Truth

[Zafran]

Excellent you just prove my point by inventing other criteria and so we can go on ad infinitum because there will never be a test we can agree on. You also miss the point, I am not arguing that marrying your adopted sons ex wide is immoral but arguing that it is a very very odd command for God to have made before time began if you see the Qu'ran as eternal. Again you invent a criteria that say the biblical accounts are corrupted because great men are shown in a bad light but I argue that those stories are a proof that the Bible is true because if anyone wanted to fiddle with the record they would not put those in. Can you see this there is no way to show whose criteria are right

No there is a difference the Quran is not a speech that came down in one time but a speech that can down throughout Muhammad pbuh prophetic life which was actually talking about issues that were happening in the best of generations life time.

I wasnt making an agrument why the biblical accounts were corrupted - but its odd how a christain can decide what is odd in the Quran and not when god inspired the OT writers to write about immoarl acts in great detail or the suicide of christ or God for that matter?

There is if we take isand of the biblical account and see how far it goes? and how strong it actually is?

 

[جوري]

I have no issue with you saying this but can you even accept that others have found flaws so you assertion is not based on fact? For example, I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife. You may not see them as flaws but the fact is others do and that is why we differ, you cannot even let yourself see the possibility, you don't have to accept it but you cannot even contemplate it - like the chain, you fear that the whole things will collapse around your ears.

Well the bible doesn't match itself, so if I were going purely on that Quran doesn't match the bible, you'd still defeat your purpose for your passages are at odds with one another, and your prophecies have failed, as if God couldn't predict accurately, you'll be in a real dilemma. The bible also doesn't match the previous scriptures either, for instance Jews don't believe in men gods that die, so Christianity is monolithic in such a regard, and this further invalidates the other arguments you have on the side, that being that the Quran copied from the bible, you can't really copy another book and have it come out so different? I don't accept words at face value..'others have found flaws' sounds like a failing student telling the teacher, I really studied!

your house is made of straws, you'll always find yourself struggling against the most basic common sense!

all the best

 

[M.I.A.]

Hiya;

From my experience and individual research, I have come to the conclusion that no single religion is 'the truth'. Why on Earth do I have Christian as my way of life as opposed to agnosticism, then? Well, from my experience, Christianity may not be the truth, but it is, in my opinion the closest thing to truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that other religions posit some degree of truth (albeit not on the same degree as Christianity), and I view these religions as an equally valid way of life- I appreciate the concept of monotheism as seen in other religions such as Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism; I admire the obsession to defend all things sacred that is present in Islam; and I believe there is a lot of truth as found in the teachings of Buddhism, as well.

Now, my point is this: do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith? The numerous interpretations of holy texts which may mean something is compulsory or may make it acceptable under certain circumstances? I know Islam places a lot of trust in scholars to make interpretations of the Quran for them, much like Catholics believe the Pope recieves divine instructions from the One and Only. And even then, lots of religions place a great deal of emphasis on authoritarianism- submission to a divine authority and the authority's instructions, irregardless of how inane those instructions may sound in a rational context. How can so many authoritarian religions, all claiming to be the truth, reflect the decisions of a supreme diety? If one religion tells you to submit to God by eating meat and the other asks you to refrain from eating meat to gain God's favour, then something has gone wrong with regard to that truth.

islam is the complete truth, if people have different interpretations of it than that is due to the differences in individuals, there knowlage, understanding, motives and ultimately the paths on which they have been set by god.

i believe its been said that there have been no people that have not had guidance sent to them and in this way you can probably justify most of the religions in existance today, although the message and ways they convey today are probably not the same as when the first person started out on there jurney.
i cant justify the following of any other religion other than islam due to my understanding of people, although i agree there is probably truth in all religions although the words that are perfectly preserved and unchanged can only be attributed to the quran.
unfortunately you are lucky to have the divinly inspired pope to look towards for guidance and leadership and we as muslims only have the divine words of the quran to lead us.

in a rational context i couldnt understand most of the things i read, i often have to think about them constantly and when i have formed an oppinion on a matter it only takes a moment for me to reconsider and ponder even more carefully...understanding and knowlage are not a perfected art.
everybody claims to be the truth and correct in there religion, it is the only way to success...after all would you follow somebody with nothing to show for there actions? nothing to show for there beliefs? would you follow somebody that can show you no measurable reward? but as you said there is a supreme diety and we can all agree that his will is always done.

 

[Grace Seeker]

islam is the complete truth, if people have different interpretations of it than that is due to the differences in individuals, there knowlage, understanding, motives and ultimately the paths on which they have been set by god.

Thanks MIA for getting us back on topic. As I read the OP, the thread is NOT a discussion of the Qur'an, but the manner by which we adopt the view that certain things are in fact to be accepted as being true (or not true).

The key question for me was: "Do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith?"

Since I am not a follower of Islam, I'm going to address the "whatever faith you're a part of" part of the question as regarding Christianity (which we all recognize as having many divisions).

With MIA I agree that primarily divisions are simply due to the differences in individuals, their knowledge and understanding. But I don't think that this means that just because there are divisions that it follows that they imply the absence of truth in one or more of those divisions. Some divisions can indeed be differentiated based on the categories of True and False. But not all. Some divisions are based on preferences that have nothing to do with what is or is not true. For instance, I was asked a question about baptism in my church the other day. The questioner prefers baptism by immersion. I happen to prefer it as well, but I (along with my particular denomination) still recognize the validity of other forms of baptism. I reject the idea that there is one and only one true or valid form of baptism. This does not mean that I would agree that all baptisms would be valid, but the "trueness" (if that is a word) of baptism is not so narrowly defined as to be limited to one and only one proscribed form or formula.

If I might use an analogy. Purple is a color. The grass is definitely not purple. Nor is milk. But while normally I would say the sky is blue, there are times right around sunset when it turns purple, and not just one shade but many different shades. So, as purple is a color. Some might suggest that it is particular color, such as I have set for the background color for the skin of this forum. But purple is also a whole range of shades of color. Is there one and only one color purple? Some might say YES. They define it using some spectral guide and try to call all the other shades by different names: lavender, violet, or indigo. But in my book they are all purple. And while I think that there are some things that are definitely not Christian, that there are divisions within Christianity does not necessarily mean that those division prove anything to be not true anymore than spectral analysis can prove something to be not purple -- sometimes it isn't purple and sometimes it isn't Christian, but often we are just dealing with shades that all properly fit under the same larger umbrella.

 

[Seeker1066]

Excellent you just prove my point by inventing other criteria and so we can go on ad infinitum because there will never be a test we can agree on. You also miss the point, I am not arguing that marrying your adopted sons ex wide is immoral but arguing that it is a very very odd command for God to have made before time began if you see the Qu'ran as eternal. Again you invent a criteria that say the biblical accounts are corrupted because great men are shown in a bad light but I argue that those stories are a proof that the Bible is true because if anyone wanted to fiddle with the record they would not put those in. Can you see this there is no way to show whose criteria are right

Your own Logic could be thus used to validate the Qu'ran. Why send forth parts of the Qu'ran that man does not fully understand if it wasn't indeed the truth. You seem to imply a scientific test for scripture. No scripture can withstand such a test because the Divine is not repeatable in a test tube. Man indeed must use reason that was given him by God. He must search the truth and he than makes a decision of faith. There is a reson that none of the Big three religions advocate forced conversion. Man was intended by God to hear search and decide. His faith is just that a usage of his faith.

Peace to all

 

[M.I.A.]

Thanks MIA for getting us back on topic. As I read the OP, the thread is NOT a discussion of the Qur'an, but the manner by which we adopt the view that certain things are in fact to be accepted as being true (or not true).

The key question for me was: "Do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith?"

Since I am not a follower of Islam, I'm going to address the "whatever faith you're a part of" part of the question as regarding Christianity (which we all recognize as having many divisions).

With MIA I agree that primarily divisions are simply due to the differences in individuals, their knowledge and understanding. But I don't think that this means that just because there are divisions that it follows that they imply the absence of truth in one or more of those divisions. Some divisions can indeed be differentiated based on the categories of True and False. But not all. Some divisions are based on preferences that have nothing to do with what is or is not true. For instance, I was asked a question about baptism in my church the other day. The questioner prefers baptism by immersion. I happen to prefer it as well, but I (along with my particular denomination) still recognize the validity of other forms of baptism. I reject the idea that there is one and only one true or valid form of baptism. This does not mean that I would agree that all baptisms would be valid, but the "trueness" (if that is a word) of baptism is not so narrowly defined as to be limited to one and only one proscribed form or formula.

If I might use an analogy. Purple is a color. The grass is definitely not purple. Nor is milk. But while normally I would say the sky is blue, there are times right around sunset when it turns purple, and not just one shade but many different shades. So, as purple is a color. Some might suggest that it is particular color, such as I have set for the background color for the skin of this forum. But purple is also a whole range of shades of color. Is there one and only one color purple? Some might say YES. They define it using some spectral guide and try to call all the other shades by different names: lavender, violet, or indigo. But in my book they are all purple. And while I think that there are some things that are definitely not Christian, that there are divisions within Christianity does not necessarily mean that those division prove anything to be not true anymore than spectral analysis can prove something to be not purple -- sometimes it isn't purple and sometimes it isn't Christian, but often we are just dealing with shades that all properly fit under the same larger umbrella.

on division, its not implied that something is false because it is different from something else but what was the importance of the thing in the first place!(dont lose sight of that)
lets take your example of baptism which i do not know the background of but i am assuming you know. when baptisms were first carried out i suppose the conditions were not always constant and even if they were as soon as another person is appointed to preform them there are changes unless every manner is copied to the exact....and even then there are changes as no matter how hard we try to emulate something perfectly we cannot. the only time they become constant is when an orgonisational structure is achieved within the religion...established places of worship....anything that happens after that are just the vanities of the people and dilution of a message....not on purpose but it just happens that way.

sure i like your purple analogy its like how the inuit have about 400 words for snow and green in zulu lol(wikipedia may not be the most accurate source) its not devision is it its more like the importance of a thing to a people. hardly anything can be put into black or white simply because those that could make such a distinction were sent by god! peace and blessings be upon them, the best we can do is try to emulate them in there teachings, messages sent to everyman for everyman.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Speaking of divisions, are there any divisions in Islam in which Muslims hold that the other person is a true Muslim, but that nonetheless they have some incorrect beliefs?

 

[Sister Unknown]

Speaking of divisions, are there any divisions in Islam in which Muslims hold that the other person is a true Muslim, but that nonetheless they have some incorrect beliefs?​

That's for Allah to decide. None of us know who is a "true" Muslim. Do you know your future. About divisions anyways, scholars agreed on 70% of Islam. They differed in minor 30% it is permitted to differ in (like how to turn a pan when you're cooking). But teh consensus of scholars agreed on the basics (doctrine) and fundamentals everyone msut adopt. In general, all Muslims belong to the fold of Islam, all sects. But their believs do not. ANd theier disbelief is examined depending on their individual case.

 

[Grace Seeker]

In general, all Muslims belong to the fold of Islam, all sects. But their believs do not.

I'm confused by these two statements, especially the highlighted part. Please, can you say it again a different way?

 

[جوري]

I'm confused by these two statements, especially the highlighted part. Please, can you say it again a different way?

who is astray and who isn't, only God knows the heart of his creation!

all the best

 

[Sister Unknown]

Disregard them please. It's a long topic.

 

[Hugo]

It Does require belief how do we know the same test that we did in the past is going to give us the same results in the future - here you have the law of gravity? Its guess work. Read the problem of induction, David Hume talks about it. The unbroken chain does tell us alot if you can actually link it to the prophet muhammad pbuh and his miracles or meeting angles, then if the transmission is trustworthy then there is a high probabilty of being true expecially if its mashur or muttawatir. Its hows that many people actually saw it.

We know we get the same results in the future because we can do the tests again and get the same result and gravity applies to everything there are not exceptions. You are muddled over induction because with gravity we have a solid theory that can be tested time and time again in any laboratory anywhere.

I see you are agreeing that the Qu'ran is only probably true. This thing you miss is that any test you suggest for the authority of the Qu'ran we must be able to apply it to any book any revelation. So if you say as you do here that Mohammed was truthful then I must be able to apply the same rule to any one, so according to your theory if someone is known to be truthful and they say that God spoke to them then we MUST believe it - you would not accept that about any book other than the Qu'ran would you - ipso facto it is not an acceptable test?

 

[Zafran]

We know we get the same results in the future because we can do the tests again and get the same result and gravity applies to everything there are not exceptions. You are muddled over induction because with gravity we have a solid theory that can be tested time and time again in any laboratory anywhere.

I see you are agreeing that the Qu'ran is only probably true. This thing you miss is that any test you suggest for the authority of the Qu'ran we must be able to apply it to any book any revelation. So if you say as you do here that Mohammed was truthful then I must be able to apply the same rule to any one, so according to your theory if someone is known to be truthful and they say that God spoke to them then we MUST believe it - you would not accept that about any book other than the Qu'ran would you - ipso facto it is not an acceptable test?

How do you know that the results are going to be the same in the future - its like asking how do you know if the sun will rise tommorrow just because the sun has risen in the past? we just dont know that it will rise tommorrow - its high probablity that it will rise but not absolute. This applies with any law including the law of gravity. Its the best guess work we have at this moment in time, as there is always a chance that the law of gravity just might not work in the future. It still a belief as humans we dont know the future.

If you can prove it at muttawttair chain then lets see the results with the other religions. Why dont you give an examples if the others can live up to it? If they can not live up to it then its a sound basis to reject it.

 

[syed_z]

The key question for me was: "Do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith?"

Since I am not a follower of Islam, I'm going to address the "whatever faith you're a part of" part of the question as regarding Christianity (which we all recognize as having many divisions).

@Sister Unknown ... Salaam hope your doing fine...

That's for Allah to decide. None of us know who is a "true" Muslim. Do you know your future. About divisions anyways, scholars agreed on 70% of Islam. They differed in minor 30% it is permitted to differ in (like how to turn a pan when you're cooking). But teh consensus of scholars agreed on the basics (doctrine) and fundamentals everyone msut adopt. In general, all Muslims belong to the fold of Islam, all sects. But their believs do not. ANd theier disbelief is examined depending on their individual case.

Actually Sister the difference in Islam is much much lesser than 30%.... the differences among the Muslims are like almost 5%...

Most of the Knowledge of Islam to be found in the Quran and Sunnah, all the Verses and Injunctions in the 2 Prime sources of Knowledge in Islam, 95% of them relate to the Social, Political, Legal, Economic principles..... only the rest 5% relate to other matters, such as Ritual Worship.... and it is THIS 5% which Muslim Schools of Thoughts have differences on, and these are Highlighted in the Media or by Politicians as Huge Differences, so to achieve their own aims ....



@Grace Seeker...

Differences within Christianity and Islam are completely different... In Islam our Unchanged word of God, i.e Quran is a central Unifying Instrument, that Unites us Muslims even though there might be some minor differences in regards to rituals or words of Prophet Muhammad.... but in Christianity, your Unifying Instrument could be the Bible, but unfortunately there is NOT 1... The Bible is not as it was.....There are Hundreds of Bibles and not one, Whose Bible ? Whose Translation ? Whose Interpretation ? Infact this was one of the Prime Reason what caused the Separation of the Church from the State in Modern Europe and USA.....

Since the Bible did not have One Interpretions and many experts interpretating in their own ways , which was also the reason of theocracy in Christian Europe, i.e Priestly Class making decisions and interpreting words of Bible and giving edicts as if they were Divine Words of God, is what made the West run away and seek refuge in Secularism.... the Instrument which is supposed to Unify, became the Major cause of Division in Europe and if it would not have been for Secularism, Europe would have ended up in fighting and wars even up till today....


Like you said about Baptism...

For instance, I was asked a question about baptism in my church the other day. The questioner prefers baptism by immersion. I happen to prefer it as well, but I (along with my particular denomination) still recognize the validity of other forms of baptism. I reject the idea that there is one and only one true or valid form of baptism. This does not mean that I would agree that all baptisms would be valid, but the "trueness" (if that is a word) of baptism is not so narrowly defined as to be limited to one and only one proscribed form or formula.

Let me ask whose way of Baptism would you follow ? Jesus ? John ? how could you have the minute details of their Life when even your own bible is not preserved up till today in the Orginial Language it was revealed ? There are Hundreds of them.... if you were to make your own way of practicing Baptism, then wouldn't this be an Innovation ? Something being added to something which was not meant to be part of... such leads towards misguidance...

For us our Orders are in Quran, which is still preserved and Prophet Muhammad's Sunnah (Way , Practice) is saved even up till today , through the Science of Hadith, to the minutest details... the Only person in the History, whose life practices are saved by his nation in such a way, that such example is not to be found of any other person in the History of Mankind...

The Agreed points of Muslims are ignored, while the minor rituals on which they differ, are highlighted...

 

[Sister Unknown]

Actually Sister the difference in Islam is much much lesser than 30%.... the differences among the Muslims are like almost 5%...

Most of the Knowledge of Islam to be found in the Quran and Sunnah, all the Verses and Injunctions in the 2 Prime sources of Knowledge in Islam, 95% of them relate to the Social, Political, Legal, Economic principles..... only the rest 5% relate to other matters, such as Ritual Worship.... and it is THIS 5% which Muslim Schools of Thoughts have differences on, and these are Highlighted in the Media or by Politicians as Huge Differences, so to achieve their own aims ....

Brother, allow me to make something clear to you.

T=you read the following verse and open your eyes wide open: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) till you follow their religion. Say: ‘Verily, the Guidance of Allaah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’aan), then you would have against Allaah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper’”

[al-Baqarah 2:120].

It teaches such a lesson to me, brother. What makes you think that I would listen to any smart alec over the computer? Althought I am to be gentle with the believers, but I am firm on my belief (SALAFIYYAH). Go find other doubters to argue with.


According to who? Whose lecture, brother?

 

[syed_z]

Brother, allow me to make something clear to you.

T=you read the following verse and open your eyes wide open: “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) till you follow their religion. Say: ‘Verily, the Guidance of Allaah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’aan), then you would have against Allaah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper’”

[al-Baqarah 2:120].

It teaches such a lesson to me, brother. What makes you think that I would listen to any smart alec over the computer? Althought I am to be gentle with the believers, but I am firm on my belief (SALAFIYYAH). Go find other doubters to argue with.


According to who? Whose lecture, brother?

I thought we were all Muslims Sister... Believe in Allah and His Messenger (saw) ... but thats ok if you want to follow which ever school of thought you may, up to you... a Salafi will come and say I am the right one.... while in Hanafis, the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa , who can be further divided in to two more groups in Indo Pak Sub continent, South Asia, the Deobandis and Barelavis.... the Deobandis would say We are the right ones... the Barelawis will say 'Its us who are right' ... while both quote from the same Quran and Same Books of Sunnah, i.e BUkhari and Muslim and other Authentic Hadith Collections.... its funny sister why would you even try to stear the flow of coversation to the divisive 5% , by claiming Salafiyya, while ignoring the 95% part of commin ground among the Muslims.... ....If a Muslim corrects the other brother/sister, and tries to help them does NOT mean that they are arguing... and when did i say that you are a Doubter ? Could you please point out in my conversation where did i say such ?

So you asked me...

According to who? Whose lecture, brother?

Lets see whether the 5% is more important or the 95% is more important .... Quran and Sunnah is not the Private Property of ONLY the Ulemas and the Muslims are also allowed by the Quran, rather are encouraged to ponder and study Islam, and NOT form their own opinion unless they have learned most of Islamic Sciences, so i don't have just one lecture that i can show you to prove my point.... but throughout the course of my research on Islam i have come across many articles and lectures given by scholars of Islam, which show how the division part is so less and so little, that it isn't even worth speaking of....


We can take the example of the 4 Schools of Thought Among the Majority of Muslims and see whether their Differences are exaggerated or are of no value to be raised as issues... ? The 4 Schools of Thought are Hanafi, Shahafi, Maliki and Hanbali... Is there any differences among them in regards to ...

Articles of Faith ? Pillars of Islam ? Women Role in the Society ? Moral Values ? Sources of Law ? The Role of Government ? The Relationship between the Individual and the Society ? The meaning of Good and Evil ? The definition of Right and Wrong ?

Are there any differences among the above ? If there are please prove.... i am sure that there is not even any difference Salafiyya would have with the above mentioned articles , with the 4 School of Thoughts or their Sub groups... ?

The above Are Central Issues when comes to play part in establishing an Islamic Society or Islamic State... yet it has always been the minor issues of the way of Worship or movements of the body while worshipping or the Red or Green Color being worn by the Sheikhs of these groups and sub groups which has become the major 'issues' and has become the bases of all causes of division, which has led towards the failure to establish an Islamic Society on Earth among the billion strong Muslim Ummah....

They are ignored while the petty issues are raised ! Lets see fruther....

The Education system with Quran as the Centre of all learning, which builts the God Consciousness inside a Child, the Historical facts studied and learned in the Society should be used as not only to learn and know Historical facts, but also learn the Way of Allah in making rise and fall of nations....

Reformation of Media so as to be used to inform people of facts and truth and not be used as Instrument by some members of the Society for their means of making money only, there should be Islamic Morality..... An Economic System based on Justice and pure from all kinds of exploitation, specially the Riba (Interest) based economic System....


Which 4 school of Thought would have differences in implementation of the above mentioned all ? Or would Salfiyya have ? I am Pretty Sure Praise be to Allah, no knowledgeable Muslim, whether Ulema or no would have any disagreement with the implementation of the above....EXCEPT the Corrupt Muslim Regimes and so called "Islamic" Governments who use differences to achieve Political aims in Middle East and throughout the Muslim World....





Now About the Insignificant amount of Differences which do exist among the Schools of Thought in Muslim World



There is an Authentic Hadith ... Muhammad (saw) said "The differences of opinion (ikhtilaf) among the learned men of my community are an (outcome of) Divine Grace (Rahma)."

And so the Divine Grace can be clearly seen in the differences of Opinion, if we analyse just by looking at one ruling on break up of Wudu (Ablution before Prayer) because of bleeding. The Shahafi School of Thought say that bleeding has not nullified the ablution while Hanafi School of thought say the person must perform Wudu again as it is nullified. And so the fruit of difference of opinion can be seen, by A Muslim choosing which ruling is better and easy for him/her, without being forced the other. And the Ijtihad (Ruling) of Imam Shahafi CANNOT be said to be wrong by a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa (Hanafi) as Imam Shahafi (R.a) was also a great Mujtahid and his Ijtihad is as valid as Imam Abu Hanifa's. So the differences are also a Mercy, HOWEVER they turn in to fighting and blood sheds when the Ijtihad of Imam Shahafi becomes not only unacceptable but also declared 'Haraam (Illegal)' by a group or sub group of another Muslim School of Thought... the Problem occurs when the differences are over stated...this intolerance, then leads towards dissensions and eventually blood shed among the Muslims.... this is what we MUST avoid on our personal level...


Whenever there is an Intellect and Honesty there will always be differences of Opinion. Complete consensus can never be because it is our Human nature to have differences as time goes by we Muslims will also according to our Human Nature have differences of opinion, and so we can understand that it was actually a Mercy of Allah (Swt) to make us known in the Words of His Messenger (saw), that He made permissible the differences and called them Mercy, so we would have flexibility BUT at the same time, without crossing Limits (Hudood) of Allah , of Haraam (illegal) and Halaal (legal).

Salaam..

 

[Hugo]

How do you know that the results are going to be the same in the future - its like asking how do you know if the sun will rise tommorrow just because the sun has risen in the past? we just dont know that it will rise tommorrow - its high probablity that it will rise but not absolute. This applies with any law including the law of gravity. Its the best guess work we have at this moment in time, as there is always a chance that the law of gravity just might not work in the future. It still a belief as humans we dont know the future.

This is just nonsense, we know about gravity and the way planets and suns work and we have this knowledge through observation and experiment. As Scotty in Star Trek used to say "captain, you canna change the laws of nature". The very idea that say Ohms law or Archimedes principle will stop working is preposterous rubbish. You are confusing induction with deduction. With induction the idea is that we argue "more of the same" so if we toss a fair coin 30 times and it comes down heads each time in your mind the next one is bound to be heads also or a high probability. But the point is that previous occurrences do not assure us of the next or even increase our confidence.

So if we take the so called proofs for the Qu'ran then they are all inductive and like all inductive arguments circular. So you say the Qu'ran is syntactically perfect so must have been written by God because if God writes anything it will be syntactically perfect. This is just induction so no amount of such proofs of conjectures will make the idea that the Qu'ran is God word true and worse than that you cherry pick; ONLY consider inductive arguments that move in one direction. You CANNOT even consider negative arguments but logically they are just as valid. For example, I could argue that if God wrote something it would be entirely new, nothing in it would or could be found elsewhere or argue that since Mohammed's revelation was an entirely private affair it is hearsay and I can go on like this with dozens of other conjectures that prove the Qu'ran is not the word of God.

If you can prove it at muttawttair chain then lets see the results with the other religions. Why dont you give an examples if the others can live up to it? If they can not live up to it then its a sound basis to reject it.

Again you are just missing the point as no one is arguing that one cannot find a chain back to a source and you can regard that chain or several chains as proof of the source. But all it does is confirm what someone said or did and that might be interesting or not. However, when you turn it into absolute truth then you are into blind acceptance propped up by a nonsensical idea that a certain group of people at a certain time were perfect. It seem to me you do not even bother to consider how the end of the chain knows something or whether what is said makes any sense. For example, in another thread we have a hadith where we are told that someone said the woman in heaven wear veils and and cast their perfume over all the world. How could the writer know this and the idea itself is so obviously fable.

 

[Sister Unknown]

I thought we were all Muslims Sister... Believe in Allah and His Messenger (saw) ... but thats ok if you want to follow which ever school of thought you may, up to you... a Salafi will come and say I am the right one.... while in Hanafis, the followers of Imam Abu Hanifa , who can be further divided in to two more groups in Indo Pak Sub continent, South Asia, the Deobandis and Barelavis.... the Deobandis would say We are the right ones... the Barelawis will say 'Its us who are right' ... while both quote from the same Quran and Same Books of Sunnah, i.e BUkhari and Muslim and other Authentic Hadith Collections.... its funny sister why would you even try to stear the flow of coversation to the divisive 5% , by claiming Salafiyya, while ignoring the 95% part of commin ground among the Muslims.... ....If a Muslim corrects the other brother/sister, and tries to help them does NOT mean that they are arguing... and when did i say that you are a Doubter ? Could you please point out in my conversation where did i say such ?

So you asked me...Lets see whether the 5% is more important or the 95% is more important .... Quran and Sunnah is not the Private Property of ONLY the Ulemas and the Muslims are also allowed by the Quran, rather are encouraged to ponder and study Islam, and NOT form their own opinion unless they have learned most of Islamic Sciences, so i don't have just one lecture that i can show you to prove my point.... but throughout the course of my research on Islam i have come across many articles and lectures given by scholars of Islam, which show how the division part is so less and so little, that it isn't even worth speaking of....


We can take the example of the 4 Schools of Thought Among the Majority of Muslims and see whether their Differences are exaggerated or are of no value to be raised as issues... ? The 4 Schools of Thought are Hanafi, Shahafi, Maliki and Hanbali... Is there any differences among them in regards to ...

Articles of Faith ? Pillars of Islam ? Women Role in the Society ? Moral Values ? Sources of Law ? The Role of Government ? The Relationship between the Individual and the Society ? The meaning of Good and Evil ? The definition of Right and Wrong ?

Are there any differences among the above ? If there are please prove.... i am sure that there is not even any difference Salafiyya would have with the above mentioned articles , with the 4 School of Thoughts or their Sub groups... ?

The above Are Central Issues when comes to play part in establishing an Islamic Society or Islamic State... yet it has always been the minor issues of the way of Worship or movements of the body while worshipping or the Red or Green Color being worn by the Sheikhs of these groups and sub groups which has become the major 'issues' and has become the bases of all causes of division, which has led towards the failure to establish an Islamic Society on Earth among the billion strong Muslim Ummah....

They are ignored while the petty issues are raised ! Lets see fruther....

The Education system with Quran as the Centre of all learning, which builts the God Consciousness inside a Child, the Historical facts studied and learned in the Society should be used as not only to learn and know Historical facts, but also learn the Way of Allah in making rise and fall of nations....

Reformation of Media so as to be used to inform people of facts and truth and not be used as Instrument by some members of the Society for their means of making money only, there should be Islamic Morality..... An Economic System based on Justice and pure from all kinds of exploitation, specially the Riba (Interest) based economic System....


Which 4 school of Thought would have differences in implementation of the above mentioned all ? Or would Salfiyya have ? I am Pretty Sure Praise be to Allah, no knowledgeable Muslim, whether Ulema or no would have any disagreement with the implementation of the above....EXCEPT the Corrupt Muslim Regimes and so called "Islamic" Governments who use differences to achieve Political aims in Middle East and throughout the Muslim World....





Now About the Insignificant amount of Differences which do exist among the Schools of Thought in Muslim World



There is an Authentic Hadith ... Muhammad (saw) said "The differences of opinion (ikhtilaf) among the learned men of my community are an (outcome of) Divine Grace (Rahma)."

And so the Divine Grace can be clearly seen in the differences of Opinion, if we analyse just by looking at one ruling on break up of Wudu (Ablution before Prayer) because of bleeding. The Shahafi School of Thought say that bleeding has not nullified the ablution while Hanafi School of thought say the person must perform Wudu again as it is nullified. And so the fruit of difference of opinion can be seen, by A Muslim choosing which ruling is better and easy for him/her, without being forced the other. And the Ijtihad (Ruling) of Imam Shahafi CANNOT be said to be wrong by a follower of Imam Abu Hanifa (Hanafi) as Imam Shahafi (R.a) was also a great Mujtahid and his Ijtihad is as valid as Imam Abu Hanifa's. So the differences are also a Mercy, HOWEVER they turn in to fighting and blood sheds when the Ijtihad of Imam Shahafi becomes not only unacceptable but also declared 'Haraam (Illegal)' by a group or sub group of another Muslim School of Thought... the Problem occurs when the differences are over stated...this intolerance, then leads towards dissensions and eventually blood shed among the Muslims.... this is what we MUST avoid on our personal level...


Whenever there is an Intellect and Honesty there will always be differences of Opinion. Complete consensus can never be because it is our Human nature to have differences as time goes by we Muslims will also according to our Human Nature have differences of opinion, and so we can understand that it was actually a Mercy of Allah (Swt) to make us known in the Words of His Messenger (saw), that He made permissible the differences and called them Mercy, so we would have flexibility BUT at the same time, without crossing Limits (Hudood) of Allah , of Haraam (illegal) and Halaal (legal).

Salaam..

Ay, brother, of course we are all Muslims. I'm not ht eone causing division here by telling everyone the views of all the scholars. I have not read what you have written. But what you have said is wrong. The ulma says that they have differed in 30% only, alhamdullillah.

Not preserve your time as well as mine, and busy yourself with what will benefit you in the hereafet. As for the verse, I quotewd it so you realize that non-Muslims will not be pleased with you even though you tell them false claims.

 

[syed_z]

So if we take the so called proofs for the Qu'ran then they are all inductive and like all inductive arguments circular. So you say the Qu'ran is syntactically perfect so must have been written by God because if God writes anything it will be syntactically perfect. This is just induction so no amount of such proofs of conjectures will make the idea that the Qu'ran is God word true and worse than that you cherry pick; ONLY consider inductive arguments that move in one direction. You CANNOT even consider negative arguments but logically they are just as valid. For example, I could argue that if God wrote something it would be entirely new, nothing in it would or could be found elsewhere or argue that since Mohammed's revelation was an entirely private affair it is hearsay and I can go on like this with dozens of other conjectures that prove the Qu'ran is not the word of God.

please prove Quran is not the Word of God... prove it... since you cannot , and you WILL fail in doing so... i see that you are just here to make nonsensical arguments with the Muslims and do nothing more, and wasting your time... so prove if you can... however, Bible is NOT the word of God any more... would like me to Prove it , if your not able to prove that Quran is the Word of God ?

 

[Hugo]

please prove Quran is not the Word of God... prove it... since you cannot , and you WILL fail in doing so... i see that you are just here to make nonsensical arguments with the Muslims and do nothing more, and wasting your time... so prove if you can... however, Bible is NOT the word of God any more... would like me to Prove it , if your not able to prove that Quran is the Word of God ?

I wish you would read the posts and not offer this kind of stuff. I cannot prove that the Qu'ran is or is not the word of God - no one can. Perhaps you know how to do it so can tell me how it might be falsified, I do not know of such a test and neither does anyone else. If you cannot think up a falsification test then it is beyond science and remains so and you can believe it if you wish and I can reject the idea. To begin with you have to prove that God exists and no one has done that yet so we cannot even start. Try to understand that if I say there are fairies at the bottom of my garden then YOU cannot falsify it can you and the so the truth cannot be established.

You have to understand what proof is and it does not look like you do. For example, I could take 1000 different electrical circuits and in every one ohms law would apply without exception so any test you think of must be able to be used in any circuit and will always verify Ohms law. So if you say a proof that the Qu'ran is the word of God is that it is syntactically perfect then I must be able to apply that same test to ANY book and if I find that book syntactically perfect then it also must be the word of God - ispso facto the test is obviously useless.