Australian Politics Forum - Historicity of Islamic beliefs

vanatos

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29
Gender: female

Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm

Hello everyone, im impressed people are discussing Islam and posting material from hadiths and other sources, since i have studied islam, have the hadiths and tafsirs on my computer, i'd like to clear some misconceptions Muslims and non-muslims have over the issue's raised in this thread.

On Historical evidence
First let me be clear that any discussion of Islam should note this importance distinction.

That historical evidence of various Islamic beliefs, is almost completely invalid or missing.

The discussion of Islam should properly be understood under the context of Islam as accepted by Muslims (for a long time due to various factors) as those beliefs derived from the quran, supported through sahih Hadiths and then tafsirs (popularly sunna and shia branches really)

It is important to understand this is different then saying the stuff in these texts actually happened, if you don't know, Bukhari (author of the collected texts of the bukhari hadiths) is well known to have gotten rid of 99% of 'hadith material' he deemed wrong, because it did not conform to the quran, indeed if you study Islamic history, you would know that hadith fabrication (people making stuff up that muhammad said) was commonplace by muslims back then.

Now does this mean that under the perspective of 'what really did happen' we have the only conclusion that we don't know, and that the accepted Islamic beliefs are contradictory most likely are not true historically (even the existence of the muhammad portrayed in Islam?).

Yes.

This puts Muslims under a problem really, since either they accept the hadiths, and therefore everything in it implied or explicitly said, or don't accept hadiths or even the quran's credibility, to which they are left with nothing really, but it is not our burden that Islamic texts are inconsistent.

On Aisha
So this popular problem, well i won't rehash what was typed before in this thread, but its very simple, if you believe in the existence of Aisha (which comes primarily from Hadith) you must accept that Muhammad had sex with her at 9 years old.

This is the accepted belief through the hadiths to the Tafsirs and supported by Sunna and Shia all the way up till now as an official belief, with the islamic rationalization of dolls being allowed because she was before the 'age of reason' (ie before puberty) because dolls is haram and other things brought up in this thread.

On society back then before Islam
This is unfortunate propaganda perpetrated by Muslims, which is blasphemy because their own religions texts contradict them.

In terms of religious freedom, while some places were horrible some were ok, the place where muhammad lived when he was preaching Islam, was a place of vast religious freedom.

Pre-islamic 'mecca', was a place of various religions (sabian, jews, pagans) all co-existing, and this IS the Islamic belief because it is echoed in the quran and hadith.

The story of Muhammad preaching against the other religions, and the other religious chiefs offering each to become of the other religion to see which one is better, is a story echoed in the quran and hadith (and the story of the satanic verses is related to all this).

So this is a popular historic misconception and propaganda, because it was not a state of 'perpetual war' nor was it a state of 'perpetual religious persecution'.

Muslims also seem to have forgotten that Muhammads first wife, before Islam ever existed, was a well known business leader.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #1 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:30pm

Hi Vanatos, and welcome to the forum.

You have introduced a worthwhile topic of discussion, which deserves its own thread.

Just to clear up a few things:

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

That historical evidence of various Islamic beliefs, is almost completely invalid or missing.

And what "islamic beliefs" do you suppose is dependent on invalid or missing historical evidence? Certainly not the core beliefs - ie what sort of "historical evidence" do you expect muslims to conjure up to prove the oneness of God? Or the last day? Heaven and hell? In fact I can't think of any belief - even ones that are loosely based on an earthly event that is claimed to have taken place - is invalidated by the historical evidence.

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

The discussion of Islam should properly be understood under the context of Islam as accepted by Muslims (for a long time due to various factors) as those beliefs derived from the quran, supported through sahih Hadiths and then tafsirs

tafsirs are not islamic text like the quran or ahadeeth. Its simply an arabic word for exegesis - explanation and interpretion of the islamic text.

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

Bukhari (author of the collected texts of the bukhari hadiths) is well known to have gotten rid of 99% of 'hadith material' he deemed wrong, because it did not conform to the quran

Incorrect. Bukhari dismissed a large number of ahadeeth as unauthentic because he applied a strict scientific approach to determining what was historically reliable and what was not:

Quote:

Quality and soundness of the chain of narrators of the selected ahādīth. Muhammad al-Bukhari has followed two principle criteria for selecting sound narratives. First, the lifetime of a narrator should overlap with the lifetime of the authority from whom he narrates. Second, it should be verifiable that narrators have met with their source persons. They should also expressly state that they obtained the narrative from these authorities. This is a stricter criterion than that set by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahih_al-Bukhari#Authenticity

In fact on the subject of sourcing in Islam, the standard set by Bukhari - who would fit in well with modern day scholarship - is typical. The compilation of Islamic fiqh is famous for the dedication of scholars in applying a strict and thorough scientific evidenced-based approach.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

wally1 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2055 Gender:	Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs Reply #2 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:47pm Its the first time I have ever come across historicity, I actually had to go to a dictionary to see what it meant.
Back to top	IP Logged

vanatos

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29
Gender: female

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #3 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 3:40pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

And what "islamic beliefs" do you suppose is dependent on invalid or missing historical evidence? Certainly not the core beliefs - ie what sort of "historical evidence" do you expect muslims to conjure up to prove the oneness of God? Or the last day? Heaven and hell? In fact I can't think of any belief - even ones that are loosely based on an earthly event that is claimed to have taken place - is invalidated by the historical evidence.

Any belief of taken as fact is up for scrutiny, this includes muhammads existance, aisha's existence, whether certain islamic events happened (ie battle of badr etc).

God also falls under this category, i believe you dismiss this because it is a well trodden path to which we know the conclusion is no evidence.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

tafsirs are not islamic text like the quran or ahadeeth. Its simply an arabic word for exegesis - explanation and interpretion of the islamic text.

Correct, however in islamic jurisprudence, it has weight, and is a basis for much of islamic branches verification and explanation of quran.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Incorrect. Bukhari dismissed a large number of ahadeeth as unauthentic because he applied a strict scientific approach to determining what was historically reliable and what was not:

incorrect
There is nothing scientific about it, it is certainly a methodology, but it is not scientific, indeed simply looking up the 'chain of narrators as written in a hadith' has nothing to do with science at all.

If i had a text saying 'John heard from adam who heard from Muhammad who said this' and looked up the credibility of these people, this is not scientific, indeed this would fail most historical scrutiny today, if you were to try to apply historical analysis proper, how could bukhari establish they were trustworthy? they were long dead by the time he existed, how exactly do we know he didn't just write who originated his collection of hadiths?

What you describe is actually circular logic a text can state it verifies itself.

Using scientific words in a colloquial or casual manner is very often confusing to many, ascribing credibility and confidence where there is none.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

In fact on the subject of sourcing in Islam, the standard set by Bukhari - who would fit in well with modern day scholarship - is typical. The compilation of Islamic fiqh is famous for the dedication of scholars in applying a strict and thorough scientific evidenced-based approach.

No it is not, if you were to read proper analysis of hadith especially by german scholars (since mostly they took an interest in it apart from say Arthur Jeffrey) you would find that they found less inconsistency of hadith that did not list its 'narrators', this is taken by scholars as fact that those who wrote a 'chain of narrators' for a hadith, did so with the explicit intent of establishing authority, and so had an ulterior motive.

While it seems you have some knowledge of Islam, that you use the word 'scientific' shows me you are getting it from propaganda.

What do you mean 'scientific'? as per the 'scientific method'? and yet there is no hypothesis nor tests, do you mean

Do you mean 'conforming to a particular branch of science and its methods'? well if we are to take say something like archaeology or maybe take the analysis of the bible, surely the sahih hadith that speaks authoratively that the moon was split into two, is disproven by science.

Please clarify how a text that describes supernatural phemonenon ie miracles, can ever hope to claim it uses a scientific evidence based approach for its validity

By your own logic, the Islamic texts must disprove itself.

Before we continue, please explain this illogic and wrongful use of terms.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 14^th, 2014 at 3:46pm by vanatos »

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21583
A cat with a view

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #4 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 4:42pm

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

.......historical evidence of various Islamic beliefs, is almost completely invalid or missing.

The discussion of Islam should properly be understood under the context of Islam as accepted by Muslims (for a long time due to various factors) as those beliefs derived from the quran, supported through sahih Hadiths and then tafsirs (popularly sunna and shia branches really)

It is important to understand this is different then saying the stuff in these texts actually happened, if you don't know, Bukhari (author of the collected texts of the bukhari hadiths) is well known to have gotten rid of 99% of 'hadith material' he deemed wrong......

vanatos,

Welcome.

vanatos,

If the Koran is perfect,

and if the Hadith is wrong [i.e. 'manmade'], and therefore wholly unreliable [because NOBODY knows which parts are reliable!], then why do moslems refuse to discard the Hadith [i.e. totally], and NOT choose to be 'righteously guided' by just the contents of Allah's [declared perfect, inerrant] Koran ?

I have heard moslems argue, that the Hadith provide context to the content of the Koran.

But, if moslems truly, truly, truly, believe that Allah's Koran is perfect and inerrant why don't they just follow the command's of Allah's already perfect Koran, alone ?

Dictionary;
perfect = =
1 having all the required elements, qualities, or characteristics.
2 free from any flaw; faultless.
3 complete; absolute.

Dictionary;
inerrant = = incapable of being wrong.

vanatos,

QUESTION;
Why do all, moslem theological 'colleges' choose to retain the Hadith, when the "hadith fabrication (people making stuff up that muhammad said) was commonplace by muslims back then"
, and when that fabrication is not disputed today, 2014 ???

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

......Bukhari (author of the collected texts of the bukhari hadiths) is well known to have gotten rid of 99% of 'hadith material' he deemed wrong, because it did not conform to the quran, indeed if you study Islamic history, you would know that hadith fabrication (people making stuff up that muhammad said) was commonplace by muslims back then.

vanatos,

This is heresy !!!

"Ye [moslems] are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."
Koran 3.110

Allah declares that moslems are [and have always been?] virtuous people!!!!

Someone please cut off your head, for contradicting Allah - and for insulting Allah and moslems everywhere !!

I'm just kidding, of course vanatos - because, i am not a moslem.

vanatos,

There is some further criticism of the inerrant Koran here which you may want to address;

The inerrant Koran???
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295396564/0

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

vanatos

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29
Gender: female

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #5 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 7:36pm

Hi Yadda, let us be perfectly honest, because i am only interested in truth, and you need to be honest, even if it is a blunt honesty that is uncomfortable to us.

To your various points, as i said, there is one perspective, the rational perspective that relies on evidence to verify something, and there is another perspective, blind faith.

Muslims by and large rely on blind faith,whether or not they dress it in arbitrary methodologies or 'reasons' to justify their belief, it is blind faith insofar as they will not accept evidence that contradicts and discards their belief.

their 'reasons' come after, when they try to justify their beliefs, here you can see the clash in their minds, which i consider a shining point for us humans, that even when Muslims rely on blind faith, part of their minds rebel and attempt to rationalize it, perhaps this is a sign that blind faith is not something we as humans can accept easily, not without alot of anger and bloodshed.

Now why do they accept quran and not discard hadith? ahh there is another addition besides blind faith, and that the quran by itself is nonsensical, contradictory and meaningless.

It is (if one studies Islamic texts) not even arranged in chronological order, indeed surah 9 and 2 are considered the 'last' sayings of muhammad even by the Islam.

It is contradictory, so contradictory that apparently God had to also state, in the quran, where he contradicts himself, what he says last overwrites what he said earlier (called popularly the doctrine of abrogation).

And we also have no context, it is a bunch of sayings, but when? why? to whom? many of this is not clear from the quran.

I have not even delved into the linguistic problems of the quran, that the earliest qurans are grammatically error-prone, as anyone who studies oriental languages well know, indeed the german orientalists knew this well, as did the early muslims, has anyone here looked at the samarqand codex? quite many changes from the current quran, even though it is the second oldest version we have.

For even the early Muslim historical texts, speak of missing verses (and this is in the hadith too), speak of foreign words (well nothing new to us english folk since we import them as we like) etc.

So Muslims needed a whole other apparatus to explain what the quran actually means, this is where hadith comes in.

So to reject hadith, is to put oneself in a position whereby virtually all Islamic beliefs are in question and shaky.

As to addressing other criticisms of Islam, i'd love to, i will get around to reading some of the other current threads here. Thanks for the link

Back to top

IP Logged

wally1

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2055
Gender: male

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #6 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 8:31pm

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Hi Yadda, let us be perfectly honest, because i am only interested in truth, and you need to be honest, even if it is a blunt honesty that is uncomfortable to us.

To your various points, as i said, there is one perspective, the rational perspective that relies on evidence to verify something, and there is another perspective, blind faith.

Muslims by and large rely on blind faith,whether or not they dress it in arbitrary methodologies or 'reasons' to justify their belief, it is blind faith insofar as they will not accept evidence that contradicts and discards their belief.

their 'reasons' come after, when they try to justify their beliefs, here you can see the clash in their minds, which i consider a shining point for us humans, that even when Muslims rely on blind faith, part of their minds rebel and attempt to rationalize it, perhaps this is a sign that blind faith is not something we as humans can accept easily, not without alot of anger and bloodshed.

Now why do they accept quran and not discard hadith? ahh there is another addition besides blind faith, and that the quran by itself is nonsensical, contradictory and meaningless.

It is (if one studies Islamic texts) not even arranged in chronological order, indeed surah 9 and 2 are considered the 'last' sayings of muhammad even by the Islam.

It is contradictory, so contradictory that apparently God had to also state, in the quran, where he contradicts himself, what he says last overwrites what he said earlier (called popularly the doctrine of abrogation).

And we also have no context, it is a bunch of sayings, but when? why? to whom? many of this is not clear from the quran.

I have not even delved into the linguistic problems of the quran, that the earliest qurans are grammatically error-prone, as anyone who studies oriental languages well know, indeed the german orientalists knew this well, as did the early muslims, has anyone here looked at the samarqand codex? quite many changes from the current quran, even though it is the second oldest version we have.

For even the early Muslim historical texts, speak of missing verses (and this is in the hadith too), speak of foreign words (well nothing new to us english folk since we import them as we like) etc.

So Muslims needed a whole other apparatus to explain what the quran actually means, this is where hadith comes in.

So to reject hadith, is to put oneself in a position whereby virtually all Islamic beliefs are in question and shaky.

As to addressing other criticisms of Islam, i'd love to, i will get around to reading some of the other current threads here. Thanks for the link

Are you also going to discuss the historicity of jesus and the bible?

Maybe analyse the contradictions, mistakes, errors, ommissions in the bible?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 14^th, 2014 at 8:58pm by wally1 »

IP Logged

Pete Waldo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 503
U.S.
Gender: male

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #7 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:14pm

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 3:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Incorrect. Bukhari dismissed a large number of ahadeeth as unauthentic because he applied a strict scientific approach to determining what was historically reliable and what was not:

incorrect
There is nothing scientific about it, it is certainly a methodology, but it is not scientific, indeed simply looking up the 'chain of narrators as written in a hadith' has nothing to do with science at all.

Indeed, ibn Hisham summed the "method" up well, in his edit of Ishak:

Ishaq: 691 "I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people."

Back to top

Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake

IP Logged

vanatos

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29
Gender: female

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #8 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:47pm

wally1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Are you also going to discuss the historicity of jesus and the bible?

Maybe analyse the contradictions, mistakes, errors, ommissions in the bible?

I could but that wasn't my intention when i posted in an Islamic sub-forum, nor would i be presenting much new material you could gain from the internet.

Biblical analysis is quite a mature field of academics, it is also fairly honest, the broad consensus even by christian biblical scholars is the unreliability of the texts itself as an accurate historical document, they have also extensively done linguistic analysis on it, which is why you get the whole 'Q' source document.

But my experience with those who ask for such a thing during Islamic discussions is a thinly veiled Tu quoque argument, so permit me to ask why criticism of one religion should invariably deflect onto christianity?

There are many other religions out there, and i am not talking about the abrahamic religions, why the special mention of christianity?

Back to top

IP Logged

Pete Waldo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 503
U.S.
Gender: male

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #9 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:52pm

Welcome to the forum Vanatos!

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 2:30pm:

Hi Vanatos, and welcome to the forum.

You have introduced a worthwhile topic of discussion, which deserves its own thread.

Just to clear up a few things:

vanatos wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

That historical evidence of various Islamic beliefs, is almost completely invalid or missing.

And what "islamic beliefs" do you suppose is dependent on invalid or missing historical evidence? Certainly not the core beliefs - ie what sort of "historical evidence" do you expect muslims to conjure up to prove the oneness of God? Or the last day? Heaven and hell? In fact I can't think of any belief - even ones that are loosely based on an earthly event that is claimed to have taken place - is invalidated by the historical evidence.

The entire basis of Islam, and any and all false pretense of a relationship with Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael whatsoever. As I pointed out in the History of Mecca thread.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196
.....scripture, history, archaeology and particularly geography, assure us that neither Abraham, Hagar nor Ishmael were ever within 1000 KM of where Mecca was eventually settled in around the 4th century AD.

There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed prior to the 4th century AD, when immigrants from Yemen settled the area. This while at the same time there is an abundance of historical and archaeological evidence of actual ancient Arabian towns both to the north and to the south of Mecca. Let alone that the historical record informs us that there was no overland route along the Red Sea prior to the 6 century BC (a thousand years after Abraham), which is also about the time that Medina was settled.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/

There was no Kaaba before the 5th century AD, when those Yemeni immigrants built their kaaba - as other kaabas throughout Arabia - for pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship. Indeed the pagans and Muhammad's followers performed the Hajj and Umrah shoulder to shoulder up until the year before Muhammad's last Hajj, when they kicked the poor pagans out of their own ritual:

Bukhari V2, B26, #689 (V1, B8, No 365): Narrated Abu Huraira:
“In the year prior to the last Hajj of the Prophet when Allahs Apostle made Abu Bakr the leader of the pilgrims, the latter (Abu Bakr) sent me in the company of a group of people to make a public announcement: 'No pagan is allowed to perform Hajj after this year, and no naked person is allowed to perform Tawaf of the Kaba.'”

Can you imagine a bunch of naked pagans and Muslims circumambulating the Kaaba?!!
Thus it is a historical matter of fact that Muhammad's followers engage in adopted, adapted and thinly veneered pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals.
http://www.brotherpete.com/hajj_umrah.htm

That Mecca did not exist before the 4th century AD, and the Kaaba prior to the 5th century, means that the FIFTH PILLAR of Islam is a preposterous provable fraud and a sham. It also confirms that Muhammad's followers prostrate themselves toward nothing more than the Quraish pagan's black stone idol and kaaba five times a day.
Vain Islamic rituals certainly have nothing to do with the God of the scriptures. That is outside the recreated geographically impossible provable fraud in the minds of Islam's famous lying dissimulators like Ahmad Deedat and Yusuf Estes.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390996044

No Mecca prior to the 4th century AD makes Muhammadanism an absolute lie. Simple as that. But it's far worse than that. Muhammadanism isn't just some random religion but specifically and ANTICHRIST ANTI-religion cult, that follows a self-proclaimed but imitation intercessor in the person of a violent, imperialistic, innocent Jewish farm boy beheading, captive abusing, self-proclaimed "messenger" who founded an anti-religion - with a scripture-contrary, pre-Muhammad history-devoid, archaeology-absent, geographically-impossible, reality-denying Islamic so-called "tradition" - that masquerades as thousands of years of pre-Muhammad history, yet was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD. An anti-religion with a carnal tradition of prostrating toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol and Kaaba in Mecca five times a day - located 1200 kilometers away from the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs - while praying in the "vain repetitions as the heathen do" in the names of the Arabian pagan deity "Allah" and his "messenger" Muhammad. Even performing thinly veneered Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals as the Quraish did before Muhammad was ever born, and "fasting" during Ramadan as the Sabian moon god worshipers did.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:28pm by Pete Waldo »

Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake

IP Logged

wally1 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2055 Gender:	Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs Reply #10 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:55pm If there are other religions out there then why focus on Islam? We can also google Islam on the Internet.THe word "Islam" is not hidden on google.
Back to top	IP Logged

vanatos

New Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29
Gender: female

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #11 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:03pm

wally1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:55pm:

If there are other religions out there then why focus on Islam?

We can also google Islam on the Internet.THe word "Islam" is not hidden on google.

I focus on Islam for 2 reasions:

1. It is simply interesting to me as a historical-socielogical artifact, and this alone should be enough

2. Because it affects human society to a large degree, more so then virtually all religions or idealogies, and therefore is deserving of interest.

Though in fact your question is redundant given the common-sense knowledge of at least point 2, to everyone in the world.

But you dodged my question as to why you asked me whether i will criticize christianity.

I think indeed you are doing a to quoque fallacy, please read wikipedia on why it is a logical fallacy.

Considering you dodged my question, i don't think this is a fair exchange and won't pursue it any further, i'm not really interested in an attempt to derail focus on Islam.

I hope you understand.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:09pm by vanatos »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48833
At my desk.

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #12 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:04pm

I am with vanatos on the "scientific" bit. It is a strange use of the term, and no doubt another example of Muslims altering the meaning of a word to suit their propaganda.

Gandalf, if you can explain what you think science means, and how this justifies labeling the collation of religious texts as scientific, I would be interested to hear.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Pete Waldo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 503
U.S.
Gender: male

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #13 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:23pm

wally1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Are you also going to discuss the historicity of jesus and the bible?

It's off topic for this thread, but I'd be happy to discuss this elsewhere. I am easy to find on the internet. I recommend starting with former atheist Lee Strobel and "The Case for a Christ"
http://www.leestrobel.com/pl_groups.php
Titles like:
Dating the Gospels
Earliest Accounts Of Christ's Resurrection
Case for Christ early recorded

An even more compelling case is fulfilled Bible prophecy:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm
Like the Old Testament prophecies of Jesus' crucifixion, from hundreds of years before the event, and even from before when crucifixion was ever invented.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/isaiah_53.htm

wally1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

Maybe analyse the contradictions, mistakes, errors, ommissions in the bible?

There is no shortage of sites that straighten out the misconceptions of what you suggest. Try web searches like bible contradictions explained or answered:
https://www.google.com/#q=bible+contradictions+explained
https://www.google.com/#q=bible+contradictions+answered

But if your only interest is in having your ears tickled by famous liars like Ahmed Deedat or Yusuf Estes, you will never find the truth. You have to honestly seek out the truth in order to find it Wally. That is an impossibility for a Muslim who is shut down right out of the gate by the absence of a history of Mecca.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196/24#24

Back to top

Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake

IP Logged

Pete Waldo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 503
U.S.
Gender: male

Re: Historicity of Islamic beliefs
Reply #14 - Feb 14^th, 2014 at 10:33pm

wally1 wrote on Feb 14^th, 2014 at 9:55pm:

If there are other religions out there then why focus on Islam?

We can also google Islam on the Internet.THe word "Islam" is not hidden on google.

Because the sooner we help the false prophet Muhammad's followers overcome the slavery of Muhammadanism, the sooner the world will be relieved of the murder, mayhem and misery perpetrated against non-Muslims all around the world - as has been the case for the last 1400 years.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm

CNS reports: "Sunni Muslim terrorists committed “about 70 percent” of the 12,533 terrorist murders in the world last year, according to a report by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC)."
That's for the year 2011, and that percentage doesn't even include Shiite Muslim terrorist murders. Thus it should be obvious to all non-Muslims, that the world would be largely at peace today, if the followers of Muhammad had not been commanded to "fight and slay" non-Muslims in the "cause" of "Allah".

Back to top

Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believed. ~ William Blake

IP Logged