This is a response that I sent to a user on another forum who is quite knowledgeable in Islam but I have yet to receive a response.
The quotes are from the user I speak of on the other forum and my response/question(s) follow(s):
(Some may find my comments inflammatory but these ideas are in no way intended to undermine yours only to critique and provide reasoning for my changing position. I have supported Islam since it preaches discipline but not necessarily that it believes in God. I post it here to open myself to more opinions. my goal is to question. I feel that having been raised in a Christan lifestyle, experienced secular lifestyle, and studied Islam that I am sufficiently unbiased in my request for proof and in the definition of proof)
-----------------------
1. Proof of Divine Revelation = miracles, prophecies, otherwise humanly inaccessible knowledge, divine characteristics that can be testable today that render revelations impossible to have come from anyone but God.
Your inbox response(s) brings to light new information but I remain either stubborn or simply unconvinced from a lack of evidence. Evidence is necessary to make any conclusion valid. Faith has been presented to me as an assumption that things are the way they are but, "miracles, prophecies, otherwise humanly inaccessible knowledge, divine characteristics that can be testable today that render revelations impossible to have come from anyone but God." What exactly is meant by miracles, prophecies, otherwise humanly inaccessible knowledge? How is that we know they are humanly inaccessible though they were revealed physically? Because something does not have an explanation now, does not render it incapable of being explained later. There is still much to learn about the world.
----------------------------------------
"but people in neighboring areas have claimed that someone does in fact live in the forest. If you knew your time was limited and acknowledged your own inability to pull yourself up, you would call out to that person as a final resort, and this is what I sincerely advise everyone to do, because in this life we are all on the brink of a pit of Fire, and only God can pull us to safety."
Though this applies to Atheists and Agnostics as you said, it seems to be just a cry of hope based off the belief that others may be right. Hope can of course lead to survival but even more so cunning, skill, intellect, etc. Why do you present God as a final resort just when one is in need? Islam is about daily worship thanking, asking forgiveness, etc. as you know very well and thus cannot be applied as a last resort. A lifetime of haram can not lead to the paradise promised to those who are halal. In your example, this would be a stress reliever or a way to focus and overcome fear. That is what I have been explained as another reason why not to simply believe and demand more than miracles, prophecy etc suggesting one will go to paradise.
--------------------------------------------------
2. Textual authentication through an unbroken chain of transmitters, to insure the doctrine is the same as the one the Prophet originally taught.
The Qu' Ran remains unchanged from its beginning but that does not necessarily mean it is "true". The fact that no contradictions exist is a result of it remaining unchanged. It is not difficult to prevent contradiction in argument not matter the topic if you know what you are doing. Making seemingly objective comments or writings makes it harder to contradict oneself.
But if the Qu' Ran, hadtih, the Sunnah were all true, why did it leave the Muslim world divided? Why were there various methods of interpretation given such as Shura, Ijtihad, etc if God's word was infallible? You mentioned that it is not blind faith and you request proofs such as miracles and what not but are they really proof? The way I felt as a part of Catholicism at least was finding ways of proving to myself that it was the right path. Thus I had the bias of looking at events in such a light. God is an intangible force that one can neither actually speak to or be physically near to creating a necessity of reaffirmation of His presence. Either that or blind acceptance. A proclivity results toward much of what is presented to him/her that could possibly be applied on the basis of his/her faith. I do not see how Islam would be all that different. You said that not everything can reaffirm God's guiding force but what "really" can?
At the same it is more difficult to apply modern logic to something that remains original to its ancient beginning thus possibly giving the perception that is it truly infallible. Muslims take their religion seriously as you know and especially the Holy Book. If it is that the Qu'Ran is the word of God, and God is supreme compared to humans, how can anyone change that? thus it has remained unchanged. That however does not negate the possibility that it is simply the word of man. Something written is directly dependent on the person no matter how much the person tries to argue even if said otherwise by one or more people no matter their stature, intellect, etc. If the prophet Mohammad was more intelligent than most and existed during a time with people who were maybe not nearly as intelligent, they could have easily believed that some other worldly power spoke through him. Same thing can happen today with less educated people who can be convinced by this or that. There existed much less knowledge during that time for people. Even today education remains a problem for many high susceptibility to manipulation.
---------------------------------------
"You see, the DEFAULT is that we do not accept something as true unless it establishes itself to be true. We do not assume something to be true until the point when it is proven false"
This applies to my previous argument. The establishment of truth is contingent on people. Believing in something because a number of people do, is dangerous reasoning. It is more difficult now to create something as significant as a Holy Book with how much we know, but long ago it was much less difficult. I do not wish to taint Prophet Mohammad's intentions since they were most likely to help his people live better lives together but that does not make it anything more that that.
-------------------
"#1 without #2 is useless, because all you can end up doing is ACCEPTING that a historical figure was a Prophet, but you cannot accurately pinpoint everything he taught, meaning that you will either not believe in a portion of what he taught OR believe in things which he NEVER taught. This is obviously dangerous because it leads to a logical fallacy: Person A is a Prophet of God, therefore whatever is claimed to have been said by him, or whatever is quoted on his behalf, I will believe in.
(still contingent on what the person has taught being true, and the proof bias for what He has taught)
Well that's obviously fallacious reasoning since you will end up believing in things Person A never even said, but rather, what others have placed in his mouth and disguised under his authority.
But #2 without #1 is equally useless because being able to prove that a text or doctrine has been perfectly transmitted from Person B, is USELESS if there is no substantiating evidence that Person B is a Prophet receiving Divine knowledge. In this case, all you have done is established with certainty WHAT was quoted by someone, but that doesn't tell you anything about what that person's source was. Without evidence that it came from God, you just have a perfectly preserved personal opinion of a man, or worse yet, a liar.
So in conclusion both criteria must be fulfilled in order for a religious claim to Truth to be taken seriously and be credible.
If the argument is put forward that one must disprove the validity of other religions, I would reply with the following quotation:
The Messenger of God (may the peace and blessings of God be upon him) said:
"The onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim."
What proof is there that Mohammad received Divine Knowledge and that it was truly Divine?
Is there really any way of knowing whether it was truly divine provided by God?
What historical facts specifically? The historical facts I see do not convince me enough for some reason or I do not understand them in their entirely.
Religion seems to me a claim that many people simply accepted with excessively biased proof as I argued above. They had been convinced to the point of accepting the slightest idea as true in fear of being driven to what the religion saw as evil and punishable by suffering. Fear controls people. A person during those times can say he has received something divine and then set out to prove it seeing as something divine can not be disproved tangibly nor was it preferable to disprove because of fear. Physical evidence cannot prove divinity either if divinity involves an intangible God both near and far only existing in the mind, heart, etc; therefore, I conclude that I am still left with little incentive to believe other than a promise I am unsure about.
The quotes are from the user I speak of on the other forum and my response/question(s) follow(s):
(Some may find my comments inflammatory but these ideas are in no way intended to undermine yours only to critique and provide reasoning for my changing position. I have supported Islam since it preaches discipline but not necessarily that it believes in God. I post it here to open myself to more opinions. my goal is to question. I feel that having been raised in a Christan lifestyle, experienced secular lifestyle, and studied Islam that I am sufficiently unbiased in my request for proof and in the definition of proof)
-----------------------
1. Proof of Divine Revelation = miracles, prophecies, otherwise humanly inaccessible knowledge, divine characteristics that can be testable today that render revelations impossible to have come from anyone but God.
Your inbox response(s) brings to light new information but I remain either stubborn or simply unconvinced from a lack of evidence. Evidence is necessary to make any conclusion valid. Faith has been presented to me as an assumption that things are the way they are but, "miracles, prophecies, otherwise humanly inaccessible knowledge, divine characteristics that can be testable today that render revelations impossible to have come from anyone but God." What exactly is meant by miracles, prophecies, otherwise humanly inaccessible knowledge? How is that we know they are humanly inaccessible though they were revealed physically? Because something does not have an explanation now, does not render it incapable of being explained later. There is still much to learn about the world.
----------------------------------------
"but people in neighboring areas have claimed that someone does in fact live in the forest. If you knew your time was limited and acknowledged your own inability to pull yourself up, you would call out to that person as a final resort, and this is what I sincerely advise everyone to do, because in this life we are all on the brink of a pit of Fire, and only God can pull us to safety."
Though this applies to Atheists and Agnostics as you said, it seems to be just a cry of hope based off the belief that others may be right. Hope can of course lead to survival but even more so cunning, skill, intellect, etc. Why do you present God as a final resort just when one is in need? Islam is about daily worship thanking, asking forgiveness, etc. as you know very well and thus cannot be applied as a last resort. A lifetime of haram can not lead to the paradise promised to those who are halal. In your example, this would be a stress reliever or a way to focus and overcome fear. That is what I have been explained as another reason why not to simply believe and demand more than miracles, prophecy etc suggesting one will go to paradise.
--------------------------------------------------
2. Textual authentication through an unbroken chain of transmitters, to insure the doctrine is the same as the one the Prophet originally taught.
The Qu' Ran remains unchanged from its beginning but that does not necessarily mean it is "true". The fact that no contradictions exist is a result of it remaining unchanged. It is not difficult to prevent contradiction in argument not matter the topic if you know what you are doing. Making seemingly objective comments or writings makes it harder to contradict oneself.
But if the Qu' Ran, hadtih, the Sunnah were all true, why did it leave the Muslim world divided? Why were there various methods of interpretation given such as Shura, Ijtihad, etc if God's word was infallible? You mentioned that it is not blind faith and you request proofs such as miracles and what not but are they really proof? The way I felt as a part of Catholicism at least was finding ways of proving to myself that it was the right path. Thus I had the bias of looking at events in such a light. God is an intangible force that one can neither actually speak to or be physically near to creating a necessity of reaffirmation of His presence. Either that or blind acceptance. A proclivity results toward much of what is presented to him/her that could possibly be applied on the basis of his/her faith. I do not see how Islam would be all that different. You said that not everything can reaffirm God's guiding force but what "really" can?
At the same it is more difficult to apply modern logic to something that remains original to its ancient beginning thus possibly giving the perception that is it truly infallible. Muslims take their religion seriously as you know and especially the Holy Book. If it is that the Qu'Ran is the word of God, and God is supreme compared to humans, how can anyone change that? thus it has remained unchanged. That however does not negate the possibility that it is simply the word of man. Something written is directly dependent on the person no matter how much the person tries to argue even if said otherwise by one or more people no matter their stature, intellect, etc. If the prophet Mohammad was more intelligent than most and existed during a time with people who were maybe not nearly as intelligent, they could have easily believed that some other worldly power spoke through him. Same thing can happen today with less educated people who can be convinced by this or that. There existed much less knowledge during that time for people. Even today education remains a problem for many high susceptibility to manipulation.
---------------------------------------
"You see, the DEFAULT is that we do not accept something as true unless it establishes itself to be true. We do not assume something to be true until the point when it is proven false"
This applies to my previous argument. The establishment of truth is contingent on people. Believing in something because a number of people do, is dangerous reasoning. It is more difficult now to create something as significant as a Holy Book with how much we know, but long ago it was much less difficult. I do not wish to taint Prophet Mohammad's intentions since they were most likely to help his people live better lives together but that does not make it anything more that that.
-------------------
"#1 without #2 is useless, because all you can end up doing is ACCEPTING that a historical figure was a Prophet, but you cannot accurately pinpoint everything he taught, meaning that you will either not believe in a portion of what he taught OR believe in things which he NEVER taught. This is obviously dangerous because it leads to a logical fallacy: Person A is a Prophet of God, therefore whatever is claimed to have been said by him, or whatever is quoted on his behalf, I will believe in.
(still contingent on what the person has taught being true, and the proof bias for what He has taught)
Well that's obviously fallacious reasoning since you will end up believing in things Person A never even said, but rather, what others have placed in his mouth and disguised under his authority.
But #2 without #1 is equally useless because being able to prove that a text or doctrine has been perfectly transmitted from Person B, is USELESS if there is no substantiating evidence that Person B is a Prophet receiving Divine knowledge. In this case, all you have done is established with certainty WHAT was quoted by someone, but that doesn't tell you anything about what that person's source was. Without evidence that it came from God, you just have a perfectly preserved personal opinion of a man, or worse yet, a liar.
So in conclusion both criteria must be fulfilled in order for a religious claim to Truth to be taken seriously and be credible.
If the argument is put forward that one must disprove the validity of other religions, I would reply with the following quotation:
The Messenger of God (may the peace and blessings of God be upon him) said:
"The onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim."
What proof is there that Mohammad received Divine Knowledge and that it was truly Divine?
Is there really any way of knowing whether it was truly divine provided by God?
What historical facts specifically? The historical facts I see do not convince me enough for some reason or I do not understand them in their entirely.
Religion seems to me a claim that many people simply accepted with excessively biased proof as I argued above. They had been convinced to the point of accepting the slightest idea as true in fear of being driven to what the religion saw as evil and punishable by suffering. Fear controls people. A person during those times can say he has received something divine and then set out to prove it seeing as something divine can not be disproved tangibly nor was it preferable to disprove because of fear. Physical evidence cannot prove divinity either if divinity involves an intangible God both near and far only existing in the mind, heart, etc; therefore, I conclude that I am still left with little incentive to believe other than a promise I am unsure about.
