I would reject them on the basis that there are simply no good reasons whatsoever to believe them. See Occam’s razor, and Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – principles essential to science but not limited in application to science.
What it comes down to is that science does not accept the truth of Islamic doctrine or Allah’s existence, but neither does it classify those as things it has proven or can prove to be false; rather, it is simply the case that every known scientific hypothesis or theory can get along without assuming those things. Even if God does not exist, how would you scientifically prove the non-existence of God – and, why should you try? The burden of proof is all on the theists here.
Plenty of theclaims attributed to Mohammed have been disproved by science, to a high degree of certainty, like his claim that he split the moon into two pieces. So if you accept the mainstream Islamic narrative that he said this, and that it was literal and not an allegory, you could conclude that he would either have to be deluded, or a liar, according to science. Of course you could also say that there is no decent scientific proof that he ever even said that to begin with.
Well, that doesn’t really matter, does it? The Bible also describes a lot of historical events, like Noah’s Flood or the Sun standing still over Jericho, that are scientifically impossible – unless we posit the existence of an omnipotent Being who can suspend or manipulate physical laws at any time, which the Bible does; either you buy that assumption or you don’t, but science can’t prove it false, only reject it as unproven. That’s the thing about science, it’s very careful about what it cannot confidently say – unlike many people who invoke science.
Well, that would be a matter of historical proof, which has different standards than scientific – but, in this case, persuasive historical proof certainly is lacking; AIUI, historians believe the Koran and Hadith in their present written form actually date from some decades after Mohammed died (just as the Gospels, both canonical and apocryphal, almost certainly date from decades after Jesus died).
For the Quran it is not some decades, but about one decade under the orders of the third caliphe. there is no historical reason to believe any very large changes occured as the standardization left no disputes (unlike many other things like succession etc).
the hadith, that is another matter and chaotic.
So, do you think there is some reliable historical (as distinct from scientific) proof that Mohammed claimed to have split the Moon in half, etc.?
I made no comment on the subject of the moon, I only was providing you with some correct information on the Quran.
I have never given this moon thing a single bit of thought in my life and have no opinion because of that.
If this is cited as evidence of secular tolerance it falls so laughably flat I could sooner see the moon split in two then find myself convinced.
If having a liberal on Fox News is evidence they’re fair and balanced, I don’t see why this can’t be taken as similar evidence.
Stacking the deck is not the same as stopping play.
I wouldn’t make quite so definitive a statement. It might be more accurate to say the standardization obscured if any significant changes occurred, because it probably ( to date, unless something new pops up in archaeology ) was pretty thorough just because it happened so early. That there were non-standard copies that were purged is a matter of standing tradition - it is what prompted the urge to standardize in the first place. Tradition may argue any purges were cosmetic or eliminating accretions, but in actuality we really can’t say not having anything to compare.
The early genesis of the Qur’an in the written form and just how closely it cleaved to any recitation by a historical Muhammed is a little mysterious ( outside of traditional accounts ). And largely academic, I suppose - we’re never likely to get an answer.
Since many other things spurred reaction and dispute well recorded, I think it can be quite confident to say the variations were not felt to be so great as to be deeply signficant.
I do not make any claim about how well this was saved to correspond to the recitation by Mohamed.
but I do not see a reason to think the written variations at the time of the standardisation had variations felt as significant.
the traditions - the hadith - that is another question, there I have no confidence.
Note that I said you could conclude, according to science, that he was either a liar or delusional, not that science had proven it beyond any possible doubt, or that the conclusion was pedantry proof. Also, this omnipotent being would not just have to exist, as the bible claims, for Noah’s Flood to have occurred, but she would have had to use her superpowers to reconstruct the world in such a way that it looks very much like it did not and could not have happened, which the bible does not claim in any direct way.
We know a great deal about the moon, due to science and it’s method. One of the things that we know, to a very high degree of certainty, is that it was not broken into two pieces and then stitched back together 1400 years ago. So it is reasonable to suggest that anyone who claims that it was is delusional, or a liar, according to science.
Science can confidently say that Muhammad did not split the moon in two, just as it can confidently say that species evolve through a process of natural selection, and were not created by God 8000 years ago. Yes, the entire universe could have been brought into existence a microsecond before you read this sentence, but we are still confident that the past existed.
History is sometimes classified as a social science.
It is cited as evidence of a desire for secular tolerance, by a subset of the population.
I’ll stand up next to a mountain, chop it down with the edge of my haaand.
Mo’s not the only one with the super voodoo powers.
I’m sure that population exists. The problem is the majority (Muslims) won’t even give it a chance to voice its thoughts.
Curious, of course, that liberals overlook this in their continuous apologia of Muslim cultures. I thought they fought for the little guy.
When one of these massacres happens, the spokespeople for the local muslim communities says that these actions were “not islamic”. I take that to mean that such murders are not condoned by islam. yet, these same “leaders” bitterly complain that they are often subjected to anti-muslim “prejudice”-how can people who protest these horrific acts be anti-muslim, if these acts are described (by muslims) as “un-islamic”)?
Also, while islamic leaders freely admit that Christians and Jews (and Buddhists and Hindus) are discriminated against in islamic countries, this is never denounced as unfair?
Wikipedia:
"According to media reports, Harqan and his pregnant wife, Nada Mandour (Saly) Harqan, survived an assassination attempt 4 days later - in the evening of October 25, 2014. Harqan managed to flee with his wife after having some injuries and went to the Alhanafie–Alajlany police station to report the incident along with their friend Karim Jimy. Instead of taking action to help Harqan and his wife, the police officers further assaulted them and they were imprisoned charged with blasphemy and “defamation of religion” under article 98 in the Egyptian penal code for asking “What has ISIS done that Muhammad did not do?” on a popular Egyptian television talk show.[5] Harqan’s lawyer was humiliated and kicked out of the police station.”
LOL
Please sir, may I have another?
Seriously. This guy didn’t even call Mohammed an ass. He just stopped believing.
You have got to be kidding me if you think Islam majority states have any kind of freedom of expression toward calling Big Mo an asshole.
Islam is utterly clueless about what freedom of expression means.
Perhaps you think that science believes:
- There is evidence for the supernatural, and
- Supernatural beings chat up mortals with a dictated scripture by which to live
:dubious:
You’re just pulling my chain that you had no idea science does not support the supernatural, aren’t you?
Science says the following are pure bullshit:
- Direct communication with a supernatural being who created and governs the universe, and interferes with how natural laws govern our planet
- Any other violation of natural law
- Including whatever bullshit in Islam claims violation of natural law
- Such as flitting off to Jerusalem on a night journey without using a camel or a boat or sumpin’
You appear to have confused what science teaches us with whether or not real-life scientists are impolite enough to just come out and tell believers what they are believing is bullshit.