4 ms·

> I think we keep talking past each other. On this I guess we agree! :) > Which is why in Islam we have three sources of truth: observations, logic, and the

by eis 4y ago

> I think we keep talking past each other. On this I guess we agree! :) > Which is why in Islam we have three sources of truth: observations, logic, and the honest news. We have established that Muhammad, Prayers of God be upon him, existed, and the Quran is preserved, and the authentic Hadiths are preserved. He performed miracles, and foretold events, some of which only came true in the past couple of decades (more at www.provingislam.com). As such, we trust what he brought forth to us. Again I can't follow your reasoning. You say that Islam is based on three sources of truth, one being logic but you at the same time claim that god does not follow logic and that we should not try to apply our logic to understand him and his rules. This makes no sense. > I believe Islam is 100% correct. If I don't, then by definition I am not a Muslim. We don't get to pick and choose what we like and don't like. Of course, you're going to have to mention exactly what you mean by "some parts of Islam", that's quite a vague term. But there is more than one version of Islam, isn't there? That means you also believe that only your version is the one true version. It also means you believe there cannot have been any mistakes in any of the writings. In any passed on stories. If there is no room for errors then there is no room for improvement. These prophets and scholars were 100% perfect. New knowledge can not supersede old knowledge. This is the definition of blind belief. You don't accept the possibility of errors. You leave no room for another view. "Some parts of Islam" is intentionally vague because I asked if you believed if it is 100% true. It does not matter what parts of Islam I was refering to because 100% by definition covers it all. There have been a great number of religions throughout thousands of years. Or iterations and versions of the certain religions. I find it arrogant and shortsighted to believe that your version is the final one and no other that comes after it will be better.

al_mandi 4y ago
> same time claim that god does not follow logic and that we should not try to apply our logic to understand him and his rules. This makes no sense. It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here. > But there is more than one version of Islam, isn't there? What do you mean by version? Sunni vs Shia I presume? Yes, but we apply the same standards to arrive at truth. Furthermore, all "versions" have the same core: God is one, we all have the same Quran, we all have to pray, fast, etc. We all submit to God. Any other differences we can discuss to arrive at the truth. > It also means you believe there cannot have been any mistakes in any of the writings. We have an Isnad system in Islam, something that does not exist anywhere else in either faith systems or even secular systems. It gives us absolute confidence in being able to know if texts are valid or not. If we apply those standards to the Bible for example, it would immediately be rendered as weak (we don't know who the bible authors are). The Quran is 100% preserved. The authentic Hadiths are 100% preserved. It depends on what you mean by "stories". This is a deep topic that I would not be able to do justice over a post, you'll have to watch an introductory lecture that talks about these things. Furthermore, there is a very specific process in how we go about deducing rules from Quran and Hadith. These are the major schools of thoughts (Hanafi, Shaf'ii, Maliki, and Hanbali). > If there is no room for errors then there is no room for improvement. Not true. There are many nascent topics that we have been able to derive rules for based on the approaches I mentioned. > You don't accept the possibility of errors. Not true. We know and classified Hadiths according to their authenticity, we have Hadiths that are Mutawater for example, all the way to falsely attributed Hadiths which are fabricated. We've done the work a long long time ago. > There have been a great number of religions throughout thousands of years. Or iterations and versions of the certain religions. I find it arrogant and shortsighted to believe that your version is the final one and no other that comes after it will be better. The Islamic view is as follows: God sent prophets and messengers to people throughout history. We accept Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Saleh, etc. Prayers of God be upon them all as prophets and messengers. There were many whom we don't have the names of, we're talking hundreds of thousands if I recall correctly. They all came with the same core message of the Oneness of the Creator, and to worship him and submit to him. As such, the followers of those prophets and messengers were called Submitters (Muslims in Arabic). Over time, those messages got corrupted. For example, Jesus Prayers of God be upon him, never claimed to be God or son of God, however, over time some people attributed this false idea to him, and we have the present day incarnation of Christianity. Islam is the final revelation from God, and is preserved. It supersedes everything before it. Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him was sent to all of mankind until the end of time. He brought with him many miracles, and foretold many events in the future, some of which are happening today before our very eyes. We have to accept all of those prophets that God sent, otherwise we're not Muslim. On the other side, there are definitely man made religions (e.g. satanism) and many self proclaimed prophets that were not sent from God. Obviously, we don't give those people any credence, and we were warned about them in our texts. Also, I've heard the fallacious argument before. Just because there are many religions does not mean that one of them isn't true. This is the genetic fallacy. Something that Dawkins and his ilk do all the time without realizing it.
- eis 4y ago
  > It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here. If something is not testable then I need to be sceptical. Maybe the ancient battle happened. Maybe it didn't. Maybe it happened but the written texts are full of inaccuracies. I can't tell. The more evidence the better. Historical records from a thousand years ago are many times highly inaccurate. > What do you mean by version? Sunni vs Shia I presume? Yes, but we apply the same standards to arrive at truth. Furthermore, all "versions" have the same core: God is one, we all have the same Quran, we all have to pray, fast, etc. We all submit to God. Any other differences we can discuss to arrive at the truth. And why is there still no final resolution which one is the true one? > We have an Isnad system in Islam, something that does not exist anywhere else in either faith systems or even secular systems. It gives us absolute confidence in being able to know if texts are valid or not. If we apply those standards to the Bible for example, it would immediately be rendered as weak (we don't know who the bible authors are). This literally is appeal to authority. "These fine men said so and so it must be true". I don't believe in the stories in the bible either. > Not true. There are many nascent topics that we have been able to derive rules for based on the approaches I mentioned. I am talking about existing rulings. It assumes they have all been, without any shred of doubt 100% perfect. It does not leave room for future knowledge to improve our understanding of the past and adjust accordingly. It is one of the core concepts of science. Always be open to challenge our understanding of reality and refine our models when new evidence emerges. Since we honestly admit that we don't know everything yet, we need to be open to change and improve. > Not true. We know and classified Hadiths according to their authenticity, we have Hadiths that are Mutawater for example, all the way to falsely attributed Hadiths which are fabricated. We've done the work a long long time ago. But you said in another place that you believe everything that Islam teaches you is 100% correct. So all these checks and work has been done yes? Or are you open that there might be a (even if very small) possibility that some mistakes sneaked in somewhere somehow? > The Islamic view is as follows: God sent prophets and messengers to people throughout history. We accept Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Saleh, etc. Prayers of God be upon them all as prophets and messengers. There were many whom we don't have the names of, we're talking hundreds of thousands if I recall correctly. They all came with the same core message of the Oneness of the Creator, and to worship him and submit to him. As such, the followers of those prophets and messengers were called Submitters (Muslims in Arabic). Over time, those messages got corrupted. For example, Jesus Prayers of God be upon him, never claimed to be God or son of God, however, over time some people attributed this false idea to him, and we have the present day incarnation of Christianity. But it's hearsay. And why does god need you to worship him? Is it bad for god if you don't worship him? If I don't pray, am I somehow hurting him? > Islam is the final revelation from God, and is preserved. It supersedes everything before it. Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him was sent to all of mankind until the end of time. He brought with him many miracles, and foretold many events in the future, some of which are happening today before our very eyes. How can you claim it is the final version and nothing will come after it? Do you know the future? Can god change his mind? You do realize that there have been tons and tons of religions before Islam and many of their followers shared the exact same view as you do? "Our version is the real truth! This time for sure!". > We have to accept all of those prophets that God sent, otherwise we're not Muslim. Ok, if you want to be a Submitter than you have to be a... Submitter. Just please don't try to force others to be Submitters too. > On the other side, there are definitely man made religions (e.g. satanism) and many self proclaimed prophets that were not sent from God. Obviously, we don't give those people any credence, and we were warned about them in our texts. All religions are man made. They are a theoretical concept to work with certain ideas about the supernatural. > Also, I've heard the fallacious argument before. Just because there are many religions does not mean that one of them isn't true. This is the genetic fallacy. Something that Dawkins and his ilk do all the time without realizing it. I cannot disprove your version of god. But as long as I don't see definite proof then I can't submit to this ideology.

by eis 4y ago

al_mandi 4y ago

> same time claim that god does not follow logic and that we should not try to apply our logic to understand him and his rules. This makes no sense. It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here. > But there is more than one version of Islam, isn't there? What do you mean by version? Sunni vs Shia I presume? Yes, but we apply the same standards to arrive at truth. Furthermore, all "versions" have the same core: God is one, we all have the same Quran, we all have to pray, fast, etc. We all submit to God. Any other differences we can discuss to arrive at the truth. > It also means you believe there cannot have been any mistakes in any of the writings. We have an Isnad system in Islam, something that does not exist anywhere else in either faith systems or even secular systems. It gives us absolute confidence in being able to know if texts are valid or not. If we apply those standards to the Bible for example, it would immediately be rendered as weak (we don't know who the bible authors are). The Quran is 100% preserved. The authentic Hadiths are 100% preserved. It depends on what you mean by "stories". This is a deep topic that I would not be able to do justice over a post, you'll have to watch an introductory lecture that talks about these things. Furthermore, there is a very specific process in how we go about deducing rules from Quran and Hadith. These are the major schools of thoughts (Hanafi, Shaf'ii, Maliki, and Hanbali). > If there is no room for errors then there is no room for improvement. Not true. There are many nascent topics that we have been able to derive rules for based on the approaches I mentioned. > You don't accept the possibility of errors. Not true. We know and classified Hadiths according to their authenticity, we have Hadiths that are Mutawater for example, all the way to falsely attributed Hadiths which are fabricated. We've done the work a long long time ago. > There have been a great number of religions throughout thousands of years. Or iterations and versions of the certain religions. I find it arrogant and shortsighted to believe that your version is the final one and no other that comes after it will be better. The Islamic view is as follows: God sent prophets and messengers to people throughout history. We accept Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Saleh, etc. Prayers of God be upon them all as prophets and messengers. There were many whom we don't have the names of, we're talking hundreds of thousands if I recall correctly. They all came with the same core message of the Oneness of the Creator, and to worship him and submit to him. As such, the followers of those prophets and messengers were called Submitters (Muslims in Arabic). Over time, those messages got corrupted. For example, Jesus Prayers of God be upon him, never claimed to be God or son of God, however, over time some people attributed this false idea to him, and we have the present day incarnation of Christianity. Islam is the final revelation from God, and is preserved. It supersedes everything before it. Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him was sent to all of mankind until the end of time. He brought with him many miracles, and foretold many events in the future, some of which are happening today before our very eyes. We have to accept all of those prophets that God sent, otherwise we're not Muslim. On the other side, there are definitely man made religions (e.g. satanism) and many self proclaimed prophets that were not sent from God. Obviously, we don't give those people any credence, and we were warned about them in our texts. Also, I've heard the fallacious argument before. Just because there are many religions does not mean that one of them isn't true. This is the genetic fallacy. Something that Dawkins and his ilk do all the time without realizing it.

eis 4y ago
> It does make sense. Those three sources of evidence can have some overlap. We cannot for example retest that an ancient battle took place even though we know it did. Not everything is testable over and over again. Same applies here. If something is not testable then I need to be sceptical. Maybe the ancient battle happened. Maybe it didn't. Maybe it happened but the written texts are full of inaccuracies. I can't tell. The more evidence the better. Historical records from a thousand years ago are many times highly inaccurate. > What do you mean by version? Sunni vs Shia I presume? Yes, but we apply the same standards to arrive at truth. Furthermore, all "versions" have the same core: God is one, we all have the same Quran, we all have to pray, fast, etc. We all submit to God. Any other differences we can discuss to arrive at the truth. And why is there still no final resolution which one is the true one? > We have an Isnad system in Islam, something that does not exist anywhere else in either faith systems or even secular systems. It gives us absolute confidence in being able to know if texts are valid or not. If we apply those standards to the Bible for example, it would immediately be rendered as weak (we don't know who the bible authors are). This literally is appeal to authority. "These fine men said so and so it must be true". I don't believe in the stories in the bible either. > Not true. There are many nascent topics that we have been able to derive rules for based on the approaches I mentioned. I am talking about existing rulings. It assumes they have all been, without any shred of doubt 100% perfect. It does not leave room for future knowledge to improve our understanding of the past and adjust accordingly. It is one of the core concepts of science. Always be open to challenge our understanding of reality and refine our models when new evidence emerges. Since we honestly admit that we don't know everything yet, we need to be open to change and improve. > Not true. We know and classified Hadiths according to their authenticity, we have Hadiths that are Mutawater for example, all the way to falsely attributed Hadiths which are fabricated. We've done the work a long long time ago. But you said in another place that you believe everything that Islam teaches you is 100% correct. So all these checks and work has been done yes? Or are you open that there might be a (even if very small) possibility that some mistakes sneaked in somewhere somehow? > The Islamic view is as follows: God sent prophets and messengers to people throughout history. We accept Moses, Jesus, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Saleh, etc. Prayers of God be upon them all as prophets and messengers. There were many whom we don't have the names of, we're talking hundreds of thousands if I recall correctly. They all came with the same core message of the Oneness of the Creator, and to worship him and submit to him. As such, the followers of those prophets and messengers were called Submitters (Muslims in Arabic). Over time, those messages got corrupted. For example, Jesus Prayers of God be upon him, never claimed to be God or son of God, however, over time some people attributed this false idea to him, and we have the present day incarnation of Christianity. But it's hearsay. And why does god need you to worship him? Is it bad for god if you don't worship him? If I don't pray, am I somehow hurting him? > Islam is the final revelation from God, and is preserved. It supersedes everything before it. Muhammad Prayers of God be upon him was sent to all of mankind until the end of time. He brought with him many miracles, and foretold many events in the future, some of which are happening today before our very eyes. How can you claim it is the final version and nothing will come after it? Do you know the future? Can god change his mind? You do realize that there have been tons and tons of religions before Islam and many of their followers shared the exact same view as you do? "Our version is the real truth! This time for sure!". > We have to accept all of those prophets that God sent, otherwise we're not Muslim. Ok, if you want to be a Submitter than you have to be a... Submitter. Just please don't try to force others to be Submitters too. > On the other side, there are definitely man made religions (e.g. satanism) and many self proclaimed prophets that were not sent from God. Obviously, we don't give those people any credence, and we were warned about them in our texts. All religions are man made. They are a theoretical concept to work with certain ideas about the supernatural. > Also, I've heard the fallacious argument before. Just because there are many religions does not mean that one of them isn't true. This is the genetic fallacy. Something that Dawkins and his ilk do all the time without realizing it. I cannot disprove your version of god. But as long as I don't see definite proof then I can't submit to this ideology.