Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Summarized Proof for Islam

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    A Summarized Proof for Islam



    Introduction

    All praise is due to Allah Lord of the worlds, and peace be upon our noble messenger Muhammed ﷺ. What follows is a summarized proof for Islam, simplified for average readers.

    The key to Islam is the testimony of faith, which is to bear witness that there is only One God and that Muhammed ﷺ is His messenger. Accordingly, the foundational claims of Islam are three: that God exists, that God is One, that Muhammed ﷺ is a prophet of God.


    Section 1 - The World is Emergent

    The existence of God is established by realizing that the bodies that make up the observable world around us, are all emergent. This necessitates the existence of a being that brought them into existence.

    “Emergent” meaning: their existence is preceded by their non-existence. In other words, they began to exist. That which is emergent will be called an “event”.

    “Body” meaning: that with dimensions (a height, width or depth) stretched out in space. Like stars, planets, mountains, oceans, plants, animals, humans...etc.

    All bodies are emergent because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being the existence of a body that is beginningless.

    It is impossible for a beginningless body to exist, because a body is inseparable from either the state of motion, or the state of rest. Meaning: it is impossible for a body to be neither at rest nor moving. So if a beginningless body existed, it would either have been:
    1. moving for eternity past
    2. at rest for eternity past
    3. alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

    All three of the above is impossible, and that which entails impossibility is impossible. So it is impossible for a beginningless body to exist. Proof for the impossibility of each category follows below.

    (1) a body that was moving for eternity past

    This is impossible because the state of motion exists contingently for a body. Meaning: a body that is moving, could have been not-moving. Since the state of motion exists contingently, this means it was brought into existence by some specifier that selected motion over the possible alternative. And since the state of motion was brought into existence, it could not have been beginningless. Therefore a body moving for eternity past is impossible.

    It is also impossible for a body to have been moving for eternity past, because motion is the body changing its location over time. Every transition from one location to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past. And since the number of events in the past is finite, it is the case that the state of motion is emergent.



    The statement: “it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past” is true because “infinite” is equivalent to endlessness, while “completed” is equivalent to coming to an end. Therefore, an infinite sequence of events cannot be completed, since that is contradictory. It is like saying an endlessness came to an end. For this same reason, it is impossible for someone to finish counting all the negative numbers and finally reach zero. There’s an infinite number of negative numbers, you cannot “finish” counting them all.

    (2) a body that was at rest for eternity past

    This is impossible for the same two reasons the first category was impossible.

    The state of rest exists contingently. A body that is at rest, could have been not-resting. Accordingly, the state of rest could not have been beginningless.

    It is also impossible for a body to be at rest for eternity past, because rest is the body maintaining its same location over time. Every moment the body remains at rest in, is an event in time. And it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

    (3) a body that was alternating between motion and rest for eternity past

    This is impossible because each alternation from one state to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past.

    Therefore, All Bodies are Emergent

    Given the impossibility of the three categories, it is the case that all bodies are emergent. This means all those bodies that make up the world around us - the sun, the moon, the trees..etc. - began to exist. From there, we can deduce the existence of God.


    Section 2 - The Existence of God

    “God” meaning: the beginningless creator.

    The emergence of all bodies necessitates the existence of a being that brought those bodies into existence. Let’s call this being “the creator”, since this being brings things into existence (and this is what “create” means).

    The creator that brought those bodies into existence is either without beginning, or is emergent.

    If the creator is without beginning, then the existence of God is established. Since a beginningless creator is what we intend when we say “God”.

    If the creator is emergent, then this creator would itself be contingent upon a second creator to have brought it into existence. This could not have regressed to the past infinitely, as that necessitates the completion of an infinite number of past events (which is impossible, as detailed above). It is therefore the case that a beginningless creator necessarily exist.

    Therefore, God necessarily exists.

    It is also necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with the ability to bring the emergent world into existence. Otherwise, there would be no sense in Him being the “Creator”. This ability to bring things into existence is what we call “Power”.

    God also, cannot be a mechanical cause for the existence of the world (such that the effect only exists because the cause exists), since God is beginningless while the world is emergent (a beginningless mechanical cause, would instead yield a beginningless effect). It is therefore necessary that the Creator of the emergent world be attributed with a quality that allows Him to select existence for this specific world (with all its specific properties) over the possible alternatives. This attribute is what is called “Will”.

    God is also necessarily attributed with Knowledge. In order for a being to volitionally select one choice over others, this being must possess knowledge of those choices. As such, it is impossible for a being attributed with Will to not also be attributed with Knowledge. And since the Creator is necessarily attributed with Will, He is therefore necessarily attributed with Knowledge.


    Section 3 - God is One

    God is necessarily One because the alternative is absurd. The alternative being a multiplicity of creators.

    If there was a second creator, then this second creator would either:
    1. be able to disagree with the first creator.
    2. be unable to disagree with the first creator.

    Both of the categories listed above are impossible. And that which entails impossibility is impossible. So if we can demonstrate the impossibility of the two categories, we can demonstrate the impossibility of partnership to the Creator.

    (1) The second creator is able to disagree with the first creator

    This is impossible because possibilities are mutually exclusive with their negations. So if the two creators could disagree with one another, this would lead to contradiction.

    For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could disagree: this means one creator can move the body, while the other creator can keep the body at rest. Obviously however, this body cannot be both at rest and in motion (since rest and motion are mutually exclusive).

    (2) the second creator is unable to disagree with the first creator

    This is impossible because it means this second creator is forced to agree with the other. This entails contingency, which is impossible for a beginningless Creator who is necessarily non-contingent.

    For example: suppose there were two creators, and suppose the existence of some body. If we believe that those creators could not disagree: this means that if the first creator moved the body, the second creator cannot keep the body at rest. This second creator is helpless, weaker than the first, and forced to comply with what the first creator decides. It means this second creator’s will and power have been specified by the will and power of the first creator, and this is impossible.

    Therefore, God is One

    The impossibility of both categories was demonstrated above. Therefore, it is impossible for there to exist a partner to the One Creator. All events that emerge into existence, emerge by this One Creator’s Will and Power, and no one else’s.


    Section 4 - Prophethood

    God can choose to reveal certain commandments to a single man so that this man can then deliver those commandments to the rest of mankind. This is possible for God to do (not necessary nor impossible). This man would be called a prophet.

    To convince mankind that a claimant to prophethood is truthful, God can aid this prophet with miracles. A miracle is an extraordinary event that God aids His prophet with in order to prove this prophet’s truthfulness to doubters. It is equivalent to God saying: “this man has told the truth about Me.” As such, if we know a miracle occurred for some claimant to prophethood, then we can know that this claimant to prophethood is truthful. A useful analogy to help conceptualize this:

    Imagine you were attending an important gathering at the Royal Palace. In the throne-room, you see the King sitting atop his throne. Surrounding the King are his guards, his viziers, as well as the noblemen of the kingdom.

    Suddenly a Stranger enters the throne-room, and begins offering a declaration to the crowd in a loud and clear voice. Everyone else falls silent and listens to this Stranger’s speech. The Stranger begins: “O people, I am a messenger from your King to you.” The Stranger points to the King, who is sitting on the throne in front of him. The Stranger continues: “The words which I will speak to you are not my own, but are the words of your King who sent me. Whatever I command, I command in your King’s name. And whatever I forbid, I forbid in your King’s name.”

    You notice that the King is silently sitting on his throne. The King is looking directly at this Stranger. He can clearly hear this Stranger make those claims. With a gesture of his hand, the King could order the guards to seize this Stranger and behead him where he stands to prove that he is a liar. But the King does not do that. The King continues to silently listen to the Stranger’s declaration.

    The Stranger continues: “Whoever obeys those commandments which I will deliver to you from your King, the King has promised to reward graciously tomorrow morning. And whoever disobeys those commandments, the King has threatened to behead tomorrow morning…”

    The King is still silently listening to the Stranger make his claims.

    The Stranger finishes his declaration by saying: “…And to prove that I really am a messenger from the King, the King has told me that he would stand up and then sit down three times consecutively after I complete this sentence.”

    Once the Stranger completes this sentence, all eyes turn to the King. Suddenly the King - and without uttering a word to the crowd - stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down, then stands up then sits down.

    Now we ask: at this moment, and after witnessing what transpired in this gathering, can there be any doubt that this Stranger is a true messenger from the King? No. The sincere truth-seeker would hold no doubt. Even if the King verbally declared “He is my messenger” then this would not have been any more convincing. Rather, an observer to this scene would attain certainty that the Stranger was a messenger from the King.

    The King standing up and sitting down three times consecutively, was an extraordinary event that occurred upon the request of the Stranger who claimed to have been a messenger from the King. By knowing that this extraordinary event occurred, one attains certainty that this Stranger was indeed telling the truth. Similarly, we can be certain that a claimant to prophethood is truthful if this claimant is aided by an extraordinary event (i.e. a miracle).


    Section 5 - The Prophethood of Muhammed

    We can know with certainty that Muhammed ﷺ is a Prophet of God. This knowledge is established by Mass Transmitted proofs.

    Information relayed to us by Mass Transmission provides certainty because it is inconceivable for those relaying this information to all get together and conspire to tell the same lie. For example: a man today might not have personally visited Japan. However, this man can be certain that a country called Japan actually exists. This is because the information relayed to this man about Japan reached him from so many different sources, that it becomes inconceivable for all those people to have gotten together in a grand conspiracy to lie about the existence of Japan.

    We know Muhammed ﷺ claimed prophethood by Mass Transmission.

    We know Muhammed ﷺ is a true Prophet for several reasons, all supported by Mass Transmission. Three of which include:

    5.1 The Quran

    Muhammed ﷺ was aided with the Quran, which is a miracle in its own right. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

    The Quran is a literary miracle. The language of the Quran is unlike any other Arabic text. Linguistically, it is vastly superior to anything that came before it, and vastly superior to everything that came after.

    The non-Arabic speaker might not be able to directly appreciate why the Quran is linguistically miraculous, but they can indirectly deduce this by considering the following facts:

    First: the Quran challenges the reader to produce a Chapter like it . This is a challenge that the Quran lays out for anyone who doubts its miraculousness. We know for certain that the Quran actually made this challenge, because we know the Quran has been preserved throughout history. We know it has been preserved, because it reached us by way of Mass Transmission.

    Second: the Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were expert poets. Likely, the best in the Arabic language in all of history. The Arabic language became diluted over time as Islam spread around the world. Non-Arabs learning Arabic were often not as proficient as native speakers, and quirky dialects for the language emerged all over the Muslim world. It is unlikely that Arabic - as a commonly spoken language - will ever return to the pristine condition it once enjoyed during the years of pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabia. All of the above is known by Mass Transmission. To this day, Arabic linguists use pre-Islamic and early Islamic poetry as a template for grammatical and linguistic rules.

    Third: the pagan Arabs of Muhammed’s ﷺ time were heavily invested in destroying Islam, and disproving the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. This is also known by Mass transmission. It is common knowledge that Muhammed ﷺ fought many wars against the Pagans.

    From the above, one can deduce the following: if the pagan Arabs were truly capable of fulfilling the Quranic challenge, and given their extreme desire to destroy Islam, they would have saved themselves the time, money, and manpower, and they would have simply cooperated with each other in order to produce a text which rivaled the Quran linguistically. But they did not, and Islam ultimately prevailed (this is also known by Mass Transmission). And this is despite the poetic proficiency of the pagan Arabs.

    With the above, the miraculousness of the Quran’s language can be appreciated, even by the non-Arabic speaker.

    5.2 Physical Miracles

    Muhammed ﷺ was aided by many physical miracles. Miracles including accurately prophesying future events, multiplication of food and water, and instantaneously healing wounds. In totality, there are hundreds upon hundreds of different narrations reporting the miracles Muhammed ﷺ was aided with.

    All those miracles, when taken collectively, provide Mass Transmitted proof that Muhammed ﷺ was aided by some miracle. And a claimant to prophethood, who is aided by a miracle, is certainly a prophet.

    5.3 His Life

    The Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ can also be established by considering his life.

    Either Muhammed ﷺ was sincere, or he was a liar. “Sincere” meaning: he truly believed that he was recieving revelation from God. “Liar” meaning: he knew that he was not receiving revelation from God, and deliberately lied by claiming that he was.

    The second option (that he was a deliberate liar) is certainly false, so the first (that he was sincere) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ refused bribery and suffered through hardship in order to deliver the message of Islam. Muhammed ﷺ suffered persecution in Mecca. He risked his life fighting many wars to defend the cause of Islam. He also lived humbly, spending all his wealth to serve the religion. Those are not the qualities of a liar.

    We can only conclude that Muhammed ﷺ was - at the very least - personally convinced that he was a Prophet.

    Given Muhammed’s ﷺ sincerity: either he was a true Prophet, or he was madman. “True Prophet” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, and he actually was communicating with God. “Madman” meaning: He truly believed to have been communicating with God, but he actually was not communicating with God (i.e. he was a madman who was just hearing voices in his head, a man who thought himself a prophet when he actually wasn’t).

    The second option (that he was a madman) is certainly false, so the first (that he was a true Prophet) is certainly true. We know the second option is false, because we know (by Mass Transmission) that Muhammed ﷺ was an exceedingly successful man. To assume he was successful because of his madness (i.e. because of the voices in his head) is especially ludicrous. Muhammed ﷺ started out his life as an orphan without anything, and ended his life as ruler over all of Arabia. He was a military genius, diplomat and the leader of a successful nation. His Companions were able to - thanks to his leadership and example - conquer the two super powers of the world in their time (the Sassanids, and the Byzantines).

    It is inconceivable that someone as successful as Muhammed ﷺ was a madman. It is especially inconceivable that such a man was successful because of his madness. Therefore, we can only conclude that he truly was a Prophet of God.


    Section 6 - The Rest of Revelation

    Now that the existence and Oneness of God was established, and the Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ was established, it becomes incumbent upon the sane and mature person to affirm everything that can be reliably traced back to Prophet Muhammed ﷺ.

    The sane and mature person must believe in: the finality of prophethood with Prophet Muhammed ﷺ, the day of resurrection, in the eternal reward for the believers, in the eternal punishment of the disbelievers, as well as belief in anything else that can be reliably traced back to the Prophet ﷺ.

    The sane and mature thinker must also submit to the Law that the Prophet ﷺ delivered from Allah سبحانه و تعالى (the name of God according to revelation), and instructed mankind to abide by.


    Conclusion

    The three core claims that the Islamic faith is founded upon have been proven above. The three claims being: the existence of God, the Oneness of God, and the prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. Examining the arguments offered above in more depth, can also provide proof against many of the false religions in the world today.

    And Allah سبحانه و تعالى is the one who guides and leads astray. With His mercy, He guides whomsoever He wills from the darkness of disbelief and ignorance, to the light of faith and knowledge.

    #2
    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

    This needs to be sticky.
    “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded? And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming.” Quran 45:23-24

    Comment


      #3
      Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

      bump
      “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded? And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming.” Quran 45:23-24

      Comment


        #4
        Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

        asalamu alaikum - peace - shalom

        the proof of islam and god is the quran, it has many scientific miracles in it that were revealed to prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago. a time when there were no telescopes, or microscopes and any other geological or oceanic equipment to find out scientific evidences. yet the quran is accurate in the fields of embryology, geology, oceanography and other scientific fields. evidences that could not have been discovered by an unlettered prophet and people of the time 1400 years ago. evidences that have only come to light through science in the last century. this proves that the quran is the word of god and that islam is the truth.

        wasalam - peace - shalom

        Comment


          #5
          Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

          Originally posted by cloud9 View Post
          asalamu alaikum - peace - shalom

          the proof of islam and god is the quran, it has many scientific miracles in it that were revealed to prophet Muhammad 1400 years ago. a time when there were no telescopes, or microscopes and any other geological or oceanic equipment to find out scientific evidences. yet the quran is accurate in the fields of embryology, geology, oceanography and other scientific fields. evidences that could not have been discovered by an unlettered prophet and people of the time 1400 years ago. evidences that have only come to light through science in the last century. this proves that the quran is the word of god and that islam is the truth.

          wasalam - peace - shalom
          Wa Alaykum Al-Salam,

          I have expressed my dislike of the “scientific miracles” approach before, but will repeat myself here. I find this argument weak for three main reasons:

          -1- Ambiguity in the texts used. The vast majority of the verses that some Da'ees cite in order to support the scientific miracles argument are vague, and afford more than one interpretation. In fact those verses have historically been interpreted differently to how those Da'ees interpret them today. In this sense, the scientific miracles argument is a circular one. The Da'ee will insist that the correct interpretation of those verses is the one in line with the scientific theory, but they never give any real reasons for this. They’re just trying to squeeze the science into the verse in order to support their thesis.

          Another evidence for the above is the fact that most of those scientific discoveries are actually the achievements of non-Muslims. So after the Kafir discovers the science, the Muslims come along and try to interpret the Quran in light of it. If the Quran was clear in its description of scientific phenomena- as the Da'ees claim- you’d expect Muslims to be the ones doing the discovering.

          -2- Science changes. Science is ever changing, and some of the scientific theories being attributed to the Quran are actually not set in stone. What will those Da'ees do when it is discovered that the science they’re attributing to the Quran turns out to be false? What impression does this give to the non-Muslim being invited to the faith? What impression does this give to the convert who accepts Islam on the basis of those scientific theories?

          -3- The inconsistent cherry picking from science. The Da'ee only takes the science that suites him, and leaves the science that doesn’t serve his agenda. If science is to be used as the standard by which the truth of the Quran is established, more consistency is expected. For example: from a purely scientific standpoint, the evidence for the theory of evolution is just as good (if not stronger) than the evidence for the big bang theory… but the Da'ee will dismiss the theory of evolution on the basis that it is “just a theory”, while confidently claiming that the Quran so clearly talks about the big bang theory.

          For the above reasons, and others, I find the scientific miracles argument extremely weak. From my experience (watching and reading back and forth discussions between Muslims and opponents who are familiar with the science) I also find that it often makes the Muslim side look bad, ruining the image of Islam in the process.

          I also disagree that a miracle - on its own- is proof for God’s existence. Only after you have proven that God exists, and that God is the creator of all events, that you can then use a miracle to prove the prophethood of the claimant to prophethood. Arguing for the occurrence of a miracle without first establishing God’s existence doesn’t achieve anything, for the same reason “the god of the gaps” doesn’t achieve anything. That is apart from the fact that using a miracle to prove God’s existence is circular reasoning (“God exists because God created this extraordinary event”).

          Comment


            #6
            Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

            Assalamu alaykom ,

            Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
            -1- Ambiguity in the texts used. The vast majority of the verses that some Da'ees cite in order to support the scientific miracles argument are vague, and afford more than one interpretation. In fact those verses have historically been interpreted differently to how those Da'ees interpret them today. In this sense, the scientific miracles argument is a circular one. The Da'ee will insist that the correct interpretation of those verses is the one in line with the scientific theory, but they never give any real reasons for this. They’re just trying to squeeze the science into the verse in order to support their thesis.
            Well unless the Prophet(saws) interpreted a certain verse in a specific way, then isn't it possible to interpret certain verses which allude to scientific advancements? I have heard certain Du'at say that science can assist our view of scripture. I am in no way suggesting to adjust the Qur'an or misrepresent / twist the ayat, but if certain words have multiple meanings, and one of those meanings is in tune with what we have recently discovered, then can we not say that perhaps Allah is alluding to this? As long as we are within the confines of language, and remaining within context, then why should we not? Allah does speak on many issues which have to do with our 'reality/science'..

            I do however agree that some Du'at / websites appear to be reading in too much, and I dislike that. The most important thing is not to misrepresent the Qur'an and innovate in to the religion. The Religion does not need this, but it is something nice, if true. The Qur'an is a book of signs, which point directly to Allah Subhanahu wa ta'ala.

            Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
            Another evidence for the above is the fact that most of those scientific discoveries are actually the achievements of non-Muslims. So after the Kafir discovers the science, the Muslims come along and try to interpret the Quran in light of it. If the Quran was clear in its description of scientific phenomena- as the Da'ees claim- you’d expect Muslims to be the ones doing the discovering.
            I personally believe that is irrelevant. I , and many others, could care less who discovers the science. The interesting part is that it is mentioned in a book 1400 years ago which claims to be divine revelation from Allah.

            Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
            -2- Science changes. Science is ever changing, and some of the scientific theories being attributed to the Quran are actually not set in stone. What will those Da'ees do when it is discovered that the science they’re attributing to the Quran turns out to be false? What impression does this give to the non-Muslim being invited to the faith? What impression does this give to the convert who accepts Islam on the basis of those scientific theories?
            I totally agree. I believe the science aspect can not be a foundational proof or reasoning, but it can be used as a sign along with other signs which would cause one to believe in the claim. It must be clear that the Qur'an is not a book of science, it never claims to be. It is a book of guidance, direct revelation from the Creator, and within that book Allah has provided signs - Clear verses / signs

            وَإِذَا تُتۡلَىٰ عَلَيۡهِمۡ ءَايَـٰتُنَا بَيِّنَـٰتٍ۬ تَعۡرِفُ فِى وُجُوهِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ ٱلۡمُنڪَرَ*ۖ

            And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, you recognize in the faces of those who disbelieve disapproval. [22:72]

            Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
            -3- The inconsistent cherry picking from science. The Da'ee only takes the science that suites him, and leaves the science that doesn’t serve his agenda. If science is to be used as the standard by which the truth of the Quran is established, more consistency is expected. For example: from a purely scientific standpoint, the evidence for the theory of evolution is just as good (if not stronger) than the evidence for the big bang theory… but the Da'ee will dismiss the theory of evolution on the basis that it is “just a theory”, while confidently claiming that the Quran so clearly talks about the big bang theory.
            .
            This quote would be completely true if the Da'ee made modern science as his yardstick, as if, science is completely correct in every single aspect, and the Qur'an must conform to modern scientific theories. The Qur'an is greater in weighting (Greater source) than scientific opinion is.

            I do however agree that the Du'at may cherry pick certain verses when there are other verses we are left to stay silent on, just as Muslims in the past stayed silent on, which we later came to find out, that they are completely coherent with the Qur'an..


            I think I understand what you mean in general, but I believe the example of evolution is incorrect and I will explain why I believe that.

            Macro evolution of Homo sapiens is contrary to the Qur'anic narrative. We believe in the story of Adam as being a supernatural event. Science will never conform to the idea that Allah created Adam with His Two Hands in Paradise, just as it will never empirically prove the existence of God. We believe in God as a supernatural entity who is not apart of the material world. Adam was created in the unseen, outside of the empirical realm as we know it. Therefore, this is a matter of pure unseen theology as oppose to examinable science. It can never be 'proven', it is to be believed.

            Just on a further note, in hopes to dispel any doubts for any brothers/sisters reading. Science is based founded on naturalism. Just because the scientist assume something to be the best possible explanation, doesn't at all make that thing true. We as Muslims, have something greater than the assumption of a purely natural origin. From their perspective, evolution (Macro evolution of Humans) makes sense. If we were to assume naturalism, I could totally see and perhaps agree that evolution is the best possible explanation. In reality, it is a theory, we do not have absolute evidence, and neither I am entirely concerned with their evidences. The Qur'an is greater as far as 'weighting' of knowledge is concerned and the creation of Adam was not a natural event, and thus, outside the scope of science.


            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


            How do you define miracle? And how do you use it with regards to the Qur'an? Does your definition of miracle, only apply to the Qur'an being a linguistic miracle?


            Thank you for your time, awaiting to read a response, if you so wish.

            Comment


              #7
              Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

              Wa Alaykum Al-Salam,

              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
              Well unless the Prophet(saws) interpreted a certain verse in a specific way, then isn't it possible to interpret certain verses which allude to scientific advancements? I have heard certain Du'at say that science can assist our view of scripture.
              Sure. It would be possible to interpret a verse in such a way. However, the most you can say is that this a possible interpretation of the verse in question. You wouldn’t be justified in claiming that this is necessarily how that verse is to be interpreted. And if you can’t claim that this is necessarily the intended interpretation, then I don’t see how that constitutes an argument for anything.

              The entire point of the “scientific miracles” approach is to argue that the intended meaning behind a particular verse, alludes to recently discovered science. If you cannot prove that this is actually the intended meaning, then you have no argument.

              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
              I personally believe that is irrelevant. I , and many others, could care less who discovers the science. The interesting part is that it is mentioned in a book 1400 years ago which claims to be divine revelation from Allah.
              The point was: if the text was clearly referring to undiscovered science, as some Da’ees claim, one would expect Muslims to be the ones doing the discovering by extracting scientific knowledge from the Quran. The fact that this is often not the case, is evidence that Muslims are only reading those theories into the Quran.

              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
              This quote would be completely true if the Da'ee made modern science as his yardstick, as if, science is completely correct in every single aspect, and the Qur'an must conform to modern scientific theories. The Qur'an is greater in weighting (Greater source) than scientific opinion is.
              The Da’ee who uses this approach is arguing that the Quran conforms with modern science, therefore the Quran is true. Science is being used as the yardstick.

              If you’re just going to pick and choose then how is this an argument at all? This would be tantamount to assuming that the Quran is true, and then trying to find after-the-fact justifications to support this assumption. You would be (in essence) assuming the truth of the thing you’re trying to prove, before actually proving it.

              Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
              How do you define miracle? And how do you use it with regards to the Qur'an? Does your definition of miracle, only apply to the Qur'an being a linguistic miracle?
              I defined miracle under section 4 of the OP.

              Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
              A miracle is an extraordinary event that God aids His prophet with in order to prove this prophet’s truthfulness to doubters. It is equivalent to God saying: “this man has told the truth about Me.”
              As for how it is used with regards to the Quran: mainly linguistically, but that’s not to say that the content can't be miraculous. There is also the prophesying of future events, the reporting of history that was unknown during the time of the Prophet… maybe even some scientific miracles (if the texts are explicit and if the science isn’t speculative)…

              More generally, I prefer the route of arguing for the truth of the Quran by arguing for the Prophethood of Muhammed ﷺ. That is to say: given Muhammed’s ﷺ prophethood, and given that the Quran can be reliably traced back to him, this suffices as proof for the authority of the Quran.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                [MENTION=116078]Identical[/MENTION] read the OP
                “Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded? And they say, “There is not but our worldly life; we die and live, and nothing destroys us except time.” And they have of that no knowledge; they are only assuming.” Quran 45:23-24

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                  [MENTION=127736]karkooshy[/MENTION]

                  Assalamu alaykom

                  I am using a phone at the moment , so I will not be able to quote you properly without some difficulty..

                  I was curious about your usage of the term "Scientific Miracle" but I also see that you said "maybe" , which means you are not certain.

                  If the Quran does mention something which could not have been examined 1400 years ago , and those things are coherent with reality - can we call that a miracle? Is that correct terminology? (Can't Christians bring certain texts themselves?) --- > coming back to cherry picking verses here.

                  How do you understand the word 'sign' , which Allah makes mention that he will provide for his religion as He did for previous Prophets..?

                  Is it not correct to say that the science is a sign , rather than a miracle? I am a little confused myself between the two terms.

                  :jkk:

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                    was curious about your usage of the term "Scientific Miracle"
                    The claim that the Quran describes a wide range of scientific phenomena that could not have been known to the Prophet ﷺ due to their being only recent discoveries. And this is as such, evidence for its divine origin.

                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                    If the Quran does mention something which could not have been examined 1400 years ago , and those things are coherent with reality - can we call that a miracle? Is that correct terminology?
                    Yes. Since that would be extraordinary. But the proposed conditions are that this “thing” be true with certainty, and that the verses cited be explicit and non-ambiguous (such that we can be certain that this was the intended meaning behind the verse).

                    The examples given by the Da’ees who utilize the scientific miracles approach do not satisfy the aforementioned conditions as far as I’m aware. Which is why i said “maybe”. If they did, then that would be great.

                    Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                    How do you understand the word 'sign' , which Allah makes mention that he will provide for his religion as He did for previous Prophets..?
                    Anything which serves as proof for the claims of Islam. Whether it be the world around us (by which we can infer the existence and oneness of God), or the miracles that prophets are aided with (by which we can infer that they are true messengers from Allah ﷻ).

                    سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ
                    We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                      Assalamu alaykom

                      I am curious to hear your perspective on this.

                      Originally posted by karkooshy View Post

                      Anything which serves as proof for the claims of Islam. Whether it be the world around us (by which we can infer the existence and oneness of God), or the miracles that prophets are aided with (by which we can infer that they
                      Considering the fact that there is a difference between a miracle and a sign( Though all miracles are signs ).. Then could one say that a 'sign' could not be used as a decisive proof to establish / claim the truth of Islam?

                      I could understand why the Mutakalimoon use the linguistic miracle to prove the validity of the claim as oppose to other signs, in order to keep a strong and coherent argument.

                      In that case I could see why we would have to say that the Scientific Miracles in the Quran, in one aspect , is a weak argument because it is not completely coherent. I believe it could serve as a sign which would cause someone to be persuaded to the truth of Islam through common sense and a sound reflection. More of an additional reason as oppose to an overall coherent claim.

                      Do you argue that the preservation of the Quran is a miracle ? Or would you say it is a sign , which gives weight to the argument (belief) that Allah did reveal this region?


                      ---------------------------------------------------

                      I believe everything has its time and place. Certain arguments will be received better by certain types of people.

                      I agree with the majority of your OP, and I do believe it is sound and a strong proof for Islam. I also agree that the truthfulness / Character of the Prophet(s) is proof for him being a Messenger..

                      ^ But do you think it is a persuasive argument for the general people? Stubborn people will not become Muslim because the Qur'an was unchallenged in Arabia.. They will also argue that the ahadith tradition could possibly be a conspiracy and Muslims had intentions to boost the Prophet to promote a new religion. Don't you think , as far as people just want to see a more 'tangible' daleel (the masses of people) then using Preservation , God's speech in first person , Numerical miracles, Science, Tawhid, clear Prophecies, as stronger as far as convincing is concerned?

                      I am aware that this thread is called a summarized proof , which serves a specific purpose / intent.


                      Excuse my typos , I can not edit much on the phone , inshallah the message is conveyed.
                      Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 23-06-17, 01:42 PM.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                        [MENTION=127736]karkooshy[/MENTION]

                        I could not edit my post within time , I just wanted to make sure my point gets across.

                        Would you meet someone on the street and argue the linguistic miracle of the Quran to them , as your go to daleel? What about the truthfulness of the Prophet? And also do you find people converting to Islam based on the linguistic miracle of the Quran ? ( Non Arabs)

                        Thank you

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          Considering the fact that there is a difference between a miracle and a sign( Though all miracles are signs ).. Then could one say that a 'sign' could not be used as a decisive proof to establish / claim the truth of Islam?
                          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          In that case I could see why we would have to say that the Scientific Miracles in the Quran, in one aspect , is a weak argument because it is not completely coherent.
                          Probabilistic arguments are valuable (i.e. ones that do not reach decisive conclusions, but argue that a proposition is more likely to be true than not). However, if an argument is incoherent then I don’t see how it’s of any use. I don’t understand what you mean by “not completely coherent”… something is either coherent or it isn’t.

                          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          But do you think it is a persuasive argument for the general people? Stubborn people will not become Muslim because the Qur'an was unchallenged in Arabia
                          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          Would you meet someone on the street and argue the linguistic miracle of the Quran to them , as your go to daleel? What about the truthfulness of the Prophet? And also do you find people converting to Islam based on the linguistic miracle of the Quran ? ( Non Arabs)
                          Of course I think both are persuasive arguments… otherwise I wouldn’t have posted them lol

                          Yes, the linguistic miracle can be persuasive even to the non-Arabic speaker… if the three facts listed under section 5.1 are taken into consideration. You don’t need to understand Arabic to know that sane people would rather come together to write a short poem, than spend their wealth and risk their lives in war.

                          As for stubbornness: then know that you cannot convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced. I have personally had discussions with people who claimed to doubt the reality of the world around us, just to avoid the arguments for the existence of God. The Prophet ﷺ himself preached to the Meccans for over a decade, and many of them did not accept Islam… and how much lesser are we when compared to him ﷺ? This is just how things are in this world. Some people are sincere seekers of truth, others are not.

                          Originally posted by AmantuBillahi View Post
                          They will also argue that the ahadith tradition could possibly be a conspiracy and Muslims had intentions to boost the Prophet to promote a new religion.
                          The reliability of the tradition (and mass transmitted information more generally) is critical for some of the above arguments to hold. If the opponent criticizes the reliability of mass transmitted information, then their criticisms will be challenged. We’re not obliged to agree with them or submit that their position is a valid one just because they made the claim.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                            Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
                            Probabilistic arguments are valuable (i.e. ones that do not reach decisive conclusions, but argue that a proposition is more likely to be true than not). However, if an argument is incoherent then I don’t see how it’s of any use. I don’t understand what you mean by “not completely coherent”… something is either coherent or it isn’t.





                            Of course I think both are persuasive arguments… otherwise I wouldn’t have posted them lol

                            Yes, the linguistic miracle can be persuasive even to the non-Arabic speaker… if the three facts listed under section 5.1 are taken into consideration. You don’t need to understand Arabic to know that sane people would rather come together to write a short poem, than spend their wealth and risk their lives in war.

                            As for stubbornness: then know that you cannot convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced. I have personally had discussions with people who claimed to doubt the reality of the world around us, just to avoid the arguments for the existence of God. The Prophet ﷺ himself preached to the Meccans for over a decade, and many of them did not accept Islam… and how much lesser are we when compared to him ﷺ? This is just how things are in this world. Some people are sincere seekers of truth, others are not.



                            The reliability of the tradition (and mass transmitted information more generally) is critical for some of the above arguments to hold. If the opponent criticizes the reliability of mass transmitted information, then their criticisms will be challenged. We’re not obliged to agree with them or submit that their position is a valid one just because they made the claim.
                            When I discuss our Deen with non-believers who are opposed to our faith it is often hard to reach a common ground to start to reach them with the truth. The OP, has provided a decent way to archieve the basis for constructive discussion with those that are in some ways intellectually inclined.

                            However, on here and in talks with someone who has preconceived ideas of what we believe, an intellgent or intellectual discussion of the truth.

                            Even when others of differing views within Islam sometimes it is almost harder.

                            Recently I had a discussion with a dear brother that wants me to see how a 'moderate' view of Islam is what I should embrace. However, a 'moderate' view isn't something I can rectify with the Qur'an or Sunnah of the Prophst, peace be upon him.

                            In the USA, there is an alarming growth of this amongst some of the younger brothers and sisters. The 'moderate' view here is that some changes need to be made in our Deen to make it more 'inclusive':and the majority of these detract us from the real faith .

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: A Summarized Proof for Islam

                              Originally posted by karkooshy View Post
                              Probabilistic arguments are valuable (i.e. ones that do not reach decisive conclusions, but argue that a proposition is more likely to be true than not). However, if an argument is incoherent then I don’t see how it’s of any use. I don’t understand what you mean by “not completely coherent”… something is either coherent or it isn’t.
                              Right, that was an incorrect usage of "not completely coherent". The aim was to say 'not a decisive'.

                              The linguistic miracle/argument for the Qur'an is a very powerful and decisive proof for the Qur'an being from Allah(swt), and it certainly gives us assurance and confidence in the validity of the claim.

                              I have no intention to degrade the miracle at all, in fact, it is a Qur'anic claim, and an argument used by the Muslim scholars -- which has stood the test of time throughout the millennia. The reason why I do not come from such an angle, or that I use it as a 'side evidence', as oppose to using it as my most convincing evidence, is because I find the majority of people too stubborn to be moved by something which they can not examine with their own senses. Once again, I do not degrade the miracle, but I feel it requires a level of maturity and attention span that the overwhelming masses do not have.

                              I understand you have rebutted that by mentioning that this is a problem of insincere people, who the Prophet(as) had faced himself, which is completely true - but in all my speaking, and viewing converts to Islam, I have never met a single one who has said that they have become a Muslim because of the linguistic miracle of the Qur'an. Mind you, I am not saying people do not open the Qur'an and are not moved by the speech (translation) of Allah's Words. I mean the argument that the Qur'an can not be matched linguistically, and the proof for that being the incompetence of the pagan arabs, who were most qualified to meet such a challenge.


                              When I present Islam to others I often go through the method of offering the abundant amount of signs/qualities which Allah has provided to establish His religion as being true. This is along with explaining how the Qur'an meets the expectations of a book which we would perceive as being from God (Speak's in His Gods own Words, Uncorrupted , Non-Contradictory, Uniqueness)

                              I am not saying my route is necessarily better or worse, and mainly my dialogue with you was to only further benefit my own understanding. If you wish to rebut any of this, or further add anything, I would enjoy reading that. It is always a pleasure speaking with you.


                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              I don't know if you missed my question earlier or were busy with the other more relevant questions, but I am curious to know your take on this, because I have had discussions with non Muslims and my mind has somewhat changed on this matter ... What is your perspective on the oft-repeated claim that the Qur'an's preservation is a Miracle.

                              The sceptics I would speak to would rebut my claim of the Qur'an being a miracle due to it's preservation, by saying that the mere preservation of something does not necessarily make that thing divine / miracle. Which is actually true, if someone provides me something from the ancient world, and also provides the reasoning that such a thing has been preserved with a high degree of certainty - then surely, it would not move me to believe that such a thing was inspired by God.

                              I have now shifted my stance / terminology towards reasoning that this is a foundational expectation we would have of a scripture which is claimed as revelation from God, and a clear sign that it is from Allah. Certainly the method of the Qur'ans preservation is rather exceptional (Both in manuscript, and orally) , but also the uniqueness of the Qur'an being the only ancient Book claiming to be from God, with such a quality, only adds further proof for it being a sign from God.

                              I would like to know your take on the preservation of the Qur'an and what that necessarily entails from an argumentative standpoint.

                              Assalamu alaykom

                              Eid Mubarak
                              Last edited by AmantuBillahi; 25-06-17, 07:12 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X