Imagine ...

[glo]

This morning, as I was brushing my teeth, this thought popped into my head, and I decided to share it with you here.

It is not true to any doctrine, and it is not meant to be. It may sound heretic to some, but that is not my intention.
This is really just me letting my imagination roam. :)

So, imagine …

It is the day of the Final Judgment.
God addresses the human race and says:
“I gave you different holy books and different religions, just to see how you would treat each other …”

I wonder, would we pass the test? :-[

[SouljahOfAllah]

:exhausted:X

[AntiKarateKid]

Well then.... why did God forbid paganism and destroy some pagan peoples in the Old Testament?

The problem with these imaginings is that they contradict our own scriptures way too much. This would mean that every Prophet lied when they said that they had the truth and every people that they tried to convert had a right to stay pagan. Which would mean that people who followed Pharaoh and worshipped him had just as legitimate of a religion as Moses had.

Which is obviously ludicrous.

[nebula]

lol interesting question. but i nothing like that will happen

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

[Yanal]

Only Allah knows and inshAllah we will all pass.

[Grace Seeker]

Well then.... why did God forbid paganism and destroy some pagan peoples in the Old Testament?

The problem with these imaginings is that they contradict our own scriptures way too much. This would mean that every Prophet lied when they said that they had the truth and every people that they tried to convert had a right to stay pagan. Which would mean that people who followed Pharaoh and worshipped him had just as legitimate of a religion as Moses had.

Which is obviously ludicrous.

I don't think it has to mean that. I'm not saying that all relgions can be harmonized with one another either. But I do think that some of them, no not all of them, can declare themselves as true, without having to declare that there is no truth in anything else.

Let me give an example from a verse in Christiantiy that I think many Christian improperly interpret in an exclusivistic manner: {quote]Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)[/quote]

Now, the majority of Christian understand this verse to mean that if you don't know Jesus you can't get to heaven. Why? Because Jesus says that know one can come to the Father, except through him. So, they ask rhetorically, "If you don't know Jesus, how can he help you get to heaven?" And they answer their own question that you can't. But I think they are wrong -- that is not what this verse says.

You see while I accept the verse is true in saying that the only way to heaven is through Jesus, I don't see it saying anything about it having to be an acceptance of Jesus. Lots of people (not just Muslims, but Christians too) think that the Christian message is all about agreeing with what Jesus taught, but that is not the central message of the Christian Gospel. Rather the central message of the Christian Gospel, is that Jesus died to reconcile us to God. Nothing about belief there at all. Jesus takes away the sin of the world that keeps human beings from being able to have a relationship with God. Now, according to the Christian faith, you don't have to believe that for it to be true, it is one of the givens of the Christian faith that is true for everyoine. We generally go on to teach people that since Jesus has done this that it is important for you to believe it and live accordingly. That's simple concept is the basic idea behind John 3:16 and a whole host of other verses. But is accepting that really necessary? Well, not according to John 14:6 and not even according to Ephesians 2:8:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.

Notice, it does not say that anyone is saved by faith, rather we are saved by God's grace. We may experience grace because we have faith, but this is part of a letter written to people who have faith. They have received this grace through their faith. But what about others? Nothing is said. It does not say that without faith that one cannot receive God's grace. As a matter of fact, God's grace is something that God decides who does and doesn't receive. That's because God is the decision maker, and not us. Thus, if God decides that he wants to save you, God can do that. God can do pretty much whatever God wants to do. Yes, he does that in and through Jesus, but no where in scripture does it actually say that you have to believe that Jesus' is the author of your salvation in order for you to be a recipient of it. I find that an incredible idea, but it really never says it. Thus, while I think it just makes sense to believe because them one has God's promise of salvation, the Bible does not actually slam the door on those who don't believe. In the long run, at least from the Biblical perspective, if God wants to save pagans (or anyone else) that is God's perogative to decide and do as God well pleases.


So, (and I fully expect a fair number of Christians to disagree with me on this) Glo's question, unusual though it is, may contradict some scriptures from other religions, but I personally don't think that it actually contradicts the Christian scriptures.

[Malaikah]

That would necessitate that God lied to us and deceived us - and God if far removed from such things!

[Whatsthepoint]

That would necessitate that God lied to us and deceived us - and God if far removed from such things!

Says who? God?

[AntiKarateKid]

Says who? God?

We know this because the Prophets have told us and what Allah has told us through them.

You can reject what they say and imagine a lying, deceiving, and malevolent creator but.... you have no evidence for your ideas so they are invalid.

Then who doth greater wrong than he who deviseth a lie concerning Allah, that he may lead mankind astray without knowledge. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (Quran 6:144)

[Whatsthepoint]

We know this because the Prophets have told us and what Allah has told us through them.

You can reject what they say and imagine a lying, deceiving, and malevolent creator but.... you have no evidence for your ideas so they are invalid.

Then who doth greater wrong than he who deviseth a lie concerning Allah, that he may lead mankind astray without knowledge. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (Quran 6:144)

It is completely valid and plausible.

[AntiKarateKid]

It is completely valid and plausible.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.

I'd imagine such a malevolent creator would have struck you with a bolt of lightening for your disbelief by now.

But at least we can agree so far that Allah is Al-Ḥalīm (forbearing, indulgent) since you are not writhing in pain and agony from your lies yet.

[Whatsthepoint]

Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.

I'd imagine such a malevolent creator would have struck you with a bolt of lightening for your disbelief by now.

But at least we can agree so far that Allah is Al-Ḥalīm (forbearing, indulgent) since you are not writhing in pain and agony from your lies yet.

Are you gonna try to debunk the theory using logic and common sense?
It may have flaws I haven't thought of, I haven't really thought much of it, but I still think it is logically valid.
To your second line: who says god is bothered by disbelief? Sure, the Quran does, the Bible etc, but let's not use holy books right now. I'm not saying my theory is right or claim to have any evidence whatsoever, but it's valid.

[AntiKarateKid]

Are you gonna try to debunk the theory using logic and common sense?
It may have flaws I haven't thought of, I haven't really thought much of it, but I still think it is logically valid.
To your second line: who says god is bothered by disbelief? Sure, the Quran does, the Bible etc, but let's not use holy books right now. I'm not saying my theory is right or claim to have any evidence whatsoever, but it's valid.

Am I supposed to come to the truth without using my intelligence? You're right that it has flaws, and those flaws negate it.

By the way, If I'm not suing common sense, logic, or holy books, WHAT am I using? I'd imagine those would be necessary for a belief to be valid.

Out of curiosity, do you agree now that Allah is at least al Halim?

[Whatsthepoint]

Am I supposed to come to the truth without using my intelligence? You're right that it has flaws, and those flaws negate it.

By the way, If I'm not suing common sense, logic, or holy books, WHAT am I using? I'd imagine those would be necessary for a belief to be valid.

Out of curiosity, do you agree now that Allah is at least al Halim?

You used preconceptiosn about a god that have undoubtedly sprung out from your belief for Islam. what I'd like you to do is that fr a limited amount of time you imagine god as an all powerful being of whom you know nothing, you don't know whether he prefers belief over disbelief, you don't know whether he lies or not, the only thing you do know is his omnipotence.
Now explains what pevents god from creating humans and sending them a couple of contradicting holy books in order to have a laugh.
I don't think he exists so I really don't care whether he is al-halim.

[AntiKarateKid]

You used preconceptiosn about a god that have undoubtedly sprung out from your belief for Islam. what I'd like you to do is that fr a limited amount of time you imagine god as an all powerful being of whom you know nothing, you don't know whether he prefers belief over disbelief, you don't know whether he lies or not, the only thing you do know is his omnipotence.
Now explains what pevents god from creating humans and sending them a couple of contradicting holy books in order to have a laugh.
I don't think he exists so I really don't care whether he is al-halim.

Funny you'd call them contradicting yet educated Jews and Christians are reverting back to Islam everyday because they found it to be in harmony with the truthful elements of each of their scriptures.

I'd have to point it out to him that he missed a bunch of the bridges between Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Guess he was laughing to hard to notice.

You insist that he could be malevolent yet are not reduced to charred ashes. Therefore he is al Halim so..... lookit! We figured out an attribute of Allah and falsified another!

[Whatsthepoint]

Funny you'd call them contradicting yet educated Jews and Christians are reverting back to Islam everyday because they found it to be in harmony with the truthful elements of each of their scriptures.

futile!

[Whatsthepoint]

You insist that he could be malevolent yet are not reduced to charred ashes. Therefore he is al Halim so..... lookit! We figured out an attribute of Allah and falsified another!

Now who says a malvolent god needs to incinerate everyone?
Your god for instance keeps the punishment for later, and makes it much worse than one time incineration, so I don't find your god halim, on the other hand, the hypothetical god I'm trying to discuss with you, may or may not be al halim, he may not care what people do, he may be saving the severest of punishments, he may incude hart attacks or hwhatever. It is not withing our knowledge, we know nothing about this hypothetical god.

[AntiKarateKid]

Now who says a malvolent god needs to incinerate everyone?
Your god for instance keeps the punishment for later, and makes it much worse than one time incineration, so I don't find your god halim, on the other hand, the hypothetical god I'm trying to discuss with you, may or may not be al halim, he may not care what people do, he may be saving the severest of punishments, he may incude hart attacks or hwhatever. It is not withing our knowledge, we know nothing about this hypothetical god.

1. Keeping the punishment for later is one of the definitions of al halim
2. He is giving you a chance to rethink your views so that is merciful and just and ontop of that has allowed you numerous encounters with Muslims to help
3. You're argument was more of a rant about ignorance than a well thought out statement in a constructive debate
4. Your source is your imagination, mine is a holy book supplemented with my intelligence

[Whatsthepoint]

1. Keeping the punishment for later is one of the definitions of al halim
2. He is giving you a chance to rethink your views so that is merciful and just and ontop of that has allowed you numerous encounters with Muslims to help
3. You're argument was more of a rant about ignorance than a well thought out statement in a constructive debate
4. Your source is your imagination, mine is a holy book supplemented with my intelligence

Look, all I'm saying is taht you can never know for sure god hasn't decieved you.
After all he or she is god and you are human.

[AntiKarateKid]

Look, all I'm saying is taht you can never know for sure god hasn't decieved you.
After all he or she is god and you are human.

So let me get this straight.

You'd believe your deceiving theory even though it flies in the face of every religion on earth.

But.

You'd believe there is no god because (in your mind) it flies in the face of everything you've thought.


This is hypocritical and illogical and your reasons for acting so are highly debatable. And as a post script, Muslims can provide reasons to refute the second statement yet the deceiving theory is conclusively contrary to all religions.

"And that He may punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Polytheists men and women, who imagine an evil opinion of God. On them is a round of Evil: the Wrath of God is on them: He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them: and evil is it for a destination. (The Noble Quran, 48:6)"

[Whatsthepoint]

So let me get this straight.

You'd believe your deceiving theory even though it flies in the face of every religion on earth.

But.

You'd believe there is no god because (in your mind) it flies in the face of everything you've thought.


This is hypocritical and illogical and your reasons for acting so are highly debatable.





And as a post script, Muslims can provide reasons to refute the second statement yet the deceiving theory is conclusively contrary to all religions.

Well the fact that it contradicts every existing religion is the general idea, I said god may have created them to have a laugh.
It was a response to Angel's post.

[AntiKarateKid]

Well the fact that it contradicts every existing religion is the general idea, I said god may have created them to have a laugh.
It was a response to Angel's post.

You understand my point about hypocrisy?

[Whatsthepoint]

You understand my point about hypocrisy?

Not really.
I'm not saying my theory is true or that I have a single peace of evidence to support it, all I sad is that it is valid which you opposed.
On the other hand, I never claimed the concept of god was invalid.

[AntiKarateKid]

Not really.
I'm not saying my theory is true or that I have a single peace of evidence to support it, all I sad is that it is valid which you opposed.

You speak exactly like a blind follower of a false religion.

"I'm not saying my RELIGION is true or that I have a single peace of evidence to support it, all I said is that it is valid which you opposed."

[Whatsthepoint]

You speak exactly like a blind follower of a false religion.

"I'm not saying my RELIGION is true or that I have a single peace of evidence to support it, all I said is that it is valid which you opposed."

Well I'm not talking about religion but about a single claim the logic of which you opposed without logically debunk it, rather you brought up your own concepts of god.

[AntiKarateKid]

Are you gonna try to debunk the theory using logic and common sense?
It may have flaws I haven't thought of, I haven't really thought much of it, but I still think it is logically valid.
To your second line: who says god is bothered by disbelief? Sure, the Quran does, the Bible etc, but let's not use holy books right now. I'm not saying my theory is right or claim to have any evidence whatsoever, but it's valid.

I'm the one lacking logic?

[Whatsthepoint]

I'm the one lacking logic?

so far you haven't suceeded in point out any logical fallacy contained in my theory so I still have the reason to think it is valid.

[AntiKarateKid]

so far you haven't suceeded in point out any logical fallacy contained in my theory so I still have the reason to think it is valid.

I'd request that you reread my posts then. For now, I'm done arguing with your imagination.

[Grace Seeker]

That would necessitate that God lied to us and deceived us - and God if far removed from such things!

I understand, but there are already things in Islam that strike me as God deceiving people. One of them is:

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

Now, I see three potential interpretations based on this passage:
1) In the first, Isa is not actually put on the cross. Rather someone else is crucified in Isa' place. This is because God cause it to appear to those who witnessed the crucifixion that it was Isa who hung on the cross when in fact it was someone else.
2) Isa appeared on the cross because he was in fact crucified, but the Qur'an speaks of it as "appearing" because though he appeared to die, he didn't really die, but only swooned and subsequently recovered.
3) Isa appeared on the cross because he was in fact crucified, but the Qur'an speaks of it as "appearing" because though he appeared to die, his death was only temporary as he would soon be resurrected to life again.

I'm guessing that we would both eliminate #2 as a tenable option, for the idea that whoever was on the cross only swooned, when he was being crucified by people who were paid to make sure that the victim was indeed dead before taking them down from the cross is beyond fathomable. The usually way of assuring this was the breaking of legs, though the Christian Gospels tell us this was unnecessary in Jesus' case because he was already dead as evidenced from having a spear stuck into his heart through his side.

And I'm also guessing that you would reject #3 as this is the standard Christian understanding of what happened.

Therefore I suspect that you are most likely to accept #1 as the proper interpretation of the passage as I understand this to be the standard Islamic view of the event: "The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, not with standing certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of his enemies; that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah Almighty." (source: www.answering-christianity.com, an well-known Islamic apologetic website)


So, here you have Muslims saying that this was an illusion. As Allah is sovereign in all things, then was it not Allah who perpetrated this illusion on Isa's enemies? And is this not an act of deceiving them?

[Whatsthepoint]

I'd request that you reread my posts then. For now, I'm done arguing with your imagination.

That's fine.

[AntiKarateKid]

C'mon Seeker, you can't be serious?

I guess we should count life itself as a deceit since it makes so many of us forget the afterlife?

Allah punished those people who wanted to kill Isa by perpetuating their ignorance and making it seem like it.

He rewarded those who wanted to save him.

Allah did not lie to them or break any promises. He did not tell them Isa was dead then kept him alive. They thought they had killed him, Allah had saved him and let them wander in their ignorance as a punishment.

[Yanal]

Allah knows everything. And heres a story:

A father had three sons called Abdullah,Abdul and zak(:p)
Father: Take this fruit,go somewhere no one can see you and eat it.
Abdullah: Went in his room and ate them.
Abdul: Went in the bathroom and ate it.
Zak thought Allah sees everything.

Abdul and Abdullah came to the father empty handed while zak gave the fruit back and said: Allah sees everything so I can't eat this when nobody is looking.
Father: Excellent son,You two should learn a lesson or two from zak.

That proves it.

[Grace Seeker]

C'mon Seeker, you can't be serious?

Don't you think that Malakiah was serious? I do.

Allah punished those people who wanted to kill Isa by perpetuating their ignorance and making it seem like it.

There, you said it yourself, he made it seem like. You can sugar coat it all you want, but by your own words you are saying that Allah made something to seem different than what it really was. Malaikah called that deception in her post, I'm saying that if it is there, then it is in the Qur'an as well. It matters not the reason for the deception. What does matter is that the reason that they were deceived is because Allah made it appear that they had done one thing when they had not. In other words, Allah is the instigator of the deception -- at least according to your version of the story, my version I accept as true doesn't have anyone deceived.

[AntiKarateKid]

Don't you think that Malakiah was serious? I do.

There, you said it yourself, he made it seem like. You can sugar coat it all you want, but by your own words you are saying that Allah made something to seem different than what it really was. Malaikah called that deception in her post, I'm saying that if it is there, then it is in the Qur'an as well. It matters not the reason for the deception. What does matter is that the reason that they were deceived is because Allah made it appear that they had done one thing when they had not. In other words, Allah is the instigator of the deception -- at least according to your version of the story, my version I accept as true doesn't have anyone deceived.

Instigator of deception? Perhaps you aren't aware of the type of deception we were talking about. We talked about malevolent deception for the hell of it. Not a punishment of perpetuating the deception that the Jews themselves originally held.

They were deluding themselves when they thought they could kill Isa and Allah punished them by letting them stay in that delusion.

That is not instigating, that is punishing by perpetuating it.

By the way, life is deceptive in that it lures away from the afterlife.
Allah created life.
Is Allah deceptive for that?

[Grace Seeker]

By the way, life is deceptive in that it lures away from the afterlife.
Allah created life.
Is Allah deceptive for that?

See, I don't think that life is deceptive in the way you describe. I think that it is sin that lures us away from the afterlife, and sin is not something that God created. As you said, Allah created life, and that life which Allah created and places within us actually awakens us to his presence and woos us back to him when we have drifted away into sin.

[AntiKarateKid]

See, I don't think that life is deceptive in the way you describe. I think that it is sin that lures us away from the afterlife, and sin is not something that God created. As you said, Allah created life, and that life which Allah created and places within us actually awakens us to his presence and woos us back to him when we have drifted away into sin.

God is omnipotent and controls all.
Sin is under Gods control.
He allows sin to deceive us.
God deceives.

You see the silliness of generalization?

[Grace Seeker]

God is omnipotent and controls all.
Sin is under Gods control.
He allows sin to deceive us.
God deceives.

If this is your view, then it is by your standards, not mine, that God actually is deceptive.

[AntiKarateKid]

If this is your view, then it is by your standards, not mine, that God actually is deceptive.

I'm interpreting your view here hence my comment about your generalization. Isn't this what logically follows according to your statement about sin?

[Grace Seeker]

I'm interpreting your view here hence my comment about your generalization.

OK. I guess I missed that the first time.

Isn't this what logically follows according to your statement about sin?

But, still no. I don't believe that because God allows us freedom to make choices for ourselves that God is the author of sin just because we choose it. Sin is the perversion of God's will for our lives. But without true freedom to choose differently than God's will, then following God's will would not be a real choice it would only be a type of puppetry, and God didn't create us to be puppets but to be people who freely submit ourselves to him.

[AntiKarateKid]

OK. I guess I missed that the first time.

But, still no. I don't believe that because God allows us freedom to make choices for ourselves that God is the author of sin just because we choose it. Sin is the perversion of God's will for our lives. But without true freedom to choose differently than God's will, then following God's will would not be a real choice it would only be a type of puppetry, and God didn't create us to be puppets but to be people who freely submit ourselves to him.

And I fully agree with your post. But back on topic, you understand my disagreement with what you called "instigating deceit?"

[Pygoscelis]

And to think, I saw this thread and thought it was about John Lennon's song.

"Imagine there's no heaven, its easy if you try. No hell below us, and above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living life in peace."

[جوري]

imagination is very antagonistic to atheism...
but a reply to the OP.. I guess I'll take my chances..

all the best

[memories]

hahaha, if thats true then we fail, Grade F.

[Yanal]

Fail for what?

[coddles76]

This morning, as I was brushing my teeth, this thought popped into my head, and I decided to share it with you here.

It is not true to any doctrine, and it is not meant to be. It may sound heretic to some, but that is not my intention.
This is really just me letting my imagination roam. :)

So, imagine …



I wonder, would we pass the test? :-[

Thats the beauty of the imagination, It has the will to roam in many places it likes, even illogical places ;)

[Yanal]

We shuldnt say illogical cus it's possible she [glo] might become a muslim and change,you can never predict,only Allah knows what is to happen to us. U never know.

[coddles76]

We shuldnt say illogical cus it's possible she [glo] might become a muslim and change,you can never predict,only Allah knows what is to happen to us. U never know.

:sl:
Thankyou for your point Alpha and Yes I understand your point, Maybe Allah SWT is allowing Glo's Mind to ask questions which will lead her to the truth InshAllah.

[glo]

:sl:
Thankyou for your point Alpha and Yes I understand your point, Maybe Allah SWT is allowing Glo's Mind to ask questions which will lead her to the truth InshAllah.

I believe that God is guiding me all the time.
I am on a wonderful journey to get to know him more and more every day. Where it leads me I don't know, but I know that I am in his safe hands. :)

At times I may wander and stray, stumble and fall - but God will always be there to pick me up and carry me on.

Peace :)

[Grace Seeker]

And I fully agree with your post. But back on topic, you understand my disagreement with what you called "instigating deceit?"

I understand that you would not want to call it that. But, yes, I am serious, if I take the Qur'an at face value (and even more so when read in the light of Islamic commentary on the passage), that particular verse sounds to me like Allah is perpetrating a deception on those who to whom it was made to appear that Isa had been crucified when he had not been. You may think that Allah was justified in what he did. I am not debating whether or not it was justified or reasonable, only that to me, for whatever reason it took place, the event itself still amounts to a deception. But I do understand that we are just going to see that differently.



I'm curious what you might think of my initial post in this thread where I suggested that Christianity need not be seen as an exclusivist religion?

[AntiKarateKid]

I understand that you would not want to call it that. But, yes, I am serious, if I take the Qur'an at face value (and even more so when read in the light of Islamic commentary on the passage), that particular verse sounds to me like Allah is perpetrating a deception on those who to whom it was made to appear that Isa had been crucified when he had not been. You may think that Allah was justified in what he did. I am not debating whether or not it was justified or reasonable, only that to me, for whatever reason it took place, the event itself still amounts to a deception. But I do understand that we are just going to see that differently.



I'm curious what you might think of my initial post in this thread where I suggested that Christianity need not be seen as an exclusivist religion?

Sorry for the late reply, I had final exams.

Anywhoo, Back to your post. Let's end this right now so it doesn't go back and forth aimlessly for several more pages.

You keep saying "deception," so lets see its definition.

Deception- act of convincing another to believe information that is not true

If you had read my posts, you can see that this definition is contrary to Islam. Allah doesn't convince people to believe something else. He works off what they already have. The righteous will come to the right conclusion, the wrongdoers will go astray.

For example, a man starts levitating and seems as if he can predict the future or control the weather. Wrongdoers will worship him. Believers will reject him. This situation is a play on the Islamic Dajjal event.

So the word deception is inappropriate here. On a sidenote, Allah can destroy while civilizations, test people by them being tortured by their enemies, but suddenly you have a problem with him using an illusion and letting people make up their own minds?

I'll get to your other post in a bit.

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry for the late reply, I had final exams.

Anywhoo, Back to your post. Let's end this right now so it doesn't go back and forth aimlessly for several more pages.

You keep saying "deception," so lets see its definition.

Deception- act of convincing another to believe information that is not true

If you had read my posts, you can see that this definition is contrary to Islam.

The reason we keep going back and forth is because we my definition of "deception" is in keeping with that of standard English dictionaries. But as you say, such a definition, even if used by every available dictionary of the English language, is contrary to Islam. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm going to change my definition. It is as you say, the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true. Now, according to the Qur'an, it is not true that Isa actually died on the cross. He only appeared that way. And it appeared this way because Allah convinced those who were present to belief information that was not true with regard to Isa. Yep, that fits my definition of deception. If you recognizes that this is what the word deception means, and further say that Allah did indeed to those things, but still says that Allah didn't actually deceive anyone by doing those very things that convinced people to believe something that was not true and that the word in inappropriate when the actions fit the very definition of deception, then I'm afraid you are also deceiving yourself.

[AntiKarateKid]

The reason we keep going back and forth is because we my definition of "deception" is in keeping with that of standard English dictionaries. But as you say, such a definition, even if used by every available dictionary of the English language, is contrary to Islam. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm going to change my definition. It is as you say, the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true. Now, according to the Qur'an, it is not true that Isa actually died on the cross. He only appeared that way. And it appeared this way because Allah convinced those who were present to belief information that was not true with regard to Isa. Yep, that fits my definition of deception. If you recognizes that this is what the word deception means, and further say that Allah did indeed to those things, but still says that Allah didn't actually deceive anyone by doing those very things that convinced people to believe something that was not true and that the word in inappropriate when the actions fit the very definition of deception, then I'm afraid you are also deceiving yourself.

Did you even read my post? You keep repeating the word "convinced" but as far as I can see, disbelievers and believers made up their own mind.

1. The word deception is not applicable here. You seem unable to accept that even after I showed you the proper definition, which you dismiss in favor of your conjured one.

2. Allah made it appear to them. The disbelievers who want to believe evil, believe it. Believers denied it. It is a punishment to the evildoers.

3. It is the flip side of a miracle. Disbelievers who want to believe the worst deny it and believers believe it.


I will tell you now that for what your argument lacks in substance, it makes up for in repetition. I have shown you that your view is simply wrong and suspect that this is an imaginary problem with Islam you conjure up in your mind to convince yourself that you have a moral reason to oppose it.

[Grace Seeker]

I used the word convinced because (1) you used that word in your definition and (2) the Qur'an says that Allah made it appear so. That sounds like convincing to me.



As for as it being a reason that I am opposed to Islam, it is not. I only got into this discussion because Malaikah mentioned that Allah would not deceive anyone. And for all of the exuces you've provided Allah saying that the people didn't believe anyway. It still sounds like deception to me. And as I said, it sounds to me like you're willing to accept it and call it something else. But that doesn't make it so. If it wasn't Jesus who died on the cross, but Allah made it appear as if it were so, then Allah is the cause (not their unbelief) of them seeing what they saw. For surely Allah had it in his power to make it appear as it really was and chose not to. But you call it the flip side of a miracle. So be it. It is the miraclous deception of unbelievers so what is not true might appear to them as true.



And as far as being repeitious, you are correct, I can repeat that it is deception for as many times as you repeat that it is not. We differ as to what we think deception is and is not.

[AntiKarateKid]

I used the word convinced because (1) you used that word in your definition and (2) the Qur'an says that Allah made it appear so. That sounds like convincing to me.



As for as it being a reason that I am opposed to Islam, it is not. I only got into this discussion because Malaikah mentioned that Allah would not deceive anyone. And for all of the exuces you've provided Allah saying that the people didn't believe anyway. It still sounds like deception to me. And as I said, it sounds to me like you're willing to accept it and call it something else. But that doesn't make it so. If it wasn't Jesus who died on the cross, but Allah made it appear as if it were so, then Allah is the cause (not their unbelief) of them seeing what they saw. For surely Allah had it in his power to make it appear as it really was and chose not to. But you call it the flip side of a miracle. So be it. It is the miraclous deception of unbelievers so what is not true might appear to them as true.



And as far as being repeitious, you are correct, I can repeat that it is deception for as many times as you repeat that it is not. We differ as to what we think deception is and is not.

So making something appear so is convincing someone automatically? That's strange. If you saw a cow floating, you'd believe it can fly? or would you use your mind and question it? If you were a person inclined to believe such foolish things, you would decide to believe it and make up your own mind.

Your objection is very flawed.

[Grace Seeker]

So making something appear so is convincing someone automatically? That's strange. If you saw a cow floating, you'd believe it can fly? or would you use your mind and question it? If you were a person inclined to believe such foolish things, you would decide to believe it and make up your own mind.

Your objection is very flawed.

Making something appear so when it is not so is convincing.

Just answer these questions according to the Qur'an:

Was Jesus actually crucified?
Were there those to whom it was made to appear as if Jesus was crucified?
If so, who made it appear as if Jesus was crucified?

[AntiKarateKid]

Making something appear so when it is not so is convincing.

Just answer these questions according to the Qur'an:

Was Jesus actually crucified?
Were there those to whom it was made to appear as if Jesus was crucified?
If so, who made it appear as if Jesus was crucified?

Whew. It's been a while. Sorry for the lateness Seeker. Summer got the best of me. :D

I hesitate to give the answer to the first one as It never mattered to me really whether he was crucified and survived but people thought him dead, or someone replaced him, or it never happened at all and was pure hearsay. So... I don't have the knowledge to answer.

As to the third one, seeing as how every event in the universe happens by Allah's permission I'd say it was Allah.

But think about this for a second. If a man knowingly allows a man to be hit by a car and be killed or get maimed, he is a murderer or sadistic. But when God allows it to happen, what is it? Nothing. Allah can do whatever he wants with us but has promised to be just and merciful. He is the judge and not the judged.

In this case, the disbelievers had a chance to reject the notion of Jesus dying but their own hatred and rebelliousness chose between the two option. Either Jesus died or he was alive. Allah simply provided them with the choice.

Besides, making something appear, is not necessarily convincing. Do you believe those magicians on TV actually make people dissappear? Of course not. If a man came to you and started floating with his eyes glowing, would you believe he was some sort of demigod? Or possessed?

Your belief as a Christian would rule out the former and opt for the latter. But a, hindu would have no qualms with the former because of what he has chosen to believe.

[Yanal]

Glo my Aunt You are so wise mashAllah and inshAllah God will guide you properly and alhumdulilah you will say the Shahada.

[witness]

thought provoking posts ....A.K.K and G.S

...apologise for butting in :D

I wonder if it was a test to see whether one takes their 5 physical senses ie. sight,sound etc (on a what may be called materialistic basis)
or if they used their inner senses (ie the souls intellect and divine wisdom bestowed upon them ) to know and believe what they outwardly saw.

...so those using their 'inner senses' (as they were meant to) believed what God intended (ie. to know Jesus has not been crucified)
and those that used only their outer senses believed what they wanted- (ie. Jesus has been crucified) in effect they rejected their gift from God of their 'inner sense' which if they had chose to use they too would arrive at the same meaning God had intended for them to arrive at.

....wonder if that made sense :-[....i know what i mean but its a bit hard to put it into words.

:w:

[Snowflake]

It is the day of the Final Judgment.
God addresses the human race and says:
“I gave you different holy books and different religions, just to see how you would treat each other …”

Sorry Glo, I can't imagine something that will never happen as Allah, The Glorified, said in the Quran that He shall accept no religion other than Islam. :D

[syilla]

That would necessitate that God lied to us and deceived us - and God if far removed from such things!

salams ukhtee.... and i agree with you.

:thumbs_up

[Grace Seeker]

thought provoking posts ....A.K.K and G.S

...apologise for butting in :D

I wonder if it was a test to see whether one takes their 5 physical senses ie. sight,sound etc (on a what may be called materialistic basis)
or if they used their inner senses (ie the souls intellect and divine wisdom bestowed upon them ) to know and believe what they outwardly saw.

...so those using their 'inner senses' (as they were meant to) believed what God intended
and those that used only their outer senses believed what they wanted- meaning they rejected their gift from God of their 'inner sense' which if they had chose to use they too would arrive at the same meaning God had intended for them to arrive at.

....wonder if that made sense :-[....i know what i mean but its a bit hard to put it into words.

:w:

No. I'm glad you "butted in" with that. It is an interesting thought.

And AKK, I finally get in your last post why you say that making something appear a certain way is not necessarily the same thing as convincing. Of course even the illussionists does convince some who are aware that of course there is always a trick to it. So, are you suggesting that those who saw it appear to be Jesus on the cross knew that it was not? If so, then why did they believe if they knew different? But if what they believed was a consequence of what was made to appear to them, then it wasn't the condition of their hearts so much as the illusion that was performed that produced the result. And was it not Allah who was the author of that illusion?

But I think Witness' ideas might have sense of integrity to them. Allow me to consider them awhile longer.

[rpwelton]

I don't think it has to mean that. I'm not saying that all relgions can be harmonized with one another either. But I do think that some of them, no not all of them, can declare themselves as true, without having to declare that there is no truth in anything else.

Well, as Muslims we believe that many religions hold some portion of truth in them. This is because God sent messengers to many nations, preaching the same message of Tawhid (Oneness of God) and at some point those messages became corrupted. However, bits of truth do exist in many religions.

We just say that Islam is the only religion that is completely true, and thus you need to accept Islam to enter paradise.