So I just discovered this about Islam

[jmdrake]

You have posted nothing of value in this thread that would indicate to me that if I were to have a discussion with you, I would in fact be "rolling with the big boys." All I've seen so far is you arrogantly posting falsities and coming to illogical conclusions. Let me know when you are educated enough to actually post a sensible argument. I'm not sure why Muwahid is even putting up with you, but I envy his wherewithal

Hi there. I see that you have yet to answer a simple question. You must be afraid to answer it. Do you believe the Koran was written by God or Satan or do you believe there is an option C? We have reached the point in the conversation where Muwahid has admitted the gist of my initial point which is that Khadija was likely familiar with Christianity and Judaism prior to meeting Mohammed and she could have taught him the stories from both religions. But you must of missed that while you were too busy making a jackass of yourself.

[Muwahid]

Oh wow this is just getting sad now.

Jmdrake, if you spent as much time studying other religions, and philosophy as you did pretending to know about them, you might actually have a coherent argument.

[jmdrake]

Oh wow this is just getting sad now.

Jmdrake, if you spent as much time studying other religions, and philosophy as you did pretending to know about them, you might actually have a coherent argument.

The argument is coherent. Mohammed had access to the teachings of Judaism and Christianity prior to any "revelation". You've admitted that now. The "multi dialect" point of yours is irrelevant and Mohammed had multilingual followers. The "miracle" argument is just laughable.

[Influenza]

Hi there. I see that you have yet to answer a simple question. You must be afraid to answer it. Do you believe the Koran was written by God or Satan or do you believe there is an option C? We have reached the point in the conversation where Muwahid has admitted the gist of my initial point which is that Khadija was likely familiar with Christianity and Judaism prior to meeting Mohammed and she could have taught him the stories from both religions. But you must of missed that while you were too busy making a jackass of yourself.

Neither God nor Satan wrote anything... obviously. The Quran was revealed to Mohammad, over time, by the angel Gabriel (sent by God) which he then disseminated to the Muslims. Those who first wrote down the Quran would be among those Muslims. Whether or not Khadija was familiar or not with Biblical stories is irrelevant. There is much more to the Quran than just these stories, which usually significantly differ from the Biblical counterpart. A central theme in Islam is that Mohammad was the "seal of the prophets," meaning he had the final revelation from God. The stories of Abraham, Noah, Moses, and Jesus, and other prophets in the Quran are necessary inclusions of what had been previous, albeit incomplete, revelations from God.

But anyway, I just called you out for being a pompous idiot, which you are.

[jmdrake]

Neither God nor Satan wrote anything... obviously. The Quran was revealed to Mohammad, over time, by the angel Gabriel (sent by God) which he then disseminated to the Muslims.

Ah. So you accept option A. I didn't know you were Muslim. Thanks for letting me know. That makes the silliness of your cheerleading make sense.

But anyway, I just called you out for being a pompous idiot, which you are.

This "pompous idiot" has proven that Mohammed had access to the knowledge of Judaism and Christianity before anything was ever "revealed". But I can see with your Muslim beliefs why you are loath to admit that.

[Influenza]

Ah. So you accept option A. I didn't know you were Muslim. Thanks for letting me know. That makes the silliness of your cheerleading make sense.



This "pompous idiot" has proven that Mohammed had access to the knowledge of Judaism and Christianity before anything was ever "revealed". But I can see with your Muslim beliefs why you are loath to admit that.

I'm not completely convinced that Islam, as I know it, is "the correct religion." I just think it's more correct than all the others. And I really don't get what point you're trying to make. If Mohammad had previous knowledge of Judaism and Christianity, I have absolutely no problems with that. But you didn't really prove anything, it's only a possibility.

[jmdrake]

I'm not completely convinced that Islam is "the correct religion." I just think it's more correct than all the others.

Muwahid can correct me on this, but as I understand it as long as you believe there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet, you qualify to be a Muslim.

And I really don't get what point you're trying to make. If Mohammad had previous knowledge of Judaism and Christianity, I have absolutely no problems with that. But you didn't really prove anything, it's only a possibility.

You don't realize this, but you've just admitted I was right. My point was never that Mohammed must have had previous knowledge of Judaism and Christianity, but that he might have had prior knowledge. Muwahid brought up the fact that the Koran makes references to stories in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as "proof" that Mohammed must have had the Koran revealed to him supernaturally because how else could he have learned those stories? Well..if we accept he might have had prior knowledge then the inclusion of those stories is not necessarily miraculous. Not bad for a "pompous idiot" if I may say so myself.

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

[Influenza]

You don't realize this, but you've just admitted I was right. My point was never that Mohammed must have had previous knowledge of Judaism and Christianity, but that he might have had prior knowledge. Muwahid brought up the fact that the Koran makes references to stories in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as "proof" that Mohammed must have had the Koran revealed to him supernaturally because how else could he have learned those stories? Well..if we accept he might have had prior knowledge then the inclusion of those stories is not necessarily miraculous. Not bad for a "pompous idiot" if I may say so myself.

1 Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

I'm not well-read enough to know about the entire life of Mohammad before his prophet-hood when he was ~40 or so. Muwahid probably knows a lot more than me about it.

As I previously said, these Quranic stories are significantly different from the Biblical versions. The miracle of the Quran has very little to do with "whether there was any way Mohammad could have heard X story before."

[Christian Liberty]

As a general philosophy I'd say no, because Muslims are commanded to follow their ameer (leader) on certain orders. It's what we call fardh 'ayn (personal obligations; i.e., not really enforced by the state), so if the ameer came and rallied the Muslims to defend the state because of an imminent threat, it becomes fardh ayn to join the battle.

In general I don't see anything in anarcho-capitalism that would prevent one from defending his land from iminent attack. Defending a state because it is being invaded by an outside force doesn't have to mean you support the State.

It's actually a confusing set of verses, I would have imagined the third interpretation to be correct due to the persecution of Christians at this time (i.e., don't rebel, co-exist) but Paul starts by suggesting the current authority is an authority established by God and rebelling is is rebelling against God (Romans 13:1-2).

The Church authority seems more likely due to that it's been established by God, but then you've pointed out issues with that interpretation.

Do you believe Christianity to support/promote anarcho-capitalism? Even libertarianism is a stark difference to what Paul is suggesting.

I do believe Christianity supports anarcho-capitalism, although I'd be lying if I didn't admit I'm in the extreme minority on that point.

Considering, as you say, the church was being persecuted at that time, there is no possible way that the government was actually only rewarding good and punishing evil. That isn't my anarchism getting in the way of sound Biblical exegesis. That is straight Biblical fact. It is impossible that Paul is saying that the authorities that actually exist only punish moral evil and reward moral good.

Paul COULD be saying any of the following:

1. The duty of the government is to punish evil and reward good, the Christian's duty is to obey. However, these commands have nothing to do with each other (in other words, Christians must obey government, unless government commands one to sin, even if government punishes some actions that are not evil, or rewards actions to one's good.)

2. The duty of government is to punish evil and reward good. Paul's claims that governments do that is a subtle way of suggesting that governments that fail to live up to that standard (generally people who adhere to this interpretation would allow that a legitimate government could imperfectly but generally hold to it, and thus be legitimate) are actually illegitimate. This passage would still suggest that some States that levy taxes are legitimate, which means that taxes aren't always theft.

3. This passage is actually talking about the church authorities (I mentioned my questions and issues with this earlier, but its possible.)

4. As God is sovereign and ordains all things, including things that are evil (per Romans 9) God can legitimately say that he ordains the State even though the State is evil. God is saying that even though Christians are being persecuted by the State, God still intends it for their good. (I tend toward this view. It seems weird from a 21st century context, but in the context of persecution and an environment where everyone knows the State is anti-Christian, I can imagine it.

Fair point on interventionism, but don't you feel there's a difference between personal interventionism, and government interventionism. The idea of the train, is personal intervention, you're not forcing others to be put in harms way intervening for others, and I think that's the philosophic difference.

The real issue in the train case is not that you're intervening (as you say, sometimes intervention can be legitimate) but that you are killing innocent people. That's wrong. in the same way:

In my opinion if you don't like a regime across the country and think they're murdering their people and you want to join the revolution against that regime, as a personal choice, I think that's fine.

Want to join a revolution to try to kill the tyrant or his soldiers? OK. Mind you, that's a decision that you'd have to carefully consider (ie. are the alternatives any better? Killing Saddam gave us ISIS) but I'd agree that its not inherently immoral.

Bombing the innocent is a very different story. The drone strike on Pakistan that killed 30 innocents wouldn't have been justified even if it stopped a terrorist attack that would have killed 3,000, or even 3,000,000.

I suppose our difference of opinion comes from the "rigidity" in Gods laws, where I see them as general principles, where you see as it set in stone. The reason I can rationalize otherwise I think is because of intentions behind certain actions-- and this is going back to the omniscience and omnibenevolence of all mighty God.

I think there are certain things in the Bible that are general principles and others that are set in stone. Most of Proverbs is a set of general principles. Romans 13, I believe based on context, is a general principle. On the other hand, commands not to steal or murder are absolute. And some of the Bible is straight hyperbole (ie. Jesus doesn't literally want you to chop your arms off.) It depends on the passage.

[Muwahid]

I'm not well-read enough to know about the entire life of Mohammad before his prophet-hood when he was ~40 or so. Muwahid probably knows a lot more than me about it.

As I previously said, these Quranic stories are significantly different from the Biblical versions. The miracle of the Quran has very little to do with "whether there was any way Mohammad could have heard X story before."

I came to post this for jmdrake, but anyone else of course should read this if interested in Islam or Muhammad ص http://www.islamicbulletin.org/free_...led_nectar.pdf -- it's probably the most common English Sirah

And I'm not going to continue a debate here, but to I suppose clarify my position, the fact that the Qur'an mentions stories in great detail regarding numerous prophets and messengers indicates a much deeper understanding of the Abrahamic scriptures than someone who passively learns them. Only a scholar of the scriptures could create the Qur'an which we know Muhammad ص was not, unless he was taught in total secret, by a well educated scriptural scholar. I'm merely asking for the historical evidence of that, because all of what we know about Muhammad ص shows this is highly unlikely.

And jmdrake, I specifically bowed out of the debate because of your lack of understanding of the harfs of the Qur'an. They are not another language, they are different dialects and styles of Arabic. They were taught all by Muhammad ص himself, not translated by other companions (this would have been a HUGE sin for them to alter the Qur'an in anyway).

The harfs were revealed when Arabs would have trouble understanding some of the Qur'an, and Muhammad ص said he asked jibreel for accommodations especially for the lesser educated Arabs. Seven styles were revealed. The companion and exegete Ibn Masood explained the harf by saying, it's "no different than saying halumma, aqbil, or ta'aal" which are all words for "come here", in Arabic. Some Arabs are accustomed to one way than the other, based on tribes and locality.

As an Arabic speaker, the difference between dialects are vast and I do not understand plenty of dialects [or they are difficult for me]. This was also the case for Muhammad's ص followers. This is why he taught the Qu'ran seven different ways.

[jmdrake]

LOL. Whatever Muwahid. Anyway I've learned a lot. For instance I learned that Muslims think Mohammed having bilingual companions is somehow a miracle. Edit: I see that you're point isn't that they were bilingual but were speaking in other dialects. Basically it was Arabic ebonics? That's the big miracle?

[Christian Liberty]

And jmdrake, I specifically bowed out of the debate because of your lack of understanding of the harfs of the Qur'an. They are not another language, they are different dialects and styles of Arabic. They were taught all by Muhammad ص himself, not translated by other companions (this would have been a HUGE sin for them to alter the Qur'an in anyway).

Is the bold statement a historic fact, or an Islamic religious tenant? To put it another way, would non-Muslims agree that they weren't translated?

[jmdrake]

Is the bold statement a historic fact, or an Islamic religious tenant? To put it another way, would non-Muslims agree that they weren't translated?

And that's the rub. Much of the "proof" that the Koran was supernatural in origin requires belief in Islam.

[Christian Liberty]

And that's the rub. Much of the "proof" that the Koran was supernatural in origin requires belief in Islam.

Meh, I do the same thing At this point I think truth is somewhat axiomatic anyway. Its hard to actually prove stuff. Its just that Muwahid already knows Christianity is true, while I do not know Islam is true (Romans 1)

[Muwahid]

Is the bold statement a historic fact, or an Islamic religious tenant? To put it another way, would non-Muslims agree that they weren't translated?

It is a historical fact, it was the reason why Uthman bin Affan recalled the Mushafs (Qur'an in book form) from the conquered provinces, because they were written in diferent harfs, and he replaced them with the original Qurayshi harf. There was even controversy over this as some companions refused to give up their preferred harfs.

Hadiths very well are historical records anyway, they're not considered scripture by any means. But that's a topic for another thread.

[jmdrake]

Meh, I do the same thing At this point I think truth is somewhat axiomatic anyway. Its hard to actually prove stuff. Its just that Muwahid already knows Christianity is true, while I do not know Islam is true (Romans 1)

Oh of course. I said earlier in the thread that Christians use circular reasoning as well. (The Bible is true because it says it is true.) At some point this thing called "faith" has to kick in.

[Jamesiv1]

And that's the rub. Much of the "proof" that the Koran was supernatural in origin requires belief in Islam.

wait a minute. couldn't the same be said of the Bible (New Testament)?

like I've said before, if you want to take someone's spiritual 'inventory', the only thing worth looking at is fruits.

watch what I do, not what I say.

actions speak louder than words.
a picture is worth 1000.
watch my feet, not my mouth.

[Christian Liberty]

Oh of course. I said earlier in the thread that Christians use circular reasoning as well. (The Bible is true because it says it is true.) At some point this thing called "faith" has to kick in.

Indeed. As I said, truth is axiomatic. Acceptance of any propositions requires certain presuppositions to be excepted. I trust scripture and I trust basic logic.

[jmdrake]

wait a minute. couldn't the same be said of the Bible (New Testament)?

Yep. And I already said that. Christians use circular reasoning to support the Bible. That said, there is external evidence that supports at least some of the claims of the Bible. For instance the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian, confirm that Jesus and other church leaders existed. (Some atheists have made the laughable claim that there was no historical Jesus.) And modern archeology has confirmed places mentioned only in the Bible that skeptics used to say did not exist like the pool of Siloam. But ultimately it comes down to faith.

like I've said before, if you want to take someone's spiritual 'inventory', the only thing worth looking at is fruits.

watch what I do, not what I say.

actions speak louder than words.
a picture is worth 1000.
watch my feet, not my mouth.

Yes. Jesus said the same thing. "By your fruits ye shall know them." And "By this shall all men know ye are my disciples. By your love one for another."

[PierzStyx]

I've read that crows can count (No Counting Crows puns please). For example if they see four hunters enter an area, they are still on guard if three leave with the awareness that 1 is still lurking somewhere.

Yeah, crows and ravens are actually really smart. You can teach ravens to mimic human speech somewhat even.

[PierzStyx]

Yep. And I already said that. Christians use circular reasoning to support the Bible. That said, there is external evidence that supports at least some of the claims of the Bible. For instance the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian, confirm that Jesus and other church leaders existed. (Some atheists have made the laughable claim that there was no historical Jesus.) And modern archeology has confirmed places mentioned only in the Bible that skeptics used to say did not exist like the pool of Siloam. But ultimately it comes down to faith.



Yes. Jesus said the same thing. "By your fruits ye shall know them." And "By this shall all men know ye are my disciples. By your love one for another."

It has to come down to faith because the Qur'an is easy to use as an archaeological text as well as far as places exclusive to it go. If that was going to be "proof" it is just as easy to prove in that respect.

[PierzStyx]

I came to post this for jmdrake, but anyone else of course should read this if interested in Islam or Muhammad ص http://www.islamicbulletin.org/free_...led_nectar.pdf -- it's probably the most common English Sirah

And I'm not going to continue a debate here, but to I suppose clarify my position, the fact that the Qur'an mentions stories in great detail regarding numerous prophets and messengers indicates a much deeper understanding of the Abrahamic scriptures than someone who passively learns them. Only a scholar of the scriptures could create the Qur'an which we know Muhammad ص was not, unless he was taught in total secret, by a well educated scriptural scholar. I'm merely asking for the historical evidence of that, because all of what we know about Muhammad ص shows this is highly unlikely.

And jmdrake, I specifically bowed out of the debate because of your lack of understanding of the harfs of the Qur'an. They are not another language, they are different dialects and styles of Arabic. They were taught all by Muhammad ص himself, not translated by other companions (this would have been a HUGE sin for them to alter the Qur'an in anyway).

The harfs were revealed when Arabs would have trouble understanding some of the Qur'an, and Muhammad ص said he asked jibreel for accommodations especially for the lesser educated Arabs. Seven styles were revealed. The companion and exegete Ibn Masood explained the harf by saying, it's "no different than saying halumma, aqbil, or ta'aal" which are all words for "come here", in Arabic. Some Arabs are accustomed to one way than the other, based on tribes and locality.

As an Arabic speaker, the difference between dialects are vast and I do not understand plenty of dialects [or they are difficult for me]. This was also the case for Muhammad's ص followers. This is why he taught the Qu'ran seven different ways.

Well actually Muhammad never had any of the Qur'an written down, nor were any of the hadiths, while he lived. They were all constructed after his death by his followers. Uthman's big project as Caliph was specifically putting together the Qur'an, and the hadiths are all based on how well you trust tradition and people who supposedly said stuff Muhammad did decades after he said and did those things. There is plenty of room for error there and I see no reason, beyond faith, to believe that either the Qur'an or the hadith are perfect texts.

[Muwahid]

Well actually Muhammad never had any of the Qur'an written down, nor were any of the hadiths, while he lived. They were all constructed after his death by his followers. Uthman's big project as Caliph was specifically putting together the Qur'an, and the hadiths are all based on how well you trust tradition and people who supposedly said stuff Muhammad did decades after he said and did those things. There is plenty of room for error there and I see no reason, beyond faith, to believe that either the Qur'an or the hadith are perfect texts.

I posted on this topic a few page back.

The word Qur'an means "recitation", the Qur'an was not intended as a book. I'll go over the basics here.

A verse would be revealed to Muhammad ص
He would recite it, and teach it to his companions
He had several scribes, he would have them write it, to teach other people

When Muhammad ص died, the Qur'an was written, probably a few times over on these fragments. During the first caliph, Abu Bakr's reign, he tasked after the battle of Yamamah in which many Haafiz (people who fully memorized the Qur'an) died, Zayd ibn Thaabit with collecting all those fragments from the scribes, and each fragment needed two credible witnesses to authenticate it was indeed written on the command of the prophet.

This is how the first codex of the Qur'an was compiled.

Uthman, later standardized the harf into the original Qurayshi harf (there were six others, in six other dialects revealed to Muhammad ص). He did this because in foreign lands they would argue over who has the correct version, even though both were correct, to clear up confusion, the original harf was distributed to the conquered provinces.

And that's really the end of the story as simplified as I could make it.

Hadiths are a bit more precarious I can admit, but underwent a very similar process. Many were orally transmitted from companions, however, the earliest book of Hadith known to exist, was from Abu Hurayrah's (Prophet's companion) student himself Hammam bin Munabih, so there's no gap between the prophet and his companions, and the compilation of hadiths in written form.

By the way many hadiths were written by companions, early Caliphs warned against putting them into books however, because he thought people might take them as holy books. The hadiths we have today have secure trustworthy isnads going back to the companion who heard it, many are mutawattir, meaning reported through different isnads (i.e., different people reporting the same event) meaning it's likely to be more credible, and this is the basics of how we authenticate hadiths.

People try to make the case that Bukhari was compiled 200 years after Muhammad ص as if that was the only compilation, even today we have much older compilations containing the same hadiths, Bukharis goal was simply to make a book for laymen (so they don't have to worry about authentication) that covers all aspects of life, supported by hadiths, he took them from older, known hadith compilations. I already mentioned Hammam bin Munabih's book, and there are two copies existing still today of this, other than that, there's of course Abd al-Razzaqs Musannaf from the 1st century AH, and then Imam Malik's Muwatta, coming around 100 years after the prophets.

So you can see an unbroken line of hadith compilations, just from what we have in existence today, there were of course much more 1000 years ago, but after being compiled in larger books, by more well known scholars like Bukhari, Muslim, the four imams, etc, they got lost, stopped being circulated, and we have what we have today.

[Leaning Libertarian]

Yes, there was a time in history when Christian's went conquering by the sword, indiscriminately killing the "Godless." This was a time called the "Dark Ages." There is also a time in history when the Islamic State went conquering by the sword, indiscriminately killing the "infidels." This was a time called "yesterday afternoon."

Personally, I feel it to be misinterpretation of descriptive vs. prescriptive text. Be it in the Holy Bible, or in the Holy Qur'an.

In the Holy Bible, when King David was told to "... go forth and slay utterly." was that a prescriptive text, saying all good Christians should follow this command, or was it a descriptive text, indicating a specific act, for one specific time in history? I prefer to interpret it as descriptive.

In the Holy Qur'an, when it is ordered to "... Kill the infidels wherever you find them." Is it a prescriptive act, saying all good Muslims should follow this command, or was it again a descriptive text, indicating a specific act, for one specific time in history? I again prefer to interpret it as descriptive.

Throughout history, there have always been individuals and collections of like minded people, who will attempt to make these acts of violence as prescriptive, usually through intentions of malfeasance. They will use these acts of violence to further their own personal quest for financial or political power.

I don't think those advocating this violence has anything other than their personal gain in mind. To me, it doesn't really reflect the beliefs of the religious, be it Christian or Muslim.

[Jamesiv1]

1. There is only one God Almighty, he just goes by different names. 'God' is one of many names, 'Allah' is one of many names.
2. There are also lesser gods that arrived here long, long ago from places far, far away.
3. God sent different Prophets, Messengers, Sages and Saviors to different parts of the world at different times to teach people how to live a good life and have a personal relationship with God.
4. All the badness of religions over the centuries is the fault of humans, not God.
5. Anybody that doesn't believe the same way I do is going to spend eternity burning in the hellfire of damnation.