Questions for Muslims

[FearGod]

Such as? The Sassanid Empire I'll give you, what else 'ended'?

Such as?

Ignorance and dark ages.

 

[icehorse]

This goes back to the main argument I've been making, you judge things against a baseline of all of the alternatives, not against a baseline of zero or a baseline of 'my personal preference'.

On Hitchens: Mistakes in one domain don't discredit good argument in other domains.

As for your baseline perspective - I think it has some merit. But it also has some flaws, e.g. it could lead us to "the devil you know" conclusions, and I'm pretty convinced that we need new ways of thinking, not a return to old, tribal ways of thinking.

If everyone was SH then the world would be more peaceful, fair enough. No problems with that claim.
This isn't going to happen though, and any belief that it is possible is every bit as utopian as believing in the second coming or a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

How do you know it isn't going to happen? One piece of good news is that when education for women is introduced into troubled societies, we often see fantastic improvements.

 

[Augustus]

On Hitchens: Mistakes in one domain don't discredit good argument in other domains.

It is the same domain - ideology

As for your baseline perspective - I think it has some merit. But it also has some flaws, e.g. it could lead us to "the devil you know" conclusions, and I'm pretty convinced that we need new ways of thinking, not a return to old, tribal ways of thinking.

In complex systems we cannot predict the effect on the system of changing a single variable (i.e. hypothetically making Christianity disappear)

Unless the devil you know is causing tremendous harm, it is hard to make the case that the alternative must be better (see supporting Islamic fundamentalists to fight communism).

This doesn't mean you can't promote your own belief system, just that you don't know where things will end up as we don't control the system

How do you know it isn't going to happen? One piece of good news is that when education for women is introduced into troubled societies, we often see fantastic improvements.

Human history. We are a diverse species and will always generate alternatives to dominant belief systems.

Women's education and empowerment is great, but remember the communists were pretty big on that too so it is no panacea .

Educated people have always been attracted to utopian ideologies anyway. Wealth and education don't equal SH.

 

[Augustus]

Ignorance and dark ages.

In what sense? theologically?

 

[firedragon]

How do you know it isn't going to happen? One piece of good news is that when education for women is introduced into troubled societies, we often see fantastic improvements.

Absolutely correct. I'm gonna use this. Sue me for plagiarism Ice.

Nevertheless, I think Hitchens is the most uneducated and exaggerated journalist I have ever come across.

2 things mainly.

1. Mother Theresa's conspiracy. Go to India, talk to old people in calcutta. You will know what a liar Hitchens is.
2. He makes the statement "Quran is nothing but a rip-off of the bible". Its okay to just say that, if you were in kindergarten of theological studies.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Islam and Christianity both have checkered pasts. But I would agree that there have been some benefits. But at this point in time, these religions are slowing down our development of wisdom, and we need new, improved wisdom these days.

I've always been sceptical about "new" things .. how's about getting the old ones right first?

"new labour" or "new hartleys jam" etc.

No .. if you want 'improved wisdom', then perhaps not kill off or disrespect the elderly population

 

[FearGod]

In what sense? theologically?

Who was more progress in science and knowledge during the dark ages.
Were they the Muslims or the Romans.

 

[Augustus]

Who was more progress in science and knowledge during the dark ages.
Were they the Muslims or the Romans.

'Dark ages' were Europe and were not as dark as they are made out to be. Much of Europe declined though because it became cut off from the major trade routes due to the end of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Islamic one leading to a decline in wealth. The fall of the central power (the Romans) also destabilised the region.

The Islamic Empire was fantastically rich due to controlling the entire fertile crescent and under the Abbasids was relatively stable. It was also multicultural, benefitted from the translation movement bringing access to Roman and Persian science and philosophy, and got to take advantage of the wonderful new technology of paper (the internet of the day).

Just as the Europeans in the Renaissance used their new wealth to capitalise on Islamic science and philosophy. Each is simply a link in the chain, all equally important - Greek philosophy, the golden age, the Chinese discoveries, the Enlightenment, etc.

The Abbasid Golden Age was a great time for scientific and philosophical discovery, that is certainly true. But, across history, such eras of discovery have been linked to stability, wealth and technology (see the modern West, or the Chinese, Greek and Roman Empires).

Great powers drive scientific progress, be they Greek, Roman, Chinese, Western, Islamic or whatever.

 

[firedragon]

Who was more progress in science and knowledge during the dark ages.
Were they the Muslims or the Romans.

Thats after the fall of Rome.

 

[FearGod]

'Dark ages' were Europe and were not as dark as they are made out to be. Much of Europe declined though because it became cut off from the major trade routes due to the end of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Islamic one leading to a decline in wealth. The fall of the central power (the Romans) also destabilised the region.

The Islamic Empire was fantastically rich due to controlling the entire fertile crescent and under the Abbasids was relatively stable. It was also multicultural, benefitted from the translation movement bringing access to Roman and Persian science and philosophy, and got to take advantage of the wonderful new technology of paper (the internet of the day).

Just as the Europeans in the Renaissance used their new wealth to capitalise on Islamic science and philosophy. Each is simply a link in the chain, all equally important - Greek philosophy, the golden age, the Chinese discoveries, the Enlightenment, etc.

The Abbasid Golden Age was a great time for scientific and philosophical discovery, that is certainly true. But, across history, such eras of discovery have been linked to stability, wealth and technology (see the modern West, or the Chinese, Greek and Roman Empires).

Great powers drive scientific progress, be they Greek, Roman, Chinese, Western, Islamic or whatever.

And how Muslims gained such great power while they were barbarians and ignorant living in the desert before the message of Islam?

 

[Augustus]

And how Muslims gained such great power while they were barbarians and ignorant living in the desert before the message of Islam?

They were mostly Christians and Jews living on the edge of the 2 major powers who had provided a large proportion of their military forces for a couple of centuries.

Pretty much like the Germanic tribes in the Western Roman Empire who eventually sacked Rome.

When the Empires were weak they had nothing to stop them, and the geography of the ME region made it easier, they basically had to win 2 major battles to conquer the whole region.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

You put forth a question for Muslims. How do you not expect Lashing out at Christians and Jews, "Youre not a true Muslim" and other replies that will keep on dodging these questions?

 

[icehorse]

In complex systems we cannot predict the effect on the system of changing a single variable (i.e. hypothetically making Christianity disappear)

Unless the devil you know is causing tremendous harm, it is hard to make the case that the alternative must be better (see supporting Islamic fundamentalists to fight communism).

This doesn't mean you can't promote your own belief system, just that you don't know where things will end up as we don't control the system

Agreed, no one has a crystal ball. That said, when things are broken we ought to try to fix them. A good case could be made that world war III will likely start because of religious differences between Israel and its neighbors. The people in the region would be willing to live with any number of compromise solutions, but the religious leaders will not budge. This is a broken system with highly probable, catastrophic consequences.

Across the spectrum, we see leaders and scientists and so on, seeing problems, and attempting fixes. But for some reason we're loathe to view religion as a problem to be solved. So we see a rich, diverse collection of apologists endlessly trying to keep religion safe from change. Sad really.

 

[Augustus]

But for some reason we're loathe to view religion as a problem to be solved. So we see a rich, diverse collection of apologists endlessly trying to keep religion safe from change.

'Religion' is a very broad term, how much of 'religion' do you see as a problem?

How do you propose solving 'religion'?

 

[DawudTalut]

.....
c) Why do all the earliest Mosques face Petra? And why does Petra fit the descriptions given in the Qur'an, not Mecca?

Peace be on you.

1=Questions for Muslims

2= Bakkah (also transliterated Baca, Baka, Bakke, Bakah, Bakka, Becca,Bekka, etc.) is the ancient name for the site of Mecca.[1][4][5][6] An Arabic language word, its etymology, like that of Mecca, is obscure.[7]

One meaning ascribed to it is "narrow", seen as descriptive of the area in which the valley of the holy places and the city of Mecca are located, pressed in upon as they are by mountains.[4] Widely believed to be a synonym for Mecca, it is said to be more specifically the early name for the valley located therein, while Muslim scholars generally use it to refer to the sacred area of the city that immediately surrounds and includes theKaaba.[2][8][9]

The form Bakkah is used for the name Mecca in the Quran in 3:96, while the form Mecca is used in 48:24.[7][10] InSouth Arabic, the language in use in the southern portion of the Arabian Peninsula at the time of Muhammad, theb and m were interchangeable.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkah

3=What is Petra
Petra fits the bill for the Thamud, who were the descendents of the people of ‘Ad and in secular literature are called the Nabataeans. Thamud were the people who excelled in hewing mansions in the mountains and Petra is indeed the most spectacular example of that and as a result has been named a world wonder. Thamud, according to the Holy Quran were destroyed by earthquake. A big earthquake in 363 is known to have destroyed half of the town of Petra.
https://webcache.googleusercontent....tioned-in-the-holy-quran/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk

d) Provide me some non-Islamic evidence that Mecca existed in the time of Muhammad.
"Surprising as it may seem, not one map before 900 AD even mentions Mecca. This is 300 years after Muhammad’s death" .......
.......

Many references from non-Muslim sources are provided in following quotes:

1= The beginnings of Mecca is attributed to Ishmael's descendants. The Old Testament chapter Psalm 84:3–6, and a mention of a pilgrimage at theValley of Baca, that Muslims see as referring to the mentioning of Mecca as Bakkah in Quran Surah 3:96. Also the Greek historian Diodorus Siculus who lived between 60 BCE and 30 BCE writes about the isolated region of Arabia in his work Bibliotheca historica describing a holy shrine that Muslims see as referring to the Kaaba at Mecca "And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians".[28]Ptolemy has sometimes been alleged to have called the Mecca "Macoraba", though this identification is controversial.[29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#Early_history

[28]Translated by C H Oldfather, Diodorus Of Sicily, Volume II, William Heinemann Ltd., London & Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MCMXXXV, p. 217.


Some time in the 5th century, the Kaaba was a place of worship for the deities of Arabia's pagan tribes. Mecca's most important pagan deity wasHubal, which had been placed there by the ruling Quraysh tribe[33][34] and remained until the 7th century.

In the 5th century, the Quraysh took control of Mecca, and became skilled merchants and traders. In the 6th century they joined the lucrative spice trade as well, since battles in other parts of the world were causing trade routes to divert from the dangerous sea routes to the more secure overland routes. The Byzantine Empire had previously controlled the Red Sea, but piracy had been on the increase. Another previous route that ran through the Persian Gulf via the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, was also being threatened by exploitations from the Sassanid Empire, as well as being disrupted by the Lakhmids, the Ghassanids, and the Roman–Persian Wars. Mecca's prominence as a trading center also surpassed the cities of Petra and Palmyra.[35][36] The Sassanids however did not always pose a threat to Mecca as in 575 CE they actually protected the Arabian city from invasion of the Kingdom of Axum, led by its Christian leaderAbraha. The tribes of the southern Arabia, asked the Persian king Khosrau I for aid, in response to which he came south to Arabia with both foot-soldiers and a fleet of ships into Mecca. The Persian intervention prevented Christianity from spreading eastward into Arabia, and Mecca and the Islamic prophet Muhammad who was at the time a six-year-old boy in the Quraysh tribe "would not grow up under the cross."[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#Early_history




2=(Ptolemy’s World Map Mentioning Mecca in Hejaz )

https://fayezthezealot.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/makkah-historical-mecca-during-pre-islamic-period/

 

[icehorse]

'Religion' is a very broad term, how much of 'religion' do you see as a problem?
How do you propose solving 'religion'?

Hey Augustus,

We've both seen many debates here. No matter what is done to try to define religion, apologists will shift the definitions. So the religious themselves won't define religion.

That said, as an over-simplification, sometimes religion can be okay (e.g. Amish, Jains, others), and sometimes religion can be quite disruptive (e.g. Christianity and Islam). I agree with one of Harris's points here, it's really a bit of a misnomer to put Jainism and Islam in the same category. In practice, the religions that need fixing are the ones in which religious folks use religion as a tool for other gains such as power over others, or financial gain. Some specific examples would be rich churches such as the RC church. Or religions that promote supremacism, blasphemy laws, misogyny, and/or anti-semitism - these are all power grabs.

 

[Augustus]

In practice, the religions that need fixing are the ones in which religious folks use religion as a tool for other gains such as power over others, or financial gain. Some specific examples would be rich churches such as the RC church. Or religions that promote supremacism, blasphemy laws, misogyny, and/or anti-semitism - these are all power grabs.

So you are happy to say Christianity and Islam in general are a problem, rather than certain interpretations?

What is your solution?

 

[icehorse]

So you are happy to say Christianity and Islam in general are a problem, rather than certain interpretations?
What is your solution?

When ANY religious folks use their religion as a tool for greed or power, that's when that religion becomes a problem. Historical evidence shows us that Christianity and Islam have the worst records in this regard. It would appear from centuries of evidence that many interpretations of these two religions lend themselves to nefarious purposes.

As Confucius would advise, the first step is to acknowledge and name the problem. We see endless debates on RF and around the world in which the religious will not admit that the histories of their own religions are horrible. We see endless buck-passing maneuvers. I think that one aspect of religion that causes problems in the first place and also makes honest analysis hard, is that religions make extraordinary claims for themselves, so self-reflection and evolution are antithetical to them.

 

[Augustus]

When ANY religious folks use their religion as a tool for greed or power, that's when that religion becomes a problem. Historical evidence shows us that Christianity and Islam have the worst records in this regard. It would appear from centuries of evidence that many interpretations of these two religions lend themselves to nefarious purposes.

This is just what people do though. People are greedy and like power. Of course they have had terrible histories, all societies do, including the secular ones.

You are comparing them to a baseline of zero, rather than a baseline of the total of human society. How do you make the case that they were worse than other contemporary societies?

As Confucius would advise, the first step is to acknowledge and name the problem. We see endless debates on RF and around the world in which the religious will not admit that the histories of their own religions are horrible. We see endless buck-passing maneuvers. I think that one aspect of religion that causes problems in the first place and also makes honest analysis hard, is that religions make extraordinary claims for themselves, so self-reflection and evolution are antithetical to them.

And the counterpart to the apologist is the critic of religion without recourse to context.

Also the idea that self- reflection and evolution are antithetical to religion is a crude stereotype. Religions are remarkably adaptable which is why many of them have survived so well.

 

[icehorse]

This is just what people do though. People are greedy and like power. Of course they have had terrible histories, all societies do, including the secular ones.

Well Jains would be one exception. Once again, I'm not laying all the blame at the feet of religion. Of course I agree that many people are greedy and like power - independent of religion. The point is that Christianity and Islam make it far easier for these folks to implement their greed and power. The scriptures lend themselves to those who are greedy or seek power - it's a match made in ...

Also the idea that self- reflection and evolution are antithetical to religion is a crude stereotype. Religions are remarkably adaptable which is why many of them have survived so well.

They tend to be reactive, not proactive. Are you going to contend that the rise of science over the last several hundred years hasn't caused Christianity to give ground and react? And they tend to drag their feet, giving ground only when overwhelming popular opinion forces them to do so. If you disagree, name a few recent instances in which religion led the charge to social improvement or reform.