The Truth About Islam

[sedonaman]

Here’s the debate in syllogistic form.

You and others appear to be claiming

“Muhammad committed actions of type X;
Prophets of God do not commit actions of type X;
Therefore Muhammad is not a prophet of God.”

…

To quote you, no one said that. If they did, it is also a fallacy. All I’m saying is, “If Mohammed committed actions of type X, the fact that OT holy people also committed actions of type X [or similar] does not in any way excuse Mohammed’s committing actions of type X.”

Mohammed is not a prophet of God for much better reasons than his having committed actions of type X.

 

[Maria65]

The devil was called Iblees. He was from the Jinn i.e. The leader of cavemen.

 

[Contarini]

To quote you, no one said that. If they did, it is also a fallacy. All I’m saying is, “If Mohammed committed actions of type X, the fact that OT holy people also committed actions of type X [or similar] does not in any way excuse Mohammed’s committing actions of type X.”

But by using the phrase “holy people” you are admitting that Muhammad’s actions do not disqualify him from being holy, aren’t you? So what is the point that you and others are trying to make about Muhammad?

As I said, if the point is “it is bad for Muslims to regard Muhammad as a moral paragon, because Muhammad, like many people mentioned in the Bible, was a deeply flawed and sinful person even if, as Muslims claim, God chose to use him in an important way,” then I think that’s a valid point.

In other words, the parallel between Muhammad and Biblical characters is relevant and logical *as long as *you are explicitly or implicitly making a claim about Muhammad’s character that you wouldn’t make about these Biblical characters.

I understand that it was KingAlfred and Sushi, and not you, who raised the question of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. Sushi explicitly, and KingAlfred implicitly, raised the point as an argument against Islam. To this Friendship responded with what she saw as Biblical parallels. We could at this point have had a fruitful conversation about the difference between the Bible and Islam in terms of how “holy people” are treated. In my opinion the Bible’s “warts and all” approach is one of its glories.

The only point at which I quarrel with you is your remark “no, no, no” to Young Thinker, who was trying to deal with Friendship’s point. Given the way others (not you) raised the question of Muhammad and Aisha, friendship’s response was legitimate. You yourself are not claiming “Islam is false because Muhammad married a child,” but you are trying to stifle the discussion of the legitimate questions raised by those who *do *claim this.

Edwin

 

[planten]

contarini has nicely refuted the illogical one eyed stand of sedonaman of attacking Muhammad. Specially when it was stated to sedonaman that Aisha was not nine year old when married. She was 16 years old. It is now more than 1400 years and it is not possible to ascertain the truth of the matter. Specially when this matter is not in the Quran, it is only in a Hadith. There is no need to pursue that matter. Many of the hadith are not true.

It had been mentioned here in the forum that Hadith is just better than the bibleNT. While bibleNT is not half as reliable as our hadith. What use is it to dig up very old matters.

The Catholics enjoy spreading bad news about Muhammad however they may be false news. But when the Muslims tell the truth of the matter (about the past prophets) or about the status of the bibleNT (the man made book), of course they do not like it. They get upset. It is natural. We Muslims also do not like bad things about our religion.

We have denied the news about Muhammad marrying the very young girl. That should end the debate so that we can get on with better things. If sedonaman will say that it is the topic, yes, the Topic is “The Truth about Islam.” sedonaman cannot see any other truth about Islam except the marraige of the prophet Muhammad. It is clear that the stand of sedonaman is malafide. The main source of Islam is the Quran. sedonaman should bring his news (The truth) from the Quran. Not from hadith.

 

[Contarini]

contarini has nicely refuted the illogical one eyed stand of sedonaman of attacking Muhammad.

I was refuting sedoman’s attempt to have the case dismissed.

Specially when it was stated to sedonaman that Aisha was not nine year old when married. She was 16 years old.

It has been stated. Stated is not the same thing as proven.

It is now more than 1400 years and it is not possible to ascertain the truth of the matter.

Then how can you state firmly that she was 16 years old?

Specially when this matte ris not in the Quran, it is only in a Hadith. There is no need to pursue that matter. Many of the hadith are not true.

But isn’t it important to know which? And since many of your fellow-Muslims disagree with you, isn’t it important for you to discuss the matter with them?

It had been mentioned here in the forum that Hadith is just better than the bibleNT. While bibleNT is not half as reliable as our hadith.

It may have been mentioned, but again, mentioned is not the same thing as proved. Muslims unfortunately get the impression that their texts are more reliable than ours because ours have been more extensively studied, and because it has now been several centuries since a scholar who expressed skeptical views of the Bible was likely to face personal danger.

What use is it to dig up very old matters.

Because history is fun and important, and because both of us belong to faiths rooted in “very old matters.”

The Catholics enjoy spreading bad news about Muhammad

Many Catholics on this forum. Don’t judge all Catholics by them.

But when the Muslims tell the truth of the matter (about the past prophets) or about the status of their bible (the man made book), of course they do not like it. They get upset. It is natural. We Muslims also do not like bad things about our religion.

Indeed. The common behavior of your co-religionists in this respect is reprehensible and we Christians should not imitate it.

We have denied the news about Muhammad marrying the very young girl. That should end the debate

If debates could be ended by a flat denial on one side, then no debates would happen at all.

Denial is the beginning of a debate, not the end.

Edwin

 

[planten]

I was refuting sedoman’s attempt to have the case dismissed.

Quite right.

It has been stated. Stated is not the same thing as proven

.
Nobody is proving anything. sedonaman was also stating on the basis of some Hadith. That does not constitute a proof.

Then how can you state firmly that she was 16 years old?

It is based on the general news that all children of Abubakr were born before the year 622 A.D.

But isn’t it important to know which? And since many of your fellow-Muslims disagree with you, isn’t it important for you to discuss the matter with them?

Yes, it is important to discuss with other Muslims. But we come to know these bad things from the Catholics only. So we are looking into the right replies slowly.

It may have been mentioned, but again, mentioned is not the same thing as proved. Muslims unfortunately get the impression that their texts are more reliable than ours because ours have been more extensively studied, and because it has now been several centuries since a scholar who expressed skeptical views of the Bible was likely to face personal danger.

Mentioning is not necessarily proving. But we Muslims have the real original revealed book i.e. the Quran. The christians go all out to deny our book as reliable revealed book. That closes all fair doors of any further discussion. Whereas we Muslims know that the christians do not have any book, no original. There is translation from another translation from anothe rtranslation while the original is not to be found.

Because history is fun and important, and because both of us belong to faiths rooted in “very old matters.”

So it is good fun to enjoy teasing a group of people even by blaming a world renouned great prsonality !!!

Many Catholics on this forum. Don’t judge all Catholics by them

.
Yes, thanks. That is a good advice.

Indeed. The common behavior of your co-religionists in this respect is reprehensible and we Christians should not imitate it

.
I know there are equally bad Muslims. What they are doing is not good at all.

If debates could be ended by a flat denial on one side, then no debates would happen at all.
Denial is the beginning of a debate, not the end.
Edwin

That is right. Thanks.

 

[Maria65]

Mentioning is not necessarily proving. But we Muslims have the real original revealed book i.e. the Quran. The christians go all out to deny our book as reliable revealed book. That closes all fair doors of any further discussion. Whereas we Muslims know that the christians do not have any book, no original. There is translation from another translation from anothe rtranslation while the original is not to be found.

You know, Planten, coming on a Catholic forum and telling us the Quran is right and the Bible is false is not going to get you very far. And, no, that does not “close all fair doors of any further discussion.” If you want to believe that, fine, but you have not proven anything to us.

Too bad you don’t live near me, Planten, I could take you with me to my Argument and Persuasion class tonight. Maybe you might learn how to actually debate people.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t think they were high-functioning animals either (well, they were, but they were more than that too). And for now at least they are still grouped taxonomically within our species, Homo sapiens. Even though, as I said, the trend has been away from aggressively anthropomorphizing them as people tended to in the 1970’s, I still think they are close enough to us that it is very probable that they too were made in the image of God. It would be strange if they weren’t, since they were short, barrel-chested and strongly muscled but still very human-looking.

 

[tomarin]

I never read those but I seem to remember there were some very human Neanderthal characters in Jose Farmer’s “Riverworld” series as well. (Now we’re really off topic.)

 

[Young_Thinker]

I just do not believe that Adam looked like anything other than a modern man. The Neadethral was, frankly, too apelike to have been in God’s image and, thus, were souless(as harsh it may sound). Technically, they were men(Homo sapiens) but only biologically, not spiritually or the like. Some birds weave baskets, and number of animals have remorse over their relatives dying, including the chimpanzee. In addition, just because they buried their dead does not mean they had a requiem by any extent. Besides, science certainly does not have a monopology upon truth(they only can assess appearances). I accept evolution, but it is far from being infallible, obviously unlike a Catholic dogma.

 

[tomarin]

I just do not believe that Adam looked like anything other than a modern man. The Neadethral was, frankly, too apelike to have been in God’s image and, thus, were souless(as harsh it may sound). Technically, they were men(Homo sapiens) but only biologically, not spiritually or the like. Some birds weave baskets, and number of animals have remorse over their relatives dying, including the chimpanzee. In addition, just because they buried their dead does not mean they had a requiem by any extent. Besides, science certainly does not have a monopology upon truth(they only can assess appearances). I accept evolution, but it is far from being infallible, obviously unlike a Catholic dogma.

They were very, very close to being like modern men: just shorter and more stoutly built. They had the muscle of an NFL linebacker hung on a 5-foot frame. There is some evidence that they did not engage in the same kind of sophisticated behaviors that modern humans did, such as exploiting game and fish runs that happened at regular, predictable times. (They also appear to have been more accident-prone, to judge by the abrasions on their bones and the high amount of broken bones.) But they did hunt and fish and used tools of their own devising to do so.

In any event, they were so close to us physically that I think they were made in the image of God. To deny them that because they weren’t as tall or willowy seems like hair-splitting.

 

[Young_Thinker]

…just they are classified as being part ( subspecies) of our species(in reality, man is not an animal, namely because of His intervention) does not make them the same as we are. If we use an scientific argument, we could almost as easily say that “Lucy” had a soul.

 

[tomarin]

…just they are classified as being part ( subspecies) of our species(in reality, man is not an animal, namely because of His intervention) does not make them the same as we are. If we use an scientific argument, we could almost as easily say that “Lucy” had a soul.

Lucy belongs to another species of hominid entirely, “Australopithecus Afarensis” and had a brain the size of an ape, although she walked upright. It would be harder to make the case for her having a human soul, I think.

 

[Young_Thinker]

I appreciate your response; however, Adam and Eve were classically attractive people, not apish-looking. Also, do not forget that higher apes use tools. In addition, if we look to science, there is far from being definite evidence(and is quite a controversy, as I have been told by a paleontologist) upon whether the modern man is descended from Neaderthal and, I think, any of his “cousins”(including Homo erectus), just that we have a common ancestor. Assuming that Darwinism is metaphysically** true, do you really think that we continued to evolve after**** after God gave us a soul (which would also imply that he made us imperfect at first)?

They were very, very close to being like modern men: just shorter and more stoutly built. They had the muscle of an NFL linebacker hung on a 5-foot frame. There is some evidence that they did not engage in the same kind of sophisticated behaviors that modern humans did, such as exploiting game and fish runs that happened at regular, predictable times. (They also appear to have been more accident-prone, to judge by the abrasions on their bones and the high amount of broken bones.) But they did hunt and fish and used tools of their own devising to do so.

In any event, they were so close to us physically that I think they were made in the image of God. To deny them that because they weren’t as tall or willowy seems like hair-splitting.

 

[tomarin]

I appreciate your response; however, Adam and Eve were classically attractive people, not apish-looking.

They’re pictured that way, sure, but we don’t really know what they looked like, whether they were black, white, red or brown, had kinky or straight hair, etc. And I don’t think it’s quite right to describe Neanderthals as “apish-looking.” They looked much more human than ape-like.

Also, do not forget that higher apes use tools.

Sure, they manipulate sticks and so forth to probe anthills, but they don’t fashion them themselves out of stone or wood. There are degrees of sophistication in tool use, and the Neanderthals were light years ahead of apes.

In addition, if we look to science, there is far from being definite evidence(and is quite a controversy, as I have been told by a paleontologist) upon whether the modern man is descended from Neaderthal and, I think, any of his “cousins”(including Homo erectus), just that we have a common ancestor.

It’s not clear yet exactly what our relationship to Neanderthals were, and whether they lived at the same time as modern humans, and if so whether we played a role in their demise by either killing them off or by breeding with them, but nevertheless most paleontologists believe that they weren’t our direct ancestors but cousins.

Assuming that Darwinism is metaphysically** true, do you really think that we continued to evolve after**** after God gave us a soul (which would also imply that he made us imperfect at first)?

Let me answer this later, I have to go.

 

[planten]

You know, Planten, coming on a Catholic forum and telling us the Quran is right and the Bible is false is not going to get you very far. And, no, that does not “close all fair doors of any further discussion.” If you want to believe that, fine, but you have not proven anything to us.

Too bad you don’t live near me, Planten, I could take you with me to my Argument and Persuasion class tonight. Maybe you might learn how to actually debate people.

Thanks Maria for the invitation. The door is open for you to teach me anything from your bibleNT (gospels). I have to complain about the attitude of the christians because they put themselves on a different (higher) platform and the others on a false platform. I did not want anything special for Islam. I only wanted that the christians should believe that Quran is a revealed book, just like the Muslims believe that bibleOT and NT are revealed books.

But I see that you people are not fair. You have some difficulty, weakness in your theology. I do not know what you want to teach me. It is good that you have a plan in your mind and you may be having clear vision ahead, smooth sailing. I am not dishonest. I will appreciate any good thing from any one. Welcome. But I am sorry that you did not appreciate my point about christians not being at level with Muslims about many things. Christians want that Muslims should believe Jesus as son of God and as a God too. But christians will not believe that Muhammad was a good man.

What do you say? Is any debate necessary under those bad conditions??

 

[Contarini]

I just do not believe that Adam looked like anything other than a modern man.

Well, you can believe anything you like, but on a discussion forum it’s more profitable to give some reasons for your belief rather than simply stating it as a fiat from on high.

The Neadethral was, frankly, too apelike to have been in God’s image

How do you know this? What is your standard for how “apelike” God’s image can be, and where do you get this standard?

, thus, were souless(as harsh it may sound).

I wish people on discussion forums would worry less (rhetorically–people who say this never seem to really worry about it) about being “harsh” and more about having sound reasons. The problem with your claim isn’t that it is “harsh,” but that you have given no rational basis for it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I appreciate your response; however, Adam and Eve were classically attractive people

Do you have a time machine you haven’t told us about? I am astounded by the detail of your apparent knowledge of Adam and Eve. Can you share the sources of your information, or would you have to kill us afterward?

not apish-looking. Also, do not forget that higher apes use tools.

Which may indicate that they have the beginnings of the image of God.

In addition, if we look to science, there is far from being definite evidence(and is quite a controversy, as I have been told by a paleontologist) upon whether the modern man is descended from Neaderthal and, I think, any of his “cousins”(including Homo erectus), just that we have a common ancestor.

Yes, but that’s not really relevant to the question of ensoulment. Abel, in the Biblical account, had no descendants. He was still a son of Adam and Eve.

Assuming that Darwinism is metaphysically true, do you really think that we continued to evolve after after God gave us a soul (which would also imply that he made us imperfect at first)?

Define “evolve.” Evolution is happening all the time–just very incrementally.

If you mean “evolve into a new species,” a new species is usually defined by the impossibility of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring (though it’s not quite that simple. Could Neanderthals and modern humans have children with each other, who would themselves be fertile? I don’t think we know the answer to that question.

Edwin

 

[tomarin]

I don’t know that one, but I recall reading an unusually moving short story by Isaac Asimov about a Neanderthal boy transported by a time machine to our era who is assigned a human caretaker who is initially disgusted by him but gradually develops maternal feelings toward him as she comes to see the common humanity that they share. I think she ends up sneaking him out of the area he’s confined in so that he can live a normal life as a human.

It’s been years since I read this stuff so I don’t know how well it’s stood the test of time. I do think Farmer is probably a much better writer than Asimov was. He did seem to tire a bit of the Riverworld project as the sequels kept a-comin’.

 

[tomarin]

Assuming that Darwinism is metaphysically** true, do you really think that we continued to evolve after**** after God gave us a soul (which would also imply that he made us imperfect at first)?

I’m making a much narrower argument than that, namely that while Homo sapiens neanderthalis may not have shared the exact same human nature as we have, and may not have been capable of all the behaviors that anatomically modern humans were, they looked a lot like us – much more like us than apes. And they did engage in some modern human-like behaviors. I wouldn’t be surprised if they wore clothes for example. Therefore if we are made in the image of God, then so must they have been.

I’m not sure what to say about earlier human ancestors. We know a lot less about them than we do about Neanderthals. They may have been more like animals, but then are we not allowed as catholics to believe animals have a soul? I’m just not familiar with the theology on this.