[Serious] Time to embrace Islam!

[GrandizerII]

So says Islamic tradition. Do we have historical evidence to back this up?

According to Catholic tradition, Mary was perpetually a virgin and assumed into heaven upon her death. Doesn't make it true.

Even so, all this shows is that Muhammad was exceptionally good with Arabic words. So even in your description of the tradition you speak of, you don't bring up anything blatantly miraculous.

Everything reliable islamic tradition says is based on Isnad which, roughly speaking, determines the degree of confidence we can have about some particular statement Muhammad said, and we do that by looking at the chain of known historical figures who reported the subject and how truthful they are etc.

It's a complicated subject, and actually an entire field of study in Islamic theology given its importance. It's enough to know that it was acclaimed even by orientalist scholars:

Reading the text in the image, they don't seem confident enough about the accuracy of these traditions. What they say in the image is its value in making for accuracy cannot be questioned, but this doesn't necessarily mean the accuracy of these traditions cannot be questioned. What I understand them to be saying is that this Isnad is a useful means to arrive at accurate truths, but only provided that it isn't riddled with fabrications and such, practices that were common and even tolerated.

In other words, "meh".

If Muhammad's challenge is successful, there is no way around warranting a supernatural entity. How else can one explain uttering extraordinarily good literature dealing with all aspects of life and challenging all the future generations to come up with anything remotely comparable.

I've read the Qur'an, and it certainly doesn't deal with all aspects of life (unless you were just being rhetorical here). I also didn't get the impression it was the greatest literature of all time.

Also, his claim was by and large falsifiable, as any contemporary could've noticed an internal inconsistency or come up with his own version of a holy book, but none of that was reported despite the Qur'an itself reporting all the famous objections made by Meccan pagans to Muhammad's message.

Again, this assumes the traditions are accurate, and if so, that Muhammad's contemporaries had easy access to the message at the time. So again, we're arguing from ignorance here, and arguments from ignorance don't work very well here.

It also assumes, by the way, that there is something so awesome about the book it couldn't have been rivaled, but it's not clear to me how this awesomeness has been measured. Sounds like a rather biased POV.

This might seem like empty words to anyone who doesn't understand Arabic. But I think it's enough for a nonnative speaker to know that Arabic grammar itself was built in large parts around the literary themes of this holy book.

I'm Lebanese, and can read and write Arabic (fous7a). The Qur'an is, for sure, a literary work of significant value, but it ain't as impressive as you're making it out to be.

[The Valkyrie]

Kidding aside, what would be the advantage to me of 'embracing Islam'?  I've never, for as long as I can recall, been a believer in any religion.  I'm in a gloriously happy marriage, I have friends and family who care about me, I have work that interests and engages me, my health is good, I've got bags of free time, and - while not exactly rich - I've done well enough to retire in a couple of years.

So, in what way do you imagine embracing Islam would make things better for me?

Boru

I notice you didn’t get an answer.

The same question applies to me, since I’m a woman and we know how badly my gender is treated in Muslim countries.

[Fireball]

[SERIOUS]

OP, would you like to have me embrace you in the name of Allah while I am wearing a nice explosive vest designed by Achmed?

[Fake Messiah]

Again, that's no argument "He didn't read the Koran" but avoiding his actual claims that he said about Islam and because, I'm assuming, you can't handle them.

A lot of people didn't read "Mein Kampf" but can make true criticism about Nazism and Fascism.

A more reasonable assumption from your part would be that Dawkins was outright wrong and anything he utters about this particular religion should be treated with a grain of salt.

Moreover, since "Mein Kampf" and the Qur'an are to some degree comparable to you, you clearly need to read the latter.

Well if you don't like "Mein Kampf" parallel then take another one: you didn't read "Dianetics" and yet you concluded that Scientology is fake and just lies and deceptions, as did Dawkins with your garbage religion.

Yeah, Islam is totally not comparable to Nazism... oh wait, it so is

https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...th/355961/

[Nay_Sayer]

A more reasonable assumption from your part would be that Dawkins was outright wrong and anything he utters about this particular religion should be treated with a grain of salt.

Moreover, since "Mein Kampf" and the Qur'an are to some degree comparable to you, you clearly need to read the latter.

Well if you don't like "Mein Kampf" parallel then take another one: you didn't read "Dianetics" and yet you concluded that Scientology is fake and just lies and deceptions, as did Dawkins with your garbage religion.

Yeah, Islam is totally not comparable to Nazism... oh wait, it so is

https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...th/355961/

I know for a fact neither of them has read the 13 tomes of Pastafarianism.

[WinterHold]

So says Islamic tradition. Do we have historical evidence to back this up?

According to Catholic tradition, Mary was perpetually a virgin and assumed into heaven upon her death. Doesn't make it true.

Even so, all this shows is that Muhammad was exceptionally good with Arabic words. So even in your description of the tradition you speak of, you don't bring up anything blatantly miraculous.

Everything reliable islamic tradition says is based on Isnad which, roughly speaking, determines the degree of confidence we can have about some particular statement Muhammad said, and we do that by looking at the chain of known historical figures who reported the subject and how truthful they are etc.

It's a complicated subject, and actually an entire field of study in Islamic theology given its importance. It's enough to know that it was acclaimed even by orientalist scholars:



If Muhammad's challenge is successful, there is no way around warranting a supernatural entity. How else can one explain uttering extraordinarily good literature dealing with all aspects of life and challenging all the future generations to come up with anything remotely comparable.

Also, his claim was by and large falsifiable, as any contemporary could've noticed an internal inconsistency or come up with his own version of a holy book, but none of that was reported despite the Qur'an itself reporting all the famous objections made by Meccan pagans to Muhammad's message.

This might seem like empty words to anyone who doesn't understand Arabic. But I think it's enough for a nonnative speaker to know that Arabic grammar itself was built in large parts around the literary themes of this holy book.

Translating the Arabic text so people can understand:

"     Though the "theory of Isnad" did make a lot of problems become mandatory because search about the validity of reciters does cause that, and because the forging of Hadiths was a common thing and sometimes was taken lightly; but the value of the "theory of Isnad" in achieving accuracy is in a position of no doubt; Muslims have the right to be proud with the science of Hadith. "

Anyways; this is one text from Islamic books; right?
Read it once..Read it twice.....

Hell read it thrice.

Isn't there something wrong? the author is saying "forging Hadith was common"..then in the end takes a blind leap of faith regarding the authenticity of what he himself called "forged" a few line back..

Nothing is wrong??

---

A very interesting link from wikipedia says:

Mainstream Muslim view

Muslims view this hadith as notable and important on several accounts: several prominent persons are mentioned in the hadith and several controversial issues are dealt with.
Sunni view

Muhammad Husayn Haykal
“ Umar ibn al-Khattab once tried to deal with the problem of committing the Hadith to writing. The companions of the Prophet whom he consulted, encouraged him, but he was not quite sure whether he should proceed. One day, moved by God's inspiration, he made up his mind and announced: "I wanted to have the traditions of the Prophet written down, but I fear that the Book of God might be encroached upon. Hence I shall not permit this to happen." He, therefore, changed his mind and instructed the Muslims throughout the provinces: "Whoever has a document bearing a prophetic tradition, shall destroy it." The Hadith, therefore, continued to be transmitted orally and was not collected and written down until the period of al-Mamun.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_..._on_hadith

So Hadith -even by very very very very early Islamic Sunni tradition; was "to be burned down", until Ummayads ruled and changed the rule.

[R00tKiT]

Kidding aside, what would be the advantage to me of 'embracing Islam'?  I've never, for as long as I can recall, been a believer in any religion.  I'm in a gloriously happy marriage, I have friends and family who care about me, I have work that interests and engages me, my health is good, I've got bags of free time, and - while not exactly rich - I've done well enough to retire in a couple of years.

So, in what way do you imagine embracing Islam would make things better for me?

Boru

Congratulations first !

Objectively speaking, Islam doesn't guarantee a fulfilling life in the materialistic way. The very meaning of the word Islam is complete submission to the will of God, which means putting religion ahead of everything else. What one truly gets is a satisfactory answer to the big questions, and some sort of ultimate purpose to be pursued for the promise of heavenly afterlife. Everything else is regarded as means for the purpose. As a result, various aspects of life are rethought in Islam.

---

Reading the text in the image, they don't seem confident enough about the accuracy of these traditions. What they say in the image is its value in making for accuracy cannot be questioned, but this doesn't necessarily mean the accuracy of these traditions cannot be questioned. What I understand them to be saying is that this Isnad is a useful means to arrive at accurate truths, but only provided that it isn't riddled with fabrications and such, practices that were common and even tolerated.

In other words, "meh".

Well, the whole point of Isnad is to spot these fabrications. Also, the conditions for a hadith to be declared authentic or sahih'  are pretty rigorous once one understands them. If this doesn't make one assured of the accuracy of Islamic traditions, then one should seriously study this science. Yes, it's a whole field of expertise and there are scholars who dedicated their lives to formalise it.
I agree there is no 100% certainty here, but one should try to avoid to be unreasonably skeptical. It's one thing to say that fabrications are common and that one should be extremely careful when looking for them. It's quite another to dismiss the entire tradition because elements of uncertainty - that scholars dealt with extensively - exist.

I've read the Qur'an, and it certainly doesn't deal with all aspects of life (unless you were just being rhetorical here). I also didn't get the impression it was the greatest literature of all time

Actually, for you to get the 'impression' it was the greatest literature of all time, you should be proficient in literary criticism first and have loads of other credentials. The sure fire way to get an objective opinion about the Qur'an is to simply go back to what experts had to say about it, and once we read them, we don't find much disagreement.

Again, this assumes the traditions are accurate, and if so, that Muhammad's contemporaries had easy access to the message at the time. So again, we're arguing from ignorance here, and arguments from ignorance don't work very well here.

It also assumes, by the way, that there is something so awesome about the book it couldn't have been rivaled, but it's not clear to me how this awesomeness has been measured. Sounds like a rather biased POV.

Checking accuracy is as I said a huge subject, a really huge one. The only way one can get a satisfactory answer is to study the basics of Isnad and see if they are reasonable enough according to his standards. And if they are, arguing from traditions isn't arguing from ignorance anymore.

I already explained the way the book was unrivaled : Muhammad said the words of the Qur'an spontaneously in real life situations, it's like a coming up with a landmark of literature out of thin air without any previous preparation. And you probably already know that Muhammad was reportedly illiterate.

And since Muhammad's religion was a threat to the entire Meccan cultural heritage, one would expect all the people proficient in Arabic to debunk his new book and expose all its flaws, or at the very least come up with rival books. But none of that happened.

---

Well if you don't like "Mein Kampf" parallel then take another one: you didn't read "Dianetics" and yet you concluded that Scientology is fake and just lies and deceptions, as did Dawkins with your garbage religion.

Yeah, Islam is totally not comparable to Nazism... oh wait, it so is

https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...th/355961/

Using extremes such as Nazism, Mein Kampf and such, just to dimiss our religion as garbage before reading its book, is hardly more than garbage claims.

Also, the link provided says some countries consider apostasy, and not atheism per se, to be a crime. Apostasy is the religious equivalent of treason in common law.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Congratulations first !

Objectively speaking, Islam doesn't guarantee a fulfilling life in the materialistic way. The very meaning of the word Islam is complete submission to the will of God, which means putting religion ahead of everything else. What one truly gets is a satisfactory answer to the big questions, and some sort of ultimate purpose to be pursued for the promise of heavenly afterlife. Everything else is regarded as means for the purpose. As a result, various aspects of life are rethought in Islam.

Then Islam isn't for me, as I have absolutely no interest in an afterlife.

Boru

[R00tKiT]

Then Islam isn't for me, as I have absolutely no interest in an afterlife.

Boru

You should consider weither it's true though, because if it is, there's no running away from an afterlife.

---

Translating the Arabic text so people can understand:

The original text is the english one ...

Anyways; this is one text from Islamic books; right?

No.

Isn't there something wrong? the author is saying "forging Hadith was common"..then in the end takes a blind leap of faith regarding the authenticity of what he himself called "forged" a few line back..

Nothing is wrong??

Yes, something is wrong, nobody said "forging hadith was common" expect yourself. The author said what's written in English. The arabic text in the bottom is a translation.

So Hadith -even by very very very very early Islamic Sunni tradition; was "to be burned down", until Ummayads ruled and changed the rule.

Thank you for the groundbreaking historical insight. Too bad there's no Nobel Prize in historical science.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why do you support a religion that approves of child rape?