PDA

View Full Version : How should ignorant people be treated?



Life_Is_Short
01-09-2010, 12:04 AM
:sl:
Recently, i have come across some very ignorant people who have absolutley no idea about Islam i.e they have not read the Quran or Hadeeth. They talk trash about Islam and fail to listen to your reasoning. I can't take this sort of nonsense. :hmm:

What shall i do?

Jazakallah
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
BlackMamba
01-09-2010, 12:43 AM
Verses to consider

25:63 And the servants of ((Allah)) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!";

4:140 Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:-
Reply

Life_Is_Short
01-09-2010, 12:45 AM
Originally Posted by Shakoor15
Verses to consider

25:63 And the servants of ((Allah)) Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!";

4:140 Already has He sent you Word in the Book, that when ye hear the signs of Allah held in defiance and ridicule, ye are not to sit with them unless they turn to a different theme: if ye did, ye would be like them. For Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith - all in Hell:-
Jazakallah Khair.
Reply

PersiaBeFree
01-09-2010, 05:58 AM
What are they saying and what is your reasoning?

Why not quote from scripture to show them they're wrong?
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
Italianguy
01-09-2010, 07:47 AM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
:sl:
Recently, i have come across some very ignorant people who have absolutley no idea about Islam i.e they have not read the Quran or Hadeeth. They talk trash about Islam and fail to listen to your reasoning. I can't take this sort of nonsense. :hmm:

What shall i do?

Jazakallah
First off, don't get angry with them, they don't know Islam...you do. Teach by example. If they see you get frustrated right when you are trying to answer them or if you instantly get angry if they insult your faith, they will be first inclined to think Muslims are all angry, or mean, or intolerant. So basically keep your cool:D

Second, explain your beliefs to them in a peacefull manor. People need time, some will get offended but you will notice most will come back wanting to know more. They will now realise you are the educated one, not them.

Third, if they are still mean:heated:.......kick them in the shin...they go down quicker;D

I'm just kidding.....no Italianguy bashing please:D

Keep in mind they are not ignorant, just uninformed, thats why its your duty to inform them:D


I'm gonna get some flack from my fellow Christians on this one;D......:p
Reply

tango92
01-09-2010, 08:32 AM
be super nice to them. and kill them with kindness

(someone has said that before on this forum, unfortunately not my words.....)
Reply

Italianguy
01-09-2010, 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
be super nice to them. and kill them with kindness

(someone has said that before on this forum, unfortunately not my words.....)
hahaha



God be with you.
Reply

Life_Is_Short
01-09-2010, 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by PersiaBeFree
What are they saying and what is your reasoning?

Why not quote from scripture to show them they're wrong?
Well, it's minor things such as Allah sending only the good Muslims to heaven and condemning everyone (christians, atheist, jews etc) to hell for eternity.

They carefully search for punishments and trials set by Allah but they fail to see the infinite mercy of Allah.

For one who really loves the religion of islam, it is very difficult to sustain the anger. :raging:

I know this is a test of patients for me and they will get what they deserve. imsad
Reply

-Elle-
01-09-2010, 10:55 PM
:sl:

I know this might be a typical reply, but patience is the best thing. And by patience, I don't mean ignoring what they say, I mean keeping your cool when you're reasoning with them.

If they don't want to listen,then tell them that their arguments are futile if they are too afraid of being contradicted. Sub7anAllah. I came alot of people who are ignorant about Islam,and all of it's subcategories...such a justice and hijab. With patience and many examples, along with facts that they can relate to, I make them see the beauty in our religion,well I hope that's what I am doing.

You tell them the truth and they can take or leave whatever they want from it. Your duty is to put it(the truth) out there.

best of luck

:wa:
Reply

'Abd-al Latif
01-09-2010, 11:06 PM
Good Manners in Dealing with the Ignorant

By Imam Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah

Ar-Risaalah at-Tabookiyyah


After a person turns away from the company of those [ignorant associates], and he turns to the company of those who are absent in person - but whose bounties and good influence continue to exist in the world, he would then inquire a new zeal and a new direction, and he would become stranger among the people - even if he be a relative or a close acquaintance.

This would make him a dear stranger to people. He can clearly see the obscurity that they suffer, but they cannot see the splendor which he enjoys. He excuses them as much as he can, while enjoining and advising them to do good with all of his power. Thus he looks at them with two eyes:
  1. With one eye, he recognizes Allah's commands and prohibitions. Based of this, he advises or warns them, and befriends and disowns them, giving them their rights and requiring his.
  2. With the other eye, he recognizes Allah's Decree and Measure. Based on this, he sympathizes with them; he makes du`aa' (supplications) for them; he asks Allah (ta`aalaa) to forgive them; and he seeks excuses for them in matters that do not involve violation of Allah's commands and His Shar` (Allah's Divine Law). He engulfs them with kindness, compassion and forgiveness, heeding to Allah's command [to His Messenger (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam)]:

"Show forgiveness, enjoin what is good, and turn away from the foolish." (Al-A`raaf 7:199)


If a person abides by this aayah, it would suffice and cure him. It calls for:
  1. Good manners in dealing with people: by forgiving them and showing them compassion to the limits of one's character and nature.
  2. Fulfilling Allah's rights in people by enjoining what is good, which applies to matters that the minds attest to their goodness and merit, based on what Allah has commanded.
  3. Avoiding their evil: to ward off the harm resulting from their ignorance, without trying to avenge himself.

How else can a person attain perfection? And what policy and behavior can be better in this world than this? If a man tries to consider every evil reaching him from people (I mean a true evil that results in a loss of honor before Allah (Ta`aalaa)), he will find that it arises from neglecting one or more of these three matters. If he abides by them all, then whatever is inflicted on him by people will be good, even if it appears to be evil. Only good can result from enjoining good, even if it be encased in a situation of evil and harm. Allah (Ta`aalaa) said;

"Verily! Those who brought forth the great slander [against `Aa'ishah (radhiallahu `anhaa)] are a group among you. Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you…" [An-Noor 24:11]

And He addressed His Messenger (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) by saying:

"So forgive them, ask Allah to forgive them, and consult them in the affair. Then when you have taken a decision, put your full trust in Allah." [Aal `Imraan 3:159]

This aayah instructs the Messenger (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) to fulfill Allah's rights and the people's rights. When people do wrong, they would either be violating Allah's limits or harming His Messenger personally. If they harm the Messenger (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam), he shoud respond by forgiving them. But if they overstep Allah's limits, then he (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) should ask Allah (Ta`aala) to forgive them and to soften their hearts. Also, he (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) should extract their opinions by consulting them, because this tends to make them more obedient and willing to advise. Once he forms his decision, he should seek advice no more, but rather put his trust in Allah and go forth to fulfill what he decided, for Allah loves those who trust Him.
Reply

PersiaBeFree
01-11-2010, 01:38 AM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
Well, it's minor things such as Allah sending only the good Muslims to heaven and condemning everyone (christians, atheist, jews etc) to hell for eternity.
But that's true.... Perhaps the argument there is that it isn't too hard to be a good muslim and that they should try, instead of crying about it. They'll be better people for it.

They carefully search for punishments and trials set by Allah but they fail to see the infinite mercy of Allah.

For one who really loves the religion of islam, it is very difficult to sustain the anger. :raging:

I know this is a test of patients for me and they will get what they deserve. imsad
Yeah, don't sweat it.

Why do you love Islam? This would be your answer to them.
Reply

Skavau
01-11-2010, 04:39 AM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
Well, it's minor things such as Allah sending only the good Muslims to heaven and condemning everyone (christians, atheist, jews etc) to hell for eternity.
Perhaps I misread, but what you are saying there is not a minor thing. It has many deep and resonating moral issues to a non-muslims. Particularly atheists and Jews. Christians are less likely to have an issue with it, since they are likely to believe their own version of hell to be true.

Why do you think that an ideology that welcomes eternal suffering to large groups of people would not be controversial, or have many deep ethical problems to those who disagree?
Reply

MSalman
01-11-2010, 05:11 AM
^ethics/morality is not defined by humans or derived using their intellect. Hence, in Prophetic world, the belief in hell-fire has no ethical problem rather they deem it as an act of God's Justice and Mercy. However, when we come to 'arrogant' world of atheists and philosophers then everything is unethical if it doesn't work what atheist/philosopher X personally deems acceptable. This problem is deep rooted in believing that one can derive truth and falsehood using his own limited intellect, knowledge and wisdom.

It always makes me wonder why atheists are so obsessed about the concept of hell-fire? Why same logic is not applied to heaven?
Reply

Skavau
01-11-2010, 05:19 AM
Originally Posted by islamiclife
^ethics/morality is not defined by humans or derived using their intellect. Hence, in Prophetic world, the belief in hell-fire has no ethical problem rather they deem it as an act of God's Justice and Mercy.
I agree this is often what many Muslims and many Christians believe concerning morality. However, to declare disagreements with it as 'minor' is to really understate the gravity of what is being proposed. It is to declare that everyone who is not of a specific world-view, or who falls short of a specific standard (set up the conditions at your theological leisure) is to be tortured for eternity. This is often also declared with such cheerfulness and such confidence of righteousness that can you honestly, for one moment not believe that it could revile those whom it targets, or is used to target?

You can call it an act of justice if you like, but from a secular humanist perspective, or indeed some religious perspectives - it comes across as sadistic, cruel and pointless at best. At worst it can be a stop-gap to faith in the belief system that it is a part of.

However, when we come to 'arrogant' world of atheists and philosophers then everything is unethical if it doesn't work what atheist/philosopher X personally deems acceptable. This problem is deep rooted in believing that one can derive truth and falsehood using his own limited intellect, knowledge and wisdom.
I've already made a large response to your misunderstandings on this point in another thread. It was coincidentally, about hellfire.

Just so you know, someone claiming that something is wrong because it is disagreeable to them for whatever reason(s) is an almost universal claim made by the devoutly religious and rabid anti-theist alike. It is an all too human affair and a consequence of our ability to declare what ought in our communities.

It always makes me wonder why atheists are so obsessed about the concept of hell-fire? Why same logic is not applied to heaven?
First of all, I'm not obsessed with it.

Second of all, the question is nonsensical. What logic do you think is being applied to hellfire here, and how would it be applied to heaven?
Reply

MSalman
01-12-2010, 01:10 AM
well, this is off-topic and maybe mods can move the posts to right place

Originally Posted by Skavau
I agree this is often what many Muslims and many Christians believe concerning morality.
it is not only a belief but what rationally makes sense to those who have NOT confined themselves to their own arrogant world in which they don't recognize their shortcoming.

Originally Posted by Skavau
It is to declare that everyone who is not of a specific world-view, or who falls short of a specific standard (set up the conditions at your theological leisure) is to be tortured for eternity.
like you said, you also believe in the same thing and propagate it except that your wording is bit different. Now, which view is correct then at least in our world view we can find it out but not in yours. So according to your world view we are stuck with no solution.

secondly, our standards are set by the Creator of this world. He created the world and set the laws, like it or hate it, it is not going to change anything. It is not your world where you can have monoply of your understanding and tell others what should be the laws. He set the laws and those obey will receive eternal happiness and those who don't will get eternal punishment.

Originally Posted by Skavau
This is often also declared with such cheerfulness and such confidence of righteousness that can you honestly, for one moment not believe that it could revile those whom it targets, or is used to target?
you don't believe in hell so why are you so bothered about other people's actions?

Originally Posted by Skavau
You can call it an act of justice if you like, but from a secular humanist perspective, or indeed some religious perspectives - it comes across as sadistic, cruel and pointless at best. At worst it can be a stop-gap to faith in the belief system that it is a part of.
that is fine but humanist perspective is not the source of morality nor any other human perspective.

Originally Posted by Skavau
I've already made a large response to your misunderstandings on this point in another thread. It was coincidentally, about hellfire.
I don't recall it, could you please point me?

Originally Posted by Skavau
Just so you know, someone claiming that something is wrong because it is disagreeable to them for whatever reason(s) is an almost universal claim made by the devoutly religious and rabid anti-theist alike.
less straw man and more common sense. At least, in Islamic world, we don't say something is wrong because we don't agree with it. Our methodology is not same as yours and we don't relay on human understanding of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Skavau
First of all, I'm not obsessed with it.
never said you were. as far how true is your statement then all we have to do look for you posts on this board. And I'm sure good portion of your speech on this board is discussing this topic. Whatever, I don't care whether you are obsessed or not but many atheists are.

Originally Posted by Skavau
Second of all, the question is nonsensical. What logic do you think is being applied to hellfire here, and how would it be applied to heaven?
nonsensical? you don't even know the context of my question and you go as far making a baseless claim - that's quite rational of you, isn't it? There are number of problems I have with this approach of atheists:
1 - If eternal torture is irrational due to finite crime and infinite punishment issue then why does it seem you people have no problem accepting finite work with infinite reward?
2 - If both concepts are irrational to you people then why there is so much talk about hell?

anyway, bro Abdul Fatteh had a ong discussion with you and I don't think there is any benefit in continuing this discussion with you
Reply

Skavau
01-12-2010, 03:59 AM
Originally Posted by islamiclife
it is not only a belief but what rationally makes sense to those who have NOT confined themselves to their own arrogant world in which they don't recognize their shortcoming.
The irony is breathtaking.

You declare the moral world view of others "arrogant" for not accepting your moral world view with compunction. In any case, I hardly consider a world view which deliberately tells us to forgo our faculties and embrace some unknown divine arbiter for guidance as intuitive. Perhaps it is a small step away for a theist, but for an atheist it is completely impossible to accept such claims.

Originally Posted by islamiclife
like you said, you also believe in the same thing and propagate it except that your wording is bit different. Now, which view is correct then at least in our world view we can find it out but not in yours. So according to your world view we are stuck with no solution.
What are you talking about? I don't believe in 'eternal torture' for the wretched. I don't accept, and nor would I in any situation agree with absolute punishment for the misinformed, or the foolish.

I'm not sure you know what my world view is. Why do you think I believe in eternal torture? I'm a secular humanist with libertarian leanings.

Originally Posted by islamiclife
secondly, our standards are set by the Creator of this world. He created the world and set the laws, like it or hate it, it is not going to change anything.
This is your moral philosophy? Obedience? I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised. This is the unfortunate confusion of absolute morality that apparently far too many theists have. The first is a foundational confusion of the difference between ought (a moral term, based in what we should do) and is (a factual term, based on what is real). Muslims and Christians believe that the two are inseparable, and frequently invoke the fury of the naturalistic fallacy to this end. The idea of nature decreeing what is right, or what happens naturally as a guideline for what we ought not comes around here far too often as a result of this. I think you actually have already imposed your confusion of the terms onto me already and then falsely made claims over my morality as a consequence of it.

Secondly, the problem is rather deeper than you might imagine. You set up a moral world view rooted in obedience, and grounded in subservience. The term 'right' becomes 'obedience', the term 'wrong' becomes 'disobedience'. The term 'justice' itself after this loses all coherent meaning. Everything by your logic here is all by, because of, and for God. You only do right, or 'obey' what is right because God says so. You do not believe, by this logic, that murder is incorrect because of the suffering it causes to others, or the loss of life involved - but you disagree with it just because God says so. This philosophy is the greatest architect of evil ever inflicted onto mankind. It has been and is still partial to today unleashing destruction on others on the very premise. It is the motivation of serial killers, who declare that God has told them to set up a hit list. It is responsible for the abuse of altruism and empathy by people of power, manipulating them into emotional tools useful only for serving the will of God at the collateral damage of life. Someone who believes truly that all moral principles are worthless, and that the only moral maxim is to follow God's orders is not and cannot be interested in humanity, or the welfare of others but only interested in the requirements of God.

This, despite claims to the contrary is unflinchingly arbitrary and subjective. All of your world view could change based on a single order or declaration from God. Let us propose hypothetically that God came down and declared that you were to force others to convert to Islam on pain of death. Proposing that happened: What would you do? Would you accept it? Why or why not? I am genuinely interested in your response. What you do respond with will confirm how steadfast you are in your convictions to the unquestionable standards of God.

It is not your world where you can have monoply of your understanding and tell others what should be the laws. He set the laws and those obey will receive eternal happiness and those who don't will get eternal punishment.
Indeed, you are already one step forward. You have shown you are perfectly capable, without compunction of accepting eternal torture for no reason other that God declares it so.

you don't believe in hell so why are you so bothered about other people's actions?
I'm not particularly, unless they direct them towards me. Do you understand why people might have an issue with the concept of hell?

that is fine but humanist perspective is not the source of morality nor any other human perspective.
This is not in common ground. I don't believe that there is a 'source of morality' outside of intelligent life.

I don't recall it, could you please point me?
It was in the Clarifications On Islam section, in a thread about hellfire I believe.

less straw man and more common sense. At least, in Islamic world, we don't say something is wrong because we don't agree with it. Our methodology is not same as yours and we don't relay on human understanding of right and wrong.
Yes you do.

At least passively. You accept the moral world view of Islam because you agree with it, and reject all others because you disagree with them.

nonsensical? you don't even know the context of my question and you go as far making a baseless claim - that's quite rational of you, isn't it? There are number of problems I have with this approach of atheists:
1 - If eternal torture is irrational due to finite crime and infinite punishment issue then why does it seem you people have no problem accepting finite work with infinite reward?
God is considered to be omnibenevolent.

It would not be inconsistent to get such rewards.

2 - If both concepts are irrational to you people then why there is so much talk about hell?
What do you mean? In general, or on this forum? I talk about it because I find hell, the idea of hell to be an immoral concept.

anyway, bro Abdul Fatteh had a ong discussion with you and I don't think there is any benefit in continuing this discussion with you
Its up to you.

The post I responded to was in that thread by the way.
Reply

IslamicRevival
01-12-2010, 04:18 AM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
:sl:
Recently, i have come across some very ignorant people who have absolutley no idea about Islam i.e they have not read the Quran or Hadeeth. They talk trash about Islam and fail to listen to your reasoning. I can't take this sort of nonsense. :hmm:

What shall i do?

Jazakallah
Surah Al Baqarah

(5) As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. (6) Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
Reply

syilla
01-12-2010, 07:17 AM
salams...

I also want to know how we should deal with people who don't pray intentionally? Who don't care what the other has advised him/her to do?
Reply

Life_Is_Short
01-15-2010, 02:49 AM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Perhaps I misread, but what you are saying there is not a minor thing. It has many deep and resonating moral issues to a non-muslims. Particularly atheists and Jews. Christians are less likely to have an issue with it, since they are likely to believe their own version of hell to be true.

Why do you think that an ideology that welcomes eternal suffering to large groups of people would not be controversial, or have many deep ethical problems to those who disagree?
Three words:

God's Infinite Mercy

Take advantage, avoid going to hell. Simple!
Reply

Italianguy
01-15-2010, 03:04 AM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
Three words:

God's Infinite Mercy

Take advantage, avoid going to hell. Simple!
Amen to that sister! He needs God...allot! God wants him yet he denies Him? Why? I want this brother to meet me in Heaven but i fear i will not see him.imsad

Wellllllllllllll.........hope you got good cell service down there atheist people. I will send you a text message, God bless. And don't forget to bring sunscreen;D
Reply

Skavau
01-15-2010, 09:03 AM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
Three words:

God's Infinite Mercy

Take advantage, avoid going to hell. Simple!
Not the point.

Firstly, I'm an atheist. I cannot believe in a God of any sort unless convinced first. I could at best pretend to do so, but that would make me a hypocrite - would it not?

Secondly, this really misses the point I was trying to make. It has resonating moral issues whether or not you can avoid going there or not. It is supportive of the concept of torture for what you think. It favours the idea of eternal punishment for 'crimes' you could not control, for 'crimes' you had no full knowledge over and more concernedly so, favours eternal punishment for finite actions.
Reply

Skavau
01-15-2010, 09:04 AM
Originally Posted by Italianguy
Amen to that sister! He needs God...allot! God wants him yet he denies Him? Why? I want this brother to meet me in Heaven but i fear i will not see him.imsad

Wellllllllllllll.........hope you got good cell service down there atheist people. I will send you a text message, God bless. And don't forget to bring sunscreen;D
I don't think acting childish is befitting of your character. This is what I mean when I say some religious people cheerfully welcome the prospect of hell for 'unbelievers'. It presents an extremely bad image for the faithless observer, I can't tell you how much it does. It gives an awful impression of sadism.

Also I don't 'deny God', I don't believe in God. For me, there's no active arbiter to deny much less recognise. Indeed, it is ironic you joke about hell to atheists when some Muslims would tell you yourself that you will in the same place as me unless you 'revert' to Islam.
Reply

Italianguy
01-15-2010, 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
I don't think acting childish is befitting of your character. This is what I mean when I say some religious people cheerfully welcome the prospect of hell for 'unbelievers'. It presents an extremely bad image for the faithless observer, I can't tell you how much it does. It gives an awful impression of sadism.

Also I don't 'deny God', I don't believe in God. For me, there's no active arbiter to deny much less recognise. Indeed, it is ironic you joke about hell to atheists when some Muslims would tell you yourself that you will in the same place as me unless you 'revert' to Islam.
Ok i am sorry bro but i cannot tiptoe around my beliefs for anyone anymore. I wasn't trying to be childish, i was tring to say in a nicer way tat THERE IS A HELL! And those whom don't believe in God, will see it.imsad I am tired of having to be nicer about it. If you do not believe in God...so be it. I am not cheerfully welcoming the prospect of hell to you, Nobody wishes that on anybody, I especially don't wish that on you! i am mearly telling you what will happen to you. It is written that way in almost everyones holy books. Now I do hope and pray that you will come to believe in God, you owe it to HIm, we all owe him His glory.

And as for my Muslim brothers and sisters.......I love them, and when I reach the pearly gates i pray they are right there next to me as well as in battle i will fight with them against the oppressor!:D.......Mohammad and I have an unfinished Canasta card game anyway;D

God bless you brother. Please go to Him, don't deny HIm.

So now that you know there is a hell,....and that i am praying for you...and that I as well as everyone here wants you to go to Heaven...what say you to this? Refute me....I want only the best for you bro and I want to help you believe in anyway I can. It is my duty. But we need to stop denying that there is a hell and how one gets there. The prospect of knowing one could go to the lake of fire or, hell fire should be enough?
Reply

Life_Is_Short
01-15-2010, 03:36 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Not the point.

Firstly, I'm an atheist. I cannot believe in a God of any sort unless convinced first. I could at best pretend to do so, but that would make me a hypocrite - would it not?.
What sort of evidence do you want?

Originally Posted by Skavau
Secondly, this really misses the point I was trying to make. It has resonating moral issues whether or not you can avoid going there or not. It is supportive of the concept of torture for what you think. It favours the idea of eternal punishment for 'crimes' you could not control, for 'crimes' you had no full knowledge over and more concernedly so, favours eternal punishment for finite actions.
You approach learning about God the same way that you would treat learning about any other matter. Take, for example, learning about mechanical engineering. Consider these four option:

1. On your own: You could try to understand it and discover it from your own thinking and what makes sense to you without asking anyone or reading any books. Of course, this can take a lifetime and at the end you may or may not uncover some aspects of mechanical engineering. Most would say this approach is an unwise waste of your time. Some would say this is how a person not serious about studying mechanical engineering would approach the subject. (Amazingly enough, this is a common approach to learning about God.)

2. Ask the experts: you could ask others about mechanical engineering. Of course, logically you would need to ask an expert on the subject or someone who has studied it. It would not make sense to ask a genetic engineer or a chemical engineer, much less an economist or a historian, about mechanical engineering. Asking a mechanical engineer is more helpful than the first approach, but still does not result in a deep level of knowledge.
3. Read about it: you could read books and articles on mechanical engineering written by mechanical engineers since they are the experts on the subject, ponder what you read, and ask questions to understand and learn.
This results in a deep level of knowledge.

4. Take a class: you could learn about mechanical engineering in a structured way by taking a class or several classes. This is the way to acquire comprehensive and deep knowledge of the subject.

So you have the same options when it comes to learning about your Creator, to gain that knowledge so you don't have to commit that crime.

If you take one step towards God, he will take two towards you. If you come to Him walking, He will come to you running.

Now imagine a man traveling alone in a desert on a camel. He goes to sleep for the night and when he wakes up he finds his camel missing. He searches for his beast on foot for hours, during which time the sun warms up the desert, and thirst and hunger bring the man close to extinction. Just then he sees the camel walking towards him with water, food and other provisions. The happiness of God when a sinner returns to Him is like the happiness of this traveler at the moment he sees his lost camel.

Repent, therefore, to this loving and merciful God. But if you keep rejecting God's offer of mercy and forgiveness, then know that the judgment of God can come anytime. The same God that can be more loving than the most loving mother, also can at times be stricter than the most strict father.
Reply

Supreme
01-15-2010, 04:11 PM
Ignorant people: try to educate them, and if they reject your attempts, ignore them.
Reply

Skavau
01-15-2010, 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by Italianguy
Ok i am sorry bro but i cannot tiptoe around my beliefs for anyone anymore. I wasn't trying to be childish, i was tring to say in a nicer way tat THERE IS A HELL! And those whom don't believe in God, will see it.
Okay. I know this is what you believe.

I don't really how to respond to the religious being concerned for my soul in the afterlife. The concept really is alien to me.

I am tired of having to be nicer about it. If you do not believe in God...so be it. I am not cheerfully welcoming the prospect of hell to you, Nobody wishes that on anybody, I especially don't wish that on you! i am mearly telling you what will happen to you. It is written that way in almost everyones holy books. Now I do hope and pray that you will come to believe in God, you owe it to HIm, we all owe him His glory.
I'm not asking you to be nice about anything. I honestly shrug when I am treated with contempt, or other people are treated with contempt for their beliefs. But to scoff about someone's future as one of torture in a mocking way really does not do other people who share your belief a great service.

And as for my Muslim brothers and sisters.......I love them, and when I reach the pearly gates i pray they are right there next to me as well as in battle i will fight with them against the oppressor!.......Mohammad and I have an unfinished Canasta card game anyway
?

Do you mean the devil?

So now that you know there is a hell,....and that i am praying for you...and that I as well as everyone here wants you to go to Heaven...what say you to this? Refute me....I want only the best for you bro and I want to help you believe in anyway I can. It is my duty. But we need to stop denying that there is a hell and how one gets there. The prospect of knowing one could go to the lake of fire or, hell fire should be enough?
Huh?

I only know that you believe there is a hell. The fact that you believe that this hell exists does not give me any reason to believe that it does. I accept your position as sincere and respect your intentions as well-meaning, but indeed you do appear to miss the point.

The matter is my disbelief in hell is based on the lack of evidence for hell, or some afterlife of any sort. I don't 'need' to refute something that you have not provided evidence for.
Reply

Skavau
01-15-2010, 04:33 PM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
What sort of evidence do you want?
Empirical evidence or deductive reasoning.

You approach learning about God the same way that you would treat learning about any other matter. Take, for example, learning about mechanical engineering. Consider these four option:
There's an unstated premise here. The premise being that there is a knowledge field of 'God'. I have no reason to accept that as true, just like I have no reason to accept there exists a valid knowledge field of alchemy and astrology.

1. On your own: You could try to understand it and discover it from your own thinking and what makes sense to you without asking anyone or reading any books. Of course, this can take a lifetime and at the end you may or may not uncover some aspects of mechanical engineering. Most would say this approach is an unwise waste of your time. Some would say this is how a person not serious about studying mechanical engineering would approach the subject. (Amazingly enough, this is a common approach to learning about God.)
Mechanical engineering is a form of study devoted to the physical world whereas 'God' is contended to be something 'beyond' the physical world. Beyond study, observation and analysis. It is the very loophole that creation 'scientists' invoke to negate their position as being falsifiable.

The sincere application of this is and can only be philosophical contemplation - which could just as often as otherwise lead you to deism, atheism, pantheism, ignosticism or many other things.

2. Ask the experts: you could ask others about mechanical engineering. Of course, logically you would need to ask an expert on the subject or someone who has studied it. It would not make sense to ask a genetic engineer or a chemical engineer, much less an economist or a historian, about mechanical engineering. Asking a mechanical engineer is more helpful than the first approach, but still does not result in a deep level of knowledge.
See, this is where your analogy to mechanical engineering doesn't work. I have to accept that mechanical engineering is possible, or exists before studying about it. I am in dissent with the claim that a God does exist. You are asking me to suspend my disbelief, or develop a confirmation bias and be dishonest in my objectives. I can't do that.

3. Read about it: you could read books and articles on mechanical engineering written by mechanical engineers since they are the experts on the subject, ponder what you read, and ask questions to understand and learn.
I was to approach this completely non-biasedly, I'd read the dissenters as well - who are intellectual giants well read on the history of religion and philosophy.

So you have the same options when it comes to learning about your Creator, to gain that knowledge so you don't have to commit that crime.
This really doesn't get to the point here. My issues with the existence of hell are not just based in lack of evidential support, but there are also real moral issues I have with it.

Now imagine a man traveling alone in a desert on a camel. He goes to sleep for the night and when he wakes up he finds his camel missing. He searches for his beast on foot for hours, during which time the sun warms up the desert, and thirst and hunger bring the man close to extinction. Just then he sees the camel walking towards him with water, food and other provisions. The happiness of God when a sinner returns to Him is like the happiness of this traveler at the moment he sees his lost camel.
That's nice. I have seen many lovely stories in fiction that invoke feelings of warmness just as effectively, if not better than the above. But what reason do I have to accept that 'sin' exists? Or that a supernatural entity known as 'God' exists?
Reply

Italianguy
01-15-2010, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Okay. I know this is what you believe.

I don't really how to respond to the religious being concerned for my soul in the afterlife. The concept really is alien to me.

It's called loving one another and caring for those whom need guidence. It shouldn't be alien to you. You have it in yourself as well.

I'm not asking you to be nice about anything. I honestly shrug when I am treated with contempt, or other people are treated with contempt for their beliefs. But to scoff about someone's future as one of torture in a mocking way really does not do other people who share your belief a great service.

I am not attacking you, just trying to help you see.:D

?

Do you mean the devil?

And his adherents, unbelievers and those who would do evil towards believers, those who would oppress and negate violent acts against the inocent for their own agendas, those who are against God, and those who would prohibit us from believing in God.


Huh?

I only know that you believe there is a hell. The fact that you believe that this hell exists does not give me any reason to believe that it does. I accept your position as sincere and respect your intentions as well-meaning, but indeed you do appear to miss the point.

Point not missed....just doing my duty my friend:D Informing the unbeliever.

The matter is my disbelief in hell is based on the lack of evidence for hell, or some afterlife of any sort. I don't 'need' to refute something that you have not provided evidence for.
You can see hell everyday here on earth....not clear enough for you? Watch the news. Maybe you have not experienced what my family has gone through nor miliions of others, Jews, Christians and Muslims. As they are killed, beaten, terrorized, eliminated, burned, shot, tortured, skinned alive(my grandparents witnessed this in Italy) what more proof do you need? Clearly these acts are not brought forth by men of God, but those who would try to eliminate God from their doings and are doing nothing but helping satan in his plans. Men of God want peace, prosperity, and brotherhood for all.

sorry i tried to do the qoute boxes? I don't know how? so some of my answers are in your reply.
Reply

Life_Is_Short
01-15-2010, 08:23 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Empirical evidence or deductive reasoning.
To prove (or alternately, disprove) the existence of God empirically, the scientific method has to be followed. The first step, naturally, is proposing a hypothesis, i.e. God (does not) exist(s) — depending on whether you're arguing for or against theism, include or exclude the portions in parentheses.

At this very first stage, we run into problems. How do you define God? What definition of God do we use? I think the following definition would probably be acceptable to monotheists:
God is an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being.
Our hypothesis thus becomes:
An omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being (does not) exist(s).
Now, let me ask you... Just how on earth do you prove or disprove this hypothesis? If this being is omniscient — all-knowing — it will know we're looking for it. And if it is omnipotent — all-powerful — it can hide itself at will.

The result is that unless this being chooses to reveal itself to us, it is impossible to prove or disprove the hypothesis, since the subject of our experiments will be able to manipulate the evidence at will. Some creationists when confronted with radiocarbon dating argue that God put the dinosaur bones in the ground and artifically backdated them, but in reality we were created 10,000 years ago.

If such is the case, how do you empirically and scientifically prove or disprove God? You definitely can't disprove him, because of this manipulation of the evidence, if there is a God.

At the same time, you can't prove God's existence unless he comes out and issues a statement along the lines of "Hey guys, I'm God. See, I can prove it — I'll just turn this wine to water." Without such hard evidence, all the theists have left going for them is aphorisms like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Intelligent design as a scientific theory is utter bunk — all the proofs of intelligent design are nothing more than critiques of evolutionary theory as it is currently understood, and don't in themselves prove that there is a higher being.)

But what does this failure to prove or disprove God actually bode? Does this mean religion or atheism is pointless, since we can't prove any hypotheses about God's existence or lack of it?

I don't think so. I think there is actually a subtle beauty in our inability to prove God's existence empirically. Being able to prove that God is real would actually be the real death blow for religion.

The point of religion is faith — to believe, not just accept. Followers of other religions will be able to find passages in their own holy book with similar meanings.

If there is empirical evidence God exists, there is basically no point in believing — you are forced to believe God exists, not because you are convicted in your heart that he is real, but because the evidence is there and you can't run away from it.

Believing because you have to, and believing because you hold a conviction in your heart are two totally different things.

The fact that God has not given us evidence of his existence is meant to affirm our free will, and to lend our faith a meaning. Hard atheist Richard Dawkins says that if after dying, he finds himself in front of God, he will tell Him, "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence."

But the point of the evidence's absence is to give us a choice, and to make believing truly believing. That is something all people, theists and atheists, have to come to terms with. Trying to empirically prove that God exists, or to disprove his existence, beyond as some mental exercise, is a complete waste of time.

Source: http://www.infernalramblings.com/
Reply

Skavau
01-15-2010, 08:26 PM
Originally Posted by ItalianGuy
It's called loving one another and caring for those whom need guidence. It shouldn't be alien to you. You have it in yourself as well.
Oh I understand the message of goodwill and desire to help embedded in it - it is just something that I don't know how to respond to it because as you know, I don't believe in hell.

It would be like me stating that I wish you would come to empiricism and rationalism whilst leaving concepts such as faith behind. Perhaps you would understand the desire to help behind it, but you couldn't make sense of the request. For you, your beliefs are rooted into your life and mean a lot to you - for someone to tell you that you should change it all, as it is in your 'best interests' is hard to respond to - as you feel you will always disappoint.

Needless to state these differences between you and I, and others cannot be resolved through pleading.

I am not attacking you, just trying to help you see.
Okay

And his adherents, unbelievers and those who would do evil towards believers, those who would oppress and negate violent acts against the inocent for their own agendas, those who are against God, and those who would prohibit us from believing in God.
Okay

You can see hell everyday here on earth....not clear enough for you? Watch the news.
The torment that people suffer in real life only shows us that people in real life, happen to suffer. To some (including myself) it suggests that the likelihood an omniscient benevolent being is observing with our interests in mind is very slim indeed. While you may contend there are scriptural justifications, predictions and prophecies for this 'suffering' in general, I don't consider it so and nor consider it that this suffering is therefore 'absolute' in some sort of hell.

Maybe you have not experienced what my family has gone through nor miliions of others, Jews, Christians and Muslims. As they are killed, beaten, terrorized, eliminated, burned, shot, tortured, skinned alive(my grandparents witnessed this in Italy) what more proof do you need?
What does this have to do with the existence of hell? I already understand that life is tough, that people are harsh, cruel, sadistic and act this out. I already understand that nature shows little consideration for life as it reaps destruction on the least-deserving.

I'm not sure how you think this proves a metaphysical realm known as 'hell exists.

Clearly these acts are not brought forth by men of God, but those who would try to eliminate God from their doings and are doing nothing but helping satan in his plans. Men of God want peace, prosperity, and brotherhood for all.
Some of the acts that you reference have been done by men claiming to be under guidance, and acting on behalf of God. You could say that they weren't really of God and under a malevolent presence, but nonetheless they certainly believed so.

The acts of destruction in this world by man we see are done for many different reasons.

sorry i tried to do the qoute boxes? I don't know how? so some of my answers are in your reply.
Oh, okay.

You simply type [quote] and [ /quote] when you want to end the box (minus the space). So to quote you I would go [quote=ItalianGuy] and then end it by typing [ /quote].
Reply

cat eyes
01-15-2010, 08:26 PM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
Well, it's minor things such as Allah sending only the good Muslims to heaven and condemning everyone (christians, atheist, jews etc) to hell for eternity.

They carefully search for punishments and trials set by Allah but they fail to see the infinite mercy of Allah.

For one who really loves the religion of islam, it is very difficult to sustain the anger. :raging:

I know this is a test of patients for me and they will get what they deserve. imsad
you are talking on a very sensitive topic and a topic which in my opinion should be avoided because only Allah knows what will happen to the non muslims whether its bad or good. you or me have no say what happens to the non muslims even its wrong to say that a kafir will go to jannah when Allah has made it clear they won't so we should not dispute about this rather we should guide as much people to the truth with kindness and leave the rest to Allah swt
:wa:
Reply

Life_Is_Short
01-15-2010, 08:51 PM
Originally Posted by cat eyes
you are talking on a very sensitive topic and a topic which in my opinion should be avoided because only Allah knows what will happen to the non muslims whether its bad or good. you or me have no say what happens to the non muslims even its wrong to say that a kafir will go to jannah when Allah has made it clear they won't so we should not dispute about this rather we should guide as much people to the truth with kindness and leave the rest to Allah swt
:wa:
:sl:
I didn't dispute over this with them. I gave them what it says in the Quran and Hadeeth regarding this matter and moved on. They're the ones that kept bringing up more misconseptions and choose to subjectively ignore information.
Reply

bewildred
01-15-2010, 08:56 PM
There ain't more def than the one who doesn't want to hear...........not more blind than the one who doesn't want to see....... Why don't we just ignore ignorance?????
Reply

Skavau
01-15-2010, 09:06 PM
Originally Posted by Life_Is_Short
To prove (or alternately, disprove) the existence of God empirically, the scientific method has to be followed. The first step, naturally, is proposing a hypothesis, i.e. God (does not) exist(s) — depending on whether you're arguing for or against theism, include or exclude the portions in parentheses.
Huh?

Does the author not know what a hypothesis is? A Hypothesis is a considered explanation for an observed behaviour of natural phenomena. Claiming 'God exists' or 'God does not exist' is not a hypothesis, but a claim.

At this very first stage, we run into problems. How do you define God? What definition of God do we use? I think the following definition would probably be acceptable to monotheists:

God is an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being.
Absolutely. Which is why I often casually consider myself an ignostic. God as a term is often used confusingly, meaninglessly and without reason underpinning it.

Nonetheless it is up to the theists to 'define' God, and declare the attributes of this being they believe exists.

Our hypothesis thus becomes:

An omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient being (does not) exist(s).
That's not a hypothesis, nor is it even my hypothesis (or claim). The article writer is either building up a big strawman here or talking to some hardheaded strong atheist.

Now, let me ask you... Just how on earth do you prove or disprove this hypothesis? If this being is omniscient — all-knowing — it will know we're looking for it. And if it is omnipotent — all-powerful — it can hide itself at will.
Exactly.

It is set up to be unfalsifiable. There's always some 'exemption clause', a special plea, or some sort of inherent attribute of God that makes him outside of explanation, understanding or even consideration. This effectively means that at current time, God might as well not exist if he can so convincingly hide behind the curtains. God might as well be nothing if he does nothing.

Irrespectively, to put this position into perspective. If I was to claim that an immaterial object existed in my garden - it would have exactly the same amount of evidential support for God. It would be just as detectable, just as observable and just as impervious to reason.

So what does this mean? It means that claims such as 'God exists', or 'God is beyond detection, beyond time, beyond our universe' have no meaning whatsoever. They do not help advance our understanding of the universe, they provide no useful explanation to anything. They exist only as superficial explanations. Just because you set up some concept to be absolutely disprovable does not mean it is valid, quite the opposite. What can be claimed in absence of evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The result is that unless this being chooses to reveal itself to us, it is impossible to prove or disprove the hypothesis, since the subject of our experiments will be able to manipulate the evidence at will. Some creationists when confronted with radiocarbon dating argue that God put the dinosaur bones in the ground and artifically backdated them, but in reality we were created 10,000 years ago.
Firstly, it is of note here that the author is perfectly comfortable to believe in a willfully deceptive god that hides evidence of his existence. Secondly, it is of note that the paragraph takes a suddenly arbitrary turn to talking about creationism - noting something about the creationist claim of embedded age being false.

If such is the case, how do you empirically and scientifically prove or disprove God? You definitely can't disprove him, because of this manipulation of the evidence, if there is a God.
Of course, if a God does exist and pretends like he does not exist - then he might as well not exist.

At the same time, you can't prove God's existence unless he comes out and issues a statement along the lines of "Hey guys, I'm God. See, I can prove it — I'll just turn this wine to water." Without such hard evidence, all the theists have left going for them is aphorisms like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Intelligent design as a scientific theory is utter bunk — all the proofs of intelligent design are nothing more than critiques of evolutionary theory as it is currently understood, and don't in themselves prove that there is a higher being.)
I'm glad the author understands Intelligent design to be bunk and really just a thinly veiled anti-evolutionary movement more concerned with the impact they think it has on a literal reading of the Bible, and the passive effects on society because of that.

I don't think so. I think there is actually a subtle beauty in our inability to prove God's existence empirically. Being able to prove that God is real would actually be the real death blow for religion.
I don't think many adherents would agree with that. I can see mass parading on every street corner by certain religious groups if their particular rendition of God was demonstrated as valid.

The point of religion is faith — to believe, not just accept. Followers of other religions will be able to find passages in their own holy book with similar meanings.
The point of religion is to test the capability of the human mind to accept claims without evidence?

Okay, my mind can't quite do that, or won't do that. Not seeing a positive argument here.

If there is empirical evidence God exists, there is basically no point in believing — you are forced to believe God exists, not because you are convicted in your heart that he is real, but because the evidence is there and you can't run away from it.
Here's the strange confusion between ought and is that many theists passively make too much. Belief is not (generally) motivated by ought, it is motivated by a specific subjective understanding of what is. It comes from a specific experience of natural phenomena combined with learned knowledge up to that point (personality plays a part in bias, and is the biggest player in the motivation of faith).

To note, there are many atheists that don't believe in God but wish they could (I am not one of them). They wish they could be convinced and have some 'faith' but really can't. They are people with the same yearning of those of faith, but have differentiated beliefs from desire, ought from is effectively. Are they 'worse' because they cannot suspend their disbelief? Are they of less heart because they can't endorse the concept of believing what you wish to be true, rather than believe what you understand to be true?

The fact that God has not given us evidence of his existence is meant to affirm our free will, and to lend our faith a meaning. Hard atheist Richard Dawkins says that if after dying, he finds himself in front of God, he will tell Him, "Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence."
I'm not sure if Dawkins said this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And he's absolutely right. Why give us the gift of rationality and then expect us to forgo its usage to ascend?

But the point of the evidence's absence is to give us a choice, and to make believing truly believing. That is something all people, theists and atheists, have to come to terms with. Trying to empirically prove that God exists, or to disprove his existence, beyond as some mental exercise, is a complete waste of time.
This could be applied with anything. Any one of any metaphysical, spiritual or supernatural leaning could make the exact same claims. Their beliefs transcend and are not based in or for evidence. Why should a skeptic say believe the claims of a Christian, over a Muslim if evidence no longer players a role in it?

I cannot also abide a God that gives us the capacity to understand and explore our world through our own intellect and our own creativity and then insists we suspend it in order to ascend to the supernatural peak.
Reply

Life_Is_Short
01-15-2010, 09:20 PM
Why don't you ask your questions to a scholar? They have much more knowledge about this then i do. I am still a student and learning and exploring.

Please ask here: http://www.justaskislam.com/
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: 26
    Last Post: 12-27-2010, 05:07 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 10:26 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2007, 07:54 PM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 04:26 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!