Is Islam based on faith?

[Basit]

Al-Salam Alaykum CZ,

the words,perse, would have same definition but i think their implication is not? Belief, at first you will get the information but then when you found it as only a superstition and doesnt really apply, you immediately dispose it. but faith, is different, it is enduring, it is nurturing. when you have faith, you believe and you trust. when you learned the idea and truth, you would accept and embrace it and believe in it. With faith you will keep believing in it and it should not falter.

The words of Allah(swt) are authoritative, every believer must follow because every transgression has a punishment. All his words as stated in the Holy Qur'an are true and proofs of Him are presented long time before. When one seeks proof of God's existence, he just read the Qur'an and believe in it. There is no need to ask proof that we shall witness by ourselves because such is an atheist way. But we are Muslims.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings Basit,

I'm going to emphasise some parts of your earlier post:



The trouble is that your opinion does not change the definitions of words. Faith can never supply you with knowledge without ceasing to be faith.

Faith and belief are synonyms in English; faith and knowledge are not.

Peace

I disagree with your use of the word knowledge. How can you choose to have faith without knowledge of the tenets of the belief? Also, knowledge (true knowledge) points in the direction of proper beliefs.

You yourself said that you don't know where the universe came from, but you have knowledge of our beliefs which you reject (based on faith).

In your definition, it seems like, outside of mathematics, you can't know anything for sure.

 

[Zafran]

salaam

The trouble is that your opinion does not change the definitions of words. Faith can never supply you with knowledge without ceasing to be faith.

Faith and belief are synonyms in English; faith and knowledge are not.

You need faith in everything including the things you know. - The definition goes true-justified- belief - Although it has been argued that this definition is flawed by sceptics.

AAK nailed it.

Reminds me of the famous philosophical problems of perception and what we know and of course how do we know the sun will rise the next day.

 

[Zafran]

As a comparable example, I believe in the existence of the planet Neptune. I have never seen it, but I believe that many people have, and supposedly reliable images of it are available. I'm sure that if I had the necessary astronomical equipment to hand (like, say, Voyager 2) I would be able to verify its existence for myself. Until then, I can't yet say that I have certain knowledge that Neptune exists in the way I've been led to believe. On the other hand, you are talking about having certain knowledge of something nobody claims to have seen, and that nobody can see by definition. This is surely faith, and not knowledge.

We would call those reliable people prophets - there proofs eg - Quran - They have met God - when we die we will also be able to verify it - Just like you with your equipment.

Whatever we percieve does not always equal knowledge - you must have heard of Descartes or the problem of percpetion - eg how do we know the furniture is still in the next room when nobody is percieving it? - opens up a whole sceptic world.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Knowledge comes from the senses. Faith is a function of the brain.

Knowledge cannot come from faith.

Hmm. So you have faith that I am wrong?

No, there's just nothing substantial to indicate that you're right.

In your definition, it seems like, outside of mathematics, you can't know anything for sure.

It is true that many atheists are pragmatists.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Knowledge comes from the senses. Faith is a function of the brain.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Could you please rephrase?

Knowledge cannot come from faith.

Knowledge dictates faith. True knowledge points to the true faith.

No, there's just nothing substantial to indicate that you're right.

Correction, you refuse to acknowledge the substance we present. Your lack of belief doesn't translate into a lack of truth from us, though you may fancy yourself as a truth seeker.

It is true that many atheists are pragmatists.

I don't think that relates to what I said.

 

[Zafran]

Knowledge comes from the senses. Faith is a function of the brain.

Not true at all as our senses can trick us - eg mirages and our perception can make something look large or small depending on the circiumstances. We still have to believe in our senses are not creatinmg illusions and are actually reliable. How do you know faith is a function of the brain? or is that what you call

No, there's just nothing substantial to indicate that you're right.

Knowledge cannot come from faith.

Knowledge is Ture Justified BELIEF - the first step of knowledge is belief - thats where all knowledge comes from - we have to believe in what we know.

Even science is based on faith. You have to believe that the same experiment will always create the same results in the future.

 

[Basit]

Al-Salam Alaykum,

Even science is based on faith. You have to believe that the same experiment will always create the same results in the future.

I couldn't agree more.

Knowledge cannot come from faith.

Knowledge is an idea based on experience which doesn't need to be reviewed or speculated. The warmth of the sun for example, based on experience, we know that when the sunlight reaches our skin we know it will give heat. we dont have to ask anybody or do some sort of experiment to proove it because we know, by ourselves based on our experience that sunlight will give heat to our skin on contact. And so, everytime we go outside, without a doubt, we believe that when we are in contact with the light of the sun we will feel heat. Now this is belief based on experience/knowledge.
Science will give more addition to this knowledge by imploring more ideas like how the sunlight gives heat to our skin and so on....but the domain of science is only on the physical, it does not encompass the unnatural. science can only give information on things that we can perceive and not all knowledge from science is generally accepted, which goes back to faith, its up to the human mind to accpt or reject this knowledge.

Knowledge from faith is very difficult to proove by ourselves but we know it is true. The day of judgment for example. From our faith, we learned that a time will come when Allah(swt) will raise up all creatures and to be judged accordingly, this we know to be coming, this we know to be true and we dont have to doubt it because we believe it to be true, our mind tells us that it is true and our heart wants it to be true because we have faith.

When science told that man originated from apes, it came as an idea to the mind but debatable, but the Qur'an, which are words of Allah(swt), told that man is created by Allah(swt) from clay, we believed that man is really created from clay because we have faith. we knew that man is created by God as dictate of our faith and reject the idea that man came from apes.

And Allah, subhanah wa taala, knows best.

 

[Hugo]

Knowledge comes from the senses. Faith is a function of the brain. Knowledge cannot come from faith.

This is an odd idea. We can of course gain knowledge through our senses but we can also evolve theories in our brains. For example, Newton saw the apple fall and that led to his theory but Einstein started with the theory, he worked it out long before there was any evidence at all but he had faith that at some point in time there would be a test and evidence would emerge.

Faith is a strong belief, a trust. Sometimes it is based on evidence and sometimes not; some people are ultra sceptical others will belief in anything and it is hardly a rational faith that believes in anything is it? Perhaps from a religious point of view the letter to the Hebrews 11:1 puts it very well: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Einstein started with the theory, he worked it out long before there was any evidence at all but he had faith that at some point in time there would be a test and evidence would emerge.

He based his theory upon the things that he had observed. It was based in facts, not faith.

I'm sure he would have accepted evidence against his theory, so I don't know that it can be said he had faith.
He had enough confidence that he was onto something to expend the effort necessary to work his theories out to completion, certainly, but does confidence equal faith?

It is true that many atheists are pragmatists.

I don't think that relates to what I said.

Pragmatists believe that it is impossible to know anything for certain.

our senses can trick us

True. I could be a brain floating in a jar somewhere, hooked up to a bunch of electrodes to simulate actual experiences. In that case you would merely be part of the simulation.

I was saying that the only thing that is knowable is that we experience things. I did not say we could know whether that information was true.

I will believe as long as the evidence is strong enough. I have experienced nothing to indicate that I am in The Matrix, so I discount that as an extreme improbability.

 

[Hugo]

He based his theory upon the things that he had observed. It was based in facts, not faith.

I'm sure he would have accepted evidence against his theory, so I don't know that it can be said he had faith. He had enough confidence that he was onto something to expend the effort necessary to work his theories out to completion, certainly, but does confidence equal faith? Pragmatists believe that it is impossible to know anything for certain.

I was saying that the only thing that is knowable is that we experience things. I did not say we could know whether that information was true. I will believe as long as the evidence is strong enough. I have experienced nothing to indicate that I am in The Matrix, so I discount that as an extreme improbability.

How could Einstein have observed relativity, that time changes as we go faster? Clearly there were no facts, no one had or could have observed it at that time. Consider in physics string theory; it is not based on any observable facts and it has never been verified so its a total conception, a construct within his mind. Thus he knew the theory but it had at that time no connexion to experience, reality.

Of course he had to wait for verification which came as far as I can recall 12 years later and if such verfification had never come it would still be a theory, something constructed in his a mind.

If I may say so you are just playing with words here and surely your 'enough confidence' = 'faith' and your pragmatists at least have faith in that according to you they have a belief?

 

[Hugo]

Re: Authenticity of the Qur'an

This is what I mean. It is from here that people go into the 'Athiest' state of mind. For me, and for most people that are Muslims, they have been bought up in such a way that the concept of Allah is involved in everything they do, all the actions they carry out, the littlest to the biggest things they do.

Evidence? What evidence will satisfy you people?! Especially regarding the Qur'aan! URL="http://www.islamreligion.com/category/34/"]The Scientific Miracles of the Holy Qur'aan[/URL] What more will satisfy you? Nothing. It is only Allaah who Guides.

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you but I looked at the site above with interest. I am not an atheist and have faith in God's existence, based on evidence not proof and more than that it is based on what I read about God and His teaching through His prophets.

If I just take the first example from this site called 'The Earth's Atmosphere' and described there as a scientific miracle so one supposes that all scientific facts are miracles? The article mentions two verses from the Qu'ran, but I was not sure what translation was in use but (Pickthal) Qu'ran 86:11 "By the heaven which giveth the returning rain" and 2:22 "Who hath appointed the earth a resting-place for you, and the sky a canopy; and causeth water to pour down from the sky, thereby producing fruits as food for you".

I cannot quite see how these verses are telling us something that according to the article were only discovered in the modern era and one might suppose that if that were true 1400 years ago these verses would have had no meaning but clearly they describe what we can all see?

There is another example for (Yusuf Ali) Qu'ran 57:25 We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong), that men may stand forth in justice; and We sent down iron, in which is (material for) mighty war, as well as many benefits for mankind, that Allah may test who it is that will help, Unseen, Him and His apostles: For Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might (and able to enforce His Will).

If you look at English translations (I have only 5) few say "sent down" about Iron and so it seems to me that whoever wrote that article has exaggerated the meaning of 'sent down' and extrapolated it beyond a reasonable implication. We see here that the scriptures were 'sent down' and iron 'were sent down' so using that rationale in the article Iron came from a supernova so the Scriptures must have come that way also. It it much more reasonable to read this as meaning God gave us these things.

I think we should love and wonder at creation and that is an encouragement to us but it is not proof. For example, I once heard a speaker talk about the wonder of creation and science as proof of God but then someone asked a question "if God made all these good things who made the bad ones like the Ebola virus?

For what its worth I believe that God's word is always correct but it is not and never was intended to be a science text book. As a matter of interest the Bible is said by some to have 'code' and using very clever mathematics one can unlock these codes and make predictions and some argue therefore its a proof about God but for me its all nonsense because you can use the same algorithms on any book and get similar ideas and the same applies to the kind of thing suggested in some of these articles.