The Miracle of Angels in the Battle of Badr |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | |||||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Don't kid yourself, Beebok. Pious fraud happens in Islam, too: 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.
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.
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.
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?
Is that the standard by which you define your religion? "We're usually right?"
Oh, so that makes it okay?
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. |
|||||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||||
Beebok
Groupie Male Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 72 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
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 |
|||||||
Beebok
Groupie Male Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 72 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
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 |
|||||||
Ron Webb
Senior Member Male atheist Joined: 30 January 2008 Location: Ottawa, Canada Status: Offline Points: 2467 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
Oh good. The scholars have declared themselves infallible. Well, that settles it.
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? |
|||||||
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.
|
|||||||
Beebok
Groupie Male Joined: 12 May 2012 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 72 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||||
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. |
|||||||
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions 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 |