Why do some Atheists, Christians, Hindu's etc., believe in Islamic ahadith so passionately?

[icehorse]

Great. Thanks.

You're welcome. Because as history shows us, as science advances, "god" recedes.

But I have to give credit where credit is due: Those folks who wrote the Abrahamic scriptures were ahead of their time in their understanding of how to make propaganda work.

 

[firedragon]

You're welcome. Because as history shows us, as science advances, "god" recedes.

I dont agree, and its not relevant either.

But I have to give credit where credit is due: Those folks who wrote the Abrahamic scriptures were ahead of their time in their understanding of how to make propaganda work.

If you wish to put those books into the bracket of propaganda you could do it as you please, but I would like it if it was another thread.

 

[ecco]

So basically you mean to say you dont believe a hadith but you quote it as historical fact?

If that is what you took away from my comments, then you have a serious problem understanding written English.

Here, try again to understand what I wrote.

ecco previously...

Find me doing what? Did you find me saying or intimating that I actually believed the passage I quoted? No.

From time to time I quote passages from the Bible talking about the Great Flood. That doesn't mean I believe in the Great Flood.

From time to time I quote Donald Trump saying that the virus will just magically disappear. That doesn't mean I believe Covid 19 is going to just magically disappear.


You are partly right - there is no other evidence whatsoever. However, as an atheist, I don't accept the beliefs of some Muslims as evidence of anything whatsoever. Likewise, I don't accept the beliefs of Donald Trump as evidence of anything whatsoever.

Beliefs are not evidence.​

 

[firedragon]

If that is what you took away from my comments, then you have a serious problem understanding written English.

Here, try again to understand what I wrote.

ecco previously...

Find me doing what? Did you find me saying or intimating that I actually believed the passage I quoted? No.

From time to time I quote passages from the Bible talking about the Great Flood. That doesn't mean I believe in the Great Flood.

From time to time I quote Donald Trump saying that the virus will just magically disappear. That doesn't mean I believe Covid 19 is going to just magically disappear.


You are partly right - there is no other evidence whatsoever. However, as an atheist, I don't accept the beliefs of some Muslims as evidence of anything whatsoever. Likewise, I don't accept the beliefs of Donald Trump as evidence of anything whatsoever.

Beliefs are not evidence.​

But you quoted many stories you picked up from ahadith as absolute truth. Which means you believe them as historical fact. Are you denying it? I am not speaking of you believing in what Muslims believe in like theology, but that is the double standard discussed in this thread and you are one of them who had done exactly that.

 

[ecco]

Where you said this below, you were not quoting some hadith as historical fact right? You were just quoting what someone else said like quoting Donald trump saying something about the Covid 19 vaccine. SO you are admitting that you dont believe this happened, or at least you are not sure this happened, but you just said it because someone else said it. Right?

A very sweet man who "forcefully converted " most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith"
Muhammad and the Faith of Islam [ushistory.org]
Muhammad fought a number of battles against the people of Mecca. In 629, Muhammad returned to Mecca with an army of 1500 converts to Islam and entered the city unopposed and without bloodshed. Before his death two years later, he forcefully converted most of the Arabian Peninsula to his new faith and built a small empire.
How do you think that sweet man accomplished that forceful conversion?

Right. I was not "quoting some hadith as historical fact".

And I was not "just quoting what someone else said like quoting Donald trump saying something about the Covid 19 vaccine". I was quoting from a website USHistory.org. Did you not see that I clearly referenced the source of the quote? How could you think that I was quoting a hadith?

Regarding this part of your comment "SO you are admitting that you dont believe this happened, or at least you are not sure this happened, but you just said it because someone else said it. Right?"

Wrong on two counts.

I am not admitting that I don't believe this happened. I am quite certain it did happen.

I didn't just say it because someone else said it. I quoted from a reliable site. The information was in accordance with what I have read from other sources over the years.


It certainly isn't made up stuff like the "conversation" in your OP for which you have been unable to provide any supporting evidence.

 

[firedragon]

I am not admitting that I don't believe this happened. I am quite certain it did happen.

So you are certain a story in a hadith happened! Thats bottomline.

Can you prove it happened without saying "because Muslims say so"?

 

[ecco]

You are partly right - there is no other evidence whatsoever. However, as an atheist, I don't accept the beliefs of some Muslims as evidence of anything whatsoever. Likewise, I don't accept the beliefs of Donald Trump as evidence of anything whatsoever.

Beliefs are not evidence.

Want to see yourself doing it again?

Do I want to see myself doing it again? You haven't been able to show where I ever did it.

To try to support your ridiculous allegation, you post something I quoted from NPR.

It is apparent that you don't know and can't understand the difference between "accepting the beliefs of Muslims as evidence" and quoting from an article on an NPR website?

 

[firedragon]

Do I want to see myself doing it again? You haven't been able to show where I ever did it.

To try to support your ridiculous allegation, you post something I quoted from NPR.

It is apparent that you don't know and can't understand the difference between "accepting the beliefs of Muslims as evidence" and quoting from an article on an NPR website?

Who ever you quote from and claim its historical fact is believing the source.

If you make a disclaimer saying you are not sure but its just quoted by them and you are only trying to verify the truth then you are quoting a website in candid discussion.

 

[Augustus]

Do I want to see myself doing it again? You haven't been able to show where I ever did it.

To try to support your ridiculous allegation, you post something I quoted from NPR.

It is apparent that you don't know and can't understand the difference between "accepting the beliefs of Muslims as evidence" and quoting from an article on an NPR website?

What you don't know is that this NPR article that uncritically repeats Muslim sectarian origin myths as fact.

So when you make arguments based on the idea that SunniMuslims existed in the 7th C, you are "accepting the beliefs of Muslims as evidence". That you are oblivious to what you are doing doesn't change the facts.

If you are interested in why the NPR article you approvingly quote is not actual history:

In recent years, scholars have increasingly used the label “proto-Sunni” to denote a
late Umayyad — early Abbasid period movement which played a pivotal role in the
formation of Sunni Islam... the category proto-Sunni usefully underlines the fact that, like other
religious traditions,5 Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it
emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread
Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century.6 As such, the designation
proto-Sunni underscores the provisional nature of the many competing versions of Islam
in this period, and against that background, the crucial role of those who prepared the
way for an eventual Sunni consensus... While much of the credit for the
“Sunni synthesis” must go to jurists and theologians of the 10th through the 13th centuries,
such as al-Ash‘arı¯ (d. 936) and al-Ghazza¯lı¯ (d. 1111), who absorbed many of the
cross-currents of early Islam into grand legal and theological schemes, it is important to
remember that those very schemes would have proven impossible without the
foundations laid by the early proto-Sunnis.83 Laying these foundations or plausibility
structures is their greatest achievement; an achievement which was the result of the
proto-Sunnis’ uniquely satisfying solutions to the historical pressures they faced on one
hand, and the increasing prestige they enjoyed on the other.

The Roots and Achievements of the Early Proto-Sunni Movement: A Profile and Interpretation - Matthew J. Kuiper

 

[ecco]

But you quoted many stories you picked up from ahadith as absolute truth.

OK. Your BS accusations are getting boring.

Show one story that I picked up from a hadith as truth or show some integrity and admit your comments are baseless.


Also, going back to my initial comments on your OP, show an actual atheist saying he believes hadiths are factual because some Muslims believe hadiths are factual or show some integrity and admit your comments are baseless.

 

[ecco]

So you are certain a story in a hadith happened!

I don't give a rats *** what any hadith says. I believe some of the things that I read if they come from sources outside of religious scripture.

If articles from sources like NPR and history books say Mohammed invaded a city, I will tend to accept that as true.

That a hadith says Mohammed invaded a city or says Mohammed did not invade a city has no bearing on my beliefs.

All this really shouldn't be too difficult for you to understand.

 

[ecco]

Who ever you quote from and claim its historical fact is believing the source.

Yes. That is one reason I would never quote from scripture and claim it is historical fact. There is no reason to believe the source.

Do you not understand what an atheist is? I don't believe in gods and I don't believe in stories written about them or, allegedly, by them.

How is it that someone needs to explain these things to you?

 

[ecco]

What you don't know is that this NPR article that uncritically repeats Muslim sectarian origin myths as fact.

So when you make arguments based on the idea that SunniMuslims existed in the 7th C, you are "accepting the beliefs of Muslims as evidence". That you are oblivious to what you are doing doesn't change the facts.

If you are interested in why the NPR article you approvingly quote is not actual history:

In recent years, scholars have increasingly used the label “proto-Sunni” to denote a
late Umayyad — early Abbasid period movement which played a pivotal role in the
formation of Sunni Islam... the category proto-Sunni usefully underlines the fact that, like other
religious traditions,5 Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it
emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread
Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century.6 As such, the designation
proto-Sunni underscores the provisional nature of the many competing versions of Islam
in this period, and against that background, the crucial role of those who prepared the
way for an eventual Sunni consensus... While much of the credit for the
“Sunni synthesis” must go to jurists and theologians of the 10th through the 13th centuries,
such as al-Ash‘arı¯ (d. 936) and al-Ghazza¯lı¯ (d. 1111), who absorbed many of the
cross-currents of early Islam into grand legal and theological schemes, it is important to
remember that those very schemes would have proven impossible without the
foundations laid by the early proto-Sunnis.83 Laying these foundations or plausibility
structures is their greatest achievement; an achievement which was the result of the
proto-Sunnis’ uniquely satisfying solutions to the historical pressures they faced on one
hand, and the increasing prestige they enjoyed on the other.

The Roots and Achievements of the Early Proto-Sunni Movement: A Profile and Interpretation - Matthew J. Kuiper

Did you miss...

The information was in accordance with what I have read from other sources over the years.

...or did you just choose to ignore it in order to further your futile argument?

 

[ecco]

Here's the bottom line...if it makes you feel good to think that atheists believe stuff that is written in religious scripture, then go right on believing it.

Forum rules prevent me from expressing more.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. That is one reason I would never quote from scripture and claim it is historical fact. There is no reason to believe the source.

Do you not understand what an atheist is? I don't believe in gods and I don't believe in stories written about them or, allegedly, by them.

How is it that someone needs to explain these things to you?

I understand what an atheist is.

But why would you quote a hadith as historical fact if you are an atheist? Aren't you supposed to doubt religious writings?

 

[firedragon]

I don't give a rats *** what any hadith says.

Then why do you quote it as historical fact?

 

[firedragon]

Show one story that I picked up from a hadith as truth or show some integrity and admit your comments are baseless.

Many have been shown in this thread. So pls go back and read.

If articles from sources like NPR and history books say Mohammed invaded a city, I will tend to accept that as true.

So you just blindly accept whatever NPR states with no analysis whatsoever? Do you think they got their information from a hadith or another website?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well, this is irrelevant, but let me say that "muslims practicing taqiyyah" as you said is one of the most nonsensical absurdities that anti islamic apologists use. Its ignorant, and deliberately established as an attacking tool that doesnt work on Muslims but only non-muslims because they are not made aware of the truth.

Tell me. Do you know what that means? It means righteousness. Some say it means God consciousness. Why? Because lets say you are in a place where you have an opportunity to steal and no one is gonna see you do it but only God would know. Thus, this awareness would stop you from doing something bad.

That is Taqiyya and that's what it means. The Shii's developed a doctrinal meaning to this word where they believed its okay to pretend you are not a Muslim, or pretend your faith doesnt exist when threatened with life. Why? Because your righteousness is in your heart and you are only doing that to save your own life or your children under persecution.

So what in the world are these people talking about? Anyone who uses this bogus Taqiyya for anti islamic polemics are either absolutely lying intentionally or are absolutely ignorant.

Cheers.

I wouldn't know the answer to that. In my experience, because some of those who oppose Islam have a black and white view of the religion, they latch onto the concept of Taqqiyah and genuinely believe that it is true. Also, many muslims, like many Christians, do not understand their religion on an intellectual level, so they either cannot explain it properly or different muslims will have different explanations and reasons for other more controversial beliefs. So a non muslim might think that one some of the contradictory muslims are lying.

I don't know if there are any non muslims knowledgeable enough about Islam to say that they are deliberately lying as I cannot judge the religion due to not knowing enough myself. I can only explain certain patterns that I see from a behavioural and psychological perspective that I see common in the certain lines of thinking that are universal.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have asked this question once I believe in this forum but I cannot remember clearly. There was a recent discussion that triggered this question.

That is OK, but you have unnecessarily included Hindus in the title. Most Hindus would not know or care about Mohammad and hadiths, and why should they? They go by their own beliefs. It is only those like me who have studied Islam to some extent and discuss that in forums, who would know anything. Apart from my Muslim friends in my younger days, I studied that for a semester as part of my master's in History (which I did not complete). And since I am an atheist I do not believe what the people of Abrahamic religions believe including belief in their prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis.

 

[firedragon]

I wouldn't know the answer to that. In my experience, because some of those who oppose Islam have a black and white view of the religion, they latch onto the concept of Taqqiyah and genuinely believe that it is true. Also, many muslims, like many Christians, do not understand their religion on an intellectual level, so they either cannot explain it properly or different muslims will have different explanations and reasons for other more controversial beliefs. So a non muslim might think that one some of the contradictory muslims are lying.

I don't know if there are any non muslims knowledgeable enough about Islam to say that they are deliberately lying as I cannot judge the religion due to not knowing enough myself. I can only explain certain patterns that I see from a behavioural and psychological perspective that I see common in the certain lines of thinking that are universal.

Ah I dont think anyone is lying. Though some do. The post is about a cherrypicking situation prevalent all over the place.

Also let me reiterate again that Taqiyyah as a concept is nothing to latch on because again, it is nothing to latch on. I think I have explained that in the post you have now replied to.

Best regards.