Muslims and "Circular Reasoning"

[hamba2han]

By that illogic- Did Allah stand by and allow Mohamed to lose battles by evil idolaters on one hand, and then provide the illusion angels helped them win others?

You need to watch this movie.

Considering the power and influence that his many enemies had over Makkah, it is certainly an incredible miracle by itself that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) succeeded in establishing Islam not just in Makkah but throughout all of Arabia and the lands beyond as well.

This miracle most definitely could not have happened without the help of Allah.

 

[Mirdath]

This made me laugh and actually caused me to respond here rather than the above. It is like saying ‘let me help you be more wrong (becasue you don’t believe it), but look smarter doing it.’

Not ‘more wrong’, but ‘if you’re going to be potentially wrong, that’s fine, but try to avoid setting traps for yourself’

You seem to know enough of both the Catholic and Mohammedean faiths, but by knowing both as you do…do you agree that other than your personal view of both being wrong (or less than the complete truth)- if one were right- the other could not be? Or do you sugest there may be some truth in both?

I don’t know as much about Islam as I’d like to, honestly. But as to the truth of either, I do not know – is it not possible that God accepts all comers equally? Needlessly pluralist from either a Catholic or a Muslim perspective, I know, but then I’m an outsider to both. A father may receive a silver tie-clip from one child for Father’s Day, and from another a hug and a hand-drawn card; both gifts are presented with the same love and care, and hopefully accepted equally.

To bring this thread back on topic specifically; it is the falseness of the Quran with it’s wrongly approriated similarities to both the OT & NT that requires such circular logic to make it seem logical to Muslims. I think you even believe its logic stands on its head.

Certainly. But so does Christian logic, when it states that the Bible is unquestionably correct because the Church holds it divinely inspired.

But because Islam attemts to lay claim to Abraham, Moses…Jesus, and so much more- the Catholic/Christain need only debate with the Muslim with regard to where the two holy books differ.

Think the Jews might have a bone to pick with you over ‘appropriating’ Abraham and Moses?

Though there may be some resulting merit to your purpose- being that others will better their arguments, I don’t get the warm-n-fuzzy that it is your true intent.

No, I do honestly hope that would-be apologists for all faiths learn where their weak points are and avoid stumbling right into them. I have no desire to see other people fall down.

eliasaph99:

The fictional people of the Quran are the Aad and the Thamud. Many modern Muslims try to identify them as the Nabateans or try to claim that the works of the Nabateans were really the works of these peoples. However, the general history of the geographical area is well known. The Nabateans are known from ancient historical records and occupied the lands which the Quran appears to say the Aad and the Thamud did. However, what the Quran claims happened to the Aad and the Thamud did not happen to the Nabateans. They were a relatively successful desert culture, developing a remarkable architectural style (they built, or rather carved, the city of Petra) and were conquered by the Romans in about 100 A.D.

Thanks

Montalban:

And that’s false. Unless you can show that these writings were in existence AT PENTECOST your notion is false.

The entirety of the Old Testament was; and that is held to the same divinely inspired standard as the New. The Quran didn’t appear out of whole cloth at the beginning of Mohammed’s preaching career either.

Yet both are supposed infallibly true on their own merits by the respective faiths! How can members of one point to the other and accuse them of illogic while doing the same thing themselves?

AND we have tradition!

Which falls into the same trap. It is the ‘other half’ of the foundation of the Church; it is an integral part of the faith, so you believe it. Why is it right?

 

[Booklover]

You need to watch this movie.

Considering the power and influence that his many enemies had over Makkah, it is certainly an incredible miracle by itself that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) succeeded in establishing Islam not just in Makkah but throughout all of Arabia and the lands beyond as well.

This miracle most definitely could not have happened without the help of Allah.

Does a warmongering man need God to raid and loot, enslave people, rape captives, use terror tactics, attack unsuspecting people. behead, break treaties?

“The truth is that Muslims were never attacked by anyone. They were always the aggressors. In fact Muhammad’s wars are called Qazwah and that means: raid, sudden attack, ambush. Muhammad was not in the habit of declaring wars. This would have given his victims time to prepare and would have reduced his chances of victory. He always attacked his victims with no warning and took them by surprise, when people had gone to the fields after their daily business, the gates of their fortresses were open and they were unarmed.
The following hadith makes this point very clear:
Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.” Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292:”
faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019p2.htm

More on Muhammad’s war “ethics”.
answering-islam.org/Books/Gairdner/camouflage.htm

Vickie

 

[Verisimilitude]

Not ‘more wrong’, but ‘if you’re going to be potentially wrong, that’s fine, but try to avoid setting traps for yourself’

That can go in evey direction including back toward you. Accuracy in theology- even that of disbelief has such traps that are difficult to navigate even for teh most learned.

I don’t know as much about Islam as I’d like to, honestly. But as to the truth of either, I do not know – is it not possible that God accepts all comers equally? Needlessly pluralist from either a Catholic or a Muslim perspective, I know, but then I’m an outsider to both. A father may receive a silver tie-clip from one child for Father’s Day, and from another a hug and a hand-drawn card; both gifts are presented with the same love and care, and hopefully accepted equally.

Sure, I think God accepts all comers equally, but that does not mean all are equal or correct. The gift analogy I think is wrong since they are benign in substance. If one child were to verbally describe their father as a wonderfull dad, and the other as a mean dad it would be prudent to discern the reasoning behind each description. Christ did describe God as Father and all of us His children. Mohamed describes God as Master and all of us as slaves. Could both views be correct? If you qualify the response, on what basis is that? Meaning- the child who described their fatehr as good, maybe they just received a present, and the child who described their father as bad might have been punished. Maybe the punishment was deserved, and maybe the child is just a rotten kid who causes trouble. Maybe the fatehr is abusive…all of those qualifications become largely irrelevent to a point when God is the subject. Neither faith thinks God is abusive or otherwise imperfect, so how then do two very differnt views of God emerge?

Certainly. But so does Christian logic, when it states that the Bible is unquestionably correct because the Church holds it divinely inspired.

Divine inspiration does not negate human inequity. Even with Papal infallability and the Truth of Scripture, the Church rightly allows room for human error. Islam does not with respect to the Quran, and much of Mohameds life though they admit he was human, they hold him in reality as near divine.

Think the Jews might have a bone to pick with you over ‘appropriating’ Abraham and Moses?

I’ve often wondered about that, but no, I don’t think so to be honest. Jesus has a legitimate claim to that lineage not disputed by Jews as much as they think He was a heretic and/or crazy. Mohamed has no such legitimate claim.

No, I do honestly hope that would-be apologists for all faiths learn where their weak points are and avoid stumbling right into them. I have no desire to see other people fall down.

Maybe, but have you ever grasped the soundness of either the Catholic/Christian- Mohammedean logic to convince yourself of any of its truth…or does it all just pass over your back as drivel?

 

[Verisimilitude]

You need to watch this movie.

Considering the power and influence that his many enemies had over Makkah, it is certainly an incredible miracle by itself that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) succeeded in establishing Islam not just in Makkah but throughout all of Arabia and the lands beyond as well.

This miracle most definitely could not have happened without the help of Allah.

Ive seen enough of that tripe. Fear conqured Mekka- nothing else. Fear and profit for Mohammedeans conqured Arabia. Fear, death, and war conqured the rest of what we know as the Muslim world today. Fear and evil indoctrination is what holds those lands now.

I have qualified allah before, and God did not assist in Islamic expansion. It is not a miracle that indigenous peoples found it easier to accept Islam under the conditions mandated. Fear and human nature propogated it.

How much does allah love the Mohammedean? Does it say in the Quran? It says how much he hates the un-believer.

 

[Mirdath]

That can go in evey direction including back toward you. Accuracy in theology- even that of disbelief has such traps that are difficult to navigate even for teh most learned.

Very true.

Neither faith thinks God is abusive or otherwise imperfect, so how then do two very differnt views of God emerge?

Different cultures with different outlooks on life. The God of Judaism takes a rather different tack than does the God of Christianity, too.

Divine inspiration does not negate human inequity. Even with Papal infallability and the Truth of Scripture, the Church rightly allows room for human error. Islam does not with respect to the Quran, and much of Mohameds life though they admit he was human, they hold him in reality as near divine.

And there’s no ‘near’ about how you think of Jesus

The Church may allow room for human error with regard to interpreting or translating the Bible, but Islam keeps the Quran in Arabic to avoid that specific problem. Both of them accept their respective works as inspired and entirely true.

Maybe, but have you ever grasped the soundness of either the Catholic/Christian- Mohammedean logic to convince yourself of any of its truth…or does it all just pass over your back as drivel?

I grew up in the Church, and both during that time and after I left it I have given at least Catholic apologetics serious consideration; the problem (and I assume it is similar in the case of Islam, based on what I know of it) is that to accept Catholic logic, one must first have faith. I do not. Reason can build upon faith, but it is not a foundation for it.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The Church may allow room for human error with regard to interpreting or translating the Bible, but Islam keeps the Quran in Arabic to avoid that specific problem. Both of them accept their respective works as inspired and entirely true.

I actually see that as one of the ‘proofs’ of Islamic faliability. If God- as powerfull and omni-everything; creating a multi-ethnic and diverse people would try to restrict his messege in one language just does not make sense. The history of how the Good News is capable to translate to other languages while maintaining the core mesege seems much more likely. Very little if anything is lost be it in English, Fench or Chinese. Even Arabic.

I grew up in the Church, and both during that time and after I left it I have given at least Catholic apologetics serious consideration; the problem (and I assume it is similar in the case of Islam, based on what I know of it) is that to accept Catholic logic, one must first have faith. I do not. Reason can build upon faith, but it is not a foundation for it.

I don’t know if faith is required to a large degree. I too grew up in the Church, and took a few detours in life with respect to faith and beliefs. It was in a state of un-belief that I researched why I would/could believe what I do. It is reason that continues to solidify my faith. I look for those problematic areas and with logic and reason they fall. Faith just helps me keep looking until I reason it out, and I do not try and stretch the truth to fit my view.

Somethings we must accept, or we accept nothing, and that is what led me back to the Church. I can accept the Gospels much like I accept Plato, the Rosetta Stone, and ancient Egyptuan texts carved in obilsks.

 

[Mirdath]

I actually see that as one of the ‘proofs’ of Islamic faliability. If God- as powerfull and omni-everything; creating a multi-ethnic and diverse people would try to restrict his messege in one language just does not make sense. The history of how the Good News is capable to translate to other languages while maintaining the core mesege seems much more likely. Very little if anything is lost be it in English, Fench or Chinese. Even Arabic.

Yet God first came to the Jews and only the Jews, right? It’s in your own texts

I don’t know if faith is required to a large degree. I too grew up in the Church, and took a few detours in life with respect to faith and beliefs. It was in a state of un-belief that I researched why I would/could believe what I do. It is reason that continues to solidify my faith. I look for those problematic areas and with logic and reason they fall. Faith just helps me keep looking until I reason it out, and I do not try and stretch the truth to fit my view.

I think we should just agree to disagree on this

Somethings we must accept, or we accept nothing, and that is what led me back to the Church. I can accept the Gospels much like I accept Plato, the Rosetta Stone, and ancient Egyptuan texts carved in obilsks.

I have no problem accepting that the gospels contain some factual truth, I have no impediment to believing that a preacher and moralist named Yeshua was collecting followers in Judea in the early first century; I draw the line at accepting his resurrection and divinity. I can also accept that Heracles was an early king in Argos, as did Eusebius and Jerome; I draw the line somewhere before we get into him wrestling Kerberos.

 

[inJESUS]

Mirdath,you are not giving credit to yourself . It was already pointed out that it is THEOLOGICAL and not scientific argument since, scientifically,both us and Muslims cannot prove that the God we spend our hours talking about even exist. So yes we have to refer to written words and based on these we make our theological arguments. No need for “you still refer to books” arguments because even using this argument, we refer to books written by non-Christians to prove our theology but Muslims reject them and rely on books written by themselves, rejecting all previous scriptures that contradict them when we use theme non-Christian scriptures to support our belief. As if Jews corrupted things related only to Muhammad.

 

[Mirdath]

It was already pointed out that it is THEOLOGICAL and not scientific argument since, scientifically,both us and Muslims cannot prove that the God we spend our hours talking about even exist.

Of course. Beyond the little sidetrack with Verisimilitude, how have I brought science into this at all? I am siding with reason, and there is certainly a place for that in theology, I’d hope.

No need for “you still refer to books” arguments because even using this argument, we refer to books written by non-Christians to prove our theology but Muslims reject them and rely on books written by themselves, rejecting all previous scriptures that contradict them when we use theme non-Christian scriptures to support our belief.

There is nothing wrong with referring to books. It is in saying that your book is self-evidently true that’s the problem. Why do you take it on the Church’s word that the Bible is without error? Because the Church is the organization Jesus established to shepherd souls to Heaven, correct? Where then is the record of the establishment of the Church for this purpose? In the Bible.

Have faith! Believe! I’m not denying you that – so do not deny it to others. Don’t take people to task for believing in a book when you do the same.

There is a distinction between the Christian and Muslim attitudes toward their precursors, you’re right – but I don’t think it’s really as big a difference as you seem to. The Christians say ‘this is the new and right way of doing things, the old is fulfilled’ while the Muslims say ‘this is the new and right way of doing things, the old is corrupted’. The former accepts its predecessor as truth and incorporates it into itself, the latter rejects them – but both Christianity and Islam deny that the old way is still the right way.

 

[inJESUS]

Of course. Beyond the little sidetrack with Verisimilitude, how have I brought science into this at all? I am siding with reason

, and there is certainly a place for that in theology, I’d hope. yes. You kept insisting on “and to what are you refering?”, in reference to any quotation given which makes us wonder : on what should we rely? a video camera? of course we will rely on scriptures but which person/scripture has more validity from a historical, theological point of view?someone backed up by previous scriptures, prophecies, voice from heaven ecc or someone who lacks these 3? reason says it’s the first. But you will tell me : you are relying on books and they are relying on books so what makes you claim superior to their? because :

we refer to books not written by Christians and long time before Christianity spread and refer to our scriptures that do not reject previous scriptures but fulfill them. Old covenant / New Covenant : promises, fulfillments, foreshadowing, prophecies, harmony : a theme that starts and ends fulfilled, in harmony with previous prophecies and themes.
Muslims refer to a book written by someone whose authority is questioned because he is not backed up by previous scriptures written by non-muslims, and because they reject previous scriptures because they contradict their teachings. Muhammad, obviously, has no place in the Old Covenant, neither, theologically, in the New Covenant theme where Jesus fulfilled everything; it’s the opposite, he denies all the New Covenant and all the fulfillments the Messiah did and which are in harmony with the Old Covenant.

What makes Muhammad different from Ghulam Ahmad or Joseph Smith? it is the authority, and the message, add to it denying previous scriptures.

The former accepts its predecessor as truth and incorporates it into itself, the latter rejects them – but both Christianity and Islam deny that the old way is still the right way.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

500 adulterous Jews???

Vickie

Yes, our friend here keeps on asserting that Christ died in Kashmir, yet where are his witnesses or evidence.

The Jews, Romans, Christians all were at the Crucifixion and agree it happened. But surraay says no, on the basis of someone at least half a millenium after the event.

Compare the eyewitnesses of anything in antiquity, and the NT is the best. The MSS of Socrates and Plato are not as well attested.

As for witness, if Surraay wants to push the definition as stated, then Islam doesn’t have any at all.

 

[hamba2han]

"Then we inspired you (O Muhammad) to follow the religion of Abraham, monotheism; never was he an idol-worshiper." [16:123]

There is only One God who created one race of human beings, and communicated to them one message: submission to the will of God—known in Arabic as Islam. That message was conveyed to the first human beings on this earth, and reaffirmed by all of the prophets of God who came after them, down through the ages.

In the years after they were sent by God to their respective people, the Message that the Prophets taught gradually became lost and eventually the people went back to wrong and abhorrent practices such as idol-worship and associating partners with their Creator.

It is therefore no surprise then that at the time of Muhammad (pbuh), the pagan Arabs were worshiping idols in the Kaa’ba, despite them being the likely descendants of Abraham (pbuh) through his son, Ishmael (pbuh).

The essence of the message of Islam is that humankind should worship only One God by obeying His commandments, and should avoid worshiping God’s creation in any way, shape or form.

Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, performed miracles and invited the Israelites to the same message of submission (Islam), as did all of the prophets who preceded him. He was not God, nor was he the ‘Son of God’, but was the Messiah, an illustrious prophet of God. Jesus did not invite people to worship himself; rather, he called them to worship God, and he himself worshiped God. He confirmed the laws of the Torah which Prophet Moses taught; he lived by them, and instructed his disciples to follow them to the finest detail. Before his departure, he informed his followers of the last prophet, Muhammad of Arabia (pbuh), who would come after him, and instructed them to observe his teachings.

In the generations after Jesus’ departure from this world, his teachings were distorted and he was elevated to the status of God. Six centuries later, with the coming of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the truth about Jesus Christ was finally retold and preserved eternally in the last book of divine revelation, the Qur’an. Furthermore, the laws of Moses, which Jesus followed, were revived in their pure and unadulterated form, and implemented in the divinely prescribed way of life known as Islam.

Consequently, the reality of the prophets, their uniform message, and the way of life which they followed, can only be found preserved in the religion of Islam, the only religion prescribed by God for man. Furthermore, only Muslims today actually follow Jesus and his true teachings. Their way of life is much more in tune with the way of life of Jesus than any of the modern day “Christians”. Love and respect of Jesus Christ is an article of faith in Islam. Allah stressed the importance of belief in Jesus in numerous places in the Qur’an. For example, in Chapter an-Nisaa (4):159, He said:

} وَ إِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلاَّ لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا {

“And all of the people of the scripture must believe in him [Jesus] before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them,”

 

[inJESUS]

"Then we inspired you (O Muhammad) to follow the religion of Abraham, monotheism; never was he an idol-worshiper."

[16:123]Ghulam Ahmad believes and teaches monotheism. Is he a true prophet according to you?

In the years after they were sent by God to their respective people, the Message that the Prophets taught gradually became lost and eventually the people went back to wrong and abhorrent practices such as idol-worship

 

[hamba2han]

What makes Muhammad different from Ghulam Ahmad or Joseph Smith?

The real difference between Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and all other so-called “prophets” who came after him is the ultimate proof of his Prophet-hood that he brought to humankind i.e. the timeless miracle which is the Qur’an.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

How to test the truth of a religion?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You need to watch this movie.

Considering the power and influence that his many enemies had over Makkah, it is certainly an incredible miracle by itself that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) succeeded in establishing Islam not just in Makkah but throughout all of Arabia and the lands beyond as well.

This miracle most definitely could not have happened without the help of Allah.

The persecusion of your prophet was at most around a decade, and during much of it he had the protection, according to your sources, of is clan under Abu Talib,etc.
The Church was persecuted and hunted down for nearly three centuries.
How you explain that.
Further, as the Romans, etc. destroyed the Bibles that they could get their hands on, and yet the remnants from the second century on, in various languages all agree.
Your Quran, according to your sources, was authorized in one language, in one country, and the caliph Uthman set out 4 copies and ordered the destruction of all others. And varients occur in the tafsir (commentaries on the Quran) and your tradition claims 7different (close, yet different) recensions (qiraa’ah). One would think with the random destruction of the Romans and the focused destruction of Uthman, that the textual history of the Quran would outshine the NT. Yet such is not the case.

 

[Mirdath]

yes. You kept insisting on “and to what are you refering?”, in reference to any quotation given which makes us wonder : on what should we rely? a video camera? of course we will rely on scriptures but which person/scripture has more validity from a historical, theological point of view?someone backed up by previous scriptures, prophecies, voice from heaven ecc or someone who lacks these 3? reason says it’s the first.

I asked that because in seeking to show me that the Bible is inerrant and right you quoted the Bible as an authority on the subject of its own inerrancy and rectitude. This is logic, not science.

we refer to books not written by Christians and long time before Christianity spread and refer to our scriptures that do not reject previous scriptures but fulfill them. Old covenant / New Covenant : promises, fulfillments, foreshadowing, prophecies, harmony : a theme that starts and ends fulfilled, in harmony with previous prophecies and themes.
Muslims refer to a book written by someone whose authority is questioned because he is not backed up by previous scriptures written by non-muslims, and because they reject previous scriptures because they contradict their teachings. Muhammad, obviously, has no place in the Old Covenant, neither, theologically, in the New Covenant theme where Jesus fulfilled everything; it’s the opposite, he denies all the New Covenant and all the fulfillments the Messiah did and which are in harmony with the Old Covenant.

And Judaism refers to no external sources at all. The very foundation of your faiths is not backed up by any previous scripture – it is ‘previous scripture’, but has nothing to verify it.

In the end, this is the central problem with revealed religions. No accountability.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

The real difference between Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and all other so-called “prophets” who came after him was the ultimate proof of his Prophet-hood that he brought to humankind i.e. the timeless miracle which is the Qur’an.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

How to test the truth of a religion?

Can you put meat on that bone?
What’s that timeless miracle?

 

[inJESUS]

The real difference between Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and all other so-called “prophets” who came after him was the ultimate proof of his Prophet-hood that he brought to humankind i.e. the timeless miracle which is the Qur’an.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Test everything. Hold on to the good.

How to test the truth of a religion?

A very subjective miracle, believed mainly by Muslims.

What is miraculous in a book that plagiarizes apocryphic gospels and Judeo-Christian legends? what is miraculous in a book that incorporates Gnostic teachings? is it the content or the style? the poetry in it?

a miracle is something believed by all, not a subjective one.

 

[hamba2han]

Can you put meat on that bone?
What’s that timeless miracle?

The full explanation is in the thread that I have posted the link to.