4 ms·

The problem is that secular/atheist people group all religions into the same bucket without any nuance, and without understanding what the religion actually say

The problem is that secular/atheist people group all religions into the same bucket without any nuance, and without understanding what the religion actually says. Case in point, Islam contradicts what you're positing: [1] https://sunnah.com/mishkat:64 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:64 [2] https://sunnah.com/mishkat:76 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:76

proc0 5y ago
I'm not familiar with Quran passages (it's on my list though). Reading those doesn't clearly tell me how the core of Islam allows doubt... so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? (btw, I commented in a different thread, under the same parent comment if you want details, but I'm not saying religions are free of doubt, I'm saying the core of a religion is faith, and absolute certainty of some kind).
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  What I quoted was Hadith, not Quran. The Quran is the literal word of God. Hadiths are narrations of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him. Both are used in Islamic Jurisprudence for deducing rules, as well as for other matters. You'll have to explain what you mean by "the core of Islam allows doubt", what "core" are you referring to here? We take our religion from the Quran and Hadith, and I have quoted just two Hadiths that I recall off the top of my head regarding the issue of doubt, and how it is not sinful, nor automatically looked down upon. Here's one quotation from the Quran: https://quran.com/33/10 https://quran.com/33/10 > so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? You'll have to explain exactly what you mean by doubt. A Muslim accepts that Muhammad Peace be upon him is God's final messenger. If doubts happen to cross said Muslim's mind, he's still a Muslim as per the Hadith. This is different from what I feel you're implying in that the person actively tries to take down the Islamic narrative in a way that the enemies of Islam do. The logic is this way: someone accepts Islam because he did his due diligence and was convinced. It's not logical to start doubting everything again from scratch - it means he did not build up a proper foundation to begin with.
  - proc0 5y ago
    You can see what I mean by the word "doubt" in my other comment above. I'm using it to mean 'absolute doubt', the act of questioning something to the core with no presupposition. You are proving my point with this statement: > "The Quran is the literal word of God" Science cannot make such statements of certainty, but religion can and does. To the extent that religion has doubt, as you say, it just means you're still learning or something like that. Science allows restructuring its own foundation and has done so again and again.
    - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
      > I'm using it to mean 'absolute doubt', the act of questioning something to the core with no presupposition. I alluded to that toward the end of my reply. A non-Muslim may start off with that presumption until he is convinced that Islam is the truth, at which point he accepts it. Once the foundation is set, it does not make sense to keep that doubt or skepticism around any longer. Why accept the religion otherwise? > Science cannot make such statements of certainty God is outside the realms of time and space, which are the domains of science. It is a non-question to attempt to answer philosophical and religious questions through (experimental) science. Furthermore, it's a fallacy to break up the world into "science" and "religion". Which religion are you talking about? > Science allows restructuring its own foundation I don't see how that has anything to do with the subject matter, or that it is indicative that science is somehow the absolute truth, or even leads to it. The foundations of Islam are the Quran and Hadith. Islam has immutable and axiomatic principles (e.g. God is one, Muslims have to pray 5 times a day, the Hijri year is 12 months and follows a lunar system, etc.), some other aspects are open to interpretation (contingent on having a proper scholarly background of course - a layperson cannot interpret as he/she wishes), while other aspects are left open for society to decide as per its needs and evolution of time. I read that Muslim scholars hundreds of years ago derived rulings for how to pray if we were to fly one day - they were that forward thinking, and today we have airplanes.
      - proc0 5y ago
        > It is a non-question to attempt to answer philosophical and religious questions through (experimental) science. Yes, I agree. > Furthermore, it's a fallacy to break up the world into "science" and "religion". Which religion are you talking about? I'm not attempting to "break up the whole world". I'm simply taking science and comparing it with religion. Which religion? Well I can't go through every single one in a comment section like this. I'm attempting to use examples like Islam, Christianity, etc., etc. is that not clear enough? Are you saying you can't group religions based on the fact that they require faith? > Islam has immutable and axiomatic principles Alright... there you go. Can you doubt those principles? That is my main point! > science is somehow the absolute truth, or even leads to it I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying many religions like Islam and Christianity (sure I'm qualifying it now, but please consider I have to contrive my arguments for brevity) do claim to have the absolute truth in their immutable principles. Again, that is my point, science does not claim absolute truth!!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

proc0 5y ago

I'm not familiar with Quran passages (it's on my list though). Reading those doesn't clearly tell me how the core of Islam allows doubt... so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? (btw, I commented in a different thread, under the same parent comment if you want details, but I'm not saying religions are free of doubt, I'm saying the core of a religion is faith, and absolute certainty of some kind).

gher-shyu3i 5y ago
What I quoted was Hadith, not Quran. The Quran is the literal word of God. Hadiths are narrations of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him. Both are used in Islamic Jurisprudence for deducing rules, as well as for other matters. You'll have to explain what you mean by "the core of Islam allows doubt", what "core" are you referring to here? We take our religion from the Quran and Hadith, and I have quoted just two Hadiths that I recall off the top of my head regarding the issue of doubt, and how it is not sinful, nor automatically looked down upon. Here's one quotation from the Quran: https://quran.com/33/10 https://quran.com/33/10 > so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? You'll have to explain exactly what you mean by doubt. A Muslim accepts that Muhammad Peace be upon him is God's final messenger. If doubts happen to cross said Muslim's mind, he's still a Muslim as per the Hadith. This is different from what I feel you're implying in that the person actively tries to take down the Islamic narrative in a way that the enemies of Islam do. The logic is this way: someone accepts Islam because he did his due diligence and was convinced. It's not logical to start doubting everything again from scratch - it means he did not build up a proper foundation to begin with.
- proc0 5y ago
  You can see what I mean by the word "doubt" in my other comment above. I'm using it to mean 'absolute doubt', the act of questioning something to the core with no presupposition. You are proving my point with this statement: > "The Quran is the literal word of God" Science cannot make such statements of certainty, but religion can and does. To the extent that religion has doubt, as you say, it just means you're still learning or something like that. Science allows restructuring its own foundation and has done so again and again.
  - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
    > I'm using it to mean 'absolute doubt', the act of questioning something to the core with no presupposition. I alluded to that toward the end of my reply. A non-Muslim may start off with that presumption until he is convinced that Islam is the truth, at which point he accepts it. Once the foundation is set, it does not make sense to keep that doubt or skepticism around any longer. Why accept the religion otherwise? > Science cannot make such statements of certainty God is outside the realms of time and space, which are the domains of science. It is a non-question to attempt to answer philosophical and religious questions through (experimental) science. Furthermore, it's a fallacy to break up the world into "science" and "religion". Which religion are you talking about? > Science allows restructuring its own foundation I don't see how that has anything to do with the subject matter, or that it is indicative that science is somehow the absolute truth, or even leads to it. The foundations of Islam are the Quran and Hadith. Islam has immutable and axiomatic principles (e.g. God is one, Muslims have to pray 5 times a day, the Hijri year is 12 months and follows a lunar system, etc.), some other aspects are open to interpretation (contingent on having a proper scholarly background of course - a layperson cannot interpret as he/she wishes), while other aspects are left open for society to decide as per its needs and evolution of time. I read that Muslim scholars hundreds of years ago derived rulings for how to pray if we were to fly one day - they were that forward thinking, and today we have airplanes.
    - proc0 5y ago
      > It is a non-question to attempt to answer philosophical and religious questions through (experimental) science. Yes, I agree. > Furthermore, it's a fallacy to break up the world into "science" and "religion". Which religion are you talking about? I'm not attempting to "break up the whole world". I'm simply taking science and comparing it with religion. Which religion? Well I can't go through every single one in a comment section like this. I'm attempting to use examples like Islam, Christianity, etc., etc. is that not clear enough? Are you saying you can't group religions based on the fact that they require faith? > Islam has immutable and axiomatic principles Alright... there you go. Can you doubt those principles? That is my main point! > science is somehow the absolute truth, or even leads to it I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying many religions like Islam and Christianity (sure I'm qualifying it now, but please consider I have to contrive my arguments for brevity) do claim to have the absolute truth in their immutable principles. Again, that is my point, science does not claim absolute truth!!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]