PDA

View Full Version : what makes you so sure that "your" religion is right?



IbnAbdulHakim
06-13-2008, 10:41 AM
Peace to all those who follow righteous guidance.


Lets have a civil discussion of our views and beliefs.
NO SLANDERING OR DISRESPECTING OF A PERSONS VIEWS WILL BE TOLERATED !


What makes you so sure that your faith is the correct one?



note: Keep in mind i strongly believe that those who are not of the islamic faith believing purely in One God and not associating partners with him, will end up in the hell-fire.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
AntiKarateKid
06-15-2008, 05:11 PM
Well, I had often posed this question to myself. When I decided to get more religious I toyed with the idea of other religions and went through a cycle of comparing them against Islam. I had

gone to a Catholic elementary and junior high school for a while and have been exposed to the Bible and bits of the Torah. The Jews who claim to be the chosen of Allah do not seem so to me. I

looked a tthe life of Isa and was convinced that the Jews made a mistake. Next Isa PBUH himself. I looked at the evidence and found a great Prophet but certainly not a god. The sheer number

of versions of the Bible and sects did not further me towards Christianity either. Finally the Quran, first I read it. I had it laying in a closet in my home ofr a long time and when I finally opened it

and read it, I was overcome with emotion. Before this when I heard of people being moved to tears by it, I thought they were exaggerating, but this was not so. The whole thing, not fettered

by scribes, revealed int he most beautiful way, and many of the prophetic and scientific signs I found in it convinced me that I was on the right path. Besides, the message of just Allah appealed

to me, it was very simple and natural. From then on, what I have read through debates has just reinforced my belief.
Reply

Trumble
06-15-2008, 06:53 PM
Of those that made some sort of sense to me, Buddhism made by far the most sense. Two main reasons. First, it describes the world as experience shows it to be far better than any other religion. Secondly it describes a way of resolving life's most fundamental problem that is dependent solely on one's own efforts. To me that's just how it must be.
Reply

------
06-17-2008, 08:43 AM
:salamext:

^ Can I ask what about Buddhism made sense to you?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
mkh4JC
06-17-2008, 08:50 AM
I would say the biggest factor in my believing that my faith is the true faith would be in regards to the lifestyle that God has enabled me to live, in relation to my previous lifestyle. My life before I accpeted Christ was one of addiction and hardship, but when I prayed the sinner's prayer way back on August 1st of 2002 I have been completely free of that lifestyle and have been living completely sin free (yes completely) ever since. There are other things that just reinforce my faith, circumstances that happened to me as I was a child. Once a woman stood up during testimony service (a time when people can tell what God has personally done for them) and said these words: 'God is going to bless him, and he knows it too,' and as a child I did know, having said those exact same words in my mind many times, 'God is going to bless me.' But it's things like this that happened as I was growing up that just reinforce my faith.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-17-2008, 09:43 AM
^ thanks for all the replies.


i was hoping a jew might come and reply at some point. Do we have any jews on this forum anymore?
Reply

Trumble
06-17-2008, 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by - Serene -
:salamext:

^ Can I ask what about Buddhism made sense to you?
I can't really expand much on what I said before without setting out a potted description of Buddhism, which I have already done here

Buddhism describes the human condition as I directly perceive it be. Life is dukka, "suffering" or dissatisfaction. We are never satisfied with life, despite our attempts to fool ourselves and suffering is inevitable. We grow old, we get sick and we die. We watch our loved ones go through the same. We cling to what we love, but must inevitably lose it and push away what we despise, but we must inevitably embrace it. Buddhism prescribes a solution, not by postulating a divine being that somehow will make everything all right as long as we behave ourselves, but by a programme we can achieve by our own effort. As I said, to me that's what it has to be like because my experience shows the world to be like that.
Reply

snakelegs
06-17-2008, 06:38 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
^ thanks for all the replies.


i was hoping a jew might come and reply at some point. Do we have any jews on this forum anymore?
no - unfortunately. :unhappy:
Reply

AhlaamBella
06-17-2008, 06:44 PM
I think the main thing is proof. You can only rely on "faith" to a certain extent. SubhanAllah, Islam has many proofs that just stare you in the face. Don't get me wrong, faith is a big part of being a muslim, though Islam provides solid proofs and evidences which you can base your faith on.
Reply

north_malaysian
06-18-2008, 04:19 AM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
^ thanks for all the replies.


i was hoping a jew might come and reply at some point. Do we have any jews on this forum anymore?

The Jews of LI Islamic Forum are no longer available...don't worry it has nothing to do with cyber holocaust...

They're very good people... I've learnt alot about Judaism and its similarity with Islam in this forum.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-20-2008, 08:54 AM
i hope this thread can have a few more replies :)

i think this is a very good question for reflection
Reply

------
06-20-2008, 08:56 AM
Originally Posted by RoseGold
I think the main thing is proof. You can only rely on "faith" to a certain extent. SubhanAllah, Islam has many proofs that just stare you in the face. Don't get me wrong, faith is a big part of being a muslim, though Islam provides solid proofs and evidences which you can base your faith on.
:salamext:

Yeh Alhamdulillah, I completely agree.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
06-20-2008, 11:51 AM
It all makes sense to me. The Prophets of Sikhism If compared to others, are unique. Also, all other Religions have Scriptures written by men not the Prophets, Sikhism, is the ONLY Relgion where the Prohets themselves have written the Holy Book. This to me SEALS it! :)
Reply

Umar001
06-20-2008, 09:13 PM
I'm am sure my faith is correct due to my research and reliance upon God. Islam stands all justified scrutiny, moreover, it also leaves perplexed the individuals who refuse to attribute its origins to Almighty God.
Reply

SixTen
06-20-2008, 09:15 PM
For people, if their religion feels right - and that is enough in my honest opinion. If they find its values, its teachings, its message, to be of such perfection that it must be from God - nothing else matters, not even the millions of others who believe another religion is true.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
06-20-2008, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
For people, if their religion feels right - and that is enough in my honest opinion. If they find its values, its teachings, its message, to be of such perfection that it must be from God - nothing else matters, not even the millions of others who believe another religion is true.
I disagree. It doesn't matter if people THINK it's right. There is truth and there is falsehood and I refuse to give any credence to false values because those lies have gotten much of humanity to become blind followers of corrupted or false religions.

I thank Allah that Islam has provided me with so many proofs, a beautiful way of life, and the clarity to see through the other religions. Everything leads to Allah, from the proofs in the bible, to the Prophet ( pbuh) in Hindu scriptures. I would be hard pressed to follow any other religion because I feel like they are just incomplete.

What I am trying to say is that our own opinions weigh nothing, the true religion of Allah is perfect. Try looking God in the face when you die and telling him, "in my opinion the other religion seemed better."
Reply

SixTen
06-20-2008, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid
I disagree. It doesn't matter if people THINK it's right. There is truth and there is falsehood and I refuse to give any credence to false values because those lies have gotten much of humanity to become blind followers of corrupted or false religions.

I thank Allah that Islam has provided me with so many proofs, a beautiful way of life, and the clarity to see through the other religions. Everything leads to Allah, from the proofs in the bible, to the Prophet ( pbuh) in Hindu scriptures. I would be hard pressed to follow any other religion because I feel like they are just incomplete.

What I am trying to say is that our own opinions weigh nothing, the true religion of Allah is perfect. Try looking God in the face when you die and telling him, "in my opinion the other religion seemed better."
The title of the thread is, "What makes you so sure "your" religion is right", and I gave what I believe an accurate reason why people may do so.

My post did not say "If you feel your religion is true, then it is definatly right", or anything like that.
Reply

SixTen
06-20-2008, 09:41 PM
Also, avoid basing your belief in what I believe to be fabricated dawah - regarding prophesising in the Bible and the hindu scriptures - I have seen them being debated on an intellectual level and to be frank they are just not factual. Deedat/Naikh material, have been thouroughly refuted, so try find some more reliable dawah in future - because I fear one day you fill find what you believe now to be false later on - and it may affect your imaan - and you may even end up leaving Islam over it (Allah knows best).

I don't believe their is direct proof for a religion - if a proof existed - no one can dispute it.

Rather, I see religions to have evidence - and it is faith which you depend on to hold any specific belief. I know so many pious muslims, who struggle with imaan at certain points in their life - which is normal. This would not exist if their was direct proof - if direct proof existed - the whole test would become void.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
06-20-2008, 09:41 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
The title of the thread is, "What makes you so sure "your" religion is right", and I gave what I believe an accurate reason why people may do so.

My post did not say "If you feel your religion is true, then it is definatly right", or anything like that.
I'm sorry, but I have heard others say the same thing and they meant what I assumed in my above post. I naturally assumed you meant the same thing, apologies.
Reply

Woodrow
06-21-2008, 02:34 AM
Each person is either a searcher or is convinced that their belief, or non-belief, is the truth.

I am assuming that the question is directed towards those of us who do follow a specific belief and sincerly believe it is the True Religion, and I will answer from that perspective.

Without making this a long drawn out story, life experiences have convinced me that there is a Supreme Being that has created all things. Over the years I came to the belief that the creation was not random, but was planned and with a purpose.

I would say that is the foundation upon which a religious belief system must meet, for me to accept it as being true. Islam meets that criteria. But, so do other religions. To me what seperates Islam from the others is it's trail of revelation that can be traced even through Judaism, Sabianism and Christianity. The submission to God(swt) is what the truth in religion is. There has been a long trail that explains the proper means of submission by specific people in various times. It is only logical that at some point it would culminate in a final means of submission for all people, which is what the Qur'an did.

Islam is the same truth that was revealed to the Jews, Sabians and Christians and was brought together for all people by the Qur'an through Muhammad(PBUH)
Reply

جوري
06-21-2008, 02:37 AM
Originally Posted by SixTen
Also, avoid basing your belief in what I believe to be fabricated dawah - regarding prophesising in the Bible and the hindu scriptures - I have seen them being debated on an intellectual level and to be frank they are just not factual. Deedat/Naikh material, have been thouroughly refuted, so try find some more reliable dawah in future - because I fear one day you fill find what you believe now to be false later on - and it may affect your imaan - and you may even end up leaving Islam over it (Allah knows best).

I don't believe their is direct proof for a religion - if a proof existed - no one can dispute it.

Rather, I see religions to have evidence - and it is faith which you depend on to hold any specific belief. I know so many pious muslims, who struggle with imaan at certain points in their life - which is normal. This would not exist if their was direct proof - if direct proof existed - the whole test would become void.
Debating can't adequately refute or substantiate any point in a subject that is already esoteric in nature .. it all depends on how well learned and spoken and researched the debater is compared to the debatee.. I reference you to some debates and refutaions leveled against Islam and answered by Br. Ansar Al 'Adl on this forum...

That aside and my personal bias to the brilliance of Dr Ahmad deedat, I have always believed that individually those who seek Allah swt find him, irrespective of what da3wah material is out there, glossiest cover, brilliant DVD's and charismatic personalities , I have known stuanch anti-Muslims who have converted if you can believe someone throwing eggs and cat defecate on the Mosque everyday, converting because of a dream about Jesus (p) and have seen Muslims leave Islam because it simply became too much for them.. I have to concede that the path to Allah swt is a personal solo journey and not a communal effort...

I have to disgaree with some, but not all your points, you'll forgive me that my schedule doesn't allow me to scrutinize them one by one.
I agree in part some Muslims stretch some verses to far to fit a particular rendition... but some are so obviously exclusive to the Quran and very accurate as well as transcendent, that it can't be attributed to anything other than an external divine force beyond the ordinary range of human experience and understanding.. and it unravels as ones understanding deepens.. you'll find that this book speaks to you differently than it speaks to someone say 600 years ago or a thousand years ago, or a thousand years from now...it just depends on whether or not your heart is open to it.

Religioisty, I will liken to love.. sometimes it is deep, sometimes superficial, sometimes it is superficial of deep or deep of superficial.. sometimes you quit it all together but I have to concede then, not as a flaw in love itself or in this case religion, but in the person his/herself...

What makes me personally think my religion is 'right' .. well it was a long search, required alot of reading, and the Quran was/is the book that is the justest, most equitable in human rights, most upright sense in terms of moral excellence, mature social conducts, sensical political policies, reposeful rituals, proper obligations to society, sound economic system, in a transcendent poetic diction that asks one to reflect on all things from a fly wing to the death of stars.. in short it covers all facets, that I couldn't find in any other book that is remotely comprable. It asks you to use your logic to apprehend divinity, it fits and bowls me over.. that I can't simply ignore it, even those times when I tried to marginalize it, I couldn't!
In short I have found all my answers therein!

:w:
Reply

Mikayeel
06-21-2008, 02:48 AM
:sl:

A very interesting question bro!

Everytime i have doubts (and doubs i have as a human being) I open the quran read, or lissen to it being recited! It clears my mind, destroys any doubs, and makes me regret for even having seconds of doubts in my heart!

A book that was written 1400 years ago and speaks to me in a very personal yet direct way is just freaky, and can't be from none other but the creator.

Al-Masadd
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Perish the two hands of Abû Lahab (an uncle of the Prophet), and perish he![] (1) His wealth and his children will not benefit him! (2) He will be burnt in a Fire of blazing flames! (3) And his wife too, who carries wood (thorns of Sadan which she used to put on the way of the Prophet (SAW) , or use to slander him)[]. (4) In her neck is a twisted rope of Masad (palm fibre).[] (5
)

THis surah for example, why would a simple human being write something like this, such a simple yet powerfull message?

Agian this works for me personally :) This for me is sufficient proof that what am following is correct.

:w:
Reply

جوري
06-21-2008, 03:08 AM
Originally Posted by raOnar
:sl:


Al-Masadd
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Perish the two hands of Abû Lahab (an uncle of the Prophet), and perish he![] (1) His wealth and his children will not benefit him! (2) He will be burnt in a Fire of blazing flames! (3) And his wife too, who carries wood (thorns of Sadan which she used to put on the way of the Prophet (SAW) , or use to slander him)[]. (4) In her neck is a twisted rope of Masad (palm fibre).[] (5
)

THis surah for example, why would a simple human being write something like this, such a simple yet powerfull message?

Agian this works for me personally :) This for me is sufficient proof that what am following is correct.

:w:
:sl:
this particular sura has been revealed 10 years before abu lahab died, he had ample opportunity to convert and prove the sura wrong even if it be just a superficial conversion to spite the prophet.. but he didn't.. so indeed sobhan Allah..

an interesting fact I learned as of late about abu lahab, is that when the prophet SAW was born, (abu lahab being his uncle) was happy he had a male nephew, so he spared a slave girl punishment that day, and for that reason his punishment will be made less severe at times certainly Allah isn't unjust to any good deed even if it be by a miserable human being!

:w:
Reply

TrueStranger
06-21-2008, 04:21 AM
Verily it is Allah who guides people, and none can misguide those who Allah guides.


Me being a Muslim is a favor Allah has bestowed upon me. I don't really have much knowledge about Islam, but i certainly do have faith. I always ask to be guided down the righteous path, after all it is God who guides who He Wills. I try my best and leave the rest to Allah.
Reply

SixTen
06-21-2008, 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Debating can't adequately refute or substantiate any point in a subject that is already esoteric in nature .. it all depends on how well learned and spoken and researched the debater is compared to the debatee..
This is in a way true, but then not all things are in esoteric nature. Somtimes, people spread mistakes - which at refutation point become void. One would be, if you were to debate against evolution - and you said it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics - you have made a false claim - it does not - hence in this case - we call this an absolute refutation.

I reference you to some debates and refutaions leveled against Islam and answered by Br. Ansar Al 'Adl on this forum...
Inshallah I will check them out.

That aside and my personal bias to the brilliance of Dr Ahmad deedat, I have always believed that individually those who seek Allah swt find him, irrespective of what da3wah material is out there, glossiest cover, brilliant DVD's and charismatic personalities ,
Dawah material is important and should not be ignored - I don't think we can lax on the importance of correct dawah. Your dawah, can either influence someone towards Islam or away. So, it is crucial it is important.

I too was a Deedat "fan" so to say a few years ago. But, it is from my time of debating with the more intellectual Christians, which I learnt more about their faith - You know, when we do not know other religions that well - anything we hear about them will sound logical to us and hence we would be easily impressed. This goes back to, 1 side of the debate sounds great until you hear the other side. It is only after you have heard all Deedats talks and its criticisms until you can form a strong foundation. You would not like people to listen to Dr Robert Spencer's lectures (What the west must know about Islam) and see him as a great Islamic scholar now would you? But people do, because they don't really know that much about Islam so when Robert Spencer talks about it, it makes total sense and logic and seems irrefutable. This is very much applied to Deedat too, it is our ignorance which can lead us to feel his arguements are better than they really are - usually because we fail to be objective in our search - rather than find truth - we just soak in pro-Islam stuff like a sponge.

I have known stuanch anti-Muslims who have converted if you can believe someone throwing eggs and cat defecate on the Mosque everyday, converting because of a dream about Jesus (p) and have seen Muslims leave Islam because it simply became too much for them.. I have to concede that the path to Allah swt is a personal solo journey and not a communal effort...
Agreed, hence why I think the traditional dawah should be used - the beuty of that is just not shown to the people.

I have to disgaree with some, but not all your points, you'll forgive me that my schedule doesn't allow me to scrutinize them one by one.
I agree in part some Muslims stretch some verses to far to fit a particular rendition... but some are so obviously exclusive to the Quran and very accurate as well as transcendent, that it can't be attributed to anything other than an external divine force beyond the ordinary range of human experience and understanding.. and it unravels as ones understanding deepens.. you'll find that this book speaks to you differently than it speaks to someone say 600 years ago or a thousand years ago, or a thousand years from now...it just depends on whether or not your heart is open to it.
I believe the Qur'an to have a continuous message, so I am very much against very extravagent re-interpretations of it, as it doesn't follow the logic of what the Qur'an was for, it contradicts its basis.

Religioisty, I will liken to love.. sometimes it is deep, sometimes superficial, sometimes it is superficial of deep or deep of superficial.. sometimes you quit it all together but I have to concede then, not as a flaw in love itself or in this case religion, but in the person his/herself...
:)

What makes me personally think my religion is 'right' .. well it was a long search, required alot of reading, and the Quran was/is the book that is the justest, most equitable in human rights, most upright sense in terms of moral excellence, mature social conducts, sensical political policies, reposeful rituals, proper obligations to society, sound economic system, in a transcendent poetic diction that asks one to reflect on all things from a fly wing to the death of stars.. in short it covers all facets, that I couldn't find in any other book that is remotely comprable. It asks you to use your logic to apprehend divinity, it fits and bowls me over.. that I can't simply ignore it, even those times when I tried to marginalize it, I couldn't!
In short I have found all my answers therein!

:w:
Yes, this is what I mean by traditional dawah - people should be drawn towards Islam, by its morale standards, its history, its people, its achievements, the values it teaches humans. I wish for the day people are content by the beutiful message in Surah Al-Imran rather than superficial interpratations of Qur'an.
Reply

جوري
06-21-2008, 04:40 PM
:sl:
perhaps indeed stating that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect and is the wrong approach, but it doesn't negate that there are many flaws with that theory, as any theory is subject to the limitations and the stretch of the human imagination.. I don't want to derange this topic into evolution as it has been discussed here ad nauseam..
but am curious for instance of your views of Dr. Mullan's paper the possibility of randomly assembling a primitive cell on earth?
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://www.iscid.org/brainstorms/Mul...ply_To_Art.pdf

This is going to be a long and mathematical read, so I can wait for your input until you are done with it..
I certainly agree that some approaches are incorrect, but some approaches are and should be given considerable scientific evaluation. No one should have to accept any theory based solely on an appeal to authority or majority...

Imagine if you will a time when Abrahaem and his Nephew Lot were all the believers there were in a world of paganists.. certainly being a few doesn't mean being incorrect.. it just means one has to refine their approach to state what they truly think is ailing a particular argument..

as for Dr deedat, I have seen him in live debates with christian scholars.. I am still not convinced that he should be compared to someone like spencer.. but can understand where you are coming from...

waslaam 3lykoum wr wb
Reply

SixTen
06-21-2008, 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
:sl:
perhaps indeed stating that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect and is the wrong approach, but it doesn't negate that there are many flaws with that theory, as any theory is subject to the limitations and the stretch of the human imagination.. I don't want to derange this topic into evolution as it has been discussed here ad nauseam..
but am curious for instance of your views of Dr. Mullan's paper the possibility of randomly assembling a primitive cell on earth?
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://www.iscid.org/brainstorms/Mul...ply_To_Art.pdf

This is going to be a long and mathematical read, so I can wait for your input until you are done with it..
I certainly agree that some approaches are incorrect, but some approaches are and should be given considerable scientific evaluation. No one should have to accept any theory based solely on an appeal to authority or majority...

Imagine if you will a time when Abrahaem and his Nephew Lot were all the believers there were in a world of paganists.. certainly being a few doesn't mean being incorrect.. it just means one has to refine their approach to state what they truly think is ailing a particular argument..

as for Dr deedat, I have seen him in live debates with christian scholars.. I am still not convinced that he should be compared to someone like spencer.. but can understand where you are coming from...

waslaam 3lykoum wr wb

The articles you posted are quite old and I have seen them in the past - they actually - Use outdated numbers - infact many of them have been improved to show far better odds - At the end it is just estimations and I dont't pay too much attention to it, sort of like Drakers equation.

On a further note, if something is improbable, so improbably - and not impossible - and then you have evidence of it occuring - then you cannot deny the evidence on the basis it is "improbable". The Universe is around 13-15 billion years old, with Earth only coming in the last 4-5 billion years (to give you an idea of the timescale). The probability game seems to confuse me alot, because just a look at the fossil record, the DNA, the extreme similarities in many species (such that, you have useless characteristics of say a Cat, like the raising of the back of your hair in fear, which a cat can use to make himself look bigger, or your tailbone) and so much more - it is quite a broad topic which does deserve atleast consideration. I think however, with people like Harun Yahya, and darwinism-watch websites, which just state alot of "bad" science, convinces people. I mean, today it is strange, that a qualified scientist - is stating "Why arn't monkeys giving birth to humans now then?" - It really is bizarre, you have to question the motive...

My example was not actually, to argue for evolution (even though I accept it), infact I could have used any arguement - My point was someone could make a factual mistake which if refuted does not leave room for arguement. Personally, I have read quite alot into evolution, to me it is a fact of life just like gravity - and my view is shared by all scientists who do not use "bad science" to negate it - even theistic scientists who accept it is true. At one point, when you study through it, it seemed just lying to myself to deny it being true. But, if you believe a religion to be true, you should know it would not contradict science. I would rather not go into a debate if evolution is true or not - because it is such a topic that - I would rather you read some books on it. I myself was against evolution for several years, but it was all based on bias material - I never was objective on the issue.

As for Deedat, yes their was live debates. But usually, live/public debates - are often the ones most scrutinised for errors. This is usually that those who participate are not always the best. Did you ever get to see Nadir Ahmed against Sam Shermoun live debate at a University? Nadir Ahmed was very poor and could not represent Islam properly - and In that debate I would have to confirm that Sam Shermoun did win that debate (Nadir ended up in adhominem and non-relevant arguements, basically showed up as someone who could not defend Islam).

You can look up criticisms of Deedats arguements - they are in masses I am sure - and make your conclusion if you will use this as dawah to christians. Personally, I found, if the people are learned in the religion, not to do so. It is like, someone using Robert Spencers arguements on muslims, it may convince those who do not know alot about Islam (or, at the very least, unable to defend against the claims), but to a learned muslim he would just be laughing.

Personally, people should keep their dawah to the religion of Islam itself and not dwelve in attacking other faiths or going into their books. Most people arn't learned enough in those to make universal arguements - I believe even Yusuf Estes once questioned on it, being quite learned in Christianity, decided not to attack the bible, because he has learnt that it is not the correct way.
Reply

جوري
06-21-2008, 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
The articles you posted are quite old and I have seen them in the past - they actually - Use outdated numbers - infact many of them have been improved to show far better odds - At the end it is just estimations and I dont't pay too much attention to it, sort of like Drakers equation.
His second article is in fact a refutation to some concerns that have arisen afterwards. I don't believe I have seen anything with better variables 'numbers'.. in which case I say why favor one theory over another if they are all of same caliber?
What methods do you think should be employed to prove or disprove a theory? science in general isn't built to 'prove' any theory rather disprove the alternative, and I think using math a science dealing with the logic as well as sciences of matter, energy the laws that govern our universe are a strong contender for this sort of a theory... many are rejective of arguments from design, what possible reasons could there be to reject disputations from math and probability?

On a further note, if something is improbable, so improbably - and not impossible - and then you have evidence of it occuring - then you cannot deny the evidence on the basis it is "improbable". The Universe is around 13-15 billion years old, with Earth only coming in the last 4-5 billion years (to give you an idea of the timescale). The probability game seems to confuse me alot, because just a look at the fossil record, the DNA, the extreme similarities in many species (such that, you have useless characteristics of say a Cat, like the raising of the back of your hair in fear, which a cat can use to make himself look bigger, or your tailbone) and so much more - it is quite a broad topic which does deserve atleast consideration. I think however,
I assure you if there were 'evidence' the term used to describe it wouldn't be a 'theory' by defintion, a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
I believe Dr Mullan, has expanded on variables that work even against his own research to accomadate a wider view which is one of the things he was remonstrated for, if you can call adding more varibles to solidify your work a flaw, as well using various resources in his paper, the first model of the oldest known fossil, time considered when living conditions on earth themselves are sufficient to 'foster life' . With such papers as his, as well others that arise, I prefer a thorough probe of same gauge, rather than a repudiative 'dated model' --evolution itself is very dated and asks one to take rather large leaps of faith.
Knowing what I personally know of mutations, DNA breaks, jumping genes as well as current modes we have on inserting large genomic segements into DNA ergo liposomes/ Ecoli bacteria etc to turn a theory with some gaps into accepted palpable knowledge. I have to concede in the end it comes down to a permutation.. we have exchanged one theory for another but without enough substantive evidence to sustain it and each in this case is entitled to his beliefs --
with people like Harun Yahya, and darwinism-watch websites, which just state alot of "bad" science, convinces people. I mean, today it is strange, that a qualified scientist - is stating "Why arn't monkeys giving birth to humans now then?" - It really is bizarre, you have to question the motive...
I haven't brought Harun Yahya at all into this, anymore than I have lesser scholars to make a case for Islam. I assay work seeking established scientests not just for credibility but because I personally like to get a more microscopic view of a professional capacity.. as to why something is impossible or improbable or the reverse etc. You don't usually get that from lay folks no matter how well meaning their work is usually superficial even if not entirely incorrect!

My example was not actually, to argue for evolution (even though I accept it), infact I could have used any arguement - My point was someone could make a factual mistake which if refuted does not leave room for arguement. Personally, I have read quite alot into evolution, to me it is a fact of life just like gravity - and my view is shared by all scientists who do not use "bad science" to negate it - even theistic scientists who accept it is true. At one point, when you study through it, it seemed just lying to myself to deny it being true. But, if you believe a religion to be true, you should know it would not contradict science. I would rather not go into a debate if evolution is true or not - because it is such a topic that - I would rather you read some books on it. I myself was against evolution for several years, but it was all based on bias material - I never was objective on the issue.
I don't wish to bring evolution into this any more than you do, as I have given it more time than it actually deserves on this forum-- my problems with evolution are well autonomous from religion.. I have already covered my objections on threads that deal with that subject matter ad nauseam.
Bringing 'all scientests' into it, seems to me a bit delusive to me... to begin with, taking a survey of whom belives in what is already a slanted approach by way of logical fallacies using both an appeal to authority and making an argument by generalization... I have no doubt you have deeply researched the matter, but consider that others, may have spent an equal time researching drawing a completely different conclusion.

Of course this all depends on what your definition of evolution is? whether it is a mere adaption say as your lower esophagus becomes more columnar than squamous with repeated insults, or whether you are speaking of actual speciation.. Many things are related that is a fact, we share fifty percent of our genes with bananas, I don't think, it is a distant relative of mine... this is the formula for our universe, the same way I use twenty six letters of the alphabet to make seemingly endless words..

As for Deedat, yes their was live debates. But usually, live/public debates - are often the ones most scrutinised for errors. This is usually that those who participate are not always the best. Did you ever get to see Nadir Ahmed against Sam Shermoun live debate at a University? Nadir Ahmed was very poor and could not represent Islam properly - and In that debate I would have to confirm that Sam Shermoun did win that debate (Nadir ended up in adhominem and non-relevant arguements, basically showed up as someone who could not defend Islam).
I didn't see the particular lecture you speak of, but have seen many of deedat's work with such folks as Jimmy swaggart and anis sharoosh who by the way was recently arrested for assault of that alone doesn't detract from his credibility.. I think it depends on how well studied and familiar the debater is with other scriptures and I believe Dr deedat is extremely well learned. May Allah reward him and grant him heaven's high meed for his great efforts, as I personally have learned alot from him!

You can look up criticisms of Deedats arguements - they are in masses I am sure - and make your conclusion if you will use this as dawah to christians. Personally, I found, if the people are learned in the religion, not to do so. It is like, someone using Robert Spencers arguements on muslims, it may convince those who do not know alot about Islam (or, at the very least, unable to defend against the claims), but to a learned muslim he would just be laughing.
I never looked to use his material for da3wa, I personally (and this is just me) don't think that da3wa comes from a debate, but he has certainly done an excellent job refuting and explaining many arguments leveled against Islam and that is usually what I seek to watch his lectures for me, I have browsed some of the arguments on the web against Dr. deedat, I found them very pedestrian at best. My personal favorite scholar would be sheikh sha3rawi, who doesn't speak English and had no interest in converting anyone.. and that is usually what I seek, to learn Islam better rather than highlight the deficiencies found in other religions..

personally I find that to be more a christian approach to belief than an Islamic one.. it seems to me by landslide that evangelists of all denominations seek character assassination, blackwash of prophet Mohammed P and the Quran etc, than deal with a very fundamental problem with theirs.. the 'man/god who went to nunciate his birth to a woman, after impregnating her with his person, leaving the universe behind to show up in the little town of nazerth, pray to himself in the garden of Gethsemane, da*n the earth he created for not bearing the fruit of his choosing, while leaving behind all the cosmos only to die on the cross while somehow sustaining all the laws of the universe, night and day, the seasons, the rising and setting of stars in their orbit to save man kind who are later to drink his blood and eat his flesh and still maintain that they are all one in the same 'person'-- to be quite honest, I don't see how anyone can get past that point to take it to a level more inscrutable and lose at such a debate?... at the very crux there is a major leap of faith that I have to assume and for everything else to be true, I personally can't get past it. I don't think even an uneducated Muslim can falter far behind from intellectionthat appears to me very dark and medieval at the base level!

Personally, people should keep their dawah to the religion of Islam itself and not dwelve in attacking other faiths or going into their books. Most people arn't learned enough in those to make universal arguements - I believe even Yusuf Estes once questioned on it, being quite learned in Christianity, decided not to attack the bible, because he has learnt that it is not the correct way.
agreed as per my last statement!

:w:
Reply

mkh4JC
06-22-2008, 07:09 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine

who are later to drink his blood and eat his flesh and still maintain that they are all one in the same 'person'--
:w:
While I may not be able to come up with much defense to the rest of your argument (only a baby in Christ myself) I could at least attempt to answer this concern. This is very Catholic in nature and just like many of their beliefs transubstantiation isn't scriptural. Here's what the Bible says, and not the Roman Catholic Church, about communion:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/eucharist.html
Reply

جوري
06-22-2008, 03:57 PM
Originally Posted by Fedos
While I may not be able to come up with much defense to the rest of your argument (only a baby in Christ myself) I could at least attempt to answer this concern. This is very Catholic in nature and just like many of their beliefs transubstantiation isn't scriptural. Here's what the Bible says, and not the Roman Catholic Church, about communion:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/eucharist.html
I am well aware that is a catholic practice, as I have gone to catholic school...

cheers
Reply

SixTen
06-23-2008, 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I believe Dr Mulland.....
I hope brother IbnAbdulHakim does not mind, 1 more "sidetracking of the thread. I wanted to make some very major thing that I noticed in his articles. Its about starting points, that are to be RNA - when really - this does not have to be starting point. Replicating molecules would come before this usually (people assume nowadays that it is most likely clay molecules - now how well does that go with that God started mans creation from clay :statisfie).

Here are some other comments on those articles.

Fallacies include:

[1] Assertion that the assembly process would be "random" (a word frequently misused by creationists and ID propagandists). Apparently the idea that chemical reactions aren't "random" but are well ordered processes that have been extensively documented by organic chemists for 200 years is unknown to this individual. In which case, what is he doing purporting to be able to lecture people on organic chemistry and its application to abiogenesis? More to the point, what is a tenured professor of astrophysics at a recognised university doing writing screeds like this for the liars for ID?

[2] The Serial Trials fallacy once again asserts itself.

[3] The "One True Sequence" fallacy once again asserts itself, in an interesting variant where he states that a cell protein that performs one function has to be specific for that function and that function alone. The fact that cell proteins can possess multiple functions depending upon where they are expressed is apparently lost upon him. It would appear he's learned nothing from the fact that the proteins of the bacterial flagellum have been found to possess extensive homologies with the Type 3 Secretory System.

[4] We also have the spurious retrofitting of probabilities to events that have already happened. If an event has already happened (and life appearing on Earth has definitely happened) then its probability is by definition 1. Retrofitting probabilities to events that have already happened is a well known fallacy in probability theory. Probabilities are only valid to assign to events that have yet to happen.
Mullan writes that his assumtions are extremely minimalist. But they aren´t. There are self-replicating strands of RNA with roughly 100 BPs, he assumes 504 as a minimum. A factor of 5 doesn´t seem that bad, but that goes into an exponent, and that means he´s off by more than 240 orders of magnitude(!) by line 10 of the summary. Usually a comparison with distances illustrates how far off creationists are. But the biggest lenght we can talk about (diameter of the visible universe), and the smallest (the planck lenght, where light with shorter wavelenghts would produce a black hole) are only different by ~60 orders of magnitude, the same goes for age of the universe vs. planck time.
Reply

جوري
06-23-2008, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
I hope brother IbnAbdulHakim does not mind, 1 more "sidetracking of the thread. I wanted to make some very major thing that I noticed in his articles. Its about starting points, that are to be RNA - when really - this does not have to be starting point. Replicating molecules would come before this usually (people assume nowadays that it is most likely clay molecules - now how well does that go with that God started mans creation from clay :statisfie).

Here are some other comments on those articles.
Did you read those quotes thoroughly and understand what they are trying to assert?
The 'random' part. in fact that is what most atheists attribute our existence here on earth and an explanation for the cosmos, nothing more than a series of stochastic processes!.. if in fact it weren't random, it would automatically denote that there is an intelligent-thought/design behind it.. which offers you back the argument from ID, how hilarious?

Not only would this leave an atheist in the precarious position of having to explain, how, or what non-random event(s), allowed for all those seemingly perfect consequences to happen and why, but it would leave them in the very least at the position of hypocrites.
As well as it failed to understand how the scientific method in and of itself works, which is not to to prove itself but prove the opposite untrue.. I ask you to read more about the Null hypothesis, P value, confidence intervals etc.

It is prudent to pick a niche and stick with it, lest one is left with a deep dilemma.. How do you sort through all the information being thrown at you? one should at least have a strong foundation in science, not a pulitzer in delineating 'fallacies'
There is a blog where Dr. Mullan already answers all his opponents.. But I am yet to see an argument that meets him on a level rather than these inane attempts that take us all back exactly where we've started from...
I think your approach akhi, and I am certainly not mocking your style, you should indeed stick with what works for you, but to use your own reason to sort through , not some guy's piteous paragraph that fails to be logical on its own accord or have a meaningful connection to the subject matter..


p.s: as a last note, Dr. Mullan uses the smallest component available at all to sustain life, which is actually smaller than that of a virus, those of you familiar with mircobiology will understand that viruses on their own accord aren't considered living organisms, rather need the host machinery to unrobe, replicate and bud out of the host cell.. I can't for the life of me, understand how someone can use that against him.. I say come with a better theory and I am willing to accept it, but come with it at the level of molecular and cell biology, because that is what we claim was the origin of life!

Akhi.. I know you have gotten your argument from the Richard Dawkin site
RichardDawkins.net Forum • View topic - Evolutionists views on the ...Mullan writes that his assumtions are extremely minimalist. But they aren´t. There are self-replicating strands of RNA with roughly 100 BPs, he assumes 504 ...
richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=48609&p=1026077 - 49k - 17 hours ago -
and I believe that on many levels to be the making of intellectual dishonesty, especially in the age of google!

That is all I have to say on that matter!


:w:
Reply

SixTen
06-23-2008, 07:02 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
Did you read those quotes thoroughly and understand what they are trying to assert?
The 'random' part. in fact that is what most atheists attribute our existence here on earth and an explanation for the cosmos, nothing more than a series of stochastic processes!.. if in fact it weren't random, it would automatically denote that there is an intelligent-thought/design behind it.. which offers you back the argument from ID, how hilarious?

Not only would this leave an atheist in the precarious position of having to explain, how, or what non-random event(s), allowed for all those seemingly perfect consequences to happen and why, but it would leave them in the very least at the position of hypocrites.
As well as it failed to understand how the scientific method in and of itself works, which is not to to prove itself but prove the opposite untrue.. I ask you to read more about the Null hypothesis, P value, confidence intervals etc.

It is prudent to pick a niche and stick with it, lest one is left with a deep dilemma.. How do you sort through all the information being thrown at you? one should at least have a strong foundation in science, not a pulitzer in delineating 'fallacies'
There is a blog where Dr. Mullan already answers all his opponents.. But I am yet to see an argument that meets him on a level rather than these inane attempts that take us all back exactly where we've started from...
I think your approach akhi, and I am certainly not mocking your style, you should indeed stick with what works for you, but to use your own reason to sort through , not some guy's piteous paragraph that fails to be logical on its own accord or have a meaningful connection to the subject matter..


p.s: as a last note, Dr. Mullan uses the smallest component available at all to sustain life, which is actually smaller than that of a virus, those of you familiar with mircobiology will understand that viruses on their own accord aren't considered living organisms, rather need the host machinery to unrobe, replicate and bud out of the host cell.. I can't for the life of me, understand how someone can use that against him.. I say come with a better theory and I am willing to accept it, but come with it at the level of molecular and cell biology, because that is what we claim was the origin of life!

Akhi.. I know you have gotten your argument from the Richard Dawkin site, and I believe that on many levels to be the making of intellectual dishonesty!

That is all I have to say on that matter!


:w:

Whats your opinion of him leaving out pre-organic building blocks, the self replicators, as a foundation to RNA/DNA, rather than the abiogenesis of RNA/DNA through random molecule collisions etc?
Reply

جوري
06-23-2008, 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
Whats your opinion of him leaving out pre-organic building blocks, the self replicators, as a foundation to RNA/DNA, rather than the abiogenesis of RNA/DNA through random molecule collisions etc?
:sl:

My opinion is that abiogenesis/ autogenesis/ spontaneous generation is a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter..
until someone turns that theory into scientific truths that survives experimental testing would I consider it as a feasible route for his paper.. I must concede than on the very basic level I want the subject matter to be derived by logic, from observed facts rather than on an a priori judgment!

:w:
Reply

SixTen
06-23-2008, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
:sl:

My opinion is that abiogenesis/ autogenesis/ spontaneous generation is a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter..
until someone turns that theory into scientific truths that survives experimental testing would I consider it as a feasible route for his paper.. I must concede than on the very basic level I want the subject matter to be derived by logic, from observed facts rather than on an a priori judgment!

:w:
Oh ok, so you are on the fence on that one, have you read about recent news of the ecoli virus regarding evolution? (was on newsscientist I believe). Also, on lines with suppose no evolution happened, what are your opinions on the fossils to date? For example, how do you address the homonid species, are they seperate beings to humans, or do you see them as humans but in another form, also, how do you correlate it with dates - of the existance of animals and so fourth? Evolution isn't important to me, it just makes sense for all the data we have at the moment personally - I just have a fickle that it is the view that evolution denies a) God or b) Religion (not saying you have this view, but alot of people do).
Reply

Tornado
06-23-2008, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
... I just have a fickle that it is the view that evolution denies a) God or b) Religion (not saying you have this view, but alot of people do).
Evolution in no way denies the existence of god. Evolution can possibly deny a religion if what a religion says is contradictory to what evolution says.
Reply

جوري
06-23-2008, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
Oh ok, so you are on the fence on that one,
Not on the fence, I am concerned with theories rather than their practical applications when it comes to religion not when it comes to science!

have you read about recent news of the ecoli virus regarding evolution? (was on newsscientist I believe).
What about E.coli?


Also, on lines with suppose no evolution happened,
Again I ask what your definition of evolution is, a mere adaptation (seen observed) or a (speciation) as in your ancient great grand uncle was a homo erectus?

what are your opinions on the fossils to date? For example, how do you address the homonid species, are they seperate beings to humans, or do you see them as humans but in another form, also, how do you correlate it with dates -
I look at them as species gone extinct, with whom we share similar DNAs again, we share 50% of our genes with bananas, I don't think of them as a near or far relative, just the components of our universe!

of the existance of animals and so fourth? Evolution isn't important to me, it just makes sense for all the data we have at the moment personally - I just have a fickle that it is the view that evolution denies a) God or b) Religion (not saying you have this view, but alot of people do).
As I have already stated, I have no reservation whatsoever if evolution were God's plan.. some contend that his name 'al bare'e' means the evolver! certainly if he creates in cloud form he can create in homo erectus form until such a time when conditions here on earth are favorable for human form, I just see no evidence that, that is how it occured, I just have no need to take large leaps of faith in science.. I know many a devoutely religious folks who contend that evolution is a fact not a theory, and I get into long arguments with them ( I am inquisitive by nature) and when they offer me no sound explanations at the elementary level, or when we simply don't know or are in the process of finding out comes up, I wonder why it is, that I have to substitute one belief with another? Is it merely because I don't wish to be looked down upon by the likes of Dr. Dawkin?

I will be happy to change my views, at such a time when I see a specie turn into another due to a mutation or a break in a DNA or a jumping gene or whatever.. until such a time, I have quite a few reservation on accepting that theory as a fact!


:w:
Reply

SixTen
06-23-2008, 08:35 PM
I will be happy to change my views, at such a time when I see a specie turn into another due to a mutation or a break in a DNA or a jumping gene or whatever.. until such a time, I have quite a few reservation on accepting that theory as a fact!
You do realise, that is an impossibility, due to how long evolution takes and how long humans live :), you would have to have lived millions of years - if you wanted to see visual proof of evolution of animals etc (Unless you are content with things such as e-coli etc).

Anyway, I just realised I mixed up the debate, we should treat abiogenesis (origin of life) to evolution (that is, species to species) very seperatly - as you rightly stated abiogenesis are mostly theories. Think I can stop disturbing IbnAbdulHakims thread :)!
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-23-2008, 08:54 PM
^ yep , evo and islam dont mix.


anyway i hope to see more "REAL ANSWERS" to my question inshaAllaah
Reply

جوري
06-23-2008, 09:02 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
You do realise, that is an impossibility, due to how long evolution takes and how long humans live :), you would have to have lived millions of years - if you wanted to see visual proof of evolution of animals etc (Unless you are content with things such as e-coli etc).
actually is really isn't we have the means to insert vectors into DNA thereby changing its transcriptions by way of E.coli and liposomes.. I am all for it, I realize there will be legal issues, but don't see the harm in taking an ape of some sort and 'humanizing it' so to speak?!

Anyway, I just realised I mixed up the debate, we should treat abiogenesis (origin of life) to evolution (that is, species to species) very seperatly - as you rightly stated abiogenesis are mostly theories. Think I can stop disturbing IbnAbdulHakims thread :)!
I agree
:w:
Reply

Uthman
06-23-2008, 09:12 PM
I don't know what makes me so sure that Islam is right. But I definitely am sure! That might sound like a ridiculous answer, and it probably is but I'm being honest.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-23-2008, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
I don't know what makes me so sure that Islam is right. But I definitely am sure! That might sound like a ridiculous answer, and it probably is but I'm being honest.
It's not ridiculous at all. Many religious as well as irreligious people feel that way about their beliefs.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-23-2008, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by Osman
I don't know what makes me so sure that Islam is right. But I definitely am sure! That might sound like a ridiculous answer, and it probably is but I'm being honest.
no i actually really loved that answer.


Makes me wonder how many people can be sure that they are really right... :)
Reply

Güven
06-23-2008, 10:09 PM
:sl:

My whole Life was an simple yet so different life as others , I have been In Trials Wich I have never seen with people I know ,
Plus I had A "Thing" in Me Wich Forbade Me To fall In MAjor Sins in the Past, Alhamdullilah
And I believe That WHatever Happened In the Past HAs Made Me What I am Today "A Muslim'', And I believe If Those Things Didnt Happen In the Past I would be Whole Different Person.

I Truly Truly Believe That I have been Guided Alhamdullilah , I Noticed The Guidance But yet Its Still been too difficult To me not to fall In sins. May Allah Forgive Us.

Let me say it Simple : I believe Islam Is The Truth and I believe That I have Truly NO other Choice than To believe In the Truth :)

:w:
Reply

Tornado
06-24-2008, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by Osman
I don't know what makes me so sure that Islam is right. But I definitely am sure! That might sound like a ridiculous answer, and it probably is but I'm being honest.
The problem is that people of all religion feel that way and that brings us back to square one.
Reply

Chuck
06-24-2008, 12:22 AM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
^ yep , evo and islam dont mix.
read this: http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/mag...s/92_tusi.html

Origin of Humans
Tusi believed that humans were derived from advanced animals. He wrote about the different transition forms between the human and animal world, saying: "Such humans [probably anthropoid apes] live in the Western Sudan and other distant corners of the world. They are close to animals by their habits, deeds and behavior."

Tusi said that humans are related to all living and inanimate creatures of Nature: "The human has features that distinguish him from other creatures, but he has other features that unite him with the animal world, vegetable kingdom or even with the inanimate bodies."

As to the differences, Tusi wrote that humans are not only biological, but also social beings: "Before [the creation of humans], all differences between organisms were of the natural origin. The next step will be associated with spiritual perfection, will, observation and knowledge."

According to Tusi, humans are distinct from animals because they are able to make professional tools (instruments). In conclusion, Tusi wrote: "All these facts prove that the human being is placed on the middle step of the evolutionary stairway. According to his inherent nature, the human is related to the lower beings, and only with the help of his will can he reach the higher development level."

Allegory or Science?
So why isn't Tusi widely known for developing the theory of evolution? It isn't just because he was from the East and wrote in Persian. Tusi's theory is based on philosophy and Islam. He believed that God created the world, and that after creation occurred, the world developed on its own, while God supervises and guides this process.

As a result, Eastern scientists who are familiar with Tusi's views about the perfection of the world have tended to interpret them from a religious or philosophical point of view. Many Muslims don't agree with the theory of evolution, just as some Christians don't, because it contradicts official theology. Although Tusi points at some of the same principles that Darwin developed, Eastern scientists consider Tusi's views as an allegory about the perfection of the human soul *not as naturalistic theory.
Reply

SixTen
06-24-2008, 12:50 AM
^

promise its the last disturbance - but that is a very interesting find. Rep coming your way.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-24-2008, 09:07 AM
Originally Posted by Tornado
The problem is that people of all religion feel that way and that brings us back to square one.
If only we could take out the feelings of the committed and sincere individual of every religion and weigh them out eh :)


i say that because i truelly believe each religion gives a different feeling, i may be wrong
Reply

Tornado
06-24-2008, 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
If only we could take out the feelings of the committed and sincere individual of every religion and weigh them out eh :)


i say that because i truelly believe each religion gives a different feeling, i may be wrong
Yea, I think you are wrong. The weight I would think is very much the same. Just as you strongly believe as a Muslim, there are people of other faiths that just as strongly believe as Christians, etc..
Reply

جوري
06-24-2008, 07:10 PM
That applies to atheism too, since you are enforcing a universal negative!

cheers
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-24-2008, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Yea, I think you are wrong. The weight I would think is very much the same. Just as you strongly believe as a Muslim, there are people of other faiths that just as strongly believe as Christians, etc..
they might strongly believe in something but that something will give them a different feeling just as two different drinks have different tastes.
Reply

Tornado
06-24-2008, 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
That applies to atheism too, since you are enforcing a universal negative!

cheers
Universal negative?

The topic states "what makes you so sure that "your" religion is right".

As an atheist, I'm not 100% sure I'm right. I only say I think there is no god. I see it as a sad truth that we don't have an afterlife to look forward to.

It's just the religious people of all faith are sure that what they believe in is right.
Reply

جوري
06-24-2008, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Universal negative?
Yup! Read up on it!

The topic states "what makes you so sure that "your" religion is right".
indeed... and atheism is what you have chosen as a 'way of life' which makes you a subscriber to an atheist doctrine.. really no different than any subscriber to any school of thought!

As an atheist, I'm not 100% sure I'm right. I only say I think there is no god. I see it as a sad truth that we don't have an afterlife to look forward to.

It's just the religious people of all faith are sure that what they believe in is right.
subscribing to a religion doesn't mean you subscribe to an after life.. many in fact believe they transmigrate, reincarnated etc...

from an earlier post of mine!

Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
'Will atheists ever give proof of God's nonexistence'-- since they with the burden of proof of course to find a logical manner to explain all that is in existence.. preferably under one canopy considering they are often fond of the 'principle of parsimony'... In the end they too are subject to infractions resulting from the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise... If at the inception is a non-demonstrable theory of their own making (panspermia) (abiogenesis) etc.. they too are illogical and are followers of a man made doctrine....

'Which God' and 'why' is much too advanced a topic for folks who don't believe in God or I should say believe in a lesser God being (palpable science) only.. there is no point discussing finite details on the flight manual when you can't distinguish a bird from a plane..


Ultimately you have folks who have replaced Thor, or odin for Darwin or Dawkin et al.

at the end we are all pretty evenly matched... except some of us like to take provisions for the road!


:w:


cheers
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-24-2008, 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
As an atheist, I'm not 100% sure I'm right. I only say I think there is no god. .
that makes you an agnostic which leans towards atheism?

i thought atheists coldly out-right deny God?
Reply

Sapahi
06-24-2008, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
It all makes sense to me. The Prophets of Sikhism If compared to others, are unique. Also, all other Religions have Scriptures written by men not the Prophets, Sikhism, is the ONLY Relgion where the Prohets themselves have written the Holy Book. This to me SEALS it! :)
The Holy Quran is ALLAH Ta'alas speech given to our Holy Prophet Muhammad pbuh...
Reply

Sapahi
06-24-2008, 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Yea, I think you are wrong. The weight I would think is very much the same. Just as you strongly believe as a Muslim, there are people of other faiths that just as strongly believe as Christians, etc..
Yes but they have different versions of thier book. The Holy Quran has remained un altered since it was written...
Reply

Tornado
06-24-2008, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
that makes you an agnostic which leans towards atheism?

i thought atheists coldly out-right deny God?
Agnostics are more neutral. They don't say there is a god nor do they say there isn't a god. I do think there is no god so that makes me an atheist.

Atheism isn't a way of life, just a lack of belief in god. There's nothing else that's universally common about atheists.

I'm sorry, I don't know how to multi-quote :-[
" Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine View Post
'Will atheists ever give proof of God's nonexistence'-- since they with the burden of proof of course to find a logical manner to explain all that is in existence.. preferably under one canopy considering they are often fond of the 'principle of parsimony'... In the end they too are subject to infractions resulting from the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise... If at the inception is a non-demonstrable theory of their own making (panspermia) (abiogenesis) etc.. they too are illogical and are followers of a man made doctrine....

'Which God' and 'why' is much too advanced a topic for folks who don't believe in God or I should say believe in a lesser God being (palpable science) only.. there is no point discussing finite details on the flight manual when you can't distinguish a bird from a plane..


Ultimately you have folks who have replaced Thor, or odin for Darwin or Dawkin et al.

at the end we are all pretty evenly matched... except some of us like to take provisions for the road!"

How do I explain all that is in existence? I can't. We're not smart enough to do that. It's all very confusing, who designed the "original designer", who designed that designer who designed "original designer"... I just don't know.
Reply

جوري
06-24-2008, 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado

How do I explain all that is in existence? I can't. We're not smart enough to do that. It's all very confusing, who designed the "original designer", who designed that designer who designed "original designer"... I just don't know

I know you don't... you'd rather assert a point to which you have no knowledge while deriding those who offer one!...

cheers
Reply

Tornado
06-24-2008, 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
I know you don't... you'd rather assert a point to which you have no knowledge while deriding those who offer one!...

cheers
Would you accept that you could be wrong? There's a difference between offering one and saying it's definitely so
Reply

جوري
06-24-2008, 11:35 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Would you accept that you could be wrong? There's a difference between offering one and saying it's definitely so
If I am I can deal with the consequences of my error.. can you?

cheers
Reply

Tornado
06-25-2008, 12:31 AM
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine
If I am I can deal with the consequences of my error.. can you?

cheers
Guess not, but I can't just accept a religion because I'd be lying to myself.
Reply

جوري
06-25-2008, 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Guess not, but I can't just accept a religion because I'd be lying to myself.
That is fair enough!

cheers
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-25-2008, 02:54 PM
Hi Tornado,
I can understand when you say that you can't just accept a religion because you'd be lying to yourself. Back when I was an atheist, I thought just the same thing. And it's a sign of integrity, and a sign that you take religion serious. However I just wanted to point out that this can easily be a double-edged cutting sword. Allow me to elaborate:

You don't accept religion, because you are not convinced, which in itself is honorable. However; their could possibly exist two types of reservations, that keep you from being convinced.
1. Logical arguments
In this case, I hold that any argument against religion is flawed by circularity and bias. In the end religion is a matter of belief, and not a matter of proofs. This means that there also are no negative proofs, against religion. In such a case; saying that you can't believe because you're not convinced is merely closing the circle. It is a manner of protecting ones paradigm from indulging into alternative views. But these logical arguments against believing are very rare. Most of the time when dealing with religion, people rely on emotive arguments.
2. Emotive arguments
In the case of emotive arguments, not being convinced is a matter of willpower. Emotive arguments don't necessarily follow logic but often go despite logic. It is thus no longer a matter of "being able" to be convinced; but rather a matter of "not wanting" to be convinced.

Now some people might be fully aware of this, in which case their viewpoint is a choice. If that is the case, I can do nothing else than respect your choice. However some people are unaware of this, in which case this argument of "not being able to believe" is a way of the mind to deceit ones self. It is then a form of denial, where the person is not willing to accept that his views are by choice. This is of course a comforting state. When your believe that your views are not by choice, you automatically also believe that you aren't responsible of your views also. For afterall, how could you be to blame for believing the only thing that makes sense to you? The opposite view, where belief is a choice afterall, might be less comforting. Because when an atheists accepts both: the possibility that he might be wrong, as well as accept that his beliefs are by choice; then he should also accept the possibility of being held accountable for a lousy choice.
Reply

mediadave
06-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Music.

I feel that music is the best evidence of the divine on this world, so I could not belong to any church that bans, disaproves or limits that. So basically, its Catholic church for me! And yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that you can all use to persuade me otherwise, but all I would need is to attend a Catholic Sung Mass and they would be for naught, I'm afraid.
Reply

crayon
06-25-2008, 06:36 PM
Originally Posted by mediadave
Music.

I feel that music is the best evidence of the divine on this world, so I could not belong to any church that bans, disaproves or limits that. So basically, its Catholic church for me! And yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that you can all use to persuade me otherwise, but all I would need is to attend a Catholic Sung Mass and they would be for naught, I'm afraid.
What if you were deaf? Would that be a reason for you to no longer believe in Catholicism? Or is music just a part of your greater belief? (sorry if that sounds horrible, i'm just curious, because yours is a very interesting answer)
Reply

mediadave
06-25-2008, 06:50 PM
What if you were deaf? Would that be a reason for you to no longer believe in Catholicism? Or is music just a part of your greater belief?
Oh sure, its just part of a greater belief. The Catholic Church is a church based around beauty (note, I'm not suggesting others aren't). The beauty of the language, the beauty of the liturgy, the beauty of the architecture, the beauty of the Icons and decorations, the beauty of the smell of incense and the beauty of the music.

A lot of churchs and faiths have attempted to strip all this away, either because they feel its impure in and of itself, or to make their faith more relevant to 'the common man'. I think this is a mistake. The beauty of the natural world, of the cosmos is what God has granted us and to refuse to strive to achieve that ourselves seems contrary to the gifts that have been given to us.

I admit that the music is a huge part of my personal faith (or at least the way I express it) - If I was or did become deaf, who knows.
Reply

جوري
06-25-2008, 07:10 PM
that is not religion, that is a lovely walk through the Museum or traveling to different cities or watching PBS
..
in fact, the pretty lights of spain, the 7 course meal, the fabulous extra strings in your music, the great architecture and the Enlightenment has come to Europe courtesy of Muslims... though that in and of itself is no reason to subscribe to a religion

Flight of the Black Bird (azyryab)

if you eat asparagus, or if you start your meal with soup and end with dessert, or if you use toothpaste, or if you wear your hair in bangs, you owe a lot to one of the greatest musicians in history. He was known as Ziryab, a colloquial Arabic term that translates as “blackbird.” He lived in medieval Spain more than a thousand years ago. He was a freed slave who made good, charming the royal court at Córdoba with his songs. He founded a music school whose fame survived more than 500 years after his death. Ibn Hayyan of Córdoba, one of Arab Spain’s greatest historians, says in his monumental Al-Muqtabas (The Citation) that Ziryab knew thousands of songs by heart and revolutionized the design of the musical instrument that became the lute. He spread a new musical style around the Mediterranean, influencing troubadours and minstrels and affecting the course of European music.

e was also his generation’s arbiter of taste and style and manners, and he exerted enormous influence on medieval European society. How people dressed, what and how they ate, how they groomed themselves, what music they enjoyed—all were influenced by Ziryab. If you’ve never heard of this remarkable artist, it’s not surprising. With the twists and turns of history, his name has dropped from public memory in the western world. But the changes he brought to Europe are very much a part of the reality we know today.

Fleeing Baghdad, Ziryab moved west with his family. He stopped in the hills of Kairouan, in modern-day Tunisia, before gaining an invitation to bring his musical skills to Córdoba.


One reason Ziryab is unknown to us is that he spoke Arabic, and was part of the royal court of the Arab empire in Spain. Muslims from Arabia and North Africa ruled part of Spain from AD 711 until 1492. The last remnant of Arab rule in the Iberian Peninsula, the Kingdom of Granada, was conquered by the armies of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella in the same year that Columbus sailed for the New World.

The Arabs called their Iberian domain Al-Andalus—a direct reference to the Vandals, who occupied the peninsula in the fifth century and whose legacy was still pervasive when Muslim forces arrived in the eighth—and that name survives today in the name of Spain’s southern province, Andalusia. At its peak, Al-Andalus experienced a golden age of civilization that was the envy of all Europe, and which set the stage for the European Renaissance that followed. Muslims, Christians and Jews interacted in a convivencia—a “living-together”—of tolerance and cooperation unparalleled in its time. Influences from Arab Spain spread to France and throughout Europe, and from there to the Americas. It was in this context that the achievements of Ziryab became part of western culture.



Blackbird flourished in the stimulating atmosphere of Harun al-Rashid’s Baghdad, developing his musical skills while implementing new ideas.
Ziryab’s achievements were not forgotten in the Arab world, and it is from historians there that we know of his life and accomplishments. As the 17th-century Arab historian al-Maqqari says in his Nafh al-Tib (Fragrant Breeze), “There never was, either before or after him, a man of his profession who was more generally beloved and admired.”

lackbird was actually named Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali ibn Nafi’, and he was born in about the year 789 in the land now called Iraq, perhaps in its capital, Baghdad. Some Arab historians say he was a freed slave—apparently a page or personal servant—whose family had served al-Mahdi, the caliph or ruler of the Baghdad-based Abbasid empire from 775 until his death in 785. In those days, many prominent musicians were slaves or freedmen, some of African origin, others from Europe or the Middle East (including Kurdistan and Persia). Historians differ over whether Ziryab was African, Persian or Kurdish. According to Ibn Hayyan, ‘Ali Ibn Nafi’ was called Blackbird because of his extremely dark complexion, the clarity of his voice and “the sweetness of his character.”

Blackbird studied music under the famous singer and royal court musician Ishaq al-Mawsili (“Isaac of Mosul”). Ishaq, his even more celebrated father, Ibrahim, and Ziryab are the three artists known as the fathers of Arabic music.

Baghdad was then a world center for culture, art and science. Its most famous ruler was Harun al-Rashid, who succeeded al-Mahdi. Harun was a lover of music, and brought many singers and musicians to the palace for the entertainment of his guests. Ishaq, as Harun’s chief musician, trained a number of students in the musical arts, among them Blackbird. Ziryab was intelligent and had a good ear; outside his lessons, he surreptitiously learned the songs of his master, which were said to have been complex and difficult even for an expert. Ishaq did not realize how much Ziryab had learned until Harun himself asked to hear the young musician.

In Ibn Hayyan’s account (as related by al-Maqqari), Ishaq told the caliph, “Yes, I’ve heard some nice things from Ziryab, some clear and emotional melodies—particularly some of my own rather unusual renditions. I taught him those songs because I considered them especially suited to his skill.”

Ziryab was summoned, and he sang for Harun al-Rashid. Afterward, when the caliph spoke to him, Ziryab answered “gracefully, with real charm of manner.” Harun asked him about his skill, and Blackbird replied, “I can sing what the other singers know, but most of my repertory is made up of songs suitable only to be performed before a caliph like Your Majesty. The other singers don’t know those numbers. If Your Majesty permits, I’ll sing for you what human ears have never heard before.”

Harun raised his eyebrows, and ordered that master Ishaq’s lute be handed to Ziryab. The Arabian lute or ‘ud, model of the European lute and relative of the guitar, was an instrument with four courses of strings, a body shaped like half a pear and a bent, fretless neck.



Performing before the caliph, the young musician upstaged his teacher, Ishaq al-Mawsuli, who forced him to choose between exile and death.
Ziryab respectfully declined the instrument. “I’ve brought my own lute,” he said, “which I made myself —stripping the wood and working it —and no other instrument satisfies me. I left it at the palace gate and, with your permission, I’ll send for it.”

Harun sent for the lute. He examined it. It looked like Ishaq al-Mawsuli’s.

“Why won’t you play your master’s lute?” the caliph asked.

“If the caliph wants me to sing in my master’s style, I’ll use his lute. But to sing in my own style, I need this instrument.”

“They look alike to me,” Harun said.

“At first glance, yes,” said Ziryab, “but even though the wood and the size are the same, the weight is not. My lute weighs about a third less than Ishaq’s, and my strings are made of silk that has not been spun with hot water—which weakens them. The bass and third strings are made of lion gut, which is softer and more sonorous than that of any other animal. These strings are stronger than any others, and they can better withstand the striking of the pick.” Ziryab’s pick was a sharpened eagle’s claw, rather than the usual piece of carved wood. He had also, significantly, added a fifth course of strings to the instrument.

Harun was satisfied. He ordered Ziryab to perform, and the young man began a song he had composed himself. The caliph was quite impressed. He turned to al-Mawsuli and said, “If I thought you had been hiding this man’s extraordinary ability, I’d punish you for not telling me about him. Continue his instruction until it’s completed. For my part, I want to contribute to his development.”

Ziryab had apparently concealed his finest talents from his own teacher. When Ishaq was finally alone with his pupil, he raged about being deceived. He said frankly that he was jealous of Ziryab’s skill, and feared the pupil would soon replace the master in the caliph’s favor.

“I could pardon this in no man, not even my own son,” Ishaq said. “If I weren’t still somewhat fond of you, I wouldn’t hesitate to kill you, regardless of the consequences. Here is your choice: Leave Baghdad, take up residence far from here, and swear that I’ll never hear from you again. If you do this, I’ll give you enough money to meet your needs. But if you choose to stay and spite me—I warn you, I’ll risk my life and all I possess to crush you. Make your choice!”

Ziryab did not hesitate; he took the money and left the Abbasid capital. Ishaq explained his protégé’s absence by claiming that Ziryab was mentally unbalanced and had left Baghdad in a rage at not receiving a gift from the caliph. “The young man is possessed,” Ishaq told Harun al-Rashid. “He’s subject to fits of frenzy that are horrible to witness. He believes the jinn speak with him and inspire his music. He’s so vain he believes his talent is unequaled in the world. I don’t know where he is now. Be thankful, Your Majesty, that he’s gone.”

There was a germ of truth in Ishaq’s tale: According to Ibn Hayyan and others, Ziryab did believe that in his dreams he heard the songs of the jinn, the spirit beings of Islamic and Arab lore. He would wake from a dream in the middle of the night and summon his own students, teaching them the melodies he had heard in his dreams.

As Reinhart Dozy notes in Histoire des Musulmans d’Espagne, “None knew better than Ishaq that there was no insanity in all this: What true artist, indeed, whether believing in jinn or not, has not known moments when he has been under the sway of emotions hard to define, and savoring of the supernatural?”

Ziryab and his family fled from Baghdad to Egypt and crossed North Africa to Kairouan in present-day Tunisia, seat of the Aghlabid dynasty of Ziyadat Allah I. There he was welcomed by the royal court. But he had no intention of staying in Kairouan; his eyes were on Spain. Under the Umayyads, Córdoba was fast becoming a cultural jewel to rival Baghdad, and Blackbird thought Córdoba might be a fit setting for his talents.

Ziryab wrote to al-Hakam, ruler of the emirate of Al-Andalus, and offered his musical skills. Al-Hakam, delighted with the prospect of adding a Baghdad musician to his court, wrote back inviting Ziryab to proceed to Córdoba. He offered the musician a handsome salary. Ziryab and his family packed their bags and headed overland to the Strait of Gibraltar. There they embarked on a ship bound for Algeciras, Spain.

When Ziryab arrived in Spain in the year 822, he was shocked to learn that al-Hakam was dead. Devastated, the young musician prepared to return to North Africa. But thanks to the glowing recommendation of Abu al-Nasr Mansur, a Jewish musician of the Córdoban royal court, al-Hakam’s son and successor ‘Abd al-Rahman II renewed the invitation to Ziryab.


Blackbird broke social barriers in Córdoba, teaching new musical styles to the children of the wealthy as well as to ordinary entertainers.

After meeting with the 33-year-old wonder from Baghdad, ‘Abd al-Rahman —who was about the same age—made him an attractive offer. Ziryab would receive a handsome salary of 200 gold pieces per month, with bonuses of 500 gold pieces at midsummer and the new year and 1000 on each of the two major Islamic holidays. He would be given 200 bushels of barley and 100 bushels of wheat each year. He would receive a modest palace in Córdoba and several villas with productive farmland in the countryside. Naturally, Ziryab accepted the offer; overnight he became a prosperous member of the landed upper class in Islamic Spain.

bd al-Rahman’s objective in hiring the young musician was to bring culture and refinement to the rough-and-ready country of Al-Andalus, the wild west of the Arab world and not too long ago a “barbarian” Gothic land far from the civilized centers of Damascus and Baghdad. The ruler’s own Umayyad family had come as exiles from Damascus, where they had ruled an Islamic empire for several hundred years. Now the power rested with the Abbasids in Baghdad, and that city had become a magnet for scientists, artists and scholars of all descriptions.

In fact, ‘Abd al-Rahman offered Ziryab employment before even asking him to perform. And when he eventually did hear Ziryab’s songs, contemporaries say the ruler was so captivated that he would never again listen to another singer. From that day forward, ‘Abd al-Rahman and Ziryab were close confidants, and would often meet to discuss poetry, history and all the arts and sciences.

Ziryab served as a kind of “minister of culture” for the Andalusi realm. One of his first projects was to found a school of music, which opened its doors not only to the talented sons and daughters of the higher classes but also to lower-class court entertainers. Unlike the more rigid conservatories of Baghdad, Ziryab’s school encouraged experimentation in musical styles and instruments. While the academy taught the world-famous styles and songs of the Baghdad court, Ziryab quickly began introducing his innovations and established his reputation as, in the words of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, “the founder of the musical traditions of Muslim Spain.”

He created the rules governing the performance of the nuba (or nauba), an important Andalusian Arab music form that survives today in the classical music of North Africa, known as maluf in Libya, Tunisia and eastern Algeria, and simply as andalusi music farther west. Ziryab created 24 nubas, one for each hour of the day, like the classical ragas of India. The nuba form became very popular in the Spanish Christian community and had a pronounced influence on the development of medieval European music.

Adding a fifth pair of strings to the lute gave the instrument greater delicacy of expression and a greater range. As music historian Julian Ribera wrote in the 1920’s, the medieval lute’s four courses of strings were widely believed to correspond to the four humors of the body. The first pair was yellow, symbolizing bile, the second was red for blood, the third white for phlegm, and the fourth, the bass pair, was black for melancholy. Ziryab, it was said, gave the lute a soul, adding another red pair of strings between the second and third courses.

Ziryab heightened the lute’s sensitivity by playing the instrument with a flexible eagle’s talon or quill, rather than the traditional wooden pick. This innovation spread quickly, and soon no skilled musician in Córdoba would consider touching wood to the strings of his lute.

Ziryab reputedly knew the words and melodies of 10,000 songs by heart. Though this claim may be exaggerated, his memory was certainly prodigious. He was also an excellent poet, a student of astronomy and geography, and a dazzling conversationalist, according to Ibn Hayyan and al-Maqqari. He often discussed the customs and manners of nations throughout the known world, and spoke extensively of the high civilization centered in Baghdad. As his popularity in Al-Andalus grew, so did his influence. His suggestions and recommendations became the popular fashion. Many of his new ideas gradually migrated into the land of the Franks—to France, Germany, northern Italy and beyond.


Ziryab’s innovations in Al-Andalus included appropriate clothing for each of the four seasons.


iryab loved well-prepared food almost as much as he did music. He revolutionized the arts of the table in Spain, in ways that survive to this day.

Before Ziryab, Spanish dining was a simple, even crude, affair, inherited from the Visigoths, the successors of the Vandals, and from local custom. Platters of different foods were piled together, all at the same time, on bare wooden tables. Table manners were nonexistent.

A wide array of foods was available in Al-Andalus—meats, fish and fowl, vegetables, cheeses, soups and sweets. Ziryab combined them in imaginative recipes, many originating in Baghdad. One of these dishes, consisting of meatballs and small triangular pieces of dough fried in coriander oil, came to be known as taqliyat Ziryab, or Ziryab’s fried dish; many others bore his name as well. He delighted court diners by elevating a humble spring weed called asparagus to the status of a dinner vegetable. Ziryab developed a number of delectable desserts, including an unforgettable treat of walnuts and honey that is served to this day in the city of Zaragoza. In his adopted home, Córdoba, the musician-gourmet is remembered today in an old dish of roasted and salted broad beans called ziriabí.

The staying power of Blackbird’s reputation is such that even today in Algeria, where Andalusi influence continues to echo, the sweet orange Arab pastry known as zalabia—here it takes the form of a spiral of fried batter soaked in saffron syrup—is believed by many Algerians to derive its name from Ziryab’s, a claim impossible to confirm or refute. An Indian version of zalabia, the jalebi, can be traced back to the 15th century within India but no earlier, and could be a borrowing from the Arabs and ultimately from Ziryab.

With the emir’s blessing, Ziryab decreed that palace dinners would be served in courses—that is, according to a fixed sequence, starting with soups or broths, continuing with fish, fowl or meats, and concluding with fruits, sweet desserts and bowls of pistachios and other nuts. This presentation style, unheard of even in Baghdad or Damascus, steadily gained in popularity, spreading through the upper and merchant classes, then among Christians and Jews, and even to the peasantry. Eventually the custom became the rule throughout Europe. The English expression “from soup to nuts,” indicating a lavish, multi-course meal, can be traced back to Ziryab’s innovations at the Andalusi table.

Dressing up the plain wooden dinner table, Ziryab taught local craftsmen how to produce tooled and fitted leather table coverings. He replaced the heavy gold and silver drinking goblets of the upper classes—a holdover from the Goths and Romans—with delicate, finely crafted crystal. He redesigned the bulky wooden soupspoon, substituting a trimmer, lighter-weight model.





From chess to coiffure, and from novel foods like asparagus to tooled leather table coverings, dinnerware and table manners, Ziryab pioneered customs that were later carried north, where they influenced the manners and customs of Europe.

Ziryab also turned his attention to personal grooming and fashion. He developed Europe’s first toothpaste (though what exactly its ingredients were, we cannot say). He popularized shaving among men and set new haircut trends. Before Ziryab, royalty and nobles washed their clothes with rose water; to improve the cleaning process, he introduced the use of salt.

For women, Blackbird opened a “beauty parlor/cosmetology school” not far from the Alcazar, the emir’s palace. He created hairstyles that were daring for the time. The women of Spain traditionally wore their hair parted in the middle, covering their ears, with a long braid down the back. Ziryab introduced a shorter, shaped cut, with bangs on the forehead and the ears uncovered. He taught the shaping of eyebrows and the use of depilatories for removing body hair. He introduced new perfumes and cosmetics. Some of Ziryab’s fashion tips he borrowed from the elite social circles of Baghdad, then the world’s most cosmopolitan city. Others were twists on local Andalusi custom. Most became widespread simply because Ziryab advocated them: He was a celebrity, and people gained status simply by emulating him.

As an arbiter of courtly dress, he decreed Spain’s first seasonal fashion calendar. In springtime, men and women were to wear bright colors in their cotton and linen tunics, shirts, blouses and gowns. Ziryab introduced colorful silk clothing to supplement traditional fabrics. In summer, white clothing was the rule. When the weather turned cold, Ziryab recommended long cloaks trimmed with fur, which became all the rage in Al-Andalus.

Ziryab exercised great clout at the emir’s court, even in political and administrative decision-making. ‘Abd al-Rahman II has been credited with organizing the “norms of the state” in Al-Andalus, transforming it from a Roman-Visigothic model to one set up along Abbasid lines, and Ziryab is said to have played a significant role in this process.

Ziryab brought in astrologers from India and Jewish doctors from North Africa and Iraq. The astrologers were grounded in astronomy, and Ziryab encouraged the spread of this knowledge. The Indians also knew how to play chess, and Ziryab had them teach the game to members of the royal court, and from there it spread throughout the peninsula.


Desserts like guirlache, an age-old concoction of walnuts, honey and sesame that is still popular today in Zaragoza, Spain, may well reflect the continuing influence of Ziryab, who combined arrays of ingredients in novel ways. Photo: Tor Eigeland.
ot surprisingly, Ziryab’s all-encompassing influence incurred the jealousy and resentment of other courtiers in Córdoba. Two celebrated poets of the day, Ibn Habib and al-Ghazzal, wrote scathing verses attacking him. Al-Ghazzal, a prominent Andalusi satirist, probably viewed the Baghdadi Ziryab as a high-toned interloper. Ziryab maintained the friendship and support of the emir, however, and that was all that mattered.

But ‘Abd al-Rahman II died in about 852, and his remarkable innovator Ziryab is believed to have followed about five years later. Ziryab’s children kept alive his musical inventions, assuring their spread throughout Europe. Each of his eight sons and two daughters eventually pursued a musical career, though not all became celebrities. The most popular singer was Ziryab’s son ‘Ubayd Allah, though his brother Qasim was said to have a better voice. Next in talent was ‘Abd al-Rahman, the first of the children to take over the music school after their father’s death—though arrogance was said to be his downfall, for he ended up alienating everyone, according to Ibn Hayyan.

Ziryab’s daughters were skilled musicians. The better artist was Hamduna, whose fame translated into marriage with the vizier of the realm. The better teacher was her sister ‘Ulaiya, the last surviving of Ziryab’s children, who went on to inherit most of her father’s musical clients. As ‘Abd al-Rahman II and Ziryab departed the stage, Córdoba was coming into its own as a cultural capital and seat of learning. By the time another ‘Abd al-Rahman—the third —took power in 912, the city had become the intellectual center of Europe. As historian James Cleugh said of Córdoba in Spain in the Modern World, “there was nothing like it, at that epoch, in the rest of Europe. The best minds in that continent looked to Spain for everything which most clearly differentiates a human being from a tiger.”

As the first millennium drew to a close, students from France, England and the rest of Europe flocked to Córdoba to study science, medicine and philosophy and to take advantage of the great municipal library with its 600,000 volumes. When they returned to their home countries, they took with them not only knowledge, but also art, music, cuisine, fashion and manners.

Europe found itself awash with new ideas and new customs, and among the many streams that flowed northward from the Iberian Peninsula, more than one had been channeled by Ziryab.

Robert W. Lebling, Jr. is head of electronic publishing for Saudi Aramco in Dhahran. His academic background includes studies in the history, politics and anthropology of Arab North Africa and Al-Andalus. He is collaborating on a book on natural remedies of Arabia.
Norman MacDonald is a Canadian free-lance illustrator who lives in Amsterdam. He has been sketching the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague.

This article appeared on pages 2-11 of the Al-Andalus print edition of Saudi Aramco World.


Check the Public Affairs Digital Image Archive for Al-Andalus images.



Source
Reply

Chuck
06-25-2008, 07:46 PM
Well nothing in my experience I found anything wrong in Quran, but my life experiences have confirmed it. Overall, Islam has given me balance of both physical and spiritual needs and wants, which I didn't found anywhere else.

Some of things from the top of my head are:
1. cleanness requirements and wudu.
2. salat
3. dietary guidelines
4. read the quote I've in my signature.

Once I thought what would I lose if I leave Islam, and it turned out the loss of these things were most important to me. Small things but they make the most difference in my life and give balance between physical and spiritual. It was like choosing an investment, there are many out there, but I needed to pick the best one.

Read the following post of mine, it would explain more: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post854258
Reply

Tornado
06-25-2008, 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi Tornado,
I can understand when you say that you can't just accept a religion because you'd be lying to yourself. Back when I was an atheist, I thought just the same thing. And it's a sign of integrity, and a sign that you take religion serious. However I just wanted to point out that this can easily be a double-edged cutting sword. Allow me to elaborate:

You don't accept religion, because you are not convinced, which in itself is honorable. However; their could possibly exist two types of reservations, that keep you from being convinced.
1. Logical arguments
In this case, I hold that any argument against religion is flawed by circularity and bias. In the end religion is a matter of belief, and not a matter of proofs. This means that there also are no negative proofs, against religion. In such a case; saying that you can't believe because you're not convinced is merely closing the circle. It is a manner of protecting ones paradigm from indulging into alternative views. But these logical arguments against believing are very rare. Most of the time when dealing with religion, people rely on emotive arguments.
2. Emotive arguments
In the case of emotive arguments, not being convinced is a matter of willpower. Emotive arguments don't necessarily follow logic but often go despite logic. It is thus no longer a matter of "being able" to be convinced; but rather a matter of "not wanting" to be convinced.

Now some people might be fully aware of this, in which case their viewpoint is a choice. If that is the case, I can do nothing else than respect your choice. However some people are unaware of this, in which case this argument of "not being able to believe" is a way of the mind to deceit ones self. It is then a form of denial, where the person is not willing to accept that his views are by choice. This is of course a comforting state. When your believe that your views are not by choice, you automatically also believe that you aren't responsible of your views also. For afterall, how could you be to blame for believing the only thing that makes sense to you? The opposite view, where belief is a choice afterall, might be less comforting. Because when an atheists accepts both: the possibility that he might be wrong, as well as accept that his beliefs are by choice; then he should also accept the possibility of being held accountable for a lousy choice.
It comes down to evidence. The beautiful world isn't evidence for me. How am I supposed to know that the Bible, Quran, etc... were divine in nature? I wasn't there to see it and thus should I base my life on what others say happened? For the most part, you are born into a certain religion. If you are born in the U.S., the chances are you will be a Christian, if you are born in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan..etc, chances are you will be a Muslim. I can't imagine why a god would choose where you are born and then punish you for eternity if you don't follow a certain religion. If you are a good person (philanthropist) but definitely reject god, I can't imagine why you should go to hellfire forever just because you weren't convinced.
Reply

Ayesha Rana
06-25-2008, 09:13 PM
Don't worry bro, everyone will get a chance to see the truth insha'Allah. It is our duty to search for it and when we find it, accept it without our ego acting as a barrier. The hellfire is for those people who deny the truth when they see it clearly. just beacuse someone is not a muslim, it does not permit us to condemn them to hell. Allah knows their intentions and will judge them as He wills because He is our creator and knows us better than we know ourselves.
Fitrah (human nature) is what Allah gave us to make us incline towards the truth in the same way as the prophet Ibrahim (as) was guided.
there are some beautiful accounts that i would like to post up but i don't have the links just yet...soon insha'Allah
I hope insha'Allah that this helps.
Wassalam
Reply

mediadave
06-25-2008, 10:34 PM
Skye, thanks for posting that story though I feel it affirms my own beliefs. I'm sure that Ziryab was a seminal musician, though I know that a good proportion of this forum would believe he was sinning by creating that music. I believe he was doing precisely the opposite.

that is not religion, that is a lovely walk through the Museum or traveling to different cities or watching PBS
And Muslims (and Protestants, etc) make a concious effort to seperate that beauty, that enjoyment, that enlightenment from the practice of your religion. I believe I understand the reasons, but I could not do that.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
06-25-2008, 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by mediadave
Skye, thanks for posting that story though I feel it affirms my own beliefs. I'm sure that Ziryab was a seminal musician, though I know that a good proportion of this forum would believe he was sinning by creating that music. I believe he was doing precisely the opposite.



And Muslims (and Protestants, etc) make a concious effort to seperate that beauty, that enjoyment, that enlightenment from the practice of your religion. I believe I understand the reasons, but I could not do that.

What do you mean by that? Honestly that is a complete lie you are telling yourself.

1. Beauty of the world: The Quran repeatedly tells us to observe the wold and its beauty as evidence of Allah's favors, fromt he fruits to the partnership of Man and Woman.
2. Enjoyment: Umm.. what? Prayer through the beautiful language of the Quran is not tiring at all. Id much rather that than listening to some dry songs being sung in Church that weren't even from God ( I went to a Catholic school for a loooooong time, never thought it was all that). We are encouraged to marry and there IS NO MONASTICISM IN ISLAM. Christian monks striving to live apart fromt he world? NO THANKS! Muslim "monks" are encouraged to LIVE WITH THE WORLD. By the way marital sex is not shunned in Islam the way it is spat upon as dirty in Christianity.
3. Enlightenment: The words of the Quran and it's beauty during recitation have brought many including myself to tears. The message moves and motivated me. THats a check for enlightenment.


The only conscious effort I see here is you lying to yourself.

Once you get religious, no singer can match the Quran being read. I used to listen to heavy metal, some rap, and basically any good song that was out for four years. Once I got religious and started looking, nothing could compare to the Quran being read. I can understand your affection towards music because the Bible doesn't exactly make a tune.

The words of Allah>>> Any music
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-25-2008, 11:05 PM
Hi Tornado
Originally Posted by Tornado
It comes down to evidence. The beautiful world isn't evidence for me. How am I supposed to know that the Bible, Quran, etc... were divine in nature? I wasn't there to see it and thus should I base my life on what others say happened?
Why do you believe that your wife doesn't cheat on you, even though you don't have any evidence? Why do you believe that the light of your fridge goes out when you close the door. People, even atheists believe things without proof all the time. I don't see why you say that you are unable to believe due to a lack of evidence. Belief is always with lack of evidence. Otherwise it wouldn't be having faith, but rather having knowledge. So again, it's not a matter of not being able to believe, it's a matter of not wanting to believe.

For the most part, you are born into a certain religion. If you are born in the U.S., the chances are you will be a Christian, if you are born in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan..etc, chances are you will be a Muslim. I can't imagine why a god would choose where you are born and then punish you for eternity if you don't follow a certain religion
I don't believe in the faith you describe either. Islam doesn't claim that you are punished for where you're born. Every person will be judged according to their actions. That's explained quite clearly in the Qur'an.

If you are a good person (philanthropist) but definitely reject god, I can't imagine why you should go to hellfire forever just because you weren't convinced.
You're missing the point. Your claim is that you aren't convinced by no choice of your own (natural cause and effect) whereas I claim that you are not convinced because you don't want to believe. In your view, where your beliefs are not by choice, it would be indeed unjust to punish for what you belief or don't belief. However in my view, where belief is a matter of choice, there's nothing unjust about it. So while I'm willing to agree to disagree, I must point out that your argument is flawed. You're mixing up my view with yours, adding parts of one to another, and then finding out they are not compatible. Of course you'll find that divine judgment is incompatible with your view of religion. But hat doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense within the religious paradigm.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-25-2008, 11:11 PM
Hi MediaDave
Regarding music, would you classify that as an emotional argument, or a logical argument? I understand the power of music quite well. However on the other hand I also understand how easy it to "feed" false ideas and unrepresentative feelings into somebody by the use of music. So somehow it seems very inappropriate to me to let music be your guide in your spiritual searches.
Reply

AntiKarateKid
06-25-2008, 11:13 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi MediaDave
Regarding music, would you classify that as an emotional argument, or a logical argument? I understand the power of music quite well. However on the other hand I also understand how easy it to "feed" false ideas and unrepresentative feelings into somebody by the use of music. So somehow it seems very inappropriate to me to let music be your guide in your spiritual searches.

I wonder if satanic people who use death metal talking about Satan and saying it sounds cool so Satan is cool is a valid argument for the music case?
Reply

mediadave
06-25-2008, 11:30 PM
I wonder if satanic people who use death metal talking about Satan and saying it sounds cool so Satan is cool is a valid argument for the music case?
Heh. Well, I know a lot of goths and no one I know is a satanist. Some people might call themselves that, but they're usually just anarchists and non-religious. And if there are real satanists, and they have satanist hymns, then that is the manner of their faith and is of no concern to me.

I'm not going to bother to refute your previous points, except to say I shouldn't have said enlightenment. I am certain you find a lot of enlightenment in the Koran et al.

Regarding music, would you classify that as an emotional argument, or a logical argument?
I don't beleive you really can or should seperate those in some matters, particularly faith/ the divine.

However on the other hand I also understand how easy it to "feed" false ideas and unrepresentative feelings into somebody by the use of music.
A charismatic speaker can do so with even more ease.
Reply

snakelegs
06-26-2008, 12:24 AM
Originally Posted by mediadave
Music.

I feel that music is the best evidence of the divine on this world, so I could not belong to any church that bans, disaproves or limits that. So basically, its Catholic church for me! And yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of arguments that you can all use to persuade me otherwise, but all I would need is to attend a Catholic Sung Mass and they would be for naught, I'm afraid.
hmmmm.....
try qawwali - (sufi music from pakistan and india)
it don't get no diviner than that!
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
06-26-2008, 01:11 AM
I dont like Qawwali at ALL! The only one I did like when i listened to music was obviously, Nusrat. It's akward mentioning God with loud music and like yelling almost :X
Doesnt sound peaceful..I get a headache looool :X I change it if it happens to come on, when im watchin anythin...
Reply

Chuck
06-26-2008, 01:35 AM
Originally Posted by SixTen
^

promise its the last disturbance - but that is a very interesting find. Rep coming your way.
Actually, there are few others like Al Jahiz, Ibn Miskawayh, al-Khazini, and Ibn Khaldun. Allama Iqbal is one of the best in my opinion, but he is from recent history.

I quoted passages from Iqbal's book: http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ght-islam.html

Early muslim scholar did not have a problem considering humans coming from Apes, because there is not much of special creation in Quran. Actually, it is the opposite, it reminds man was created from a substance not even worth mentioning.


He Who has made everything which He has created most good: He began the creation of man with (nothing more than) clay, And made his progeny from a quintessence of the nature of a fluid despised: But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!
(Quran 32:7-9)
Iblis's objection was that he has better origin. If man's greatness was based on 'origin', than one would have a hard time reconciling the idea of man's 'lowly origins' in the Quran with this greatness. What makes man unique is having a special place in God's creation.

It is He Who hath created for you all things that are on earth.... Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth."
(2:29-30)

And He hath subjected to you the night and the day, the sun and the moon, and the stars too are subject to you by His behest; verily in this are signs for those who understand
(16:12)

Whether man was created through a long evolutionary process or a special creation does not deny man's overall significance in the scheme of things. In fact, some people argue that a long evolutionary process reveals the special place of man. It reveals how much planning, time, and subtlety went into the scheme of creation before God, in his infinite wisdom, ultimately brought forth man now as he currently is. Further, the Day of Judgement and the after-life is just a natural progression of this evolutionary process of development. (not my words though)
Reply

Tornado
06-26-2008, 03:59 AM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi Tornado

Why do you believe that your wife doesn't cheat on you, even though you don't have any evidence? Why do you believe that the light of your fridge goes out when you close the door. People, even atheists believe things without proof all the time. I don't see why you say that you are unable to believe due to a lack of evidence. Belief is always with lack of evidence. Otherwise it wouldn't be having faith, but rather having knowledge. So again, it's not a matter of not being able to believe, it's a matter of not wanting to believe.
If I don't have evidence, I can only hope that such a wife wasn't cheating on me so you can never say she isn't cheating on me. Light going off? That's completely different. We know why it goes off. I believe without proof? Not really. I actually see zero evidence. Not wanted to believe? Of course I want to believe. Of course going to heaven and living forever with people you love is enticing as opposed to dying off like rest of the animals.

Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
I don't believe in the faith you describe either. Islam doesn't claim that you are punished for where you're born. Every person will be judged according to their actions. That's explained quite clearly in the Qur'an.
Is that true, because that would be wonderful. Would I be O.K. if I'm a good person but maintain the position that god doesn't exist.

You're missing the point. Your claim is that you aren't convinced by no choice of your own (natural cause and effect) whereas I claim that you are not convinced because you don't want to believe. In your view, where your beliefs are not by choice, it would be indeed unjust to punish for what you belief or don't belief. However in my view, where belief is a matter of choice, there's nothing unjust about it. So while I'm willing to agree to disagree, I must point out that your argument is flawed. You're mixing up my view with yours, adding parts of one to another, and then finding out they are not compatible. Of course you'll find that divine judgment is incompatible with your view of religion. But hat doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense within the religious paradigm.[/QUOTE]

Belief in religion is largely not our choice. It's a function of where you are born. Some, I bet a very small minority, actually convert.
Reply

Chuck
06-26-2008, 12:22 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Belief in religion is largely not our choice. It's a function of where you are born.
I beg to differ. Even if place of birth, family, friends, society influences our choices, nonetheless, they are our choices.
Reply

------
06-26-2008, 12:33 PM
Belief in religion is largely not our choice. It's a function of where you are born.
Oh so in your opinion no one ever converts??!!
Reply

Chuck
06-26-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by - Serene -
Oh so in your opinion no one ever converts??!!
I think he is saying that they are a minority, and normally people follow the religion of their parents. But that doesn't show that belief is a choice, it just shows that these people have influence over our choices.

And it is not entirely accurate, that would depends on time and place. When God sends a rasool there is normally mass conversion. But Rasool comes with divine judgement too, so rejection of Rasool results in destruction of his nation.
Reply

suffiyan007
06-26-2008, 01:43 PM
i think islam is the complete deen...causE islam is the combination of the religion of Musa,isa,dawud,zakariya and etc....is Tauhid/tauheed....cause they teach the real deen(religion) oF allah.....

1.Adam
2.Musa(moses)
3.Harun(Aaron)
4.ibrahim(abraham)
5.ishak(isaac)
6.ishmael(ismail)
7.Dzul kiel(ezekiel)
8.Salleh
9.yakub(jacob)
10.hud
11.shuaib
12.yunus(jonah)
13.ilyas(Elias)
14. ilyasa(elisha)
15. luth(Lut)
16.job
17.yusuf(joseph)
18.sulaiman(solomon)
19.iskandar zukarnain(alexander the great)
20. Daud(david)
21.zakariya(Zechariah)
22.Enoch
23yahya(john)
24 Isa(jesus)
25 Muhammad(pbuh)...i saluted is Muhammad SAW...

so islam is the right religion anything happened in the world u can find in koran(Quran)

I LoVE islam.....:laugh::sl:
(Quran).



25
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-26-2008, 05:13 PM
Hi mediadave
Originally Posted by mediadave
Heh. Well, I know a lot of goths and no one I know is a satanist. Some people might call themselves that, but they're usually just anarchists and non-religious. And if there are real satanists, and they have satanist hymns, then that is the manner of their faith and is of no concern to me.
Yeah I agree, I think most satanist are just trying to provocate or shock people. I doubt anybody would willingly and knowingly prefer eternal ****ation. To me it seems more like a statement of disbelief, something among the lines of: "Only a true atheist who doesn't believe in satan and eternal ****ation, would take such a risk." So by worshiping satan they offer the ultimate proof of not believing in him.

I don't believe you really can or should seperate those in some matters, particularly faith/ the divine.
I beg to differ, emotional motivations can easily be inaccurate. Take for example a rape victim hating all men. It's a very understandable reaction, but everybody, probably even the victim itself, knows the reaction is unfair towards all non-raping man. Now I do agree with you that you can't rule out emotions at all. Personal experience is crucial to religious choices, I know that very well. However, my claim is not that all emotional motives are illogical. Some might be logical, some might be neutral and some might be illogical. I'm going to assume you'll agree to me that illogical choices are bad. but no, my argument is not to bar emotions completely. My argument is to be extra careful with them, because people are more prone to illogical decisions when acting emotionally. When dealing with music in specific, it's even more dangerous, because I 'm inclined to think that the majority of the population is unaware of the full effect of music, and minimalize the illogical thoughts triggered by it.

A charismatic speaker can do so with even more ease.
True! The difference though, is that such a speaker can easily be refuted by the witty among us. People will much sooner accept that the speaker is flawed when you point out these flaws. That is because an arguments, brings out the logical part of the brain, so people will use their logic to judge it. Music on the other hand brings out the emotional part of the brain, and people will tend to judge it by that. Therefor I argue that music can be more deceitful as opposed to charismatic speech.

Hi tornado
If I don't have evidence, I can only hope that such a wife wasn't cheating on me so you can never say she isn't cheating on me. Light going off? That's completely different. We know why it goes off. I believe without proof? Not really. I actually see zero evidence. Not wanted to believe? Of course I want to believe. Of course going to heaven and living forever with people you love is enticing as opposed to dying off like rest of the animals.
Well I didn't intend for you to take my examples so literary. My point simply was that people accept things as true on a regular basis. It's true that you "could" prove the light of your fridge goes out; like by drilling a peep-hole. But have you ever done that? There could always have been a manufactural flaw, but most people just assume that the machine does what it's supposed to do, on good faith. however when it comes to religion the majority of people draw a line and suddenly become high demanding of proof.

Let my try an approach on a different angle to explain it. In search of truths, it's very wise for a person to be critical. The more you question and distrust, the lower the probability of being misguided. However criticism by itself, is no path to understanding and truth. It's only half the way. When people become extreme in critical attitude, we call that paranoia. And unlike a healthy critical attitude, which lead to wisdom, paranoia becomes an obstacle to wisdom! Nothing, but really not one single thing in this universe can be truly proven. There is always a reservation, always a presumption, always an axiom, always reliance on observation and interpretation. As the mental disease progresses, and the patient becomes increasingly aware of this, eventually with nothing to trust and no certainties, all wisdom is forfeit. Now the reason I bring this up is, that many atheist have a tendency of being slightly paranoia when it comes to religion. A sort of double standard if I way, where religious ideas need to be proven before given the benefit of the doubt, but where all other daily facts, like the light in the fridge going out are accepted on good faith.

Is that true, because that would be wonderful. Would I be O.K. if I'm a good person but maintain the position that god doesn't exist.
I'm unable to answer that. One person cannot judge another for a large variety of reasons. (I don't know your intentions and influence by background. I can't read your thoughts, I'm not capable of weighing out good vs. bad deeds, I'm not responsible to judge you, I don't have authority to judge, and so on...) So there are no certainties. Being a Muslim doesn't guarantee heaven, and neither does being an atheist guarantee hell. So I really can't tell you, nor can any other Muslim for that matter. What I can tell you however, is that by becoming a Muslim, and holding on to the teachings you could increase your chances enormously. What I can also tell you, is that if you anticipate to defend yourself during judgment by saying: "I wasn't able to believe because I wasn't convinced"; that such a response will not be accepted because it's flawed according to our belief as I previously explained.

Belief in religion is largely not our choice. It's a function of where you are born. Some, I bet a very small minority, actually convert.
Belief is always a choice. I'm willing to meet you halfway though, and accept that circumstances make it easier/harder. Each person will be judged by their own capabilities. So the following people will not be judged by the same standards:
- People out of isolated communities who have never even heard of Islamic teachings; like small tribes in Africa or South-America for example.
- People who heard of it, but have been fed a wrong image regarding the faith.
-People who have studied the religion in depth, but reject it due to personal preference.
Now obviously, an atheist out of one group is definitely not the same as an atheist out of another group. And since each person will be judged by their own capabilities, it is very plausible that they'll receive a different judgment. (I know not, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.)
However to get back to the point, none of this means that there is no such thing as a choice. You seem to be arguing that there is no free will at all, and that these circumstances like place of birth, bring forth an inescapable causal predestination. If that is the case, you're welcome to bring new life in the threads about the existence of free will. But nevertheless, your argument against religion is still flawed by circularity since you rely on presumptions out of your own viewpoints like the absence of free will.
Reply

Güven
06-26-2008, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by Suffiyan007
i think islam is the complete deen...causE islam is the combination of the religion of Musa,isa,dawud,zakariya and etc....is Tauhid/tauheed....cause they teach the real deen(religion) oF allah.....

1.Adam
2.Musa(moses)
3.Harun(Aaron)
4.ibrahim(abraham)
5.ishak(isaac)
6.ishmael(ismail)
7.Dzul kiel(ezekiel)
8.Salleh
9.yakub(jacob)
10.hud
11.shuaib
12.yunus(jonah)
13.ilyas(Elias)
14. ilyasa(elisha)
15. luth(Lut)
16.job
17.yusuf(joseph)
18.sulaiman(solomon)
19.iskandar zukarnain(alexander the great)
20. Daud(david)
21.zakariya(Zechariah)
22.Enoch
23yahya(john)
24 Isa(jesus)
25 Muhammad(pbuh)...i saluted is Muhammad SAW...

so islam is the right religion anything happened in the world u can find in koran(Quran)

I LoVE islam.....:laugh::sl:
(Quran).



25
:sl:

Since When Is Proved That Dhul Qarnain Is Alexander the Great ???

:w:
Reply

Tornado
06-26-2008, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi mediadave

Yeah I agree, I think most satanist are just trying to provocate or shock people. I doubt anybody would willingly and knowingly prefer eternal ****ation. To me it seems more like a statement of disbelief, something among the lines of: "Only a true atheist who doesn't believe in satan and eternal ****ation, would take such a risk." So by worshiping satan they offer the ultimate proof of not believing in him.

Yea it's shock value and also sarcastic (some believers (I think) assume that atheists worship the devil) since the devil and god are part of the same story.

Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah

Hi tornado

Well I didn't intend for you to take my examples so literary. My point simply was that people accept things as true on a regular basis. It's true that you "could" prove the light of your fridge goes out; like by drilling a peep-hole. But have you ever done that? There could always have been a manufactural flaw, but most people just assume that the machine does what it's supposed to do, on good faith. however when it comes to religion the majority of people draw a line and suddenly become high demanding of proof.
Maybe I'm the curious guy. It probably closes. When the door is shut, it pushes up this little switch since its in the way of the door. When this switched is pushed up, the light goes off. You can press this switch without closing the door and the light goes off. If that is true, when the door closes, the light then probably goes off. Again, I can never be 100% sure. When it comes to religion, of course you have to show the proof because the claims are huge and people ask for proof so that they can decide whether to join the religion or not. Is there a SINGLE evidence that you are all right?

Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Let my try an approach on a different angle to explain it. In search of truths, it's very wise for a person to be critical. The more you question and distrust, the lower the probability of being misguided. However criticism by itself, is no path to understanding and truth. It's only half the way. When people become extreme in critical attitude, we call that paranoia. And unlike a healthy critical attitude, which lead to wisdom, paranoia becomes an obstacle to wisdom! Nothing, but really not one single thing in this universe can be truly proven. There is always a reservation, always a presumption, always an axiom, always reliance on observation and interpretation. As the mental disease progresses, and the patient becomes increasingly aware of this, eventually with nothing to trust and no certainties, all wisdom is forfeit. Now the reason I bring this up is, that many atheist have a tendency of being slightly paranoia when it comes to religion. A sort of double standard if I way, where religious ideas need to be proven before given the benefit of the doubt, but where all other daily facts, like the light in the fridge going out are accepted on good faith.
I'm extremely critical because there is no evidence I guess. There is no paranoia when it comes to religion. I don't know what a world with only atheists would be like. We know that many evil people might have been atheists perhaps Stalin, Mao and see how that turned out. However, I'm not looking for what is good/bad, I'm looking for the truth.
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
1. Being a Muslim doesn't guarantee heaven, and neither does being an atheist guarantee hell.


2. "I wasn't able to believe because I wasn't convinced"; that such a response will not be accepted because it's flawed according to our belief as I previously explained.


3.Belief is always a choice. I'm willing to meet you halfway though, and accept that circumstances make it easier/harder.

4.Each person will be judged by their own capabilities..
1. Good to know.

2. How is it flawed, I don't understand?

3. Belief is a choice but when something is engrained into you from childhood, it becomes less of a choice when you are told you are right, they are wrong so you'll assume they are wrong when you haven't, in absolute detail, studied everything about their religion and that they haven't themselves done so vice versa.

4. Nice to know everyone is given a different test and if you fail, eternal hellfire. You really think that even being a bad person for just 100 years deserves infinite torture?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
06-26-2008, 06:50 PM
^^ Why should u get a reward for being a cruel person all your life. Do you want someone who hurt u or the people u care for, around u? Especially if they never regret it? Good grief, makes me wonder...
Reply

Gator
06-26-2008, 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
There could always have been a manufactural flaw, but most people just assume that the machine does what it's supposed to do, on good faith. however when it comes to religion the majority of people draw a line and suddenly become high demanding of proof.
I would attribute this to the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Thanks.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-26-2008, 07:16 PM
Hi tornado

Again, I can never be 100% sure. When it comes to religion, of course you have to show the proof because the claims are huge and people ask for proof so that they can decide whether to join the religion or not. Is there a SINGLE evidence that you are all right?
But my very question is, why put such a high standard, why only accept religion with proof? I mean, I'm sure you'll agree, that lack of proof does not mean that something is inevitably wrong. It's perfectly possibly that things which are true, are unprovable. So why the demand for proof? Belief by definition is something you accept as true without proof. Yes the claims might be huge, I agree, but so are the consequences as well as the risk! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of person that would argue that pascal's wager is sufficient ground to start to believe. However pascals wager, if nothing else, should at least show you the flaw in this "I'll only believe what is proven" attitude, does it not?

I'm extremely critical because there is no evidence I guess.
There is no paranoia when it comes to religion.
How come? I didn't realize paranoid behavior was limited to certain aspects of life? As far as I know it can affect decisions and viewpoints on every level. Care to clarify?

I don't know what a world with only atheists would be like. We know that many evil people might have been atheists perhaps Stalin, Mao and see how that turned out. However, I'm not looking for what is good/bad, I'm looking for the truth.
Yes I realize that, and I already stated in my opening post, how I at one hand consider that a respectful attitude of you. However the problem I'm trying to point out is that your methodology for finding truth is incomplete. A lot of things are simply beyond the scope of provable, but that doesn't mean they are untrue. So by confining your mind to this strict scientific methodology, you miss out on all other theories and hypothesizes that are plausibly real.

Being a Muslim doesn't guarantee heaven, and neither does being an atheist guarantee hell.
Good to know.
Take note though, that there is a huge difference between atheists who don't believe because they don't know Islam or fully understand it in the first place, and on the other hand those who reject it, fully understanding their choice.
Those who reject Faith,- neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They will be companions of the Fire,-dwelling therein (for ever). What they spend in the life of this (material) world May be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: It strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls: it is not Allah that hath wronged them, but they wrong themselves. (3:116-117)

if you anticipate to defend yourself by: "I wasn't able to believe because I wasn't convinced"; that such a response will not be accepted because it's flawed according to our belief as I previously explained.
How is it flawed, I don't understand?
It is flawed because it relies on the presumption that you are not free to believe what you want. Islam holds that you are free afterall to choose. So if Islam turns out right, your defense is will be based on false assumptions.

So on that Day no excuse of theirs will avail the transgressors, nor will they be invited (then) to seek grace (by repentance).
verily We have propounded for men, in this Qur'an every kind of Parable: But if thou bring to them any Sign, the Unbelievers are sure to say, "Ye do nothing but talk vanities." (30:57-58)

Belief is always a choice. I'm willing to meet you halfway though, and accept that circumstances make it easier/harder.
Belief is a choice but when something is engrained into you from childhood, it becomes less of a choice when you are told you are right, they are wrong so you'll assume they are wrong when you haven't, in absolute detail, studied everything about their religion and that they haven't themselves done so vice versa.
Well it's still a choice then isn't it? I mean you do choose to accept being ingrained do you not? you say it becomes "less" of a choice... I already said I'm willing to meet halfway and say that circumstances make choices harder/easier. But again, they are nevertheless still choices, right?
And to all are (assigned) degrees according to the deeds which they (have done), and in order that (Allah) may recompense their deeds, and no injustice be done to them. (46:19)

Each person will be judged by their own capabilities..
Nice to know everyone is given a different test and if you fail, eternal hellfire.
Well isn't it completely logical? Lets consider a comparison with a teacher giving an exam to his students. For obvious reasons many teachers prefer to give different questions rather then giving all of them the same. Now wouldn't it be logical, that each answer be graded according to the difficulty of the question to, rather then just graded for being correct or not? In that same logic, isn't it fair that each person will receive a personal judgment according to his personal capabilities?

You really think that even being a bad person for just 100 years deserves infinite torture?
The Qur'an says:
* Verily Allah will not deal unjustly with man in aught: It is man that wrongs his own soul. (10:44)
* Allah is never unjust in the least degree: If there is any good (done), He doubleth it, and giveth from His own presence a great reward. (4:40)
* These are the Signs of Allah: We rehearse them to thee in Truth: And Allah means no injustice to any of His creatures. (3:108)

Do you think it would be just to judge the bad people as equal to the good? Say for example a holocaust victim meets Hitler in heaven?
Reply

Muezzin
06-26-2008, 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
4. Nice to know everyone is given a different test and if you fail, eternal hellfire. You really think that even being a bad person for just 100 years deserves infinite torture?
Anyone who has the longevity to be a bad person for 100 years has got it coming.

Unless that's 5% of their life or something. But 100 years? Who are we talking about here, Shang Tsung?

But, I'm straying from the topic.
Reply

Chuck
06-26-2008, 07:30 PM
well tests are always shorter and effects are longer.
Reply

suffiyan007
06-26-2008, 07:33 PM
No comments...as long as Islam is the Right path religion....

God said: God Accepted as his religion is Islam.....
Reply

Tornado
06-26-2008, 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi tornado

Belief by definition is something you accept as true without proof. Yes the claims might be huge, I agree, but so are the consequences as well as the risk! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of person that would argue that pascal's wager is sufficient ground to start to believe. However pascals wager, if nothing else, should at least show you the flaw in this "I'll only believe what is proven" attitude, does it not?

You know pascal's wager if flawed. But it's claim with zero evidence. A life that should be lived that's based on that zero evidence. If not lived, eternal punishment.


How come? I didn't realize paranoid behavior was limited to certain aspects of life? As far as I know it can affect decisions and viewpoints on every level. Care to clarify?

I meant that I am not paranoid about religion, just the truth.

A lot of things are simply beyond the scope of provable, but that doesn't mean they are untrue.

Nor does it make it true.



It is flawed because it relies on the presumption that you are not free to believe what you want. Islam holds that you are free afterall to choose. So if Islam turns out right, your defense is will be based on false assumptions.


I am free to believe what I want but what can I do if I am truly unable to without any evidence.

Well isn't it completely logical? Lets consider a comparison with a teacher giving an exam to his students. For obvious reasons many teachers prefer to give different questions rather then giving all of them the same. Now wouldn't it be logical, that each answer be graded according to the difficulty of the question to, rather then just graded for being correct or not? In that same logic, isn't it fair that each person will receive a personal judgment according to his personal capabilities?

Although that seems o.k. in classrooms, we are talking about infinite pleasure vs infinite pain as the result.

Do you think it would be just to judge the bad people as equal to the good? Say for example a holocaust victim meets Hitler in heaven?
I don't agree with eternal torture. What Hitler did was absolutely evil and beyond disturbing. However, not even he deserves eternal hellfire.


Originally Posted by Light of Heaven
^^ Why should u get a reward for being a cruel person all your life. Do you want someone who hurt u or the people u care for, around u? Especially if they never regret it? Good grief, makes me wonder...
I have a beef with eternal hellfire
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Anyone who has the longevity to be a bad person for 100 years has got it coming.

Unless that's 5% of their life or something. But 100 years? Who are we talking about here, Shang Tsung?

But, I'm straying from the topic.
Think about how long eternity is. 100 years of pain causing is only 0.000000000000000000000(infinite 0's here) of the punishment you get to receive in hell

Originally Posted by Chuck
well tests are always shorter and effects are longer.
Effect is in this case is so long that the short is practically non-existent.
Reply

Chuck
06-26-2008, 08:03 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Effect is in this case is so long that the short is practically non-existent.
Not really you are assuming everyone that will go to hell will stay there forever.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-26-2008, 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by Chuck
Not really you are assuming everyone that will go to hell will stay there forever.
I think this is the case with non-muslims.
Here's a thread about the issue
http://www.islamicboard.com/hereafte...rmanently.html
Reply

Tornado
06-26-2008, 08:50 PM
Originally Posted by Chuck
Not really you are assuming everyone that will go to hell will stay there forever.
Would the most evil person judged by allah go to hell forever. Like I said, the punishment specifically in this case is so very long long that the short pain dealings is practically non-existent.
Reply

Eeman
06-26-2008, 08:58 PM
Originally Posted by Fedos
I would say the biggest factor in my believing that my faith is the true faith would be in regards to the lifestyle that God has enabled me to live, in relation to my previous lifestyle. My life before I accpeted Christ was one of addiction and hardship, but when I prayed the sinner's prayer way back on August 1st of 2002 I have been completely free of that lifestyle and have been living completely sin free (yes completely) ever since. There are other things that just reinforce my faith, circumstances that happened to me as I was a child. Once a woman stood up during testimony service (a time when people can tell what God has personally done for them) and said these words: 'God is going to bless him, and he knows it too,' and as a child I did know, having said those exact same words in my mind many times, 'God is going to bless me.' But it's things like this that happened as I was growing up that just reinforce my faith.
How can you say you are competely sin free??? :?
I mean how o you know you are? how can any human being know they are...
isn't that regarded as arrogance?
brothr i am not attacking you just wondering cos that got me thinking.
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 12:13 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Of those that made some sort of sense to me, Buddhism made by far the most sense. Two main reasons. First, it describes the world as experience shows it to be far better than any other religion. Secondly it describes a way of resolving life's most fundamental problem that is dependent solely on one's own efforts. To me that's just how it must be.
How does Buddhism by describing the world as an experience show it to be far better than any religion? I d not understand the term world as an experience. i mean life is an experience that i understand. but world as an experience would you explain that to me please...

i once came across a buddhist who i must say at first i thought he was a bit not there, im talking about manner wise nothing to do with religion i didnt even know he was a buddhist then.

and we started conversing and he told me he's way of life as a buddhist... now you guys belief in a higher being to the point where through meditation and descipline you can have many powers, i dont know if this would be the correct statement to make but from what i remember he said something like the higher you get through the universal mediums or whatever it is that they name it, you almost reach the status or position of who we consider as God.
now what i do not understand or have no knowledge of is this, according to the buddhist belief how did the world and the universe come into creation?

peace
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 12:19 AM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
It all makes sense to me. The Prophets of Sikhism If compared to others, are unique. Also, all other Religions have Scriptures written by men not the Prophets, Sikhism, is the ONLY Relgion where the Prohets themselves have written the Holy Book. This to me SEALS it! :)
were the prophets of sikhism not men themselves? sorry i really do not know much about sikhism, i know that hindus believe in different gods all i know about sikhism is that you guys have gurus right?
so are your guru's your prophets? did they have supernatural powers like the hindu gods?
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 12:55 AM
although i was born a muslim, religion was never a part of my life, we were not sent to sunday school to learn the Qur'an or any of the privilges that MashaAllah young muslim kids have nowadays.
so growing up was really hard for me i was a confused kid about life why we are here and whats our purpose, we were taught that there was one God and that was Allah swt, we were taught to fear Him and yet love Him and to do bad to no one and be a good person.
when i was a kid atthe age of 10 i would say i went out swimming to the swimming pool, coming out of the swimming pool i noticed that there was a new islamic shop opened right across the road, i've always loved books and reading so naturally i walked to the shop and entered. the shop was empty and there was a young african man sitting at the end where the till was, as he saw me he asked if i needed help, feeling shy and embarrassed knowing that i had no money to buy any books since i had spent all my pocket money on food i sad "ummm i'm just looking around" he asked me if i was looking for anything in specific, and feeling myself going red in the cheeks out of embarrassment that i didnt even know what kind of a book i would find here since its an islamic bookshop i automatically remembered the qur'an, so i said im looking for a qur'an.

He gestured for me to come nearer to him and picked up a book from a shelf behind him,
he said take this home, and showed me how you read from right to left and write his number and name on the front page. Feeling even more embarrassed now i asked him how much is it, and he said my child it's a gift fom Allah swt, if u need any help please call me.
i took the book and feeling confused said thank you and walked out, thinking how can someone just give you a book away like that???

his name was brother umar, I pray that Allah swt bestows Jannah upon him as his eternal abode InshaAllah.

i got home and showed the qur'an to my mum, she said that i was not paak (clean) to hold it or read it so gave me a bath.

i went into my room and sat down opened it and started to read, all i felt was the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, shivers down my spine and i started to burst out crying.

after then it freaked me out so much that i never turned to it again.

so i carried on with life and wronged myself many times over and over and over again, i was more lost and more confused, i never understood why everything happened to me, i started to believe that i was cursed and just a bad omen.

wen i thought life could possibly not get any worse then it would do just that get worse than it was. i was always waiting to hit rock bottom to spring up again but that bottom kept getting deeper and deeper, it came to a point where i lost motivation to live or to even breath, the only way out and exit to me was ways f ending the suffering and taking the exit card out of this world but there was always this one thing just this one thing that wouldnt allow me to do that.

then many years ago i got myself into a situation where i thought i was gonna mentally lose all sense i was in bed crying so much that it phsyically hurt, i sat up in bed and looked at my shelf and i saw the book that had been sitting there for many years untouched, and i remembered God.

i got up did my ablution and got on the prayer mat not knowing how many rakahs you pray orin what order you do it just knew that you praise Him and talk to Him and i'll tell you one thing to this day i have never have prayed like that it was so powerful and so gripping i cannot describe in words. And here I am today SubhanAllah in more peace than i have ever been. Alhumdulillahi rabbil Alamin!

so what makes me sure that my religion is right?
Cos if it was not for the mercy of Allah swt I would not be alive today.
Reply

glo
06-27-2008, 01:51 AM
Originally Posted by Eeman
so what makes me sure that my religion is right?
Cos if it was not for the mercy of Allah swt I would not be alive today.
Amen to that, sister :)

But isn't that a statement people from other religions would make too (although they may replace the name of Allah with a different title)?

Personally, I am very clear in my beliefs that without God I
  1. wouldn't exist in the first place, and
  2. wouldn't have been guided on the path of Christianity

It makes me feel joyful, truly blessed and very humbled.

But with reagrds to this thread, it seems that the same thing which makes you convinced that your religions is right, makes me convinced that mine is ...
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 02:10 AM
Originally Posted by glo
Amen to that, sister :)

But isn't that a statement people from other religions would make too (although they may replace the name of Allah with a different title)?

Personally, I am very clear in my beliefs that without God I
  1. wouldn't exist in the first place, and
  2. wouldn't have been guided on the path of Christianity

It makes me feel joyful, truly blessed and very humbled.

But with reagrds to this thread, it seems that the same thing which makes you convinced that your religions is right, makes me convinced that mine is ...
salam

Dear sister of course they would,
and it is their religion and their belief.
that was why i know in my heart my religion is the right religion but i was not arguing anything about other religions being wrong.
without God no one would be in existance...
and i didnt mean it that way as in i would have never come into this world...
i was more as to refering to the fact that if it was not for Allah swt's mercy i woud have lost the battle with life and taken an exit card. i think you may have misunderstood me there.
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 02:11 AM
sister glo is that qoute about "to you your religion to me mine"from the bible?
Reply

glo
06-27-2008, 02:15 AM
Originally Posted by Eeman
i was more as to refering to the fact that if it was not for Allah swt's mercy i woud have lost the battle with life and taken an exit card. i think you may have misunderstood me there.
I am glad that God's protective hand was on your life, sister. I trust and pray that he has great things planned for you. :)

Originally Posted by Eeman
sister glo is that qoute about "to you your religion to me mine"from the bible?
No, It's from the Qu'ran. :)
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 03:26 AM
Originally Posted by glo
I am glad that God's protective hand was on your life, sister. I trust and pray that he has great things planned for you. :)


No, It's from the Qu'ran. :)
Thank you sister and i pray that InshaAllah Allah swt bestows all the joys and happiness upon you in this world and in the hereafter.

regarding the qoute i thought so,
its surah al kafiroon.

lakum deenikum waliya deen.
to you be your religion and to me mine.
Reply

glo
06-27-2008, 04:28 AM
Do you like my new signature, Eeman? :)

Is it right like that??
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 05:48 AM
Originally Posted by glo
Do you like my new signature, Eeman? :)

Is it right like that??
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!!!
:thumbs_up
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 05:49 AM
yes but the deen is pronounced as deen the "i" is silent and it means religion.
Reply

------
06-27-2008, 08:26 AM
Originally Posted by Light of Heaven
^^ Why should u get a reward for being a cruel person all your life. Do you want someone who hurt u or the people u care for, around u? Especially if they never regret it? Good grief, makes me wonder...
:salamext:

Ind33d!!!
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-27-2008, 03:33 PM
Hi tornado
Belief by definition is something you accept as true without proof. Yes the claims might be huge, I agree, but so are the consequences as well as the risk! Now don't get me wrong, I'm not the kind of person that would argue that pascal's wager is sufficient ground to start to believe. However pascals wager, if nothing else, should at least show you the flaw in this "I'll only believe what is proven" attitude, does it not?
You know pascal's wager if flawed. But it's claim with zero evidence.
Pascal's wager isn't flawed by itself, however it's often used in flawed circumstances.

A life that should be lived that's based on that zero evidence. If not lived, eternal punishment.
Yes, indeed. So your point being?

How come? I didn't realize paranoid behavior was limited to certain aspects of life? As far as I know it can affect decisions and viewpoints on every level. Care to clarify?
I meant that I am not paranoid about religion, just the truth.
So you're paranoid about everything then?

A lot of things are simply beyond the scope of provable, but that doesn't mean they are untrue.
Nor does it make it true.
I don't see the purpose of giving me that reply. I never claimed that everything which cannot be proven is true. So why did you point it out? I'm simply showing that your being narrow-minded when you're not willing to accept anything that cannot be proven. That doesn't mean you have to accept everything that cannot be proven. Just the things that make sense is sufficient.

It is flawed because it relies on the presumption that you are not free to believe what you want. Islam holds that you are free afterall to choose. So if Islam turns out right, your defense is will be based on false assumptions.
I am free to believe what I want but what can I do if I am truly unable to without any evidence.
Well you say that you are truly unable to believe, but I disagree. I say that you are very well able, but instead not willing! So it's not a questions of one's ability, but rather a question of one's preference! So if it turns out you will be judged; in that case I will have been right, and the reply you'll most likely get is that you have deluded yourself into thinking you were incapable while you were in fact very capable but simply not willing. (see further for the jigsaw example)

Well isn't it completely logical? Lets consider a comparison ...
Although that seems o.k. in classrooms, we are talking about infinite pleasure vs infinite pain as the result.
How so, why is it that in a different situation what is otherwise considered as "fair" suddenly becomes "unfair"? You'll have to motivate your arguments a bit more rather then just stating your opinions. How does a higher stake influence whether or not a treatment is fair? Treatments should be judged by their own merits, not by what's at stake. By your logic I could argue that when the stakes are small and insignificant enough, it's perfectly just to be unjust. That's of course ridiculous, injustice is always injustice regardless of how important or insignificant the stakes are, and justs is always just regardless the stakes. Perhaps you don't like things the way religion presents them; but personal preference has nothing to do with just! Even if you don't like it, that doesn't make it ok for you to call it unjust, when it's obviously just.

I don't agree with eternal torture. What Hitler did was absolutely evil and beyond disturbing. However, not even he deserves eternal hellfire.
Again, you're allowing your personal preference get the better of you. We are unable to judge other people. Take our example of Hitler for example. Most people would agree that many of his actions and decisions were bad. Thats' not what we disagree on. However most people would disagree, just how bad-good Hitler actually was. Take the nature-vs. nurture debate in psychology for example. Proponents of nurture-theory would say that his "evilness" is relative, and that his actions are more a consequence of his environment and the interbellum atmosphere, whereas proponents of nature-theory would tend towards the opinion that he was evil to the core, and that unlike many other evil people, he simply had the ability to indulge his evilness more than others due to the circumstances. All of these things obviously matter. It should be evident that neither of us is truly capable of understanding the gradation of evilness of other people. So how are we able to judge then whether or not eternity is an appropriate punishment? No I think that such a judgment of your part, is biased by your disbelief in the first place. For example, if you don't believe in free will, you will tend towards "nurture-school" instead of "nature-school" in psychology. Now again, the point I'm trying to make is not that you are necessarily wrong, everyone has his/her own paradigm, and it's impossible to weigh of one world-view against the other. What I am trying to say, is that you're being blind to just how influential your paradigm actually is in your judgment. You take a single concept of the religious paradigm, and try to fit it into your atheistic paradigm, only to conclude it's false. I would compare that to take one piece of a jigsaw puzzle, and trying to make it fit somewhere in another jigsaw puzzle. When you fail you say this is obviously not a piece of a puzzle, as it doesn't fit anywhere. Well, you're wrong. It's not a piece of your puzzle, but it's still a piece of "a" puzzle. The image on your puzzle (as well as mine or anyone else's for that matter) is biased! So by what authority is your view of the world better then your neighbor's? Because that's what it all boils down to.

But, I'm straying from the topic.
Think about how long eternity is. 100 years of pain causing is only 0.000000000000000000000(infinite 0's here) of the punishment you get to receive in hell
Your estimation of 0.0000... is not true. Infinity is not a number. Infinity is not a quantity. You can't divide or fraction it. So you cannot compare it with a finite quantity (like a 100 years) either. Infinity is a concept. You're mixing up concepts with quantities, that's like comparing apples with oranges. Any results you bring forth from such a comparison are nonsense.

dividing by infinity
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
06-27-2008, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by Eeman
although i was born a muslim, religion was never a part of my life, we were not sent to sunday school to learn the Qur'an or any of the privilges that MashaAllah young muslim kids have nowadays.
so growing up was really hard for me i was a confused kid about life why we are here and whats our purpose, we were taught that there was one God and that was Allah swt, we were taught to fear Him and yet love Him and to do bad to no one and be a good person.
when i was a kid atthe age of 10 i would say i went out swimming to the swimming pool, coming out of the swimming pool i noticed that there was a new islamic shop opened right across the road, i've always loved books and reading so naturally i walked to the shop and entered. the shop was empty and there was a young african man sitting at the end where the till was, as he saw me he asked if i needed help, feeling shy and embarrassed knowing that i had no money to buy any books since i had spent all my pocket money on food i sad "ummm i'm just looking around" he asked me if i was looking for anything in specific, and feeling myself going red in the cheeks out of embarrassment that i didnt even know what kind of a book i would find here since its an islamic bookshop i automatically remembered the qur'an, so i said im looking for a qur'an.

He gestured for me to come nearer to him and picked up a book from a shelf behind him,
he said take this home, and showed me how you read from right to left and write his number and name on the front page. Feeling even more embarrassed now i asked him how much is it, and he said my child it's a gift fom Allah swt, if u need any help please call me.
i took the book and feeling confused said thank you and walked out, thinking how can someone just give you a book away like that???

his name was brother umar, I pray that Allah swt bestows Jannah upon him as his eternal abode InshaAllah.

i got home and showed the qur'an to my mum, she said that i was not paak (clean) to hold it or read it so gave me a bath.

i went into my room and sat down opened it and started to read, all i felt was the hairs on the back of my neck stand up, shivers down my spine and i started to burst out crying.

after then it freaked me out so much that i never turned to it again.

so i carried on with life and wronged myself many times over and over and over again, i was more lost and more confused, i never understood why everything happened to me, i started to believe that i was cursed and just a bad omen.

wen i thought life could possibly not get any worse then it would do just that get worse than it was. i was always waiting to hit rock bottom to spring up again but that bottom kept getting deeper and deeper, it came to a point where i lost motivation to live or to even breath, the only way out and exit to me was ways f ending the suffering and taking the exit card out of this world but there was always this one thing just this one thing that wouldnt allow me to do that.

then many years ago i got myself into a situation where i thought i was gonna mentally lose all sense i was in bed crying so much that it phsyically hurt, i sat up in bed and looked at my shelf and i saw the book that had been sitting there for many years untouched, and i remembered God.

i got up did my ablution and got on the prayer mat not knowing how many rakahs you pray orin what order you do it just knew that you praise Him and talk to Him and i'll tell you one thing to this day i have never have prayed like that it was so powerful and so gripping i cannot describe in words. And here I am today SubhanAllah in more peace than i have ever been. Alhumdulillahi rabbil Alamin!

so what makes me sure that my religion is right?
Cos if it was not for the mercy of Allah swt I would not be alive today.
:sl:

SubhanAllah sis, that was very touching...:statisfie

Ameen to your du'a. May Allah Ta'ala bless the brother immensely and may Allah continue to shower you with his guidance InshaAllah, Ameen :)
Reply

Eeman
06-27-2008, 09:41 PM
Originally Posted by Light of Heaven
:sl:

SubhanAllah sis, that was very touching...:statisfie

Ameen to your du'a. May Allah Ta'ala bless the brother immensely and may Allah continue to shower you with his guidance InshaAllah, Ameen :)
Thank you sister Light of Heaven, whenever I make dua i always include all my fellow brothers and sisters, I pray that Insha'Allah Allah swt bestows Jannah upon us as the final destination.
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
06-28-2008, 12:51 AM
^^InshaAllah, Ameen! :)
Reply

Souljette
06-28-2008, 10:57 AM
Ameen to the dua
Reply

SixTen
06-28-2008, 12:16 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Your estimation of 0.0000... is not true. Infinity is not a number. Infinity is not a quantity. You can't divide or fraction it. So you cannot compare it with a finite quantity (like a 100 years) either. Infinity is a concept. You're mixing up concepts with quantities, that's like comparing apples with oranges. Any results you bring forth from such a comparison are nonsense.

dividing by infinity
I think he was just trying to say, 100 years of punishment is so much, now just imagine that forever, in that, 100 years in comparison to eternal is nothing, yet 100 years is so much pain.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-28-2008, 12:39 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
I think he was just trying to say, 100 years of punishment is so much, now just imagine that forever, in that, 100 years in comparison to eternal is nothing, yet 100 years is so much pain.
I know exactly what he was trying to say. What I was trying to say though is that our concept of infinity is biased. And thus such arguments are flawed. For all we know "infinite time" means absence of progression truogh time rather then spread out over an infinite time. Ever thought of that? ^_^
Reply

SixTen
06-28-2008, 12:47 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
I know exactly what he was trying to say. What I was trying to say though is that our concept of infinity is biased. And thus such arguments are flawed. For all we know "infinite time" means absence of progression truogh time rather then spread out over an infinite time. Ever thought of that? ^_^
Actually, a better point would be that, (recall it from some awlaki lectures), hell is not infinite. It is stated as eternal (as it is a very very long time) but not infinite.
Reply

Gator
06-28-2008, 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
I never claimed that everything which cannot be proven is true. So why did you point it out? I'm simply showing that your being narrow-minded when you're not willing to accept anything that cannot be proven. That doesn't mean you have to accept everything that cannot be proven. Just the things that make sense is sufficient.
I think you answered your own question. He appears to be willing to accept things that appear reasonable to him, even with slightly dodgy evidence.

From reading Tornado's answers, he does not need proof, he's just looking reasonable evidence or basis of your explanation of how things work. Apparently your conception of a god is currently not sufficient.

For me, if you were to put forward a description of god that fit my perception of the world more reasonably than his atheism, I'd consider it more. Again, we're not talking proof, we're talking evidence and experience of the world on which to form a reasonable basis.


Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah
Hi tornado
Sorry about jumping in here and Tornado please correct me if I'm wrong on any point.

Thanks.
Reply

Abdul Fattah
06-28-2008, 10:25 PM
Hi gator,
Intelligent comment. Remind me of this Jesuit priest I once saw an interview of, who said:
I've found in most of my atheistic colleagues (he was an astronomer) that they "don't believe" in a very specif god, a god that I myself don't believe in.
Reply

Chuck
06-28-2008, 11:35 PM
Originally Posted by Tornado
Would the most evil person judged by allah go to hell forever. Like I said, the punishment specifically in this case is so very long long that the short pain dealings is practically non-existent.
I don't know, only Allah is the judge. We'll know when the time comes.

But one thing comes to mind, our perception is relative, if humans were living for 500 years then lifetime prisonment would have been relative to that. People in paradise will be there eternally too.

As for lifetime hell only 2 people are mentioned in Quran by name: (1) Pharaoh, and (2) Abu Lahab. Both were show clear signs that they had nothing left to deny and they were warned of the conquences but they still did. It is something they choose.

Even in this world consquence of certain things stay whole life, no matter how long it is.

But everything comes with a clause, as long as God wills. They will get out hell sometime I don't know.

One striking imagery a person wrote (but it is not about eternal hell):
Actually, we have a very beautiful portrayal of human psychology, which ultimately leads to the downfall of an individual in a position of power. That power over people as represented by hands will ultimately be destroyed, and in the process, the individual will lose his own self.

That individual was so busy in hoarding wealth, that he would even put on a religious display to extort it from people. Further, men are often motivated by deep companionship to commit evil, and the deepest of Companionship is a wife. That very wife who also indulged in wealth at the expense of human equality. She use to encourage her husband to perform the mentioned deeds, so that they could retain their social status. But the very wealth he earned unlawfully, and she encouraged him to earn, will be the very wealth that will take the form of a necklace that binds her like a slave being bound. The very social class that she sought to maintain, the society of slavery, so that she could be high-up in society. The other irony is that she will be stroking the fire that is burning her husband. She stroked it in this life, and the next life will just be an extension of what she was doing.

I don't how every deeds in the world translates into the next world, I normally pay attention to more practical stuff. But one thing I've learned as an investor is that signs are more important than simple facts.
Reply

suffiyan007
06-29-2008, 01:06 PM
prophecies in the old testament

Beside the Gospel of Barnabas, which we maintain is the True Gospel which has not suffered distortions and which speaks for itself about the future advent of the Holy Prophet Muhammad(SAW)pbuh, We nonetheless give quotations from other old and new testamentswi together with gospel of Barnabas should remove any doubt whatsoever from he mnds of readers,as we have presented enough facts from one and all known old scriptures of the world,which foretold the coming of last and final prophet of Go, Prophet Muhammad SAW(pbuh).

Deutronomy 18 15-18

" The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thee,of thy brethen, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.According to all that thou desirest of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of assembly,saying, let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God,neither let me see this great fire anymore, that i die not. And the Lord said unto me:They have well said that which they have broken. I will raise them up prophet from among their brethren,like unto thee,and i will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them that I shall command him."

Explaination:

In the above-quoted passages Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is evidently foretold.For God declared to all israelites that he would raise up a Prophet from among their brethren. Now we hesitate not to affirm that it is impossible that the phrase " brethren of Israel", could have any other meaning than that ishmaelites and these never had any prophet but Muhammad(pbuh). It is admitted both JEws and ChrisTians that revelations to israelite Prophets were not made in the words as given in SCriptures, but only their support,which they afterwards delivered to the people in their own language. But the Holy Quran, on contrary,revealed to Muhammad SaW word by word as it now fact which makes the expression" and will put My words in his mouth" inapplicable to anyone except Muhammad SAW.

In promising to raise up a prophet God Tells Moses that" I will raise up a prophet from among their brethren". But we find in DEutronomy34:10 that there arose not prophet since in israel like unto Moses. They cannot then remain a single doubt but promised prophet must have been among the Ishmaelites the brethren of the israelites....


mean my point of view are:


Abraham and ishmael is the ancestor of Muhammad...ishmael(ismail) brother called ishak(issac) is Muhammad Related ancestor...so Muhammad....so we must believe what a clear crystal evidence of Islam is bring By Adam,Abraham,ishmael,ishak,Noah,Luth,isaiah and lotsa thousands of prophets of God bring tauheed or ISlam to dedicate all to their peoples.....and Muhammad for the new centuries till now modern world...
People now deny all the sign of Allah/Yahweh....God Has put a clear sign that he cares like Tsunami,flood, hurricane,and etc....to show how powerful is Allah is..!
Reply

Trumble
06-30-2008, 07:00 AM
Originally Posted by Suffiyan007
Beside the Gospel of Barnabas, which we maintain is the True Gospel which has not suffered distortions...
Who is "we"? Even muslim academics now accept that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery of late medieval (at the earliest) origin.
Reply

suffiyan007
06-30-2008, 11:15 AM
yeah the Barnabas Gospel is the origin of jesus gospel.... the modern or new bible that the christian used is the distorted version of bible...the Books before Quran are contradicted. ..so we must believe that God sent Quran to Muhammad to guide the end of the century people till end of the world...people who doesnt receive light(Nur) from Allah, it will call rejected faith.God has sent lotsa prophets to the World, none of the people follow the straight path that Allah had shown.The only Allah shown to the people understand the faith of islam...not to be late that before the day of the death or the judgement day/last day...in the masyar people will be examine by Allah..lotsa jews and christians will fight for each other..even non- believers also fight for everything that's too late...so start your deed and ask for guidance from people who are muslim to guide you to understand muslim..
God said: God Accepted as religion is islam.
Reply

suffiyan007
06-30-2008, 11:16 AM
hope u be the chosen one to convert to islam....insyaallah....
Reply

~ Sabr ~
01-26-2012, 08:37 AM
:salamext:

:bump:ing this up for discussion.....
Reply

Riana17
01-26-2012, 09:26 AM
Asalam Alaikkum

I am 100% sure that my religion is correct because each thing I discover about ISLAM is just right and PERFECT, indeed very logic.

And most importantly, i left with no more question about this life, alhamdollellah, peace is ISLAM
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
01-26-2012, 01:35 PM
Its funny how we so easily quote verses, scriptures and historical figures and base our belief on that without taking into account how those exact same verses and figures affected those who Allaah took as his loved one.



This may not make sense to everyone but I believe in this religion because I fell in-love with its people, delved into it further and further till I reached certainty.
Reply

Paprika
01-26-2012, 02:33 PM
O got brain, you know bheju, it would be nice if some people could actually unwrap theres and use it, it's meant to be used you know.
Reply

~ Sabr ~
01-26-2012, 02:36 PM
^ What do you mean?
Reply

Paprika
01-26-2012, 02:39 PM
Originally Posted by Umm Ahlaam
^ What do you mean?
If you use your brain the way it's meant to, it will lead you to islam, no iffs and buttts....
Reply

~ Sabr ~
01-26-2012, 02:40 PM
^ Only if Allaah Guides, will a person come to Islam. No other way.
Reply

Paprika
01-26-2012, 02:42 PM
Originally Posted by Umm Ahlaam
^ Only if Allaah Guides, will a person come to Islam. No other way.
Sometimes they use that as an excuse Allah is not guiding me so then why he wants to put me in da fire, oucccch aaah, oucchchhh, use your brain first I say, then Allah will guide you if you are sincere....
Reply

~ Sabr ~
01-26-2012, 02:45 PM
If they are saying that, then they are not willing to reach the truth. They are just making ignorant statements.

Allaahu Aalim
Reply

Paprika
01-26-2012, 02:48 PM
Originally Posted by Umm Ahlaam
If they are saying that, then they are not willing to reach the truth. They are just making ignorant statements.

Allaahu Aalim
That is what I am saying.

Tomatoes and Paprika anyone????
Reply

Burninglight
02-01-2012, 04:47 PM
God's Spirit bears witness with my Spirit that Jesus is the Way, Truth and the Life. He pulled me out of the miry clay and set me on a rock. The Rock of my salvation.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
02-01-2012, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
God's Spirit bears witness with my Spirit that Jesus is the Way, Truth and the Life. He pulled me out of the miry clay and set me on a rock. The Rock of my salvation.
From that I understood that you have gained faith in God, looked to Jesus and found that to be the path to salvation and that is why you believe your religion is correct.


right?
Reply

Burninglight
02-01-2012, 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
From that I understood that you have gained faith in God, looked to Jesus and found that to be the path to salvation and that is why you believe your religion is correct.


right?
yes, but it goes a lot deeper than that. There is communication that happens between me and God. Just as in prayer isn't just us speaking our piece but letting God speak His to us. It is a relationship more than a religion for me. I don't believe God cares about our religion as much as us having a relationsip with us. I have that, because His spirit communicates with mine in such as way that I cannot deny the truth.
Reply

Txyib
02-01-2012, 09:12 PM
asalamualikum
i thin that people have their own pov based on evidence and what they hear around them,i.e as i muslim i have a quran for evidence and moreover for a miracle i have the cure -allah is the one that can cure a ill person that is a miracle and evidence and many have witnessed this ,so based on these facts many people have different povb
wasalam
محمد طيب
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
02-01-2012, 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
yes, but it goes a lot deeper than that. There is communication that happens between me and God. Just as in prayer isn't just us speaking our piece but letting God speak His to us. It is a relationship more than a religion for me. I don't believe God cares about our religion as much as us having a relationsip with us. I have that, because His spirit communicates with mine in such as way that I cannot deny the truth.
I wish I could better understand this communication of the spirit.


Thank you for sharing your beliefs, appreciated :)
Reply

Burninglight
02-01-2012, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
I wish I could better understand this communication of the spirit.


Thank you for sharing your beliefs, appreciated
You are most certainly welcome. You would have to be a Christian to understand the communication of the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised would come to be in us forever, and that we have no need that any man teach us for the Spirit of truth leads us into all truth. Let me ask you a question. What makes you so sure Christianity isn't the right religion? Please don't confuse Catholicism with the Christianity I refer to.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
02-01-2012, 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
You are most certainly welcome. You would have to be a Christian to understand the communication of the Holy Spirit who Jesus promised would come to be in us forever, and that we have no need that any man teach us for the Spirit of truth leads us into all truth. Let me ask you a question. What makes you so sure Christianity isn't the right religion? Please don't confuse Catholicism with the Christianity I refer to.
to answer that question I would have to go severely off topic :p


in a nutshell its because like you, God has shown me the way :)
Reply

Burninglight
02-02-2012, 06:38 AM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
to answer that question I would have to go severely off topic


in a nutshell its because like you, God has shown me the way
I can respect that
Reply

real islam
03-07-2012, 07:49 AM
Al Qur'an.
When a Muslim can find out the answers of his all question.
Then his heart will say right or wrong.
The truth is that 90%of Muslims don't read
Al Qur'an.
How can they say they are right?
Reply

SorayaCali
03-07-2012, 07:50 AM
Well it depends on who. I keep swinging back and forth it drives me insane.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-07-2012, 09:48 AM
Originally Posted by real islam
Al Qur'an.
When a Muslim can find out the answers of his all question.
Then his heart will say right or wrong.
The truth is that 90%of Muslims don't read
Al Qur'an.
How can they say they are right?
That's a lot more than Christians read the bible and way more than Jews read the Torah.
Reply

Marina-Aisha
03-07-2012, 11:11 AM
I've never really understood the god holy ghost also I never understood why we wore the cross when Jesus was murdered on the cross. Where as Islam just has more answers. Only one god, all knowing all seeing. Believe all the prophets.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-07-2012, 07:41 PM
Originally Posted by marina28
I've never really understood the god holy ghost also I never understood why we wore the cross when Jesus was murdered on the cross.
Weird isn't it? Imagine if the Jesus story was set in modern day. Would catholics then carry little electric chairs around their necks?
Reply

Amigo
03-08-2012, 06:48 AM
Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
Peace to all those who follow righteous guidance.


Lets have a civil discussion of our views and beliefs.
NO SLANDERING OR DISRESPECTING OF A PERSONS VIEWS WILL BE TOLERATED !


What makes you so sure that your faith is the correct one?
Well, my faith is in absolute Truth, therefore it is correct.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-08-2012, 09:13 AM
Originally Posted by Amigo
Well, my faith is in absolute Truth, therefore it is correct.
anyone can also say this and believe in it.

my faith is in absolute Truth, therefore it is correct.

See?
Reply

Amigo
03-09-2012, 04:55 AM
Yes, but so many don't, and so they are not correct, for correctness is of Truth.
Reply

Ramadhan
03-11-2012, 01:19 AM
Originally Posted by Amigo
Yes, but so many don't, and so they are not correct, for correctness is of Truth.
I agree.
So many muslism do, so they are correct, for correctness is of Truth and Islam is the Truth.
Reply

MariamMababaya
03-11-2012, 05:55 AM
Everyone is 100% sure that Islam is the only true religion. Islam is the true religion from the Only True God Allah.

there's no doubt about that ;D
Reply

MariamMababaya
03-11-2012, 05:59 AM
incredibly sad ;D
Reply

GodIsAll
03-12-2012, 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by Burninglight
I don't believe God cares about our religion as much as us having a relationsip with us. I have that, because His spirit communicates with mine in such as way that I cannot deny the truth.
Yes! Thank you.
Reply

Insaanah
03-13-2012, 07:00 PM
The guiding scripture is 100% the word of God, not the word of humans, and is free of inconsistencies, fully preserved, and will always remain so.
The main message is the same thing that all God's prophets preached, and is not something different or new.
The maths makes sense, adds up - no mental acrobatics required.
It's key concepts are simple, clear, logical, and easy to understand.
The statements made in the scripture regarding scientific phenomena have been shown to be remarkably accurate.
The richness, poetry and beauty of the scriptures language is above what any human, even an expert, could produce.
Amongst others...
Reply

bhakti
03-16-2012, 02:14 PM
I believe proof, logic n all that is too dry and shallow. When you fall in love with someone, you don't delve into logic, do you? I'm a Hindu coz I love being a Hindu. Period.

What I love about Hinduism is the sheer diversity of thought and expression that it allows. You can pray in any way you want. You can build any relationship with God. There is no one scaring you with hell-fire dangling over your head and all that. You are free to disbelieve in a lot of things that are normally associated with Hinduism by non-Hindus and yet be a staunch Hindu!!

In fact the concept of religion doesn't even exist in Hinduism. Every stream of philosophy or faith (including atheism)is called a "darshana" in Hinduism. And "darshana" simply means "point of view". We are all looking at the same thing but from different points of view. I love that attitude.
Reply

Sumaiya54
05-20-2012, 10:24 PM
Well I believe my religion, Islam, is the right one simply because of its purity. In Islam there is one God. Simple. The Quran is still exactly the same from when the Prophet PBUH was alive. Simple. Many other things also contribute to my belief that Islam is the right religion but I want to keep this post short.

Salaam :)
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 11:18 PM
  3. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 12:31 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!