Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.

[Muhaba]

But I can equally say 'why not' since all the guidance has been given already?

WHY should this be my hypothesis, why is mine any less valid that this one. If your hypothesis is true then ANY book that remains unchained must be from God, you cannot have special rules just for the Qu'ran. Logically I cannot see how you can show it to be unchained anyway for it was given orally to the prophet according to Islam so there is no record. [offensive comment removed]

Are you saying that any book containing new facts is from God? So science books that tell us about new discoveries etc are all from God?

The Quraan is the only book that cannot be changed. Show me another book that is impossible to change? How come every arabic copy of the Quraan everywhere in the world is the same? How come over 1400 years the Quraan hasn't been changed and what we have today is the same as the still existing copies of the Quraan from the first century?

if the Quraan can't be changed and hasn't been changed over 1400 years, how can you believe that the first Quraan that was written was not the same as the one God revealed to Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? Are you saying that while God preserved what we have of the written Quraan, He didn't preserve what He originally revealed and it was changed before being written down or changed after being written but can no longer be changed? That's an absurd thing to believe.

But cannot you see that all these end up amounting to opinions. Consider your claim that the Qu'ran is for all time then clearly that CANNOT be shown to be true because we do not know what we and others will know tomorrow. If we consider your claim that there are no contradiction or errors then I am unclear how you will show that and indeed there are dozens of books and website that list errors and contradictions in the Qu'ran - you may not agree of course but others will have an entirely different view.

The trouble with criteria is that they more often than not are designed to show what we want to see. So if I have a criteria that shows high poetical structure then that is all it shows it cannot show cause, how the structure got there, who wrote it and any suggestion it is from God is no more than speculation and you can believe it or not, its a matter of faith.

Consider, one often hears that the Qu'ran is untranslatable. So what if I suggest one criteria that it is from God that it must be easily translatable. Why would God send his last message in a language that cannot be translated thereby forcing the whole world to learn 6th century Arabic - why?

[/quote]
who said that Quraan is untranslatable? there are translations of the Holy Quraan in many languages. however translations may be difficult to write. anything written in one language will lose its beauty when translated to another language.

The idea of prophets being perfect and infallible in everything they said or did is to me a recipe for oppressions because it destroys any critical thinking because we hear so often about cruel and unjust punishments toward anybody, including Muslims who differ.

I might cite the following Matthew 22:35-42 (NIV) and as you can see the focus is on God not the messenger and then outward into how we live our live.

35. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Is There a similar injunction in the Qu'ran?

Prophets were the best people. They tried their best to do what was right. That was their personality. But that didn't mean they always were able to do the best thing in any given situation. They were humans and their actions were based on human judgment, so sometimes they did something that wasn't best in that particular situation. in that case, God corrected them. For example, in several situations God corrected the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). One of them was when the Prophet (SAW) frowned when a blind man came to him for guidance, while the Prophet (SAW) was preaching to the chiefs of Makkah. See chapter 80 Al-Abasa (He Frowned) for the whole story. Prophets were infallable because they didn't do anything wrong on purpose.

There are many injunctions in the Quraan where we are told to Worship God and to care for the needy, etc. God even says in the Quraan not to transgress during the time of war, etc. If one has read the Quraan I can't see how they can be so blind to not notice all the awesome commandments. For example, God says in Surah Luqman:
And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents; in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and for two years was his weaning, (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to your parents; to Me is (your final) goal.

"But if they strive to make you join in worship with Me things of which you have no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to Me (in love), in the end the return of you all is to Me and I will tell you the Truth (and meaning) of all that you did." (Chapter 31: 14 - 15) and the commands in Surah Al-Isra (chapter 17) verses 23 - 39.

 

[Hugo]

Are you saying that any book containing new facts is from God? So science books that tell us about new discoveries etc are all from God?

Where to scientific fact originate if its not from God? However, what I was saying was that ANY hypothesis must be applicable to any book, we cannot have one that just apply to th Qu'ran or Bible because that presupposes (we have decoded the answer before asking the question) that answer. So if one says God would never send a book that contains errors then assuming we agree God exists we can use this supposition to test ANY book and I guess there are thousands of books that don't contain errors so they all must be from God. Even if there were no such books we cannot be sure there will never be.

The Quraan is the only book that cannot be changed. Show me another book that is impossible to change? How come every arabic copy of the Quraan everywhere in the world is the same? How come over 1400 years the Quraan hasn't been changed and what we have today is the same as the still existing copies of the Quraan from the first century?

I don't follow the logic here as one supposes that anyone could create extra verses or delete them and print a new Qu'ran? We have debated this question endlessly and it is simply in my view impossible to prove as there are no extant Qu'ran's from the time of your prophet

if the Quraan can't be changed and hasn't been changed over 1400 years, how can you believe that the first Quraan that was written was not the same as the one God revealed to Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? Are you saying that while God preserved what we have of the written Quraan, He didn't preserve what He originally revealed and it was changed before being written down or changed after being written but can no longer be changed? That's an absurd thing to believe.

Well you whole line supposes that God exists and that simply cannot be proved one way or the other. To any rational person what is absurd here is that you believe a book right down to the last dot and stroke never varied - how can this be true and all you do is invoke God and tell us about what he might and might not do. If God was so careful to preserve the Qu'ran why was he so lax about the preserving the earlier scriptures?

who said that Quraan is untranslatable? there are translations of the Holy Quraan in many languages. however translations may be difficult to write. anything written in one language will lose its beauty when translated to another language.

It is a common Muslim theme, what is wrong say with saying Muslims prayers in English or German or whatever; will God not understand them, will he reject them? Any book my have beauty but what matter is the message it contains and surely that can be conveyed in any language else it would seem to me that God made a bad choice with Arabic?

Prophets were infallable because they didn't do anything wrong on purpose.

This to be seems like a 'get out of Jail free card' and its implication is that as long as when I look back on a wrong I can say it was not done on purpose then its ok? This to me sound totally unconvincing.

 

[Muhaba]

Where to scientific fact originate if its not from God? However, what I was saying was that ANY hypothesis must be applicable to any book, we cannot have one that just apply to th Qu'ran or Bible because that presupposes (we have decoded the answer before asking the question) that answer. So if one says God would never send a book that contains errors then assuming we agree God exists we can use this supposition to test ANY book and I guess there are thousands of books that don't contain errors so they all must be from God. Even if there were no such books we cannot be sure there will never be.

but did their authors claim they were from God?

I don't follow the logic here as one supposes that anyone could create extra verses or delete them and print a new Qu'ran? We have debated this question endlessly and it is simply in my view impossible to prove as there are no extant Qu'ran's from the time of your prophet

show me a Quraan where extra verses were added.

Well you whole line supposes that God exists and that simply cannot be proved one way or the other. To any rational person what is absurd here is that you believe a book right down to the last dot and stroke never varied - how can this be true and all you do is invoke God and tell us about what he might and might not do. If God was so careful to preserve the Qu'ran why was he so lax about the preserving the earlier scriptures?

are you a christian or an athiest?
God didn't preserve the other Holy Books because 1. He gave mankind the chance to do what they liked and if they wanted to mess up other Holy Books they were able to and will have to answer to God on teh Day of Judgment. 2. He had the plan to send many Prophets with Books so when one Book was changed or lost, God sent another - A great mercy of God. But when He no longer planned to send any more Prophets, He preserved the final Holy Book which will not be changed till the Day of Judgment. In the past, God sent several Prophets to different areas but Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was sent to the whole world and the Quraan is for the whole world. since we now have the printing press, internet, etc many copies of the Quraan can be printed and easily distributed all over the world so more than one prophet/Holy Book wasn't necessary.

It is a common Muslim theme, what is wrong say with saying Muslims prayers in English or German or whatever; will God not understand them, will he reject them? Any book my have beauty but what matter is the message it contains and surely that can be conveyed in any language else it would seem to me that God made a bad choice with Arabic?

what does that have to do with a book being translatable or not? rules are rules. a person should pray in Arabic. The Quraan can be translated into other languages just as well as any language can be translated into another and many people have become muslims just by reading the translation of the Quraan.

This to be seems like a 'get out of Jail free card' and its implication is that as long as when I look back on a wrong I can say it was not done on purpose then its ok? This to me sound totally unconvincing.

Uh Prophets didnn't do anything that would've landed them in jail. Please just read the Holy Quraan with an open mind and you will see. In Chapter 2 Allah says that the Jews are cursed becuase they killed Prophets without a just cause. Just think, God doesn't say that they are cursed because they killed Prophets but that they killed prophets without a just cause. shows how Just God is.

 

[Hugo]

but did their authors claim they were from God?

Yes many authors have claimed they wrote what was from God, Brigham Young for example. You can go on adding extra conditions or qualifications but all that eventually does is practically prove your contention wrong. If there is a message from God in any book then it's the message that is important not the messenger; do you not agree? Do you not see that you may well be convinced say that the Qu'ran is from God but I can be equally convinced it is not and yet we both have the exactly the same information - typically Muslims then go on to say that I am not a sincere seeker but I then say you are blind and so we go round in circles. That is why for me faith is an entirely personal matter and not a matter of proof positive because none exist - is that how you see it?

God didn't preserve the other Holy Books because 1. He gave mankind the chance to do what they liked and if they wanted to mess up other Holy Books they were able to and will have to answer to God on the Day of Judgement. 2. He had the plan to send many Prophets with Books so when one Book was changed or lost, God sent another - A great mercy of God. But when He no longer planned to send any more Prophets, He preserved the final Holy Book which will not be changed till the Day of Judgment. In the past, God sent several Prophets to different areas but Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was sent to the whole world and the Quraan is for the whole world. since we now have the printing press, internet, etc many copies of the Quraan can be printed and easily distributed all over the world so more than one prophet/Holy Book wasn't necessary

Can you explain where the dogma outlined in item 1 and 2 comes from? From my point of view the earlier books are still with us and they too will not change so what is your point? The Bible also has been printed and distributed all over the world in 1,000s of languages so all those who get it can read it and understand it unlike the Qu'ran where that is not the case. The trouble with the arguments you deploy is that I can use exactly the same ones about other books and then you deploy a few more and we end up on a merry go round with you invoking what God will do or might do or did and there is no reason logically why I have to accept that what you say is right is there?

A person should pray in Arabic.

But why? Will God turn me away otherwise, not accept my prayers yet he would accept them if I say them in Arabic without understanding the words myself?

Please just read the Holy Quraan with an open mind and you will see.

Is that how you see it, those that don't agree have closed minds?

In Chapter 2 Allah says that the Jews are cursed becuase they killed Prophets without a just cause. Just think, God doesn't say that they are cursed because they killed Prophets but that they killed prophets without a just cause. shows how Just God is.

I cannot make logical sense of this, first you tell me prophets are sinless but also imply that they can be justly killed.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I can't vote since I don't see, "Because Richard Dawkins barely ever seems not to have his higher brain functions surpassing those of cheese whiz" as a poll option. Perhaps you should add that.

 

[CosmicPathos]

what is the difference between Richard Dawkins and a nut-job crack-headed self-humiliating fool? the difference is the lack of any difference.

 

[Hugo]

I can't vote since I don't see, "Because Richard Dawkins barely ever seems not to have his higher brain functions surpassing those of cheese whiz" as a poll option. Perhaps you should add that.

Dawkin's is a distinguished professor at Oxford University and you don't get to such a position by being a 'cheese whiz' so what you say here is preposterous. One does not have to insult Dawkins because you don't agree with him and as you know the very worse thing one can do is underestimate ones opponents. ?

 

[IAmZamzam]

I'm not going to sit here and dignify a fallacious appeal to scholastic achievement so blatant and silly as to be unworthy of my time. If respected institutions never let drooling idiots graduate, George W. Bush wouldn't be from Yale. Pick a fight with someone else. I fell for your routine before and I'm not going to do so again. I do not call Dawkins a moron because I disagree with him: I disagree with him because he is a moron. If you can by some means contact Dawkins and get him to debate me in person, making him into a real opponent, bring it on, but otherwise leave me alone.

 

[Hugo]

I'm not going to sit here and dignify a fallacious appeal to scholastic achievement so blatant and silly as to be unworthy of my time. If respected institutions never let drooling idiots graduate, George W. Bush wouldn't be from Yale. Pick a fight with someone else. I fell for your routine before and I'm not going to do so again. I do not call Dawkins a moron because I disagree with him: I disagree with him because he is a moron. If you can by some means contact Dawkins and get him to debate me in person, making him into a real opponent, bring it on, but otherwise leave me alone.

Well tell us for it would I think be very useful how one assess any individual's competence to hold an opinion? Would it be the Socratic one: "If I have any authority it is based on the certain knowledge that I know nothing" or perhaps Nasim Talib with his "Epistemic Arrogance: literally, our hubris concerning the limits of our knowledge" or Francis Bacon "The human understanding is not composed of dry light, but it is subject to influence from the will and the emotions, a fact that creates fanciful knowledge; man prefers to believe what he wants to be true".

 

[Muhaba]

Yes many authors have claimed they wrote what was from God, Brigham Young for example. You can go on adding extra conditions or qualifications but all that eventually does is practically prove your contention wrong. If there is a message from God in any book then it's the message that is important not the messenger; do you not agree? Do you not see that you may well be convinced say that the Qu'ran is from God but I can be equally convinced it is not and yet we both have the exactly the same information - typically Muslims then go on to say that I am not a sincere seeker but I then say you are blind and so we go round in circles. That is why for me faith is an entirely personal matter and not a matter of proof positive because none exist - is that how you see it?

Can you explain where the dogma outlined in item 1 and 2 comes from? From my point of view the earlier books are still with us and they too will not change so what is your point? The Bible also has been printed and distributed all over the world in 1,000s of languages so all those who get it can read it and understand it unlike the Qu'ran where that is not the case. The trouble with the arguments you deploy is that I can use exactly the same ones about other books and then you deploy a few more and we end up on a merry go round with you invoking what God will do or might do or did and there is no reason logically why I have to accept that what you say is right is there?


But why? Will God turn me away otherwise, not accept my prayers yet he would accept them if I say them in Arabic without understanding the words myself?


Is that how you see it, those that don't agree have closed minds?


I cannot make logical sense of this, first you tell me prophets are sinless but also imply that they can be justly killed.

It's obvious you don't come here to learn. I'm not wasting my time with you anymore.

 

[Zafran]

The bible has more then one version that christians themselves cannot agree on. One has 66 books and the other 73. End of story. If there is another Quran I'll like to see it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If there is another Quran I'll like to see it.

I understand that while every group of Muslims has a certain given set of writings that they consider to be their scriptures, that different groups of Muslims accept one set of writings and another group of Muslims accept a different group of writings. Is this true?

 

[Zafran]

I understand that while every group of Muslims has a certain given set of writings that they consider to be their scriptures, that different groups of Muslims accept one set of writings and another group of Muslims accept a different group of writings. Is this true?

All muslims agree on what the Quran is and what it contains - the same cannot be said for christians authoritive scrpture - bible - Where after the reformation one group decided to take some books out of it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

All muslims agree on what the Quran is and what it contains - the same cannot be said for christians authoritive scrpture - bible - Where after the reformation one group decided to take some books out of it.

Which doesn't answer my question. Do all Muslims agree with one another as to what is and is not considered to be accepted as scripture?

 

[IAmZamzam]

Well tell us for it would I think be very useful how one assess any individual's competence to hold an opinion? Would it be the Socratic one: "If I have any authority it is based on the certain knowledge that I know nothing" or perhaps Nasim Talib with his "Epistemic Arrogance: literally, our hubris concerning the limits of our knowledge" or Francis Bacon "The human understanding is not composed of dry light, but it is subject to influence from the will and the emotions, a fact that creates fanciful knowledge; man prefers to believe what he wants to be true"

By whether that individual acts like a moron, as I thought I had made clear. I told you before that I'm not going to indulge your pretensions any more. You seem bent on disbelieving me.

 

[Ramadhan]

I understand that while every group of Muslims has a certain given set of writings that they consider to be their scriptures, that different groups of Muslims accept one set of writings and another group of Muslims accept a different group of writings. Is this true?

Can you be more specific, GS?

You are not talking about christian theology here, so no need to be so vague.

Also, is it true GS that they are currently thousands of bible versions, which differ in contents and meanings?
(as opposed to the Qur'an which has no versions)

 

[Zafran]

Which doesn't answer my question. Do all Muslims agree with one another as to what is and is not considered to be accepted as scripture?

If we're talking about the Quran - then 100% muslims accpet it as scripture. With christianty thats not the case with the 73 and 66 book difference after the reformation.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Can you be more specific, GS?

You are not talking about christian theology here, so no need to be so vague.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was being vague. As you said, I wasn't talking about Christian theology. I was talking about what it is that Muslims accept as scripture. Either all Muslims accept the exact same scriptures or they don't. The only way that question would be vague is if you are vague as to what your scriptures actually are.

If we're talking about the Quran - then 100% muslims accpet it as scripture. With christianty thats not the case with the 73 and 66 book difference after the reformation.

I'm talking about the totality of what Muslims consider scripture. Do all Muslims accept only the Qur'an as their scriptures? Don't some of them, but not all of them, accept other things such as the Hadith as scripture as well?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Also, is it true GS that they are currently thousands of bible versions, which differ in contents and meanings?
(as opposed to the Qur'an which has no versions)

Given that there are hundreds of different languages and often multiple different attempts to produce the best and most accurate translation into each language, and the definition of a version is the result of a particular production of a given translation I should find it surprising if there were not just thousands, but tens of thousands of different versions. The Qur'an has no verisions because you don't recognize the translations of the Qur'an as being the Qur'an, while we do recognize a translation as being the Bible even if it isn't in the original language any longer.

How many different translations of the Qur'an are there?

 

[Ramadhan]

Either all Muslims accept the exact same scriptures or they don't.

all muslims accept the Qur'an as our scripture. Sio that's the exact same scripture.

I'm talking about the totality of what Muslims consider scripture. Do all Muslims accept only the Qur'an as their scriptures? Don't some of them, but not all of them, accept other things such as the Hadith as scripture as well

I don;t know what you mean as scripture.
I dont want to be dragged into words play with you again. You christians seem very good in twisting words and their meanings, maybe necessary because christian creed and theology cannot be expressed in simple words.

We muslims believe in the Qur'an as our guidance and the pure speech of Allah.
And hadith is narrations concerning words and deeds of the prophet SAW.

I understand that you christians don't have the words of gods.
You only have the writings of some unknown people as your scripture.