How much could the Trinity be argument using logic?
Which principles of Islam are irrational and fantastic as Trinity?
All issues of Islam are positive and they can be argued in logic.
The Trinity is a mystery, and we only know about it because of revelation, not because of reason or logic. I would defend hasantas’s words: the Trinity **is **irrational and fantastic. I don’t think that’s insulting, I think it’s accurate. You can’t arrive at the concept of the Trinity through reason alone, so it’s irrational, right? And “fantastic” just means “strange” or “incredible.” I agree.
I will ignore question 2 because any answer would provoke an endless debate. As one of the final suras says, you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. Let’s leave it at that. There is no point arguing over things that are solely matters of belief.
But logic is another thing. The core beliefs of Islam are not the problem–they are the same as Judaism and Christianity. But there are a host of issues connected with the Qur’an and hadith and their internal logic. Here are a few of the many issues (I’m not going to quote sura numbers, etc., you should know them yourself):
If the Qur’an and God are both uncreated, why isn’t the Qur’an God?
If the Qur’an is unchanged, why can we find different versions in the manuscripts? Why do hadiths talk about lost verses, etc.? Why did Uthman have to burn all the existing Qur’ans and issue an “official” version if God was going to protect the Qur’an from being changed? (And if you argue that Uthman’s actions were HOW God was protecting the Qur’an, then it’s very much like saying “Anything that happens is God’s will.”–which it is only in the sense that God theoretically had the power to prevent it.)
If hadith collections like Abu Muslim and al-Bukhari are called “Sahih,” why do Muslims call the hadith they don’t like in those collections “weak”?
If the Qur’an is unchanged, what about all the abrogated verses? Why do we see them increase in number over time, up to a certain point? Why don’t all Muslilms agree on which verses have been abrogated? Why do some Muslims think no verses have been abrogated at all? In other words, there is no agreement on this issue, which is extremely important.
If one of the principles is the sunna, how can some Muslims ignore centuries of tradition and support new interpretations?
If the Qur’an is the eternal revelation of God, why is so much of it concerned with trivial matters, things that only apply to a particular time and place, or trying to justify actions of Muhammad?
The Qur’an says several times that it is “clear.” But there are a lot of contradictory verses. There are also parts that don’t make sense. If you argue that the hadith and sira explain them, then you are also arguing that the Qur’an by itself is
not clear–a contradiction.
The Qur’an has many Bible stories, but they are all a little different than the versions in the orthodox Bible. The Qur’anic versions are easily traceable to Gnostic or Syriac versions of the Bible–all of later date than the orthodox Bible–that Muhammad would have had access to. So the Qur’anic versions of these stories are inaccurate.
Several times the Qur’an tells Muslims to ask Christians and Jews for verification of things, or to look at the Bible. But if the Bible is corrupted in the Muslim view, how can Muhammad use it as a reference point? (And to argue that Muhammad is talking about some “real” or “Heavenly” Bible and not the one available contradicts his advice to consult the Bible that was available to people at the time.)
There is really no need to reply to any of this. I understand that from the viewpoint of a Muslim believer,
all of this can be explained away–otherwise you wouldn’t be Muslim! But you have to understand that from the viewpoint of a non-Muslim, looking at Islam from the outside,
none of this makes any sense.
Finally, I didn’t “claim Muslims to be irrational” in a general sense. Muslims are just as rational as anyone else. And if you look at the Catholic Church, it took the same position Muslims are taking now: scientific, objective study of the Bible was blasphemy. But over the last 400 years things have changed. Now we have Bart Ehrman (atheist) constantly quoting Raymond Brown (whose books have the imprimatur and nihil obstat). I can read Bart Ehrman and we can agree on the evidence: we just have different conclusions. In Islam, we can’t even agree on the evidence since that is a matter of faith to Muslims. You can’t start your investigation of–for example–the Qur’an with the a priori belief that it is the uncreated word of God. You have to set that aside and look at physical and historical evidence.
.
