Answering Christianity Research Center

If you thought that in the thousands of years of human civilization before Islam, theories as simple as "iron coming from the sky" or "moon's light being a reflected light" would have been absolutely unknown or unimaginable, then frankly your expectations are mistaken.

It is pretty much a statistical certainty, that from the millions of people who lived in the past, someone would have said the moon has its own light, another would have said it is reflected, another that it is a spirit, and so on and so forth.

In my view, on their own the so called scientific "miracles" have nothing much that can be considered of a "miraculous" nature. Only in combination and looking through a holistic lens do we find things interesting.

Take the example of Anaxagoras (500 BCE–428 BCE), the person attributed as the first person "to explain that the moon shines due to reflected light from the sun". But along this "incredible" explanation so early in human history, he also said that the moon had mountains and believed that it was inhabited. The heavenly bodies, he asserted, were masses of stone torn from the earth and ignited by rapid rotation. He explained that, though both sun and the stars were fiery stones, we do not feel the heat of the stars because of their enormous distance from earth (this one was partly correct). He thought that the earth is flat and floats supported by 'strong' air under it and disturbances in this air sometimes causes earthquakes.

Source: http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7890/who-discovered-first-that-the-moon-does-not-have-its-own-light

And who knows before Anaxagoras which individual had already stated this fact. For all we know, some ancient Prophet of God would've already told his people this. The ancient world was filled with theories, ideas and concepts which had no practical, observable proof. Some of them were correct and a lot more were found to be completely baseless. The really interesting thing about the Qur'an is the apparent filter that seems to have separated the right from the wrong.

Additionally, it would appear that you are a Muslim who at some point in his life came to know about these so-called scientific miracles and became completely satisfied with the truthfulness of the religion. Once you became satisfied you probably never bothered to look any deeper into the religion, I would guess, not even in the Qur'an itself. In other words your entire basis for believing in Islam were such claims. Now, when the critics have become successful (whether they are right or wrong, is another matter) in showing you that their foundations are not as high as you yourself made the mistake of putting them on, your sole reason for belief has pretty much evaporated.

I would argue that these interesting Qur'an verses are exactly what the Arabic word used for them means i.e. Ayats (signs). These are supposed to draw people's interest to take the journey and not to be taken, in of themselves, as the final destination. Although, you probably didn't realise this, the scientific miracles argument was, in effect, a shortcut you, along-with many other Muslims, took so that you wouldn't have to take the more strenuous and time-consuming path for actually studying the religion.

Answer what?

The paragraph is difficult enough to understand as it is, there doesn't appear to be any argument either, just statements. On the matter of the Prophet being "delusional" (or at-least that appears to be what has been stated in the paragraph), among others the event of the solar eclipse on the day of the death of the Prophet's son is one evidence against the claim.

See this part: https://youtu.be/Vnws_vGqPWg?t=720

Just to clarify, I am pretty sure rationalwiki is not "anti-Islamic".

Regarding, "visiting anything anti-Islamic is haram and forbidden", from what I understand it is forbidden in the sense some scholars of our times have decided it to be practical and beneficial to forbid such an activity and not in the sense that the original sources of Islam directly term this as Haram. In other words, more of a secular prohibition than a religious one.

Don't know Arabic.

Need to have reference for the hadith.

Even if the narration is Sahih, it does not mean the apparent meaning is the correct interpretation.

What I previously said was what the Wahabbi/"Salafi" scholars at islamqa had to say on the matter, or at-least my understanding of it.

It is worth pointing out that there is no basis for the phrase used in the question, “the best of generations is my generation”, although it is often used in the books of Ahl al-Sunnah. Moreover, there is a mistake with regard to its meaning. If this is what he said, then he would have said after it, “then the one that follows it.” But the wording of the hadeeth is “then those who follow them.” The wording of the saheeh hadeeth is: “The best of mankind is my generation” and “The best of my ummah is my generation.”

Source: islamqa.info/en/3374

Regarding the Sahih Bukhari narration mentioned above, it would appear that the hadith is talking about the "times" and not  about the "generations". I hesitate to comment directly on narrations, because a great deal of knowledge is a prerequisite for such an action as sometimes the apparent meaning is not the actual meaning or at other times the narration is related to a particular context and not to be taken generally. One of the issues with this apparent interpretation of this hadith is the narration which the author himself mentioned in another post:

It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:
Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.

Source: sunnah.com/muslim/33/82

It would appear, from this narration, that good and bad times interchange with each other.

In contrast to the absolute understandings of the ardent followers of Ibn Taymiyyah such as the modern "Salafists", from a more nuanced study of the Sufis we find that one of the greatest scholars of Islam Imam Ghazali was a Sufi and contributed significantly to the development of a systematic view of Sufism and to its integration and acceptance in mainstream Islam. Al-Ghazali belonged to the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence.

He was considered as the most important refuter of Mutazilites, the group whose interpretations were increasing the influence of Greek theology on Islam. He is even called by the title of Hujjat-al-Islam (the proof of Islam). However, Ibn Taymiyyah greatly criticized Ghazali for his interpretations. Interestingly, one of the most influential, probably the most influential before the 20th century Muslim scholar from the Indian sub-continent Shah Waliullah came to the conclusion that both Imam Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyyah were arguing the same thing with the difference being only of the angle.

The above is in reference to the Sufi and political interpretations of Islam and not on whether some sub-groups who claim to be following Sufi Islam also happen to be involved in  deviant acts or not.

Regardless of whether Islam callas for initiating warfare with other lands or not, unfortunately a significant number of Muslims do actually believe in the interpretation that it is their religious duty to fight the "disbelievers", even the peaceful ones, until Sha'riah (or at-least their version of it) is established all over the world. These include pretty much all "Muslim" terrorist groups and some mainstream Muslim scholars too.

If you have access to Ibn Ishaq's book's text, see if the story has a sanad. If it doesn't then we have no direct or absolute way of knowing whether it can be true or not. In such cases the story cannot be used as a foundation for any Islamic law or practice, as we have no way of judging the reliability of the story.

 My previous comment:

Not to criticize anyone, but just to state some facts and what the scholarly difference of opinion is on the matter.
Regarding the matter of stoning, as far as my Islamic knowledge goes, the article that was linked has a lot of incorrect and inaccurate material included.
 
In the second Caliph Hadith the author is probably talking about, if I am not very much mistaken, Caliph Umar never said that the verses were "lost". Caliph Umar said those verses, although revealed, were removed from the Qur'anic text on the command of Prophet Muhammad and therefore no longer part of the Qur'an. Most scholars accept this narration while those scholars who reject abrogation of this kind might criticize the authenticity of the narration, but even they do not reject the idea that stoning was one form of punishment during the Prophet's time.
 
There is also the problem with the Qur'an being compiled during the reign of the third Caliph, while there are narrations that indicate the author's viewpoint, there are other narrations which provide evidence that the Qur'an was already compiled in a book form during the first Caliph's reign.
 
Aside from the Sahih Bukhari narration cited, as far as I know there are many other narrations talking about the punishment of stoning. Also, on the matter of the Hadiths books being compiled 200 years later, this is highly misleading. It is true that by 250-300 years our most reliable Hadith books Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim get compiled but there were many other books and authors before these works. From what I have read, we even have extant manuscripts of Hadith books dating about 70-90 after the Prophet's death.
 
As a person somewhat versed with the ideas of Javed Ahmad Ghamindi, I was surprised to read his name used in the article. Ghamidi is a strong believer in the Qur'an being Al-Furqan (the measure or the criterion) and does happen to base his judgment on other Islamic issues, laws and Hadiths by putting first what the Qur'an says on the matter. Because of this, even though, he argues against the stoning punishment being the one and only punishment for adulterers, as far as I know, he still maintains that under special circumstances it can be given. He does not reject that this punishment was given by the Prophet.
 
Ghamidi basically argues that stoning was according to the Surah Maidah punishments for the person creating corruption in the land. One of the four punishments mentioned there is a torturous death, which in 7th century Arabia was stoning. Therefore, the people who were stoned were either rapists or people who were habitual in such crimes. In any case, according to Ghamidi, stoning did happen. Under normal circumstances however, the punishment for adultery according to Ghamidi's arguments is in line to what the author is basically saying, which is to put in simple terms, that the Qur'anic punishments are not abrogated by Hadiths.
 
Additionally, regarding 4:34, although if Hadith literature is not taken into account, it is very much possible to come to the "modern" interpretation, however, the conservative interpretation appears to be closer to the original meaning. Even Ghamidi, whose interpretations are very non-conservative in the cases of adultery punishment and even Hijab, maintains the conservative opinion in the case of 4:34."
 

- "... whoever denies that the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), whether it describes his words or deeds, so long as it meets the conditions outlined by the scholars, may be quoted as evidence, is a kafir and has gone beyond the pale of Islam..."


So basically, the criteria created by fallible humans (i.e. scholars) for judging the authenticity of a narration is going to be used as a litmus test for a person's faith? And "conditions outlined by" which group of scholars are to be used to define a person as Kafir? Scholars since the beginning have differed over what should be these "conditions". Imam Bukhari had a somewhat different set and Imam Muslim had different. The Hanbalis and the Wahabbis, I suppose should use Imam Abdul Wahab's conditions, while the Hanafis and the Malikis should use Imam Abu Hanifa's and Imam Malik's. So basically, every group should start calling the other group Kafir. And what about the narrations which were deemed Sahih in the beginning but later faults were found in them, did people who criticised them in the beginning became Kafir and later automatically became Muslim, without changing their opinions? If anyone died in this "Kafir" state will he or she "be gathered with the Jews and the Christians or whomever Allah wills among the kafir sects"?


What about Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik who on at-least one occasion, regarding a matter related to Salat, gave more importance to the actual practice of the people then to a Hadith, and that too a Muttawatar Hadith? And from what I have read, Caliph Omar on the matter of blood money for non-Muslims and Hudood punishment for thieves apparently did things differently to how the Prophet did.


I believe, using Hadiths explaining religious rituals (like prayers, Hajj rituals, Zakat etc.) to defend, and dare I say promote blind faith on, all Hadiths is incredibly fallacious. These Hadiths reach us through Muttawatar traditions, similar to how the Qur'an reaches us while other narrations (like those of stoning and apostasy) are Khabr-e-Ahad. The two can never be comparable to each other in terms of reliability.


- "The Book and the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) do not contradict one another at all..."


The Prophet probably did not contradict himself, but the Hadith traditions that reach us actually do exactly that. There are Hadiths which directly and plainly contradict each other. See sunnah.com/urn/1268810 and sunnah.com/abudawud/40/115.


While it is obligatory to follow the Sunnah, it isn't very clear exactly what Sunnah implies. Some scholars take Sunnah as all the Hadiths that reach us, while other scholars believe Sunnah to mean only those Hadiths which reach us through Muttawatar traditions. They argue that because it was the responsibility of Prophet Muhammad to teach as many people as he could about what is sinful and what is allowed, he would have taught such matters to large groups of people. The teachings about religion that were addressed to gatherings and large groups of people are the ones which make up the Muttawatar traditions. While the Khabr-e-Ahad traditions in which the Prophet advised or discouraged only a few people, are not supposed to be religious commandments and not part of the Sunnah. They argue that it is unthinkable that the Prophet would teach such important matters, which are supposed to be part of the everlasting final religion, to just a few people instead of addressing large gatherings.


On the matter of stoning, an additional point that I should point out is that, even though it might look like there has always been a consensus on the matter, from what I have read, this wasn't the case. Some particular scholars held that the adulterer should be both given lashes and then stoned to death.


- "The prophet said that the last of this ummah are the worst ones in faith. That means that the ones before us are akmost always better than us in faith. The older scholars were more knowledgeable and had more religous resources."


Where exactly did the Prophet say this? The one I have read says: “The best of my ummah are the first and the last, and between them there will be some crookedness. Would that I could see my brethren.” (https://islamqa.info/en/3374)
I personally haven't seen any narration that talks about a decreasing trend in faith of the Ummah. Also, while the first 3-5 or maybe up-to 10 generations their religious resources might have been more than the present day scholars but after the end of these generations, the religious resources have been constant if not increasing.


Regarding the "19 miracle", although I am more careful in calling it a miracle, there is so much more to it than what Rashad Khalifa did.