Richard Dawkins and Mehdi Hasan

If Mehdi Hasan wants he's perfectly entitled to believe that one day God decided on a whim to create a winged horse to try and impress Muhammad. I don't think that did happen, but since I don't have an hard evidence either way it's not my place to say so for definite.

Reply 3

Drunk Punx

19

Since when did someone's religious beliefs affect how capable a journalist they are? :lolwut:

If they're blatantly bias when it comes to articles concerning religion then I can see the problem, but other than that there's nothing about someone's religious views that make them any less worthy of the "journalist" title.

Reply 4

Snagprophet

17

I guess it's racism when it's not done to Christians?

Reply 5

Birkenhead

3

Original post by Drunk Punx

Since when did someone's religious beliefs affect how capable a journalist they are? :lolwut:

If they're blatantly bias when it comes to articles concerning religion then I can see the problem, but other than that there's nothing about someone's religious views that make them any less worthy of the "journalist" title.

Part of journalistic integrity is relying on (and citing) hard factual evidence to arrive at conclusions. I doubt Hasan would be able to cite the factual evidence which led him to the conclusion that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Ay, there's the rub.

Reply 6

username948920

Aristotle believed that all atoms were made from fire, water, earth, and air. I guess Aristotle has no right to be held in such high esteem.

Reply 7

Original post by AlexandrTheGreat

Richard Dawkins tweeted this of New Statesman journalist Mehdi Hasan yesterday.

I agree with Dawkins, it's an absurdity. There is no such creature as a winged horse, therefore the Quran is wrong.

What do you think?

It was during the 'Isr'a' and the 'mir'aj' that the Prophet of Allah (SWT) has traveled to heaven on the Buraq, the infamous house of the previous Prophets of God.

Original post by Tuerin

Part of journalistic integrity is relying on (and citing) hard factual evidence to arrive at conclusions. I doubt Hasan would be able to cite the factual evidence which led him to the conclusion that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Ay, there's the rub.

The final prophet of Allah has traveled to Heaven to meet Allah (the almighty, the all powerful).

Reply 8

Birkenhead

3

Original post by Savvy Sage

Aristotle believed that all atoms were made from fire, water, earth, and air. I guess Aristotle has no right to be held in such high esteem.

Aristotle wasn't a journalist. Read more carefully.

It was also a completely different time when factual evidence was far harder to come by. These are standards for a different time, with different technological capabilities and, as I said, applied to a profession he didn't belong in.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 9

Buraq takes him to the heavens, where he tours the 7 circles of heaven, and speaks with the earlier prophets such as Abrahahm (ʾIbrahim), Moses (Musa), John the Baptist (Yaḥyā ibn Zakarīyā), and Jesus (Isa).

Reply 10

Birkenhead

3

Original post by Type 052D

The final prophet of Allah has traveled to Heaven to meet Allah (the almighty, the all powerful).

Is this supposed to be evidence?

Reply 11

Original post by Tuerin

Is this supposed to be evidence?

The evidence is the Hadith, and the greatest miracle on earth, the Holy Qur'an.

Reply 12

SnoochToTheBooch

17

Original post by Arbolus

If Mehdi Hasan wants he's perfectly entitled to believe that one day God decided on a whim to create a winged horse to try and impress Muhammad. I don't think that did happen, but since I don't have an hard evidence either way it's not my place to say so for definite.

oh come on, It's ok to call it nonsense because it clearly is.

Reply 13

tazarooni89

20

Original post by Tuerin

Part of journalistic integrity is relying on (and citing) hard factual evidence to arrive at conclusions. I doubt Hasan would be able to cite the factual evidence which led him to the conclusion that Muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Ay, there's the rub.

Winged horses isn't what his journalism is about though, is it?

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that he can't cite any evidence for this winged horse thing, it doesn't somehow prove that any of the things he's written about are insufficiently substantiated. It's not exactly uncommon for people to apply different standards of evidence to their religion from everything else.

Suppose the world operated on a principle whereby, if there's a single thing that you believe is true without being able to cite hard factual evidence to prove it beyond a certain level of doubt, then you can't be employed in any job which involves arriving at a conclusion based on evidence, how many people do you think would actually be employed today? :s-smilie:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 14

username948920

Original post by Tuerin

Aristotle wasn't a journalist. Read more carefully.

It was also a completely different time when factual evidence was far harder to come by. These are standards for a different time, with different technological capabilities and, as I said, applied to a profession he didn't belong in.

Now that Aristotle is 'wrong', we have no need to take any of his views seriously. Aristotle has no right to be considered as a scientific thinker as he has failed to back up his thinking with substantial qualitative evidence. His theories infer too much from too little and this makes him unsuitable to make progress in Science. He must be utterly condemned by history for the mistake he made. :rolleyes:

Reply 15

username948920

Original post by SnoochToTheBooch

oh come on, It's ok to call it nonsense because it clearly is.

I have a forgetful memory so you must excuse me when I ask you to kindly show me the mathematical proof to why a winged horse cannot exist.

Reply 16