Islamic Discussion Thread ٥: Free Tajweed, Absolutely Halaal

[Diarcesia]

Yeah it wouldn't work given that the assumed premises are wildly different.

How do you mean?

I mean it's not useful to appeal to the absolute historicity of the Quran to convince non-Muslims who don't think of the same to agree with you. Personally, it's similar to trying to convince a skeptic of Judean historiography that David and Solomon exist solely using Biblical accounts.

[Insaanistan]

How do you mean?

I mean it's not useful to appeal to the absolute historicity of the Quran to convince non-Muslims who don't think of the same to agree with you. Personally, it's similar to trying to convince a skeptic of Judean historiography that David and Solomon exist solely using Biblical accounts.

Oh, I see. Yes, you’re quite right.

[Lady Victory]

How do you mean?

I mean it's not useful to appeal to the absolute historicity of the Quran to convince non-Muslims who don't think of the same to agree with you. Personally, it's similar to trying to convince a skeptic of Judean historiography that David and Solomon exist solely using Biblical accounts.

The Qur'an has about as much theological value to me as the Silmarillion. From my perspective pointing to it and saying "Look, proof/truth!" is equivalent to some guy reaching into a trash can, pulling out a dead possum, and shouting "Look, food!"; if you want to call it that then by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to agree with you.

[Diarcesia]

I mean it's not useful to appeal to the absolute historicity of the Quran to convince non-Muslims who don't think of the same to agree with you. Personally, it's similar to trying to convince a skeptic of Judean historiography that David and Solomon exist solely using Biblical accounts.

The Qur'an has about as much theological value to me as the Silmarillion. From my perspective pointing to it and saying "Look, proof/truth!" is equivalent to some guy reaching into a trash can, pulling out a dead possum, and shouting "Look, food!"; if you want to call it that then by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to agree with you.

I mean sure, you're not Muslim, so it's expected that you'll hold that kind of opinion.

[Lady Victory]

The Qur'an has about as much theological value to me as the Silmarillion. From my perspective pointing to it and saying "Look, proof/truth!" is equivalent to some guy reaching into a trash can, pulling out a dead possum, and shouting "Look, food!"; if you want to call it that then by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to agree with you.

I mean sure, you're not Muslim, so it's expected that you'll hold that kind of opinion.

I'm just reinforcing your point.

[Vistulange]

The Qur'an has about as much theological value to me as the Silmarillion. From my perspective pointing to it and saying "Look, proof/truth!" is equivalent to some guy reaching into a trash can, pulling out a dead possum, and shouting "Look, food!"; if you want to call it that then by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to agree with you.

I mean sure, you're not Muslim, so it's expected that you'll hold that kind of opinion.

Exactly, and that's why we're well within our rights to demand sources as opposed to what is the equivalent of the Silmarillion; it's nowhere near bad faith posting. The Quran is basically the collection of oral history written long after the fact (as collections of oral history often tend to be); it is not an historical book, and claiming that it is says nothing, save for the complete lack of willingness on part of the person making the claim to consider for a moment that they may have no idea what they are talking about.

We're unable to corroborate practically half of the events written in the Quran through their contemporaries. What makes this different than saying "the Quran is right because the Quran says so", a tautology? In any civilised debate, a tautology would be identified as soon as it is put forth, but apparently you're allowed to use tautologies as arguments when you claim your book was sent by some divine being.

You reject practically everything that pertains to modern civilisation, particularly the scientific method, and then ask, why is Islamic civilisation in such a situation? What was that saying about stupid games and stupid prizes?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Citing a holy text of a religion as a source in an argument about whether or not a particular belief of that religion has a sound historical basis is, well, it feels very circle-shaped. Like a wheel. Or a ring.

EDIT: oh oops the above poster got to my point before I could post.

[Insaanistan]

I feel like I didn’t make this clear:

The only time the Qur’ân can be used in a debate with non-Muslims (unless the debate is about whether or not Islam believes something or what the context certain verses is) is when trying to figure out what was happening in Arabia while the text itself was being revealed. Only when it is referencing events that are happening at the time of said “revelations” does it actually matter what the Qur’ân is saying, because from a secular perspective, that’s the only time we can be sure it’s quite accurate: when it’s describing events as they happen.

[Insaanistan]

Citing a holy text of a religion as a source in an argument about whether or not a particular belief of that religion has a sound historical basis is, well, it feels very circle-shaped. Like a wheel. Or a ring.

EDIT: oh oops the above poster got to my point before I could post.

It’s basically like that picture of someone plugging their charging station into itself.

“How do we know Islam is true?”
“The Qur’ân says so.”

[Diarcesia]

Citing a holy text of a religion as a source in an argument about whether or not a particular belief of that religion has a sound historical basis is, well, it feels very circle-shaped. Like a wheel. Or a ring.

EDIT: oh oops the above poster got to my point before I could post.

It’s basically like that picture of someone plugging their charging station into itself.

“How do we know Islam is true?”
“The Qur’ân says so.”

Well if someone is Muslim and hold the belief that the Quran is also literally and historically self-evident truth, they have the rights to hold that thought. What they can't expect is for others to hold the same opinion.

[Insaanistan]

It says he observed there was a lack of credible evidence for this.

Additionally, I’d much appreciate it if you’d actually provide evidence of someone being executed simply for changing their religion away from Islam.

Let's say one day, you realize that you don't subscribe to Islam anymore. How comfortable are you in saying it to people around you who you know?

I just saw this, but fairly, actually.
My parents would be devastated but certainly wouldn’t kill me or even disown me over it.

[Vistulange]

because from a secular perspective, that’s the only time we can be sure it’s quite accurate: when it’s describing events as they happen.

No, that's not enough. The basis for history is having multiple sources who can more or less corroborate each other. The Quran saying something happened in Mecca while literally no other work mentions it does not mean the Quran is right, just because it's, according to you, the word of God.

[Insaanistan]

because from a secular perspective, that’s the only time we can be sure it’s quite accurate: when it’s describing events as they happen.

No, that's not enough. The basis for history is having multiple sources who can more or less corroborate each other. The Quran saying something happened in Mecca while literally no other work mentions it does not mean the Quran is right, just because it's, according to you, the word of God.

What I’ve most generally seen from historians is that Muhammad (S) at the very least was convinced God was speaking to him. Whereas Qur’ânic references to the existence of Moses or Lot are not enough to say that they existed, it’s a different case with the events taking place in Arabia at the time, because the Qur’ân is not simply a book, even from a secular perspective. As Lezley Hazelton says, the problem with people studying the Qur’ân is they treat it like a normal book, like Muhammad (S) is “another bestseller author”.
This is being recited from Muhammad (S)’s mouth in real time, and being shared with literally everyone. It’s illogical for the Qur’ân to just make up what’s happening at the time. With the past it can simply be claimed “Well, God hid this from man’s history textbooks”. With the present, everyone’s there. Everyone knows that the events being described are happening. When the Qur’ân speaks about how to divy up the recent spoils of war from a battle, we know the battle took place, because it wouldn’t make sense to make it up in that instance.
It doesn’t make Islam true, and it doesn’t prove Muhammad (S)’s prophethood.

[Suriyanakhon]

Point of order and serious question because I genuinely do not know this: Is the interpretation that Adam and eve are metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally as part of the Jewish myth of creation modern or did it exist in earlier history? Because some (relatively modern) Muslims also interpret that Adam, a prophet by his own right, couldn't have been the "only" Human of his time before he and his in-Koran-unnamed wife populated the planet (though this is new iirc).

Other way around, actually. Literal interpretations of Genesis were fringe (mostly reserved for heresies, typically Gnostic ones) until the Protestant Reformation. The so-called 'Great Awakenings' in the U.S. helped contribute to their modern popularity.

What? No it wasn't. The Book of Genesis was used as historical fact for a long time in the medieval era, with different theories about where Noah's different sons traveled, and claiming that many of the other religions of Asia were the product of Ham. These weren't just opinions held by crazies, but were referred to constantly by Jesuits and other members of the Vatican.

War mongers don’t usually get Gandhi to absolutely love them.

Gandhi as in "black people are inferior and should be led by whites" Gandhi? Or as in "I like to sleep in the nude with prepubsecent girls" Gandhi?

Not sure you want him as a moral reference.

If by "prepubescent," you mean a nineteen year old girl (who was fully clothed).

[Vistulange]

No, that's not enough. The basis for history is having multiple sources who can more or less corroborate each other. The Quran saying something happened in Mecca while literally no other work mentions it does not mean the Quran is right, just because it's, according to you, the word of God.

What I’ve most generally seen from historians is that Muhammad (S) at the very least was convinced God was speaking to him. Whereas Qur’ânic references to the existence of Moses or Lot are not enough to say that they existed, it’s a different case with the events taking place in Arabia at the time, because the Qur’ân is not simply a book, even from a secular perspective. As Lezley Hazelton says, the problem with people studying the Qur’ân is they treat it like a normal book, like Muhammad (S) is “another bestseller author”.
This is being recited from Muhammad (S)’s mouth in real time, and being shared with literally everyone. It’s illogical for the Qur’ân to just make up what’s happening at the time. With the past it can simply be claimed “Well, God hid this from man’s history textbooks”. With the present, everyone’s there. Everyone knows that the events being described are happening. When the Qur’ân speaks about how to divy up the recent spoils of war from a battle, we know the battle took place, because it wouldn’t make sense to make it up in that instance.
It doesn’t make Islam true, and it doesn’t prove Muhammad (S)’s prophethood.

No.

When the Quran speaks about how to divvy up the spoils of war after a battle, we know what the Quran teaches in regards to how to split up the loot—since it is a normative book, not a history book—and not necessarily that the battle actually took place. It claims a battle took place.

We take that claim, and we look at other contemporary sources to see if they mention the same battle taking place. They might say it did, just elsewhere; it could have had more or less people than initially claimed (pre-modern sources aren't exactly reliable); or we might find a big fucking nothing. And if we do indeed find a big fucking nothing, then we've got a pretty good case for dismissing that particular part of the Quran as "inaccurate" until newer findings come to light.

We know some stuff did happen, e.g., Fragment on the Arab Conquests, but a lot of stuff, nope. Mind you, this is all happening concurrently with the Eastern Roman Empire being the dominant force just north of the region, and the Romans had some records on...well, a lot of things, really. You sort of do expect them to at least mention what's going down south in the Arabian Peninsula as it goes on.

[Dowaesk]

Gandhi as in "black people are inferior and should be led by whites" Gandhi? Or as in "I like to sleep in the nude with prepubsecent girls" Gandhi?

Not sure you want him as a moral reference.

If by "prepubescent," you mean a nineteen year old girl (who was fully clothed).

That incident is still very disturbing. And his sex experiments as a whole. Dont get me wrong, big fan of Gandhi's work here and I guess no one is perfect, but still. The dude is messed up.

[The Alma Mater]

If by "prepubescent," you mean a nineteen year old girl (who was fully clothed).

You are acting like his niece was the only one.

[Redeemed Britannia]

You know I'm still not entirely sure why Gandhi was brought up in the first place.

[The Alma Mater]

You know I'm still not entirely sure why Gandhi was brought up in the first place.

Because Gandhi apparantly said Muhammed was a peaceful man; while people here were calling him a warmonger.

[Galimencia]

You know I'm still not entirely sure why Gandhi was brought up in the first place.

Because Gandhi apparantly said Muhammed was a peaceful man; while people here were calling him a warmonger.

But Muhammad sure is a warmonger. You don't need to bring Gandhi for that. Anyone who goes to war and kills other people, no matter whatever shit reasoning they and their followers provide for the same, is a warmonger.

[Insaanistan]

What I’ve most generally seen from historians is that Muhammad (S) at the very least was convinced God was speaking to him. Whereas Qur’ânic references to the existence of Moses or Lot are not enough to say that they existed, it’s a different case with the events taking place in Arabia at the time, because the Qur’ân is not simply a book, even from a secular perspective. As Lezley Hazelton says, the problem with people studying the Qur’ân is they treat it like a normal book, like Muhammad (S) is “another bestseller author”.
This is being recited from Muhammad (S)’s mouth in real time, and being shared with literally everyone. It’s illogical for the Qur’ân to just make up what’s happening at the time. With the past it can simply be claimed “Well, God hid this from man’s history textbooks”. With the present, everyone’s there. Everyone knows that the events being described are happening. When the Qur’ân speaks about how to divy up the recent spoils of war from a battle, we know the battle took place, because it wouldn’t make sense to make it up in that instance.
It doesn’t make Islam true, and it doesn’t prove Muhammad (S)’s prophethood.

No.

When the Quran speaks about how to divvy up the spoils of war after a battle, we know what the Quran teaches in regards to how to split up the loot—since it is a normative book, not a history book—and not necessarily that the battle actually took place. It claims a battle took place.

We take that claim, and we look at other contemporary sources to see if they mention the same battle taking place. They might say it did, just elsewhere; it could have had more or less people than initially claimed (pre-modern sources aren't exactly reliable); or we might find a big fucking nothing. And if we do indeed find a big fucking nothing, then we've got a pretty good case for dismissing that particular part of the Quran as "inaccurate" until newer findings come to light.

We know some stuff did happen, e.g., Fragment on the Arab Conquests, but a lot of stuff, nope. Mind you, this is all happening concurrently with the Eastern Roman Empire being the dominant force just north of the region, and the Romans had some records on...well, a lot of things, really. You sort of do expect them to at least mention what's going down south in the Arabian Peninsula as it goes on.

I again reference the fact the Romans and Sassanids generally saw Arabia at the time as not worth their time, and the former may have known so little about the Muslims that they thought they were just a new type of Jew.

Again, not a normative book. Not due to any special revelation from God, but due to the fact it’s being collected over 23 years. The so-called revelations didn’t occur all at once. Muhammad (S) was not reciting it all at once. These are people living out what the Qur’ân is talking about, and for that, we know that what it is saying is generally true, because again, unlike the past, where you can make anything you want up and say it happened (and the Qur’ân speaks of the past quite a bit), the parts being revealed talking about the “present” are going to be quite accurate because everyone else is in the present, and lying about what’s happening in the present doesn’t make sense when this is text (holy or not) that everyone is going to read.

[Insaanistan]

Because Gandhi apparantly said Muhammed was a peaceful man; while people here were calling him a warmonger.

But Muhammad sure is a warmonger. You don't need to bring Gandhi for that. Anyone who goes to war and kills other people, no matter whatever shit reasoning they and their followers provide for the same, is a warmonger.

Person who fought in war≠warmonger.

[Mostrov]

The Koran's textual history gives greater certainty than the synoptic gospels that it was a unified document from its inception. What of the teachings of the Koran have any reason for doubting their authenticity? Traditionally, it was put in writing within a period less than a single generation, he who ordered it personally knew the Prophet personally, with the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments, preserved from within decades of 632, being in almost complete conformity to the standard text.

I cannot follow what this discussion is revolving around, as if we are all talking past one another. What specific doubts do people have as to the historicity of the Prophet?

[Redeemed Britannia]

The Koran's textual history gives greater certainty than the synoptic gospels that it was a unified document from its inception. What of the teachings of the Koran have any reason for doubting their authenticity? Traditionally, it was put in writing within a period less than a single generation, he who ordered it personally knew the Prophet personally, with the earliest surviving manuscripts and fragments, preserved from within decades of 632, being in almost complete conformity to the standard text.

I cannot follow what this discussion is revolving around, as if we are all talking past one another. What specific doubts do people have as to the historicity of the Prophet?

In that many of the events described are either completely fictional or if not, lack historical credibility as few, if any, other contemporary sources (sources far more credible than the Koran at any rate) describe them, even in ways different to the way the Koran describes them.

[Mostrov]

Please be specific. What is a historical, not religious, event within the Koran that is fictional? What is an event that is mentioned and is in conflict with other contemporary sources?