Islam true religion?

[Zakir_250]

Before you go perhaps you would like to explain why you and your modern Islamic apologists think your interpretation of the flood account in the Quran as a local event is better than that of Abd Allah ibn Abbas who considered it a global event? After all he was your prophet’s own cousin and is revered among Muslims as an expert in Tafsir and an authority on Islamic Sunnah.

According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Isahq- al-Hassan b. Dinar- Ali b. Zayd- Yusuf b. Mihran- Ibn Abbas: I [Yusuf b. Mihran] heard him [Ibn Abbas] say: ... The water increased wildly, and, as is assumed by the people of the Torah, rose fifteen cubits over the mountain tops. All creatures on the face the earth, every inspirited being or tree, disappeared. No creature remained except Noah and those with him in the boat, as well as Og b. Anak, as is assumed by the people of the Book. The time between God's sending the Flood and the receding of the water in six months and ten nights. (History of al-Tabari [State University of New York Press; Albany, NY 1989], pp. 360-361)

Hmm interesting question. I haven't read this before but from what I hear, there are other scholars which think differently about it. It's normal for one scholar to make a decision but doesn't mean we muslims should confirm what he says.

[SleepingDemon]

Okay. Be honest but what do you think of Muslim apologetics?

I hold Muslim apologetics in the same regard that i hold all apologetics, they cling to.a foundational assumption regardless of the direction their various debates take.

Say two scientists are discussing evolutionary biology, if scientist A presents evidence that contradicts scientist Believe, scientist B will have no choice but to reevaluate his/her preconceived notions and adjust to the new evidence. Apologists simply jam their fingers in their ears and retreat or redirect the conversation.

We have different definitions of evidence. The rational mind follows evidence, the irrational mind manipulates the evidence to support what they already believe. They hold your beliefs dogmatically, not tentatively as the secular world does. Apologetics remain apologetics even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The most damning evidence is however that there are Muslim apologetics, christian apologetics, scientology apologetics, Mormon apologetics, ad nauseum for every religion still in existence today. And though you have different brands, different methods, different holy books and favorite sources all apologetics presume to hold onto the truth that the rest of the world denies. I find all cases underwhelming.

[Zakir_250]

Okay. Be honest but what do you think of Muslim apologetics?

I hold Muslim apologetics in the same regard that i hold all apologetics, they cling to.a foundational assumption regardless of the direction their various debates take.

Say two scientists are discussing evolutionary biology, if scientist A presents evidence that contradicts scientist Believe, scientist B will have no choice but to reevaluate his/her preconceived notions and adjust to the new evidence. Apologists simply jam their fingers in their ears and retreat or redirect the conversation.

We have different definitions of evidence. The rational mind follows evidence, the irrational mind manipulates the evidence to support what they already believe. They hold your beliefs dogmatically, not tentatively as the secular world does. Apologetics remain apologetics even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The most damning evidence is however that there are Muslim apologetics, christian apologetics, scientology apologetics, Mormon apologetics, ad nauseum for every religion still in existence today. And though you have different brands, different methods, different holy books and favorite sources all apologetics presume to hold onto the truth that the rest of the world denies. I find all cases underwhelming.

Interesting analysis. However, to be honest with you I must say the Islamic apologetics today is poor. It was good when the likes of Deedat came in but unfortunetly most of apologists today just repeat what Deedat said and most of Deedat's arguments have been refuted because they are old arguments I guess.

It is improving because we have guys like Adam Deen, Abdullah Al-Andalusi and Hamza Tzortzis but there is still more to go. One thing I don't like about our apologetics is that they use others arguments instead of making thier own arguments. How many times have modern apologists repeated Zakir Naik's words?

[popeyespappy]

Before you go perhaps you would like to explain why you and your modern Islamic apologists think your interpretation of the flood account in the Quran as a local event is better than that of Abd Allah ibn Abbas who considered it a global event? After all he was your prophet’s own cousin and is revered among Muslims as an expert in Tafsir and an authority on Islamic Sunnah.

According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Isahq- al-Hassan b. Dinar- Ali b. Zayd- Yusuf b. Mihran- Ibn Abbas: I [Yusuf b. Mihran] heard him [Ibn Abbas] say: ... The water increased wildly, and, as is assumed by the people of the Torah, rose fifteen cubits over the mountain tops. All creatures on the face the earth, every inspirited being or tree, disappeared. No creature remained except Noah and those with him in the boat, as well as Og b. Anak, as is assumed by the people of the Book. The time between God's sending the Flood and the receding of the water in six months and ten nights. (History of al-Tabari [State University of New York Press; Albany, NY 1989], pp. 360-361)

Hmm interesting question. I haven't read this before but from what I hear, there are other scholars which think differently about it. It's normal for one scholar to make a decision but doesn't mean we muslims should confirm what he says.

Here is my hypothesis. When the Quran was recorded the account of the flood was considered to be a global event by Muslims the same as it was by Jews and Christians. This interpretation was universally accepted in the Islamic community for centuries. Then when advances in scientific knowledge made it apparent that there was no global flood Islamic apologists were forced to come up with a different interpretation of the flood account in order that their infallible book not be wrong. It is called revisionist history. It is intellectually dishonest. It is however a good way to avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with having errors in your infallible dogma.

[reverendjeremiah]

Interesting analysis. However, to be honest with you I must say the Islamic apologetics today is poor. It was good when the likes of Deedat came in but unfortunetly most of apologists today just repeat what Deedat said and most of Deedat's arguments have been refuted because they are old arguments I guess.

They were refuted because the arguments are not based in logic or reason. You might as well complain that the apologetics for Mother Goose just arent that good today.

It is improving because we have guys like Adam Deen, Abdullah Al-Andalusi and Hamza Tzortzis but there is still more to go. One thing I don't like about our apologetics is that they use others arguments instead of making thier own arguments. How many times have modern apologists repeated Zakir Naik's words?

You think the arguments for your superstition are improving? Look, there is only a limited amount of bullshit fake argument you can make for something like this. Eventually the bullshit is maxed out and nobody can think of anymore new bullshit ways to fool people into believing the superstition.

This means, with a little patience, one can easily learn every single bullshit argument for the superstition and easily debunk it. This also means that apologietics can never "get better", but they can have new twists they can put on the same old tired debunked arguments. This is why apologetics get old, eventually people realize:

"Hey, this "new" argument is the same as this old debunked argument...weve got to think up some new bullshit to add to it and quick!"

Allah has not one single good argument for his existence, not a single one.

[Violet]

Interrupting ridiculous thread with good music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHSd6RzJyms

Now go back to each other's throats!

[Epimethean]

Hamnchez Torte has been very clearly demonstrated to be an utterly incompetent boob. He has been played like a pinball by every major atheist he has attempted to question.

By the way, this comment struck me as extremely ludicrous, coming from you:

"One thing I don't like about our apologetics is that they use others arguments instead of making thier own arguments. "

ALL you have done in this thread is to throw other people's arguments, via links, out and then claim you are debating. To date, you have yet to utter an original thought here.

[Minimalist]

To date, you have yet to utter an original thought here.

In order to utter an original thought he would first have to have one.

[Cosmic Ape]

Are you saying the 1.8 billion people are wrong? You should keep in mind that more numbers are converting to Islam. Are they wrong as well?

I just want to point out what a terrible Bandwagon Fallacy this is...What about the other 5.2 billion you forgot about?...We have 7 billion people as of 2012 and your claiming that 1.8 billion people are smarter than the rest when your religion has ruined any area it has been infected by. Every country domianted by Islam has the worst ratings for peace in the Global Peace Index taken in 2008.

And we all know that Sharia Law makes it impossible to be an open apostate so even if you disagreed you dare not speak it in public. I hear it all the time from ex-muslims that call the Atheist Experience TV show, saying how scared they are to be an openly Atheistic person or even an openly Gay person without being hurt or killed.

I'm glad you left, how could any human be so blind with the intellect nature gave us.

[Epimethean]

Um, because he was absent the day nature called.