User:Martins, Ben-Perrusi

--Martins, Ben-Perrusi (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS THE MAIN POINT IN ISLAM Ben-Perrusi Martins

It is amazing that, on the current debate regarding Islam, either in the academic sphere or in the journalistic one, nobody — absolutely nobody, neither the Muslims themselves, nor even the so-called Islamic reformists — comes to mention that the main point about such a religion is no other than the fact that it is based on a sacred book (the Koran) which defends in the most explicit (clear, direct, unequivocal) manner possible (and, so, as any other of the genre unfortunately does) natural religion; that is: religion based on reason; in another words: a rational worldview based on the belief in God.

If people knew that (1) the Western philosophy has been struggling in the last 500 years without any success for establishing a definitive but morally satisfactory worldview based merely on reason (Humanism); and that, (2) contrary of what the modern laity thinks, even the Western academy does recognize the actual existence of a rational worldview based on the belief in God (what they prefer to call natural theology); then, demonstrating that the Koran really gives all the necessary support to such an approach would even have to them (particularly in the West) a historic significance.

Thus, let us without delay prove first that the Western academy admits the existence of a religion based on reason:

“The problem about appealing to revelation is that the argument only works with those who are already believers. […] This is why the arguments of natural theology (which forms part of philosophy of religion) are of more general interest. For they purport to be based on premises which it is hoped any reasonable person would accept. The arguments of natural theology are those that are based on reason alone, which has traditionally been assumed to be natural and common to all human beings, in contrast with revelations, which are imparted only to a chosen few. An argument, based on the Koran or the Bible, [for instance,] which concluded that there was a moral order in the universe —certain behaviour that is good, other behaviour that is bad, reward for the good, punishment for the bad, etc— would probably be unnecessary for those inside those religious traditions and carry no connection for those outside. What is needed is an argument whose premises would be accepted by any reasonable person. And many reasonable people are outside any religious tradition. What is needed is an argument in natural theology […].

“Christian, Jewish and Muslim philosophers and theologians [, for example,] have historically found common ground in discussing the arguments of natural religion. But they largely disagree when it comes to revelation since their most characteristic beliefs are founded upon different sets of writings. […] Since these beliefs conflict, the claim of these texts to speak from God poses this fundamental problem: they cannot all be right. […] It remains to be seen whether natural religion could provide a basis for accepting a particular religious authority as reliable and rejecting others.” — Stuart Brown, “Destiny, Purpose and Faith” (Milton Keynes, The Open University, 2002), pp. 78-79 and 111-112 — a book forming part of the Open University course A211 Philosophy and the Human Situation.

Well, I suppose nobody would dare to challenge the authority of the Open University of London as a paradigmatic voice of the Western contemporary thinking. Now, let us prove in a very clear way that Koran defends religion based on reason (and, therefore, citing the very Open University, provides “a basis for accepting a particular religious authority as reliable and rejecting others” ):

“Do they not consider this Book with care? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy” (Koran 4:82). “See you if this Revelation is really from God, and yet do you reject it?” (Koran 41:52). “Let them then produce a recital like unto it, if it be they speak the Truth” (Koran 52:34). “Have We give them a Book from which they can derive clear evidence?” (Koran 35:40). “There have already come to them Recitals wherein there is enough to check them” (Koran 54:4). “God proves the Truth by His words” (Koran 42:24). “God has revealed […] the most beautiful Message in the form of a Book consistent with itself” (Koran 39:23). “Here are signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge” (Koran 29:49). “This is the Truth as much as the fact that you can speak intelligently to each other” (Koran 51:23). “‘My Lord! Show me how […] !’ He said: ‘Do you not then believe?’ He said: ‘Yea! But to satisfy my own understanding!’” (Koran 2:260). “This is a Message for any that has a heart and understanding or who gives ear and earnestly witnesses the truth” (Koran 50:37).

Note that these verses are stating clearly (so much as, besides, all the others books of the kind would certainly like to do also, but — for good reasons which do not matter to explain here now — are not unfortunately able to do so) that what God Himself is declaring through them is indeed true not because you should believe beforehand that it really was God who has dictated them, but only because what God is affirming through them is definitely logic, coherent. Therefore, there certainly is a sacred book which does confirm once for all that the belief in God not only is but as well must be justifiable by reason. And such a sacred book is no other than the Koran.

That is the main point on the Koran. Whether the traditional Islam corresponds to such a worldview or not constitutes another question. A very important one as well. But, despite anything else, not so much as that.

--Martins, Ben-Perrusi (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)