Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: The Miracle of Angels in the Battle of Badr Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 2
Author Message
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1785
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 04 November 2012 at 8:30pm

Originally posted by Beebok

Ron said, "If you believe something fervently enough, and believe that you have a duty to convince others of this belief, then it is easy to rationalize making up a story to achieve that good purpose."

That's completely different than what's happening here. Christians made up stories to get people to believe that Jesus is a god who died for their sins.

On the other hand, if we Muslims invent a story about Muhammad, it works against us because it makes it more difficult to enter heaven by following a false example.

Don't kid yourself, Beebok. Pious fraud happens in Islam, too:
"Narrated Um Kulthum bint Uqba: That she heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.'"(Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 49, Number 857)

Besides, it's not necessary to deliberately lie in order to commit pious fraud.  Religious fervour can influence one's judgement and perceptions, leading witnesses to exaggerate events and misremember fantasies as reality.  In other words, people with the best of intentions can delude themselves without even realizing it.

And the extremely strict standards that we set for accepting a narrative such as checking the reliability of the narrators and having multiple chains of narration eliminate those stories that are merely fabricated.
The Christians on the other hand, had no such standards at all for determining which gospels would get accepted into the New Testament. Rather, the Roman emperror Constantine held a council at Nicea in 325 AD where he stated which documents he wanted to be accepted, and Christians accept those documents as the gospels of God.

How do you know what standards they used?  Do you think they just tossed dice or something?  Of course they had standards.  But the point is that by those standards they were largely able to agree on what belonged and what didn't belong in the Bible.  There are minor differences between the Catholic and the Protestant versions, for instance, but nothing like the differences between Sunni and Shia.  And that's not even considering the "weak" hadith, which by their own admission Muslim scholars are unable to decide.

That just proves my point. Look how careful we are about what hadith we accept.

Look how careful you need to be, and how even with such diligence you still have a whole boatload of hadith whose status is uncertain.  Good for you that you are open enough to admit it, but it doesn't remove the uncertainty.

Which works to our benefit because we can follow the ones of high certainty and reject the weaker ones.

But what if some of the weaker ones are actually legitimate?  How would that change your beliefs or your practices?  Can you just ignore the (alleged) word of Allah?

Men can also be right, and when they put in the massive intellectual effort and objective scrutiny on standards that are used to accept other ancient events, then they usually are right.

Is that the standard by which you define your religion?  "We're usually right?" LOL

For the caravan, the Muslims wanted to seize the goods. No one needed to get harmed. The caravan was not unarmed, just outnumbered, and back then and that place, warriors were civilians.

Oh, so that makes it okay? Confused

For Manhatten, the USA has no right to complain about anything after having bombed the water treatment facilities and murdered 500,000 Iraqi children from 1991 to 1995 as one of their many, many, uncountable crimes.

I'm going to assume that you are just lost in your own rhetoric, and are not actually condoning 9/11; but it sure sounds like you think that was okay too. Shocked

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Beebok
Male Islam
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Quote Beebok Replybullet Posted: 11 November 2012 at 2:03pm
The topic of hadith forgery is known as Wad al-Hadith, and are discounted by the scholars. "Even if this is done with a pious purpose in order to promote what is good, it would still count as a forgery and no credibility would be given to the motive and purpose of a deliberate forgery." quoted from "A Textbook of Hadith Studies, authenticity, compilation, classification, and criticism of hadith," by Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

Making peace, as in Ron's irrelevant example, is not the same as recording hadith. And the Quran explicitly states that it is an evil to make up something and say that it is from God, and elsewhere that whatever comes from the prophet is approved by God. So it works against a Muslim to invent a hadith. So, to compare it to Christianity is an incongruent analogy.

The standards of determining hadith are recorded by the collectors and other scholars and is an established field of study known as ulum al hadith, and there are established academic sub-branches of that such as al-jarh wal-tadil and ilal al hadith. And there are even principles of hadith criticism known as al-jarh wa al-tadil. And even the scholars are classified ranging from Muhadith to Hujja and Hakim. Thus the more one learns about Islam, the more one realizes that it is true.

The weaker hadith are labled weaker for a good reason.
The "uncertainty" is of a trivial degree, but the fact that we're willing to debate even over that shows how careful we've been.

The attempted attack on the caravan was legitimate because of the conditions I mentioned earlier.

What I said about the attacks on Manhatten is that the USA has no right to complain having committed exponentially greater damage on civilians, though based on Ron's own rhetoric it can be said that it sounds like Ron condones US atrocities.


Edited by Beebok - 11 November 2012 at 3:45pm
IP IP Logged
Beebok
Male Islam
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Quote Beebok Replybullet Posted: 11 November 2012 at 2:39pm
Abu Loren,
Yes, it is clear from many previous examples in other posts as well that the disbeliever is just arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to convince himself and his attempt to find excuses to not believe.

The combination of built in disincentive to forge hadith along side with the established standards of scrutiney of the hadith mean that we have a higher standard of authenticity of the events of Muhammad's life than other similar ancient events that are regularly accepted by historians. For a disbeliever to reject all the hadith because there is a miniscule chance that some of them might be partially incorrect shows a definite lack of sincerity.

Even the page he quoted mantioned the hadith: "Allah's Apostle said, "If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected."

Claiming something which is not said by the prophet is not in harmony with our religion, but the disbeliever left that hadith out even though it was on the same page to which he linked.

So, we can see his deceptive insincerity again.


Edited by Beebok - 11 November 2012 at 3:44pm
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1785
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 11 November 2012 at 4:34pm

Originally posted by Beebok

The topic of hadith forgery is known as Wad al-Hadith, and are discounted by the scholars.

Oh good.  The scholars have declared themselves infallible.  Well, that settles it. Ermm

Making peace, as in Ron's irrelevant example, is not the same as recording hadith. And the Quran explicitly states that it is an evil to make up something and say that it is from God, and elsewhere that whatever comes from the prophet is approved by God. So it works against a Muslim to invent a hadith. So, to compare it to Christianity is an incongruent analogy.

But we weren't talking about making up hadith.  The topic is the  Battle of Badr, and you listed a whole lot supposedly eyewitness account of angels helping the Muslim army.  It doesn't occur to you that these witnesses might have been exaggerating, if not wholly inventing, these accounts, in order to gain status, and/or to bolster their own faith or that of others?

I especially liked your tale of the captured pagan Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib.  His pride probably would not allow him to admit that he had been captured by an ordinary Muslim, so he made up a story about being captured by a much superior Being.  The Muslim soldier declared that he had indeed captured Abbas himself.

One of them was not telling the truth.  So who are we to believe: the pagan captive, or the Muslim?  Ordinarily one might presume that the good Muslim would be a more reliable witness than the heathen -- but guess what?  Muhammad, who wasn't even there,, tells the Muslim soldier to "be quiet" and confirms the pagan's story about an angel.

You don't see any possibility of pious fraud going on here? LOL

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
Beebok
Male Islam
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2012
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
Quote Beebok Replybullet Posted: 18 November 2012 at 8:13pm
Ron said, "Oh good.  The scholars have declared themselves infallible.  Well, that settles it. "
Response: The existence of scholarship into the field of forgery does show even more strongly that hadith that are presented are extremely reliable.

Ron: "But we weren't talking about making up hadith."
Response: "Actually, you did turn the topic into the reliability of hadith. Now that it is evident that hadith are highly reliable, you want to turn the topic into the reliability of the eyewitnesses themselves."

Ron: "Abdul-Muttalib.  His pride probably would not allow him to admit that he had been captured by an ordinary Muslim, so he made up a story...."
Pride would not have been a problem there since so many other stronger Arab warriors had been killed, routed, or captured by the Muslims. Rather, by confirming the angels, he adds veracity to the Muslims' claim which is contrary to the Pagans' rage then against the Muslims.
Also, Abdul-Muttalib would have denied Muhammad's knowledge of Abdul-Muttalib's secret wealth that could be used as ransom. That had nothing to do with his pride.

Ron: "It doesn't occur to you that these witnesses might have been exaggerating, if not wholly inventing, these accounts, in order to gain status, and/or to bolster their own faith or that of others?"
Response: So, it doesn't occur to Ron that by Abdul-Muttalib stating this explanation, he is strengthening the case for the Muslims?
 
So, based on Ron's premises, Abdul-Muttalib's pride was such that he would create a story about angels, then the Muslims' pride would have been such to deny the help of angels and place the victory on themselves.
On the other hand, based on Ron's premises, if the Muslims' desire to increase the faith was such that they would invent the story, then Abdul-Muttalib would have denied such an event.

Ron is trying to have it both ways. Such do was see the insincerity of the disbelievers. They will imagine any excuse to not believe, no matter how contradictory.

Ron: "So who are we to believe: the pagan captive, or the Muslim?"
Both stated what they believed was true. In this case, the captive turned out to be correct as the Muslim had been too foccussed with the pursuit to notice the angelic assistance, unless God wanted him to notice it.

Ron: " Muhammad, who wasn't even there,, tells the Muslim soldier to "be quiet" and confirms the pagan's story about an angel."
Response: Muhammad didn't need to be there, just as he did not need to be present to see Abdul-Muttalib's plan with his wife concerning his secret wealth, or present to witness the secret assasination plots agaisnt him to know when, where, and who, was involved ahead of time.

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 2
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com