/* */

PDA

View Full Version : one of the biggest problems with religion.



Lynx
01-16-2010, 08:05 AM
Hello All.

I propose that one of the greatest problems in Islam is the concept of Hell. It appears that non Muslims all go to Hell for their disbelief and/or shirk. So the problem I see is that it is not evident that Islam is 'true'. I mean one can look at a well written essay or some scientific principle like 'smoking is bad for your health' and clearly see why the arguments/evidence presented entails the conclusion. But with Islam you can't really do that. You can't read the Quran and construct an argument detailing what set of inferences will lead to the proof that islam is true.

I know that Islam and all religions are religions so to believe in a religion is to have faith. By this line of thought some would say faith is the most important thing and one should not even expect any sort of evidence. I do find this respectable but my problem is: if there is no real evidence for the truth of Islam, and if it is a matter of faith and personal choice, then for what reason would an atheist or disbeliever go to hell? Because they didn't make the personal choice to believe in Islam? Do people go to Hell if they like vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Uthman
01-16-2010, 05:58 PM
Greetings Lynx,

First of all, welcome to the board and thanks for your question. :) I would like to address the following part of your post:
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
By this line of thought some would say faith is the most important thing and one should not even expect any sort of evidence. I do find this respectable but my problem is: if there is no real evidence for the truth of Islam, and if it is a matter of faith and personal choice, then for what reason would an atheist or disbeliever go to hell?
Islam is a unique religion in that we do, as strange as it may sound, claim to have conclusive proof by objective standards that it is the truth.

Perhaps the two major pieces of evidence for Islam being the truth are the following:

- The miraculous nature of the Qur'an. You can learn more about this argument here and here.
- The sincerity of Prophet Muhammad (:saws:). You can learn more about this argument here.

Regards
Reply

Hamza Asadullah
01-16-2010, 06:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Hello All.

I propose that one of the greatest problems in Islam is the concept of Hell. It appears that non Muslims all go to Hell for their disbelief and/or shirk. So the problem I see is that it is not evident that Islam is 'true'. I mean one can look at a well written essay or some scientific principle like 'smoking is bad for your health' and clearly see why the arguments/evidence presented entails the conclusion. But with Islam you can't really do that. You can't read the Quran and construct an argument detailing what set of inferences will lead to the proof that islam is true.

I know that Islam and all religions are religions so to believe in a religion is to have faith. By this line of thought some would say faith is the most important thing and one should not even expect any sort of evidence. I do find this respectable but my problem is: if there is no real evidence for the truth of Islam, and if it is a matter of faith and personal choice, then for what reason would an atheist or disbeliever go to hell? Because they didn't make the personal choice to believe in Islam? Do people go to Hell if they like vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream?
Hello Lynx and welcome to the forum. We welcome your questions.

You actually have a very incorrect understanding of Islam and the only way to eradicate misconceptions is to learn correct knowledge.

Watch this short clip by revert to Islam Yusuf Estes:Do Non-Muslims go to hell

http://www.tubeislam.com/video/2787/...ims-go-to-hell

Start your research on Islam here by clicking on the link which contains many artcles which will open your eyes and eradicate misconceptions that you may have:

Very useful threads for those looking into Islam

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...nto-islam.html
Reply

Lynx
01-17-2010, 03:23 AM
Hello.

I appreciate the responses and warm welcome :).

Hamza: I watched the clip but I am not sure what part of that says anything different than what I had outlined in my original post. He says that atheists and disbelievers upon hearing the message have the responsibility to become Muslim. I am talking about someone who has thoroughly researched Islam and felt that it was inadequate. Perhaps you can direct me to the part of the clip that corrects whatever I may have misunderstood. Also, I am mostly familiar with the arguments for why Islam is miraculous and I don't find them convincing. Perhaps you can pick one of the arguments and we can discuss them.

Uthman: The 'miracle of the quran' seems entirely subjective. I don't think one can say the stylstic merits of the Quran are 'objective'. I have read much of the Quran (if not all of it) and although it is a pleasant read, I do not see anything divine about it. The problem with the Quran's challenge to produce a chapter like one of the chapters of the quran is that you would be hardpressed to find an unbiased judge and even if you did, there would be a matter of ad populum fallacy.
Also, your whether muhammad was a madman/liar/ argument can be used for any religious figure.
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
جوري
01-17-2010, 03:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Hello All.

I propose that one of the greatest problems in Islam is the concept of Hell. It appears that non Muslims all go to Hell for their disbelief and/or shirk. So the problem I see is that it is not evident that Islam is 'true'. I mean one can look at a well written essay or some scientific principle like 'smoking is bad for your health' and clearly see why the arguments/evidence presented entails the conclusion. But with Islam you can't really do that. You can't read the Quran and construct an argument detailing what set of inferences will lead to the proof that islam is true.

I know that Islam and all religions are religions so to believe in a religion is to have faith. By this line of thought some would say faith is the most important thing and one should not even expect any sort of evidence. I do find this respectable but my problem is: if there is no real evidence for the truth of Islam, and if it is a matter of faith and personal choice, then for what reason would an atheist or disbeliever go to hell? Because they didn't make the personal choice to believe in Islam? Do people go to Hell if they like vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream?
Your conclusion has positively no relevance to your premise and is rather disjointed. You've alleged that you've read the Quran and you have already concluded that to believe is solely based on faith, perhaps that is how you view it, which is fine, what is it exactly that you'd like for us to do for you?-- you've conjectured and surely can at least fathom that other folks don't share your conclusions?

As for the atheist hell thing.. I don't see how hell should matter to someone who doesn't believe?... I find it very flawed for someone to concern themselves with something that they equally 'believe' doesn't exist.. Are you looking for some sort of respite for having reasoned differently?
Is someone who studied for a would be surprise quiz equal to someone who goofed off because they felt they should have been given an advanced warning if you both find yourself in the same class?
In fact an advanced warning has been given and you are free to take it or leave it :

18: 29 And say: "The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it

You find yourself subject to the human condition and life spun around a few themes, you can't really fault anyone for your own misgivings.. Your grievances should be directed to your creator on the day of recompense not to forum members..


all the best!
Reply

Skavau
01-17-2010, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer Skye
As for the atheist hell thing.. I don't see how hell should matter to someone who doesn't believe?... I find it very flawed for someone to concern themselves with something that they equally 'believe' doesn't exist.. Are you looking for some sort of respite for having reasoned differently?
As I have told you repeatedly it has nothing to do about whether you believe it exists, but it is a criticism of the moral foundation of Islam. Hell doesn't concern me in the slightest because obviously I don't accept the existence of hell - but that does not mean the concept, as believed by many can be considered moral.

I don't believe say, Scientology's concepts are even in the slightest bit valid but it does not undermine the fact that their practices based off of those beliefs are downright disturbing and immoral.

Is someone who studied for a would be surprise quiz equal to someone who goofed off because they felt they should have been given an advanced warning if you both find yourself in the same class?
In fact an advanced warning has been given and you are free to take it or leave it :
This analogy fails.

First of all, it isn't about equality or evading some sort of responsibility - it is about the fact that it actively promotes physical torture (eternal, some might add) based on what you failed to or couldn't believe. No-one is saying that Islam is wrong for having a concept of reward and punishment - people are saying that the concept of hell advocating torture for disbelief, or torture for failure to adherence is one that cannot be morally defended. It comes across as infinitely sadistic and meaningless.

Secondly, the fact that someone is warned about something does not give credence to punishment based on that. I could be a murderer and warn you that if you do not flee your house within 24 hours I will enter and kill you. Does the fact that you've been given a warning mean that my actions are somehow rectified or acceptable?

You find yourself subject to the human condition and life spun around a few themes, you can't really fault anyone for your own misgivings.. Your grievances should be directed to your creator on the day of recompense not to forum members..
If such a God existed and would sentence me to eternal torture for eternity based on what I could not reasonably believe in - then indeed I would inform him of my grievances and the immorality of such a punishment.
Reply

Yusuf Saeed
01-17-2010, 05:59 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
No-one is saying that Islam is wrong for having a concept of reward and punishment - people are saying that the concept of hell advocating torture for disbelief, or torture for failure to adherence is one that cannot be morally defended.
The concept of hell in fact is not immoral, it's in fact the opposite.
The idea of this life as we muslims see it is that it's just a test for people. This life and the way we decide to live it is like just a seed and the hereafter, either Heaven or Hell, will be the eternal place we shall reside in. And God created us to test us and has given us a choice to either follow His rules or not. So it makes obvious sense that those who reject these rules given to us will most likely have to spend an eternity in Hellfire. By the way only those are responsible who reject the truth and not those who haven't even heard of islam.

It is logically moral that those who have followed the rules of their Creator and submitted to Him will gain reward whereas those who have disobeyed will be punished. Also, saying that Hellfire for disbelievers who have firmly decided not to believe while the proof has been given to them is immoral is as ridiculous as to say that a punishment for a murderer or a rapist is immoral. Because that murderer or the rapist may easily not find anything wrong in the way he lives his life just like disbelievers don't find anything wrong about their way of life.

By the way it's your analogy that doesn't make even the slightest of sense. God has not told us that we have a certain time and then He will come and kill us. He has warned us and given us a freedom to either enjoy all the pleasures of this world or to follow his rules and enjoy the eternal bliss and that is what lacks in your example where the only real option is death ( as fleeing from God doesn't make sense). And of course submitting to a murderer's demands (which may be practical at times) cannot be compared to submitting to the will of the one who created us.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2010, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
As I have told you repeatedly it has nothing to do about whether you believe it exists, but it is a criticism of the moral foundation of Islam. Hell doesn't concern me in the slightest because obviously I don't accept the existence of hell - but that does not mean the concept, as believed by many can be considered moral.
I don't know what the atheistic 'measuring stick' is for morality, but the concept of heaven and hell is moral and necessary. further I am not sure I understand, whether or not you repeat something, how that would make it anymore or less than a glib effort?

I don't believe say, Scientology's concepts are even in the slightest bit valid but it does not undermine the fact that their practices based off of those beliefs are downright disturbing and immoral.
We are not talking about Scientology and I fail to draw similarities between a cult that requires members to pay admission fees, to a religion that is as old as civilization from which the basic moral code of conducts was delineated!


This analogy fails.

First of all, it isn't about equality or evading some sort of responsibility - it is about the fact that it actively promotes physical torture (eternal, some might add) based on what you failed to or couldn't believe. No-one is saying that Islam is wrong for having a concept of reward and punishment - people are saying that the concept of hell advocating torture for disbelief, or torture for failure to adherence is one that cannot be morally defended. It comes across as infinitely sadistic and meaningless.
The analogy doesn't fail.. there is repercussion to any action or lack of action. When you fail to realize to the very reason of your existence you can't really come and complain of morality. When you fail to do anything there is a consequence, when you fail to work or exercise, or pay your bills.. You can't complain that not doing is equal to ignorance and meaningless..
Secondly, the fact that someone is warned about something does not give credence to punishment based on that. I could be a murderer and warn you that if you do not flee your house within 24 hours I will enter and kill you. Does the fact that you've been given a warning mean that my actions are somehow rectified or acceptable?
what a ridiculous wild hyperbole equating a life of bliss for which you failed to realize your purpose with a forewarning on murder .. pls as to not bore people with your own concocted philosophy try to have some semblance of common sense in your analogies!

If such a God existed and would sentence me to eternal torture for eternity based on what I could not reasonably believe in - then indeed I would inform him of my grievances and the immorality of such a punishment.
Good you do that then!

all the best
Reply

aamirsaab
01-17-2010, 06:46 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Uthmān
The following is a talk by 'Abdur-Raheem Green who talks about this topic from an Islamic perspective:

Do good people go to Hell? Part 1

Do good people go to Hell? Part 2

Do good people go to Hell? Part 3

Do good people go to Hell? Part 4
Problem solved.
Reply

Skavau
01-17-2010, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yusuf
The concept of hell in fact is not immoral, it's in fact the opposite.
The idea of this life as we muslims see it is that it's just a test for people. This life and the way we decide to live it is like just a seed and the hereafter, either Heaven or Hell, will be the eternal place we shall reside in. And God created us to test us and has given us a choice to either follow His rules or not.
This is another immoral injunction, the idea that it is perfectly okay to be considered nothing more than the means to an end of a supreme being. What masochism is this? We are here, as you propose for no other reason other than to be observed. To be and to have our obedience to this divine arbiter tested. I don't see this a moral world view, nor a foundation to a moral philosophy (nor even consistent with the reality of belief). You are welcome to it. I rather put much more emphasis on life.

So it makes obvious sense that those who reject these rules given to us will most likely have to spend an eternity in Hellfire. By the way only those are responsible who reject the truth and not those who haven't even heard of islam
Actually, through intuition it does not. I would propose that you only say that it is 'obvious sense' because you have read that Islam claims that, or have heard that Islam claims that. Under no system of justice that has ever been imposed by humans has there ever been any been any morally accepted proposal that we ought to punish people for eternity or that it would be good to punish people for eternity. Every single state that has ever existed that has ever proposed the idea of 'thought-crime' has also been remembered as an immoral totalitarian setup. Far from me being an intuitive concept, it is actually a very affront to what justice is normally called.

I will qualify all of this by stating that It is not my role to tell Muslims what it is they think about hell. Indeed I am not a Muslim, nor consider myself to be in a priviledged position to fantastically interpret the Qu'ran. Rather I respond to what I consider to be incorrect, immoral or dangerous.

On this note though, and if you do contend it to be intuitive: what role does eternal torture serve? What part of justice does it satisfy precisely? How is it proportionate?

It is logically moral that those who have followed the rules of their Creator and submitted to Him will gain reward whereas those who have disobeyed will be punished.
I respect that you have likely not read my other utterings on this topic - but I don't dispute, nor am I interested in who might end up in heaven. I wouldn't protest (if Islam was to be true) not being sent to heaven, rather I would only condemn the supposed morality of me being sent to hell. To send everyone to heaven, or send anyone to heaven is in perfect keeping with the concept of an omnibenevolent being. To send anyone to hell for eternity is not.

Also, saying that Hellfire for disbelievers who have firmly decided not to believe while the proof has been given to them is immoral is as ridiculous as to say that a punishment for a murderer or a rapist is immoral.
No it isn't.

First of all, as I have already I am not dispute the concept of meting out punishment for acts.

Second of all, we don't say that a murderer or a rapist ought to be punished for eternity (as is contended with hell). The purpose of any punishment in any civilized society is to protect society and to rehabilitate those punished. If any form of justice contains some sadism, or retribution then it is not justice, or not fully inkeeping with it.

Third of all, what rapists and murderers do we torture in jail? What rapists and murderers do we imprison for thought-crimes? The answer is none of them. They are punished for their harmful actions to other people, not their beliefs. They are punished for their negative impact on the lives of other people.

Because that murderer or the rapist may easily not find anything wrong in the way he lives his life just like disbelievers don't find anything wrong about their way of life.
This is not about (and neither by the way is any system of justice) who finds what wrong - or who considers what acceptable. It is about objectively analysing whether the punishment fits the crime. And in this case (of eternal hellfire) I find both the punishment unnecessary and I even dispute the validity of the 'crime'.

We can contend that a rapist and murderer is guilty based on evidence and explain why they are wrong based on their actions harming other people. I am not sure that you could convincingly argue the same case to someone who's only crime is to not follow and observe the dear leader. Even harder would it be to successfully convince them that their 'crime' is so contemptible it is deserving of eternal torture.

By the way it's your analogy that doesn't make even the slightest of sense. God has not told us that we have a certain time and then He will come and kill us.
The principle is the same. Gossamar claimed that forewarning in the context of this discussion makes the punishment perfectly valid.

He has warned us and given us a freedom to either enjoy all the pleasures of this world or to follow his rules and enjoy the eternal bliss and that is what lacks in your example where the only real option is death ( as fleeing from God doesn't make sense). And of course submitting to a murderer's demands (which may be practical at times) cannot be compared to submitting to the will of the one who created us.
Why can it not be compared? For the record, I was refuting the idea that forewarning is an effective criteria to determine the moral validity of an action on someone.
Reply

Skavau
01-17-2010, 06:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
I don't know what the atheistic 'measuring stick' is for morality, but the concept of heaven and hell is moral and necessary. further I am not sure I understand, whether or not you repeat something, how that would make it anymore or less than a glib effort?
You claim that it is "moral and necessary" but you have failed to properly defend that.

And indeed apparently repeating my stance means nothing to some people. Impervious to change.

We are not talking about Scientology and I fail to draw similarities between a cult that requires members to pay admission fees, to a religion that is as old as civilization from which the basic moral code of conducts was delineated!
I am not drawing similarities between it and Islam. I am saying that you can disbelieve in a concept, but still find that the consequences of that concept result have negative and immoral concepts.

Indeed you have labelled Scientology a cult, and yet don't believe in it - and so I assume from this that you too, despite not believing in it - believe it to be immoral?

The analogy doesn't fail.. there is repercussion to any action or lack of action. When you fail to realize to the very reason of your existence you can't really come and complain of morality.
The fact that there is a consequence to an action is irrelevent. Indeed hell need not exist. Keeping in mind that you presumably believe God to be omniscient and omnipotent and therefore could just as effectively remove hell.

When you fail to do anything there is a consequence, when you fail to work or exercise, or pay your bills.. You can't complain that not doing is equal to ignorance and meaningless..
Right. So?

I accept the consequences of not working, not exercising and not paying my bills. They are very real things. I don't believe that Islam is true, and I don't believe that not abiding by it is reason for hell. Nor would I, I might add believe it to be a moral response even if I believed it was true. It just comes across as supernatural blackmail.

what a ridiculous wild hyperbole equating a life of bliss for which you failed to realize your purpose with a forewarning on murder .. pls as to not bore people with your own concocted philosophy try to have some semblance of common sense in your analogies!
You didn't answer my question. You claimed that "In fact an advanced warning has been given and you are free to take it or leave it:"

Now does being warned that something will happen to you mean that it is perfectly okay for it to happen if you don't avoid it?
Reply

جوري
01-17-2010, 07:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
You claim that it is "moral and necessary" but you have failed to properly defend that.
I don't need to defend that, least of which to someone who doesn't believe in it. How hilarious are you?

And indeed apparently repeating my stance means nothing to some people. Impervious to change.
what does that mean 'impervious to change', change in what exactly, and why should it matter?

I am not drawing similarities between it and Islam. I am saying that you can disbelieve in a concept, but still find that the consequences of that concept result have negative and immoral concepts.
I don't see how something that doesn't impact one in any shape or fashion can echo any sort of negativity, on any other party save its active participants. Isn't that exactly what you argue for homosexuality? it doesn't affect anyone except the two consenting adults? I find atheism immoral and deliberately in violation of universally agreed upon laws and principles, but it doesn't affect me in any shape or form, what you do or don't do will have its ramifications on you personally, unless I am made to pay some sort of tax or tariff for your bad decisions!

Indeed you have labelled Scientology a cult, and yet don't believe in it - and so I assume from this that you too, despite not believing in it - believe it to be immoral?
The definition of a cult vs. religion permeates google, number of adherents amongst others delineates such a definition, see my previous response on why anything they do or don't do can't impact me in any shape or fashion!


The fact that there is a consequence to an action is irrelevent. Indeed hell need not exist. Keeping in mind that you presumably believe God to be omniscient and omnipotent and therefore could just as effectively remove hell.
Hell needs to exist and I believe that many belong there, it is indeed better that God is the judge of that and not humans for surely it is mentioned that even one who offers an atoms worth of good deeds shall see it on the day of recompense-- nothing you say will change that affect-- if you were hoping that folks should acquiesce to your philosophies and take that concept out, you can kiss it goodbye.. Religion is a done deal- but you can certainly try that with Christianity, they are always open to change if all you wanted was to have your feelings handled with kid gloves!

Right. So?

I accept the consequences of not working, not exercising and not paying my bills. They are very real things. I don't believe that Islam is true, and I don't believe that not abiding by it is reason for hell. Nor would I, I might add believe it to be a moral response even if I believed it was true. It just comes across as supernatural blackmail.
There are those who see no real consequence to not working if they can leech off society, not exercising for being fat slobs is who they are, and not quitting smoking for who are you to deny them their simple pleasures, they believe that having any moral responsibility isn't based on reality as they see it (especially if they live just fine the way they do). Such people exist indeed and often complain when things don't go their way so I again fail to see a point? You don't believe Islam is true, then go and enjoy your life and see how much of it you can get away with unscathed. God's code for the world is a done deal, and not subject to change because you decided not to believe in it!


You didn't answer my question. You claimed that "In fact an advanced warning has been given and you are free to take it or leave it:"

Now does being warned that something will happen to you mean that it is perfectly okay for it to happen if you don't avoid it?
You asked a non-question-- there is no association between being given everything, senses, seasons, provisions, aesthetics, a chance at immortality etc etc. and you not merely not showing the least bit of gratitude but denying it all together, to someone who sets an appointment to have you killed for no good reason. Once you can make your analogies less of hyperboles and more with reality can you expect a response!

all the best
Reply

greenshirt
01-17-2010, 08:39 PM
when people debate morality and religion, i find that usually both sides stick to their guns and no "deal" is reached.

unbelievers will always claim that the idea of an eternal hell is inhumane and wrong. a lot of times they point to simple facts- that there are some really great folks in this world who dedicate their time and lives and helping others. yet, they are not muslim. so they would go to hell even though they looked after their neighbors, and the needy?

the believers on the other hand will claim that the idea of an eternal hell is not inhumane, because you have been given a simple option.. yes or no. no middle-man decisions. and, we will claim that our religion is the truth and we believe this not just by mere faith, as the christians.. but by the fact that our religious book gives unbelievers a test, if they are really in doubt. a simple test to prove the authenticity of our religion. we feel that sincere unbelievers should fulfill this test, and if they cant, then we feel that they are wrong and we are right. they however may claim that the test is subjective, among other things.

one simple answer that i have heard that really does deal with this question of morality and religion, is this - god is god, he makes the rules, and just because you disagree with it doesnt mean that he's false. coming from a very liberal background, trust me, i have had my issues with personally adhering to one belief while my religion doesnt agree with me. but, i always just have to take the belief of my religion, because as we muslims say all the time... ALLAHU ALIM.. god knows best. so sure, i may have my different opinion, and i may not even understand how/why my belief is wrong.. but i know it is because my god knows best and i dont. and even by disagreeing on a moral issue, does it disprove the fact that god is real? and if so, how?
Reply

Skavau
01-17-2010, 09:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
I don't need to defend that, least of which to someone who doesn't believe in it. How hilarious are you?
I never said you did have to defend it to people who don't believe in it (of course I know from your track record you're not interesting in talking to non-muslims, only demeaning and insulting them).

However, one might assume that by posting as a Muslim in a thread started by a non-muslim that criticised Islam in a subsection called Clarifications about Islam - that you intention just might be to defend Islam.

what does that mean 'impervious to change', change in what exactly, and why should it matter?
You said that repeating my stance doesn't change anything.

You're right - it doesn't. To some people, no matter how I correct their positions on me, or correct their evaluation on what I believe and why I say what I say - their position on me will never change, for many reasons. Their steadfast conviction leaves the impervious to change to new information.

I cannot help that.

I don't see how something that doesn't impact one in any shape or fashion can echo any sort of negativity, on any other party save its active participants. Isn't that exactly what you argue for homosexuality?
The preachments that all non-believers go to hell (made by any religion for that matter) are damaging to society. Just like Scientology's preachment of fair game to its adherents are damaging to society.

And yes, that is what I argue with homosexuality.

it doesn't affect anyone except the two consenting adults? I find atheism immoral and deliberately in violation of universally agreed upon laws and principles, but it doesn't affect me in any shape or form, what you do or don't do will have its ramifications on you personally, unless I am made to pay some sort of tax or tariff for your bad decisions!
There are no 'universally agreed upon laws'. If there were, we'd all agree with them. There are only specific moral ideas that everyone must accept in order to support human co-existence. But I digress...

You are welcome to believe that atheism is bad because of its moral consequences - how ever much I disagree with that. You are welcome to believe homosexualiy has bad consequences - how ever much I disagree with that. Just as I am welcome to believe that the preachments of eternal hellfire has detrimented humanity's capacity for knowledge whilst enhancing humanity's capacity for bigotry and control.

The definition of a cult vs. religion permeates google, number of adherents amongst others delineates such a definition, see my previous response on why anything they do or don't do can't impact me in any shape or fashion!
I don't care if you label Islam a religion or a cult. The same with Scientology.

My point was clear. That it is possible to be against a concept you don't believe exists on the basis of its harmful affects on society.

Hell needs to exist and I believe that many belong there, it is indeed better that God is the judge of that and not humans for surely it is mentioned that even one who offers an atoms worth of good deeds shall see it on the day of recompense-- nothing you say will change that affect-- if you were hoping that folks should acquiesce to your philosophies and take that concept out, you can kiss it goodbye.. Religion is a done deal- but you can certainly try that with Christianity, they are always open to change if all you wanted was to have your feelings handled with kid gloves!
Nothing needs to exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent. The old saying goes that without God, everything is permissable - but the reality is that with God anything is possible.

You are responding on scriptural lines. I am talking about the concept in general.

There are those who see no real consequence to not working if they can leech off society, not exercising for being fat slobs is who they are, and not quitting smoking for who are you to deny them their simple pleasures, they believe that having any moral responsibility isn't based on reality as they see it (especially if they live just fine the way they do).
Huh?

That's up to them. They have decided that they aren't moral, nor interested in observing co-existence with humanity. Their position is honest.

Such people exist indeed and often complain when things don't go their way so I again fail to see a point? You don't believe Islam is true, then go and enjoy your life and see how much of it you can get away with unscathed. God's code for the world is a done deal, and not subject to change because you decided not to believe in it!
I will discuss what I like on here. Non-Muslims are allowed on here.

You asked a non-question-- there is no association between being given everything, senses, seasons, provisions, aesthetics, a chance at immortality etc etc. and you not merely not showing the least bit of gratitude but denying it all together, to someone who sets an appointment to have you killed for no good reason. Once you can make your analogies less of hyperboles and more with reality can you expect a response!
Still haven't answered.

I am not comparing God with anything here. I am asking you to defend your claim that being warned about something is reason enough to not complain about it if it happens.
Reply

Skavau
01-17-2010, 09:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by greenshirt
when people debate morality and religion, i find that usually both sides stick to their guns and no "deal" is reached.
Oh yes, indeed.

That is a byproduct of the 'absolute morality' crowd. The people who believe and thrive on a world view impervious to new information and change. They believe it an affront to concede, or change with any new information.

unbelievers will always claim that the idea of an eternal hell is inhumane and wrong. a lot of times they point to simple facts- that there are some really great folks in this world who dedicate their time and lives and helping others. yet, they are not muslim. so they would go to hell even though they looked after their neighbors, and the needy?
Indeed, yes.

I would say that.

the believers on the other hand will claim that the idea of an eternal hell is not inhumane, because you have been given a simple option.. yes or no.
Uh, no.

It is not a simple choice. First of all, non-muslims by definition do not believe Islam is true. They don't believe or cannot be convinced by the claims that Islam is true unless they are given convincing evidence that Islam is true. When you insert this into the dichtonomy, it becomes unfair of God to insist that people who have not been convinced by the information at hand to declare that they are deserving of any punishment, much less eternal anguish.

Indeed, it seems a strange situation where God allows people to not believe in him, knows that millions will not believe in him (for sincere, rational and honest reasons) and yet says that they are deserving of nothing less than eternal torture.

no middle-man decisions. and, we will claim that our religion is the truth and we believe this not just by mere faith, as the christians.. but by the fact that our religious book gives unbelievers a test, if they are really in doubt. a simple test to prove the authenticity of our religion. we feel that sincere unbelievers should fulfill this test, and if they cant, then we feel that they are wrong and we are right. they however may claim that the test is subjective, among other things.
Huh?

Is this the vague literary test that I've heard? You know, the find a better verse than something in the Qu'ran...

one simple answer that i have heard that really does deal with this question of morality and religion, is this - god is god, he makes the rules, and just because you disagree with it doesnt mean that he's false. coming from a very liberal background, trust me, i have had my issues with personally adhering to one belief while my religion doesnt agree with me.
It is a simple answer.

But it is an appalling answer. You could say that "God makes the rules", but then you null morality into pure obedience. You take away everything about morality that makes it so important and negate it into the dismal following of orders. You set up a situation where it doesn't matter what God says, as long as God says it.

So by your reckoning, murder is not wrong because of the harmful effects it has on people - but it is wrong because God says so. If God, was by your logic to reverse his decision you would have no moral grounds to disagree. This is an extremely worrying world view that I have seen both Christians and Muslims hold, and indeed we have directly seen the harmful effects in society both historically and in the present that it has generated.

It brings a whole new meaning to the claim that "With God, all things are possible".

but, i always just have to take the belief of my religion, because as we muslims say all the time... ALLAHU ALIM.. god knows best. so sure, i may have my different opinion, and i may not even understand how/why my belief is wrong.. but i know it is because my god knows best and i dont. and even by disagreeing on a moral issue, does it disprove the fact that god is real? and if so, how?
It doesn't.

This thread isn't about God's existence.
Reply

جوري
01-17-2010, 09:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I never said you did have to defend it to people who don't believe in it (of course I know from your track record you're not interesting in talking to non-muslims, only demeaning and insulting them).
Quite simply, there is nothing to defend. Holding an opposite point of view, doesn't equate to an insult, of course your definitions might be slightly askew.. I might find a statement such as this from one of your previous posts:

and that is more important to note is that I am an anti-theist in that I believe it would be rather awful if the trademarked monotheistic Gods did exist.
but who is keeping record right?

However, one might assume that by posting as a Muslim in a thread started by a non-muslim that criticised Islam in a subsection called Clarifications about Islam - that you intention just might be to defend Islam.
I find his 'criticism' to have no weightiness, as I truly believe that you'll be in receipt of exactly what you deserve and again his original statement from my perspective was flawed in premise and conclusion, I don't see that I can defend a hypothesis that he has built on sinking sand?!

You said that repeating my stance doesn't change anything.

You're right - it doesn't. To some people, no matter how I correct their positions on me, or correct their evaluation on what I believe and why I say what I say - their position on me will never change, for many reasons. Their steadfast conviction leaves the impervious to change to new information.
What exactly is this 'new information' That is a very vague term especially when speaking of something that has nothing to do with this physical world!
I cannot help that.


The preachments that all non-believers go to hell (made by any religion for that matter) are damaging to society. Just like Scientology's preachment of fair game to its adherents are damaging to society.
How does it damage society? in which ways are you damaged?
And yes, that is what I argue with homosexuality.
I know, hypocrisy suits you!

There are no 'universally agreed upon laws'. If there were, we'd all agree with them. There are only specific moral ideas that everyone must accept in order to support human co-existence. But I digress...
Sure there are, see any constitutions, you'd see that though its laws aren't very refined, they are universally agreed upon!
You are welcome to believe that atheism is bad because of its moral consequences - how ever much I disagree with that. You are welcome to believe homosexualiy has bad consequences - how ever much I disagree with that. Just as I am welcome to believe that the preachments of eternal hellfire has detrimented humanity's capacity for knowledge whilst enhancing humanity's capacity for bigotry and control.
Indeed, bigotry and control goes both ways though, from where I am standing your minority views are the ones most base in both a physical and tangible extent!
I don't care if you label Islam a religion or a cult. The same with Scientology.
Then why bring up at all that I have labeled it as a cult? I have done so based on agreed upon terminology not out of whims. How you feel about that is not of consequence for the purpose of style of mention!
My point was clear. That it is possible to be against a concept you don't believe exists on the basis of its harmful affects on society.
There are no 'harmful affects' on society that some intangible idea of punishment for sinners exists, and you have failed to prove that it is harmful!

Nothing needs to exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent. The old saying goes that without God, everything is permissable - but the reality is that with God anything is possible.
?

You are responding on scriptural lines. I am talking about the concept in general.
And what has your talk offered in general or theologically?

Huh?

That's up to them. They have decided that they aren't moral, nor interested in observing co-existence with humanity. Their position is honest.
I agree, and with that decision they should be willing to accept all consequences come what may, whether sudden death, eviction, or despise from the general population that does work to butter their bread!

I will discuss what I like on here. Non-Muslims are allowed on here.
indeed, and such are the responses you'll receive, they will not be modulated to suit your lifestyle and brand of 'morality'

Still haven't answered.
see above.. non-questions, receive non-answers!

I am not comparing God with anything here. I am asking you to defend your claim that being warned about something is reason enough to not complain about it if it happens.
You live every day in sin, that warrants eternal punishment in my book!


all the best
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 02:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamar
Quite simply, there is nothing to defend. Holding an opposite point of view, doesn't equate to an insult, of course your definitions might be slightly askew.. I might find a statement such as this from one of your previous posts:
I never said holding an opposite point of view demonstrated an insult. I said that based on your track record in interacting with non-muslims you demonstrate nothing more to me than insults and condescension.

but who is keeping record right?
My anti-theism has nothing to do with my attitude or objectives. My anti-theism is a moral opposition to the existence of a god(s) as described in the main monotheistic religions. I am, and try to be civil with everyone irrespective of their belief - and I am interested in listening to what other people have to say.

I find his 'criticism' to have no weightiness, as I truly believe that you'll be in receipt of exactly what you deserve and again his original statement from my perspective was flawed in premise and conclusion, I don't see that I can defend a hypothesis that he has built on sinking sand?!
I'm not talking about the original poster here. I'm saying that in general, it is perfectly reasonable to think that a muslim posting on a thread in the clarifications about Islam section started by a non-muslim - that they might just be defending it.

What exactly is this 'new information' That is a very vague term especially when speaking of something that has nothing to do with this physical world!
I am referring of course, to when people make claims about me. I then tell them that no, that's not the case. That's not my objective and yet they persist with the claim.

How does it damage society? in which ways are you damaged?
It doesn't damage me personally.

It damages society by helping to reinforce the polarising bigotry of fundamentalism and evangelism in general. It sets up and reinforces the idea of a "us vs. them" mentality. We're going to heaven, and they're going to hell. They are not worthy, or fulfilled until they repent and come to the 'correct' way of thinking. It is a catalyst for bigotry.

I also dislike the way that hellfire is used on children in order to manipulate them.

I know, hypocrisy suits you!
Sorry, you're going to tell me how I am being hypocritical. I argue that homosexuality is not immoral, and does not harm anyone. That it is a personal choice by two consenting adults. I claim, with hellfire that it is damaging to society in that it sets communities at odds with each other and reinforces bigotry. I do not claim however (unlike many people on this forum do with homosexuality) that belief in hell should be outlawed. No, you are free to believe what you like.

There is no comparison.

Sure there are, see any constitutions, you'd see that though its laws aren't very refined, they are universally agreed upon!
Constitutions are not universally agreed upon. That is why they are amended.

Unless of course, you believe popular opinion or concepts such as human rights are objective?

Indeed, bigotry and control goes both ways though, from where I am standing your minority views are the ones most base in both a physical and tangible extent!
I don't get this bizarre sentence structure. Sorry.

Then why bring up at all that I have labeled it as a cult? I have done so based on agreed upon terminology not out of whims. How you feel about that is not of consequence for the purpose of style of mention!
Huh?

I referenced it simply because we associate 'cult' with something negative, so I took the position that despite disbelieving in Scientology and labelling it a cult - you believe it to be bad for society.

There are no 'harmful affects' on society that some intangible idea of punishment for sinners exists, and you have failed to prove that it is harmful!
See what I said earlier.

?
Anything is possible if you believe in an omniscient and ominpotent God that can do anything, and will happily do anything.

I agree, and with that decision they should be willing to accept all consequences come what may, whether sudden death, eviction, or despise from the general population that does work to butter their bread!
Sure.

If by deciding to harm society for their own self-interest, we ought to act and respond to their actions appropriate with the interests of others in mind.

indeed, and such are the responses you'll receive, they will not be modulated to suit your lifestyle and brand of 'morality'
Never said they would.

You live every day in sin, that warrants eternal punishment in my book!
Rhetoric is no match for substance.
Reply

Lynx
01-18-2010, 02:32 AM
Your conclusion has positively no relevance to your premise and is rather disjointed. You've alleged that you've read the Quran and you have already concluded that to believe is solely based on faith, perhaps that is how you view it, which is fine, what is it exactly that you'd like for us to do for you?-- you've conjectured and surely can at least fathom that other folks don't share your conclusions
You've misunderstood what I said. Let me explain, I know that is how *I* view it. That's the whole point: some people read it and don't get convinced while others read it and feel something profound has been imprinted upon their minds. So my problem is that this is an entirely subjective argument. You cannot say 'read the quran and Islam will be proved'. So I was replying to the person earlier who mentioned the miracle of the quran and claimed that is objective. You've just demonstrated why it's not an objective evidence for Islam.


As for the atheist hell thing.. I don't see how hell should matter to someone who doesn't believe?... I find it very flawed for someone to concern themselves with something that they equally 'believe' doesn't exist.
My point is that the Hell thing is incoherent. This is incredibly important if I am someone looking for the 'right' way of life.



In fact an advanced warning has been given and you are free to take it or leave it :

18: 29 And say: "The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it
THis is not anymore credible than If i wrote a warning on a piece of paper and slipped it under your door; unless you believe that the warning has any truth to it, you would have no rational reason to take heed.


A number of other posts were made in this thread and the general trend is that the muslims are saying that it is a 'choice' to either go to Hell or Heaven. The problem is that it presumes that non-believers know Islam is true but deny it anyway. This is a ridiculous presumption. If nobelievers knew islam was true 99% of them would convert right on the spot. That is the entire point of contention; no religion has objective evidence so why would a diety send someone to hell? It seems God is unjust and if god is unjust then the quran was innaccurate when it called allah just and if the quran is inaccurate then it is not true and therefore islam isnt real.



Originally Posted by Uthmān View Post
The following is a talk by 'Abdur-Raheem Green who talks about this topic from an Islamic perspective:

Do good people go to Hell? Part 1

Do good people go to Hell? Part 2

Do good people go to Hell? Part 3

Do good people go to Hell? Part 4
Problem solved.
This does nothign to solve the problem. Maybe you can summarize what part of his talk makes Hell any less unjust? or perhaps you can point me to the specific part of the videos where I can find the answer. It seems from part 1 and part 2 he is just reiterating my OP.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 02:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I never said holding an opposite point of view demonstrated an insult. I said that based on your track record in interacting with non-muslims you demonstrate nothing more to me than insults and condescension.
And as I have stated and demonstrated what you view as a condescension is no more than the reality of you as others view it!
My anti-theism has nothing to do with my attitude or objectives. My anti-theism is a moral opposition to the existence of a god(s) as described in the main monotheistic religions. I am, and try to be civil with everyone irrespective of their belief - and I am interested in listening to what other people have to say.
spare me the semantics, there is really nothing civil about being an 'anti-theist' if we switch the terms around to anti-homo or anti-Semitic, would you still hold your grounds? the real conundrum is why you object so much to folks being overtly anti-atheist and rendering it as 'condescension'


I'm not talking about the original poster here. I'm saying that in general, it is perfectly reasonable to think that a muslim posting on a thread in the clarifications about Islam section started by a non-muslim - that they might just be defending it.
And I see nothing to defend, from where I am standing it is a just end, from where you are standing it is an intangible place born of the minds of men!

I am referring of course, to when people make claims about me. I then tell them that no, that's not the case. That's not my objective and yet they persist with the claim.
What people know of you is from what you write!

It doesn't damage me personally.
I didn't think so.

It damages society by helping to reinforce the polarising bigotry of fundamentalism and evangelism in general. It sets up and reinforces the idea of a "us vs. them" mentality. We're going to heaven, and they're going to hell. They are not worthy, or fulfilled until they repent and come to the 'correct' way of thinking. It is a catalyst for bigotry.
another concocted hyperbole, your spiritual end has no bearing on your materialistic existence and your interactions with others who don't share your views. I don't know one person on this forum or anywhere else, that goes into a place to buy groceries or anything else with the concept of us vs. them. Oh, Those people are going to hell. No one knows where they are going themselves (at least from the islamic end of things), so I don't see how anyone can stand judge and executioner. Give me a break oh self-professed anti-theist!

I also dislike the way that hellfire is used on children in order to manipulate them.
children don't go to hell, so I have no idea what you are talking about!


Sorry, you're going to tell me how I am being hypocritical. I argue that homosexuality is not immoral, and does not harm anyone. That it is a personal choice by two consenting adults. I claim, with hellfire that it is damaging to society in that it sets communities at odds with each other and reinforces bigotry. I do not claim however (unlike many people on this forum do with homosexuality) that belief in hell should be outlawed. No, you are free to believe what you like.
Then why bring it up and repeatedly?

There is no comparison.
your opinion has no bearing on the reality of things.


Constitutions are not universally agreed upon. That is why they are amended.
Basic moral code of conduct is agreed upon!


Unless of course, you believe popular opinion or concepts such as human rights are objective?
Human rights are the dignity that God conferred upon them, not in a piece of paper concocted by men some 200 years ago to be amended by lobbying from some group with dissolute vision and skewed sense of what it moral, it is a done deal and it is certainly not subject to the opinion of folks who think it is ok for two men to copulate like donkeys on the streets!

I referenced it simply because we associate 'cult' with something negative, so I took the position that despite disbelieving in Scientology and labelling it a cult - you believe it to be bad for society.
There is a definition for a cult, go look it up before you engage in a topic!


See what I said earlier.


Anything is possible if you believe in an omniscient and ominpotent God that can do anything, and will happily do anything.


Sure.
Again, I have no idea what that means or how it relates to this topic!

If by deciding to harm society for their own self-interest, we ought to act and respond to their actions appropriate with the interests of others in mind.
?

Never said they would.


Rhetoric is no match for substance.
Indeed, something you should ponder before your next inane analogy!


all the best
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 03:09 AM
[QUOTE=Lynx;1279329]
You've misunderstood what I said. Let me explain, I know that is how *I* view it. That's the whole point: some people read it and don't get convinced while others read it and feel something profound has been imprinted upon their minds. So my problem is that this is an entirely subjective argument. You cannot say 'read the quran and Islam will be proved'. So I was replying to the person earlier who mentioned the miracle of the quran and claimed that is objective. You've just demonstrated why it's not an objective evidence for Islam.
It has to do with your desire to understand, for surely if someone had a truthful desire, then verity will be manifest unto them. Such is the promise of God to those who are actually sincere. Now, I can look at a formula such as this T = ( P * R ) / M and find it of profound relevance to someone with a dilated cardiomyopathy, you can look at it and shrug your shoulders. Does that mean that the formula is subjective with no truth in it or does it mean that you simply didn't make an effort to see relevance? MY choice would be the latter!



My point is that the Hell thing is incoherent. This is incredibly important if I am someone looking for the 'right' way of life.
Do you think that someone who has spent his life being good and died at 32 to a drunk driver should be equated with the drunk driver who goofed off all his life and got off scotch free? I use this example of an event that actually took place to two friends of mine. Hell has always existed for justice, not for incongruity!




THis is not anymore credible than If i wrote a warning on a piece of paper and slipped it under your door; unless you believe that the warning has any truth to it, you would have no rational reason to take heed.
see first and second statement!

A number of other posts were made in this thread and the general trend is that the muslims are saying that it is a 'choice' to either go to Hell or Heaven. The problem is that it presumes that non-believers know Islam is true but deny it anyway. This is a ridiculous presumption. If nobelievers knew islam was true 99% of them would convert right on the spot. That is the entire point of contention; no religion has objective evidence so why would a diety send someone to hell? It seems God is unjust and if god is unjust then the quran was innaccurate when it called allah just and if the quran is inaccurate then it is not true and therefore islam isnt real.
"Whosoever does right, it is only for the good of his own soul that he does right, and whosoever errs, errs only to its hurt. No laden soul can bear another's load. We never punish until We have sent a messenger." 17:15

some people's trials begin on the day of recompense.
The Description of Hell and Those Who will enter into it

Written by Ibn Kathir Friday, 10 November 2006 The Description of Hell and Those Who will enter into it
Allah the Exalted says,

[وَ]
(and) meaning, `and We have prepared,'
[لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْبِرَبِّهِمْ عَذَابُ جَهَنَّمَ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ]
(for those who disbelieve in their Lord is the torment of Hell, and worst indeed is that destination.) This means that this will be the worst end and a terrible destiny.
[إِذَآ أُلْقُواْ فِيهَا سَمِعُواْ لَهَا شَهِيقًا]
(When they are cast therein, they will hear its Shahiq) Ibn Jarir said, "This means the sound of shouting.''
[وَهِىَ تَفُورُ]
(while it is simmering.) Ath-Thawri said, "It will boil them just as a small number of seeds are boiled in a lot of water.'' Then Allah says,
[تَكَادُ تَمَيَّزُ مِنَ الغَيْظِ]
(It almost bursts up with fury.) meaning, some parts of it almost break apart from other parts due to the severity of its rage and anger with them.
[تَكَادُ تَمَيَّزُ مِنَ الغَيْظِ كُلَّمَا أُلْقِىَ فِيهَا فَوْجٌ سَأَلَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ نَذِيرٌ - قَالُواْ بَلَى قَدْ جَآءَنَا نَذِيرٌ فَكَذَّبْنَا وَقُلْنَا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ مِن شَىْءٍ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ فِى ضَلَـلٍ كَبِيرٍ ]
(Every time a group is cast therein, its keepers will ask: "Did no warner come to you'' They will say: "Yes, indeed a warner did come to us, but we rejected him and said: `Allah never sent down anything; you are only in great error.''') In these Ayat Allah reminds of His justice in dealing with His creatures and that He does not punish anyone until the proof has been established against them and a Messenger has been sent to them. This is similar to Allah's statement,
[وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاً]
(And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger.) [17:15] Allah also says,
[حَتَّى إِذَا جَآءُوهَا فُتِحَتْ أَبْوَبُهَا وَقَالَ لَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُونَ عَلَيْكُمْ ءَايَـتِ رَبِّكُمْ وَيُنذِرُونَكُمْ لِقَـآءَ يَوْمِكُمْ هَـذَا قَالُواْ بَلَى وَلَـكِنْ حَقَّتْ كَلِمَةُ الْعَذَابِ عَلَى الْكَـفِرِينَ]
(till when they reach it, the gates thereof will be opened. And its keepers will say, "Did not the Messengers come to you from yourselves, reciting to you the Ayat of your Lord, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours'' They will say: "Yes,'' but the Word of torment has been justified against the disbelievers!'') [39:71] Thus, they have no recourse but to blame themselves and they will feel remorseful when such remorse will be of no benefit to them. They will say,
[لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِى أَصْحَـبِ السَّعِيرِ]
(Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the dwellers of the blazing Fire!) meaning, `if we would have benefited from our intellects or listened to the truth that Allah revealed, we would not have been disbelieving in Allah and misguided about Him. But we did not have understanding to comprehend what the Messengers came with, and we did not have the intelligence to guide us to following them.' Allah then says,
[فَاعْتَرَفُواْ بِذَنبِهِمْ فَسُحْقًا لاًّصْحَـبِ السَّعِيرِ ]
(Then they will confess their sin. So, away with the dwellers of the blazing Fire!) Imam Ahmad recorded from Abu Al-Bakhtari At-Ta'i that he heard from one of the Companions that the Messenger of Allah said,
The Description of Hell and Those Who will enter into it
Allah the Exalted says,

[وَ]
(and) meaning, `and We have prepared,'
[لِلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْبِرَبِّهِمْ عَذَابُ جَهَنَّمَ وَبِئْسَ الْمَصِيرُ]
(for those who disbelieve in their Lord is the torment of Hell, and worst indeed is that destination.) This means that this will be the worst end and a terrible destiny.
[إِذَآ أُلْقُواْ فِيهَا سَمِعُواْ لَهَا شَهِيقًا]
(When they are cast therein, they will hear its Shahiq) Ibn Jarir said, "This means the sound of shouting.''
[وَهِىَ تَفُورُ]
(while it is simmering.) Ath-Thawri said, "It will boil them just as a small number of seeds are boiled in a lot of water.'' Then Allah says,
[تَكَادُ تَمَيَّزُ مِنَ الغَيْظِ]
(It almost bursts up with fury.) meaning, some parts of it almost break apart from other parts due to the severity of its rage and anger with them.
[تَكَادُ تَمَيَّزُ مِنَ الغَيْظِ كُلَّمَا أُلْقِىَ فِيهَا فَوْجٌ سَأَلَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ نَذِيرٌ - قَالُواْ بَلَى قَدْ جَآءَنَا نَذِيرٌ فَكَذَّبْنَا وَقُلْنَا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ مِن شَىْءٍ إِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلاَّ فِى ضَلَـلٍ كَبِيرٍ ]
(Every time a group is cast therein, its keepers will ask: "Did no warner come to you'' They will say: "Yes, indeed a warner did come to us, but we rejected him and said: `Allah never sent down anything; you are only in great error.''') In these Ayat Allah reminds of His justice in dealing with His creatures and that He does not punish anyone until the proof has been established against them and a Messenger has been sent to them. This is similar to Allah's statement,
[وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاً]
(And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger.) [17:15] Allah also says,
[حَتَّى إِذَا جَآءُوهَا فُتِحَتْ أَبْوَبُهَا وَقَالَ لَهُمْ خَزَنَتُهَآ أَلَمْ يَأْتِكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّنكُمْ يَتْلُونَ عَلَيْكُمْ ءَايَـتِ رَبِّكُمْ وَيُنذِرُونَكُمْ لِقَـآءَ يَوْمِكُمْ هَـذَا قَالُواْ بَلَى وَلَـكِنْ حَقَّتْ كَلِمَةُ الْعَذَابِ عَلَى الْكَـفِرِينَ]
(till when they reach it, the gates thereof will be opened. And its keepers will say, "Did not the Messengers come to you from yourselves, reciting to you the Ayat of your Lord, and warning you of the meeting of this Day of yours'' They will say: "Yes,'' but the Word of torment has been justified against the disbelievers!'') [39:71] Thus, they have no recourse but to blame themselves and they will feel remorseful when such remorse will be of no benefit to them. They will say,
[لَوْ كُنَّا نَسْمَعُ أَوْ نَعْقِلُ مَا كُنَّا فِى أَصْحَـبِ السَّعِيرِ]
(Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the dwellers of the blazing Fire!) meaning, `if we would have benefited from our intellects or listened to the truth that Allah revealed, we would not have been disbelieving in Allah and misguided about Him. But we did not have understanding to comprehend what the Messengers came with, and we did not have the intelligence to guide us to following them.' Allah then says,
[فَاعْتَرَفُواْ بِذَنبِهِمْ فَسُحْقًا لاًّصْحَـبِ السَّعِيرِ ]
(Then they will confess their sin. So, away with the dwellers of the blazing Fire!) Imam Ahmad recorded from Abu Al-Bakhtari At-Ta'i that he heard from one of the Companions that the Messenger of Allah said,





This does nothign to solve the problem. Maybe you can summarize what part of his talk makes Hell any less unjust? or perhaps you can point me to the specific part of the videos where I can find the answer. It seems from part 1 and part 2 he is just reiterating my OP.
see previous comments..


all the best
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 03:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skye
And as I have stated and demonstrated what you view as a condescension is no more than the reality of you as others view it!
Huh?

Another baffling sentence. Are you saying I am projecting?

spare me the semantics, there is really nothing civil about being an 'anti-theist' if we switch the terms around to anti-homo or anti-Semitic, would you still hold your grounds? the real conundrum is why you object so much to folks being overtly anti-atheist and rendering it as 'condescension'
Anti-theism is not comparable to being anti-homosexual or anti-semitic. I am not against people believing in a God, I am against the idea that a god ought to exist.

And I don't contend every 'anti-atheist' is condescending. Just you.

And I see nothing to defend, from where I am standing it is a just end, from where you are standing it is an intangible place born of the minds of men!
Yet you still defend it.

What people know of you is from what you write!
Touche.

another concocted hyperbole, your spiritual end has no bearing on your materialistic existence and your interactions with others who don't share your views. I don't know one person on this forum or anywhere else, that goes into a place to buy groceries or anything else with the concept of us vs. them. Oh, Those people are going to hell. No one knows where they are going themselves (at least from the islamic end of things), so I don't see how anyone can stand judge and executioner. Give me a break oh self-professed anti-theist!
I am not talking about anyone on this forum. I am talking about the preachments of ****ation and hellfire in general.

I have no idea what you guys say about it in real life.

children don't go to hell, so I have no idea what you are talking about!
Indeed you don't, as you misread it completely.

Religious schools have a historical track record of manipulating children into believing in hellfire and setting up their mind for a "us and them" mentality into adulthood. If you keep referencing eternal ****ation throughout a child's educational life - it affects them in adulthood.

Then why bring it up and repeatedly?
I don't.

I didn't start this thread. I'm merely chatting in it.

your opinion has no bearing on the reality of things.
Huh? You've quoted my "There is no comparison" out of complete context. I said it to state your claim of my hypocrisy on my defense of homosexuals as redundant.

Basic moral code of conduct is agreed upon!
Where? What do you mean 'basic moral code of conduct'? Are you talking about concepts such as empathy?

Human rights are the dignity that God conferred upon them, not in a piece of paper concocted by men some 200 years ago to be amended by lobbying from some group with dissolute vision and skewed sense of what it moral, it is a done deal and it is certainly not subject to the opinion of folks who think it is ok for two men to copulate like donkeys on the streets!
So then constitutions aren't absolute then.

Thanks

There is a definition for a cult, go look it up before you engage in a topic!
I am aware of the specific criterias for something to be considered a cult.

Again, I have no idea what that means or how it relates to this topic!
Simple.

If anything is possible (which it is if an omniscient and omnipotent God exists) then nothing necessarily has to be the way it is. You earlier stated that hell was necessary. This is not true if God can make anything happen.

?
I was agree with you that people who act in ruthless self-interest at the expense of others ought to be responded to in kind.
Reply

Lynx
01-18-2010, 03:38 AM
Now, I can look at a formula such as this T = ( P * R ) / M and find it of profound relevance to someone with a dilated cardiomyopathy, you can look at it and shrug your shoulders. Does that mean that the formula is subjective with no truth in it or does it mean that you simply didn't make an effort to see relevance?
False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:

Do you think that someone who has spent his life being good and died at 32 to a drunk driver should be equated with the drunk driver who goofed off all his life and got off scotch free? I use this example of an event that actually took place to two friends of mine. Hell has always existed for justice, not for incongruity!
The problem with Hell that I am raising is that people are sent to Hell for not believing in Islam (or whatever religion is proposing some sort of Hell).


As for your quotes, don't you see the problem in saying 'I warned you but I gave you no reason why this warning should be true'. And no, formulas aren't as valid as Islam unless you can put Islam into a formula that everyone with the ability to read the it is going to agree. :)
Reply

Lynx
01-18-2010, 03:45 AM
Now, I can look at a formula such as this T = ( P * R ) / M and find it of profound relevance to someone with a dilated cardiomyopathy, you can look at it and shrug your shoulders. Does that mean that the formula is subjective with no truth in it or does it mean that you simply didn't make an effort to see relevance?
False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:

Do you think that someone who has spent his life being good and died at 32 to a drunk driver should be equated with the drunk driver who goofed off all his life and got off scotch free? I use this example of an event that actually took place to two friends of mine. Hell has always existed for justice, not for incongruity!
The problem with Hell that I am raising is that people are sent to Hell for not believing in Islam (or whatever religion is proposing some sort of Hell).


As for your quotes, don't you see the problem in saying 'I warned you but I gave you no reason why this warning should be true'. And no, formulas aren't as valid as Islam unless you can put Islam into a formula that everyone with the ability to read the it is going to agree. :)
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 03:51 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Huh?

Another baffling sentence. Are you saying I am projecting?
Indeed..


Anti-theism is not comparable to being anti-homosexual or anti-semitic. I am not against people believing in a God, I am against the idea that a god ought to exist.
Sure it is very comparable.. Semantics don't get to save the day!
And I don't contend every 'anti-atheist' is condescending. Just you.
That is because the rest can't be bothered with you, it doesn't mean that they don't feel the same way!

I am not talking about anyone on this forum. I am talking about the preachments of ****ation and hellfire in general.
and you have failed to demonstrate how hell is harmful to others or is immoral in the here and now!

I have no idea what you guys say about it in real life.
Then why do you go on about 'morality' concocted in your head?

Indeed you don't, as you misread it completely.

Religious schools have a historical track record of manipulating children into believing in hellfire and setting up their mind for a "us and them" mentality into adulthood. If you keep referencing eternal ****ation throughout a child's educational life - it affects them in adulthood.
I don't like generalities anymore than I like concocted hyperbole..
Atheists have sent millions to ****ation more than all the religions combined in the here and now, if you want something to ***** about, how about you start there?

I don't.

I didn't start this thread. I'm merely chatting in it.
ditto


Huh? You've quoted my "There is no comparison" out of complete context. I said it to state your claim of my hypocrisy on my defense of homosexuals as redundant.
I try to group glib in as few paragraphs as possible!


Where? What do you mean 'basic moral code of conduct'? Are you talking about concepts such as empathy?
I don't know what empathy is to an atheist, it is completely subjective!
you think empathy if letting people copulate like donkeys on the streets while being an anti-theist.. In my book that doesn't count as empathy!

So then constitutions aren't absolute then.

Thanks
I said the basic moral code.. which part of basic was difficult for you to understand?

I am aware of the specific criterias for something to be considered a cult.
great try to incorporate that knowledge into your replies so we are not wasting each other' time


Simple.

If anything is possible (which it is if an omniscient and omnipotent God exists) then nothing necessarily has to be the way it is. You earlier stated that hell was necessary. This is not true if God can make anything happen.
and your point being?


I was agree with you that people who act in ruthless self-interest at the expense of others ought to be responded to in kind.
Indeed!
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 04:02 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:
I can indeed, the question is do I want to?

Here is a formula from the Quran taught in universities:

Surah Nisa chapter 4 verses 11 and 12:
Allah (swt) (thus) directs you as regards your childrens (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half.
For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.
In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of legacies and debts. [Al-Quran 4:11-12]


IslamicISLAMIC INHERITANCE

MATHEMATICS

A major Arab mathematician named Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi wrote an influential textbook in about 820 called Hisab al-jabr w’al-muqabala (Calculation by Restoration and Reduction) that is known today as the Algebra. This book was the starting point for Arab work in algebra, and it is credited for giving the subject its name. Al-Khwarizmi was probably born in Soviet Central Asia but he did most of his work in algebra in Baghdad, where he was an astronomer and head of the library at the House of Wisdom.
Al-Kwarizmi was a Muslim and the second half of his book Algebra contains problems about the Islamic law of inheritance. According to the law, when a woman dies her husband receives one-quarter of her estate, and the rest is divided among her children so that a son receives twice as much as a daughter. If the woman chooses to leave money to a stranger, the stranger cannot receive more than one-third of the estate without the approval of the heirs. If only some of the heirs approve, the approving heirs must pay the stranger out of their own shares the amount that exceeds one-third of the estate. Whether approved by all heirs or not, the stranger’s share must be paid before the rest is shared out among the heirs.
Here is an example problem from Al-Kwarizmi’s Algebra:
A woman dies leaving a husband, a son, and three daughters. She also leaves a bequest consisting of 1/8 + 1/7 of her estate to a stranger. She leaves $224,000. Calculate the shares of her estate that go to each of her beneficiaries.
Solution: The stranger receives 1/8 + 1/7 = 15/56 of the estate, leaving 41/56 to be shared out among the family.
The husband receives one-quarter of what remains, or 1/4 of 41/56 = 41/224.
The son and the three daughters receive their shares in the ratio 2:1:1:1 so the son’s share is two fifths of the estate after the stranger and husband have been given their bequests and each daughter’s share is one fifth. (2+1+1+1=5).
If the total estate is $224,000, the shares received by each beneficiary will be:
Stranger: 15/56 of $224,000 = $60,000.
Husband: 41/224 of $224,000 = $41,000.
Son: 2/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $49,200.
Each daughter: 1/5 of ($224,000 - 101,000) = $24,600.
TOTAL = $224,000.

YOUR PROJECT:

1. Solve the following Islamic law inheritance problem.
A woman’s estate totals $72,000. She dies leaving a husband, two sons and two daughters. In her will, she leaves a bequest of 1/9 + 1/6 of her estate to a stranger. Calculate how much of her estate each of her beneficiaries will receive.
2. Write out all of your calculations.
3. Check to make sure your beneficiary sums equal the total estate.
References: Islamic Inheritance Mathematics

Gullberg, Jan. (1997). Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Joseph, George Gheverghese. (1991). The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics. London: Penguin Books.
Nelson, D., Joseph, G. and Williams, J. (1993). Multicultural Mathematics: Teaching Mathematics from a Global Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

San Joaquin Delta College Basic Mathematics Program Communications Skills Division 5151 Pacific Avenue Stockton, CA 95207 Tel. (209) 954-5252 Division Chairperson: Mary Ann Cox Division Secretary: Joann Hymes

taught in:
http://www.deltacollege.edu/dept/basicmath/Islamic.htm

if you are looking for a true formula then, there you go, however, the Quran isn't merely a book of formulas,

it is a book of signs that covers all facets of man's life, politics, economics, social structure, beliefs, inheritance, spirituality, poetry, psychology, numerology and the after life. Based on that book the greatest empires in the world have implemented the most laws!

How is that for objectivity in true correspondence with reality?






The problem with Hell that I am raising is that people are sent to Hell for not believing in Islam (or whatever religion is proposing some sort of Hell).
That isn't the only reason to be sent to hell, although it is reason enough, I have already quoted from the Quran that if a person truly didn't know about Islam then they wouldn't be held accountable!

As for your quotes, don't you see the problem in saying 'I warned you but I gave you no reason why this warning should be true'. And no, formulas aren't as valid as Islam unless you can put Islam into a formula that everyone with the ability to read the it is going to agree. :)
see first paragraph!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 04:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
Indeed..
Well I am not. I don't ever mean to be condescending to anyone, or insulting.

Sure it is very comparable.. Semantics don't get to save the day!
It isn't semantics. I don't care what you believe. I will defend people's right to believe anything. I just don't like the idea of the traditional monotheistic God existing.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people just aren't interested in updating their analysis of others based on new information. I am telling you that I do not wish to tell people what to believe and you are effectively denying that.

That is because the rest can't be bothered with you, it doesn't mean that they don't feel the same way!
Condescension noted.

and you have failed to demonstrate how hell is harmful to others or is immoral in the here and now!
I have given you my analysis. You can either accept it or reject it.

Then why do you go on about 'morality' concocted in your head?
Huh?

I don't like generalities anymore than I like concocted hyperbole..
Atheists have sent millions to ****ation more than all the religions combined in the here and now, if you want something to ***** about, how about you start there?
I am not quite sure what this means.

Are you contending that the virulous celebrity atheists have convinced people there is no God and therefore, doomed them to hell?

I don't know what empathy is to an atheist, it is completely subjective!
you think empathy if letting people copulate like donkeys on the streets while being an anti-theist.. In my book that doesn't count as empathy!
Huh?

Empathy has a very specific meaning.

I said the basic moral code.. which part of basic was difficult for you to understand?
The part where you said:

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamar
Sure there are, see any constitutions, you'd see that though its laws aren't very refined, they are universally agreed upon!
Now you are backtracking. Incidentally, I am not entirely sure that you could by your own framework argue that a 'basic moral code' agreed upon by everyone exists.

and your point being?
My point is that hell isn't necessary as you claimed it was.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 04:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Well I am not. I don't ever mean to be condescending to anyone, or insulting.
aha
It isn't semantics. I don't care what you believe. I will defend people's right to believe anything. I just don't like the idea of the traditional monotheistic God existing.
I believe what you wrote initially, I think I'd have better respect for you if you'd merely stick to your gun than run off at the first possibility of coming across as politically incorrect, which you obviously were and are.. I don't know why atheists like to dance around the facts of the matter? They are as hateful and condescending as just about everyone else!

This is exactly what I mean when I say people just aren't interested in updating their analysis of others based on new information. I am telling you that I do not wish to tell people what to believe and you are effectively denying that.
What did you mean in your initial post about 'new information' let's not work with distillate. Did you have a purpose for sticking it in there?


Are you contending that the virulous celebrity atheists have convinced people there is no God and therefore, doomed them to hell?
No, I am contending that such folks as Mao Xedong, Enver Hoxha, pol pot, lenin, Sung I1 have sent millions to an early grave!

Huh?

Empathy has a very specific meaning.


The part where you said:
and what is that meaning? does the meaning evolve as you get caught in an anti-theist moment?



Now you are backtracking. Incidentally, I am not entirely sure that you could by your own framework argue that a 'basic moral code' agreed upon by everyone exists.
You've heard of commandments, the majority of them stand true in every constitution that discusses the rights of man!

My point is that hell isn't necessary as you claimed it was.
Ok, your point is noted and binned!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 04:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamar
I believe what you wrote initially, I think I'd have better respect for you if you'd merely stick to your gun than run off at the first possibility of coming across as politically incorrect, which you obviously were and are.. I don't know why atheists like to dance around the facts of the matter? They are as hateful and condescending as just about everyone else!
First of all, I don't care if I come across as politically correct. I reject the insinuation that my anti-theism is remotely comparable to anti-semitism specifically. They are not the same thing.

Anti-homosexuality can be either contempt of homosexual activity or homosexuality or the desire to eradicate homosexual activity. Anti-theism could be compared with the former and not the latter.

Secondly, I am aware there exists hateful atheists. I am not one of them.

What did you mean in your initial post about 'new information' let's not work with distillate. Did you have a purpose for sticking it in there?
Yes I did.

Some people thrive on the understanding that their position has been self-declared infallible and unchangeable. That is why they are impervious to change.

No, I am contending that such folks as Mao Xedong, Enver Hoxha, pol pot, lenin, Sung I1 have sent millions to an early grave!
Oh

Yes they have.

and what is that meaning? does the meaning evolve as you get caught in an anti-theist moment?
huh?

Anti-theism has nothing to do with empathy. It is the capacity to share the feelings of others. To understand the suffering others are going through and feel guilt, or compassion for them based on that.

You've heard of commandments, the majority of them stand true in every constitution that discusses the rights of man!
Yes, but now you say that constitutions aren't absolute.
Reply

Italianguy
01-18-2010, 04:37 AM
.....And some have asked why I am here.:hmm:
Reply

Lynx
01-18-2010, 04:49 AM
Skye:

You brought up a formula to show that Islam is objectively true but people are too lazy to understand it. I said you cannot equate Islam with a formula because Islam isn't as demonstrably true as you are claiming it to be. What I asked for is if you could create a formula showing that Islam is true. No one can do that so my problem with Hell is that God has not given any good reason for people to rationally convert to Islam yet he will send people to Hell regardless. I would understand if He sent people to Hell for murdering or raping or etc. But it seems ridiculous to send people to hell for their beliefs. Even if there was proof that Islam is true...thjat would just mean only an idiot would disagree with Islam and the problem still stands: why send an idiot to hell if he just didn't get it? But anyway, I am referring to someone who knows what Islam is about, and IS REMAINED UNCONVINCED.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 04:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
First of all, I don't care if I come across as politically correct. I reject the insinuation that my anti-theism is remotely comparable to anti-semitism specifically. They are not the same thing.

Anti-homosexuality can be either contempt of homosexual activity or homosexuality or the desire to eradicate homosexual activity. Anti-theism could be compared with the former and not the latter.
Your definitions of 'anti-' is faulty, and your views on what others intend with their 'anti' are equally so, no one has any delusions that opposing anything will bring about an eradication. You don't get to modify the terms to suit your fancy!

Secondly, I am aware there exists hateful atheists. I am not one of them.
Ok



Some people thrive on the understanding that their position has been self-declared infallible and unchangeable. That is why they are impervious to change.
My position is very fallible (I am only human, and not the most knowledgeable) God's doctrine however isn't and isn't subject to your criticisms as you are equally fallible for you are equally human! The law isn't there to satisfy everyone, but we can take comfort in knowing it is dispensed by the most just!

Oh

Yes they have.
indeed and they were also all atheists, so draw your own conclusions, if you are desiring of that route!



Anti-theism has nothing to do with empathy. It is the capacity to share the feelings of others. To understand the suffering others are going through and feel guilt, or compassion for them based on that.
I believe that to be a subjective find.. how do you measure emotions? and if you possess them, then surely others do too.. or is that only mod amongst atheists?


Yes, but now you say that constitutions aren't absolute.
Man-made constitutions aren't.. God mandated constitution is. As new situations arise we have ijtihad from scholars which is rooted in the fundamental principles ..


all the best
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 04:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Skye:

You brought up a formula to show that Islam is objectively true but people are too lazy to understand it. I said you cannot equate Islam with a formula because Islam isn't as demonstrably true as you are claiming it to be. What I asked for is if you could create a formula showing that Islam is true. No one can do that so my problem with Hell is that God has not given any good reason for people to rationally convert to Islam yet he will send people to Hell regardless. I would understand if He sent people to Hell for murdering or raping or etc. But it seems ridiculous to send people to hell for their beliefs. Even if there was proof that Islam is true...thjat would just mean only an idiot would disagree with Islam and the problem still stands: why send an idiot to hell if he just didn't get it? But anyway, I am referring to someone who knows what Islam is about, and IS REMAINED UNCONVINCED.
you wrote and let me quote you:

False analogy. I can pinpoint the exact line in a textbook to explain why the formula is objectively true in correspondence with reality. Can you do the same with the Quran :hmm:
and that is exactly what I have given you, can I do that with the Quran bring a formula which objectively corresponds to reality, and I have, in fact, that can be done with anything else not just laws of inheritance but all afore mentioned, but you already have a frame of mind and you modulate your needs as they are met and you are still unhappy.

Anything about what you convince yourself to be true or untrue is a personal endeavor, but it doesn't invalidate hell, or reasons to why some folks end there..


all the best
Reply

Yusuf Saeed
01-18-2010, 05:59 AM
This is a response to Skavau.

Most of what you've been saying in this thread is largely for trying to prove that Hell is immoral, right?
And by talking about objectively analysing whether the punisment fits the crime you also bring up the objective morality issue.

But what is your "objective" moral code really based upon?
Atheism in fact has no standard whereas the Qur'an with the Sunna has given people clear guidelines which we are all to follow and the morality found in these two doesn't change. That is not the case though with your morality.

Your morality is either based on social pressure or as some atheists like to argue "objective morality comes from evolution".

When we get our morality solely from society we first face a problem of its changing nature. Just as society changes the morality derived from it changes with it. And that is exactly the case with you. I've noticed you're quite supportive of homosexualism in several of your statements but may I argue that had you lived some 50 years ago you would most likely be against it.
You also said you respond to what you find dangerous. But in fact basing your morality on society is rather dangerous as social pressure itself is very dangerous. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the 1940-s social agreement in Nazi germany upon killing the Jews. People there also found it to be morally okay but was it really? Of course not... but we can only say it to be objectively morally wrong when we base our claim on God. All other than that makes it subjective as whatever human minds produce themselves in the field of morality is utterly subjective.

Just like with society the problem with claiming that morality just developed from evolution is that evolution according evolutionists is an everlasting process thus it cannot be an objective basis of morality.

So those two (morality from evolution and from social pressure) of course cannot be valid sources of morality. Why?
Mostly because both of their changing nature and objective morality cannot be something that changes.


And that leaves us with the only source of objective morality that transcends the human subjectivity and that is God.

If you believe there to be any other sources of morality apart from these three (2 false and 1 true), please do bring them up in your next reply... :)
Reply

Italianguy
01-18-2010, 06:09 AM
If these atheists are basing moral subjectivity on evelution thats their opinion. But if they had morals they would show some respect(morality) and say thank you to Skye for all the time she has taken to educate them on her and or others beliefs:hmm:

Where is their morals?

So I will do it for them

Thank you Skye, for being a devout believer and taking the time out of your life to try to inform and or educate these people about Islam and your own beliefs.:D

And a heartfelt thank you from me as well. You have been instrumental in helping me gain knowledge and educating me in what a Muslim believes.

God be with you.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 06:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Italianguy
If these atheists are basing moral subjectivity on evelution thats their opinion. But if they had morals they would show some respect(morality) and say thank you to Skye for all the time she has taken to educate them on her and or others beliefs:hmm:

Where is their morals?

So I will do it for them

Thank you Skye, for being a devout believer and taking the time out of your life to try to inform and or educate these people about Islam and your own beliefs.:D

And a heartfelt thank you from me as well. You have been instrumental in helping me gain knowledge and educating me in what a Muslim believes.

God be with you.
Greetings,

Thank you..
I don't think many people share your sentiment when it comes to me, and I am not sure I am a devout believer.. what it important is how Allah swt views me and I don't think I am a good person at all, I have much to learn...


peace
Reply

Italianguy
01-18-2010, 06:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Greetings,

Thank you..
I don't think many people share your sentiment when it comes to me, and I am not sure I am a devout believer.. what it important is how Allah swt views me and I don't think I am a good person at all, I have much to learn...


peace
Well let me assure you Skye, you have shown me by all the research you do and well written and thought out reply's, that you do know what you are taliking about:D I am sure i could say that your fellow brothers and sisters have gained a great deal of knowledge from you and will continue to do so everyday. And that they do appreciate all that you do. I know I do. And those whom may not be believers at all can benifit a great deal from your knowledge of Islam.

God bless.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
01-18-2010, 07:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Hello All.

I propose that one of the greatest problems in Islam is the concept of Hell. It appears that non Muslims all go to Hell for their disbelief and/or shirk. So the problem I see is that it is not evident that Islam is 'true'. I mean one can look at a well written essay or some scientific principle like 'smoking is bad for your health' and clearly see why the arguments/evidence presented entails the conclusion. But with Islam you can't really do that. You can't read the Quran and construct an argument detailing what set of inferences will lead to the proof that islam is true.

I know that Islam and all religions are religions so to believe in a religion is to have faith. By this line of thought some would say faith is the most important thing and one should not even expect any sort of evidence. I do find this respectable but my problem is: if there is no real evidence for the truth of Islam, and if it is a matter of faith and personal choice, then for what reason would an atheist or disbeliever go to hell? Because they didn't make the personal choice to believe in Islam? Do people go to Hell if they like vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream?
it wouldn't be called 'belief' if we didn't apply it to the matters of the unseen, would it now :peace: that the whole point of belief you are using it to rely on believing unseen things.

Allah has specified what qualifies for heaven and hell. he tells us that some Muslims may also enter hell and the only thing that will save them from abiding eternally in hell will be their belief of tawheed. he's given the criteria of hell and heaven, so you cant blame anyone but yourselves for rejecting it. why dont you question why people get paradise as paradise is the opposite of Hell: reward. people get rewarded for abiding by the law, and likewise, people get punished for going against.

it makes sense to punish people for being "godless" as the whole purpose of our creation is to worship god so what do you think the fate of someone will be if they go against this. likewise, the whole purpose of going to school is to learn so what will happen if we get bad grades? we are going to have trouble getting to the uni's we want and getting a good job. cause and effect.


and what about the people/muslims who do sincerely work and who have sincerely earned paradise. isnt is unfair to them that they enter heaven after working so hard for it, and yet someone who doesnt work for paradise gets in, free ticket. does that make sense to you?
Reply

greenshirt
01-18-2010, 08:57 AM
skavau - you're a smart and sincere guy. i look forward to reading more from you and getting some insight into your beliefs.

it's time for me to go to work while everyone else i work with gets off for the holiday.. to make it worse, it is 3:55am! but ill try to respond to you later. i look forward to talking to you and seeing what you have to say. :)
Reply

aamirsaab
01-18-2010, 09:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
...
This does nothign to solve the problem. Maybe you can summarize what part of his talk makes Hell any less unjust? or perhaps you can point me to the specific part of the videos where I can find the answer. It seems from part 1 and part 2 he is just reiterating my OP.
The crux of his video was just because you think something is just or unjust does not make it so (he covers this with Slobodan milosevic example). For critics to sit back and say ''oh it's so unjust that xyz burns in hell just because they chose not to believe in Allah'' is therefore a flawed statement. You are expecting God's judgement to exactly parallel human judgement. You are basing God's decision on the mind-set of a human being which means you are ignoring the qualities of God completely. Then you wonder why does this not make any sense.
Reply

Uthman
01-18-2010, 01:21 PM
Greetings Lynx,

Thanks for your reply. :)
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Uthman: The 'miracle of the quran' seems entirely subjective. I don't think one can say the stylstic merits of the Quran are 'objective'. I have read much of the Quran (if not all of it) and although it is a pleasant read, I do not see anything divine about it. The problem with the Quran's challenge to produce a chapter like one of the chapters of the quran is that you would be hardpressed to find an unbiased judge and even if you did, there would be a matter of ad populum fallacy.
Also, your whether muhammad was a madman/liar/ argument can be used for any religious figure.
Before I consider responding to your points, I would like to know with what frame of mind you are approaching this discussion. It is clear that you have a view about this already which is fine and to be expected. But are you open to the possibility that this view may change? Are you willing to objectively consider what I have to say about this topic with an open mind? If so, I will be happy to respond to your points. :)

For my part, I can say with absolute certainty that I am willing to consider everything you say with an open mind and if that means having to concede some points along the way, then so be it.

Regards
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 03:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamar
Your definitions of 'anti-' is faulty, and your views on what others intend with their 'anti' are equally so, no one has any delusions that opposing anything will bring about an eradication. You don't get to modify the terms to suit your fancy!
Huh?

My anti-theism, as I call it means this. The position that it would be rather bad if one of the renditions of the traditional theistic Gods existed. You would do well to note that this position holds no opposition to what people think and also note that I am not an anti-deist, or anti-pantheist.

My position is very fallible (I am only human, and not the most knowledgeable) God's doctrine however isn't and isn't subject to your criticisms as you are equally fallible for you are equally human! The law isn't there to satisfy everyone, but we can take comfort in knowing it is dispensed by the most just!
There we are, you contend and profess trust in something that you consider infallible. Now, what is the difference between contending your view on say Islam is infallible and believing in something that you profess to be infallible?

The end result appears to be the exact same: the inability to change, and refusal to change (and often pride in stagnation) with new information, or new ideals.

Irrespectively, I'd be interested to know how you know or how you understand God to be "most just". What characteristics do you think being 'just' has to include?

indeed and they were also all atheists, so draw your own conclusions, if you are desiring of that route!
You selectively referenced a lot of murderers that are atheist. I could just as well do the same with theists.

I believe that to be a subjective find.. how do you measure emotions? and if you possess them, then surely others do too.. or is that only mod amongst atheists?
People who do not possess empathy are considered to have behavioural problems and are generally referred t as psychopath. It has played a pretty important part in our development of being morally aware.

And there is no behavioural consistency with atheists. Atheists are not a group.

Man-made constitutions aren't.. God mandated constitution is. As new situations arise we have ijtihad from scholars which is rooted in the fundamental principles ..
Okay, now you specify you were refering to 'God's constitution'.

I don't know why you're so obtuse.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 03:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yusuf
Most of what you've been saying in this thread is largely for trying to prove that Hell is immoral, right?
Hello.

I don't try to 'prove' anything, only give out my perspective. I am more interested in getting people to try and reach out on common ground.

And by talking about objectively analysing whether the punisment fits the crime you also bring up the objective morality issue.
Yes. I don't believe objective morality is coherent, much less possible or plausible.

But what is your "objective" moral code really based upon?
Atheism in fact has no standard whereas the Qur'an with the Sunna has given people clear guidelines which we are all to follow and the morality found in these two doesn't change. That is not the case though with your morality.
Atheism has no 'standard' for morality, for it is not meant as a moral world view or moral philosophy. Atheism only refers to people who do not believe in the existence of a God(s). Islam however is a specific world view that makes claims on what is as well as what ought.

And on your note concerning the 'clear guidelines' in the Qu'ran - it goes on to further a statement earlier: that people on here are often prideful in stagnation. Often prefer the position of believing in ideas that remain 'absolute' and 'unchangeing'. To actually respond to it though - I don't believe you could call something moral if you remove the possibility for change and compromise. Morality is a societal affair and has everything to do with compromise between groups of people.

What you are talking about appears to be obedience to a fixed set of orders.

Your morality is either based on social pressure or as some atheists like to argue "objective morality comes from evolution".
I don't argue either. But social pressure plays a role in villifying oddities, eccentrics and that has a byproduct of creating taboos (which have very real ethical problems).

When we get our morality solely from society we first face a problem of its changing nature. Just as society changes the morality derived from it changes with it. And that is exactly the case with you. I've noticed you're quite supportive of homosexualism in several of your statements but may I argue that had you lived some 50 years ago you would most likely be against it.
I am not 'supportive' of homosexuality anymore than I am supportive of people listening to rap music. I don't like nor wish to engage in either but I would not wish their rights to do so be taken away at my disgust, or offense.

And yes, the societal taboos against homosexuality 50 years ago were more reinforced then (due to the fact religious opinion had more of a sway then).

You also said you respond to what you find dangerous. But in fact basing your morality on society is rather dangerous as social pressure itself is very dangerous. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the 1940-s social agreement in Nazi germany upon killing the Jews. People there also found it to be morally okay but was it really?
I don't base my morality on society. As you may know, several countries in europe (and supported by a large percentage of people) are proposing that the niqaab be outlawed in public for varying reasons (most focusing on bogus nationalistic or security reasons). I disagree with that profusely as an assault on personal liberty.

I also disagree with much of the justice system here, and how it behaves as well as the uniformity of anti-intellectualism that the politics here produces.

And no, it wasn't in the slightest bit okay (Nazi Germany).

Of course not... but we can only say it to be objectively morally wrong when we base our claim on God. All other than that makes it subjective as whatever human minds produce themselves in the field of morality is utterly subjective.
Actually you can't.

How does 'objective morality' work? How does a God existing mean that a behavioural standard somehow becomes 'objective'? And if indeed, God does exist and decrees all of morality - then what does the purpose of morality become?

If you believe there to be any other sources of morality apart from these three (2 false and 1 true), please do bring them up in your next reply...
Empathy is the closest thing that we have to 'objective' morality. Concerning ethics, the closest thing to 'objective' we have is the concept of human rights. The first set of principles that are established (sadly hardly enforced) for the individual. For the person. Historically grandiose states have arisen, declared objectives of expansionism and decreed the population as subservient and tools to that end as a part of that. This has all too many times involved the complete eradication of the individual in the process. What purpose does it have for the doomed slave or prisoner to know his state will live on and conquer others? He won't see it. He won't be a part of it.

This is what human rights finally addressed: the security and prosperity of the individual as important that so many fascist, totalitarian and theocratic states historically have ignored and continue to ignore because they believe their 'divine' plans are more important.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Italianguy
If these atheists are basing moral subjectivity on evelution thats their opinion. But if they had morals they would show some respect(morality) and say thank you to Skye for all the time she has taken to educate them on her and or others beliefs:hmm:
Excuse me sir, I don't know you and you don't know me.

I don't believe it is fair for you to tell me I have no morality when you have never met me or chatted to me extensively on here. And this indeed is not the first time that I have seen you say this about atheists either.

I have already said I do my utmost to remain civil and friendly.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 03:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm ul-Shaheed
it wouldn't be called 'belief' if we didn't apply it to the matters of the unseen, would it now :peace: that the whole point of belief you are using it to rely on believing unseen things.
Okay.

This can only be describe as contending there is virtue in faith, which I do thoroughly dispute - but this is not the thread.

Allah has specified what qualifies for heaven and hell. he tells us that some Muslims may also enter hell and the only thing that will save them from abiding eternally in hell will be their belief of tawheed. he's given the criteria of hell and heaven, so you cant blame anyone but yourselves for rejecting it.
Whilst you are a newcomer to this thread, I hate repeating myself.

Lynx himself gave a fantastic example to this. What if I posted a message under your door saying that you must convert to Christianity under pain of eternal torture. What would you do? Would it be convincing to you? Keep in mind here that I am not a Muslim because I am not convinced by the claims that the Qu'ran is true. I genuinely don't believe a heaven or hell as described by the Qu'ran actually exist. I cannot change this position without first being convinced (this is why also that punishing apostates makes no sense). I can only be dishonest and pretend that I accept Islam.

Now how is that fair? Are you saying it is acceptable for me to go to hell and languish in eternal torture purely for not being correct, for having the wrong information?

Here's another analogy: Let us say a blind man walks out into a busy street and gets knocked over by a car. Did he 'deserve' to suffer that because he was not aware?

why dont you question why people get paradise as paradise is the opposite of Hell: reward. people get rewarded for abiding by the law, and likewise, people get punished for going against.
Because 'paradise' is entirely consistent with God being declared as omnibenevolent. Hell is not.

it makes sense to punish people for being "godless" as the whole purpose of our creation is to worship god so what do you think the fate of someone will be if they go against this.
Interesting.

That doesn't sound like a moral purpose, just one born of obedience.

likewise, the whole purpose of going to school is to learn so what will happen if we get bad grades? we are going to have trouble getting to the uni's we want and getting a good job. cause and effect.
What teachers propose torture to their failed students? What educational establishment do you know that will torment children for their entire life if they fail or mess around in school?

Ridiculous comparison.

and what about the people/muslims who do sincerely work and who have sincerely earned paradise. isnt is unfair to them that they enter heaven after working so hard for it, and yet someone who doesnt work for paradise gets in, free ticket. does that make sense to you?
If you've ever read any of my arguments you'll know that none of it rests on desiring heaven, or expecting heaven. It is about the idea that people are 'deserving' of hell (torture) based on something that they could not, or were unable to believe.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 03:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by greenshirt
skavau - you're a smart and sincere guy. i look forward to reading more from you and getting some insight into your beliefs.

it's time for me to go to work while everyone else i work with gets off for the holiday.. to make it worse, it is 3:55am! but ill try to respond to you later. i look forward to talking to you and seeing what you have to say. :)
Okay. Thank you.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 03:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The crux of his video was just because you think something is just or unjust does not make it so (he covers this with Slobodan milosevic example). For critics to sit back and say ''oh it's so unjust that xyz burns in hell just because they chose not to believe in Allah'' is therefore a flawed statement. You are expecting God's judgement to exactly parallel human judgement. You are basing God's decision on the mind-set of a human being which means you are ignoring the qualities of God completely. Then you wonder why does this not make any sense.
I have not watched the videos, but this crux appears to be identical to just saying: "We can't understand God's wisdom - so just deal with it."

It's a non-answer.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 04:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Huh?

My anti-theism, as I call it means this. The position that it would be rather bad if one of the renditions of the traditional theistic Gods existed. You would do well to note that this position holds no opposition to what people think and also note that I am not an anti-deist, or anti-pantheist.
You don't have to explain your bigotry to me nor water it down, just duly noted the next time you want to advocate for some degenerate groups rights with bravado!

There we are, you contend and profess trust in something that you consider infallible. Now, what is the difference between contending your view on say Islam is infallible and believing in something that you profess to be infallible?
The difference I have already illustrated, can you have a perfectly good egg and ruin it with your cooking? try some abstract thought.. I am not the most learned person in Islamic tawheed, fiqh, jurisprudence, etc.
and people like you, love to bank on ignorance to flaw the principles!

The end result appears to be the exact same: the inability to change, and refusal to change (and often pride in stagnation) with new information, or new ideals.
Is that not applicable to you as well?

Irrespectively, I'd be interested to know how you know or how you understand God to be "most just". What characteristics do you think being 'just' has to include?
really not difficult to ponder your creation and that of the world around you to note the one who created perfection and beauty shall also keep to justice and balance!



You selectively referenced a lot of murderers that are atheist. I could just as well do the same with theists.
Indeed but as I have already illustrated, that atheists have murdered more than all the religions combined, again, in case you want to go down the route 'damage to society' I don't think anyone can one-up the atheists.. they go home with the prize!


People who do not possess empathy are considered to have behavioural problems and are generally referred t as psychopath. It has played a pretty important part in our development of being morally aware.
What is your point? it is still subjective, how do I quantify that?

And there is no behavioural consistency with atheists. Atheists are not a group.
you share a thing that groups you!

Okay, now you specify you were refering to 'God's constitution'.
I think that should have been overtly obvious?
I don't know why you're so obtuse.
I don't know why you are so-------------

meh, let's leave it at that..


all the best!
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 04:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamar
You don't have to explain your bigotry to me nor water it down, just duly noted the next time you want to advocate for some degenerate groups rights with bravado!
What bigotry? How is anti-theism bigotry?

The difference I have already illustrated, can you have a perfectly good egg and ruin it with your cooking? try some abstract thought.. I am not the most learned person in Islamic tawheed, fiqh, jurisprudence, etc.
and people like you, love to bank on ignorance to flaw the principles!
That's not a decent analogy. First of all, the 'egg' isn't absolute, nor considered perfect.

In the context of this discussion, we're dealing with knowledge claims here. If you claim to fallibly believe that something is infallible - then the end result is no different to believing your understanding is infallible. In both instances, the person could not or would not question the integrity of the infallible part.

Is that not applicable to you as well?
You know simply deflecting criticisms I make against you, or something else is hardly a convincing or even mature argument.

really not difficult to ponder your creation and that of the world around you to note the one who created perfection and beauty shall also keep to justice and balance!
This is just a more elaborate rephrasal of your original claim. You've already told me that the creator is the most 'just'. I wonder how you determine what 'just' or 'justice' is.

Indeed but as I have already illustrated, that atheists have murdered more than all the religions combined, again, in case you want to go down the route 'damage to society' I don't think anyone can one-up the atheists.. they go home with the prize!
Do you understand the difference between motive and specific unrelated characteristics. For example, Joseph Stalin had a moustache and was the head of totalitarian state that murdered millions, or led to the death of millions.

Now, could we argue that moustaches were responsible for his actions? After all Lenin had one too.

What is your point? it is still subjective, how do I quantify that?
If you're going to insist I explain the full biology of empathy, I simply can't do that.

you share a thing that groups you!
Lol, right

So does that mean 'people who don't play golf' are a group? Or people who don't collect stamps all share the same hobby?

I think that should have been overtly obvious?
To you, because you don't engage on common ground.
Reply

aamirsaab
01-18-2010, 04:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I have not watched the videos, but this crux appears to be identical to just saying: "We can't understand God's wisdom - so just deal with it."

It's a non-answer.
Watch the video and take note of his examples. It's pretty clear: you cannot on the one hand accept God's reward of bounty (that does not parallel mankind's) and then reject His methodology on the basis it does not parallel mankind's.

It's essentially and apples vs oranges argument: If you accept for the sake of argument that paradise exists, then it is logical to accept for the sake of argument the basis of judgement of entering paradise. If you argue otherwise, then you are dealing with apples vs oranges. You can't have one without the other.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 04:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
What bigotry? How is anti-theism bigotry?
How is antisemitism bigotry?

That's not a decent analogy. First of all, the 'egg' isn't absolute, nor considered perfect.
But I have put the specificity of a perfect egg before proceeding!

In the context of this discussion, we're dealing with knowledge claims here. If you claim to fallibly believe that something is infallible - then the end result is no different to believing your understanding is infallible. In both instances, the person could not or would not question the integrity of the infallible part.
There is no claim when there is study!
given that you are unstudied in the matter (even far less than most members here from a Muslim background) you don't get to decide what is perfect and what isn't.


You know simply deflecting criticisms I make against you, or something else is hardly a convincing or even mature argument
I am not sure you are able to make a coherent argument let alone carry it out to an adult level!

This is just a more elaborate rephrasal of your original claim. You've already told me that the creator is the most 'just'. I wonder how you determine what 'just' or 'justice' is.
By the same mechanisms you determine human empathy!

Do you understand the difference between motive and specific unrelated characteristics. For example, Joseph Stalin had a moustache and was the head of totalitarian state that murdered millions, or led to the death of millions.
You mean like when Enver hoxha decided to implement the first atheistic state:

According to Hoxha, the surge in anti-religious activity began with the youth. The result of this "spontaneous, unprovoked movement" was the closing of all 2,169 churches and mosques in Albania. State atheism became official policy, and Albania was declared the world's first atheist state. Religiously-based town and city names were changed, as well as personal names. During this period religiously-based names were also made illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

How dare I, think of atheists as zealots who have done far more damage in the name of their faulty ideology!
Now, could we argue that moustaches were responsible for his actions? After all Lenin had one too.
See above, and again, try to bring your analogies to a level before branching off to maturity!

If you're going to insist I explain the full biology of empathy, I simply can't do that.
Perhaps then you can desist on asking how I know that God is just using that same token?



So does that mean 'people who don't play golf' are a group? Or people who don't collect stamps all share the same hobby?
Atheism is a religion all its own, only starting with a double negative, whereas most folks contend 'God did it, and they don't know how' you contend, there is no God, and don't offer a solid irrefutable evidence as to how.

To you, because you don't engage on common ground.
I don't have common grounds with atheists, you are correct!

all the best
Reply

Zico
01-18-2010, 04:49 PM
Take away God out of the equation (figure of speech) and everything crumbles that is to say whatever PhD you have you will not get exactly what we mean nor feel.

In addition in Islam we believe most of God's creation (if not all) must balance so in order to believe in Paradise, there must be an equivalent entity and that is Hell. And so on. If Paradise is eternal = Hell is eternal.

It's really as simple as that.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Watch the video and take note of his examples. It's pretty clear: you cannot on the one hand accept God's reward of bounty (that does not parallel mankind's) and then reject His methodology on the basis it does not parallel mankind's.

It's essentially and apples vs oranges argument: If you accept for the sake of argument that paradise exists, then it is logical to accept for the sake of argument the basis of judgement of entering paradise. If you argue otherwise, then you are dealing with apples vs oranges. You can't have one without the other.
Well as you well know I don't accept the existence of 'paradise'. So the idea of accepting one without the other does not apply to me.

And onto the point, the idea of a paradise is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolent attribute of God. Hell is not.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
How is antisemitism bigotry?
Anti-semitism is prejudice and/or hostility towards Jews, either 'racially' or culturally.

I am neither hostile nor prejudiced towards theists. And it is not what anti-theism means. Click here.

There is no claim when there is study!
given that you are unstudied in the matter (even far less than most members here from a Muslim background) you don't get to decide what is perfect and what isn't.
Huh?

I'm not deciding what is infallible on behalf of others.

By the same mechanisms you determine human empathy!
Huh?

You mean like when Enver hoxha decided to implement the first atheistic state:

According to Hoxha, the surge in anti-religious activity began with the youth. The result of this "spontaneous, unprovoked movement" was the closing of all 2,169 churches and mosques in Albania. State atheism became official policy, and Albania was declared the world's first atheist state. Religiously-based town and city names were changed, as well as personal names. During this period religiously-based names were also made illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

How dare I, think of atheists as zealots who have done far more damage in the name of their faulty ideology!
I know about Enver Hoxha and have no intention of defending his bigotry.

So tell me, why do you take Enver Hoxha as the example of all atheists on the planet when most atheists living on the planet now are secular humanists?

Perhaps then you can desist on asking how I know that God is just using that same token?
Huh??

I'm not talking about empathy when asking you about God. I'm asking you to explain what you mean when you say 'justice'.

Atheism is a religion all its own, only starting with a double negative, whereas most folks contend 'God did it, and they don't know how' you contend, there is no God, and don't offer a solid irrefutable evidence as to how.
You ignored my point.

By your logic, people who don't play chess are engaging in a hobby. By your logic people who don't play golf are a group because they share one specific thing.

And no, I don't claim there is no God. I don't believe a God exists.

Irrespectively, how is Atheism a religion? Please back this claim up.
Reply

aamirsaab
01-18-2010, 05:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Well as you well know I don't accept the existence of 'paradise'. So the idea of accepting one without the other does not apply to me.
As I said, for the sake of argument you would have to (and you do!). Otherwise we are bought back to being unable to argue about something you don't believe exists. So pick your fallacy.

And onto the point, the idea of a paradise is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolent attribute of God. Hell is not.
Again you are basing this on mankind's version of justice and neglecting God's but at the same time acknowledging God's reward which does not parallel that of mankind's.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 05:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Anti-semitism is prejudice and/or hostility towards Jews, either 'racially' or culturally.

I am neither hostile nor prejudiced towards theists. And it is not what anti-theism means. Click here.
As stated, I don't care for the definitions that atheist spin on terms to disencumber them from the obvious meaning. To be anti anything is to have a prejudice and hostility!


I know about Enver Hoxha and have no intention of defending his bigotry.

So tell me, why do you take Enver Hoxha as the example of all atheists on the planet when most atheists living on the planet now are secular humanists?
I thought he echoed a reality that is far better than stamps and mustaches as per previous, and in fact his bigotry was shared by other atheists who have done even far worse damage.. I am not the one who brought up how the concept of hell is damaging to society, I think you'd be far better concentrating your effort on damage to society that is less visceral than a place you don't believe in!


Huh??

I'm not talking about empathy when asking you about God. I'm asking you to explain what you mean when you say 'justice'.
And I have asked you to explain what you mean by empathy, and how I can quantify your meaning to something that is universally understood!


You ignored my point.

By your logic, people who don't play chess are engaging in a hobby. By your logic people who don't play golf are a group because they share one specific thing.
No, I see no resemblance between an organized group who have had a goal directed ideology from which millions suffered to some inane analogy about lack of hobbies!
And no, I don't claim there is no God. I don't believe a God exists.
Ok

Irrespectively, how is Atheism a religion? Please back this claim up.
It is an institution that expressed a belief, a belief that God doesn't exist..(I should rather call it a cult though given your number and your intentions)

all the best
Reply

Zico
01-18-2010, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Anti-semitism is prejudice and/or hostility towards Jews, Arabs either 'racially' or culturally.
That's what the west wants to understand it as but...

Semitic =of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic.

Don't forget that!

format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Irrespectively, how is Atheism a religion? Please back this claim up.
You clicky Here
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 05:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
As I said, for the sake of argument you would have to (and you do!). Otherwise we are bought back to being unable to argue about something you don't believe exists. So pick your fallacy.
Okay, I'll point out the problems with the analysis. The issues with contempt with hell are not to do with a problem with judgment, or actually anything whatsoever to do with paradise - but for things that I have mentioned before, such as moral issues (punishment for what you think and torture for eternity).

Those are the very things that non-believers struggle with in accepting hell. I know you dispute the 'thought-crime' aspect but many Muslims on this forum like to state that indeed, your thoughts will determine your fate in the afterlife and determine whether you get a punishment or a reward.

If Islam was true, I would never insist to Allah to send me to heaven - rather I would protest hell based on the things above.

Again you are basing this on mankind's version of justice and neglecting God's but at the same time acknowledging God's reward which does not parallel that of mankind's.
Pointing out some supposed hypocrisy in people who criticise it does not justify eternal torture for what many consider for what you think.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 05:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
As stated, I don't care for the definitions that atheist spin on terms to disencumber them from the obvious meaning. To be anti anything is to have a prejudice and hostility!
Lol

Okay, so you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what the meaning of 'anti-theism' actually is. That's fine, but don't say I didn't predict this.

Irrespectively, I am also anti-murder, anti-fascism, anti-totalitarianism etc.

So am I prejudiced there too?

I thought he echoed a reality that is far better than stamps and mustaches as per previous, and in fact his bigotry was shared by other atheists who have done even far worse damage.. I am not the one who brought up how the concept of hell is damaging to society, I think you'd be far better concentrating your effort on damage to society that is less visceral than a place you don't believe in!
So okay, you can't defend how he is supposed to be representative of secular humanist atheists.

No, I see no resemblance between an organized group who have had a goal directed ideology from which millions suffered to some inane analogy about lack of hobbies!
Atheism is not an organised group.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god(s). You can get republican atheists, democrat atheists, libertarian atheists, anti-theistic atheists, humanist atheists, communist atheists. It is not organised.

It is an institution that expressed a belief, a belief that God doesn't exist..(I should rather call it a cult though given your number and your intentions)
What part of me saying "I don't contend that God does not exist" did you not understand? You even just acknowledged me saying it!

I do not make the positive claim that God does not exist. You obviously have no idea whatsoever atheism actually is.

And excuse me, my intentions? What are my intentions?
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 05:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zico
You clicky Here
The BBC is wrong. It categorises atheism there for efficiency reasons.
Reply

Yusuf Saeed
01-18-2010, 05:34 PM
Hello!

It's good you're still here giving replies to all of us after having been lavished with so many islamic responses. After all we should all try to agree to disagree. :)


Originally Posted by Skavau
What you are talking about appears to be obedience to a fixed set of orders.
I don't at all deny trying to be obedient to a fixed set of orders or rules.

But although there is no change in these rules themselves there is some minor development related to them. For example new fatwas are issued when some new problems emerge that didn't exist say 50 years ago. More than that, when one looks back in history at the development of the Islamic world compared to that of the Western world the difference is obvious and it's a fact that Muslim lands developed faster and were far better place to live in than Europe. Also, Muslims are not against the development of technology etc. So even though we want to follow the rules given to us the way they were initially it's not really correct to blame people following Islam in stagnation.

But when it comes to moral issues then I must totally disagree with you about morality being a subject of change. I'll explain it again with the Nazi Germany example where there in fact was a moral agreement in the society on killing the Jews. Now most of the world finds the killings of these 6 million Jews wrong. So based on your claim that morality is something that changes we should be able to say it was at that time alright to kill these 6 million of Jews whereas now it would be not. But that does not make sense because morality in real cannot change. At least objective morality cannot.


I also must strongly disagree with your following statement:
Morality is a societal affair and has everything to do with compromise between groups of people.
Let's take two societies, A and B. In society A 100% of the people have agreed upon that whosoever wishes may rape and kill young girls and boys whereas in society B 100% of the people have a shared opinion that such an act is wrong and thus have forbidden it.

Now based on your previous claim both of these societies are living according to morality. But would that be the reality? Obviously not.
But to say that the society A is objectively morally wrong we need to have some standard that the atheists lack. We have God as our standard and can thereby objectively say that society A is living in a very wrong way.

I don't base my morality on society.
What is your morality then based on?



You say that empathy is the closest thing we have to objective morality. I must argue that it is the opposite, empathy is rather subjective. Empathy is mostly based on people's feelings and emotions which differ a lot. You can have for example a group of people who empathize with a little raped boy and you can just as well have another group of people who do not empathize with that same boy and would perhaps even want to commit that act of rape themselves. We can't deny that there are many people living in this world with such horrible desires.

How does 'objective morality' work? How does a God existing mean that a behavioural standard somehow becomes 'objective'? And if indeed, God does exist and decrees all of morality - then what does the purpose of morality become?
Morality is objective only when it is based on God because God is the only source we have that transcends the human subjectivity and because whatever humans come up with themselves and claim it to be moral or not is completely subjective and has no basis. As God does exist, one purpose of morality would obviously to support a healthy survival of human societies as with no morals everyone would behave just like animals. Another purpose of morality is probably to test people in whether they will follow moral rules given to them or not (roughly whether they'll be good or not). But for completely understanding the objective morality I think it all comes down to understanding the concept of God and believing in it.

That is why I'd like to ask you that what's your idea about how this whole Universe came to existence and if you believe in any supreme power that may have played some role in the beginning of all this?

Take care!
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Lol

Okay, so you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what the meaning of 'anti-theism' actually is. That's fine, but don't say I didn't predict this.
Do atheists have psychic powers? I am not sticking my fingers in my ears, I am just letting you know that putting a spin on terms doesn't change meaning!

Irrespectively, I am also anti-murder, anti-fascism, anti-totalitarianism etc.
indeed
So am I prejudiced there too?
against said things yes!

So okay, you can't defend how he is supposed to be representative of secular humanist atheists.
What does that mean? we have had a couple of 'humanists' here, they were disgusting at best!
does anyone remember our dearly departed 'Zoro' the 'physicist' who was trying to split the zero in his famous book err pamphlet.. He spewed some of the most heinous crap I had encountered.. I don't know what a 'humanist' means in your book, but 'humanists' such as 'zoro' or dawkin et. al. are an abomination, if that is your claim to empathy, then I pity you!

Atheism is not an organised group.
they can and have been:


An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god(s). You can get republican atheists, democrat atheists, libertarian atheists, anti-theistic atheists, humanist atheists, communist atheists. It is not organised.
see above
What part of me saying "I don't contend that God does not exist" did you not understand? You even just acknowledged me saying it!

I do not make the positive claim that God does not exist. You obviously have no idea whatsoever atheism actually is.
Semantics!
Why are you so defensive, we don't like tantrums on this forum!
And excuse me, my intentions? What are my intentions?
you tell us, unlike you, I am not psychic!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 05:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yusuf
It's good you're still here giving replies to all of us after having been lavished with so many islamic responses. After all we should all try to agree to disagree.
I churn on.

I don't at all deny trying to be obedient to a fixed set of orders or rules.
Okay

But when it comes to moral issues then I must totally disagree with you about morality being a subject of change. I'll explain it again with the Nazi Germany example where there in fact was a moral agreement in the society on killing the Jews.
Yes there was (to those who knew, although not completely universal as you might imply). They were wrong.

Now most of the world finds the killings of these 6 million Jews wrong. So based on your claim that morality is something that changes we should be able to say it was at that time alright to kill these 6 million of Jews whereas now it would be not. But that does not make sense because morality in real cannot change. At least objective morality cannot.
Why would I say it was right 'at that time'?

Let's take two societies, A and B. In society A 100% of the people have agreed upon that whosoever wishes may rape and kill young girls and boys whereas in society B 100% of the people have a shared opinion that such an act is wrong and thus have forbidden it.
In Society A if everyone has agreed, then everything is consensual and rape cannot happen. All murders would then also become assisted suicides.

Now based on your previous claim both of these societies are living according to morality. But would that be the reality? Obviously not.
No it isn't, and that wasn't my claim. I am talking about how morality is devised, not what I contend is an ought or ought not. If morality is not evolved within communities and for communities, then it isn't morality.

But to say that the society A is objectively morally wrong we need to have some standard that the atheists lack. We have God as our standard and can thereby objectively say that society A is living in a very wrong way.
How is God a 'standard'? What does that mean?

You say that empathy is the closest thing we have to objective morality. I must argue that it is the opposite, empathy is rather subjective. Empathy is mostly based on people's feelings and emotions which differ a lot. You can have for example a group of people who empathize with a little raped boy and you can just as well have another group of people who do not empathize with that same boy and would perhaps even want to commit that act of rape themselves. We can't deny that there are many people living in this world with such horrible desires.
Empathy is based on being able to understand others problems, concerns and issues in life. It is directly involved with emotionally understanding the pain of others and feeling their emotions as a result of that.

Morality is objective only when it is based on God because God is the only source we have that transcends the human subjectivity and because whatever humans come up with themselves and claim it to be moral or not is completely subjective and has no basis.
I'm sorry, I don't know what the term "transcends the human subjectivity" means.

Do you even know what morality means? I get the impression you really don't based on your analysis. Morality and more specifically ethical systems all concern themselves with what people ought and ought not do within a community of other people. It has nothing to do with an is claim (which is what you're leaning towards here).

Here's perhaps a more prudent question: Is something good because God decrees it so, or does God decree it so because it is good? You cannot claim both.

As God does exist, one purpose of morality would obviously to support a healthy survival of human societies as with no morals everyone would behave just like animals. Another purpose of morality is probably to test people in whether they will follow moral rules given to them or not (roughly whether they'll be good or not).
So a test between obedience and disobedience?

That is why I'd like to ask you that what's your idea about how this whole Universe came to existence and if you believe in any supreme power that may have played some role in the beginning of all this?
Uh, not this thread.

I'm currently arguing against the moral necessity of hell, defending anti-theism, defending my moral basis, and just about everything else in between.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 05:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
Do atheists have psychic powers? I am not sticking my fingers in my ears, I am just letting you know that putting a spin on terms doesn't change meaning!
You haven't even demonstrated that you ever knew the meaning of 'anti-theism', much less me putting a spin on anything.

against said things yes!
So apparently being prejudiced means being against something according to you?

What does that mean? we have had a couple of 'humanists' here, they were disgusting at best!
does anyone remember our dearly departed 'Zoro' the 'physicist' who was trying to split the zero in his famous book err pamphlet.. He spewed some of the most heinous crap I had encountered.. I don't know what a 'humanist' means in your book, but 'humanists' such as 'zoro' or dawkin et. al. are an abomination, if that is your claim to empathy, then I pity you!
I consider myself a humanist as well, by the way.

I have no idea who Zoro is.

they can and have been:
Yes, there are groups of atheists that organise themselves against theism or religion. Their motives are anti-theistic not atheistic. I am not part of any 'group' of atheists.

So does that according to you make me not an atheist?

Semantics!
Why are you so defensive, we don't like tantrums on this forum!
It is not semantics. (And LOL the irony of tantrums considering some of your outbursts against me)

To claim that God does not exist is to make a positive claim. I do not make that claim. I simply disbelieve in the existence of a god(s). I don't claim to have evidence for no God, so I don't make the claim that no God exists.

you tell us, unlike you, I am not psychic!
No, you just hinted towards me that you knew my intentions.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
You haven't even demonstrated that you ever knew the meaning of 'anti-theism', much less me putting a spin on anything.
It really isn't that deep, pretty self-explanatory!

So apparently being prejudiced means being against something according to you?
it might not necessarily be a bad thing (from another' perspective) it depends on the connotations others apply to it.. being an anti-homo can be conceived as a very bad thing, to you an anti-theist a good thing.. when you understand something in a particular fashion, doesn't mean that the whole agrees with your definition!

I consider myself a humanist as well, by the way.
This affects me how? I am anti-humanist as I am anti-atheist!

I have no idea who Zoro is.
That is OK, I have put his name down to jog people's memories!

Yes, there are groups of atheists that organise themselves against theism or religion. Their motives are anti-theistic not atheistic. I am not part of any 'group' of atheists.
Yet you are an 'anti-theist' per you having a similar motive to those other 'anti-theists'? just not a part of a group, only on your own private time?
So does that according to you make me not an atheist?
?

It is not semantics. (And LOL the irony of tantrums considering some of your outbursts against me)
I am writing this as I watch an episode of the golden girls and sipping on coconut chai .. how much emotions would you like me to invest..;D
To claim that God does not exist is to make a positive claim. I do not make that claim. I simply disbelieve in the existence of a god(s). I don't claim to have evidence for no God, so I don't make the claim that no God exists.
Well he either does or he doesn't, which is it? you can't spend a lifetime in vacillation.. you must graduate sometime!


No, you just hinted towards me that you knew my intentions.
And I'd rather learn them from you first hand.. surely you don't show up on a Muslim forum for random purposes?

all the best
Reply

aamirsaab
01-18-2010, 06:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Okay, I'll point out the problems with the analysis. The issues with contempt with hell are not to do with a problem with judgment, or actually anything whatsoever to do with paradise - but for things that I have mentioned before, such as moral issues (punishment for what you think and torture for eternity).
They are one and the the same thing. You have an issue over the concept of hell for those who merely disbelieve in God's existence, citing it being unjust and something that does not fit God's description. But at the same time you have no issue with heaven. You cannot have it both ways.

Pointing out some supposed hypocrisy in people who criticise it does not justify eternal torture for what many consider for what you think.
This is getting tiresome. You keep assuming God's justice parallels mankind - it doesn't. In other words, your particular criticism does not hold weight, logically speaking. It's akin to the age-old ''if god is so powerful can he make a rock he cannot lift'' argument.
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
It really isn't that deep, pretty self-explanatory!
So tell me then.

What does anti-theism mean?

it might not necessarily be a bad thing (from another' perspective) it depends on the connotations others apply to it.. being an anti-homo can be conceived as a very bad thing, to you an anti-theist a good thing.. when you understand something in a particular fashion, doesn't mean that the whole agrees with your definition!
Okay.

This affects me how? I am anti-humanist as I am anti-atheist!
So what does that mean to you? When you say you are anti-atheist, what do you mean specifically?

That is OK, I have put his name down to jog people's memories!
I've never met, or interacted with Zoro.

Yet you are an 'anti-theist' per you having a similar motive to those other 'anti-theists'? just not a part of a group, only on your own private time?
?

I am an anti-theist, yes. The anti-theists you reference are people who believe that religion and theism is detrimental to society. They take action based on that.

I don't. I had nothing to do with what they did.

Well he either does or he doesn't, which is it? you can't spend a lifetime in vacillation.. you must graduate sometime!
I don't know if God exists.

Not to blow your mind, but I didn't mention that I was an agnostic atheist, did I?
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 06:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
They are one and the the same thing. You have an issue over the concept of hell for those who merely disbelieve in God's existence, citing it being unjust and something that does not fit God's description. But at the same time you have no issue with heaven. You cannot have it both ways.
I have no issue with heaven because it is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolence of God. You have responded to this by stating that I am just projecting our understanding our 'justice' onto God. Well, of course I am - what else do I have to go by?

It is the same as someone torturing a child, and someone trying to intervene and convince the person to stop being met with "You're just telling me what you think!"

It is a response that merely points out the blindingly obvious and answers nothing.

This is getting tiresome. You keep assuming God's justice parallels mankind - it doesn't. In other words, your particular criticism does not hold weight, logically speaking. It's akin to the age-old ''if god is so powerful can he make a rock he cannot lift'' argument.
All your argument here involves is a passive request for atheists to suspend judgment on the basis of assuming that God, if God exists has some access to wisdom we don't.

It isn't a defense - it is an exemption clause.
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
So tell me then.

What does anti-theism mean?


Okay.
People who think or act in an anti-theistic manner!


So what does that mean to you? When you say you are anti-atheist, what do you mean specifically?
One who believes that atheism is dissolute and detrimental to the moral well-being of society!

I've never met, or interacted with Zoro.


?
So? I have already granted you respite and stated that said mention wasn't for you specifically but to jog other memories of his heinousness!

I am an anti-theist, yes. The anti-theists you reference are people who believe that religion and theism is detrimental to society. They take action based on that.
I was only working with the definitions you gave them and in turn your person!

I don't. I had nothing to do with what they did.
One doesn't have to act in a specific manner, one can also think and write in a specific manner, you've already linked yourself to them by definition!


I don't know if God exists.
OK

Not to blow your mind, but I didn't mention that I was an agnostic atheist, did I?
we have an 'agnostic' as a way of life if you wished to refine how other's perceive you!

all the best
Reply

Skavau
01-18-2010, 06:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamar
People who think or act in an anti-theistic manner!
What what does thinking or acting in an 'anti-theistic manner' involve?

One who believes that atheism is dissolute and detrimental to the moral well-being of society!
Okay.

And I would say that is not necessarily prejudiced.

One doesn't have to act in a specific manner, one can also think and write in a specific manner, you've already linked yourself to them by definition!
Sure, I'm linked to them in sharing some opinions.

So?

we have an 'agnostic' as a way of life if you wished to refine how other's perceive you!
Could I have both?
Reply

aamirsaab
01-18-2010, 06:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I have no issue with heaven because it is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolence of God. You have responded to this by stating that I am just projecting our understanding our 'justice' onto God. Well, of course I am - what else do I have to go by?
God has 99 known attributes - you constrain yourself to just one, which you then base solely on your own interpretation.

It is the same as someone torturing a child, and someone trying to intervene and convince the person to stop being met with "You're just telling me what you think!"

It is a response that merely points out the blindingly obvious and answers nothing.
That's because your point ignores the 99 known attributes of God thus making it a fallacy.

All your argument here involves is a passive request for atheists to suspend judgment on the basis of assuming that God, if God exists has some access to wisdom we don't.
Example of God: interest is forbidden
Example of mankind: interest is fantastic

There are significant differences here between the two. If you are unable to accept that (and apply them on a much grander scale), there can be no discussion.
Reply

Supreme
01-18-2010, 07:30 PM
Interesting picture Gossamer posted of the bus campaign. Interstingly enough, that campaign reportedly recieved funds of £100,000 within the first 24 hours of its announcement. Just goes to show how utterly sad some people are that they'd donate money to an atheist bus campaign as opposed to charity or something they can actually be proud of- you know, something worthwhile?
Reply

جوري
01-18-2010, 07:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Supreme
Interesting picture Gossamer posted of the bus campaign. Interstingly enough, that campaign reportedly recieved funds of £100,000 within the first 24 hours of its announcement. Just goes to show how utterly sad some people are that they'd donate money to an atheist bus campaign as opposed to charity or something they can actually be proud of- you know, something worthwhile?

agreed!
it is a loss to them.. I don't know how many folks care for advertisement on buses?

Reply

greenshirt
01-18-2010, 08:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Oh yes, indeed.

That is a byproduct of the 'absolute morality' crowd. The people who believe and thrive on a world view impervious to new information and change. They believe it an affront to concede, or change with any new information.
perhaps you are correct in this assumption. in islam, we perceive our religion and its laws as being perfect, and in no need of change.

this obviously contradicts your views, as a progressive atheist. most atheists are more than willing to accept change if it betters the society.. if it gives people more human rights, etc. and we have seen, especially in our generation, a lot of change.. we've had a growing acceptance for individuality, for civil rights, equality, etc. islam is not against all of these changes.. in fact, islam, during the time of the prophet(saws), changed the society of mecca and medina greatly through human rights. for example, it used to be very common for arabs to bury their children if they had a female. yet, one of the first qur'anic commands that muhammad(saws) recited condemned this terrible act.

our religion also stresses racial equality. and we have no strings attached to this fact either. judaism and christianty on the other hand have some controversy within their scriptures, in particularly where the torah mentions ham and canaan. though most do not see this as a racial thing anymore, back in the civil rights era many christians commonly quoted this story to promote their hate-filled philosophy.

islam also has the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and we have staunch guidelines to insure that the innocent are not wrongly punished. this is certainly something that many cultures and religions did not have, but islam brought forth change in many society's in this manner.

so the idea that we are not open to change is a bit silly, because islam, during the time of the prophet(saws) and centuries after, was at the forefront of bringing forth great changes and bettering the human rights.

now as i said, we perceive islam as being a perfect religion; the laws and morals that our religion commands are not in need of any change/evolution now, due to the fact that our religion is perfect.

this obviously differs from your view; you probably believe that we can still make great changes in the world to better society. i believe we can too, and we should... but these changes should ideally come from islam, and what has already been revealed and is being practiced by many.


Uh, no.

It is not a simple choice. First of all, non-muslims by definition do not believe Islam is true. They don't believe or cannot be convinced by the claims that Islam is true unless they are given convincing evidence that Islam is true. When you insert this into the dichtonomy, it becomes unfair of God to insist that people who have not been convinced by the information at hand to declare that they are deserving of any punishment, much less eternal anguish.

Indeed, it seems a strange situation where God allows people to not believe in him, knows that millions will not believe in him (for sincere, rational and honest reasons) and yet says that they are deserving of nothing less than eternal torture.
well this is all a matter of personal opinion and doesnt at all make islam a false religion.. which you haven't claimed.

the way i see it this... the world is a diverse place and everyone rightly has their own opinions and perceptions of things. you see this as being inhumane, but many others dont. i follow what my religion teaches me, because i believe my religion to be true and i believe that my all-knowing god has answers to these problems; and not humans, with our diverse viewpoints.

Is this the vague literary test that I've heard? You know, the find a better verse than something in the Qu'ran...
yes. it is mentioned several times in the qur'an. a lot of people find the test to be subjective, and a lot of people dont take it seriously. there are millions of arab christians who hear the qur'an being recited on a daily basis and still dont feel the need to convert to islam.. they may know about this challenge but it still doesnt convince them. however, our religion still gives them a challenge that they are more than welcome to attempt to fulfill. if they think they have fulfilled the requirements of the challenge, then they have nothing to worry about for themselves... because they will feel that islam isnt true since this challenge can be met. however, they have to see if their challenge beats the qur'an in the eyes of others.. something that just hasnt happened.
It is a simple answer.

But it is an appalling answer. You could say that "God makes the rules", but then you null morality into pure obedience. You take away everything about morality that makes it so important and negate it into the dismal following of orders. You set up a situation where it doesn't matter what God says, as long as God says it.

So by your reckoning, murder is not wrong because of the harmful effects it has on people - but it is wrong because God says so. If God, was by your logic to reverse his decision you would have no moral grounds to disagree. This is an extremely worrying world view that I have seen both Christians and Muslims hold, and indeed we have directly seen the harmful effects in society both historically and in the present that it has generated.

It brings a whole new meaning to the claim that "With God, all things are possible".
interesting response, and one that has substance to it. to answer you simply, yes, i follow the moral views of my religion because god says so. you may see this as being close minded, because instead of deriving a view based on my personal opinion, i derive a view based on what my god says. but, i believe that Allah(swt) knows best and that the laws and morals that islam holds are laws and morals based on logic and faith.

you also have to understand this..

you as an atheist probably see this world as a not-so-good place, but a place that can certainly be bettered and be ideal. you are open to change, so long as it betters the world.

as a muslim, i see this world as a not-so-good place either, and a place that can also be changed and better. but, i also know that this world is full of tests and trials, to prepare us for the next life.

by logic, some islamic morals may perhaps just not seem right. for example, the view of homosexuality. though most other people here won't agree with me, i'll go ahead and say it... i dont think anyone chooses their sexual orientation. i think if you have same-sex attractions, it's something that you didn't choose.

so, by logic, if you didn't choose to be gay, and if you wish to date another person of the same gender, and you guys are not hurting anyone and are consenting and feel the same love that a heterosexual married couple feels... then what is wrong with that? how can that in any way be wrong, immoral, sinful?

if i was an atheist, that is exactly how i would see this issue. i would have no reason whatsoever to think homosexuality is wrong, because by logic and reasoning it just doesn't make sense that it would be.

however, my religion calls it a sin. my fellow muslim brothers and sisters often (wrongly) harass these people. my religion even allows the death penalty for certain homosexual acts. how can this be?!

well, for me, the answer is simple.. this world is a test. we are all tested. the qur'an even says that a muslim should never think they won't be tested.. because we will.

some people are given harder tests than others. some people will genuinely live a very hard and sad life, while others live extremely happily and easy lives. but, this life is all a test. the next life is really what every muslim should look forward to. but, we have to go through these tests and trials, and try to pass them so that we can live a great life in jannah(heaven, paradise) in the next.

that's the way i see it. sure, there are some islamic morals(though not many) that by logic and personal reasoning i just don't see why it is like that. but, when i look from it at the standpoint that this life is a test, i understand now and accept it.. though it may be hard and not fun.

i am sure you disagree with me, and i would love to see what you have to say about this. that's how i feel on issues like this, but perhaps you have a much different perception that i just haven't contemplated before.. so i look forward to your response. :) thanks so much for your time
Reply

AabiruSabeel
01-18-2010, 08:55 PM
:sl:

I haven't gone through all the 70+ replies. I think the problem of eternal punishment can be simply explained by using the first Hadith of Sahih Bukhari, which says (in near meaning) Actions are judged by intentions.

A Muslim, who believes in Allah and His Messenger performs all his actions to please Allah and performs them in the way shown by the Messenger. So he gets rewarded for his actions and intentions. But if he does anything for the sake of others, (fame, show off, to please anyone other than Allah) he will not be rewarded for it, and depending on the severity of his wrong intentions, he might be punished.

Whereas a non-Muslim either performs all his actions:
1. For Worldy gain. Usually he gets the reward for it in this world itself, either by getting what he desired, or Allah removes a calamity from him, or whatever Allah chooses to grant him.
2. For his own pleasure. He gets the pleasure and no reward in the hereafter.
3. For the sake of someone/something other than Allah. Why should Allah reward him for something which he has not done for Him?

046.020
And on the Day that the Unbelievers will be placed before the Fire, (It will be said to them): "Ye received your good things in the life of the world, and ye took your pleasure out of them: but today shall ye be recompensed with a Penalty of humiliation: for that ye were arrogant on earth without just cause, and that ye (ever) transgressed."

Now why eternal punishment for non-Muslims?

A sinner Muslim, no matter how worse his sin is, intends to repent one day or the other. He believes he will be accounted for his sins and thinks (out of laziness) that he will be repenting one day before his death. So even if he dies without repenting, because he had the intention of repenting one day, he will be saved from the fire after serving his punishment and will be transferred to the Paradise.

A non-Muslim (who is not searching for truth) intends to live on disbelief as long as he lives. Even if he were to live for eternity in this world, he would live his life in disbelief. Based on this intention, his punishment for disbelief in the Hereafter is eternal.

As for non-Muslim who is still searching for truth and death overtakes him, I don't know what will happen of him.

Hope this clears the issue. This is all what I understood from listening to scholars. Correct me if anything is wrong.
Reply

Lynx
01-18-2010, 11:58 PM
Skye: Forget the formulas. I was asking you to show me a formula that proves Islam is true. I figured you posted that formula earlier an analogy trying to say that Islam is true if people study it. I don't want to argue about formulas any further because it's an awful example and now our discussion is being derailed. My objection (dropping formulas aside) is: can you objectively** show that Islam is the true religion? If yes, explain. If no, then tell me how it makes any sense to send a disbeliever to Hell if he has no reason in the first place to believe in God. People don't *choose* to believe things; they get convinced or they don't get convinced. If someone is asked to do something he is incapable of (i.e., believe in something that isn't convincing), then they should not be punished for not doing that thing. Since it appears to me you think people that fit description should be punished and that God will punish them, it follows that your God is unjust.

[quote] The crux of his video was just because you think something is just or unjust does not make it so (he covers this with Slobodan milosevic example). For critics to sit back and say ''oh it's so unjust that xyz burns in hell just because they chose not to believe in Allah'' is therefore a flawed statement. You are expecting God's judgement to exactly parallel human judgement. You are basing God's decision on the mind-set of a human being which means you are ignoring the qualities of God completely. Then you wonder why does this not make any sense. [quote]

You are making two errors. Your first error is that you are creating a question begging definition of 'unjust' such that no matter what objection anyone brings you can say the word is whatever God wants it to mean. I would think if the Quran made it a point to stress how Just god is ...then the justice humans feel must have some similarity with Gods justice...if not hten why would God even waste his time calling himself Just?

Your second mistake is misunderstanding my original post; I am asking/arguing why God would send someone to hell who is merely unable to believe in Islam because the so-called evidence presented is not satisfactory.




format_quote Originally Posted by Uthmān
Greetings Lynx,

Thanks for your reply. :) Before I consider responding to your points, I would like to know with what frame of mind you are approaching this discussion. It is clear that you have a view about this already which is fine and to be expected. But are you open to the possibility that this view may change? Are you willing to objectively consider what I have to say about this topic with an open mind? If so, I will be happy to respond to your points. :)

For my part, I can say with absolute certainty that I am willing to consider everything you say with an open mind and if that means having to concede some points along the way, then so be it.

Regards
I am more than willing to change my mind. I used to be a practicing Muslim but I am not so much anymore. I used to argue that Islam is the true religion etc. and thus I am familiar with most arguments for Islam's truth. I am not a stranger to Islam and I can say I have some knowledge on topic. My point is that I used to think the opposite of what I was arguing in my OP so I am more than willing to change my mind as I have done it before.
Reply

جوري
01-19-2010, 12:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Skye: Forget the formulas. I was asking you to show me a formula that proves Islam is true. I figured you posted that formula earlier an analogy trying to say that Islam is true if people study it. I don't want to argue about formulas any further because it's an awful example and now our discussion is being derailed. My objection (dropping formulas aside) is: can you objectively** show that Islam is the true religion? If yes, explain. If no, then tell me how it makes any sense to send a disbeliever to Hell if he has no reason in the first place to believe in God. People don't *choose* to believe things; they get convinced or they don't get convinced. If someone is asked to do something he is incapable of (i.e., believe in something that isn't convincing), then they should not be punished for not doing that thing. Since it appears to me you think people that fit description should be punished and that God will punish them, it follows that your God is unjust.
Islam goes with fitrah.

see here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...ic-claims.html

Naturally if people merely pondered and desired to know their God, they will, the same way the predecessors did..

The Definition of Fitrah
By Yasien Mohamed
Extracted with slight modifications from "Fitrah: The Islamic Concept of Human Nature" © 1996 TA-HA Publishers Ltd.
In attempting a definition of ‘fitrah’, I give an exposition of its linguistic and religious meaning. The religious understanding of fitrah is based on the positive interpretation of fitrah…
Suffice it to say that linguistic and positive religious explanations have one thing in common: both define fitrah as an inborn natural predisposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings. What makes our religious understanding positive is that it not only acknowledges fitrah as a natural predisposition, but also one which is inclined towards right action and submission to Allah, the One God.
After discussing the implications for human responsibility, I compare, for the benefit of Western readers, the Islamic concept of original goodness with the Christian concept of original sin. I argue that the doctrine of original sin, from an Islamic point of view, cannot be reconciled with the notion of Divine mercy nor the human responsibility. Since the doctrine of original sin features significantly in the Christian concept of human nature, and as Islam and Christianity are the world’s largest revealed religions, this aspect of their creeds presents an interesting contrast, well worth investigating.
1. The Linguistic Meaning of Fitrah
‘Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that are maimed (at birth)?’[1]
The word fitrah comes from the Arabic radicals fa ta ra, the verbal noun being fatrun. The root action means, he clove, split, slit, rent or cracked it. Note the usage of the first form fatarahu (He created it); that is, He caused it to exist, newly, for the first time. Thus fatiru’s-samâwât, the Originator or Creator of the heavens.[2]
The second form, fattara(hu) (verbal noun taftir), denotes repetition, muchness and frequency of the root action which means, as we saw, he clove, split, slit, rent or cracked it.[3] Futira (‘ala shay’) is equivalent to tubi‘a, which is the passive form of taba‘a (verbal noun tab‘un) he sealed, stamped, printed or impressed, being a synonym of khatama, he sealed. Ar-Râghib says that it means the impression of a thing with the engraving of the signet and stamp; thus taba‘a’llâhu ‘alâ qalbihî ‘Allâh sealed his heart’, that is the unbeliever’s heart. Similarly, khatama ‘alaihi, pertains to the natural constitution which denotes a quality of the soul; either by creation or habit, but more especially the creation.[4] Also, taba ‘a’llâhu ‘alâ amr – ‘Allâh created (him) with a disposition to the affair, state or condition’. Likewise, tubi‘a ‘ala shay’ ‘he was created with a disposition to a thing’ which is synonymous with jubila or futira.[5] Tab‘un – originally a verbal noun – signifies nature or an inborn disposition. Its synonyms are sajjiyah, jibillah, khalîqah, tabî‘ah and mizâj. These are names for innate natural disposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings.[6] Thus, fitrah, having the same meaning as tab‘un, linguistically means an inborn natural disposition.
The term fitrah literally means, creation; the causing a thing to exist for the first time; and the natural constitution with which a child is created in his mother’s womb. It is said that is the meaning in the Qur'an (30:29), and in the central, opening hadith.[7]
2. The Religious Meaning of Fitrah
In the context of the hadith, according to Abû Haytham, fitrah means to be born either prosperous or unprosperous [in relation to the soul]:
‘And if his parents are Jews, they make him a Jew, with respect to his worldly situation; [i.e. with respect to inheritance, etc.] and if Christians, they make him a Christian, with respect to that situation; and if Magians, they make him a Magian, with respect to that situation; his situation is the same as that of his parents until his tongue speaks for him; but if he dies before his attaining to the age when sexual maturity begins to show itself, he dies in a state of conformity to his preceding natural constitution, with which he was created in his mother’s womb.’[8]
Fitrah is also associated with Islam and being born as a Muslim. This is when fitrah is viewed in respect to Shahadah – that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah – which makes a person a Muslim. Fitrah, in this sense, is the faculty, which He has created in mankind, of knowing Allah. It is the natural constitution with which the child is created in his mother’s womb, whereby he is capable of accepting the religion of truth.[9] That fitrah refers to religion is further shown in a tradition in which it is related that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, taught a man to repeat certain words when lying down to sleep, and said: ‘Then if you die that same night, you die upon the fitrah (in the true dîn).’ Also by the saying: ‘The paring of the nails is of the fitrah (i.e. of the dîn).’[10]
This meaning is affirmed by sûrah 30 âyah 30:
‘Set your face to the dîn in sincerity (hanîfan) which is Allah's fitrah (the nature made by Allah) upon which He created mankind (fatâra’n-nâs). There is no changing the creation of Allah. That is the right dîn but most people know not.’
Apparently Abû Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, cited this verse after the central hadith which means that, in his view, the fitrah of the hadith is the same fitrah in the ayah. The ayah refers to the fitrah as good because the right religion is being described as Allah's fitrah. Thus according to Abû Hurairah, fitrah is associated with the dîn of Islam.[11]
Since Allah's fitrah is engraved upon the human soul, mankind is born in a state in which tawhîd is integral. Since tawhîd is intrinsic to man’s fitrah, the prophets, peace be upon them, came to remind man of it, and to guide him to that which is integral to his original nature. The ayah describes a fitrah of primordial faith which Allah Himself implanted in human nature. It implies Islam's essential message of submission to the will of Allah as taught as practised by the prophets.
The Laws or the sharî‘ahs, which the prophets were sent with, are guiding lights to the essential faith in Allah which is created in every human being. Furthermore, since this faith comes from Allah, it naturally follows that only laws capable of guiding man back to it must also come from Allah, hence Islam is also called dîn al-fitrah, the religion of human nature.
That every child is born in this pure state of fitrah is also supported by the following hadith concerning the polytheists:
‘It is related that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said that he saw in a vision an old man at the front of a large tree and around him were children and in the vision he was told that the old man was Ibrihim and that the children who were around him were the children who, before attaining the age of discretion, had died. At this, some Muslims had asked hum: "And the children of the polytheists too, Messenger of Allah?" The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied: "The children of the polytheists as well."[12]
Being with Ibrâhîm meant being in Paradise, and this includes children of polytheistic families. It is clear, from the Qur'an and from the hadith, that every child is born with a pure nature, as a Muslim. Islam recognises that all children, whether born of believing or unbelieving parents, go to Paradise if they die before attaining the age of discretion.
Imâm Nawawî defined fitrah as the unconfirmed state which exists until the individual consciously acknowledges his belief. Hence, if a child were to die before he attains discretion he would be on of the inmates of Paradise. This view applies to the children of polytheists as well, and is supported by the above-quoted hadith. The legal implication of this hadith is that all children are born pure, sinless and predisposed to belief in one God; moreover they are of the inmates of Paradise; however, if their parents are non-Muslims, the religion of their parents will be applicable to them in this world.[13]
Islam is also called dîn al-fitrah, the religion of human nature, because its laws and its teachings are in full harmony with the normal and the natural inclination of the human fitrah to believe in and submit to the Creator. Like the word al-Islam, the word dîn also means, according to Lane, obedience and submission, among other meanings. Allah states:
‘And who is better in obedience (in dîn) than he who resigns himself to Allah?’ (Qur'an 4:125)
‘There shall be no compulsion in obedience (dîn).’ (Qur’ân 2:256)
Ad-dîn implies religion in the widest sense of the word, embracing both the practical aspects of the acts of worship and ordinary transactions of life, and the teachings of religion; and it is a name for that whereby one serves Allah.
‘Truly, the religion (dîn) in the sight of Allah is al-Islam.’ (Qur’ân 3:19)
And, according to Lane, it means particularly the religion of al-Islam. The synonyms of ad-dîn are ash-Shariah (the law), tawhîd (Oneness of Allah) and wara‘ (caution). Ad-dîn also comes from the verb dana, meaning ‘he had indebted’. This is significant, according to al-Attas, because man is indebted to Allah for his existence and sustenance. The believer will realise that his spirit acknowledged Allah in pre-existence, and that the debt that he must return is his self, and this can be done by service and submission to Allah. This return implies a return to man’s inherent spiritual nature, to his fitrah. The one who submits to Allah is called ‘abd (a slave) of Allah, and his service is called ‘ibâdah (slavehood or conscious submission to the will of Allah). By worshipping Allah in such a manner, man in fulfilling the purpose of his creation and existence.
‘I have not created the Jinn and man but that they should serve Me (li ya‘budûnî).’ (Qur'an 51:56)
Such worship or submission does not entail loss of freedom, for, freedom is to act as one’s true nature demands; that is, as one’s fitrah demands. Al-Attas succinctly explains the connection between submission, fitrah and dîn as follows:
‘When we say that such a man is fulfilling the purpose for his creation and existence, it is obvious that that man’s obligation to serve God is felt by him as normal because it comes as a natural inclination on the man’s part to do so. This natural tendency in man to serve and worship God is also referred to as dîn, … here in the religious context it has a more specific signification of the natural state of being called fitrah. In fact dîn also means fitrah. Fitrah is the pattern according to which God has created all things… Submission to it brings harmony, for it means realisation of what is inherent in one’s true nature; opposition to it brings discord, for it means realisation of what is extraneous to one’s true nature.’[14]
3. Fitrah and Human Responsibility
…Man is distinguished from the rest of the creation because he has been endowed with intellect (‘aql) and free-will (irâdah). The intellect enables him to discern right from wrong. He can use these faculties to complement his fitrah and to please Allah or to be untrue to it and displease Allah. The choice is his. The prophets and Divine revelation are external sources of guidance to guide the intellect and will of man. The Qur'an declares that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, enjoins the right and lawful things (ma‘rûf) and forbids the wrong and unlawful things (munkar). Man is responsible for his actions and accountable to Allah for every atom of right and wrong that he does. It is in this sense of accountability that guides man to act in accordance with the Divine will. It empowers him to struggle against the wrong-doing of his lower self (nafs) as well as the negative influences of the social circumstances. The central hadith makes plain that it is the social circumstances after the birth of the child that causes the individual to diverge from fitrah. Hence if someone follows an aberrant path it is not because of any innate wrong within his nature, but because of the emergence of the lower self or nafs after birth, and negative effects in the social circumstances.
The concept of fitrah as original goodness, in my view, does not merely connote a passive receptivity to good and right action, but an active inclination and a natural innate predisposition to know Allah, to submit to Him and to do right. This is man’s natural tendency in the absence of contrary factors. Although all children are born in a state of fitrah, the influence of the environment is decisive; parents may influence the religion of the child by making him a Christian, Jew or Magian. If there are no adverse influences, then the child will continuously manifest his fitrah as his true nature. Since many infants are born with gross physical deformities, the maiming referred to in this hadith is not meant in the physical sense; it means that all children are born spiritually pure, in a state of fitrah. The reference to animals born intact in the central hadith should be viewed as an analogy to illustrate the parallel spiritual wholeness of children at birth.
It is precisely because of man’s free-will and intellect that he is able to overcome the negative influences of the environment and attain to the highest level of psycho-spiritual development, an-nafs al-mutma’innah, ‘the self made tranquil’. At this level, his inner and outer being, his soul and body, are able to conform to the requirements of his fitrah and the dictates of the Shariah. He actualises his fitrah, and attains psycho-spiritual integration and inner peace.

4. Alienation from Fitrah
The central hadith suggest that circumstantial (i.e. parental and other social) influences cause man to change and become alienated from his fitrah. However in Qur'an 30:30 (‘There is no changing in the creation of Allah.’) suggests that fitrah is universal unchanging given of the human constitution. This meaning is consistent with the linguistic definition of fitrah as innate natural disposition which cannot change, and which exists at birth in all human beings. The synthesis of the meanings of both statements is that although fitrah remains a universal unchanging given of the human constitution, people may, because of the elements of intellect and free-will, decide and choose to conduct themselves in a wrong or unlawful manner. All the children of Adam, including those who deviated from the path of tawhîd[15], possessed fitrah. Civilisations which have been condemned and destroyed by Allah because of their practice of polytheism (shirk) and unbelief (kufr), possessed fitrah. Fitrah is a universal and immutable given of the metaphysical human constitution, and as a rule, cannot be corrupted or altered. No wrong action can pollute the Divine spirit [maintainer’s note: i.e. spirit created by God] which Allah has blown into man (Qur'an 15:29) despite the many generations of polytheism and unbelief. For example, a generation whose forefathers were mushrikûn (those who practice shirk) does not possess a fitrah of a lesser quality than a generation of believers. However, both shirk and kufr represent the antithesis of fitrah by undermining its very object and raison d’etre; kufr is a rejection of the oneness of Allah (tawhîd). When a individual commits shirk or kufr he denies his own nature. Fitrah which is integral to man’s spirit (rûh) was created by Allah so that he man acknowledge Him as the Lord Who has power over all things. Tawhîd is intrinsic to man’s fitrah because Allah in His infinite wisdom intended for man to know Him as the One God. This is why man was able to acknowledge his Lord before his existence on earth, that is, in pre-existence state.
The function of the prophets and Divine revelation is not only to remind man about that which he already knows (that is, tawhîd), but also to teach him that which he does not yet know (that is, Shariah). Man already knows tawhîd because of the pre-existent fitrah as well as his earthly unchanging fitrah. The prophets have come only to remind man of tawhîd; the choice is left to the individual, as suggested in the following verse:
‘Surely, this is a reminder; so whoever wills, let him take a way to his Lord.’ (Qur'an 76:29).
Knowledge of the Divinely revealed laws, the methodology of worship and devotion, etc. are acquired by man from Shariah which is based on Divine revelation and the teachings of the prophets. Since every individual is endowed with the innate knowledge of tawhîd, he is held accountable for his belief in Allah precisely because of his fitrah. Not every soul, however, will be held accountable for not practicing Shariah because knowledge of Shariah is acquired only by those who received the message of the Divine revelations and the teachings of he prophets.
The distinction between the inborn knowledge of tawhîd (which includes the knowledge of right and wrong) and the acquired knowledge of Shariah (which includes what is lawful and unlawful) is significant because of the legal implications of each. The mushrik, one who violates tawhîd, will not be pardoned for his polytheism, irrespective of whether he received the message of Islam or not. On the other hand, the practice of Shariah is only required from the Muslim while the non-Muslim (who did not receive the message of Islam) is not expected to fulfil this obligation. An individual may be forgiven for not practising the Shariah if he had not received the message of Islam, but he will not be forgiven for rejecting tawhîd. The Muslim will thus be held responsible for tawhîd and Shariah. Dr. Faruqi Ahmad Dasuqi,[16] who holds this view, adds that the hunafa’ [17] of past centuries had acknowledged tawhîd and will not be held accountable for Shariah.
Apart from the chosen prophets, I venture to say that there is no difference between the fitrah of individual men: all men are endowed with the same or an ‘equal’ fitrah. The believer is in harmony with his fitrah because his instincts are directed in service of Allah, but the unbeliever is alienated from his fitrah because his instincts are in the service of everything else besides Allah. The reason for man’s destruction of himself and his environment is that he has become alienated. Nevertheless, he can overcome this estrangement his will and intellect with the Divine will and knowledge. It is man’s recourse to Islam which will enable him to effect such a reconciliation.

5. The Christian Doctrine of Original Sin
Religions may be contrasted with secular philosophies in that the former recognise the transcendent principle of human nature while the latter tend to view man as a material being. Religions usually refer to this transcendent principle as the spirit or the soul in man. Most religions recognise three dimensions within man: body, mind and spirit. Secular theories of human nature tend to recognise only the body and sometimes the mind. Western psychologists such as Carl Jung recognise the spiritual dimension not as an independent unchanging reality, but as a part of the human psyche. Religions in general, with the exception of Hinayana Buddhism, recognise the spiritual dimension of man as a distinct unchanging reality of human nature. The first step towards self-knowledge is the recognition of our inmost spiritual essence which is universal in man and which is immortal. It is this innate spirituality which explains the urge at the heart of every man for betterment and self-realisation; and it is this human spirit which explains man’s capability to emerge out of darkness into light and goodness. This emergence has been the unfailing history of man: nothing can stop the human soul from projecting itself nearer to the source of all good, Allah. Islam and Christianity both recognise this innate spirituality but they differ in the methods by which to attain to this self-realisation, and they also differ in the methods by which they attain to this self-realisation, and they also differ with respect to their views of innate human nature. For the Christian view I need to turn to the doctrine of original goodness in Islam. Such a comparison will bring into focus the divergent perspectives of human nature of two major religions of the world.
Christianity, in all the varied forms in which it exists today, is probably the largest religious movement. It emerged out of Judaism as a religion of salvation by faith. Christianity became a universal religion of redemption, and its world-renouncing strain has been strong for a great part of its history. Judaism and Islam were never so dominated by monasticism and the ideal of celibacy. This is not to say that Christianity did not have a world affirming strain in it. The Kingdom of God was an imminently arriving state of this earth. With emphasis on the person of Jesus, peace be upon him, rather than his preaching, salvation was to be by rather than his preaching, salvation was to be by faith-union with Jesus in his supposed death and resurrection. Jesus, peace be upon him, was exalted to heaven and acclaimed as Lord, Son of God, and the meaning of Messiah – an anointed prophet-king – was altered radically.
Paul was the main figure to work out Christian theology almost entirely in terms of the doctrine for man. Jesus’ two worlds are reinterpreted in terms of a great contrast between man in bondage to the flesh and man redeemed in Christ. This theology is set out in the first eight chapters of The Epistle to the Romans.[18] The flesh (sarx) is man in his weakness and the spirit (pneuma) is the Divine breath and power of life which makes man inwardly aware of himself as a person. The whole person is either bound to sin or redeemed in Christ. As a rabbinically trained Jew, Paul had to integrate his new gospel of salvation with the old doctrine of creation and so he began the development of the Christian epic story:
‘Creation had originally been perfect, but Adam fell and mankind has since been in bondage to sin; but through Christ, the second Adam or Last man, the world or mankind are being restored to their original perfection. Thus in the Christian doctrine of man the central theme is that Christ is the Creator’s proper (=own) Man.’[19]
To make this scheme more intelligible, Paul had to emphasise both the parallels and the contrasts between Adam and Christ, peace be upon both of them. Adam was first made in the image of God, but Christ is the true and final image of God. Adam’s disobedience plunged mankind into ruin, but Christ’s obedience restored mankind. Adam brought wrath and guilt upon mankind, Christ has brought grace and acquittal.
This contrast profoundly affected later Christian thought. The Christian doctrine of man has two themes, the Divine image and the Fall. Since the latter theme is more directly relevant to my discussion of original sin I shall focus on this aspect, Adam’s disobedience plunged the human race into ruin, and fallen man could not of himself do good, please God or gain salvation.
A good example of the classic Christian doctrine of man is Milton’s Christian epic Paradise Lost (1667). The themes are the special creation of man by God, the Divine image in man, original righteousness, the Fall through man’s disobedience, the curse on man and woman, and the ensuing original sin. This scheme was wrecked by Darwinism and today liberal and humanistic theologians take over the evolutionary view of man’s gradual ascent, seeing Christ as a pinnacle of human development. Others, such as Rudolph Bultman and Paul Tillich, have built their theology on an existentialist doctrine of man.
The Christian is born in sin and in an impure state, and cannot redeem himself by his own inner resources, but only through Christ. Salvation for the Christian is centred on an external entity – the mystical body of Christ in which the Christian must participate in order to be saved.
By contrast, in Islam the redemptive potential is centred in the individual himself, who engages in meaningful intercourse with the guidance provided by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, Salvation in Islam depends on faith (iman) and good conduct (ihsân), and not on faith alone. The Qur'an emphasises the exertion of will, for ‘there is nothing for man but that which he strove for’. This notion of the will also has implications for responsibility. A person is responsible only for the manner in which he exercised his own will and not the will of other persons.
Christians believe that Christ has paid the wages of sin through his death, and having suffered for all men’s sins. Salvation is based on this faith. Without the doctrine of original sin there would be no need for a saviour and, consequently, the trinity, the crucifixion and the resurrection would become meaningless.
Islam rejects the premises of these doctrines, especially the concept of original sin which is alien to Islam and inconceivable to the Muslim mind. Islam has a different version of the Fall. Adam acknowledged that he had gone astray and sincerely sought Allah's forgiveness which was granted to him unconditionally. Adam and his progeny descended from bliss to the earth because of his error, and yet, none of his children inherited the blame for his error. The volitional implication of fitrah is that man is responsible for his own wrong actions. It is inconceivable to Muslim thinking that mankind should be punished for wrong actions that others did. The concept of Divine forgiveness features strongly in the Qur'an, for Allah accepts the sincere repentance of His slaves.
‘But the devil made them slip from it, and caused them to depart from the state in which they were. And We said, "Down with you and be henceforth enemies unto one another; and you shall have in the land a state of settledness and necessities of life for a period."
Then Adam received words (of guidance) from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: truly, He is the Acceptor of Repentance, the Compassionate.’ (Qur'an 2:36-37)
Tawbah (literally, turning, i.e. away from wrong action, and to Allah) or repentance plays a very significant and decisive role in a Muslim’s life. Although man is born in a state of original goodness or fitrah, he is also subject to temptation and folly. Allah has granted him the ability and opportunity to repent which means that he should admit his errors and turn remorsefully away from them to Allah.
Knowledge of Divine mercy as well as knowledge of the innate goodness of the human fitrah, serves three very important functions: firstly it gives the believer hope of salvation and success; secondly, it gives him confidence in his own potential to do right and resist wrong; thirdly, it exhorts and admonishes him to actively pursue all that is right and resist all that is wrong. These are the merits of sincere repentance. Just as the Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, repented and was pardoned for his wrong action, so may his descendents repent and be pardoned for their wrong actions.
Confession and penance is a fundamental pillar of the Roman Catholic Church, but for the rest of the Christian world it holds virtually no fundamental value. Belief in Christ as a Saviour is of primary importance, even for the Catholic who engages in penance mainly as a means of self-discipline or self-retribution. No amount of confession or repentance can save the Christian from the belief in Christ as the Saviour. Adherence to this doctrine can be problematic when viewed in the light of the doctrine of original sin.
Neither Islam, common sense or modern Western law, hold a person responsible for the deeds of someone else. Certain awkward questions may also be posed to the adherents of this doctrine. For example, does inheritance of Adam’s sin mean that man is born innately sinful or guilty of a sin he did not commit or both? Did Christ’s suffering change human nature or did it only absolve man of guilt for the sin he never committed, or both? If man is born innately evil and sinful why is he still capable of choosing good over evil? What happened to the souls before Christ who could have had the benefit of the latter’s alleged suffering; were they saved by the Saviour they neither knew nor acknowledged or were they just too unfortunate to be born at the wrong time? These questions are asked in all sincerity of the believing Christian whose faith every Muslim is required to respect.
To conclude, fitrah may be defined as a natural predisposition for good and for submission to the One God… While the concept of fitrah offers a hopeful and positive outlook for the Muslim, the doctrine of original sin is fraught with negative connotations and complex dogma. To the average Christian, man is impure and bound for eternal ****ation, even if he leads a life of virtue, if he does not accept Christ as his saviour. Apart from the Christian theory, there are secular theories of human nature which are also subject to determinism, fatalism and pessimism…
If, in this chapter, the reader has not gained a clear conception of what fitrah is, it should at least be clear to him what it is not. Fitrah does not refer to man’s outward behaviour; not to his psyche, personality or character. A definition of fitrah does not involve the role of man as an individual or a collectively as such. Rather, fitrah pertains to the deep, common spiritual essence of man. It is humankind’s natural and universal innate predisposition for goodness and submission to One God…

Notes and References
[1] I. M. Hanîf, Sahîh Muslim bisharh al-Nawawî, Book of Qadr, Vol. 16 (al-Matba‘at al-Misriyyah bi al-Azhari, 1930) p. 207.
[2] Ibn Manzûr, Lisân al-‘Arab al-Muhît. Vol. 4., ed. A. al-‘Alayali, (beirut: Dâru Lisân al-‘Arab, 1988), pp. 1108-1109; cf. also, al-Isfahânî, al-Raghîb, Mu‘jam Mufradat Alfaz al-Qur’ân ed. Nadîm Mar‘ashlî. (Dârul Karîb al-‘Arabi, 1984) p. 2415; cf. also, Lane, E. W., Arabic-English Lexicon. 2 volumes, Cambridge: The Islamic Texts Society, 1972), p. 397.
[3] This repetition also applies to the 7th form verb infatara, 5th form tafattara and the 1st form fatara, e.g. idha’s-samâ’unfatarat ‘When the heaven shall be cleft’, (Qur’ân 82:1), and yakadu’s-samâwâtu yatafttarna minhu ‘The heavens almost become repeatedly rent in consequence thereof’, (Qur'an 19:92), and tafatarat qadamahu ‘his feet became cracked’.
[4] Lane, Ibid., p. 1823; al-Isfahânî, al-Raghîb, Kitâb al-Dharî‘ah ila Makarim al-Sharî‘ah. Ed. Abû’l-Yazîd al-‘Ajamî, (Cairo, 1987), p. 113.
[5] Lane, Ibid, p. 1823.
[6] Yasien Mohamed, The Islamic Conception of Human Nature with Special Reference to the Development of an Islamic Psychology. unpublished thesis, (Cape Town: Department of Religious Studies, University of Cape Town, 1986), p. 74; cf. also, Lane, Ibid., p. 1823; al-Isfahânî, al-Dharî‘ah, op.cit., p. 113; al-Isfahânî, Alfaz, op.cit., p. 310.
[7] Ibn Manzûr, Lisân al-‘Arab, op.cit., p. 1109; cf. also Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon, op.cit, pp. 2415-2416.
[8] Ibn Mazûr, Ibid. p. 1109; Lane, Ibid., pp. 2415-16.
[9] ‘Alî ibn Muhammad al-Sayyad al-Sharîf Jurjânî, Kitâb al-Ta‘rifat ed. ‘Abdul Mun‘îm al-Hafani. (Cairo: Dârul Rashad, 1991), p. 190; cf. also Ibn Manzûr and Lane, Idid.
[10] See Ibn Manzûr and Lane, Ibid.
[11] Muhammad al-Ansârî A. A. Qurtubî, Al Jâmi‘u al Ahkâm al-Qur'an Vol. 12 Part 14. (Cairo: al-Maktabu al-‘Arabiyyah, 1967), p. 25.
[12] Ibid, p. 30; cf. Ibn Manzûr, Ibid.
[13] Ibn Taymîyya Dar‘u Ta‘arud al ‘Aql wa al Naql. Vol. 8, ed. Muhammad Rashad Sa’im. (Riyadh: Jami‘at al-Imâm Muhammad ibn Sa‘ud al-Islamiyyah, 1981), p. 382-3.
[14 ] S.M.N. Al-Attas, Islam, Secularism and the Philosophy of the Future, London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1985, pp. 57-58.
[15] cf. Lane, op.cit., for the meaning of the ad-dîn.
[16] Tawhîd is the corner-stone of the Islamic belief which was taught by all the prophets. The Arabs deviated form tawhîd but it was restored to its original purity with the advent of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Divine Unity is expressed as lâ ilâha ill' Allah ‘There is no deity but Allah’ and together with his expression of Muhammadun Rasûlu’llah ‘Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah’, a person is admitted into the fold of Islam. Tawhîd implies that Allah is One, and that He is one and unique in His essence (dhât), His attributes (sifât), and His works. This monotheistic concept of Allah liberates man from subservience to everything and everyone, and is the basis for the unity of mankind. The antithesis of tawhîd is shirk which is considered to be the only unforgivable wrong action (Qur'an 4:48), and it signifies the association of partners with Allah. Blind submission to one’s own desires is also described as shirk (Qur'an 25:43).
[17] Dasuqî, F. A. Muhadarat fî al-‘Aqîdah al-Islâmiyyah, (Alexandria: Darul Da‘wah, 1983), p. 28.
[18] The hanîf (singular of hunafa’) is one who naturally rejects polytheism and idolatry while inclined towards acceptance of tawhîd. In the Qur'anic context, the hanîf refers particularly to those who followed the faith of Ibrâhîm as well as those who accepted tawhîd during the Jâhiliyyah period. After the advent of the Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the term acquired a more circumscribed meaning – one who follows the dîn of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Dr. Dasuqî cites Zaid ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl and Qais ibn Sa‘ada as examples of hunafâ’ in pre-Islamic times. A more well-known hanîf was Waraqa ibn Nawfal, the cousin of the Prophet’s wife, Khadîjah.
[19] Don Cupitt, The Nature of Man, (London: Sheldon Press, 1979), pp. 33-34.


http://www.missionislam.com/knowledg...tionFitrah.htm


________________________________________


I have no idea why you suppose that the idea of hell doesn't reconcile with God?

to use a very poor analogy as I certainly don't like the divine to be akin to his creation?

Have you ever been punished by your parents? Did you find said punishment to denote that they are evil or negligent etc,?

I mean you are welcome not to believe in Islam or God, or heaven or hell, but I don't subscribe to your philosophy and find it equally difficult to envision a life without contrast.. how does one learn of dark if there were no light? or right if there were no wrong? or well being if there were no pain?


all the best
Reply

Lynx
01-19-2010, 01:33 AM
Skye:

So is your argument that we all have a natural disposition to God and people who go against that natural disposition deserve Hell? What does my state of beliefs (and I am going to be generous and assume fitrah for the sake of argument) at the time of my infancy have to do with now?


I have no idea why you suppose that the idea of hell doesn't reconcile with God?

to use a very poor analogy as I certainly don't like the divine to be akin to his creation?

Have you ever been punished by your parents? Did you find said punishment to denote that they are evil or negligent etc,?

I mean you are welcome not to believe in Islam or God, or heaven or hell, but I don't subscribe to your philosophy and find it equally difficult to envision a life without contrast.. how does one learn of dark if there were no light? or right if there were no wrong? or well being if there were no pain?
I am not saying we should go unpunished. What I am saying is sending someone to hell for believing in a different religion (or no religion at all) or seemingly arbitrary because there is no reason why anyone should convert in the first place. The reason why God is incoherent with Hell (and again I am talking about Hell that will burn those who did not believe in Islam) is because the Quran says (somewhere) that God will not give anyone a task that he can not bear. I am arguing htat someone who looks at Islam and doesn't see why it's true, and it seems there is no objective evidence for the truth of islam, is going to be sent to hell and this makes your version of God unjust since he is sending someone to hell for something absurd.

Consider the following analogy: your dad is going to punish you for picking the wrong flavour of ice cream; he wont tell you which one is wrong or right and lets you decide. Naturally you pick the one that is best tasting , and lo and behold, you are punished. Is this a just parent? I think not. So contradiction seems to appear between Allah being 'just'.

You might say well God did tell us which religion is right...it's in the quran. I would say this would be a totally reasonable objection IF you could demonstrate objective evidence that shows God telling us that Islam is true. The Quran doesnt count because if people actually considered quran to be the word of god in the first place then they would be muslim anyway. so it would be a bad circular argument if you take this objection and use it.



AAMIR:
This is getting tiresome. You keep assuming God's justice parallels mankind - it doesn't. In other words, your particular criticism does not hold weight, logically speaking. It's akin to the age-old ''if god is so powerful can he make a rock he cannot lift'' argument.
So for God, justice means punishing people with eternal hellfire for not believing in something that has no evidence to be believed in? If the definition of justice is going to be so radicallly different from our idea of justice then why not just say there is no way to understand God's mercy, power, knowledge, kindness, wrath, lordship etc. Taking your route it would be blasphemous to say any description at all since we would be paralelling it with makinds definition. That's funny because God seems to make a big deal about his attributes in the Quran...listing them so many times...the beginning of almost (except 1) every surah (most merciful and gracious). I think you should rethink your position.
Reply

جوري
01-19-2010, 01:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Skye:

So is your argument that we all have a natural disposition to God and people who go against that natural disposition deserve Hell? What does my state of beliefs (and I am going to be generous and assume fitrah for the sake of argument) at the time of my infancy have to do with now?
1- Indeed a natural disposition toward God
2- those who against it are in fact rebels (if they genuinely didn't know) then their trials will start on the day of recompense.
3- after your infancy you are to refine, cultivate and calibrate your fitrah!


I am not saying we should go unpunished. What I am saying is sending someone to hell for believing in a different religion (or no religion at all) or seemingly arbitrary because there is no reason why anyone should convert in the first place. The reason why God is incoherent with Hell (and again I am talking about Hell that will burn those who did not believe in Islam) is because the Quran says (somewhere) that God will not give anyone a task that he can not bear. I am arguing htat someone who looks at Islam and doesn't see why it's true, and it seems there is no objective evidence for the truth of islam, is going to be sent to hell and this makes your version of God unjust since he is sending someone to hell for something absurd.
It isn't absurd to me!
If you don't see it as true, then man break out some bubbly, call some gals or guys and don't waste your life on remote philosophies that have no concern to you!
Consider the following analogy: your dad is going to punish you for picking the wrong flavour of ice cream; he wont tell you which one is wrong or right and lets you decide. Naturally you pick the one that is best tasting , and lo and behold, you are punished. Is this a just parent? I think not. So contradiction seems to appear between Allah being 'just'.
The punishment isn't about inclinations, it is about logic and I have no doubt in my mind that when one ponders (as Abraham or Joseph) once did whether or not God exists, they don't conjure up some ideologies about burnishing the town with cow pu, or a three headed god or a god of a remote few on some desert mount, It should be basic and simple a God and a system for all of humanity. The punishment isn't merely of wrong choices, it is of the impact that those wrong choices on society as a whole!

You might say well God did tell us which religion is right...it's in the quran. I would say this would be a totally reasonable objection IF you could demonstrate objective evidence that shows God telling us that Islam is true. The Quran doesnt count because if people actually considered quran to be the word of god in the first place then they would be muslim anyway. so it would be a bad circular argument if you take this objection and use it.
I don't understand.. if you want to discuss some laws of physics, you start with a book and a teacher no? You can't have objective evidence about physics using a genetics books or a philosophy book. So I have no idea what route you'd like to take, but when I decided to practice and look into Islam, I did a comparative study, a study in philosophies.. slept on it and then made my decision.. I assume that is how most people start, with the basic life questions and then take it from there...

that being said, I don't know where I will end, maybe I am no wiser than you, but I am always hopeful of God's mercy.
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:




Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory (extra) works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.”

It was related by al-Bukhari.




all the best
Reply

Skavau
01-19-2010, 02:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by greenshirt
perhaps you are correct in this assumption. in islam, we perceive our religion and its laws as being perfect, and in no need of change.
Okay

this obviously contradicts your views, as a progressive atheist. most atheists are more than willing to accept change if it betters the society.. if it gives people more human rights, etc. and we have seen, especially in our generation, a lot of change.. we've had a growing acceptance for individuality, for civil rights, equality, etc. islam is not against all of these changes.. in fact, islam, during the time of the prophet(saws), changed the society of mecca and medina greatly through human rights. for example, it used to be very common for arabs to bury their children if they had a female. yet, one of the first qur'anic commands that muhammad(saws) recited condemned this terrible act.
Alright.

our religion also stresses racial equality. and we have no strings attached to this fact either. judaism and christianty on the other hand have some controversy within their scriptures, in particularly where the torah mentions ham and canaan. though most do not see this as a racial thing anymore, back in the civil rights era many christians commonly quoted this story to promote their hate-filled philosophy.
Well you must know of course, that people have contentions with Islamic scripture however much you believe it to be perfect, or divine.

so the idea that we are not open to change is a bit silly, because islam, during the time of the prophet(saws) and centuries after, was at the forefront of bringing forth great changes and bettering the human rights.
You yourself said that muslims "percieve our religion and its laws as being perfect, and in no need of change". The only thing I can gather from this is that you could be accepting of change if it does not contradict or disagree with the Qu'ran.

And this is not really change as such, it is simply parts of your world view that are currently open and not decreed by Islam. I think what your assessment actually says is that Islam attempts to revolutionise the world to its way of thought. It is change for everyone else - but merely empowerment for Muslims.

now as i said, we perceive islam as being a perfect religion; the laws and morals that our religion commands are not in need of any change/evolution now, due to the fact that our religion is perfect.
Indeed.

To which I must ask, and you may answer it later on in this post (I don't know): How do you, personally determine something to be moral?

this obviously differs from your view; you probably believe that we can still make great changes in the world to better society. i believe we can too, and we should... but these changes should ideally come from islam, and what has already been revealed and is being practiced by many.
Well, you see, that's not really change. It is change for Non-Muslims as Islam begins to exert influence - but it is merely the enacting of the 'absolute' contentions for Muslims on society.

the way i see it this... the world is a diverse place and everyone rightly has their own opinions and perceptions of things. you see this as being inhumane, but many others dont. i follow what my religion teaches me, because i believe my religion to be true and i believe that my all-knowing god has answers to these problems; and not humans, with our diverse viewpoints.
Well that's an honest answer, of course.

But it is a non-answer. It is merely a statement of faith that you trust God will answer the call to the wisdom behind his decisions. In this you are telling me that you only know that hell is acceptable, and not why it is acceptable.

yes. it is mentioned several times in the qur'an. a lot of people find the test to be subjective, and a lot of people dont take it seriously. there are millions of arab christians who hear the qur'an being recited on a daily basis and still dont feel the need to convert to islam.. they may know about this challenge but it still doesnt convince them. however, our religion still gives them a challenge that they are more than welcome to attempt to fulfill. if they think they have fulfilled the requirements of the challenge, then they have nothing to worry about for themselves... because they will feel that islam isnt true since this challenge can be met. however, they have to see if their challenge beats the qur'an in the eyes of others.. something that just hasnt happened.
What does that mean though?

You must know that non-muslims do not base their contention with Islam on its literary merits. You know that being able to 'better' a passage in the Qu'ran is a bit like me asking you to write a 'better' song, or write a better poem.

A challenge is not credible if no-one understands what it means.

interesting response, and one that has substance to it. to answer you simply, yes, i follow the moral views of my religion because god says so. you may see this as being close minded, because instead of deriving a view based on my personal opinion, i derive a view based on what my god says. but, i believe that Allah(swt) knows best and that the laws and morals that islam holds are laws and morals based on logic and faith.
No I don't find it close-minded, but I find it frightening.

It means that if you really believe this, then if you were to believe that God suddenly decreed and accepted murder - you would have no grounds to disapprove of it (and we know that people have used this as a excuse). It means that you don't find things immoral because of their harm to other people, but purely because God doesn't like it. It means that terms like 'moral' and 'immoral' to you necessarily become 'obedience' and 'disobedience'. I struggle to gather how you much account for the concept of 'justice' in this world view of yours either.

Everything as a consequence of this is entirely focused on God. If you really believe this, then humanity is merely a means to an end for God's will.

you also have to understand this..

you as an atheist probably see this world as a not-so-good place, but a place that can certainly be bettered and be ideal. you are open to change, so long as it betters the world.
Okay

as a muslim, i see this world as a not-so-good place either, and a place that can also be changed and better. but, i also know that this world is full of tests and trials, to prepare us for the next life.
Okay

by logic, some islamic morals may perhaps just not seem right. for example, the view of homosexuality. though most other people here won't agree with me, i'll go ahead and say it... i dont think anyone chooses their sexual orientation. i think if you have same-sex attractions, it's something that you didn't choose.

so, by logic, if you didn't choose to be gay, and if you wish to date another person of the same gender, and you guys are not hurting anyone and are consenting and feel the same love that a heterosexual married couple feels... then what is wrong with that? how can that in any way be wrong, immoral, sinful?
Music to my ears so far....

if i was an atheist, that is exactly how i would see this issue. i would have no reason whatsoever to think homosexuality is wrong, because by logic and reasoning it just doesn't make sense that it would be.
Excellent.

I'm glad you see that. That is one of my main intentions on here. To get peopel to understand and work on common ground.

i am sure you disagree with me, and i would love to see what you have to say about this. that's how i feel on issues like this, but perhaps you have a much different perception that i just haven't contemplated before.. so i look forward to your response. thanks so much for your time
Oh I do disagree, but respectfully.

I admire your ability to reach out and explain your position honestly. And indeed, from your standpoint that life is a test - it could make sense, although I wouldn't say morally...
Reply

Lynx
01-19-2010, 02:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
1- Indeed a natural disposition toward God
2- those who against it are in fact rebels (if they genuinely didn't know) then their trials will start on the day of recompense.
3- after your infancy you are to refine, cultivate and calibrate your fitrah!


It isn't absurd to me!
If you don't see it as true, then man break out some bubbly, call some gals or guys and don't waste your life on remote philosophies that have no concern to you!

The punishment isn't about inclinations, it is about logic and I have no doubt in my mind that when one ponders (as Abraham or Joseph) once did whether or not God exists, they don't conjure up some ideologies about burnishing the town with cow pu, or a three headed god or a god of a remote few on some desert mount, It should be basic and simple a God and a system for all of humanity. The punishment isn't merely of wrong choices, it is of the impact that those wrong choices on society as a whole!


I don't understand.. if you want to discuss some laws of physics, you start with a book and a teacher no? You can't have objective evidence about physics using a genetics books or a philosophy book. So I have no idea what route you'd like to take, but when I decided to practice and look into Islam, I did a comparative study, a study in philosophies.. slept on it and then made my decision.. I assume that is how most people start, with the basic life questions and then take it from there...

that being said, I don't know where I will end, maybe I am no wiser than you, but I am always hopeful of God's mercy.
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:






It was related by al-Bukhari.




all the best


Can I summarize your position as you know that Islam cannot be demonstrated objectively true and you don't care if God sends people to Hell for not believing in it?
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
01-19-2010, 03:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
Okay.
This can only be describe as contending there is virtue in faith, which I do thoroughly dispute - but this is not the thread.
it very much the thread. what is the point of me trying to convince and debate with you if there is nothing to base it on-belief.
you dont understand it becuase you dont have that belief.


Lynx himself gave a fantastic example to this. What if I posted a message under your door saying that you must convert to Christianity under pain of eternal torture. What would you do? Would it be convincing to you? Keep in mind here that I am not a Muslim because I am not convinced by the claims that the Qu'ran is true. I genuinely don't believe a heaven or hell as described by the Qu'ran actually exist. I cannot change this position without first being convinced (this is why also that punishing apostates makes no sense). I can only be dishonest and pretend that I accept Islam.
you've hit the nail of the head!!! there you go belief has everything to do with it.. for me to accept or have my mind changed, there needs to be some kind of foundation to build my acceptance of Christianity on-belief. i dont know you, i dont know who you are why should i accept what you tell me? as a non-Muslim, you dont have that key to change your mind-belief which is why as you said, you cant believe in heaven and hell as described in the Quran...there needs to be some kinds of "intermediary" for you to at least try to understand this.

these discussions about the unseen are next to pointless as one who doesn't believe, doesn't have a foundation to build upon.

Now how is that fair? Are you saying it is acceptable for me to go to hell and languish in eternal torture purely for not being correct, for having the wrong information?
arent you aware now. arent we debating with you? have you not read the quran! there you go, you know now.

Here's another analogy: Let us say a blind man walks out into a busy street and gets knocked over by a car. Did he 'deserve' to suffer that because he was not aware?
it isnt in his hands to be blind so how is that relevant?

Because 'paradise' is entirely consistent with God being declared as omnibenevolent. Hell is not.
omnibenevolence isnt the best word to choose here for the reason that He dint say this "benevolence" is inclusive of all situations so the idea of punishment hasnt been ruled out.

Interesting.
That doesn't sound like a moral purpose, just one born of obedience.
that not the point here though, is it?

What teachers propose torture to their failed students? What educational establishment do you know that will torment children for their entire life if they fail or mess around in school?
its called an analogy. replace "torture" with "low grades" "not getting a good job"

Ridiculous comparison.
which you seemed to have missed the point to.

If you've ever read any of my arguments you'll know that none of it rests on desiring heaven, or expecting heaven. It is about the idea that people are 'deserving' of hell (torture) based on something that they could not, or were unable to believe.
it might come as a surprise to you, but i quoted Lynx posts, not yours. i never have claimed to read all posts here-trust me i have better things to do.
Reply

Lynx
01-19-2010, 03:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm ul-Shaheed
it wouldn't be called 'belief' if we didn't apply it to the matters of the unseen, would it now :peace: that the whole point of belief you are using it to rely on believing unseen things.

Allah has specified what qualifies for heaven and hell. he tells us that some Muslims may also enter hell and the only thing that will save them from abiding eternally in hell will be their belief of tawheed. he's given the criteria of hell and heaven, so you cant blame anyone but yourselves for rejecting it. why dont you question why people get paradise as paradise is the opposite of Hell: reward. people get rewarded for abiding by the law, and likewise, people get punished for going against.

it makes sense to punish people for being "godless" as the whole purpose of our creation is to worship god so what do you think the fate of someone will be if they go against this. likewise, the whole purpose of going to school is to learn so what will happen if we get bad grades? we are going to have trouble getting to the uni's we want and getting a good job. cause and effect.


and what about the people/muslims who do sincerely work and who have sincerely earned paradise. isnt is unfair to them that they enter heaven after working so hard for it, and yet someone who doesnt work for paradise gets in, free ticket. does that make sense to you?

Your entire post has a fatal flaw: you need to prove to nonbelievers that Islam is actually from God before blaming them for disobeying God. I guarantee that 99% of non muslims would convert on the spot the moment Allah comes to Earth and proclaims Islam as the true religion. Or if you found something in the Quran that without a doubt proves it was from God.

If you have not grasped your mistake let me put it a different way: you talk about godless people as deserving punishment because they willfully disobey God's law. But this is a bit of a circular argument since the nonbeliever would have to be Muslim in the first place to believe he is disobeying God's law. I guess, as a side point that I find interesting, Muslims are more sinful than atheists because they believe in Islam AND they disobey it anyway whereas an atheist disobeys God because he doesn't know he exists.

So to put simply, the objection I am raising is that it is unjust to punish someone for not believing Islam because if there is no objective reason to believe in Islam, god would essentially be punishing people for rational decisions (i.e., not believing in something that has no reasons).
Reply

جوري
01-19-2010, 03:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Can I summarize your position as you know that Islam cannot be demonstrated objectively true and you don't care if God sends people to Hell for not believing in it?

you can subjectively summarize as you please!

all the best..
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-19-2010, 03:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Your entire post has a fatal flaw: you need to prove to nonbelievers that Islam is actually from God before blaming them for disobeying God. I guarantee that 99% of non muslims would convert on the spot the moment Allah comes to Earth and proclaims Islam as the true religion. Or if you found something in the Quran that without a doubt proves it was from God.

If you have not grasped your mistake let me put it a different way: you talk about godless people as deserving punishment because they willfully disobey God's law. But this is a bit of a circular argument since the nonbeliever would have to be Muslim in the first place to believe he is disobeying God's law. I guess, as a side point that I find interesting, Muslims are more sinful than atheists because they believe in Islam AND they disobey it anyway whereas an atheist disobeys God because he doesn't know he exists.

So to put simply, the objection I am raising is that it is unjust to punish someone for not believing Islam because if there is no objective reason to believe in Islam, god would essentially be punishing people for rational decisions (i.e., not believing in something that has no reasons).
Wow ... where did you get that 99% from?

Firstly, there is no guarantee that even if you were to see God with your own eyes that you would believe in Him.

Secondly, if you were to see God with your own eyes and were honest and came to believe in Him, that is no belief at all. Because if you rejected God in the first place after seeing Him, you would be an idiot. Faith is just that. Believing in the UNSEEN. Now, faith is strengthened by supporting arguments. To develop faith in the unseen, there are evidences for them. Rejecting those evidences will result in punishment. The evidence of Quran is enough. You cannot claim that since many people are not impressed by the Quran then it is not an objective evidence because if it was objective, just like evidence of photoelectric effect showing the particulate nature of light, only an IDIOT would not believe in it, everyone would believe in it. Many do. Many dont. It does not make it any less objective. The rejectors have a spiritual disease and hence they reject the evidence.

Anyone with NO physical mental disease, would not reject the evidence of photoelectric effect. But that is because its a matter of physical nature. Quran is also a matter of physical nature and for that if you think it is an ordinary book and not an evidence, bring forth 3 verses like it that surpass it in literary value. Maybe explain anything that you like in those 3 values but which makes sense. maybe explain philosophical axioms in those 3 verses but at least do it?
Reply

Skavau
01-19-2010, 10:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Umm ul-Shaheed
it very much the thread. what is the point of me trying to convince and debate with you if there is nothing to base it on-belief.
you dont understand it becuase you dont have that belief.
What, its the thread for me to criticise faith?

you've hit the nail of the head!!! there you go belief has everything to do with it.. for me to accept or have my mind changed, there needs to be some kind of foundation to build my acceptance of Christianity on-belief. i dont know you, i dont know who you are why should i accept what you tell me? as a non-Muslim, you dont have that key to change your mind-belief which is why as you said, you cant believe in heaven and hell as described in the Quran...there needs to be some kinds of "intermediary" for you to at least try to understand this.

these discussions about the unseen are next to pointless as one who doesn't believe, doesn't have a foundation to build upon.
You recognise that like you with Christianity, I have to be convinced of Islam by evidence. Excllent. I always read these in parts. Do you build upon it?

arent you aware now. arent we debating with you? have you not read the quran! there you go, you know now.
No, you don't. Not really.

That's not an answer really. I know that it is the scripture of Islam that hell exists and that people for many reasons go there. The OP of this thread is asking for muslims to morally suport it, however they interpret it.

it isnt in his hands to be blind so how is that relevant?
Muslims frequently describe the state of Non-Muslims as 'blind' in some way, and yet ascribe it as their fault for being a Non-Muslims. Surely by this logic, if we can be held responsible for thought-crime and ignorance by God - a blind person ought to be held responsible for the same by us?

omnibenevolence isnt the best word to choose here for the reason that He dint say this "benevolence" is inclusive of all situations so the idea of punishment hasnt been ruled out.
But again: the setup of a situation where people live in happiness is entirely consistent with any form of benevolence.

that not the point here though, is it?
Uh, yes it is. I fail to see how you can ascribe moral attributes to a world view with foundations in nothing more than obedience to authority.

its called an analogy. replace "torture" with "low grades" "not getting a good job"
Its called a ridiculous analogy. 'Torture' has nothing to do with 'low grades'. Not even comparable. The fact you would try is strange. I might as well say that a parent punishing her child for stealing some cookies is just the same principle as the NSDAP in Nazi Germany coming down on the gypsy population.

Just replace "genocide" with "stealing cookies". It has about as much relevance as your comparison.

Also: what schools do you know support the idea of thought-crime?

it might come as a surprise to you, but i quoted Lynx posts, not yours. i never have claimed to read all posts here-trust me i have better things to do.
It was no complaint to anyone. Just frustration at repeating myself.

I ought to save some generic response of mine in a document.
Reply

Skavau
01-19-2010, 10:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
God has 99 known attributes - you constrain yourself to just one, which you then base solely on your own interpretation.
This shouldn't matter - if all the attributes were in no contradiction.

I'd be interested to know why you think omnibenevolence would not necessitate the existence of a 'heaven' or 'paradise' like place though.

That's because your point ignores the 99 known attributes of God thus making it a fallacy.


Example of God: interest is forbidden
Example of mankind: interest is fantastic

There are significant differences here between the two. If you are unable to accept that (and apply them on a much grander scale), there can be no discussion.
This is just special pleading. Its not an argument, its just semantics. You know as well as I do that everyone is going to argue from a 'human' person because, well, we're humans. What other point of view do you propose we come from?

All you do is remind me that perhaps God means things differently than we do when we generally talk about 'justice'. Perhaps God means something totally different. Perhaps even, the attributes of God refer to something completely different than we imagine.

But then what's the point? You've argued yourself out of Islam's absolute focus on morality and/or its adherents often insistence that its precepts are intuitively rational and moral and into a vague world view of "who knows?". We know now that indeed, by your reckoning, all of our entire understanding of everything concerning morality could be completely different to that of God's - completelly nullifying any claim that God could get us to understand his way, and follow his way on moral terms.

Indeed, how do you determine anything about God if it could mean anything to you?
Reply

Uthman
01-19-2010, 11:20 AM
Greetings Lynx,

Thanks once again for the reply.
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I am more than willing to change my mind. I used to be a practicing Muslim but I am not so much anymore. I used to argue that Islam is the true religion etc. and thus I am familiar with most arguments for Islam's truth. I am not a stranger to Islam and I can say I have some knowledge on topic. My point is that I used to think the opposite of what I was arguing in my OP so I am more than willing to change my mind as I have done it before.
Fantastic. :)

I did get the impression that you had heard the argument for the miraculous nature of the Qur'an before. Be that as it may, did you check out the links that I gave you?

Regards
Reply

aamirsaab
01-19-2010, 11:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
....
AAMIR:


So for God, justice means punishing people with eternal hellfire for not believing in something that has no evidence to be believed in? If the definition of justice is going to be so radicallly different from our idea of justice then why not just say there is no way to understand God's mercy, power, knowledge, kindness, wrath, lordship etc. Taking your route it would be blasphemous to say any description at all since we would be paralelling it with makinds definition. That's funny because God seems to make a big deal about his attributes in the Quran...listing them so many times...the beginning of almost (except 1) every surah (most merciful and gracious). I think you should rethink your position.
It's not that radical a difference, but it is different (as I showed with the example in my last post) - you have to understand this in order to have a fruitful discussion when we are discussing such issues. Otherwise we move into logical fallacies.

format_quote Originally Posted by skavau
This shouldn't matter - if all the attributes were in no contradiction.
How are they in contradiction?!

I'd be interested to know why you think omnibenevolence would not necessitate the existence of a 'heaven' or 'paradise' like place though.
I don't know what you mean. Personally, I think it makes perfect sense:
Person A: Practices Islam and believes in God until he dies. Reward: paradise
Person B: Doesn't practice Islam or believe in God. End place: Hell.

Where it gets a bit more complex and ''controversial'';
Person A: Is a completey ass-hole but believes in God until he dies. Reward: Paradise (note: he will spend time in hell to make up for his ass-hole attitude btw)
Person B: Perfect angel-like behaviour but does not believe in God. End place: Hell.

n.b. there are several tiers in paradise, with different criteria in each one to reward those of differing levels of belief in God.

The deciding factor is the belief in God. And on that basis, there are no holes or flaws in the judgement process. God is being true to His word. If it the other way round, everyone (including those who blasphemed against God and attacked those who believed in Him and His messengers) would go to paradise. That's not fair on those who worked for the same reward legitamely and honestly throughout their life.

You want paradise, you gotta earn it. Same with hell.

This is just special pleading. Its not an argument, its just semantics. You know as well as I do that everyone is going to argue from a 'human' person because, well, we're humans. What other point of view do you propose we come from?
Again this is the fallacy: you are fine with the concept of hell/heaven (i.e something that does not parallel mankind) but take issue with the judgement basis (because to you it does not parallel mankind). This is not semantics - it is a fallacy.

All you do is remind me that perhaps God means things differently than we do when we generally talk about 'justice'. Perhaps God means something totally different. Perhaps even, the attributes of God refer to something completely different than we imagine.

But then what's the point? You've argued yourself out of Islam's absolute focus on morality and/or its adherents often insistence that its precepts are intuitively rational and moral and into a vague world view of "who knows?". We know now that indeed, by your reckoning, all of our entire understanding of everything concerning morality could be completely different to that of God's - completelly nullifying any claim that God could get us to understand his way, and follow his way on moral terms.
I said there was a difference between mankind's and God's - not a gulf. You are making this issue bigger than it is.

Indeed, how do you determine anything about God if it could mean anything to you?
That's not what I was arguing. I really don't know what you want from me. You ask me a series of fallacious questions (from every stand point). I point this out to you and I'm accused of semantics/word play.

What exactly do you want from me?
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-19-2010, 03:01 PM
Hey Lynx,

so why did you exactly leave Islam, or religion for that matter? The problem of evil?
Reply

Skavau
01-19-2010, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
It's not that radical a difference, but it is different (as I showed with the example in my last post) - you have to understand this in order to have a fruitful discussion when we are discussing such issues. Otherwise we move into logical fallacies.
I know you said this to Lynx, but I should like to ask:

What is the difference you speak of? You need to tell us it before claiming there exists once.

How are they in contradiction?!
Oh I'm not saying they necessarily are (that might be for another thread, and I can see that running into a semantic hedge). But you've already told me that I am focusing far too much on the all-loving aspect rather than the other 98. I will say now that it is only the all-loving attribute that is necessary to conclude that a concept of paradise is completely consistent with God.

Unless of course, you have something to tell me about the other 98 that nullifies that?

I don't know what you mean. Personally, I think it makes perfect sense:
Person A: Practices Islam and believes in God until he dies. Reward: paradise
Person B: Doesn't practice Islam or believe in God. End place: Hell.
Okay, and I am sure I have asked you this time and time again: Why is #B fair? Why do you believe person B to be ending up in a place that fits his life?

Where it gets a bit more complex and ''controversial'';
Person A: Is a completey ass-hole but believes in God until he dies. Reward: Paradise (note: he will spend time in hell to make up for his ass-hole attitude btw)
Person B: Perfect angel-like behaviour but does not believe in God. End place: Hell.

n.b. there are several tiers in paradise, with different criteria in each one to reward those of differing levels of belief in God.
Oh okay

So your moral world view is in fact not moral - but grounded in obedience. No matter your behaviour or consideration to others, as long as you are a submissive figure to God - you recieve ward.

Perhaps omnibenevolence is not consistent with the concept of heaven after all. Looking after your own though, might be.


The deciding factor is the belief in God. And on that basis, there are no holes or flaws in the judgement process. God is being true to His word. If it the other way round, everyone (including those who blasphemed against God and attacked those who believed in Him and His messengers) would go to paradise. That's not fair on those who worked for the same reward legitamely and honestly throughout their life.
Oh for crying out loud.

I don't care about heaven in this analogy. None of anything in my argument rests upon greviences about nothing going to heaven. It rests upon greviences with the wastefulness, the sadism, the meaninglessness and the infinitely unjust retribution of torture. It rests upon God creating humanity and setting up those who would not or could not believe in him for a fall that no scale could match. It rests upon God decreeing that people who do not believe in him or Islam (not out of choice, belief is not a choice) for rational, moral and empirical reasons to suffer for eternity.

That is the stumbling block.

Again this is the fallacy: you are fine with the concept of hell/heaven (i.e something that does not parallel mankind) but take issue with the judgement basis (because to you it does not parallel mankind). This is not semantics - it is a fallacy.
No I don't.

I don't take issue with judgment. I am sure I've told you this already. I actually would go far as to renounce anti-theism to a divine arbiter that proposed negative judgment on those who were immoral and destructive to others and positive judgment on those who were moral and productive to others in life. I don't agree with judgment based on 'thought', and I don't accept punishment that is both eternal and sadistic in nature.

I said there was a difference between mankind's and God's - not a gulf. You are making this issue bigger than it is.
More semantics. I didn't use the word 'gulf' I was stating bafflement at your ridiculous requirements.

You've already repeatedly said that morality is different for God (without explaining how) and just said that I am wrong in observing from our perspective over and over.

That's not what I was arguing. I really don't know what you want from me. You ask me a series of fallacious questions (from every stand point). I point this out to you and I'm accused of semantics/word play.
You do engage in semantics and word play. I remember the pointless disagreement we had over thought-crime in another thread. It meant nothing. You just didn't like calling it 'thought-crime'.

But I echo your statement back: What do you want from me in this?
Reply

Yusuf Saeed
01-19-2010, 05:36 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
I'm sorry, I don't know what the term "transcends the human subjectivity" means.

Do you even know what morality means? I get the impression you really don't based on your analysis. Morality and more specifically ethical systems all concern themselves with what people ought and ought not do within a community of other people. It has nothing to do with an is claim (which is what you're leaning towards here).
Hi!

By "transcends the human subjectivity" I mean that the moral rules coming from God are above human subjectivity, all the rules produced by people themselves are bound to be subjective.

As morality is a rather wide term and doesn't only mean what people ought to and ought not to do we may just talk about right and wrong then to avoid further misunderstandings.

So, leaving the morality and changing it with "right and wrong" let's go back to the Nazi Germany example where there was a social agreement (of course that doesn't mean 100% of the people supported it) that it was right to kill the Jews. Most of us see it obviously as a wrong thing to do but as long as we don't take this opinion on the matter from what God has told us and instead use our feelings and emotions to decide on whether it was right or not then we are just subjective. To objectively claim that killing of these 6 million of Jews by the Nazi regime was wrong we need to base our claim on God as He is, again, above the human subjectivity.

Yes there was (to those who knew, although not completely universal as you might imply). They were wrong.
What is your claim that they were wrong based on? I base it on that God has taught it to be wrong but what is your basis?


How is God a 'standard'? What does that mean?
God is a standard because He created this world and people. When we take the idea of right and wrong (and if you like, the best morality) from messengers and scriptures that He has sent to mankind we can be objective in our claims as being a Creator He knows the best what is good for us and what is not, what is right and what is not.


Here's perhaps a more prudent question: Is something good because God decrees it so, or does God decree it so because it is good? You cannot claim both.
I do not claim both, but I do claim the first one of these two. The whole distiction between right and wrong comes from God and only He knows best what is good and what is bad.


So a test between obedience and disobedience?
Exactly!



Take care!
Reply

Skavau
01-19-2010, 06:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yusuf
By "transcends the human subjectivity" I mean that the moral rules coming from God are above human subjectivity, all the rules produced by people themselves are bound to be subjective
So what does God base these moral rules on?

How are they any less subjective?

As morality is a rather wide term and doesn't only mean what people ought to and ought not to do we may just talk about right and wrong then to avoid further misunderstandings.
Yes it does. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' mean exactly what one ought (right) and ought not (wrong) do. Even if we limit it down to personal conduct that is exactly what it refers to.

How do you measure right and wrong if not by actions?

So, leaving the morality and changing it with "right and wrong" let's go back to the Nazi Germany example where there was a social agreement (of course that doesn't mean 100% of the people supported it) that it was right to kill the Jews. Most of us see it obviously as a wrong thing to do but as long as we don't take this opinion on the matter from what God has told us and instead use our feelings and emotions to decide on whether it was right or not then we are just subjective. To objectively claim that killing of these 6 million of Jews by the Nazi regime was wrong we need to base our claim on God as He is, again, above the human subjectivity.
You've claimed God is 'above' our subjectivity, but you haven't really explained how.

I'd be interested to know also how you propose people ought to come to conclusions on ethical issues without reaching into their own intellect. There are many complex issues in real life that involve weighing up many issues relating to the lives of others and the suffering of others that no 'objective morality from God' can ever hope to solve. These are the real issues that go on all the time, that involve human subjectivity to resolve.

What is your claim that they were wrong based on? I base it on that God has taught it to be wrong but what is your basis?
The suffering it bought to others.

God is a standard because He created this world and people. When we take the idea of right and wrong (and if you like, the best morality) from messengers and scriptures that He has sent to mankind we can be objective in our claims as being a Creator He knows the best what is good for us and what is not, what is right and what is not.
So how is that objective?

It appears to be nothing more than obedience to an authority figure. You contend God knows right and has our best interests at heart and therefore we should follow him. From where does he get his knowledge from on this? Indeed if it is possible to 'know' (as you've implied with God) what we ought to do or ought not do objectively, then is God even necessary?

I do not claim both, but I do claim the first one of these two. The whole distiction between right and wrong comes from God and only He knows best what is good and what is bad.
That is frightening. The best thing I can say about it is that perhaps you are not being serious about it, or do not fully understand the rammifications of such a position. By this, it does not matter what God says to you - but only that God says it.

So you do not condone murder because of its suffering to others, but you condemn it because God happens to disapprove of it. You do not condemn rape, torture, slavery and other such vile acts because of the extent of human suffering involved with it - but you hold them in derision because God has told you to. This is not morality, this is submission to authority. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' become 'obedience' and 'disobedience' respectively. If this is true, and you really believe that things only have a moral value or lack of moral value because God comments on it - then you would have no grounds to disapprove of anything God could say. If God was to decree murder, you would have to support it. If God was to decree slavery, you would have to support it. Your own world view offers no reason nor rational to disapprove of this because it is all about God.

I do not call this morality, I call it obedience. You reference the Nazi's and my alleged inability to 'objectively' disapprove of their actions. The ironic thing from this is they were operating under the same position: the following of orders. Perhaps not from what they consider God (although some considered Hitler otherworldly) but nonetheless, their principle was the same and it was a part of some of their defences in the trials after the war.

The idea that 'God says it - therefore it is' has been one of the most destructive ideals of history. Countless people have abused it and told others to fight on behalf of it. Serial killers and murders claimed divine ordinance for their actions. Heads of states have justified the destruction of others because of it, and in this thread people are trying to justify eternal torture due to it. It is not the objective bastion of knowledge people make out, but an arbitrary and subjective system of obedience. Not only is it a catalyst for inhumanity, but it is also a superficial answer on a justification for objective morality. If you truely believe that God is the arbiter of all moral decisions, then ultimately - your position is what I would call one that is disinterested in humanity. It is a sidenote. A means to an ends of Gods will.

I hope that you do not seriously believe and act by this in life, and I suspect that many theists (even those that say they do) don't. I believe that people value humanity too much.
Reply

Lynx
01-20-2010, 03:07 AM
Wow ... where did you get that 99% from?

Wow ... where did you get that 99% from?

Firstly, there is no guarantee that even if you were to see God with your own eyes that you would believe in Him.

Secondly, if you were to see God with your own eyes and were honest and came to believe in Him, that is no belief at all. Because if you rejected God in the first place after seeing Him, you would be an idiot. Faith is just that. Believing in the UNSEEN. Now, faith is strengthened by supporting arguments. To develop faith in the unseen, there are evidences for them. Rejecting those evidences will result in punishment.

The 99% was the assumption that if people meet x they will believe x exists. 1% for the idiots who still say no.

Anyway, I agree if I saw God it wouldn't be faith. But what I am arguing at here is punishing someone on having faith in something unseen/undetectable is absurd because that is in essence punishing someone for being rational (not believing in some proposition that has no reason to believed in). Either God is absurd or he expects people to believe in something for no reason and some people can't just believe in something if they have no reason which means God is asking of them a task that is not possible in which case God is absurd anyway. Which takes us to the next point:

The evidence of Quran is enough. You cannot claim that since many people are not impressed by the Quran then it is not an objective evidence because if it was objective, just like evidence of photoelectric effect showing the particulate nature of light, only an IDIOT would not believe in it, everyone would believe in it. Many do. Many dont
I didn't say its not objective because most people don't find it impressive. Perhaps I was unclear earlier but what I am asking for is objective evidence in the Quran. Literary merit is NOT objective. You cannot objectively argue that Rumi was a better poet than x. It'll be a subjective discussion and so since subjective arguments cannot prove something it follows that God punishes people for not having a subjective preference in which cause God is asking people to be rational and as I said before, it makes God appear absurd for he asks people to purposely become rational (this is impossible; no one chooses to believe in things they are either convinced or not)


The rejectors have a spiritual disease and hence they reject the evidence.

Okay. One may equally say you are unable to think critically and that is why you don't recognize the faults in your religion (I am not saying that but that is how absurd your comment was).

bring forth 3 verses like it that surpass it in literary value. Maybe explain anything that you like in those 3 values but which makes sense. maybe explain philosophical axioms in those 3 verses but at least do it?
I can pick 3 verses and I can claim they are better than 3 in the Quran. But who will judge? It'll be my view vs yours. Hence Quran is a subjective argument.


format_quote Originally Posted by Uthmān
Greetings Lynx,

Thanks once again for the reply. Fantastic. :)

I did get the impression that you had heard the argument for the miraculous nature of the Qur'an before. Be that as it may, did you check out the links that I gave you?

Regards
I did but I was not sure where in the links you specifically wanted me to take a look. I did some general browsing. Perhaps you can point me to something you particularly found convincing?

AAMIR:
It's not that radical a difference, but it is different (as I showed with the example in my last post) - you have to understand this in order to have a fruitful discussion when we are discussing such issues. Otherwise we move into logical fallacies.
Yes, I think your definition of Justice (punishing someone for not believing in something that has no evidence) is extremely different from human definition of justice. I think you are approaching a question-begging definition of justice so you may be guilty of a logical fallacy here. Be careful.


format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
Hey Lynx,

so why did you exactly leave Islam, or religion for that matter? The problem of evil?
No, I never felt the problem of evil was a strong enough objection to God. I mean IT DOES pose a problem for religion but it isn't concrete enough. I don't have a particular reason why I doubt islam...it's more like a list of problems that kept popping up as time went on. This thread is one of them. I have many more.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-20-2010, 04:24 AM
@ Lynx: "I can pick 3 verses and I can claim they are better than 3 in the Quran. But who will judge? It'll be my view vs yours. Hence Quran is a subjective argument."

First of all, its not a subjective argument. Your view will be judged by millions of speakers of Arabic language who are aware of classical arabic. If you can show in those 3 verses that you have greater mastery over Arabic language than Quran's author, you win.

Even in a painting contest, which is very subjective, a group of judges comes to a consensus on which painting among many should be classified as a winner. Just in case you did not know.
Reply

Lynx
01-20-2010, 04:33 AM
Wahabi scientist:

So comparing two pieces of literature is objective? Are you kidding me? Even if people come to a consensus, it doesn't mean it's true. Argumentum ad populum.
Reply

جوري
01-20-2010, 04:35 AM
The challenge is to bring a 'sura'/chapter even if it be as short as suret al-kawthar which is only three verses (as in the ability to tell us something either of the past/future/or be applicable to politics/economics/psychology/ afterlife/ prophecies/inheritance/business/govt. etc etc and have it be in the lyrical poetic style of the Quran which is unmatched!

He has asked for an objective formula before and I gave him a perfect formula from the Quran applicable to every day life and taught in universities, but he didn't like that route.. he'd like the route that fits his frame of mind, leaving me to wonder if there is any point whatsoever to this? it is an exercise in futility...

I think the best thing to do is to:

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-20-2010, 04:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Wahabi scientist:

So comparing two pieces of literature is objective? Are you kidding me? Even if people come to a consensus, it doesn't mean it's true. Argumentum ad populum.
Comparing two pieces of literature, or painting as I showed, is subjective if you stick to aesthetic effects. if you start getting into the technical nature of language or painting, it becomes objective.
Reply

جوري
01-20-2010, 04:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Wa7abiScientist
Comparing two pieces of literature, or painting as I showed, is subjective if you stick to aesthetic effects. if you start getting into the technical nature of language or painting, it becomes objective.
How does the literature affect us for comparative purposes? are we watching Shakespeare in love, or a midsummer's nights dream, or discussing the book that has influenced the course of history and the rise of successive empires?

nothing subjective about how a single book has transcended time and the course of history to be applicable today as it was millenniums ago.. once we have a book that can do all that and do it in the unparalleled lyrical style of the Quran, can we speak of a comparison subjective or not!


as stated akhi, I wouldn't waste time on vain discourse!


:w:
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-20-2010, 04:47 AM
@ Lynx: "The Qur'an can only be described as the 'peak of eloquence'. It selects the perfect words in the most apt arrangements to achieve the intended communicative goal. When the Qur'an is compared to any other Arabic text, past or present, it transcends the choices made by human authors; including words, pronouns, sounds, rhythms and particles." [Hamza Tzortzis]

So lets say you take three verses of Quran and express what they say in a better way. How could you make it better? See the criteria mentioned above.

BUt of course, its not the first time the challenge has been given to you. Hence, as the sis mentioned, I opt out of this vain discourse that you have instigated.
Reply

Yusuf Saeed
01-20-2010, 05:10 AM
So what does God base these moral rules on?

How are they any less subjective?
Hi!

As God has always existed He doesn't base his moral rules on anything but He has made them Himself and He's thus the only real source of objective right and wrong. These are not subjective because from one who Created the whole Universe with all the amazing natural laws we can only expect objectivity and you can't compare someone who has created all this with some human who comes up with moral rules and claims them to be objective.


You've claimed God is 'above' our subjectivity, but you haven't really explained how.

I'd be interested to know also how you propose people ought to come to conclusions on ethical issues without reaching into their own intellect. There are many complex issues in real life that involve weighing up many issues relating to the lives of others and the suffering of others that no 'objective morality from God' can ever hope to solve. These are the real issues that go on all the time, that involve human subjectivity to resolve.

As an atheist you probably don't properly understand the whole concept of God and that makes it difficult for you to grasp God's objectivity. A simple way how we Muslims see how God is above human subjectivity whold be as follows:
God exists and the proof of that can be found in the Qur'an (though not only in there) --> As God created everything He also created (the sense of) morality in people and the idea of right and wrong --> Therefore the most correct idea of what is good and what is bad can be only understood through His teachings to the mankind.


May I ask exactly which complex issues do you mean?


It appears to be nothing more than obedience to an authority figure. You contend God knows right and has our best interests at heart and therefore we should follow him. From where does he get his knowledge from on this? Indeed if it is possible to 'know' (as you've implied with God) what we ought to do or ought not do objectively, then is God even necessary?
As I stated before God never had a beginning. Also, he's All-Knowing and All-Wise. So there can be really no such question "from where does he get his knowledge on this?" as He Himself is the source of all knowledge.

Your question about whether God is even necessary when it's possible to know what we ought to do or ought not to do objectively makes no sense really. Firstly, if there was no God then we would not know what we ought and what we ought not to do. Secondly, giving us guidelines is not the only role He has had, for example among many other roles God Has He also will act as a Judge in the end.


That is frightening. The best thing I can say about it is that perhaps you are not being serious about it, or do not fully understand the rammifications of such a position. By this, it does not matter what God says to you - but only that God says it.

So you do not condone murder because of its suffering to others, but you condemn it because God happens to disapprove of it. You do not condemn rape, torture, slavery and other such vile acts because of the extent of human suffering involved with it - but you hold them in derision because God has told you to. This is not morality, this is submission to authority. The terms 'right' and 'wrong' become 'obedience' and 'disobedience' respectively. If this is true, and you really believe that things only have a moral value or lack of moral value because God comments on it - then you would have no grounds to disapprove of anything God could say.
Perhaps for you who you don't really know God at all it seems frightening but let me explain. As the basic sense of good and bad in every one of us has come from God then something is good only when God decrees so. There are no different goods, there's only one that has come from God. The causal relation here is that God has decided when creating this world and people what is good and what is bad and not so that first there was good and then God chose some of this good to fit his rules. That's why that question of yours was rather nonsensical in the first place.


But what if God has decreed killings of innocent and rape and torture wrong exactly because of the suffering it brings to the victims of these crimes? Then when I'm being obedient to God and following His rules of condemning such vile acts I also through these rules condemn it because of the suffering it brings to those victims. One doesn't rule out the other.

If God was to decree murder, you would have to support it. If God was to decree slavery, you would have to support it. Your own world view offers no reason nor rational to disapprove of this because it is all about God.
These two hypothetical claims have no basis because this is not the reality. God does not decree killings of the innocent neither slavery. "My own world view" would without God be subjective, God makes the way I view the world more objective though of course not thoroughly as no-one can have the full knowledge and understanding of God. So yes, it is all about God but that doesn't mean when condemning cruel acts I need to ignore that those acts bring suffering to people.



By the way, going back to the beginning of this discussion when you say that morality is what society makes it be like then how can you claim the immorality of Hellfire as you yourself don't accept the term "objective morality"? According to your claims in one society and according to the morals there Hellfire can be seen as moral while in the other society it can be seen as immoral so when you see morality solely as a societal affair how can you claim immorality of Hellfire?


Take care!
Reply

Lynx
01-20-2010, 07:01 AM
Skye: I asked for objective evidence that the Quran was true. You gave me a formula and said if someone doesnt understand the formula it's because they don't want ot learn it. I said you cannot compare a formula with Islam because a formula is true objectively; it is a matter of a google search to see hte truth of it. Islam is totally different and hence u were making the logical fallacy of drawing a false analogy.


Wahabi scientist: comparing literature is going to be subjective because the consensus reached by 'experts' is based upon a subjective criteria. Aesthetics IS a subjective field. There is no 'objective' reason why the mona lisa is a good painting. The technical parts of literature are technical sure..but whether they make a poem or anything like that 'better' is purely subjective. Now do you have evidnece for the quran's truth? If not then how will a nonbeliever ever convert
?
Reply

Skavau
01-20-2010, 08:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yusuf Saeed
As God has always existed He doesn't base his moral rules on anything but He has made them Himself and He's thus the only real source of objective right and wrong.
Why does God making them himself mean they reach some elusive state of 'objectivity'?

These are not subjective because from one who Created the whole Universe with all the amazing natural laws we can only expect objectivity and you can't compare someone who has created all this with some human who comes up with moral rules and claims them to be objective.
You claim here that the moral laws by God are not subjective because God can be expected to be objective. I know from things you've already said that you believe morality is whatever God says it is and now you say that we can only expect these laws to be objective. I don't believe these responses to be consistent. If morals could or had the capacity for objectivity, then they exist and can be accessible sans God. Objectivity does not exist or become existent because some being decrees it so - that is the very definition of the reverse: arbitrary.

As an atheist you probably don't properly understand the whole concept of God and that makes it difficult for you to grasp God's objectivity. A simple way how we Muslims see how God is above human subjectivity whold be as follows:
God exists and the proof of that can be found in the Qur'an (though not only in there) --> As God created everything He also created (the sense of) morality in people and the idea of right and wrong --> Therefore the most correct idea of what is good and what is bad can be only understood through His teachings to the mankind.
I am not sure how to respond to this, because it is completely inconsistent with everything else you've written on this topic. I know that your definition of 'moral' is now circular (to you moral = god = moral) and completely detached from humanity. What does the term 'sense of morality' mean to you precisely? To me, it means concepts such as 'empathy' and 'altruism'. These are specific terms that have no meaning in your system of obedience. They relate thoroughly to humanity.

May I ask exactly which complex issues do you mean?
There was a fantastically convuluted example I watched not so long ago about a real life incident involving a hospital in the wake of the New Orleans disaster. It involved literally hundreds of factors involved for whoever was taking the decision concerning the lives of others. I don't believe any 'divine' ordinance could have had any effect there whatsoever.

Irrespectively, I can't find the video where I saw it. I'll keep an eye out.

As I stated before God never had a beginning. Also, he's All-Knowing and All-Wise. So there can be really no such question "from where does he get his knowledge on this?" as He Himself is the source of all knowledge.
Okay.

I never actually said God had a beginning. I don't know where you got that from in my argument.

Your question about whether God is even necessary when it's possible to know what we ought to do or ought not to do objectively makes no sense really.
How so? You answer your own complaint here. If it is possible to know what we ought to do or ought not do, then objective morality exists.

Firstly, if there was no God then we would not know what we ought and what we ought not to do. Secondly, giving us guidelines is not the only role He has had, for example among many other roles God Has He also will act as a Judge in the end.
Okay

Perhaps for you who you don't really know God at all it seems frightening but let me explain. As the basic sense of good and bad in every one of us has come from God then something is good only when God decrees so. There are no different goods, there's only one that has come from God. The causal relation here is that God has decided when creating this world and people what is good and what is bad and not so that first there was good and then God chose some of this good to fit his rules. That's why that question of yours was rather nonsensical in the first place.
What? The Euthyphro Dilemma was my question, if I remember? One of the most important historical philosophical questions that has ever existed for theists?

But irrespectively, you're merely reiterating here that God = good.

But what if God has decreed killings of innocent and rape and torture wrong exactly because of the suffering it brings to the victims of these crimes?
Then God would be declaring that murder, rape and torture is objectively wrong and should be opposed not because he decrees it but because of their impact on others.

Then when I'm being obedient to God and following His rules of condemning such vile acts I also through these rules condemn it because of the suffering it brings to those victims. One doesn't rule out the other.
Of course, it all is because God says so - as you say. If God was to declare otherwise, all reasons he may have initially given become null and void to your core foundation: obedience to his will.

These two hypothetical claims have no basis because this is not the reality. God does not decree killings of the innocent neither slavery. "My own world view" would without God be subjective, God makes the way I view the world more objective though of course not thoroughly as no-one can have the full knowledge and understanding of God. So yes, it is all about God but that doesn't mean when condemning cruel acts I need to ignore that those acts bring suffering to people.
I know you don't believe in a God that condones atrocity. They were hypotheticals of course to explain the problems innate in your world view.

And it doesn't matter whether you ignore acts that bring suffering or not in condemning whatever - you've already conceded the worst: that it is all about God, and not about humanity.

By the way, going back to the beginning of this discussion when you say that morality is what society makes it be like then how can you claim the immorality of Hellfire as you yourself don't accept the term "objective morality"? According to your claims in one society and according to the morals there Hellfire can be seen as moral while in the other society it can be seen as immoral so when you see morality solely as a societal affair how can you claim immorality of Hellfire?
I'm not a relativist.

I see morality solely as a human affair within communities. I can claim immorality of hellfire because of the needless sadism, pointless eternity and totalitarian nature of it. I accept morality as 'subjective' in the sense that I don't believe there can be an absolute code of conduct. I don't believe that there is a system of fixed or set of laws mandated by nature concerning our behavioural standards.

To say there is to say that there is some objective 'favourite colour'. It doesn't make sense.
Reply

Skavau
01-20-2010, 08:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
The challenge is to bring a 'sura'/chapter even if it be as short as suret al-kawthar which is only three verses (as in the ability to tell us something either of the past/future/or be applicable to politics/economics/psychology/ afterlife/ prophecies/inheritance/business/govt. etc etc and have it be in the lyrical poetic style of the Quran which is unmatched!
This challenge is null based on the reasons that Lynx said. Literature appreciation is entirely subjective. I can like to read books, read articles on here that other people would hold to be badly written. You could read poetry and short stories that I might contend have bad plot points. I can safely on this that every single Muslim who actively supports and invokes the challenge will effectively reject (based on preference) any piece of literature bought forth. It appears to be more of an expression about how Muslims appreciate the Qu'ran than an effective challenge capable of proving anything.

Some people could say the Qu'ran is badly written, and you wouldn't have any objective method of disproving them. Other people could say that it is majestic and I nor anyone else would have any method of disproving them. But I guess this is the problem with a world-view that not only conflates is and ought but also conflates is and preference.
Reply

جوري
01-20-2010, 02:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
This challenge is null based on the reasons that Lynx said. Literature appreciation is entirely subjective. I can like to read books, read articles on here that other people would hold to be badly written. You could read poetry and short stories that I might contend have bad plot points. I can safely on this that every single Muslim who actively supports and invokes the challenge will effectively reject (based on preference) any piece of literature bought forth. It appears to be more of an expression about how Muslims appreciate the Qu'ran than an effective challenge capable of proving anything.

You have to have a roused interest and a gain from a challenge in order for you to be able to classify it as either a challenge or a leisurely feat. You can't nullify a challenge for the mere fact that you have no interest to partake in it. Firstly, you have to go on proving that there is no god in order to prove that this isn't his very book.
The criteria that is set is intelligibly elucidated and not at all subjective..
else everything that is slightly visceral would be entirely subjective, in such a case the entire field of psychiatry and pain management would also be null and void, if we are to go by your accounts.

To say it is 'Null and void' is subjective, to actually take the challenge, is well the challenge!


Some people could say the Qu'ran is badly written, and you wouldn't have any objective method of disproving them. Other people could say that it is majestic and I nor anyone else would have any method of disproving them. But I guess this is the problem with a world-view that not only conflates is and ought but also conflates is and preference.
I have no idea what this means or of its relevance?

all the best!
Reply

Yusuf Saeed
01-20-2010, 03:22 PM
Why does God making them himself mean they reach some elusive state of 'objectivity'?
Hi!

Because God is the Creator of this whole Universe and He's All-Wise and All-knowing. Logically someone who created something knows the best how it works and thus is most objective to give information about it rather than someone who is within this creation and can only look at certain aspects of it but not the whole picture.


I am not sure how to respond to this, because it is completely inconsistent with everything else you've written on this topic. I know that your definition of 'moral' is now circular (to you moral = god = moral) and completely detached from humanity. What does the term 'sense of morality' mean to you precisely? To me, it means concepts such as 'empathy' and 'altruism'. These are specific terms that have no meaning in your system of obedience. They relate thoroughly to humanity.
By "sense of morality" I mean quite the same that you mean, a person's capability of empathy and basic feeling of that some things seem to be good and some don't. As God is the Creator of everything He also created the "sense of morality" in everyone of us and a capability to distinguish between some good and bad things. But all of what we feel to be right is not always right and the opposite, we can only behave completely according to objective morality when we put these basic morals that reside in us to moral frames given by God.

I never actually said God had a beginning. I don't know where you got that from in my argument.
I said that God never had a beginning to give a response to your question about on what God bases the moral. That as He never had a beginning yet everything else has had He cannot base it on anything other than Himself.

How so? You answer your own complaint here. If it is possible to know what we ought to do or ought not do, then objective morality exists.
You split up my argument and then don't understand what I had to say.

You asked this question "Indeed if it is possible to 'know' (as you've implied with God) what we ought to do or ought not do objectively, then is God even necessary?"

And this was my reply, don't split it up:

"Your question about whether God is even necessary when it's possible to know what we ought to do or ought not to do objectively makes no sense really. Firstly, if there was no God then we would not know what we ought and what we ought not to do. Secondly, giving us guidelines is not the only role He has had, for example among many other roles God Has He also will act as a Judge in the end."


Then God would be declaring that murder, rape and torture is objectively wrong and should be opposed not because he decrees it but because of their impact on others.
When God declares these acts objectively wrong because he decrees so doesn't rule out the fact that He also declares them wrong for the benefit of people and for the sake of healthy development of society.


Of course, it all is because God says so - as you say. If God was to declare otherwise, all reasons he may have initially given become null and void to your core foundation: obedience to his will.
If God would have declared anything otherwise for example the basics of good and bad then you also would have a completely different idea of good and bad because even you being able to empathize with a little raped girl has a lot to do with people including you having been created by God.

And it doesn't matter whether you ignore acts that bring suffering or not in condemning whatever - you've already conceded the worst: that it is all about God, and not about humanity.
As I already said in my previous post even though it really is all about God (because after all He's the creator of all this and knows the best of all everything about it) it doesn't mean that I reject causing suffering to innocent people only because God has told me to but also because I can empathize with people I see suffering. The fact that we Muslims try to live our lives by the guidelines given from God doesn't mean we're not able to empathize.

I accept morality as 'subjective' in the sense that I don't believe there can be an absolute code of conduct. I don't believe that there is a system of fixed or set of laws mandated by nature concerning our behavioural standards.
You also don't believe in God but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist and all this Universe came to existence with sheer chance.


Take care! :)
Reply

Skavau
01-20-2010, 04:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer
You have to have a roused interest and a gain from a challenge in order for you to be able to classify it as either a challenge or a leisurely feat.
I am sure only literature buffs would take it, and not take it as anything more than something of leisure, as you say.

You can't nullify a challenge for the mere fact that you have no interest to partake in it. Firstly, you have to go on proving that there is no god in order to prove that this isn't his very book.
Firstly, I'm not nullifying it due to apathy but due to incoherence and subjectivity.

Secondly, I cannot disprove a negative. God is unfalsifiable.

The criteria that is set is intelligibly elucidated and not at all subjective..
else everything that is slightly visceral would be entirely subjective, in such a case the entire field of psychiatry and pain management would also be null and void, if we are to go by your accounts.
How on earth do you come to compare literature to psychiatry? Are you saying there exists some 'objective' set of 'best' literature or something? What criteria does it have to fulfill if so?

To say it is 'Null and void' is subjective, to actually take the challenge, is well the challenge!
I don't even know how someone would take the challenge, much less find meaning in it.

I have no idea what this means or of its relevance?
It means I view that this so called 'challenge' as a projection by Muslims on how they view 'objectivity' in general.
Reply

Lynx
01-20-2010, 04:53 PM
You have to have a roused interest and a gain from a challenge in order for you to be able to classify it as either a challenge or a leisurely feat. You can't nullify a challenge for the mere fact that you have no interest to partake in it. Firstly, you have to go on proving that there is no god in order to prove that this isn't his very book.
The criteria that is set is intelligibly elucidated and not at all subjective..
else everything that is slightly visceral would be entirely subjective, in such a case the entire field of psychiatry and pain management would also be null and void, if we are to go by your accounts.

To say it is 'Null and void' is subjective, to actually take the challenge, is well the challenge!
I am beginning to think you just don't know what subjective means. No body here is saying they don't have an interest to take the challenge. But the challenge itself is as flawed as asking which video game is better: Metal Gear 4 or Super Mario wii. But maybe you still don't get it. I will ask you to pick one 'good' aspect of the Qurans literature. I think if I show you by example why the challenge is pointless and what subjectivity really entails you'll retract your position.So just pick one merit the Quran has and I will explain to you what I mean.
Reply

Skavau
01-20-2010, 05:02 PM
Because God is the Creator of this whole Universe and He's All-Wise and All-knowing. Logically someone who created something knows the best how it works and thus is most objective to give information about it rather than someone who is within this creation and can only look at certain aspects of it but not the whole picture.
You say that he is "most objective to give information about it". Are you suggesting that God acts and responds to an understanding of some 'objective' standard of morality? This would be in total contradiction of your claim that 'God says it - and therefore it ought'. Either God decides the information, or has the knowledge to access it.

By "sense of morality" I mean quite the same that you mean, a person's capability of empathy and basic feeling of that some things seem to be good and some don't.
Okay. So concepts detached from God?

As God is the Creator of everything He also created the "sense of morality" in everyone of us and a capability to distinguish between some good and bad things. But all of what we feel to be right is not always right and the opposite, we can only behave completely according to objective morality when we put these basic morals that reside in us to moral frames given by God.
So these basic feelings, or 'sense of morality' in your book is merely a catalyst designed to work with 'God's morality'?

I said that God never had a beginning to give a response to your question about on what God bases the moral. That as He never had a beginning yet everything else has had He cannot base it on anything other than Himself.
Okay

You split up my argument and then don't understand what I had to say.

You asked this question "Indeed if it is possible to 'know' (as you've implied with God) what we ought to do or ought not do objectively, then is God even necessary?"

And this was my reply, don't split it up:

"Your question about whether God is even necessary when it's possible to know what we ought to do or ought not to do objectively makes no sense really. Firstly, if there was no God then we would not know what we ought and what we ought not to do. Secondly, giving us guidelines is not the only role He has had, for example among many other roles God Has He also will act as a Judge in the end."
I had no qualms with the part you highlighted in bold. You just made claims in it.

When God declares these acts objectively wrong because he decrees so doesn't rule out the fact that He also declares them wrong for the benefit of people and for the sake of healthy development of society.
So, propose hypothetically God was to hypothetically withdraw support for prohibiting these acts. Would you still think them in negative terms?

If God would have declared anything otherwise for example the basics of good and bad then you also would have a completely different idea of good and bad because even you being able to empathize with a little raped girl has a lot to do with people including you having been created by God.
Well, this is just a statement of your belief.

As I already said in my previous post even though it really is all about God (because after all He's the creator of all this and knows the best of all everything about it) it doesn't mean that I reject causing suffering to innocent people only because God has told me to but also because I can empathize with people I see suffering. The fact that we Muslims try to live our lives by the guidelines given from God doesn't mean we're not able to empathize.
Terms such as 'innocent' to you only have value so long as God decrees it.

I suspect you do not feel troubled by those who may suffer eternally in hell. I do not know the extent of your positions on homosexuality, apostasy, and other things condemned without empathy by Muslims, and under Sharia Law.

Also, I'd like to say now that I expect you are able to empathise for thoroughly non-religious reasons detached from the system of obedience you proclaim to adhere to.

You also don't believe in God but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist and all this Universe came to existence with sheer chance.
No-one says the universe came to existence with 'sheer chance'.

You also cut the reply up! :ooh:
Reply

جوري
01-20-2010, 05:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
I am sure only literature buffs would take it, and not take it as anything more than something of leisure, as you say.
we'll wait then until such a time 'literature buffs' produce a book that covers all Quranic aspects, be used as a constitutions and withstand millenniums before I take your word at other than face value!

Firstly, I'm not nullifying it due to apathy but due to incoherence and subjectivity.
You can't nullify based on mental object, rather you need to address individual subjects at hand that are held as true divine jurisprudence (amongst other things)!
Secondly, I cannot disprove a negative. God is unfalsifiable.
I am glad we agree on something.. that is a good start!

How on earth do you come to compare literature to psychiatry? Are you saying there exists some 'objective' set of 'best' literature or something? What criteria does it have to fulfill if so?
The Quran isn't 'mere literature' it is a living book used in every day life and I have so demonstrated by naming a few of the fields it covers, no different than the way we use 'subjective' findings in psychiatry to initiate and calibrate an actual science based for the most part on subjective criteria. Do you have a schizophrenia meter? a headache o meter? a pain o meter?

How do you judge medically/scientifically a subjective feeling that a person is verbalizing to you without a probe or instrument to quantify it for you in data like fashion?

I don't even know how someone would take the challenge, much less find meaning in it.
but in your first paragraph you've already alleged that 'literature buffs' can? finding meaning is a personal endeavor!

It means I view that this so called 'challenge' as a projection by Muslims on how they view 'objectivity' in general.
Well 'your views' on the matter really don't matter in the grand scheme of things, anymore than your views on someone medically diagnosed with depression as a faker can be held in any regard. You can't engage in a topic in which you are unstudied and unqualified!

all the best
Reply

Yusuf Saeed
01-20-2010, 05:36 PM
Hi!

You say that he is "most objective to give information about it". Are you suggesting that God acts and responds to an understanding of some 'objective' standard of morality? This would be in total contradiction of your claim that 'God says it - and therefore it ought'. Either God decides the information, or has the knowledge to access it.
God did not only create the whole Universe but with it also the whole knowledge about it including the knowledge of what is good and what is not. So God doesn't respond to some random objective standard rather He Himself created the standard and teaches the created objective morality to us whether we follow it or not.

Okay. So concepts detached from God?
I'm afraid you missed my point here. This "sense of morality" residing in everyone of us and our ability to empathize with people has also come from God.

So these basic feelings, or 'sense of morality' in your book is merely a catalyst designed to work with 'God's morality'?
As long as we don't put these basic feelings (of empathy) into the frames given by God we may get some things right but surely it will be only subjective. Objectivity in right and wrong can be achieved only through laws and rules of from God.

So, propose hypothetically God was to hypothetically withdraw support for prohibiting these acts. Would you still think them in negative terms?
I don't see God withdrawing support for prohibiting these acts. So it's not a valid question at least not more valid than if I asked you that you imagine hypothetically that you were to hypothetically become a cat from tomorrow onwards. Would you still consider raw fish as something unpleasant to eat?


Terms such as 'innocent' to you only have value so long as God decrees it.

I suspect you do not feel troubled by those who may suffer eternally in hell. I do not know the extent of your positions on homosexuality, apostasy, and other things condemned without empathy by Muslims, and under Sharia Law.

Also, I'd like to say now that I expect you are able to empathise for thoroughly non-religious reasons detached from the system of obedience you proclaim to adhere to.
In fact I do feel troubled by those who may suffer eternally in Hell, especially by those who are close and dear to me. But the names of God are not only "Most Gracious" and "Most Merciful" but also "Just Judge" and He's also "Severe in punishment". But God's "good" doesn't always mean the same as subjective "good" of humans, some things simply are above our comprehension and what we may think with our minds or feel to be "bad" or "evil" can in bigger meaning be positive. We can't see the wisdom behind every act of God as it's He who is All-Wise, not us.


No-one says the universe came to existence with 'sheer chance'.
I'm still really curious and if you don't mind then perhaps you could at least tell me shortly what is your view on the beginning of the Universe and if you really don't agree that there was some higher power behind it?

Take care!
Reply

deepfreeze66
01-21-2010, 02:10 AM
There is no problem with Religion.

It is the problem that is with people.
Reply

Lynx
01-21-2010, 02:11 AM
SKYE:

It seems you won't admit that the challenge set out by the Quran is impossible to judge objectively so I will take the challenge and hopefully you will see the pointlessness of the challenge. Well I should say I will quote a passage that is the antithesis of what the Quran says. You mention 'withstanding the test of time' so I offer you a passage from Nietzche from The Gay Science.

____
"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."
______

What now?
Reply

Lynx
01-21-2010, 02:12 AM
SKYE:

It seems you won't admit that the challenge set out by the Quran is impossible to judge objectively so I will take the challenge and hopefully you will see the pointlessness of the challenge. Well I should say I will quote a passage that is the antithesis of what the Quran says. You mention 'withstanding the test of time' so I offer you a passage from Nietzche from The Gay Science.

____
"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."
______

What now?
Reply

جوري
01-21-2010, 02:27 AM
Greetings, try to follow threads such as these, it is easy to insinuate yourself after having briefly familiarized yourself with the topic and have a better understanding of the challenge of the Quran, just so we are not wasting each other's time and board space..

all the best!

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhammad
Greetings Eliphaz,

Apologies for the long delay in replying to your post.

As I said, I don’t mind focusing on particular aspects. However, this does not mean the others are to be disregarded because they too are unique for the Qur’an and most certainly cannot be claimed for “any book”.

Indeed the extent to which we can discuss this aspect is limited by our understanding of the Arabic language, which is what I said right at the beginning. Does that mean it is subjective? No, of course not. Your earlier answer was much more befitting a seeker of truth when you said, “I am resuming my Arabic studies next year so here’s hoping that I too may one day be able to recognise the beauty of the Qur’an”. I’m disappointed that now you’ve made up your mind without even doing the research.

As for the analogy – it is incorrect. Deaf people cannot hear any music regardless of how hard they try. Yet in the case of the Qur’an, the more a person exerts effort towards it - such as educating themselves in the Arabic language and all its sciences - the more they can appreciate the miracle of the Qur’an. This applies to both Arabs as well as non-Arabs.

I don’t know how the second statement relates to the first, but you have failed to show how Musaylimah (not Muawiyah!) is a strawman argument. Nevertheless, if you don’t want to accept him as a valid example simply because of how ridiculous he made himself look, let’s not waste any more time over it. Throughout the centuries, thinkers, poets, theologians and literary critics have attempted to take on the challenge of the Qur’an, yet both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars have agreed on their failure. So there are many others in addition to Musaylimah – there was Ibn Al-Mukaffa, ‘Abu'l-'Ala Al-Marri, Yahya b. Al-Hakam al-Ghazal, Sayyid 'Ali Muhammad, Ibn al-Rawandi, Bassar bin Burd, Sahib Ibn 'Abbad, Abu'l - 'Atahiya and others. I hope you’re not going to come back and claim they were all strawmen too?

The reason why you think it is “silly” is because you don’t understand the nature of the challenge and how the Qur’an is incomparable to any other work. The Qur'an, being neither prose nor poetry, is a literary genre of its own that is of the highest eloquence and of matchless stylistic perfection. For example, even though the challengers have had the same set of ‘tools’, which are the 28 letters, finite grammatical rules and the blue print of the challenge – which is the Qur’an itself; they have failed to:

  • Replicate the Qur’ans literary form
  • Match the unique linguistic genre of the Qur’an
  • Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an
  • Select and arrange particles like that of the Qur’an
  • Match the Qur’ans phonetic superiority
  • Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices
  • Match the level of informativity
  • Equal the Qur’ans conciseness and flexibility

For further information, I would suggest you read some of the articles written on this topic which I've linked to earlier.

H A R Gibb. states:
“As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, havingneither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming theinimitability not only of its contents but also of its style….. and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in whichall the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.”
Moreover, you’ve again committed the fallacy of homing in on one aspect of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature, thinking it alone proves the Qur’an is from Allaah (swt). As I said more than once, all the aspects are to be taken in totality.

You keep calling it a “self-declared miracle”, but I can’t understand how you came to that conclusion.

All that you have presented on this topic is mere conjecture that is unfeasible and contradictory. I presented many points showing this, yet you only quote one of the six questions posed by Jamal Badawi and seem to have forgotten not only the other five, but everything posted in addition. The fact that some people didn’t accept Islam has nothing to do with this, because it is well known that not everyone who comes to know of the truth accepts it.

How exactly does this misinformation support anything you’ve said?

It’s one thing to conjecture about something, and another to back it up with evidence. As I said, I have already mentioned a number of points in this regard that you haven’t responded to. I also came across this excerpt of Dr Laurence Brown which echoes some of those points:
Something Wrong With This Picture


The great importance the Qur’an assigns to reason in the pursuit of faith is surprising, especially considering the era and place in which it first appeared. By all accounts the Arabian Peninsula was at that time far from being a cradle of learning or philosophy. The Arabs were a callous, poor, illiterate, and uncultured people, often struggling fiercely against their harsh environment and each other for what little there was to extend their survival. While the Scriptures of the other major world religions appeared in developed and refined societies, the Qur’an first appeared in what can be aptly described as a cultural desert. Historians agree that the Arabs were a primitive people with no artistic, literary, or scientific heritage to speak of. They had no schools of philosophy, no significant works of visual art or literature; they were unknowledgeable in higher mathematics and possessed no other Scriptures or sacred writings. Their only developed art form was poetry, orally communicated and handed down. Such an environment is not expected to produce a work of such genius and literary power. We might assume that a long and gradual, cultural maturation would have preceded the Qur’an’s appearance.

There is no evidence that Muhammad had any formal education. He may have led a few caravan expeditions in his twenties, but that would not provide him with the opportunity to develop his intellectual skills to such a high level. The whole style of the Qur’an, its stress on reason, its logical coherence … its beauty and conciseness, suggests an author whose insight and wisdom come from far beyond the primitive confines of the then backward and isolated Arabian Peninsula.

I thought that perhaps there may have been more than one author of the Qur’an, but, unlike other Scriptures, there is no internal evidence to support this. The personality behind the Revelations is clearly one and its coherence is too great for it to have been a collective effort. As the Scripture states:

Surely if it were from other than God, they would find in it many a contradiction (4:82).

They could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support (17:88).

The only reasonable explanation I could come up with is that Muhammad had to be humanity’s greatest genius, for history has known many unusually gifted minds but none that transcended their time and place as he must have. Einstein was an amazing physicist, but his development of the Theory of Relativity was preceded by centuries of discovery with the science of physics moving in that direction for some time. Had Einstein not come up with the Theory of Relativity when he did, one of his peers almost certainly would have soon after. Andrew Wiles’ recent proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem is a brilliant achievement, but hundreds of years of advancement in mathematics and work on this problem contributed to it. Mozart, Van Gough, and Shakespeare were exceptional, but their works built on and reflect trends within their cultural surroundings. But the Qur’an’s sudden appearance in the Hijaz seemed to me like a rose bush suddenly appearing in full bloom in the most barren sector of the Empty Quarter of Arabia.

I felt that if Muhammad was the author of the Qur’an, then, besides being the most brilliant mind in history, he also must have been intensely devout and altruistic. The Qur’an is the purest testament to monotheism in existence, and it shows a deep, compassionate commitment to helping humanity, guiding men and women to the love of God, and righteous living. It would also seem that the Prophet must have been remarkably humble and self-effacing, as the Scripture repeatedly insists that Muhammad is only a man; that his only role is to deliver the message; that he has no supernatural powers; and that he, like everyone else, should pray for guidance and forgiveness. It criticizes and corrects him on several occasions. Such humility is rare in persons so intellectually superior to their peers.

Therefore, if Muhammad had authored the Qur’an, it would seem that he was singularly devoted to serving God and humanity and to teaching virtue, but yet, I could not ignore that he must also have concocted the most audacious hoax, fabricating a Scripture that portrays itself as God’s direct communication through him. It does not fit that a person capable of such a colossal lie could also produce such a powerful call to truth and goodness. I toyed with the idea that the Prophet may have had multiple personalities, but the Qur’an is surely not the delusions of a fragmented personality, any more than it could be the work of several individuals.
I’m glad you asked. One of the most important benefits from the stories in the Qur’an is that they demonstrate the manner in which one should call people to Allaah (swt) and what are the matters to be emphasised first – the primary message of all the prophets was Tawheed. In addition, these stories show that the true religion of mankind has always been one and the same (the religion of Tawheed) - there has been no evolution from polytheism to monotheism. Furthermore, through these stories, the believer realises that he is part of one great community that has existed throughout the centuries, whose sole purpose is the worship and pleasure of Allaah (swt). The Muslim is not alone in striving to follow the Straight Path, rather there have been many that have gone along that path in the past.

Another benefit from these stories is that they provide reassurance to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and all those following in his footsteps. Many of these stories show how the earlier prophets were treated by their people, showing how they had to face ridicule, scorn and denial etc. Thus, whoever faces such difficulties should realise that earlier prophets faced the same and that this is a trial from Allaah (swt) that all people following the same path may have to face. Moreover, their stories make it clear that Allaah (swt) gave them strength and supported them due to their patience.

These stories also demonstrate how greatly Allaah (swt) blesses His true and devoted servants. The reader can quickly recognise how much Allaah (swt) blessed, guided and aided the pious people and this will remind the reader that if he is working for the sake of Allaah (swt), Allaah (swt) will indeed help him, bless him and never allow his works to be lost in vain.

Through reading these stories of the earlier prophets, one also realises how Allaah (swt) is able to manifest His power over His creation. Nothing occurs except by His will. Furthermore, no matter how strong the forces of evil might seem, there will come a time when they will be brought down and removed.

These are some examples of the morals and teachings presented by the stories in the Qur’an. The impertinent comments you made towards Allaah (swt) demonstrate your need for a proper approach to the Qur’an. If you do not have a sincere heart in learning about Islam and the Qur’an, then discussions such as these are a complete waste of time.

I mean all the points I mentioned regarding the borrowing theory. Let’s deal with what we have before adding in extra points for discussion.

Whichever decade it falls into is irrelevant – the main point is that it was given to occur within the next 3 to 9 years.

Wherever the capital was, the east and the west were simply two regions of the same empire. As for it being “formidable”, see below.

Even if the Romans defeated the Persians at this time, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were now in a “strategically stronger position” as the Romans and Persians had been fighting for centuries, with either side gaining victories or with long intermittent periods of peace between them. The situation was drastically different decades later when the Roman empire was at the brink of destruction. (According to Wikipedia, since 614, the emperor issued large quantities of silver coins with a new and desperate slogan on them: Deus adiuta Romanis - "God, help the Romans!")

The renowned historian Edward Gibbon has commented:

“When this prophecy was made, no prediction could be more unbelievable because the initial twelve years of Heraclius were evidently declaring an end to the Roman Empire.” [Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, p.73-74]

This is getting quite silly. Whether you believe the President or not is irrelevant, the fact is that from all the information available to you, you make a prediction on what seems most likely, which anyone can do. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) didn’t have access to the internet and news channels, neither did he have any “evidence” of the likely outcome. To the contrary, the prediction was made against all odds such that even the pagan Arabs confidently betted against it. I reiterate the underlying point again: no prediction made in the Qur’an has failed, but rather each (of the ones mentioned) came true consistently despite circumstances which made some, if not all of them, very unlikely.

You forget that Heraclius launched his campaign throughout 622-627 CE. In 627/628 was the climactic Battle of Nineveh, yet the Romans had begun gaining victory well before this. Thus, what may be referred to is an earlier victory, which according to Dr. Laurence Brown, was the defeat of a major Persian force led by the famous general Shahr-Baraz.

We’re not talking about one or two attributes here, we’re talking about the Islamic belief as a whole. There is no other religion whose concept of monotheism is as pure and perfect as Islam. Allaah (swt) is described with qualities of complete perfection, and at the same time in a manner that is free of ascribing to Him any imperfection. This is in line with man’s natural disposition and ability to reason that God is perfect in every way and free from having any partners etc – there is no circular logic involved, as the beliefs in the Islamic creed distinctly stand out in their purity and appeal to human rationale. Looking at other religions, the flaws in their beliefs are very apparent where they ascribe partners to God and weaknesses like fatigue, sleep and hunger, and incompatible stories of gods fighting each other, engaging in inappropriate behaviour and so on.Moreover, Islam gives a sense of integrity and honour for the prophets as recipients of divine revelation, yet this is denied by the Christians and Jews who ascribe crimes such as murder, incest and drunkenness to them. It thus becomes clear that the concept of an existing being that possesses such complete ability, knowledge, and greatness; Who has subdued the creation; Who has encompassed everything in the universe, small or large; and Who possesses such perfect mercy – all of this must be from the true God and not the invention of any human being or philosopher. It is also worthy to note the context in which the Qur’an was revealed – amongst a people heavily engrossed in superstitious beliefs and strange practices, none of which adulterate the pristine teachings of Islam.

Perhaps the most obvious example is that during the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself. A society so steeped in evil practices such as tribal wars, murdering of children, drinking and gambling, prostitution and cruel treatment of women etc. was completely transformed. This transformation is something that many have marvelled at. When Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) began preaching Islam, Durant notes,
`Arabia was a desert flotsam of idolatrous tribes; when he died it was a nation.’ W. Durant: The Age of Faith, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1950. Chapter VIII; p.174.
And the historian Michael S. Hart ranked the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) as the most influential figure in history.

The sharee’ah continued to be studied and implemented throughout the Muslim lands, not being outdated over the passage of time or change of place. There are ample references to the tolerance and humane aspects of Muslim civilisation, and the nature of Muslim rule in various places. For example:
This prosperity and the Golden Age did not just end in the Middle Ages, rather this pattern continued for many centuries to come. In some places Jews were so comfortable with the Islamic system that they deliberately applied to Shari’ah courts for the purpose of attaining justice and arbitration, even when they had complete autonomy in their religious affairs [i.e. they had their own courts to refer to]. For instance, Amnon Cohen, another American Jewish historian, studied the 16th century documents stored in the archives of the Shari’ah religious court of Jerusalem (commonly known as sijill), whereby he found 1000 Jewish cases filed form the year 1530 to 1601 CE. Cohen published his research in 1994 and during his research he made some astonishing discoveries, as he himself states:

"Cases concerning Jews cover a very wide spectrum of topics. If we bear in mind that the Jews of Jerusalem had their own separate courts, the number of cases brought to Muslim court (which actually meant putting themselves at the mercy of a judge outside the pale of their communal and religious identity) is quite impressive[21]…The Jews went to the Muslim court for a variety of reasons, but the overwhelming fact was their ongoing and almost permanent presence there. This indicates that they went there not only in search of justice, but did so hoping, or rather knowing, that more often than not they would attain redress when wronged…The Jews went to court to resolve much more than their conflicts with Muslim or Christian neighbours. They turned to Shari’a authorities to seek redress with respect to internal differences, and even in matters within their immediate family (intimate relations between husband and wife, nafaqa maintenance payments to divorcees, support of infants etc.)."
http://www.islam21c.com/index.php?op...80#notes#notes
Even today, the solutions for the problems of society lie in following the sharee’ah. To appreciate this, a proper study of the sharee’ah is required and many examples will then become apparent of how it is applied, the benefits it can bring, and so on. This is a topic in itself and if interested, you can read into it elsewhere. We may have some threads on the forum, such as this one: http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...ariah-law.html

There is no system of man-made laws that has remained unchanged or provided a perfect set of rules for the betterment of society.

I don’t think it’s that difficult, actually. Although these scientific references may be brief, the miraculous aspect appears in the fact that even in these limited descriptions, the Qur’an conforms exactly to modern science and that there was no way for people to know about such things during that time. Moreover, these descriptions are free from the retroactive ideas that would have been prevalent at that time. The comments you made earlier weren’t exactly refutations but mere opinions that don’t disprove anything. By the way, I didn’t mention anything about the Big Bang.

The verses pertaining to embryology are actually more than two – some mentioning other aspects of it. Regarding what you’ve quoted above, I don’t see where the contradiction is and there is no mention of muscles being formed before bones. Both authors agree that when the cartilage bones are differentiated, the embryonic connective tissue or mesenchyme around them is undifferentiated. If you quoted the rest of Dr. Abdel-Rahman’s words, the matter would have become clearer. He goes on to say, “…During the seventh week- the skeleton begins to spread throughout the body and the bones take their familiar shapes. The embryo then starts to acquire the human appearance. At the end of the seventh week and during the eighth week the muscles take their positions around the bone forms…”

Different translators have used different wordings to interpret the same word.

An interesting point to note is, if you see the various stages of development of the embryo, one notices how strikingly similar the Qur’anic references are to particular stages: http://www.quranandscience.com/human...-in-quran.html

Another aspect of the embryological references in the Qur’an is how the embryo is surrounded by three layers: the abdominal wall, the uterine wall, and the placenta with its choriono-amniotic membranes. These three layers are referred to in the verse,

…He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, creation after creation in three veils of darkness… [39:6]

I didn’t say the corruption of the Torah and Bible in and of itself proves the Qur’an is true, rather the point is regarding the uniqueness of the Qur’an in its preservation. If you make an objective comparison between these scriptures, you will find a clear difference. No other book has been memorised as much as the Qur’an, and neither can it be traced back through such a large number of chains of narration going right back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), leaving no doubt of its authenticity. In fact, you said earlier, “I don’t deny that the Qur’an is the most authentic religious book…” (post #163).

This has nothing to do with the clarity of the Qur’an, because clarity is not negated by requisite knowledge. Knowing about the causes of revelation behind specific verses and whether verses were revealed in Makkah or Madeenah, together with the other sciences of the Qur'an, all aid in one’s understanding of the Qur’an. The fact that such minute details have been preserved till this day leaves one in awe of how meticulously Islamic knowledge has been preserved and further increase one's conviction in the truth of the Qur'an.

As for the issue of abrogation, you can read about it here:
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...orious%20Quran


I’ve browsed through the previous posts and it appears you stopped responding to these points. You cannot therefore conclude points 10, 12 and 13 are “purely subjective”, and doing so simply seems like a cop-out. You called number 11 a “self-fulfilling prophecy” – do you want to explain what exactly you mean by that?

If the Qur’an was based upon “weak” theories, it should have been very easy for you to refute them. Instead, all I am finding in your posts is vague expressions like “purely subjective”, “simply irrelevant” and “personal opinions”, which don’t mean anything if not supported by evidence and explanation. It’s an easy way out of the discussion to disregard whole topics by labelling them with empty words instead of responding to individual points.

Again, an over-simplification and misrepresentation of the facts. We’ve already discussed literary excellence and science above, so I’m not going to repeat that here. If you have real criticisms to make, you can present them in the appropriate place. As for your other comments, where has anyone used these arguments? I clearly listed 13 aspects of the Qur’an’s miraculous nature -not simply a one sentence reply, so if you really want to know the answer to your questions, it would help if you stopped repeating the same errors and actually accept the responses we’ve given.

Regards.
Reply

Lynx
01-21-2010, 03:08 AM
Okay.. Unfortunately I don't speak Arabic I guess I am disqualified.

BUT.

* Replicate the Qur’ans literary form -what constitutes good form?
* Match the unique linguistic genre of the Qur’an - ?
* Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an -what constitutes good wording?
* Select and arrange particles like that of the Qur’an - what constitutes good arrangement?
* Match the Qur’ans phonetic superiority - what constitutes phonetic superiority?
* Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices - what is a good frequency and why is it good?
* Match the level of informativity - what constitutes a proper level of 'informativity', certainly the encyclopedias are more informative than the quran
* Equal the Qur’ans conciseness and flexibility - what is a good level of conciseness and flexibility?


Anyway, YOU MUST SEE BY NOW the subjective nature of this challenge?? You know, I think I will give you a list of things that would objectively prove the Quran's truth since you seem to have some difficulty with the idea: the quran tells us about the number of planets in our solar system, their basic composition, and locations in order; or the quran lists the number of stars in our galaxy; or a mathematical proof that would blow modern mathematicians away; or all of the above. ANY OF THOSE WOULD settle the question..but no..

So do you have objective proof?
Reply

جوري
01-21-2010, 03:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Okay.. Unfortunately I don't speak Arabic I guess I am disqualified.

BUT.

* Replicate the Qur’ans literary form -what constitutes good form?
* Match the unique linguistic genre of the Qur’an - ?
* Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an -what constitutes good wording?
* Select and arrange particles like that of the Qur’an - what constitutes good arrangement?
* Match the Qur’ans phonetic superiority - what constitutes phonetic superiority?
* Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices - what is a good frequency and why is it good?
* Match the level of informativity - what constitutes a proper level of 'informativity', certainly the encyclopedias are more informative than the quran
* Equal the Qur’ans conciseness and flexibility - what is a good level of conciseness and flexibility?
You have heard of the law combinatorics? of According to the laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occurring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilites increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-word-god-4.ht


Anyway, YOU MUST SEE BY NOW the subjective nature of this challenge?? You know
No I don't, you are not even making an effort, what I do see is a gross misuse of my time!

all the best
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-21-2010, 03:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I am beginning to think you just don't know what subjective means. No body here is saying they don't have an interest to take the challenge. But the challenge itself is as flawed as asking which video game is better: Metal Gear 4 or Super Mario wii. But maybe you still don't get it. I will ask you to pick one 'good' aspect of the Qurans literature. I think if I show you by example why the challenge is pointless and what subjectivity really entails you'll retract your position.So just pick one merit the Quran has and I will explain to you what I mean.
You are joking right? For example, Gran Turismo 5 or MGS4 is technically superior to Super Mario on Wii. Ask any computer programmer, graphics designer, and vfx expert, even if they do not like car racing, they will accept the technical superiority of GT5! GT5 is more realistic, mimics real physics more so than super mario, technically advanced and etc. So one such criteria of superiority is "technical superiority" and "realism." You can argue that the criteria of "realism" depends on one's taste because some people do not like "realistic" games and they like unrealistic fantasy games. Sure. But it takes advance knowledge to mimic all the variable factors of nature within a game than to come up with something from one's on imagination within a game (fantasy game).

Also, the technical superiority in terms of language, code, depth of graphics, programming etc in GT5 is better than super mario 5. Its an objective standard no matter how much super mario fans claim "ooh but super mario is more fun." Who cares! For example, who are better: monkeys or humans? A psycho might find monkeys beautiful and better but that does not negate the fact that human's have the most developed cortex than any animal which makes human superior in terms of the complexity and superiority of neuronal organization. Claiming that humans are superior to monkeys in terms of cortical development is PURELY an objective claim.

In the same way, Quran's challenge is objective. Whether you find it fun or not, that has no bearing on its objectivity.

As a last example, lets compare two pieces of literature written by a 6 year old and a professor of English. Which piece of literature will most likely have higher and complex yet more appropriate vocabulary? Which piece of literature will use literary techniques for introducing brevity and effect of the message? Sure the story written by the 6 year old might be more emotional or simple but that would not have any effect on the fact that the story written by the professor of English would be more advanced and superior, if the objective standards of English language are looked at.

and do you seriously believe that paintings made by an average 6 year old can surpass all the techniques employed in a painting made by a painting expert? Do you seriously believe that a hut requires more advanced knowledge to be built than Burj Khalifa? if yes then you really need to pay a visit to the hospital. Some people might find Burj Khalifa ugly and a hut beautiful but that does not have any bearing on the objective nature of one's superiority over the other. That is precisely what Quran's challenge is. The aspect of "beauty" is not even a primary part of it, it is only secondary as it is built upon the objective nature. Just like how a proteins tertiary structure is determine by the primary structure.

Good luck!
Reply

Lynx
01-21-2010, 04:00 AM
Wahabi Scientist:

Ah okay, when I mentioned the video game analogy I meant in terms of 'better' game i.e., all things together including 'fun' value. There will be no way of determining such a thing. I absolutely agree that in terms of technical details one is objectively better than the other. But I mean, this type of evidence would only be useful to someone who has a very specific type of knowledge, namely Arabic literature and prose. So in other words, it would be as useful of a piece of evidence as a quantum physicist telling a layman to go read a journal article on quantum physics. Are you telling me that in order to get the evidence of the Quran you would need a world of literary poets?? I can't judge the Quran's technical detail since I don't have a clue about Arabic literature. But I feel the subjectivity would occur when someone actually takes the test. Surely the magnitude of difference between the Quran and say a rival document is not as great as the difference between a 6 year old an english professor. If you are right then anyone speaking arabic and understadning it should be able to distinguish 3 lines from the quran versus 3 fake lines. I doubt this is the case and I think there will be a degree of subjectivity involved.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-21-2010, 05:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Wahabi Scientist:

Ah okay, when I mentioned the video game analogy I meant in terms of 'better' game i.e., all things together including 'fun' value. There will be no way of determining such a thing. I absolutely agree that in terms of technical details one is objectively better than the other. But I mean, this type of evidence would only be useful to someone who has a very specific type of knowledge, namely Arabic literature and prose. So in other words, it would be as useful of a piece of evidence as a quantum physicist telling a layman to go read a journal article on quantum physics. Are you telling me that in order to get the evidence of the Quran you would need a world of literary poets?? I can't judge the Quran's technical detail since I don't have a clue about Arabic literature. But I feel the subjectivity would occur when someone actually takes the test. Surely the magnitude of difference between the Quran and say a rival document is not as great as the difference between a 6 year old an english professor. If you are right then anyone speaking arabic and understadning it should be able to distinguish 3 lines from the quran versus 3 fake lines. I doubt this is the case and I think there will be a degree of subjectivity involved.
We are not describing Quranic challenge on the "fun value" or the "perceived beauty." We are talking about its structural organization which surpasses the feeble attempts to call it "ugly" or "beautiful" and transcends into the realm where only objective criticism is valid.
Reply

Uthman
01-21-2010, 10:38 AM
Greetins Lynx,
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
I did but I was not sure where in the links you specifically wanted me to take a look. I did some general browsing. Perhaps you can point me to something you particularly found convincing?
No worries. I will go on to address the points you made in your earlier post.

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
The 'miracle of the quran' seems entirely subjective. I don't think one can say the stylstic merits of the Quran are 'objective'. I have read much of the Quran (if not all of it) and although it is a pleasant read, I do not see anything divine about it. The problem with the Quran's challenge to produce a chapter like one of the chapters of the quran is that you would be hardpressed to find an unbiased judge and even if you did, there would be a matter of ad populum fallacy.
The most common objection to the Qur'anic challenge raised by Non-Muslims is the claim that it is subjective. This objection arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of the challenge which, in turn, arises from a misunderstanding of how the Qur'an is so unique. I will attempt to elaborate upon some of the points made in Muhammad's post.

It is important to understand that, in the Arabic language, there are two literary forms in which ideas can be expressed which are Prose and Poetry. Arabic Prose can be further sub-divided into Saj (rhymed prose) and Mursal (Straight forward speech). Arabic Poetry can be sub-divided into sixteen unique rhymical patterns known collectively as al-Bihar.

The Qur'an, however, cannot be described as Mursal, nor does it resemble Saj. It certainly does not match any of the unique rhymical patterns known as al-Bihar. The Qur'an can only thus be described as a unique expression of the Arabic languge. The challenge of the Qur'an therefore involves using the finite number of grammatical rules and the twenty-eight letters that make up the Arabic language to emulate the Qur'an's literary form.

This measure does not involve any subjectivity whatsoever. As Hamza Andreas Tzortzis writes:
Literary forms are not based upon aesthetic criteria; they are based upon the structural features of a text.
The literary forms in Arabic are well defined and are clearly distinguishable from one another. However, the Qur'an embodies a unique literary form in it's own right - a form which simply cannot be emulated since it lies beyond the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language (hence the miracle).

As Hamilton Gibb writes:
“.…the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Muhammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evidential miracle”
Of course, the unique literary form is just one part of the literary aspect of the Qur'an's miraculous nature. There are other aspects such as it's unique linguistic genre. Where most other Arabic literary works mainly used cohesive elements of the language, the Qur'an achieves a unique linguistic genre through the unique fusion of rhetorial and cohesive elements of the language in every verse. Again, this an objective measure which is clearly observable. I assume the meaning of rhetorical elements is understood (i.e. the use of rhetorical devices). As for the meaning of cohesive elements, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis writes:
Cohesiveness is the feature that binds sentences to each other grammatically and lexically. It also refers to how words are linked together into sentences and how sentences are in turn linked together to form larger units in texts.
Attempting to describe the unique linguistic genre of the Qur'an, Kenneth Cragg writes:
“…the Qur’an is understood to say what it says in an inseparable identity with how it says it.”
With regards to the frequency of rhetorical features, it is well-known that the Qur'an employs more rhetorical devices than any other Arabic literary work. This, again, is a completely objective measure.

It is no wonder, then, that the Qur'an has come to represent the standard of Arabic literature. John Penrice writes:
“That a competent knowledge of the Koran is indispensible as an introduction to the study of Arabic literature will be admitted by all who have advanced beyond the rudiments of the language. From the purity of its style and elegance of its diction it has come to be considered as the standard of Arabic…”
I have barely scratched the surface here. If only I had more time, I could speak endlessly about this subject. But the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is not limited to it's literary excellence. There are many more aspects which go beyond it's literary merit such as:

- Clear and specific prophecies contained in the Qur'an which were fulfilled
- Stories of previous Prophets and nations despite Muhammad (:saws:) not having recourse to this information.

You said that you have read the Qur'an. May I ask whether you have read the Qur'an in Arabic?

format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Also, your whether muhammad was a madman/liar/ argument can be used for any religious figure.
But not every religious figure made a supernatural claim like the claim to be receiving revelations from God. For that reason, it wouldn't make sense to apply this test to every religious figure. Can you think of a religious figure who made a supernatural claim to whom the test could be applied? Also, do you have a view as to whether Muhammad (:saws:) was lying or mistaken?

Regards
Reply

Lynx
01-22-2010, 06:45 AM
Uthman:

I appreciate the elaborated remarks about the Quranic miracle. I was thinking it over and two things came to mind: first, if the Quran's construction was so miraculous then no one who understands the Arabic should fail to realize its divine nature. Similarly, if you take 3 verses from the Quran and take 3 verses from say a Pre-Islamic poem, and show it to someone who was unfamiliar to either, then that person should be able to recognize not only that the Quran has a unique construction (unique construction could be a bad thing) but should also realize something miraculous about it. There are non-Muslim Arabs who have read passages of the Quran which would be an oddity. I mean if the sun set on the west...most people would call that a miracle. But saying the Quran's arabic is miraculous seems somewhat of an exaggeration. The other thing is even if the Quran was THE BEST possible construction of Arabic grammar, the best literature, etc...I don't think it would follow that Islam is true. I guess what this ties around is that it's not "really" a miracle. It's more of a 'this is a great work let's worship it' type of work which I am not so sure is convincing. I will even grant that Muhammad was a genius. Certainly, even if Islam isn't true I would consider Muhammad a very talented man in changing an entire society. It might be an evidence among a set of evidences but in its own I wouldn't say it's all too convincing unless it had a verse talking about something extremely obviously like the number of stars in our galaxy.

As for the prophecies in the Quran, the bible also claims to have prophecies and you can do a quick google search for them. I think the problem is the prophecies are not exact enough to be miraculous. If it said in 100 years there will be a king born with this birthmark in this part of the world...then you'd have a full fledged miracle! But if you can list some of the prophecies that are clear and precise we can talk about them.

And lastly, as for past events like Prophets and Nations..well I am not sure what you mean. All the prophets the Quran talks about are found in the Bible so there is already a source predating the Quran that talks about the same thing.

As for your last point, I can think of a religious figure: Zarathustra. Was he a liar? A madman? (This argument was used by C.s Lewis by the way in support of Jesus' claim of divinity)
Reply

Uthman
01-22-2010, 02:53 PM
Greetings Lynx,

Thanks very much for the reply. I'm glad that you made the points that you did because it shows that you are thinking about this logically. I see evidence that you are sincere and open-minded just as you claimed to be. I will respond to your points as soon as I possibly can.
Reply

reema2009
01-22-2010, 03:08 PM
And lastly, as for past events like Prophets and Nations..well I am not sure what you mean. All the prophets the Quran talks about are found in the Bible so there is already a source predating the Quran that talks about the same thing.
actually my question would be, why were no other prophet's names included, there must have been prophets sent to Asia, India for ex?
I hear about 124.000 prophets in a hadith, it would have made it a lot more miraculous if some other prophets that were NOT mentioned in the bible, would have been included, as to make the final claim also for ex about hinduism and buddhism. Like some kind of summary about all the religions in the world. After all these are religions too, it isn't just about what happened in the middle east region is it?
Reply

Lynx
01-22-2010, 08:24 PM
actually my question would be, why were no other prophet's names included, there must have been prophets sent to Asia, India for ex?
I hear about 124.000 prophets in a hadith, it would have made it a lot more miraculous if some other prophets that were NOT mentioned in the bible, would have been included, as to make the final claim also for ex about hinduism and buddhism. Like some kind of summary about all the religions in the world. After all these are religions too, it isn't just about what happened in the middle east region is it?
I agree with you. In fact, if the Quran did mention prophets sent to India and China etc, then chinese people and indian people upon reading the Quran might be able to relate more to Islam. it might have made it a better reason to convert since the quran would see more divine in their eyes.

I anticipate two responses though: 1) none of the religions today are actually from God so mentioning them wouldn't matter. 2) the prophets mentioned in the quran are mentioned because they are the main prophets and the quran was telling the main narrative continued from bible + torah.
Reply

CosmicPathos
01-22-2010, 09:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by reema2009
actually my question would be, why were no other prophet's names included, there must have been prophets sent to Asia, India for ex?
I hear about 124.000 prophets in a hadith, it would have made it a lot more miraculous if some other prophets that were NOT mentioned in the bible, would have been included, as to make the final claim also for ex about hinduism and buddhism. Like some kind of summary about all the religions in the world. After all these are religions too, it isn't just about what happened in the middle east region is it?
That is your mere conjecture. There are many Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists who convert to Islam despite the fact that none of their Prophets are mentioned in the Quran. Hence, your claim that it would be more "miraculous" is invalid. Who are you to decide what is miraculous or not? Maybe greater number of Hindus,chinese etc would have converted to Islam, than the numbers that convert now, if their prophets were mentioned, you might argue? Well, Jesus is mentioned in the Quran, I see some Christians converting, other's not. What makes you so sure that it would have "helped" in that case.

Are you looking for inappropriate reasons to question Quran? There is nothing wrong with asking questions as long as the questions are logical and rational.

Good luck.
Reply

Uthman
01-23-2010, 04:36 PM
Lynx,

I'm still in the process of writing a reply. As you can probably tell, I'm very passionate about this topic so I want my reply to be as comprehensive and explanatory as possible.
Reply

Eric H
01-23-2010, 06:30 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Skavau; sorry for my late entry into this thread.

On this note though, and if you do contend it to be intuitive: what role does eternal torture serve? What part of justice does it satisfy precisely? How is it proportionate?
The question of justice, and eternal torture, is a troubling subject for all of us. We are supposed to have choice and free will, but did I have any say about coming into this world?

My parents might have planned my arrival into this world, I could be here by accident, one thing is for sure, I had no say in the matter.

Please forgive the ambiguity of this, but if I had been given the choice about whether I wanted to come into this world, and if I did and got it wrong then I would suffer eternal torture. I would probably say I won’t risk being born, because I don’t want to risk ending up in hell.

There must be a just and fair way to deal with this problem.

I wonder if there are some things that God cannot forgive, like murder, but God can restore the victim to a greater good life after death. Maybe God can put our mistakes and sins right, could it just be that God is merciful and forgiving?

In the spirit of searching for a loving and forging God.

Eric
Reply

Lynx
01-23-2010, 06:58 PM
Uthman: No problem, take your time.
Reply

Hussein radi
06-26-2010, 04:06 PM
Do people go to Hell if they like vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream?
That made me laugh, lol.
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: 24
    Last Post: 05-23-2012, 08:42 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-01-2008, 01:06 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-14-2007, 01:58 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-11-2006, 09:59 PM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 10:46 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!