Atheist's Misconceptions in Islam

Science doesn't prove anything.
The sooner you get that into your misguided head, the better.
If you want proofs, stick to abstract mathematics.

Can you prove to me that it wasn’t designed...

To do that one must surely prove a designer, which you've already ruled out.

[prove that it wasn't designed]...to reach its objectives faster

1/ what "objectives" would those be?
2/ faster than what?
3/ prove that it WAS designed, because you're the one making the claim.

And now that I've said all that, you completely went off track from proving the probability thing.
[proof on the "probability of chance"? is it possible for you to respond coherently?]

ChocolateSauce

Agathon wrote: »

The Bible (Old & New Testaments) is full of contradictions, errors and man-made stories! The Qur'an does not contain one contradiction, not ONE ERROR (correcting the bible's errors at that) and confirming the Truth that came before it from zoroastrianism to Christianity. If a book is authored by a human it's bound to contain many errors; but the Qur'an is eloquent in it's style and tone; miraculous (especially in Arabic).

There is absolutely no reason a book made by man cannot be perfect. A book on science can be totally and 100% accurate, for example. Also, for you to claim that a book written 1400 years ago and interpreted into several different versions cannot contain errors is a rather tall claim. Where do think the major divisions in Islam came from?

The degree gives normal, intelligent people a better understanding of a subject; gives them a chance to research properly in that field instead of waffling about it. In fact if you go to anybody with a Higher Diploma or Phd in these subjects they'd tell you Hitchens and Dawkins are wafflers of the highest order (deluding the masses with their garbage)!

While it may sometimes be true that Dawkins is out of his depth when talking about philosophy, you are once again exercising a double standard by proceeding to claim to have the right or ability to pronounce on his profession, biology.

Tribal religions (and all the other beliefs you've mentioned) actually influences the child. I said if you leave a child without the influence of people or societies. Even education depends on people's beliefs, so that would influence the child even more. A person witnessing, experiencing, tasting is so dazzling that he would realize there was a Creator to all of this. You still haven't pointed me to a book where it says how emotions, intuition and consciousness evolved!??

I never said they (beliefs) didn't influence the child. Indeed, children are more easily swayed by nonsense than adults. And why would experiencing the natural world (which a living thing does by definition) make someone miraculously "realise" there is a creator? They realise nothing, and instead use their brains to try and rationalise what they see. In primitive times when science was embryonic, it is easy to see why they would reason a creator. Today, now that we know so much, we can postulate temporal, tangible explanations.

Do you even understand this paragraph?!? Basically what you're trying to say is they came about by 'chance' in Dawkin's gibberish (maybe scientific language, I dunno)!!!

Of course I understand it, I wrote it. I didn't expect you to understand it though, you've lost your chance to impress me. I won't accuse you of being a "simple minded Muslim" just because you don't understand, only of not knowing a thing about evolution. Dawkin's so-called gibberish is only such so a scientific illiterate. If you can't even understand evolution, how can you dismiss it?

What's that supposed to mean in normal human language: 'randomly occurring but non-random steps' The very FIRST living cell had to have come into existence by chance/coincidence, just as evolution has produced you and me (every step afterward had to blindly create everything that is complex (there is no non-random steps). Nature does not have a purpose according to you! And probability is against this so-called 'accident' (the first protein molecule)

This is the perfect example of someone who does not know the simplest, most basic tenant of evolution; it is not random. It it absurd to think anything complex could form by chance, and evolution specifically says it doesn't. The first protein didn't just come together from its constituent parts, and neither does the first cell. To say a mutation is random is to say that it happens randomly, and maybe one in 10 million mutations is good, and survives long enough to be passed down. The next (successful) mutation builds on the previous one and would not happen without it. This is why it is non-random. Over millions of generations, successful mutations give the organism an advantage and this organism passes them on and eventually drives others of its species without the mutation to extinction, thus becoming the norm. As new successful mutations, which happen randomly, accumulate in a non-random manner (usually being dependent on the one before it or relying on the others), the organism changes slowly over time until one day, you take a fossil from x years ago and compare it with its direct descendant a 5 million years later, and you have two different species which bear a passing resemblance to each other but are otherwise unique. For example, there were once 7 different species of human- ours, homo-sapien, appears to have murdered all the others which didn't die out naturally (our genus is so violent and ignorant I'm sometimes ashamed to call myself a homo).

Ahem, so you see, a simple understanding of evolution makes one realise that it simply isn't as improbable as it may appear to be at first. Since you asked, a real science book by a real, serious, world-renowned scientist (with a PhD and a professorship and a fellowship from Oxford University, arguably the best educational institute in the world) which explains all this in a nutshell is called Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins. It is a highly informing and enjoyable read and it can be found in almost any good bookshop in the world.

Science is used wrongly if it is used against religion

Because if there is proof of something and it disagrees with the opinions of ancient nomads the proof is wrong. Because we said so. Because. Just because! Now stop asking questions or you'll go to hell.

Point of information, "just a theory" is more evidence of you not understanding science. What you think of as a theory is in fact a hypothesis; an idea developed to explain something. A theory is so much more, a theory is an idea for which there is evidence of its truth, which can be used to explain and predict natural phenomena. For example, the theory of gravity, the theory of germs, the theory of atoms. These are all scientific theories, along with the theory of evolution. The words "law" and "proof" are anathema to a good scientist (and the concepts only exist in mathematics), but in a layman's terms, evolution is closer to being a proven fact or a law than it is to being a hypothesis. I personally think of evolution deniers as being similar to holocaust deniers- either painfully, deliberately ignorant of the facts or having a fanatical ulterior motive, sometimes both. If you actually want to learn about how we really got here you'll read that book, or at least read the creationism thread in the Christianity forum.

You might take comfort in the fact that science, though it can "prove" evolution takes place, and can explain how exactly it takes place, it can't disprove the notion that god directly intervened to make it happen the way it did. I don't believe this, but many religious people do.

ChocolateSauce

On a totally unrelated issue Agathon, how long do you take to write your replies to me? That last one took me an hour...I was watching TV at the same time.

On another totally unrelated issue...

Agathon's blog wrote:

Homosexuality is wrong, and so is sleeping with someone's daughter without his consent.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

InFront

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

On a totally unrelated issue Agathon, how long do you take to write your replies to me? That last one took me an hour...I was watching TV at the same time.

Guys some of the comments in the last few pages are suggesting that this is developing into pettiness.

It is important to debate in a polite and orderly way that will constribute to mutual understanding for readers of whatever religious or philosophical persuasions, not just shouting one another down. If you're not interested in the pursuit of understanding or rational and calm discussion, I don't know what you expect to achieve by posting here.

This is an Islam board for the discussion of Islam and for the use of everyone on boards. It isn't here to prove God, or disprove God as others might see it. Please remember that and refer to the charter if needs be.

Play nice.

ChocolateSauce

Actually the part you quoted was a serious "time-out" question, not meant to sound petty. Just because I disagree with someone is no reason I can't have friendly banter. Also, I think the tone has improved greatly from the parent thread when there were several infractions and a ban handed out.

rocksteady

Agathon wrote: »

Who created the first Living cell or the first atom?
Who made life so harmonious and consistent on Earth?
Who gave everything a law and order (evolution, or whatever you want to call it)?

Why is there a who? When it rains, do you ask who makes it rain? Its just a natural occurence, that happens because the right conditions are met.

Agathon wrote: »

OK, (1) the first living cell was created, and (2) then there was a natural law that took place for everything to exist. Gradually, (3) the whole planet is covered with complex living things. Evolution is just a theory trying to explain these phenomena. Darwin is just a professor who envisioned or visualized this is what happened billions of years ago. Nobody is 100% certain.

Okay, you got some things not quite right here: (2) actually comes first (you need the laws of the universe for (1) to happen) and evolution only really applies to (3) , and then only to the diversity of the complex living things. Besides that you are correct, evolution is a theory and Darwin is a scientist and nobody is 100% certain. However don't forget that a theory in science, is an idea that has been independently tested 100 and 1000s of times and found to be consistent with results (remember that garvity is "just" a theory too) and that nobody is ever 100% sure of anything, ever.

Agathon wrote: »

Yes, science is coming up with evidence and is a tool; but why do you say it’s a tool for evolution? – This is a label (just like religion).

I never said that.Science is a tool for understanding. It just so happens that at the moment in history, the most accurate understanding for how humans (and species in general) came about is evolution.

Agathon wrote: »

Science is used wrongly if it is used against religion because science is supposed to be fact (not a belief).

And if a belief is wrong should science not try to correct it?

Agathon wrote: »

Science just proves that there is a law and order to this Universe. It doesn’t and can never prove that there is a Creator (because it is out of the realm of scientific procedures); its purpose is not to disprove a Creator but to prove that there is an order and law (designed for the Universe).

Science doesn't prove things, because that is impossible. Even disproving things is incredibly hard. Science makes models, what you call "laws" and keeps them as long as they keep in line with observations.

Agathon wrote: »

So, what can we say about evolution? Can you prove to me that it wasn’t designed to follow a more precise path (and to reach its objectives faster); Can you prove to me that the living cell came about by pure chance? – The answer is NO. So why do you argue about things that are not in your control??

But you cannot prove that the first cell didn't come by natural causes either. All science can do is test whether or not it is possible.

Agathon wrote: »

Taken from my blog: http://islamic-empire.blogspot.com/
*Check out the link 'Islam Science Debate' and go to the very bottom of the page for proof on the probability of chance!

Found the link and looked at the maths. All the "proof for propability" on that link shows is that the author doesn't understand evolution at all. I will go with the second last example given ("To Spell Evolution by Chance") and explain why its a flawed experiment.
Firstly, evolution starts with a single cell organism already created and changes are only kept if they are benificial, so in the context of picking letters, you start with a single letter, and only change or add to it assuming what you have left is an actual word. Now you might say that it will still take an incredible amount of time to spell "evolution", and yes it could, but you have to remember, that evolution doesn't actually try to "spell" any specific words, as its a natural non-sentient process. You start with a single letter and keep changing/adding letters, only keeping the new changes if a new sensible word is made. The "odds" calculated on that link don't apply to evolution because evolution isn't trying to spell evolution, any real word will do (it doesn't even need to be the same length, just as long as it fits where it needs to go).
Also, even forgetting the above, the author has completely ignored the facts that a) there are millions or billions of these letter changes happening at a time and b) they are happening every generation (anything from75 yrs to a few days depending on organism) over millions and billions of years.
So if you take the authors odds of 1 in 5.5million million, and even if you say that there are only 1 million changes being made at a time, 1 million times in a row then the actual odds are 1 in 5.5. And that doesn't take into account that the word doesn't actually have to be evolution!
You have to be very careful when thinking about statistic and probability. If you forget the actual constrains on the data you are dealing with, then you could start thinking the odds of you wearing your socks today are 1 in a googleplex.

Agathon

bluewolf wrote: »

Science doesn't prove anything.
The sooner you get that into your misguided head, the better.
If you want proofs, stick to abstract mathematics.

The theory of relativity is a scientific theory that proves something through Mathematics. There are number of theories in Science that have been proven (through mathematics or fossil record, etc.) Do you not agree with this? This is what is meant. Sorry that my English is bad...

To do that one must surely prove a designer, which you've already ruled out.

I'll try to do this last (sorry to overburden you with my beliefs)

1/ what "objectives" would those be?

Objectives such as you (a fully functional human who thinks, argues and dreams); the objective of filling the earth with complex living things; the objective of creating the human brain and mind, which we still don't even understand to this day and won't for a long time yet. These may not seem like objectives in the general sense, but have been the result of evolution. I should have said results instead of objective. But this is what I meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding again.

2/ faster than what?

The speed that evolution took to create a fully functional human (with consciousness, emotions, etc.) and fill the planet with living things seems like a short period of time (5 billion years or so) -- the chances of this happening are astronomical. I suppose this is my view. Anyway, that was what was meant by that!

proof on the "probability of chance"? is it possible for you to respond coherently?]

I was being sarcastic about this Mr. 'Dead Serious' ... It's like saying "Chance has no chance!" not meant to be understood in that sense. What I meant was, the probability of a protein or cell coming about by chance. Sorry for confusing you with sarcasm! (You didn't see the link in my previous post I guess, so no wonder you didn't get it)

3/ prove that it WAS designed, because you're the one making the claim.

My proof of a creator is the Qur'an. I know you're going to say this is ridiculous but try to understand the English translation properly (without prejudice). There are so many statements in the Qur'an that make you use your head to come logically to a Creator. It's the most rational argument for humans to realize that their is a Creator: 'What is it that will prove to you that a Creator exists?' Is your intellect and mind not enough proof?

77. Does man not see that it is We (Allah) Who created him from sperm? yet behold! he (stands forth) as an open adversary (argumentative)!

78. And he makes comparisons for Us, and forgets his own (origin and) Creation: He says, "Who can give life to (dry) bones and decomposed ones (at that)?"

79. Say, "He will give them life Who created them for the first time! for He is Well-versed in every kind of creation!-

80. "The same Who produces for you fire out of the green tree, when behold! ye kindle therewith (your own fires)!

81. "Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth able to create the like thereof?" - Yea, indeed! for He is the Creator Supreme, of skill and knowledge (infinite)!
Surah- Ya Sin (ayat 77-81)

1. Blessed is He who sent down the criterion to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures;-

2. He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: no son has He begotten, nor has He a partner in His dominion: it is He who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions.

3. Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.

4. But the disbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it." In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood.

5. And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."

6. Say: "The (Qur'an) was sent down by Him who knows the mystery (that is) in the heavens and the earth: verily He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

7. And they say: "What sort of an apostle is this, who eats food, and walks through the streets? Why has not an angel been sent down to him to give admonition with him?

8. "Or (Why) has not a treasure been bestowed on him, or why has he (not) a garden for enjoyment?" The wicked say: "Ye follow none other than a man bewitched."

9. See what kinds of comparisons they make for thee! But they have gone astray, and never a way will they be able to find!
Surah 25- The Criterion, The Sandard (ayat 1-9)

88. Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.

89. And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of similitude: yet the greater part of men refuse (to receive it) except with ingratitude!

90. They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,

91. "Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water;

92. "Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face:

93. "Or thou have a house adorned with gold, or thou mount a ladder right into the skies. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read." Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- an apostle?"

94. What kept men back from belief when Guidance came to them, was nothing but this: they said, "Has Allah sent a man (like us) to be (His) Messenger."

95. Say, "If there were settled, on earth, angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should certainly have sent them down from the heavens an angel for an apostle."

96. Say: "Enough is Allah for a witness between me and you: for He is well acquainted with His servants, and He sees (all things).
Surah 17- The Night Journey (ayat 88-96)

Again sorry to overburden you with text from a religious book; but there are thousands of ayat (verses or signs) in The Qur'an that aim to logically prove that a Creator exists. The very first surah to open up the rational argument is:

'1. A.L.M. This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.
....

23. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.' Surah- The Heifer (ayah 1 and ayah 23)

Agathon

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There is absolutely no reason a book made by man cannot be perfect. A book on science can be totally and 100% accurate, for example. Also, for you to claim that a book written 1400 years ago and interpreted into several different versions cannot contain errors is a rather tall claim. Where do think the major divisions in Islam came from?

I think your wrong about your first statement chocalatesauce: A true scientist never believes his works are 100% accurate (or fact) and will almost always make mistakes in his experiments or calculations: There's trial and error, assumptions/speculation and skepticism involved in his work.

About the Qur'an: If you studied it properly, you'll understand that it's not interpreted into several different versions (like the Bible or other corrupted religious scriptures). Its style is totally different from other books. The interpretation is what we got from Muhammed(p) himself so it HAS TO BE ONE interpretation. The major divisions are political mainly, and again, if you studied them properly, you'll understand it's nothing to do with different views of the Qur'an. Between the billions of Muslims there is ONE GOD and ONE BOOK (with interpretation), unaltered by man for over 1400 years now.

While it may sometimes be true that Dawkins is out of his depth when talking about philosophy, you are once again exercising a double standard by proceeding to claim to have the right or ability to pronounce on his profession, biology ... just because you don't understand, only of not knowing a thing about evolution. Dawkin's so-called gibberish is only such so a scientific illiterate. If you can't even understand evolution, how can you dismiss it? ... This is the perfect example of someone who does not know the simplest, most basic tenant of evolution; it is not random. It it absurd to think anything complex could form by chance, and evolution specifically says it doesn't. The first protein didn't just come together from its constituent parts, and neither does the first cell. To say a mutation is random is to say that it happens randomly,...

Believe it or not, I read that book about two years ago and took notes from it. I can send you my notes on that if you want. You still don't understand my questions by the looks of things or, obviously, you know more than Dawkins because this is what he has to say about the origin of life:

'Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea. Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying - a replicator ... This may seem like a big stroke of luck.' {Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, p.259}

Compare with the Qur'an:

'Every single thing was created with Power (by the Source of Power) and ordered in due proportions (Scientific theories, Forces, etc.).' {Quran, surat al-Furqan, 2}

This may seem like a big stroke of luck?!?
I suppose he has a PhD so he must 100% right about God!

I never said they (beliefs) didn't influence the child. Indeed, children are more easily swayed by nonsense than adults. And why would experiencing the natural world (which a living thing does by definition) make someone miraculously "realise" there is a creator? They realise nothing, and instead use their brains to try and rationalise what they see. In primitive times when science was embryonic, it is easy to see why they would reason a creator. Today, now that we know so much, we can postulate temporal, tangible explanations.

But if you look back through my dialogue with you especially, you still haven't answered my main questions. You keep avoiding recommending a book about how the mind has evolved, consciousness, emotions, intuition, intelligent human thinking and designing, desire, etc. We are still in the embryonic stages of science if you ask me. We still don't understand about 90% of our existence (the brain, universe, etc.). Where are your tangible explanations for the things mentioned?? Mostly you've gone around these issues but never actually tackled them head on or recommended a single scientist who's tried to explain them coherently.

...Because if there is proof of something and it disagrees with the opinions of ancient nomads the proof is wrong. Because we said so. Because. Just because! Now stop asking questions or you'll go to hell.

unlike Christianity, in Islam, by questioning, analyzing and rationalising you will come to the Source- The Creator.

Point of information, "just a theory" is more evidence of you not understanding science. What you think of as a theory is in fact a hypothesis; an idea developed to explain something. A theory is so much more, a theory is an idea for which there is evidence of its truth, which can be used to explain and predict natural phenomena. For example, the theory of gravity, the theory of germs, the theory of atoms. These are all scientific theories, along with the theory of evolution. The words "law" and "proof" are anathema to a good scientist (and the concepts only exist in mathematics), but in a layman's terms, evolution is closer to being a proven fact or a law than it is to being a hypothesis...

You're right. I agree with you. I wrote the comments in my blog a few years ago and haven't really touched it that much since. I thought I'd be going in and updating or revising every now and then but haven't really got around to even doing that. I'd say I have some mistakes in it alright.

You might take comfort in the fact that science, though it can "prove" evolution takes place, and can explain how exactly it takes place, it can't disprove the notion that god directly intervened to make it happen the way it did. I don't believe this, but many religious people do.

That's why I sometimes think that our arguments are a wast of time!

On the totally unrelated issue: Again, I've made mistakes (I'm not perfect). I see that my English and world views have caused a lot of misundersanding!!!

Agathon

rocksteady wrote: »

Why is there a who? When it rains, do you ask who makes it rain? Its just a natural occurrence, that happens because the right conditions are met.

It's a natural occurrence because we understand it that way through our research and methods. When I say 'who', take it as meaning 'how did the first replicator just pop out of a pond?' I know it's a question that we will never be able to answer but it's the same as saying prove that there is a Creator. We are kind-of in the same boat to try to prove how the very first molecule came to exist. I believe what Muhammed (p) and the other Prophet's came with and you believe what atheists came with. It's as simple as that in the end.

Okay, you got some things not quite right here: ...

Sorry I should make myself clearer in the future. I was talking about the theory of evolution here (for 2 and 3). The natural law was meant to be the theory of evolution (mutation & natural selection, etc.), obviously after the first molecule (1)...

I never said that.Science is a tool for understanding. It just so happens that at the moment in history, the most accurate understanding for how humans (and species in general) came about is evolution.

You're right and I don't disagree with you on this one. But people like Dawkins and Dennett and Harris are doing just that. They're using Science and evolution to tackle the issue of god. Why? And do you believe this is wrong?? How did they get so carried away from true science?

And if a belief is wrong should science not try to correct it?

Of course. I believe this 100%. But where has it been wrong in the case of Islam for example? In fact, if you look through the history of science there have been many true Arab scientists who were inspired by Islam.

Science doesn't prove things, because that is impossible. Even disproving things is incredibly hard. Science makes models, what you call "laws" and keeps them as long as they keep in line with observations.

What I meant by saying that is there are many theories in Science that have been proven (i.e. relativity, etc.). Again, I agree with you here.

But you cannot prove that the first cell didn't come by natural causes either. All science can do is test whether or not it is possible.

I know you can't prove it. I'm only asking how you think it came about? - It seems like it's left to 'faith' (you just believe there is no god so anything happened but god)

...So if you take the authors odds of 1 in 5.5million million, and even if you say that there are only 1 million changes being made at a time, 1 million times in a row then the actual odds are 1 in 5.5. And that doesn't take into account that the word doesn't actually have to be evolution!

I think the author is just giving a simple example. The first cell is a thousand more complex than this example. The first molecule is almost impossible in the primordial earth's conditions (everything happened as if by design) - A serious stroke of luck that's compared to a miracle if you ask me! The probability of spelling evolution is actually simpler to calculate than a complex living cell.

You have to be very careful when thinking about statistic and probability. If you forget the actual constrains on the data you are dealing with, then you could start thinking the odds of you wearing your socks today are 1 in a googleplex.

This is a bad example. I'm an intelligent being (that's even capable of calculating the probability of our existence!) If I was an animal or insect trying to put socks on, it would be a different story altogether (it may not even happen in the end, that's how big a figure it is!))

ChocolateSauce

Agathon wrote: »

I think your wrong about your first statement chocalatesauce: A true scientist never believes his works are 100% accurate (or fact) and will almost always make mistakes in his experiments or calculations: There's trial and error, assumptions/speculation and skepticism involved in his work.

Aye, you're very correct there, a good scientist would never assume his results were infallible, but you can write a book which perfectly reflects the results, be they true or not. However, I think you are underestimating the accuracy of many scientific experiments. Some physics experiments can be accurate to thousands of decimal places, even though only the first 10 or 20 would be needed.

Believe it or not, I read that book about two years ago and took notes from it. I can send you my notes on that if you want. You still don't understand my questions by the looks of things or, obviously, you know more than Dawkins because this is what he has to say about the origin of life:
Compare with the Qur'an:

This may seem like a big stroke of luck?!?
I suppose he has a PhD so he must 100% right about God!

Respectfully, I don't believe you read that book. The rest of this part hardly needs rebuking, but....who said anything about a degree giving him dominion over religion? I was referring to him purely for his scientific credentials, which are among the best in the world. You cannot ignore his contribution to science just because you don't agree with his views on religion. He could be the anti-christ (if you'll excuse the ethno-centric saying) himself and his scientific research wouldn't change in validity.

But if you look back through my dialogue with you especially, you still haven't answered my main questions. You keep avoiding recommending a book about how the mind has evolved, consciousness, emotions, intuition, intelligent human thinking and designing, desire, etc.

I specifically recommended a book, Climbing Mount Improbable. Also, the Selfish Gene (the book which brought Dawkins to world fame in the 70's), Ontogeny and Phylogeny, and of course "On The Origin Of Species". There is no one book which goes into detail on every matter, as the field is vast and much still remains to be discovered (and please don't do yourself the disservice of using the old "Science hasn't got an answer for this, it must be god" routine.)

We are still in the embryonic stages of science if you ask me. We still don't understand about 90% of our existence (the brain, universe, etc.). Where are your tangible explanations for the things mentioned?? Mostly you've gone around these issues but never actually tackled them head on or recommended a single scientist who's tried to explain them coherently.

Never mind my above statment, too late. I agree, science is young, but embryonic? No, embryonic was pre-greek. Modern science emerged around 1600 and took off around 1800. We have a long way to go, but we are out of our infancy. Although we don't have the exact, precise details about many things, we know them in principle and just have to work on thm. I've tackled each of your questions head on and have mentioned several scientists, you are either ignoring me or have a selective memory. If you want physics, look no further than Einstein and Bohr, chemistry, no further than a school text book, and biology, no further than Darwin or Dawkins. If you want to get very specific, you have to study them in an acedemic institution, for although the concepts are simple, the nitty gritty parts are not. Also you keep asking for books. I know in religion, books have all the answers but not so in science. Science isn't found in books, it is found in journals, many of which are so obscure they're only found in universities. Books represent the summation of a field, but the actual discovery goes on in peer-reviewed journals.

unlike Christianity, in Islam, by questioning, analyzing and rationalising you will come to the Source- The Creator.

I find Christianity even less plausable than Islam (come on, a jewish zombie wants me to accept him into my heart so I won't go to hell?), so I can't really comment here except to say they're both so silly it's like trying determine which of two clowns would be better teaching a science class.
You're right. I agree with you. I wrote the comments in my blog a few years ago and haven't really touched it that much since. I thought I'd be going in and updating or revising every now and then but haven't really got around to even doing that. I'd say I have some mistakes in it alright.

[/quote]No harm done, I wouldn't trust statements I wrote several years ago in a debate today.

That's why I sometimes think that our arguments are a wast of time!

On the totally unrelated issue: Again, I've made mistakes (I'm not perfect). I see that my English and world views have caused a lot of misundersanding!!!

I'm not totally sure what you mean here, but I think your English is very good, I thought you were a native speaker? But please don't blame your English for the weakness of your arguements. A waste of time? My partner thinks so! She told me she didn't love me last night because I'd become a messageboard addict....Well I think it's time to wrap this up, I can agree to disagree with you. What do you think?

Gareth37

lol

rocksteady

Agathon wrote: »

It's a natural occurrence because we understand it that way through our research and methods. When I say 'who', take it as meaning 'how did the first replicator just pop out of a pond?' I know it's a question that we will never be able to answer but it's the same as saying prove that there is a Creator. We are kind-of in the same boat to try to prove how the very first molecule came to exist. I believe what Muhammed (p) and the other Prophet's came with and you believe what atheists came with. It's as simple as that in the end.

Okay, fine.

Agathon wrote: »

Sorry I should make myself clearer in the future. I was talking about the theory of evolution here (for 2 and 3). The natural law was meant to be the theory of evolution (mutation & natural selection, etc.), obviously after the first molecule (1)...

Okay.

Agathon wrote: »

You're right and I don't disagree with you on this one. But people like Dawkins and Dennett and Harris are doing just that. They're using Science and evolution to tackle the issue of god. Why? And do you believe this is wrong?? How did they get so carried away from true science?

As long as they don't misrepresent science, the I don't see the problem. What Dawkins et al do is give their opinions, and back it up with science and observation. The fact that it contradicts some peoples understanding of religion is irrelevent to me, as long as the science is reported honestly.

Agathon wrote: »

Of course. I believe this 100%. But where has it been wrong in the case of Islam for example? In fact, if you look through the history of science there have been many true Arab scientists who were inspired by Islam.

And yet there are Islamic scientists who discount evolution because it contradicts their undertsanding of the Qur'an (look at the link you gave me)

Agathon wrote: »

What I meant by saying that is there are many theories in Science that have been proven (i.e. relativity, etc.). Again, I agree with you here.

They have been mathematically found to be in line with current observation to a sufficiently small amount of error. Its not a case of them being proven right, its just a case of them having yet to be proven wrong. It may seem like semantics, but thats how scienctists are supposed to view it. We cant see the future, only the past (and we aren't great at that). We can't say their isn't going to be some observation that comes along and completely revolutionises how we see gravity or relativity or evolution just becauses one hasn't come already.

Agathon wrote: »

I know you can't prove it. I'm only asking how you think it came about? - It seems like it's left to 'faith' (you just believe there is no god so anything happened but god)

Experiments have been done that show how a lot of the building blocks needed for life could come about naturalistically in prehistoric times. Pour lipids in water and you get basic cell walls. I was at a talk last year in ucd where a scientist was telling of his work where he was attempting to show that proteins and lipids and everything else needed to create the first cell were possible to be made in the conditions in prehistoric times. From what I remember, they had gotten up to simple RNA precursors, some of the more complex proteins(to be honest, I dont remember very well, I'm not a biologist and it bored me to tears) but there was still a lot of work to be done.

Agathon wrote: »

I think the author is just giving a simple example. The first cell is a thousand more complex than this example. The first molecule is almost impossible in the primordial earth's conditions (everything happened as if by design) - A serious stroke of luck that's compared to a miracle if you ask me! The probability of spelling evolution is actually simpler to calculate than a complex living cell.

We dont start with a complex cell, we start with a very simple one (I thought I said this already). Here is an interesting wiki article I just found on the evolution of simple proteins to complex cells.

Agathon wrote: »

This is a bad example. I'm an intelligent being (that's even capable of calculating the probability of our existence!) If I was an animal or insect trying to put socks on, it would be a different story altogether (it may not even happen in the end, that's how big a figure it is!))

You misunderstand me. The way the author is approaching evolution with statistics, is like someone saying the odds of a pair of socks being worn is astronomical because there are billions of socks in the world, and billions of feet. So there is first the odds of picking two socks from these billions and getting a match, then the odds of picking two feet and getting a match betweeb the feet, the odds of the socks matching the feet for size and then there is the odds of putting the right socks on the right feet. Of course to aproach this is nonsense, because it ignores several important facts, like socks come in matching pairs, as do feet, people buy them in order to match their feet size and no individual specific pair of socks is required, just the ones that fit whatever criteria the customer desires.
The exact same is happening with the pointless probability exercise in the link. We dont start with a complex cell, we start with a very simple protein. Very small changes are being made, thousands, millions or even billions of times a generation, over thousands, millions or billions of generations with only the beneficial ones being kept. Then the most important part: evolution isnt aiming to end up with humans, its just natural selection and mutation that happened to end up with humans.

Agathon

Agathon wrote: »

The theory of relativity is a scientific theory that proves something through Mathematics. There are number of theories in Science that have been proven (through mathematics or fossil record, etc.) Do you not agree with this? This is what is meant. Sorry that my English is bad...

A theory will never get proven.
The definition of a scientific theory is an explanation of observed facts, basically. Relativity gives results that are consistent with experiment, although it breaks down at a quantum level hence the fuss over string theory (which is another mathematical toy...).
And while yes it does involve a lot of differential geometry, maths being used to try and model reality doesn't prove anything.

To try and sum this up, you can test a theory repeatedly by seeing if the results agree with reality, but even if it's demonstrated as correct 100/100 times, it's not "proven", it can't be.

Objectives such as you (a fully functional human who thinks, argues and dreams); the objective of filling the earth with complex living things; the objective of creating the human brain and mind, which we still don't even understand to this day and won't for a long time yet. These may not seem like objectives in the general sense, but have been the result of evolution. I should have said results instead of objective. But this is what I meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding again.

The problem here is that I think you're approaching from the point of view of looking at the end result and wondering how it happened. It should really be the other way around. To use the oft-quoted example, a hole gets formed in the ground, it starts to rain, a puddle is formed. The puddle could say "oh look, these perfect conditions were created for me to exist here!"
see what I mean?

My proof of a creator is the Qur'an. I know you're going to say this is ridiculous but try to understand the English translation properly (without prejudice). There are so many statements in the Qur'an that make you use your head to come logically to a Creator. It's the most rational argument for humans to realize that their is a Creator: 'What is it that will prove to you that a Creator exists?' Is your intellect and mind not enough proof?
Again sorry to overburden you with text from a religious book; but there are thousands of ayat (verses or signs) in The Qur'an that aim to logically prove that a Creator exists. The very first surah to open up the rational argument is:
-snip-

Agathon, this is a matter of belief and I'm not going to argue it here.
Starting off with the conclusion that your creator exists and then trying to justify it is an entirely different matter to starting from scratch.
Not to mention as I don't share the belief this part of the discussion would be pointless, so I will respectfully disagree and leave this section alone.

Answers aren't as thorough as I'd like them to be as I'm very tired, hope this suffices

Wibbs

Agathon wrote: »

The Bible (Old & New Testaments) is full of contradictions, errors and man-made stories!

OK fair enough it's not the Christian forum and we don't have a Jewish forum so I suppose you can claim that, but....

The Qur'an does not contain one contradiction, not ONE ERROR (correcting the bible's errors at that) and confirming the Truth that came before it from zoroastrianism to Christianity.

Clearly that depends on a few factors; that old chestnut interpretation, point of view of the reader and the vagueness of the text itself. From a purely historical standpoint the earlier texts are bound to be more accurate even if only from a religious standpoint. OK if we add in that there exists the idea in Islam that those earlier texts did indeed come from God but were corrupted, that poses another problem. Basically the problem is, if that's true, why did God allow such corruption of His texts? makes no logical sense. If the truth was so self evident from the start(and Islam lays claim to prophets from both books as their own), how does it become corrupted?

If a book is authored by a human it's bound to contain many errors; but the Qur'an is eloquent in it's style and tone; miraculous (especially in Arabic

Again another problem. God speaks Arabic? Or God only allows a perfect text of His will and codes in what was an obscure small time language at the time? Again makes no sense. If however God had laid down mathematical laws they would transcend all languages. Even simple clear instructions not open to interpretation in all languages would be a start. The "scientific miracles" should be clear. It should say, the earth goes around the sun. The earth is a globe. The ancient Egyptians(as well as some Greeks) believed it way before. You may say that Mohammed wasn't a scientist, that actually according to Islam doesn't or shouldn't matter. He was apparently illiterate too, yet the Quran sprung from him. More to the point came directly from Allah, so Allah would know all of this stuff, so why did he not put direct clear proofs in the Quran. Make it accessible to all too, in all times and languages. E=MC2 works for all time.

As for errors. One obvious one is that in the Quran Jesus is called Isa. Isa is a Greek corruption of the original name(as indeed is Jesus). That Greek corruption ended up in the Quran. It was quite a common name in Judea at the time and it would be approximated in English as Yeshua. Very close to Joshua, which is what the new testament reports that people mistook him as a reincarnation of. Works in the original context, but not in Arabic flitered through Greek. That's one right there. Second one states that the ancient Egyptians used crucifixion as a method of execution. AFAIR there's a reference of a pharaoh who was crucified. They didn't and they weren't. There's a few of those.

The Quran itself has changed since the start. The earliest examples are without the diacritical dots of the later ones. Adding them changes many words depending again on our old friend interpretation. The earliest Islamic/Quranic text on the dome of the rock differ to what appears in the Quran today.

As for historical Mohammed. As Schuhart worte earlier, the only reference we have for Mohammed is entirely from Islamic sources. The name doesn't appear anywhere else for nearly 200 years. Mohammed was supposed to have dealt directly with other nations and peoples, even sending representatives yet no one else seems to know about it. It is accepted by many that Mohammed was a real person, yet objectively there is far more evidence that someone call Jesus existed and that's pretty slim too.

Mecca is another example. It was supposed to be a major trading point. The first difficulty is that it was well off the beaten track, but that's not that big a problem.The bigger problem is it's mentioned nowhere in any texts of any of the trade nations, who left us very detailed descriptions of trade routes of the time. Indeed Mecca was not originally the focus of Muslim prayer. It was Jerusalem.

I have to admit like chocolatesauce I too originally approached Islam from the point of view that it was bad Muslims that had corrupted it's message. I found that was true in many cases, but I also found that in many cases they hadn't. I would say the Quran itself is pretty ok. The hadeeth and the life of the prophet was what put me right off for many reasons. Yes there were peaceful lovely passages with good advice etc, but then there was the violence and drive for basic political power. It has no comparisons in the other main religions.

ChocolateSauce

Wibbs wrote: »

It is accepted by many that Mohammed was a real person, yet objectively there is far more evidence that someone call Jesus existed and that's pretty slim too.

It seems to be the other way around; there are chronicles about Mohammad which document his life and death. He was known to be a military leader and as far as I know, there are primary sources from non-Muslim countries which confirm his existence. Jesus, on the other hand, is so mysterious and fictionalised that most people haven't even got the colour of his skin or the season of his birth correct (where the hell was he from the age of 1-30?).

Christopher Hitchens famously almost got beaten up by a Christian when he undiplomaticly (:rolleyes:) said as much at a dinner.

Wibbs

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It seems to be the other way around; there are chronicles about Mohammad which document his life and death. He was known to be a military leader and as far as I know, there are primary sources from non-Muslim countries which confirm his existence. Jesus, on the other hand, is so mysterious and fictionalised that most people haven't even got the colour of his skin or the season of his birth correct (where the hell was he from the age of 1-30?).

Nope, that's the prevailing idea in many quarters and because it's accepted and repeated as correct it's believed in both the Islamic and the wider world, but historically incorrect. We can possibly say that someone called Jesus who was executed by the roman state popped up on outside sourced historical radar albeit very scantily(two sources both very cursory IIRC). The rest of the details are down to faith and the Christian sources. Historically faith has no place. The Christian sources while quite early are naturally attempting to preach to the converted(or trying to convert), so pinch of salt springs to mind. Personally I would not be surprised to discover yes he existed, he was a rabbi of a type common at the time and that he gained a large following and was executed. I would throw in maybe a mixture of other rabbis at the time. Anything beyond that lays a faith outside my remit.

My precise point is that there are absolutely no outside sources for Mohammad, beyond the Islamic texts. Nada. Not one. Not in Greek texts, not in Byzantine(with whom he was supposed to have sent representatives) and not in Jewish texts who were direct neighbours. Indeed Islam as a movement, nevermind the details, is not noted until the Muslim armies started to show up on others borders.

Even within the fledgling Muslim states, Mohammad's name doesn't show up on coinage and/or documentation for a full 60 years after he was supposed to have died. This includes religious texts. The Hadeeth(life stories of the Prophet) are later again and aren't collated to any great degree for at least 100 years after he was reported to have died.

Applying the same to Mohammad as Jesus, I would say yes he probably existed or someone like him did. His name which means "praiseworthy" seems at least to me a bit presumptuous to call a child, then again... I'm sure some of the details of who he was have come down to us, but we can never figure out what historically as outside sources don't exist and even the Islamic sources are even later than the Christian ones.

If we discount Jesus as a purely historical figure, then Mohammad must follow. The usual critique of the Christian canon can be applied to Islam too. For obvious reasons it's an area that is scantily funded. There is much scholarship on the Quran and Islam itself, but there is a faith based first principle that says the text itself is sacred and it's origins cannot be questioned. Other faiths particularly Christians(and Atheists/Agnostics) don't quite get how very close Muslims are to the words of the Quran itself.

Wibbs

As for the colour of his skin, that's pretty obvious. He would have been a semite, like the Jewish and Arab chaps and chappesses in that part of the world today. Dark haired most likely, with sallow to dark skin. Mohammad and Jesus would probably not look dissimilar. They weren't blond and blue eyed anyway. date of birth? Who knows. Most probable is end of summer apparently.

Wibbs

I will say this, while as an agnostic I would have various issues with different faiths, I would be fairly sure both Jesus and Mohammad or people very like them existed. Too often today we put so much faith on written sources(and even endlessly bitch about which ones of those are correct).

Oral sources while naturally prone to embellishment, are valid too. If nothing else they tell us that the idea of these people had strong validity for people then. There would have been a chain of people telling stories and keeping the idea alive of these men. Enough to leave us with the idea of them to this very day. The idea of them exists and that says much for the originators of those ideas, even if the genesis of all of it is lost to time.

Indeed some of my faith in oral sources was brought home to me by a Muslim Jordanian gentleman I met some years back. Lovely guy. He could recite the Quran word perfectly, cover to cover and I don't need to tell anyone it's not a short read. He did joke that even if he made a mistake I wouldn't notice. Which was true but a couple of Muslim guys I know swore his recitation of any passage they referenced was perfect.

So in the end I don't discount oral tradition outright, especially in largely illiterate societies. I would believe, though could not prove, that these men existed, at least some of what they said and did actually happened and their message found an audience. That much is clear to me at least and that's without a religious faith. I do feel too many can be reductionist these days.

From a brass tacks purely historical standpoint I would obviously have issues and discount single source accounts.

hivizman

The Wikipedia article Historicity of Muhammad is a good introduction to the sources (or lack of sources) and the problems that they give rise to relating to the life of Muhammad.

In his book Islamic Historiography (Cambridge University Press, 2003), Chase F. Robinson discusses the way in which "the earliest Muslims were principally interested in Muhammad's charismatic career as God's prophet, the defining moment in his life being his call to prophethood . . . Belief in Muhammad's prophecy, rather than knowledge of his childhood or career as a merchant, was what distinguished Muslims from other monotheists. . . . However, believers came up against doubters and sceptics who challenged their views, who demanded to know more. . . . Drawing away from a past they actually remembered (the passing of time gave them more freedom to recreate one), and having entered a market of competing ideas and polemics, early Muslims eventually came to tell the whole story. What they could not remember they duly provided in the form of legends, myths, conjectures and reasonable guesses, all about things that they had had no real memory of, since they had not really mattered before. . . . Now by the standard of most historians, this is making things up. In my capacity as historian, I cannot invent a story about the past, even if in good faith I believe it to be true and could claim that it enjoys verisimilitude - that is, that it could very well be true. Nowadays historians wo do that are discredited. But there was nothing cynical in a project that generated new biographical 'data' by Muslim writers. This was because they held to a view of history that differs from ours. For most Muslim historians, the purpose of history was generally not to test, probe or explain, nor to provide an accounting for all events that corresponded precisely with that had once happen. On occasion it could be some of these, but it was usually many other things, the most common being to teach and inspire by illustrating and exemplifying."

For example, Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, one of the earliest lives of Muhammad, spends less than 5% of the book covering the life of Muhammad before revelations began, although this represented about 60% of his life. Ibn Ishaq concentrates on stories that can be interpreted as foretelling Muhammad's prophethood, for example the story of the identification of the "seal of the prophethood" on Muhammad's back by the Christian monk Bahira. Ibn Ishaq usually specifies his sources for material in his book, but in this case he uses the form of words "they allege" to indicate that this is a common but unsourced story rather than a well-authenticated and clearly transmitted oral tradition.

By today's standards, the contemporary and near-contemporary sources on the life of Muhammad are thin and open to criticism as being partial. But does this differ much from the sources on the lives of Europeans from around the same period? For example, Pope Gregory I (St Gregory the Great), who was roughly contemporary with Muhammad, is well-documented and many of his writings have survived, but should we reject the evidence because there is no documentary record of Gregory outside Christian sources? Gregory's successor as Pope, Sabinian, is known mainly from his life in the Liber Pontificalis, described by one recent historian as a "mesh of veritable fact, romantic legend, deliberate fabrication and heedless error".

Wibbs

Good post, but I would contend there are differences.

hivizman wrote: »

But does this differ much from the sources on the lives of Europeans from around the same period? For example, Pope Gregory I (St Gregory the Great), who was roughly contemporary with Muhammad, is well-documented and many of his writings have survived, but should we reject the evidence because there is no documentary record of Gregory outside Christian sources?

For a start, those sources are contemporaneous with the person in question. His name shows up on contemporary, coins, documents etc albeit from a single source. A single source it may be but it's a much wider ranged one, encompassing much of what was the old Roman empire. It's a less good comparison than first appears. You could nearly argue that someone like Leonardo DaVinci didn't exist as his early output was almost entirely confined to one culture.

To put in context for a Christian(or ex Christian viewpoint) more common in Ireland; lets imagine that Christianity consisted purely of the sayings and message of the Gospels with no mention or little mention of Jesus himself. A Christian state then forms based on that message and spreads it's influence locally, butting up against other states, but again on coins and in documents of that state and others it interacts with, there is still no mention of Jesus. This remains like that for a century. In the second and third century we then get a very detailed life of Jesus that then becomes codified in a separate text. That's a more easy to digest comparison. Now given that much of the story around Mohammad has information of a political, trade, diplomatic and military nature, you would expect such an important figure to show up much earlier on the radar of neighbouring states, nevermind from within the growing Islamic state and faith. The faith today is inextricably linked with Mohammad. Indeed Muslims were until quite recently described as "Mohammadans"(wrongly) because of that strong link.

Even something like the idea that Mecca was a major trade center should show up in the very detailed trade maps and lists of the time. It doesn't though and it's well over a century after that it's mentioned at all.

As I said though I would be confident in believing he and people like Jesus and Buddha existed. Their legacy (or those that believed very strongly) is plain to see.

hivizman

Wibbs, I don't think we are all that far apart. I think that we would both say that (1) there is very little extant material on the life of both Jesus and Muhammad from "independent" sources until several decades after they died; (2) the Christian/Muslim evidence for Jesus/Muhammad needs to be interpreted critically, and may in many cases (as was typical for biographical writing at the time) be mythological descriptions of what the writers thought ought to have been the case rather than being grounded on authentic transmissions of eye-witness accounts; and (3) just because we don't have the equivalent of a live broadcast by CNN from Jerusalem or Mecca, this doesn't mean that Jesus/Muhammad didn't exist. Please comment if I'm attributing views to you that you don't actually hold.

One thing that I think is worth noting is that the so-called "quest for the historical Jesus" has mainly been conducted by Christians who wanted to examine the extent to which there is evidence that Jesus really existed, and what material in the Gospels and other New Testament writings was genuinely "Jesus" rather than later accretions. A particularly good survey of the evidence and how commentators have interpreted it is given by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz in The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press, 1998). It's also worth reading Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper SanFrancisco, 1996) for a counter-argument that the precise historical facts of the life of Jesus are of little relevance for Christian understanding today. On the other hand, the "quest for the historical Muhammad" is, so far as I can see, an entirely critical process. The main reference is Ibn Warraq's collection of essays The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000), where the contributors are mainly western scholars known for questioning the standard Muslim accounts of the life of Muhammad and the origins of Islam. There seems to be less critical interest on the part of most Muslims in probing the standard accounts than there has been on the part of some Christians in being concerned with the historicity of Jesus, and there is even a lot of resentment (sometimes labelling western scholars as "orientalists") that non-Muslims are daring to ask questions about Islam and Muhammad at all.

Wibbs

hivizman wrote: »

Wibbs, I don't think we are all that far apart. I think that we would both say that (1) there is very little extant material on the life of both Jesus and Muhammad from "independent" sources until several decades after they died; (2) the Christian/Muslim evidence for Jesus/Muhammad needs to be interpreted critically, and may in many cases (as was typical for biographical writing at the time) be mythological descriptions of what the writers thought ought to have been the case rather than being grounded on authentic transmissions of eye-witness accounts; and (3) just because we don't have the equivalent of a live broadcast by CNN from Jerusalem or Mecca, this doesn't mean that Jesus/Muhammad didn't exist. Please comment if I'm attributing views to you that you don't actually hold..

Nope that's pretty much it on the money.

One thing that I think is worth noting is that the so-called "quest for the historical Jesus" has mainly been conducted by Christians who wanted to examine the extent to which there is evidence that Jesus really existed, and what material in the Gospels and other New Testament writings was genuinely "Jesus" rather than later accretions. A particularly good survey of the evidence and how commentators have interpreted it is given by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz in The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press, 1998). It's also worth reading Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus (New York: Harper SanFrancisco, 1996) for a counter-argument that the precise historical facts of the life of Jesus are of little relevance for Christian understanding today.

I've read the tim johnson book a while back. Good one too. I must check out the others.

On the other hand, the "quest for the historical Muhammad" is, so far as I can see, an entirely critical process. The main reference is Ibn Warraq's collection of essays The Quest for the Historical Muhammad (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000), where the contributors are mainly western scholars known for questioning the standard Muslim accounts of the life of Muhammad and the origins of Islam. There seems to be less critical interest on the part of most Muslims in probing the standard accounts than there has been on the part of some Christians in being concerned with the historicity of Jesus, and there is even a lot of resentment (sometimes labelling western scholars as "orientalists") that non-Muslims are daring to ask questions about Islam and Muhammad at all.

I think that's down to a few things(political/historical) but I would say mostly the position of the sanctity of the texts themselves and how they are interpreted differently by the two faiths. The Christian scholar considers the texts God inspired but written by men, so discourse even critique is not met with as much resistance and is freer because of that. Even on this site, if I went to the Christian forum I could question and argue the historical validity of the Gospel canon, I would be fine so long as I wasn't being a muppet. Doing so here with the Quran would be walking a shaky line. I suppose equivalent to going on the Christian forum and suggesting Jesus was a fake.

In Islam of course the Quranic text is considered the direct word of Allah, so Muslims scholars while serious experts and interpreters of the Islamic texts themselves, any possible origin or discussion of same of those texts is naturally out of bounds with the exception of the Hadeeth, the validity of some of them seems to be endlessly debated. Any Muslim attempting to describe even influences or evolution of the Quran would be steering a difficult, nay even dangerous course in the case of the zealots. So very few have done. IMHO That accounts for some of the feeling of criticism that some Muslims may feel at the hands of orientalists.

Of course naturally the orientalists or western researchers will bring some of their own cultural baggage along for the ride. That's unavoidable, but in the absence of well versed Islamic scholars it's all we've got.

Agathon

Wibbs wrote: »

OK fair enough it's not the Christian forum and we don't have a Jewish forum so I suppose you can claim that, but.... Clearly that depends on a few factors; that old chestnut interpretation, point of view of the reader and the vagueness of the text itself. From a purely historical standpoint the earlier texts are bound to be more accurate even if only from a religious standpoint. OK if we add in that there exists the idea in Islam that those earlier texts did indeed come from God but were corrupted, that poses another problem. Basically the problem is, if that's true, why did God allow such corruption of His texts? makes no logical sense. If the truth was so self evident from the start (and Islam lays claim to prophets from both books as their own), how does it become corrupted?

Firstly, everybody knows the Bible contains contradictions and some added words and sentences, even the Christians themselves. If you're not convinced then listen to Ahmed Deedat's debates against Christians. Secondly, I'd like to ask you a question: Have you ever even read the Qur'an from cover to cover without prejudice (in English)? If not, then why do you speak about it as if you're a scholar, saying it's interpretation and text is vague (Read a proper history of Islam and the authenticity of the Qur'an with a clear unbiased mind). Thirdly, we believe after reading the Qur'an properly and understanding Islam from its fundamentals, that Allah tests the people. Humans have a free-will to choose the Guidance or throw it away. Allah tested the nations (especially Bani-Israel) and they threw the Guidance behind their backs and chose to take the path of greed and power. Allah warned them and even warns the Arabs that if they chose the path of misguidance Allah will replace them with another nation that will love him. Bani-Israel failed, if you look through history (and sometimes genuine Jews will admit this) so Allah chose another nation. Muhammed (p) is the final Messenger of Allah. This is Allah's Will. As humans we have a proper test and free-will to accept the Qur'an as it claims or throw it behind our backs saying Muhammed made it up. It's up to you. But at least read it properly. The message is simple really: There is a Creator and he sent Messengers throughout history to deliver this simple message from the beginning of human existence. Humans always look for the immediate and more alluring option and chose greed and power freely. What is logical in your head??

Again another problem. God speaks Arabic? Or God only allows a perfect text of His will and codes in what was an obscure small time language at the time? Again makes no sense.

No, God communicates the Message that a Creator exists in human language. Again, it was in Aramaic, Hebrew or whatever early languages there were (the message still spread across to almost 4 or 5 billion humans on our planet). Why do you say Arabic is a small time language (it's the most popular of the old languages spoken by the population of the Middle-East, North Africa, and some areas of India). Mathematics is not a proper language - How would you communicate to people with mathematics?? - very vague indeed and strange!do you communicate with people in mathematics when trying to make a point?! Why do this when you can deliver a message clearly in human language; There will always be humans that choose misguidance no matter what you send to them, as the Qur'an states in many places. You are a sign that a God exists; this was actually not even a real issue in the old days - people went astray by worshiping idols instead of the One True Creator. Atheism is a strange occurrence in our existence; and it does not sustain life (depression, suicide, alcoholism, greed/violence would wipe out the human race); The Qur'an proves that God is not an illusion. What exactly makes sense to you?

If however God had laid down mathematical laws they would transcend all languages. Even simple clear instructions not open to interpretation in all languages would be a start. The "scientific miracles" should be clear. It should say, the earth goes around the sun. The earth is a globe. The ancient Egyptians(as well as some Greeks) believed it way before. You may say that Mohammed wasn't a scientist, that actually according to Islam doesn't or shouldn't matter.

As I said before, this is not the main message of the Qur'an - scientific facts - it's just there in a natural way; who cares who got it right before him; there were still millions who got it wrong; but that's not the point anymore (you have all convinced me that my scientific argument was weak). The core message of the Qur'an is that a Creator exists and there are clear challenges in the Qur'an if you read it properly (even in English).

As for errors. One obvious one is that in the Quran Jesus is called Isa. Isa is a Greek corruption of the original name(as indeed is Jesus). That Greek corruption ended up in the Quran. It was quite a common name in Judea at the time and it would be approximated in English as Yeshua. Very close to Joshua, which is what the new testament reports that people mistook him as a reincarnation of. Works in the original context, but not in Arabic flitered through Greek. That's one right there. Second one states that the ancient Egyptians used crucifixion as a method of execution. AFAIR there's a reference of a pharaoh who was crucified. They didn't and they weren't. There's a few of those.

I'll get back to you, after asking an imam about these, but where is your references for these issues??

The Quran itself has changed since the start. The earliest examples are without the diacritical dots of the later ones. Adding them changes many words depending again on our old friend interpretation. The earliest Islamic/Quranic text on the dome of the rock differ to what appears in the Quran today.

This is nonsense; there has only been ONE Qur'an since the time of Muhammed (p); memorized by millions. No enemy of Islam has ever used this against the Muslims and now you claim that it's true. Where is your evidence exactly (where's the source)?

As for historical Mohammed. As Schuhart worte earlier, the only reference we have for Mohammed is entirely from Islamic sources. The name doesn't appear anywhere else for nearly 200 years. Mohammed was supposed to have dealt directly with other nations and peoples, even sending representatives yet no one else seems to know about it. It is accepted by many that Mohammed was a real person, yet objectively there is far more evidence that someone call Jesus existed and that's pretty slim too.

You don't have to believe it. I believe what is written about Muhammed (p); He did exist and the authentic sources are there. If you think they're made up that's your choice. I'm not forcing you to accept Islam and the Qur'an, but this argument against the Muslims is weak. It's not really proving anything. This is just a matter of belief: you're the one that's in need of evidence to prove that what you believe is true and what I believe is false?

Mecca is another example. It was supposed to be a major trading point. The first difficulty is that it was well off the beaten track, but that's not that big a problem.The bigger problem is it's mentioned nowhere in any texts of any of the trade nations, who left us very detailed descriptions of trade routes of the time. Indeed Mecca was not originally the focus of Muslim prayer. It was Jerusalem...

And??? What's your point? and what are you trying to prove with your assumptions?!? Allah chooses to raise Prophets and places as His Will. These are just conjectures, to prove what exactly???

I have to admit like chocolatesauce I too originally approached Islam from the point of view that it was bad Muslims that had corrupted it's message. I found that was true in many cases, but I also found that in many cases they hadn't. I would say the Quran itself is pretty ok. The hadeeth and the life of the prophet was what put me right off for many reasons. Yes there were peaceful lovely passages with good advice etc, but then there was the violence and drive for basic political power. It has no comparisons in the other main religions.

You must approach Islam from the very basics (foundations and Oneness of Allah) and then study the Qur'an and Hadith under the supervision of an Imam or scholar. Even Muslims need direction from a knowledgeable scholar about some aspects of Hadith and Qur'an. The basic message is simple; yet Islamic Law and Principles are a deep subject that cannot studied by reading books alone - just as you can't become an expert critic of Law or Economics without studying the subjects properly. You and chocalateSauce are right, I suppose; over a billion Muslims are brainwashed!!

Wibbs

Agathon wrote: »

Firstly, everybody knows the Bible contains contradictions and some added words and sentences, even the Christians themselves. If you're not convinced then listen to Ahmed Deedat's debates against Christians.

Oh no, I agree, they do contain contradictions and added words picked up over time. No doubt about it. You still haven't responded to my question; why and how did the old texts sent by god become corrupted? Why did he choose to ignore that?

Secondly, I'd like to ask you a question: Have you ever even read the Qur'an from cover to cover without prejudice (in English)?

Actually I have read it cover to cover. Naturally in english, my arabic being nonexistent:) Without prejudice is impossible to say. We all bring our own cultural baggage with us, so I've no doubt I did too. I tried to have an open mind however. Actually I found the Quran fine. Many of the concepts familiar to me. The Hadeeth I read did bring up some issues for me.

If not, then why do you speak about it as if you're a scholar, saying it's interpretation and text is vague (Read a proper history of Islam and the authenticity of the Qur'an with a clear unbiased mind).

There is no such thing as a clear unbiased mind. Merely the hope that one is not as unclear or biased as some. I just found questions along the way for which I've yet to find good answers.

Thirdly, we believe after reading the Qur'an properly and understanding Islam from its fundamentals, that Allah tests the people. Humans have a free-will to choose the Guidance or throw it away.

In that case Allah also knows which ones will choose and which ones won't. Which type of guidance would suit one group and not another. In which case free will is tested indeed.

Allah tested the nations (especially Bani-Israel) and they threw the Guidance behind their backs and chose to take the path of greed and power.

Well you could argue that the Arabs who followed the path also got their fair share of power.

Allah warned them and even warns the Arabs that if they chose the path of misguidance Allah will replace them with another nation that will love him. Bani-Israel failed, if you look through history (and sometimes genuine Jews will admit this) so Allah chose another nation.

That sentence is on such hopelessly dodgy ground it bears no answer that I would feel comfortable giving.

Muhammed (p) is the final Messenger of Allah. This is Allah's Will. As humans we have a proper test and free-will to accept the Qur'an as it claims or throw it behind our backs saying Muhammed made it up. It's up to you. But at least read it properly.

Translation, I'm right you're wrong. Reading it "properly" means you accept it and don't question. T

he message is simple really: There is a Creator and he sent Messengers throughout history to deliver this simple message from the beginning of human existence. Humans always look for the immediate and more alluring option and chose greed and power freely. What is logical in your head??

The more alluring option as you put it would be to accept it completely and never question.

Why do you say Arabic is a small time language (it's the most popular of the old languages spoken by the population of the Middle-East, North Africa, and some areas of India)

I said it was a small time language. It grew mostly on the back of the Islamic empire. At the time it was a language of a small population. Indeed Arabic was spread to those places and became a consistent and widely used language precisely because it was laid down in the Quran.

Mathematics is not a proper language - How would you communicate to people with mathematics?? - very vague indeed and strange!do you communicate with people in mathematics when trying to make a point?!

mathematics can be used as the basis for a communication between two intelligent beings. Hence when they sent the voyager probe out the instructions, should any alien life ever bump into it was in mathematics. It's universal.

Why do this when you can deliver a message clearly in human language;

Simply because it's not that clear. Yes some of the instructions are very clear but the fundamentals of the existence of God are not.

There will always be humans that choose misguidance no matter what you send to them, as the Qur'an states in many places.

Which is a handy get out clause.

You are a sign that a God exists;

OK, lets say that's true. Which God? Yours? The Christian? The Hindu? All will claim theirs is the true god. Talk about confusing. I mean the earth is a tiny little rock in the universe. You would think a consistency of message would be easy.

Atheism is a strange occurrence in our existence; and it does not sustain life (depression, suicide, alcoholism, greed/violence would wipe out the human race);

Utterly untrue.

The Qur'an proves that God is not an illusion. What exactly makes sense to you?

You see to me it doesn't as there are issues with it in my mind. Cool if you think that's wrong BTW.

I'll get back to you, after asking an imam about these, but where is your references for these issues??

Is Isa the name given in the Quran to whom they call Jesus in the west? If so it's incorrect. Isa is a greek translation of Yeshua(which was his name in approximate english).

This is nonsense; there has only been ONE Qur'an since the time of Muhammed (p); memorized by millions. No enemy of Islam has ever used this against the Muslims and now you claim that it's true. Where is your evidence exactly (where's the source)?

Actually quite a few have mentioned these things before. Anyway which particular part do you take issue with? This; The oldest examples are without the diacritical dots of the later ones(which is indeed accepted by many Muslim Quranic scholars, they just contend that they were left out because of different Arabic dialects at the time), or this; The earliest Islamic/Quranic text on the dome of the rock differ to what appears in the Quran today.

You don't have to believe it.

Oh no I agree. Ones faith or lack of it should be between you and your conscience.

I believe what is written about Muhammed (p);

Great. I have no issue with that. At all.

He did exist and the authentic sources are there. If you think they're made up that's your choice.

No what I said if you read back is that the sources are entirely from Islam and are quite a while after he died. That's all.

I'm not forcing you to accept Islam and the Qur'an, but this argument against the Muslims is weak. It's not really proving anything. This is just a matter of belief: you're the one that's in need of evidence to prove that what you believe is true and what I believe is false?

I would say that if a message is true and self evident it needs no proof. On either side. Because you have faith in a particular path(and that's cool) I would contend that path is not self evident to me and requires more proof than not. No one would deny the sky is blue. It's obvious. The sky is blue. We can all agree so arguing against that is next to impossible(unless it's nightime:))

And??? What's your point? and what are you trying to prove with your assumptions?!? Allah chooses to raise Prophets and places as His Will. These are just conjectures, to prove what exactly???

To find what truth I can.

You must approach Islam from the very basics (foundations and Oneness of Allah) and then study the Qur'an and Hadith under the supervision of an Imam or scholar.

Which means I must accpet blindly that its true from the very start. That is not an open mind. It may work for many, It just does not happen to work for me.

Even Muslims need direction from a knowledgeable scholar about some aspects of Hadith and Qur'an. The basic message is simple; yet Islamic Law and Principles are a deep subject that cannot studied by reading books alone - just as you can't become an expert critic of Law or Economics without studying the subjects properly.

Oh I agree. One does need to study more. The difference I suppose is that I believe that law and or economics has a basis in observable fact. It also evolves as we learn more. The law and economics of say 3000 years ago would be very different to today in many ways. There would also be great similariities and consistencies of course.

You and chocalateSauce are right, I suppose; over a billion Muslims are brainwashed!!

Not at all. They believe something. They believe it holds an answer for them. It happens that I believe for a few reasons that it doesn't hold the answer for me and I'm simply outlining some of my reasoning here(there are others too). That's all

Schuhart

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh no, I agree, they do contain contradictions and added words picked up over time. No doubt about it.

Is it also fair to say that one of the most significant contradictions - the mistranslation that created the impression that Jesus would be born to a virgin - is common to both the Quran and Bible.

Wibbs

Dunno that one, but I suppose like I said before too many of us get caught up in the details. Now in fairness the details are interesting.

Funny enough one of the things that made me an agnostic was realising that those about me who claimed to be Christians spent far too much time worshiping and not enough time actually following the advice of the one they claimed to worship. That goes for far too many of the self proclaimed faithful of any faith you care to mention.

I can now read the beatitudes and although no longer religious, I can see the good clear advice in it. Ok some may say, it's from God and others say so what, others said it before and since. I figure big deal. If people actually listened, even removed all the references to God, and put that stuff into practice they would be happier people. I found the same truths in the reported sayings of the Buddha and indeed in the sayings of Mohammad. And of course other learned men and women through the ages.

One of my faves of the Prophet(and if an unbeliever may be so bold..); "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr". I may think many things of his reported life but I must say he was constantly going on about knowledge and learning being the way to being a better person. One of the reasons for the great flowering of Islamic culture in medieval times.

Agathon

Wibbs wrote: »

...Translation, I'm right you're wrong. Reading it "properly" means you accept it and don't question. TThe more alluring option as you put it would be to accept it completely and never question.

How is that the most alluring option?!? In Islam we must question and come to the truth through reason; I accept what is written in the Qur'an as logical ... What exactly do you not understand after reading the Qur'an?? - Are there some ayat that you think don't make sense? What are they??

mathematics can be used as the basis for a communication between two intelligent beings. Hence when they sent the voyager probe out the instructions, should any alien life ever bump into it was in mathematics. It's universal. Simply because it's not that clear. Yes some of the instructions are very clear but the fundamentals of the existence of God are not...

No matter what way the Creator communicates with humans there will always be those who reject it; Atheist Scientists are the most skeptical people. They want to actually see God (which is impossible); or else they want to see what happens after they're dead (which is also impossible); they can't see the obvious signs in front of them (complexity and order of our existence!!)

Which God? Yours? The Christian? The Hindu? All will claim theirs is the true god. Talk about confusing. I mean the earth is a tiny little rock in the universe. You would think a consistency of message would be easy.

Yes, it is a consistent message. The root of every single religion goes back to the same ONE Creator; humans seem to imagine and exaggerate and alter stories a bit. Every Messenger (over 124,000 according to Islam) was sent to his nation with the same one message from the same One God.

Is Isa the name given in the Quran to whom they call Jesus in the west? If so it's incorrect. Isa is a greek translation of Yeshua(which was his name in approximate english).

Isa is the name in Arabic. What was his name in English??? I kind of lost you... What's your evidence again?/where did you get Isa's real name from??

Actually quite a few have mentioned these things before. Anyway which particular part do you take issue with? This; The oldest examples are without the diacritical dots of the later ones(which is indeed accepted by many Muslim Quranic scholars, they just contend that they were left out because of different Arabic dialects at the time), or this; The earliest Islamic/Quranic text on the dome of the rock differ to what appears in the Quran today.

The Qur'an was memorized in 7 dialects. Every single word has been passed down through the ages up to the one we have now. a simple example of a difference in dialect is: 'yukadibun' instead of 'yakdibun' - the two words although different mean the exact same thing ('they lied' as in 'they are liars') ... Where is your source for the Dome of the Rock Qur'an - I've never heard of it before.

... I would say that if a message is true and self evident it needs no proof. On either side. Because you have faith in a particular path(and that's cool) I would contend that path is not self evident to me and requires more proof than not. No one would deny the sky is blue. It's obvious. The sky is blue. We can all agree so arguing against that is next to impossible

Ok, do you believe Alexander the Great or Churchil or William Wallace or Darwin existed? Why should I believe their version of the story. That's history: You have to have some way of analyzing how the stories come down to us. If you don't believe them for whatever reason, does not make them false; because we weren't there and we can never go back to prove them.

Which means I must accpet blindly that its true from the very start. That is not an open mind. It may work for many, It just does not happen to work for me. Oh I agree. One does need to study more. The difference I suppose is that I believe that law and or economics has a basis in observable fact.

Study Islamic Law and economics from a true Scholar and you will come to understand that it is logical. Of course you question, and as I said before, as a Muslim we don't accept things blindly. When we ask a knowledgeable person we are increasing our knowledge and backing it up with references and our judgment. Is this not how we learn?? How do we get to be Professors or Scholars in this life? Is it not under supervision of a Professor or Scholar??

They believe something. They believe it holds an answer for them. It happens that I believe for a few reasons that it doesn't hold the answer for me and I'm simply outlining some of my reasoning here(there are others too). That's all

What does hold an answer to you? What exactly do you believe? Believe me, the easy option is to believe in nothing. It's the easier option as far as I'm concerned. But my conscience keeps telling me there is a Creator (somehow, somewhere)

Wibbs

Agathon wrote: »

How is that the most alluring option?!? In Islam we must question and come to the truth through reason; I accept what is written in the Qur'an as logical

Well I suppose Agathon we are coming from different angles on this. You as a believer and me as not. Well duuuh I hear you say. I mean it is alluring as a first principle to accept that Allah exists. After that, you can then study the Quran and take from it alll the things you do. From my position as someone who doesn't accept that Allah exists, or at least personally it doesn't ... I dunno... make sense to me, or resonate within me, if you see what I mean. Basically I suppose I don't have your basic faith. BTW I wouldn't describe myself as atheist more agnostic. Quite simply I don't know and didn't find the answers in my reading of the Quran. I'm not so much rejecting your faith(or others for that matter). For me the idea of rejecting has a feeling of believing it in the first place and then choosing to ignore or rejecting it, which IMHO would be daft. So my position is one where I would need convincing of that first thing. Probably not explaining it very well.:)

What exactly do you not understand after reading the Qur'an?? - Are there some ayat that you think don't make sense? What are they??

Don't get me wrong, there is much in it I would agree with. Again like other faiths. One of the main ones for me would be abrogation. Early instructions are changed over time or don't feel like they agree. The ban on alcohol was one, but the new mr mod chappy here explained that one in a logical way. The differences between the feeling behind the Meccan verses which were more inclusive and loving and the later verses which feel much more aggressive in tone stood out. They are harder to explain away and which one is followed?

No matter what way the Creator communicates with humans there will always be those who reject it;

Do you think? If God/Allah in the morning wrote "Hello" in the stars in all the languages of earth I suspect there would be few atheists.

Atheist Scientists are the most skeptical people.

Personally I feel there should be more of a balance between the skeptical and the open. It makes for better science. I do think that all too often today there is too much skepticism, even in pure science, but that's slightly off topic.:)

They want to actually see God (which is impossible);

Actually, that's a point. Why? God is said to be all powerful and everywhere and everything. Could God if He chose, not walk down the street like you and me and walk up to someone and say "hello, how are you?" Indeed He could do that with every man woman and child on earth and beyond. Why is He distant? Why does He require worship or to be feared? That suggests an ego involved, an all too human issue. Apologies that's me just rambling on as usual..

or else they want to see what happens after they're dead (which is also impossible)

True

they can't see the obvious signs in front of them (complexity and order of our existence!!)

That's the usual proof given by many. Yes I can why it is appealing, but I don't feel it.

Yes, it is a consistent message. The root of every single religion goes back to the same ONE Creator; humans seem to imagine and exaggerate and alter stories a bit. Every Messenger (over 124,000 according to Islam) was sent to his nation with the same one message from the same One God.

What about those cultures that have many Gods?

Isa is the name in Arabic. What was his name in English??? I kind of lost you... What's your evidence again?/where did you get Isa's real name from??

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yeshua is how you would spell his name in English phonetically. It would sound like Yeshua in Aramaic. Isa is a corruption of Greek, as is Jesus a corruption of Latin AFAIR

The Qur'an was memorized in 7 dialects. Every single word has been passed down through the ages up to the one we have now. a simple example of a difference in dialect is: 'yukadibun' instead of 'yakdibun' - the two words although different mean the exact same thing ('they lied' as in 'they are liars') ...

Of course and a good explanation. To be fair, like the Yeshua/Isa/Jesus point above we are both trying to discuss this in a language that wasn't even around at the time. Though you have the advantage of understanding Arabic at least:) The diacritical dots can also change the meaning depending on placement. One of the famous ones is apparently the part about virgins in paradise for Muslim men. Depending on where the dots are it can also mean sweet grapes.

Where is your source for the Dome of the Rock Qur'an - I've never heard of it before.

A couple of book references. Now I could link to wikipedia, or other websites, but as a source it's not always trustworthy so I won't.

Ok, do you believe Alexander the Great or Churchil or William Wallace or Darwin existed?

Yes, though with Alex the great all we really know of is his campaigns beyond that not a lot. William Wallace is pretty vague too, though not if you believe mel Gibson:D.

Why should I believe their version of the story. That's history:You have to have some way of analyzing how the stories come down to us. If you don't believe them for whatever reason, does not make them false; because we weren't there and we can never go back to prove them.

True.

Study Islamic Law and economics from a true Scholar and you will come to understand that it is logical. Of course you question, and as I said before, as a Muslim we don't accept things blindly. When we ask a knowledgeable person we are increasing our knowledge and backing it up with references and our judgment. Is this not how we learn?? How do we get to be Professors or Scholars in this life? Is it not under supervision of a Professor or Scholar??

Yes but as I said before, you must believe in the first place. If you don't you will of course increase your knowledge but it won't make you believe.

What does hold an answer to you? What exactly do you believe?

I simply don't know. I believe in what I can see and what is logical to me. I believe that I may very well be wrong. I believe that if someone else believes something different to me and it works for them, then that is cool and I am genuinely happy for them if it works for them and doesn't hurt others.

Believe me, the easy option is to believe in nothing. It's the easier option as far as I'm concerned.

Actually I think it's harder. The certainties are different for a start. The pure atheist believes that he or she lives, tries to get as much out of this life and dies. That's the end. Nothing. Extinction. No reason to life but life itself. And in that life all they have to rely on is themselves and others. No helping hand or guidance beyond what their mind and nature tell them. Maybe an analogy would be; you believe you have a map and instructions to the place you want to get to. An atheist has no such map or indeed even a destination, merely a journey for its own sake. Which is easier in that case? Indeed I feel some admiration for pure atheists, that in the face of what may appear to be the complete lack of "purpose" in life they still manage to live full and mostly happy lives.

But my conscience keeps telling me there is a Creator (somehow, somewhere)

And I say fair play to you if you feel that and it makes your life better and I wish you well in your journey. I would say the same to anyone seeking the path that suits them. I"m daily looking for that path myself, I just simply appear to be missing that faith part.

hivizman

On notation in early copies of the Qur'an, and the Dome of the Rock, a good source is the chapter by Fred Leemhuis "From palm leaves to the internet" in The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an (edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe: CUP, 2006). Leemhuis is Professor of Islamic Studies at the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Groningen, in the Netherlands. In this chapter, Leemhuis discusses early manuscript fragments of the Qur'an, mentioning that there is a dispute as to whether any of them can be dated to the first/seventh century, or whether the earliest likely date is the third/ninth century. This bears on the critical arguments of writers such as John Wansbrough, who rejects the standard narrative that the Qur'an was prepared in its present form under the caliph Uthman within 20 years of the Prophet's death.

Leemhuis notes the following on pages 147-148:

The style or styles of the script used for these early manuscripts seems to have been or to have become more or less specific for manuscripts of the Qur'an and appears to be different both from the more cursive styles that are known from early papyri and from the lapidary ones that were used in most inscriptions incised in stone. In this early qur'anic style of writing additional signs were introduced to distinguish characters that were used for more than one consonant. Little dashes or dots were added above or under the letters to identify them. [Leemhuis describes in detail three different treatments of the initial and medial forms of fa and qaf] The third method . . . is, however, significant because it was also used in the inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. The mosaic inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock, which consist mainly of qur'anic quotations, quite clearly imitate a style of writing that is very close to the style we know from early qur'anic manuscripts. This external evidence leads to the conclusion that early Qur'an manuscripts with the same method of punctuation date roughly from the same short period, i.e., from around 692 CE [AH 72] when the Dome of the Rock was built.

I don't have a reference to hand, but I understand that the critics of the standard chronology for the Qur'an assert that the qur'anic inscriptions at the Dome of the Rock are later additions. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, in The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 (OUP: 1998), describes the inscription as "a single line of Kufic script running along the top of both sides of the inner octagon, 240m in all" (p. 88), and translates part of the text of the inscription as "O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son." The text is Sura an-Nisa 4:171.

By the way, the documentary After Rome presented by Boris Johnson and broadcast on BBC2 earlier this month had several shots of the inscription in the Dome on the Rock.

Agathon

hivizman wrote: »

On notation in early copies of the Qur'an, and the Dome of the Rock, a good source is the chapter by Fred Leemhuis "From palm leaves to the internet" in The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'an (edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe: CUP, 2006)...

The Qur'an was always memorized from the time it was revealed to the Prophet (p) until this time. No matter what books people write claiming this and that, they will never be able to disprove this fact about the authenticity of the Noble Qur'an. That's why this argument is the weakest argument you can bring against Islam. Even if you google anything about the authenticity of the Qur'an you will find many links that try to explain it to you (if you want to actually search for the truth about it). For example:
http://www.ilaam.net/Articles/AuthenticQuran.html

But that's not the point. Searching for answers through Google these days is like somebody travelling hundreds of miles to search for an answer a few centuries ago. The point I want to make is that the Qur'an was preserved through the hafiz (The Protector); when somebody in Islam recites the Qur'an perfectly (in any dialect) by memory he is given the honourable title of hafiz or hafidh in Arabic (meaning protector or preserver). This is how it came down to us word for word. The actual idea of putting it in book form was merely as a convenience for those who haven't memorized it; or in case every single hafiz was wiped out by the enemies of Islam; which never happened in the history of Islam. So if there is one single error in any of the Qur'anic texts in the world, a few hafidhs would spot it and destroy it, regardless of what anybody with another title says. That's what is meant by: 'We (Allah) Have Revealed the Dhikr (Qu'an) and We Will Preserve it.'
If you find this hard to believe, go to an Islamic country and see for yourself how the Qur'an is being memorized; how a book the size of the Bible is being memorized word for word (perfectly to the vowel - that's the dashes you were speaking about) by millions of ordinary Muslims all over the world (kids, women, men, etc.) - It is destined to be preserved unlike the previous scriptures (this is Allah's Will and Wisdom, to test the nations through free-will and then through true Guidance).

... Leemhuis notes the following on pages 147-148:...

Read it. Now go and read from a real Muslim scholar's perspective and see which sounds more genuine. Just because the guy has a title, we shouldn't accept every word he says. The majority of scholars and professors in Islam are agreed on the authenticity of the Qur'an.

By the way, the documentary After Rome presented by Boris Johnson and broadcast on BBC2 earlier this month had several shots of the inscription in the Dome on the Rock.

Memorized to this day... Not one of the hundreds of sects of Islam have even disagreed on this matter! Boris misunderstood the inscriptions. It's a weak argument.