your religion, I agree with that completely. But if your religion describes a worldview which is incoherent and inconsistent with what you see around you, and you believe in such a religion, that would be an irrational faith. As such, believing in your religion need not be a blind leap in the dark. Logic and reason can go a far way as to what is true and what is false.

I didn't say faith was the opposite of reason. I said it's not objectively verifiable.