Qur’an is author unknown. Linguists have studied the material and declared the style comprising several dialects which a single person could not have authored.
There are numerous other philosophical, scientific and logical consistencies in the text which appear to originate from a source incompatible with the prevailing knowledge in that region or around.
Visit Rational Reality for fun.
PA: At the end of the day. No one can verify if it was or was not written by mohammed and if it was whether it was god or some other thing provding the inspiration. So instead of getting in useless debates about the facts vs. faith. The greatness of islam is not that it is a universal fact. Because in that case, like gravity, everyone would have experiened it at the same time. The greatness lies in the faith that it is what god suggests and for some people in this world to use koran as the medium to reach that.
"TO get to Yankee stadium from Manhattan, I can take the 4, B, D trains. Different lines, same destination."
continuing with the analogy, people of older times may have used the 4, of yester years B, and today only D goes to Yankee Stadium; why anyone would wanna wait in line and pay $10 for a beer and not watch it at home on TV is what beats me.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
continuing with the analogy, people of older times may have used the 4, of yester years B, and today only D goes to Yankee Stadium; why anyone would wanna wait in line and pay $10 for a beer and not watch it at home on TV is what beats me.
[/QUOTE]
And that is only those minority of people who belive in taking one train. What about those easterners who drive and then take a train?
Ok, let’s take this one-at-a-time, as I already seemed to have confused Roman ...
OldLahori,
[quote]
Originally posted by OldLahori:
** So I and others can follow this discussion as it enfolds, Hasnain could you please define clearly what you mean exactly by that "Islam is based on Facts". I honestly don't understand whay you are saying by that statement. I can think of many different meanings that could be imparted to it.**
[/quote]
What I mean by ‘facts’, is that everything incorporated in Islaam is from a Divine power, and the very existence of this Divine power Himself is a fact.
In order to disprove this statement, those who believe that religion is simply based on faith alone, must disprove the book of the Religion, namely in this instance the Qur’an.
I can prove that the Qur’an is Divine, but can they (Chaltahai, Roman, NYAhmadi, PakistaniAbroad etc) prove that the Qur’an is not the word of God? What is it in the Qur’an that they believe is not from God? Or perhaps they do not even beleive in God? Can they prove any of this?
All the other facts shall follow after this insha’Allaah.
Regards
"No leaf falls except that He knows of it, and no rain drop forms except that He has willed it."
[quote]
**Originally posted by Roman:
Essentially you have made a very vague and confusing statement at the spur of the moment ... **
[/quote]
Quite a 'spur', wouldn't you say!?
"No leaf falls except that He knows of it, and no rain drop forms except that He has willed it."
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hasnain: *
I can prove that the Qur’an is Divine, but can they (Chaltahai, Roman, NYAhmadi, PakistaniAbroad etc) prove that the Qur’an is not the word of God?
[/quote]
Since you mentioned my name, I'd make it clear that I do believe Qur'an is divine; I did mention it in my post above.. however it's not without a leap of faith somewhere in the process.
Playing Devil's Advocate as usual let me fill you in on one little itsy bitsy flaw in your logic.
Your argument is basically "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" means "argument from ignorance". The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
and you go on committing another fallacy, Shifting the burden of Proof.
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
Here's an example:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
Burden of Proof is on YOU, and not on CH, NYA, Roman or anyone else who challenges the divine nature of the Qur'an. They don't have to 'disprove' your claim, rather you have to prove it.
Btw one sign of qur'ans' divinity could be the absence of logical fallacies in it's text. That may still be evidence as to the extraordinary nature of the text, but it still doesn't prove a supernatural author. One still requires a leap of faith.
Hasnain,
I'm not even gonna go to that Quran is divine argument. There is a lot more to what PA said but forget it, you won't get it anyway.
Here is the crux of the debate: You somehow think that it is more substantial to have your religious beliefs based on facts rather than faith. You seem to think that somehow faith is inferior to facts in this regard. That is exactly the kind of insecurity I was talking about in the other thread. You are insecure about your faith, and that's why you keep insisting people to accept it as based on facts and eventually come along the way (i.e. by converting to Islam under the pretense that you're saving them from hellfire).
I do have faith myself, like anybody else in the world. We all have faith in varying forms and in varying things. But I do not require anybody's endorsement to prove it to the world or to myself. I do not compare faith with the fact to measure them to any degree of substantiality to patch any insecurities that I might have.
PS-
Sarcasm is another area that you need humongous improvement in along with your outlook on your faith.
I think its a false assumption that you use the facts to discard the insecurities you have. Rather facts can be used to enhance your faith, which you already have.
"Luring" people to your faith based on facts is not out of the insecurity of the person, which is inviting you into his faith rather the opposite.
Every ideology or system invigorates itself by gathering more and more support. This holds true for any religion too. Asking people to come join is not to save them from hellfire, it's to gain more support and become stronger as a group. That's how strong societies and civilizations have lasted longer.
It's a sheer pretense and self-deception that we are doing it so that a fellow human being is saved from fire. Please, gimme a break. You'd like to think that you're self-actualized to the degree that you'd in fact feel that way but generally speaking, it is not humanly possible to be that self-less.
Now the fact vs faith - Yes, there are facts that make your faith stronger. It's in human nature, but convincing others of your faith being superior to theirs and the zeal to "prove" your faith to others menifests insecurity and that's exactly what's happening here.
Roman bhai,
This is the second time, I am reading your following comments:
[quote]
It's a sheer pretense and self-deception that we are doing it so that a fellow human being is saved from fire. Please, gimme a break. You'd like to think that you're self-actualized to the degree that you'd in fact feel that way but generally speaking, it is not humanly possible to be that self-less.
[/quote]
I wanna know how can you be so sure of someone else's intentions? Hell, at times I am confused abuot my own intentions, let alone make a judgement on someone else's. What power do you have?
Secondly, what is your opinion on the prophets who are the starters of these religions that go around preaching. Were their call to their faith also selfish and only to gather support and support alone?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
I have never heard a Christian use the word God for Jesus Christ.
If Quran is based on the same prophets and teachings of the other 2 monotheistic religins, then God and Allah do mean the same thing.
[/QUOTE]
Brother, you have mixed religion Islam with Christianity.
Ahmadijee bhai jaan, allow me to explain.
Being as self-less as one may claim that they are doing for the sake of others, something that is purely based on faith, or from many others' point of view, on fiction, requires a great degree of self-actualization. You must realize that preaching to others to save them from hellfire is not same as, say, helping somebody financially or by other means in the course of one's daily life. Generally speaking (that's why I used the word "generally speaking" before) there are not as many self-actualized people as to the degree it would require to be so sure of their faith and empathetic towards others at the same time. How many Mother Teresas or Abdus Sitar Edhis are really there (again, I'm using these two names purely to examplify their degree of self-less-ness or self-actualization)?
Inviting someone to accept your faith and convert may be empathetic only to the point that you yourself find your religion to be fulfilling and satisfactory. You'd think that if the other person will convert, he/she will find your religion equally edifying and spiritually fulfilling. Combine this motive with the decree that so much and so sawab a person will get if he/she will cause to convert someone to Islam. In the outset, these are the two main motives for preaching. But there is also a far deeper sense of guard and growth as a group that any idealogy possesses. More followers mean more strenghth.
If someone comess forth and admits that above are the precise reasons that he/she would want someone to convert, then I don't have a problem with that. I still may or may not agree but at least the person is being honest and self-evaluative. But when someone pretends to possess the degree of self-actualization that the claim "I want to save you from hellfire, brother. That's all" signifies and at the same time show disregard and lack of understanding to some of the very basic principles of his own faith then that tells me that the person is dishonest, a bigot, and insecure about his faith.
I dont think its really about self-actualization, but just about being an average human. I'm sure if you saw a blind man walking directly into a pit, and you could just call out 'hey turn left' or 'stop', you would probably do that.
the commitment you're talking about is rare and cannot exist in every human being, but simply wanting the good of a fellow being can and does exit. if i know something you dont.. and i feel it can benefit you, i'll go ahead and tell you about it.. i dont have to be an edhi for that.
I'm sure if you saw a blind man walking directly into a pit, and you could just call out 'hey turn left' or 'stop', you would probably do that ... but simply wanting the good of a fellow being can and does exit.
That is the bigotry part. How do you know you are doing any good to the other person by converting him to your faith? Your faith is good to you alone, anybody else who doesn't share it with you feels the same about his own.
When you compare two different desciplines of faith in a superlative manner, you ultimately show your insecurity in your faith, along with failure to understand the true nature of religion.
what if in my religion it said that if you follow a phophet then after you die, your kids will be paralyzed. So you should think about saving your kids erect posture and convert to what I believe.
Now see how ridiculous the above statement is for someone who doesn't believe in it. For me I am trying to save your kids, but to you it might be offensive. And rightly so.
No I'm definitely not comparing. If I show him something about my faith today in the hope that he'll benefit, I'll expect him to show things about his own faith that impress him.
I wouldn't invite anyone to convert to my faith because it is better, but I'd surely invite them to research. And if their research doesn't agree with mine then thats that.
But if you saw someone walking into a pit you would call out? right? The part of helping others works in every dept. as far as i'm concerned. If I see a collegue doing ten times as much work to accomplish less, I'd help him streamline, so why not work with the same thought in religion?
Chaltahai: maybe thats exactly why Hasnain wanted people to focus on the facts as compared to just pulling in blind belief. right? :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
Brother, you have mixed religion Islam with Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually I think it is the Muslims that mixed them up when they claimed the same God (and propehts) as the Christians.
Because, ammar dear, the analogy of falling in the pit involves a physical reality. It does not equate with religious faith. Faith is not a tangible resource that you can broadly "prove" to others.