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?
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 (). You can learn more about this argument here.
Regards
"I spent thirty years learning manners, and I spent twenty years learning knowledge."
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
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:
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.
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!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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.
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.
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
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.
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?
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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?
Last edited by greenshirt; 01-17-2010 at 08:41 PM.
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.
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?
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
Last edited by جوري; 01-17-2010 at 09:37 PM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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!
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.
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
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
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
I would like to address the following part of your post:
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.format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
). You can learn more about this argument here.
Re: one of the biggest problems with religion.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks