Atheist's Misconceptions in Islam

Agathon

Wibbs wrote: »

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... 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.

No, we're actually coming from the same angle. Why would i believe in a God in the first place. Why would I put myself in an accountable position, when I can do whatever I wanted (drink, sex & rock 'n' roll lifestyle, paint the town red with fun and enjoyment)?? This is the easier option (and since we can't see God, we are both looking from the same angle. And no, it's nothing to do with fear of death either (that's an arrogant statement from atheist because they can't find another reason why God came into people's heads) ... the same fear of death is experienced by everyone regardless of their faith (accountability to a Just Creator makes it even more fearful)! Maybe it's the easier option because there are no responsibilities. Just the one life (enjoy it while you can and become 'nothing' when the time comes when we leave)

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?

The Qur'an was revealed in a logical manner, to bring people to belief in God, without a shock effect. When you're treating an alcoholic you don't just threaten him to make him stop suddenly!! Alcohol is actually an Arabic word - the Arabs were serious drinkers at the time of the Prophet (p) and at the time of ignorance. To bring humans back to faith it had be done step by step. Allah mentions in the Qur'an: "If it was Allah's Will everybody would be on Guidance"; but it's free-will. Why? It's a test. Why? To experience and demonstrate Allah's Attributes: The Most Merciful, The Most Just, The Protector, The Creator, etc. (Allah has over 99 Attributes). This is our Ultimate Destiny.

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.

Believe me, there would be another explanation for this. Too many signs have been shown to humans in the past that were more powerful than this. Read the Qur'an again! No matter what you show humans they will not believe (they prefer the obvious/easy option!)

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..

You can ask the Creator that when you die!! But even if a human came to you on the street and said this (as many have in the past) would you believe him. If he said he was an angel or god and showed you signs and even bedazzled you! You'd say it's magic or he's insane!! The Infinite Creator does not merge with the finite Creation. You seem to have these ideas in your head because you're dealing with human thoughts about these attributes. The Creator's Attributes as mentioned in the Qur'an are brought down to a level were we humans can understand them (in our language of communication) - 'He' does not mean it's a a male or even an object, etc. Don't understand them in a negative imperfect manner. That's what is meant when I said read the Noble Qur'an with a clear, unbiased mind. I know it's hard but try not to bring human thoughts about the Creator (only perfect attributes of Mercy, Justice, Guidance, Light).

What about those cultures that have many Gods?

The source of everything actually goes back to One True Creator God. Where there are many gods there is always the One sky-god as their master or source (read up on Hinduism or Zoroastrianism). I've read many old scriptures (including the Torah, Psalms, Zohar, etc.) and have found that there is a consistent core message of One God, that has been corrupted over time. As I said before, this is human free-will in play. Even the Qur'an, nowadays, humans don't believe it and want to change it to suit themsleves - This free-will (the two paths are clear, we'll soon experience The All-Just).

... 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...

What do you mean a corruption of Greek or corruption of Latin?!? How does a language get corrupted? It's merely another way of saying it. It's like a contracted way of the same word (not corrupted) - that's your view. Where did you get this from? Isa is the name chosen by Allah as was Muhammed, Adam, etc.
No honest, genuine Christian or Jew at the time of Muhammed(p) EVER pointed this out to him, yet we believe 'so-called' Christians & Jews in our time!! Another weak argument!!
http://www.behindthename.com/name/jesus

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. 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.

Wikipedia is not too reliable. Tell me which ayah that is and I'll verify it for you.

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. True.

It looks like you don't believe much!! That's the subject of History for you my friend. You just have to be fair and objectionable when analyzing it.

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.

You increase your knowledge to come to the conclusion of a God first, for example. Don't go further with other aspects of the religion until you've understood the concept of God in Islam; and then step by step, the other parts. If you can't get past the first stage (the root) then there's no use in trying to understand the rest of the huge Tree (its many diverse branches).

...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...

Again, as I mentioned above, we are all going towards death and fearing it no matter what faith or guidance we think we have, because of the pain and then the accountability involved. That analogy is wrong. Because the main difference between me and the atheist is that we both have many maps in front of us but he refuses to look at them (thinking that they're all wrong); he chooses his path and has to live with it, happily.

hivizman

Agathon wrote: »

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.

You must have seen a different version of the After Rome documentary, because I cannot recall Boris Johnson claiming that the inscription in the Dome of the Rock was in any way inauthentic. The programmes that I saw were full of conversations with Muslim scholars from universities in Egypt, Syria and other parts of the Middle East.

Similarly, I have reread not just the passage I quoted from Fred Leemhuis but the whole chapter, and nowhere can I find a statement implying that he gives any credence to the views of those such as John Wansbrough who argued that the standard narrative of the transmission of the Qur'an was mythical. The only comment Leemhuis makes is "A few qur'anic manuscripts have been attributed by some specialists to the seventh century, but as yet no extant manuscript has been unequivocally dated to a period before the ninth century on the basis of firm external evidence. Such external evidence would provide a powerful argument in the controversy that exists in Western scholarship about when the codification of the Qur'an took place, whether this was at the beginning of Islamic history, as postulated by the traditional view, or about two centuries later, according to John Wansbrough" (p. 146).

What these sentences are saying, in effect, is "the surviving manuscript evidence is broadly consistent with the traditional view, but it is not conclusive enough to utterly refute the views of critics such as Wansbrough."

I have no real problem with the standard narrative of the memorisation and oral transmission of the Qur'an, backed up by the written version produced under the authority of Uthman. However, some sceptics today argue that, because we do not have contemporaneous written records of either Jesus or Muhammad, and the documentary evidence itself survives only in later copies, we don't actually have satisfactory evidence in detail of their lives and sayings, and therefore we have no reliable evidence for anything that they are supposed to have said or done. Without denying the evidential problems, my view is that Jesus and Muhammad are two of the best-evidenced people of their times, by the standards of their times. It is perverse, I think, to argue that the New Testament has no value as evidence value in a historical sense simply because it was written by Christians, just as it would be perverse to argue that the evidence we have for the life of Muhammad has no value as evidence value because it was collected and written by Muslims. But it is a tendency of modern Western people to be sceptical and not accept the arguments of authority without question.

By the way, Agathon, you were the one who asked Wibbs:

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

My post was simply intended to provide a bit of information about the qur'anic inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock, based on books, not "searching for answers through Google".

Wibbs

Agathon wrote: »

No, we're actually coming from the same angle. Why would i believe in a God in the first place. Why would I put myself in an accountable position, when I can do whatever I wanted (drink, sex & rock 'n' roll lifestyle, paint the town red with fun and enjoyment)?? This is the easier option (and since we can't see God, we are both looking from the same angle.

Yes but you believe a God exists. That's the major difference. Everything you think on the subject comes from that very first principle. Everything you believe is filtered by that thought.

And no, it's nothing to do with fear of death either (that's an arrogant statement from atheist because they can't find another reason why God came into people's heads)

I don't see where the arrogance comes from TBH. Plus it's not the only reason one could suggest why the idea of a god comes from.

the same fear of death is experienced by everyone regardless of their faith (accountability to a Just Creator makes it even more fearful)!

Not if you believe you're following the right one. Again there is a difference in our approaches. Plus surely a just creator makes it easier, as a just creator will understand why you may have strayed. Of course it depends on the faith. Some faiths have a more easy going God than others.

The Qur'an was revealed in a logical manner, to bring people to belief in God, without a shock effect. When you're treating an alcoholic you don't just threaten him to make him stop suddenly!! Alcohol is actually an Arabic word - the Arabs were serious drinkers at the time of the Prophet (p) and at the time of ignorance. To bring humans back to faith it had be done step by step.

As I said that part was explained to me before. My issue is the other abrogations, such as which parts do we listen to more. The peaceful, easy going parts or the more vengeful.

Believe me, there would be another explanation for this. Too many signs have been shown to humans in the past that were more powerful than this. Read the Qur'an again! No matter what you show humans they will not believe (they prefer the obvious/easy option!)

Are you honestly telling me that if the stars spelled out God in the heavens or God spoke to the world directly people wouldn't at least believe? Are you hnestly telling me that more powerful signs have been shown than that?

The Infinite Creator does not merge with the finite Creation.

Why not?

You seem to have these ideas in your head because you're dealing with human thoughts about these attributes.

Actually that's a tendency I've encountered far more in the faithful.

The Creator's Attributes as mentioned in the Qur'an are brought down to a level were we humans can understand them (in our language of communication) - 'He' does not mean it's a a male or even an object, etc.

Naturally.

Don't understand them in a negative imperfect manner. That's what is meant when I said read the Noble Qur'an with a clear, unbiased mind. I know it's hard but try not to bring human thoughts about the Creator (only perfect attributes of Mercy, Justice, Guidance, Light).

Yes but it can be easily argued that those attributes are just as man made.

The source of everything actually goes back to One True Creator God. Where there are many gods there is always the One sky-god as their master or source (read up on Hinduism or Zoroastrianism).

There is usually, though not always a "top God", yes but other gods are often as powerful.

I've read many old scriptures (including the Torah, Psalms, Zohar, etc.) and have found that there is a consistent core message of One God, that has been corrupted over time.

Why does it become corrupted. How come God let that happen with all the previous ones and yet Islam remained free of corruption?

As I said before, this is human free-will in play. Even the Qur'an, nowadays, humans don't believe it and want to change it to suit themsleves - This free-will (the two paths are clear, we'll soon experience The All-Just).

They don't believe it, simply because they don't get from it what you clearly do. There are Christians and Hindus etc that fervently believe that their path is the right one and will reject yours and others. They'll even die for it. Lets say they're wrong and you're right, what then? How does your God judge them or how does their God judge you?

What do you mean a corruption of Greek or corruption of Latin?!? How does a language get corrupted? It's merely another way of saying it. It's like a contracted way of the same word (not corrupted) - that's your view. Where did you get this from? Isa is the name chosen by Allah as was Muhammed, Adam, etc.

From the link you posted, his name was Yeshua. That's what he and his friends and those who knew him would have called him. If you had called him Isa(or Jesus), they would have not realised who you were talking about. It's simply not the same word and it's not another way of saying it. It's an evolution(a corruption) of his original actual name and places that evolution squarely in the time of Mohammed.

No honest, genuine Christian or Jew at the time of Muhammed(p) EVER pointed this out to him,

Well we don't know that. It may have been why some Christians or Jews rejected the message and in any case, those he was speaking to, were 800 years away from his time and not Aramaic speakers.

yet we believe 'so-called' Christians & Jews in our time!! Another weak argument!!

I contend it's a good argument. His name was Yeshua. It was not Isa or Jesus. Why does the Quran not call him by his original given name?

It looks like you don't believe much!! That's the subject of History for you my friend. You just have to be fair and objectionable when analyzing it.

Do you even possess a sense of humour?

You increase your knowledge to come to the conclusion of a God first, for example. Don't go further with other aspects of the religion until you've understood the concept of God in Islam; and then step by step, the other parts. If you can't get past the first stage (the root) then there's no use in trying to understand the rest of the huge Tree (its many diverse branches).

This we agree on.

Again, as I mentioned above, we are all going towards death and fearing it no matter what faith or guidance we think we have, because of the pain and then the accountability involved.

Again you can't comprehend the idea that someone may not believe in accountability. To believe in accountability one must first believe there is a God, then believe there is an afterlife and then believe that God judges you. After that you decide which God yu believe in(due to culture mostly)

That analogy is wrong. Because the main difference between me and the atheist is that we both have many maps in front of us but he refuses to look at them (thinking that they're all wrong); he chooses his path and has to live with it, happily.

Again this step seems hard for you to understand. Rejection suggests someone who believes but then decides to reject it. Let's take the map analogy. You believe you have the right map and it makes sense. Cool. I don't have such a map. I look at others maps and while some roads on that map make sense, others do not, by the evidence of my own eyes and thoughts. Would you follow a map if it showed a road where you could see there is none? Would you believe in a map maker that creates maps that are not completely and obviously, plain to see accurate for everyone?

PS On the dome of the rock inscriptions Hivizman was supporting your side in the argument. Stop looking for dissension where there is none.

InFront

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes but you believe a God exists. That's the major difference. Everything you think on the subject comes from that very first principle. Everything you believe is filtered by that thought.

Let's take the map analogy. You believe you have the right map and it makes sense. Cool. I don't have such a map. I look at others maps and while some roads on that map make sense, others do not, by the evidence of my own eyes and thoughts. Would you follow a map if it showed a road where you could see there is none? Would you believe in a map maker that creates maps that are not completely and obviously, plain to see accurate for everyone?

Guys this debate keeps on revolving around the central issue of belief. Debating the existence of God is not appropriate in this forum. Of course, healthy debate on theological, lifestyle, or philosophical aspects of Islam is warmly welcomed.

I'd ask again can you please read the charter. The forum is intended to be a place where we discuss aspects of Islam together, not non-belief as a more valid position.

I don't want to wreck the flow of the debate you guys are having, but I just cannot see how it's appropriate here as opposed to say, the humanities forum; so if we all agree maybe it might be better to move it there?

Wibbs

Numero uno, I personally am not debating whether God exists or not and I'm certainly not advocating non belief as a valid position. At no point have I done so. Indeed I have more than once stated that ones belief is between them and their conscience and good luck with that. I was merely responding to Agathon and trying to explain my angle on it and of course wider questions on the historical background to and of Islam. Indeed Hivizmans posts have been informative. Secondly the title of this thread hardly lends itself to much else, yet for the most part it has been pretty freewheeling back and forth. Frankly if it was that much of an issue and against the charter, it should have been moved before now, not go to 7 pages.

InFront

Well you guys have already been warned about this issue on this thread. This is an Islam forum, not humanities.

The thread often touches on some interesting issues but then this thing about belief rears its head inevitably again. So lets leave it here for the moment and just see how it develops. But debates that keep on questioning the validity of Islam as a belief are simply not appropriate here and if it keeps happening, it can go to humanities... I'm sure everyone can agree to that. Anyway back to the main debate....

hivizman

Wibbs wrote: »

Numero uno, I personally am not debating whether God exists or not and I'm certainly not advocating non belief as a valid position. At no point have I done so. Indeed I have more than once stated that ones belief is between them and their conscience and good luck with that. I was merely responding to Agathon and trying to explain my angle on it and of course wider questions on the historical background to and of Islam. Indeed Hivizmans posts have been informative. Secondly the title of this thread hardly lends itself to much else, yet for the most part it has been pretty freewheeling back and forth. Frankly if it was that much of an issue and against the charter, it should have been moved before now, not go to 7 pages.

Muslim friends have impressed on me two fundamental points. First, the word often translated as "religion" - deen - has a much broader connotation than "religion" in the English language. In particular, Muslims tell me that Islam isn't a religion that one observes for a couple of hours a week and then puts on one side. Rather, it is a comprehensive way of life - the idea that there are separate "religious" and "secular" domains just doesn't make sense in Islam.

The second point is the Islam is the "reasonable religion", that is, there is ultimately no distinction between the message communicated through revelation and what rational beings will conclude through the proper exercise of reason.

It is perhaps this second point that underlies the tendency on several threads on the Islam forum to move between discussions of substantive issues and debates about questions of belief. The original post on this thread flagged up various claims, and the original poster, Agathon, asked for evidence of the claims. Filtering out the various more personal items in the original post, I would identify three claims that Agathon labelled as "misconceptions":

1. Was Islam spread by the sword?

2. Does the Qur'an promote war, violence and death to non-muslims?

3. Does Islam require the death of apostates?

It would probably have been better for these issues to have been spun off into separate threads where the substantive questions could have been discussed, but that's not my main point.

My main point is that these three questions all involve matters of evidence and interpretation. For example, what is the historical evidence of how Islam actually spread in the years and centuries after the death of the Prophet? And what does the expression "spread by the sword" mean? Does it mean that the Arabs conquered various lands and then, over the following centuries, some of the local population, for various reasons, converted to Islam, or does it mean that conversion was enforced "at the point of the sword" - on pain of death if conversion were refused?

But then there is a higher-order issue - what actually counts as valid evidence and valid interpretation? Is there a distinctive "Islamic epistemology" that sets out the basis of knowledge from a Muslim perspective? From a western point of view, this may be a philosophical rather than a religious question, but can a clear distinction between philosophy and religion be made within Islam?

One of the things I like about this forum is that participants are prepared to debate these big issues. But I must say how much I miss the_new_mr's contributions, and the discussions he stimulated about core beliefs of Islam. His comments prompted me to read the Qur'an more and the secondary literature less.

So perhaps the way forward is shorter and more focused posts (apologies for the length of this one ) rather than point-by-point rebuttals, and using separate threads for separate topics.

AbuBakr

As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu.

As we move into the year 1430 of the Hijra, insha'Allah more Muslims will join the Islam forum rather than atheists and agnostics. Jazak Allah khair, Agathon, for defending Islam so well.