Wow, an edited quote from me as a start of a 'debate'?
I can't remember the context of what I was saying on the above quote. I believe it is not in anyway meant as a derogatory remark on other faiths. It might even be as a case where people searched the Books to find answers and found it in the Quran. Other Books may have many things lost in translation.
On your question, verification is important when there is doubt. I certainly do not need to verify everything.
Just a quick post before I go off to start my day.. the sun is just about to rise..
As long as my heart does beat, I shall live, not lie
For when my heart does stop its beat, with truth, I die.
I would agree Scimitar. That's what lead me to Islam after reading the Qur'an. It's not like I directly saw angels, the Prophets (SAW) or Allah (SWT) directly, but the proofs in the Qur'an are what convinced me and they seemed logical.
Many muslim converts accept Islam because the belief that God is One and He Alone should be worshipped without any partners makes sense to them. In other words, their intellect accepts this message as the truth. When it comes to what God commands us to do, then we have to rely on revealed knowledge, because no matter how hard we use our brains we still wouldn't know the commands/laws of God unless He reveals it to us.
This is where the preservation of scripture is important, because we want to live by the guidelines prescribed to us by God. Muslims recognise that there are mainly two sources of knowledge, one being from our intellect/empirical senses, the other being revelation.
One can come to the conclusion that Islam is the truth based on their intellect alone, but then in order to be muslim (one who submits to God) they would then need to rely on revelation. Using intellect alone you won't know how many times to pray a day, how to pray, how to fast, what actions are forbidden, etc.
Between revelation and intellect, revelation has more certainty. Our theories/empirical studies can be wrong.. aka Pluto can be a planet one moment, and the next it's not a planet. Revelation on the other hand can never be wrong. The catholic church mixed the two, which is why they had a big problem when Galileo Galilei went against the theory that the earth was the centre of the universe, because it was a theory that they strongly supported (because the Son of God was on earth so it makes sense the earth is the centre of the universe).
A moderator split this from another thread where I asked this question, where the context would have been more appropriate.
I was asking this in reference to the Qur'an being unchanged for 1400 years, and such was verifiable. This is often said as though the verifiability of the Qur'an makes it more worthy of faith, thus my question.
Islam was preached on faith. Needing to be verified was never a part of a checklist before acceptance. I suppose this only came about when comparative exercise was undertaken?
As long as my heart does beat, I shall live, not lie
For when my heart does stop its beat, with truth, I die.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks