Searching for proof of God/Islam - Tell me why I'm wrong

[JustWondering]

If you have a point, you're not making your case very clearly. You're also supplementing your case with what looks like an attempt to be inflammatory, which isn't helpful at all.

I think I made my case crystal clear and you evaded answering my question. Why do think Allah's existence is more likely than that of Leprechauns, Zeus, bigfoot, Lord Zenu, or Ra?

Are you saying that belief in the possibility of God's existence, or that of other non-human entities, is necessary in order to accept evidence of non-human interventions?

No, I'm saying there is no evidence for non-human entities, therefore belief in any such entities is based solely on an unsupported assumption that they exist at all.

I believe there is a very real possibility that the world doesn't work the way our senses perceive it.

This belief is based on what exactly?

As a result, even though our senses don't perceive them, God or any supernatural/spiritual presence could possibly exist. If there is evidence of their existence, that evidence should be accepted.

What evidence do you have that these invisible entities exist?

 

[HonestJoe]

It seems that we've reached a roadblock. We need to clarify how we use the underlying historical sources before we can move forward.

There's already well established principles for assessing historical sources and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. From a historical point of view, which elements of Muhammed's life can be accepted as likely true, which elements are unclear and which elements are likely false will be relatively well established.

I don't think I am accepting them on face value - I'm just accepting that the major events described in them probably at least resemble what actually happened. For example, if the hadith report that Muhammed regularly prayed 5 times a day except under certain circumstances, that probably happened. Don't you agree?

Sure, but your thread is meant to be about the supernatural elements and that would require a whole different level of consideration.

The purpose of the first post was to establish that the Qur'an came from a non-human 'external' source. There is a further question about what that source was. Way too much to include in one thread.

I don't think you can legitimately split things in that manner. If you're arguing for some "external source", you have to be assuming at least some specific characteristics of that source. How else could you assess the claim's validity?

Getting a definitive answer is too much for a forum thread. Countless books and lifetimes of study from some of the greatest minds over the centuries have tried and failed to reach a definitive answer. I don't see you and I getting anywhere with one here.

Why would you say that? I've been very transparent - I've put forward some of my thoughts on Islam & want you to challenge those thoughts.

I've never known anyone put so much effort in to trying to prove a specific religion is true without them really wanting it to be true. You said yourself in your OP that you're already "beginning to settle on belief in God & specifically Islam". Now you're looking to rationalise those beliefs and on that, I think you're on a hiding to nothing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Qur’an, along with its effects on people, are beyond what can realistically be expected from the products of someone with mental illness.

Oh no, Mohammad was a sharp person. Otherwise one does not get to marry ten women at the age of 60. But the effect of Quran on many people is very much like an incurable mental illness.

 

[Tumah]

Hi Tumah,

I've tried to do some reading on Joseph Smith and Mormonism. Although I'm no expert, I know more now and can share some thoughts.

I'm guessing you aren't Mormon? Do you know much about the religion? It would be great if you could comment on my factual accuracy or point out ways in which I'm being biased in any way.

Let's assume that Joseph Smith was sane and that history has recorded what happened accurately. The question then centres around "Did Joseph Smith genuinely believe what he brought was from God?" This is the same question I asked about Muhammed in my first post, so I've structured the points under the same headings.

1. Financial & material benefits
   • Motivations:
     Immediately prior to prophethood, Muhammed was a reasonably well-off merchant, married to a prominent business-woman. He also had a reputation for 'trustworthiness' and had been given prominent intercessory roles in disputes. He then initiated his call to prophethood, which put his comfortable life in jeopardy & necessitated emigration from his homeland. He is also reported to have undergone persecution & hardship in these early days.
     
     Joseph Smith, prior to prophethood, led a life of relative hardship. In early life, his family experienced several instances of bad luck which resulted in financial difficulty. For a long while, Joseph entered the divination trade and claimed to determine where underground treasures were located. Joseph himself admitted that this was not very profitable. After Joseph's revelations being translated to English, Joseph began to develop a following & influence. It wasn't all smooth sailing, but Joseph was materially better off after becoming a prophet than he was before.
     
     
   • Charitable behaviour:
     Although LDS teaches charity to the poor & needy, I couldn't find any stories of J. Smith being kind and/or charitable to a poor/needy person. J. Smith regarded charity as a shared love of God, and this included things like forgiveness for sins, overlooking faults, etc. It's not clear that he regarded charity to the poor as essential.
     
     In comparison, there are many reports & stories of Mohammed being charitable towards the poor & needy. He is reported to have not lived a luxurious life as a result of the large sums of wealth given away over his lifetime.
2. Genuine belief in religion
   • Self-inflicted hardship from religion:
     During prophethood, Muhammed is reported to have placed numerous obligations on himself which would have been difficult to endure on a regular daily basis without genuine belief. For example, he spent hours praying every day at defined times, including for one third of every night at a public mosque. Hadith report he would pray till his feet were swollen. He also subjected himself to the 30-day Ramadan fast, and many other fasts throughout the year which were not obligatory on all Muslims.
     
     Joseph's religion had far fewer obligations and was predominantly about belief. Prayer was an ad-hoc and short exercise. I couldn't find any reports of Joseph subjecting himself to any form of strenuous daily religious activity. He did initiate the building of temples, but I'm unsure how involved he was personally. If anything, Mormonism brought with it a relaxing of Christian rules & obligations (e.g. polygamy)
     
     
   • Public/private belief mismatch:
     At times, there was a mismatch between Mormon publicly espoused beliefs & privately practiced beliefs (e.g. polygamy, plurality of Gods). If these things were part of the Mormon religion, why did Joseph Smith keep them secret? Why did the Mormons not accept that polygamous relationships are part of their religion until long after J. Smith's death?

I look forward to your thoughts & comments - would be immensely helpful.

You are correct, I'm not a Mormon.
First of all, I think you took my comment to literally. I didn't intend to single out Joseph Smith specifically, but to give an example of another charismatic leader who in posterity seems to have been known to be a good, honest guy by the people around him. You can choose any nice charismatic leader really. The Bab, Ayya Vaikundar, Guru Nanak, etc. Very few of them get off the ground while being known for being dishonest.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Early_Smith_family_history/No_positive_witnesses
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Character/Was_he_a_disreputable_person
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Personality_and_temperament

Everything else you discuss here besides for that is moot, really. The foundation of your argument is whether Muhammad was trustworthy. If he wasn't, then no amount of self-inflicted pain is going to help him. And self inflicted suffering is not necessarily a greater indication of trustworthiness so long as asceticism is not a primary belief. Otherwise I think every member of the Heaven's Gate cult beats Muhammad hands down. All it indicates is that either the person truly strongly believes in what he's doing, or that he wants to really convince others that he does.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh no, Mohammad was a sharp person. Otherwise one does not get to marry ten women at the age of 60. But the effect of Quran on many people is very much like an incurable mental illness.

To those who know, Muhammad was a sinless and perfect Person exactly like Jesus or Krishna or any of the other great Teachers. And the Quran brings joy and peace to the soul and spirit and heart to those who are pure in heart.

As for Muhammad's own marriages, He was a celibate until twenty- five, had lived in strict monogamy until He was past fifty; He then married, in some cases to provide for them, a number of His follower's widows, for the male Muslims were being killed in battle; in other cases, His marriages were political, establishing alliances with other tribes; He had also two Jewish wives and one Christian, thus establishing inter- Faith marriages.

 

[Aupmanyav]

He had also two Jewish wives and one Christian, thus establishing inter-Faith marriages.

As far as I know, Islam does not recognize inter-faith marriages. The spouse from other religion must accept Islam before the marriage.

One thing always surprises me. Safiyyah bint Huyayy was married. Both her father and husband were killed in the battle of Khyber. How come Mohammad did not wait for the period of 'iddat' and consumated the marriage with Safiyyah on the third day after the war? What was the hurry? Did Allah give him special permission as He usually did in such cases? I am sure, you can explain it to me.

 

[loverofhumanity]

As far as I know, Islam does not recognize inter-faith marriages. The spouse from other religion must accept Islam before the marriage.

One thing always surprises me. Safiyyah bint Huyayy was married. Both her father and husband were killed in the battle of Khyber. How come Mohammad did not wait for the period of 'iddat' and consumated the marriage with Safiyyah on the third day after the war? What was the hurry? Did Allah give him special permission as He usually did in such cases? I am sure, you can explain it to me.

All we know is Muhammad recognised inter faith marriage and the Quran says He was an example so Muslims should be following that example. Muhammad endorses it by His marriages to Jews and Christians.

The Quran is the only authority which both Sunnis and Shiahs fully accept.

In the Quran it is stated that:

"Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much."

Quran (Surah Al-Ahzab, Verse 21)

All we know is that God has said that Muhammad's character was impeccable and we know that God is All Knowing so if His Words say that about Muhammad then other stories going around are either inaccurate, untrue or false.

With any religion if we want to know the truth we should go to the source and not rely on heresay, sayings and what scholars and others have said. Unfortunately many religions first go to their priests and scholars rather than the actual source.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You have side-stepped both my questions. 1. Intermarriage without change in belief. 2. The question of 'iddat' in case of Safiyyah bint Huyayy.

What all Mohammad did is not mentioned in Quran. So what is the source of the incidents in life of Mohammad? How does one follow Mohammad's character? Hadiths mention that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You have side-stepped both my questions. 1. Intermarriage without change in belief. 2. The question of 'iddat' in case of Safiyyah bint Huyayy.

What all Mohammad did is not mentioned in Quran. So what is the source of the incidents in life of Mohammad? How does one follow Mohammad's character? Hadiths mention that.

True, but as the Quran states clearly He is an example for all humanity we can't attach any truth to Hadiths stating the contrary or anything but attributing honour to Him.

Also, Baha'i sources about Muhammad follow exactly the line of the Quran that Muhammad was a perfect, sinless Prophet and in many Baha'i publications you can see the truth of Muhammad.

Also there are the Covenants of Muhammad made with the Christians which cover among other things, interfaith marriage with Christians. Some of these edicts are existing in Jerusalem and the Sinai Monastery.

This is from a book The Six Covenants of Muhammad with the Christians of His Time" and is available from Amazon. In total, with the Constitution of Medina, there are 7 Edicts. This is an excerpt..

This is the true spirit of Islam and what Muhammad really taught.

To the Christians of Najran

[The Covenant of the Prophet with the Christians of Najran] In the Name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful....

If a Muslim takes a Christian woman as a wife, he must respect her Christian beliefs. He will give her freedom to listen to her [clerical] superiors as she desires and to follow the path of her own religion. Whoever, despite this order, forces his wife to act contrary to her religion in any aspect whatsoever he will have broken the alliance of Allah and will enter into open rebellion against the pact of His Messenger and Allah will count him among the impostors.

To the Christians of the World

If a Christian woman is married to a Mohammedan and does not want to embrace Islam, she has liberty to worship at her own church according to her own religious belief, and her husband must not treat her unkindly on account of her religion.

 

[Arkannine21]

You are correct, I'm not a Mormon.
First of all, I think you took my comment to literally. I didn't intend to single out Joseph Smith specifically, but to give an example of another charismatic leader who in posterity seems to have been known to be a good, honest guy by the people around him. You can choose any nice charismatic leader really. The Bab, Ayya Vaikundar, Guru Nanak, etc. Very few of them get off the ground while being known for being dishonest.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Early_Smith_family_history/No_positive_witnesses
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Character/Was_he_a_disreputable_person
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Personality_and_temperament

Hi Tumah,

I see now that your point was more general. However, your question - 'why does this not apply to other individuals' - I don't think it's possible to answer it without looking at the specifics of each case. This is very time consuming, so I'm open to any other suggested options? Obviously, just taking someone's word for it doesn't work when assessing a prophet's reliability - if we did that, we would accept everyone's claims of prophethood.

In my earlier response, I tried my best to only use uncontroversial, universally agreed facts & events. The website you linked to, which is pro-Mormon, agrees with most of what I said:

1. Financial & material benefits
   • Motivations:
     [In reference to money digging] "Given how common and respectable such an activity was, it is hardly surprising that the poverty-stricken Smith family took a legitimate opportunity to improve their station in life. Despite all their toil, they lost their farm because they could not make the final mortgage payment." - http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Video/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD/The_"Occult"
   • Charitable behaviour:
     A search for 'charity' and 'donation' on the website gives no examples of Joseph engaging in charity to the poor/needy. The only references to charity are in the context of being forgiving of the sins of others, and love of Christ
2. Genuine belief in religion
   • Self-inflicted hardship from religion
     Hard to evaluate this on the website, but here's a page on Mormon doctrines relating to prayer. There is nothing here that would be particularly onerous on Joseph
     - http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_"plain_and_precious"_teachings_does_the_Book_of_Mormon_provide_regarding_prayer?
     
   • Public/private belief mismatch
     "Plural marriage was practiced in secret during Joseph's lifetime, and was not publicly announced until the Saints had moved to Utah."
     - http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy

Given that your source, which is pro-Mormon, validates all of the points I made - this is a good sign.

Everything else you discuss here besides for that is moot, really. The foundation of your argument is whether Muhammad was trustworthy. If he wasn't, then no amount of self-inflicted pain is going to help him. And self inflicted suffering is not necessarily a greater indication of trustworthiness so long as asceticism is not a primary belief. Otherwise I think every member of the Heaven's Gate cult beats Muhammad hands down. All it indicates is that either the person truly strongly believes in what he's doing, or that he wants to really convince others that he does.

First off, in terms of context, the point of this exercise is to evaluate how likely it is that Muhammed genuinely believed what he was saying. In other words, if he genuinely believed that he met Gabriel on a regular basis and received the Qur'an as a revelation.

Self-inflicted pain/suffering are not the right words. Muhammed seems to have had onerous daily religious duties that would be difficult to consistently adhere to. These duties were reportedly much greater than those placed on his compatriots (e.g. many hours of prayer, extra fasts, etc.). This makes it more likely that Muhammed genuinely believed in what he was saying, otherwise he could have made his life a lot easier by removing many of those onerous duties.

I'd never heard of the Heaven's Gate but, if they voluntarily killed themselves on account of their beliefs, I'd say that's a pretty strong indication they genuinely believed in what they were saying. However, without having read much about them, I'd suggest the possibility of them being absolutely crazy shouldn't be excluded.

I accept that there is still a chance that Muhammed made it up & made his life more difficult to convince those around him. But that's a lot of effort over 23 years, don't you think? Plus, wouldn't his followers actually be more inclined to join him if he was more accommodating? (e.g. no prayers, permitted alcohol, slavery encouraged)

As a result, my conclusion is that it's unreasonable to think Muhammed didn't genuinely believe what he preached. But very open to your challenge on that, either on the logic or the underlying facts?

 

[Arkannine21]

Thanks for the reply, HonestJoe.

Sure, but your thread is meant to be about the supernatural elements and that would require a whole different level of consideration.

To reiterate, the basic premise is that if Muhammed genuinely believed he received revelations from an angel on a regular basis, and he wasn't crazy, then most likely he really did receive the Qur'an from a non-human, external entity.

Getting a definitive answer is too much for a forum thread. Countless books and lifetimes of study from some of the greatest minds over the centuries have tried and failed to reach a definitive answer. I don't see you and I getting anywhere with one here.

So we just give up?

There's already well established principles for assessing historical sources and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. From a historical point of view, which elements of Muhammed's life can be accepted as likely true, which elements are unclear and which elements are likely false will be relatively well established.

This is a roadblock. If the response to every discussion point is "but the history isn't accurate" - then either highlight the specific facts you think are untrue, or tell me what sources you would prefer to use & why. That would help me to re-evaluate my thinking.

I've really appreciated your contributions when you've challenged my thinking, assumptions & facts. I'm really hopeful we can get back to that.

 

[Tumah]

Hi Tumah,

I see now that your point was more general. However, your question - 'why does this not apply to other individuals' - I don't think it's possible to answer it without looking at the specifics of each case. This is very time consuming, so I'm open to any other suggested options? Obviously, just taking someone's word for it doesn't work when assessing a prophet's reliability - if we did that, we would accept everyone's claims of prophethood.

In my earlier response, I tried my best to only use uncontroversial, universally agreed facts & events. The website you linked to, which is pro-Mormon, agrees with most of what I said:

1. Financial & material benefits
   • Motivations:
     [In reference to money digging] "Given how common and respectable such an activity was, it is hardly surprising that the poverty-stricken Smith family took a legitimate opportunity to improve their station in life. Despite all their toil, they lost their farm because they could not make the final mortgage payment." - http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Video/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD/The_"Occult"
   • Charitable behaviour:
     A search for 'charity' and 'donation' on the website gives no examples of Joseph engaging in charity to the poor/needy. The only references to charity are in the context of being forgiving of the sins of others, and love of Christ
2. Genuine belief in religion
   • Self-inflicted hardship from religion
     Hard to evaluate this on the website, but here's a page on Mormon doctrines relating to prayer. There is nothing here that would be particularly onerous on Joseph
     - http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_"plain_and_precious"_teachings_does_the_Book_of_Mormon_provide_regarding_prayer?
     
   • Public/private belief mismatch
     "Plural marriage was practiced in secret during Joseph's lifetime, and was not publicly announced until the Saints had moved to Utah."
     - http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy

Given that your source, which is pro-Mormon, validates all of the points I made - this is a good sign.

I understand that your intent here is to find motivations for the self proclaimed prophet to create a religion centered around himself. Other motivators you may want to consider are: desire for power and desire for positive change.

First off, in terms of context, the point of this exercise is to evaluate how likely it is that Muhammed genuinely believed what he was saying. In other words, if he genuinely believed that he met Gabriel on a regular basis and received the Qur'an as a revelation.

Self-inflicted pain/suffering are not the right words. Muhammed seems to have had onerous daily religious duties that would be difficult to consistently adhere to. These duties were reportedly much greater than those placed on his compatriots (e.g. many hours of prayer, extra fasts, etc.). This makes it more likely that Muhammed genuinely believed in what he was saying, otherwise he could have made his life a lot easier by removing many of those onerous duties.

I'd never heard of the Heaven's Gate but, if they voluntarily killed themselves on account of their beliefs, I'd say that's a pretty strong indication they genuinely believed in what they were saying. However, without having read much about them, I'd suggest the possibility of them being absolutely crazy shouldn't be excluded.

I accept that there is still a chance that Muhammed made it up & made his life more difficult to convince those around him. But that's a lot of effort over 23 years, don't you think? Plus, wouldn't his followers actually be more inclined to join him if he was more accommodating? (e.g. no prayers, permitted alcohol, slavery encouraged)

As a result, my conclusion is that it's unreasonable to think Muhammed didn't genuinely believe what he preached. But very open to your challenge on that, either on the logic or the underlying facts?

I don't think that's a lot of effort at all if he did so with the intent of accomplishing something. It shows dedication, sure. And it shows belief in his goal. Perhaps in a more general view- belief in his message.
There are other reasons that we can give to explain his actions. He may have enjoyed the power. He may have appreciated the unity of a thousands of people worshiping one G-d. He may have wanted to unify his people under the same model that he saw by Jews and Christians. He could have seen his actions as raising his people out of their less civilized (or other adjective) roots. If he could bring the "truth" of the greatness of the Ishmaelites to the world, how much glory would that bring to him and his people? He may have seen himself as a messianic figure in that regard, blessed with the talents to lead his people into a new age. All of that without a single angel.

The argument of "making the religion harder should make people less inclined to follow him" may seem like a good argument, but in practice it doesn't work. Judaism probably has the most laws of any religion and people still convert. Look at Rome before and after Christianity. People often assume that asceticism is synonymous with spirituality.

It would be easy to write off the people of Heaven's Gate as crazy, but they're not an isolated occurrence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_suicide

I am not necessarily saying that Muhammad didn't genuinely believe the basic ideas of what he preached. Just that its possible that he believed in the ideas because of the greatness of the ideas and not because of some supernatural occurrence, but fabricated supernatural occurrences to make them more palatable to his people for what he saw as their own good.

And that of course brings us to the bottom line. We have absolutely no way of figuring out what really went on in his mind. Not only because the mentality of a person from that region and that time period is so alien to us, but also because we can never really know what another is thinking- only what they tell us. So this type of theorizing is ultimately not going to lead to the truth except by accident.

 

[Arkannine21]

I understand that your intent here is to find motivations for the self proclaimed prophet to create a religion centered around himself. Other motivators you may want to consider are: desire for power and desire for positive change.

I tried to capture all of the potential motivators in my first post, copied here for easy reading. Do you feel this is comprehensive, or are there other potential motivators?

I don't think that's a lot of effort at all if he did so with the intent of accomplishing something. It shows dedication, sure. And it shows belief in his goal. Perhaps in a more general view- belief in his message.
There are other reasons that we can give to explain his actions. He may have enjoyed the power. He may have appreciated the unity of a thousands of people worshiping one G-d. He may have wanted to unify his people under the same model that he saw by Jews and Christians. He could have seen his actions as raising his people out of their less civilized (or other adjective) roots. If he could bring the "truth" of the greatness of the Ishmaelites to the world, how much glory would that bring to him and his people? He may have seen himself as a messianic figure in that regard, blessed with the talents to lead his people into a new age. All of that without a single angel.

I am not necessarily saying that Muhammad didn't genuinely believe the basic ideas of what he preached. Just that its possible that he believed in the ideas because of the greatness of the ideas and not because of some supernatural occurrence, but fabricated supernatural occurrences to make them more palatable to his people for what he saw as their own good.

And that of course brings us to the bottom line. We have absolutely no way of figuring out what really went on in his mind. Not only because the mentality of a person from that region and that time period is so alien to us, but also because we can never really know what another is thinking- only what they tell us. So this type of theorizing is ultimately not going to lead to the truth except by accident.

Agreed that we can't know for sure what went on in his mind. All we can do is try to evaluate what was most likely, based on what we know about his behaviour.

I've tried to do that in the first post, copied here for your convenience. Any challenge you have on the conclusions or presented facts would be hugely appreciated.

It would be easy to write off the people of Heaven's Gate as crazy, but they're not an isolated occurrence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_suicide

I was aware that cults do sometimes engage in mass suicide. Just because it's happened more than once doesn't mean they aren't crazy.

However, if there's a specific group where you'd suggest there is evidence they aren't crazy, I'd love to look into it.

 

[HonestJoe]

To reiterate, the basic premise is that if Muhammed genuinely believed he received revelations from an angel on a regular basis, and he wasn't crazy, then most likely he really did receive the Qur'an from a non-human, external entity

Yet if you can't even begin to establish what this "external entity" could be, it's at least as likely that one or more of your assumptions are wrong.

So we just give up?

Give up trying to definitively prove the truth of Islam on a casual discussion forum certainly. You can discuss particular elements but you appear to be unwilling to even consider anything that goes against your predefined conclusion, which is why I didn't see any point in continuing even on that basis.

This is a roadblock.

It's a roadblock to establishing unquestionable theological truth. It's not a problem in establishing likely historical narratives. The problem you face is that the latter includes a number of unknowns and "not sures" which the former is unwilling to accept.

If the response to every discussion point is "but the history isn't accurate" - then either highlight the specific facts you think are untrue, or tell me what sources you would prefer to use & why. That would help me to re-evaluate my thinking.

We don't know which elements are untrue, that's the point. You can't rely on religious scripture to be unquestionable truth so you can't use it as the basis for definitive conclusions. As with every other religious person in history, you're going to have to fall back on faith.

 

[Tumah]

I tried to capture all of the potential motivators in my first post, copied here for easy reading. Do you feel this is comprehensive, or are there other potential motivators?

I think this does cover a lot of ground and I do see my option there.
I don't see a lot of point to it. Its a lot of guesswork, with the only source for answers in texts that are partial to itself or/and written after the fact.
I can't help but feel that this approach is not a very effective for anything more than a mind excersize.

Agreed that we can't know for sure what went on in his mind. All we can do is try to evaluate what was most likely, based on what we know about his behaviour.

I've tried to do that in the first post, copied here for your convenience. Any challenge you have on the conclusions or presented facts would be hugely appreciated.

The thing is, we don't really know anything about his behavior. We don't have any third party accounts about him. All we have is what his later followers said about him. There are a lot of assumptions here about Muhammad, the Qur'an and the Hadith, that may not actually have any basis in reality.

Although again as before, within the possibility that it was only Muhammad or him at all that wrote the Qur'an, the possibility that his altruism was based on the desire to help his pagan nation become more civilized and overcome the other monotheist religions (rather than a belief that he recieved a prophecy) does exist.

I was aware that cults do sometimes engage in mass suicide. Just because it's happened more than once doesn't mean they aren't crazy.

However, if there's a specific group where you'd suggest there is evidence they aren't crazy, I'd love to look into it.

I think writing off hundreds of people is crazy is self-confirming. You'd have to go through all the hundreds of people and confirm that all of them, or as a rule most of them were not crazy, before you could say such a thing. There is no one specific group. You have to look at the category of people who are willing to sacrifice themselves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One thing always surprises me. Safiyyah bint Huyayy was married. Both her father and husband were killed in the battle of Khyber. How come Mohammad did not wait for the period of 'iddat' and consumated the marriage with Safiyyah on the third day after the war? What was the hurry? Did Allah give him special permission as He usually did in such cases?

And in case of Juwayriyya bint al-Harith, wife of Mustafa bin Safwan of Banu Mustaliq, who was killed in the war, Mohammmad did not wait even for one day. The marriage was consumated on the same day.

 

[Augustus]

• There are other very old manuscripts, e.g. Sana’a manuscript from before 671 AD

• None of the contents of these manuscripts varies in a material way from the modern Qur’an

Sana'a does. I mean not massively to be sure, but there are quite a few differences.

Small variations seem to have been widely acknowledged until quite recently:

"throughout most of Islamic history there were open discussions about variant readings of the Qur’an. Things changed only in the early twentieth century. In 1924 a committee organized by the Egyptian ministry of education produced a text of the Qur’an for use within the country (and had competing editions sunk in the Nile River). This Egyptian text (slightly revised later in 1924, and again in 1936, the first year of King Farouk’s reign, for which reason it became known as the King Farouk Qur’an) has now become the standard Qur’an text. Today this text is so widespread it might lead one to conclude that the Qur’an has never had any variants. Yet this reflects the success of the Egyptian project, and not the history of the Qur’anic text.

Nevertheless, while the history of Qur’anic variants has long been a topic of academic discussion, it has also long been thought that at least the Qur’an’s consonantal skeleton was unchanging. Before the Sanaa palimpsest, no early manuscript was known to vary significantly in terms of that skeleton. The basic form of the Qur’anic text, in other words, was thought to have been more or less perfectly preserved. Yet the Sanaa manuscript, which is almost certainly the most ancient Qur’an manuscript known to us, contains a surprising number of variants, including completely different words, and presents the chapters (known as suras) of the Qur’an in a different order...

the Sanaa manuscript has so many variants that one might imagine it is a vestige of an ancient version that somehow survived Uthman’s burning of all versions of the Qur’an except his own. The problem with this idea is that the variants of that manuscript do not match the variants reported in medieval literature for those codices kept by companions of the Prophet. Sadeghi argues that this must have been the codex of some unknown companion. This is an interesting, although speculative, idea. For now all we know is that our most ancient manuscript of the Qur’an does not agree with the standard text read around the world today." (Variant Readings - GS Reynolds)

For what it's worth, I think the Quran was pretty much standardised (give or take) relatively early. Had it not been, then it would have been difficult to do so later after the Fitnah split the community (as we see with the Bible and its variants in different historic sects)

Given the nomadic Arab oral tradition, it is very believable that the Qur’an would have remained mostly unchanged in the max. 10-20 year period before it was written down. To illustrate, even today, some nomadic Arabs are able to recite hours of poetry by heart

It is quite likely that at least parts of the Quran were written down from the outset. The arguments for this are quite technical (and possibly dull) though and it doesn't necessarily go against your position anyway so I won't go into it.

There are many thousands of records called ‘Hadith’ that make reference to the Prophet Muhammed & his life, including Qur’anic revelation

The trouble with these though is that they range from the implausible (splitting the moon without any non-Muslims noticing,; Moses chasing a rock which ran away with his clothes then giving it a thrashing in chastisement) to the downright trivial. Nothing wrong with trivia per se, but if we accept they were so accurate as to record minor and almost totally meaningless details it seems a bit incongruent that they forgot very important things like who the Sabians were and how to properly interpret numerous verses. In Islamic history, various groups have claimed to be the Sabians as it afforded them status as 'people of the book', this was only possible because nobody knew who they really were.

Essentially, I've put forward my thoughts on why religion, specifically Islam, has a supernatural origin to it.

I'm looking for you to debate & poke holes in what I've written to show any faults in my thinking. I want to find out what the weaknesses in my argument are.

It is fair to note that a believer adopts a different methodological framework than someone looking from the perspective of 'academic' history. The Islamic method starts on a premise that God exists, and that Muhammad, the Sahabah and the successors had unique Divinely guided characteristics. The historical method starts from the perspective that gods cannot be used to justify anything, and that, for the purpose of analysis, no generations had special Divinely guided characteristics.

Both of these assumptions lead in significantly different directions, and while people will have their own views on which method is 'correct', neither is ultimately provable. "Faults" in thinking are often in the eye of the beholder as they rest on which assumption you prefer to start from.

 

[Arkannine21]

Thanks for the reply Augustus.

Sana'a does. I mean not massively to be sure, but there are quite a few differences.

Sure - but not materially. Switching a word for an equivalent word here & there doesn't have a material impact on the meaning.

Small variations seem to have been widely acknowledged until quite recently:

I believe you're referring to different ways of reading the Qur'an, rather than differences in the actual text. Is that right?

The trouble with these though is that they range from the implausible (splitting the moon without any non-Muslims noticing,; Moses chasing a rock which ran away with his clothes then giving it a thrashing in chastisement) to the downright trivial. Nothing wrong with trivia per se, but if we accept they were so accurate as to record minor and almost totally meaningless details it seems a bit incongruent that they forgot very important things like who the Sabians were and how to properly interpret numerous verses. In Islamic history, various groups have claimed to be the Sabians as it afforded them status as 'people of the book', this was only possible because nobody knew who they really were.

Point is that, if so many records were made about Muhammed's life & actions, it's very likely he really existed & was the one that shared the Qur'an with his contemporaries. It's hard to believe that a community would make up thousands of stories, including minute details, about a Prophet that didn't exist or didn't first bring the Qur'an to his people.

It is fair to note that a believer adopts a different methodological framework than someone looking from the perspective of 'academic' history. The Islamic method starts on a premise that God exists, and that Muhammad, the Sahabah and the successors had unique Divinely guided characteristics. The historical method starts from the perspective that gods cannot be used to justify anything, and that, for the purpose of analysis, no generations had special Divinely guided characteristics.

Both of these assumptions lead in significantly different directions, and while people will have their own views on which method is 'correct', neither is ultimately provable. "Faults" in thinking are often in the eye of the beholder as they rest on which assumption you prefer to start from.

Understood your point about academic history not assuming that everything said by a religious figure is true. You seem fairly knowledgeable on this - would be great to hear some of your specific critique of what's been put forward in the first post as evidence.

Note that I've only been using the religious sources to glean insights about Muhammed's character traits. This includes indirectly looking at the Qur'an as a possible source for info on character traits. There are no claims that something is true purely because it's what's been said or done by Muhammed.

 

[Kelloggs]

Hello all,

I'm in the process of looking at different belief systems, and I've tried to summarise why I am beginning to settle on belief in God & specifically Islam.

Getting some challenge from your sharp debating minds would be immensely helpful to highlight any shortcomings in my current thinking.

Context: The Qur’an is a book which is claimed to be from God, written mostly in the first person, and said to have been revealed between 609-632 AD orally via Muhammed. It is claimed that Muhammed had direct interactions with Gabriel throughout the revelation of the Qur’an.

Basic structure:

If the following conditions are true:

1. Muhammed brought the Qur’an
   
2. The Qur’an has not materially changed since the point of its arrival
   
3. Muhammed genuinely believed that the Qur’an was from God
   
4. The Qur’an, along with its effects on people, are beyond what can realistically be expected from the products of someone with mental illness

Then: There is almost certainly a genuine supernatural nature to the core text of Islam that is available to us today



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will challenge your "basic structure".

"1. Muhammed brought the Qur'an"
1. You did not provide substantial historical proof to this, so this is purely based on your opinion

"2. The Qur'an has not materially changed since the point of its arrival"
2. Again you provided no proof. So no substantiation.

"Muhammed genuinely believed that the Qur'an was from God"
3. Same answer as above.

"4. The Qur’an, along with its effects on people, are beyond what can realistically be expected from the products of someone with mental illness"
4. So can modern medicine and self-help books.