What would Muslims think about the way I see things?

[M.I.A.]

How hard would it be to make someone see, who was never blind in the first place? To make him walk, if he was never lame in the first place? To resurrect him, if he was never dead in the first place? The worst so-called miracle of all is about Jesus coming back from the dead. How hard can it be to come back from the dead, if it was not even you who got crucified, and if you never died at the cross in the first place?

Lol seen a kid that was born with a slight scar on his head. It was shown and covered by hand and not conversation..

Better to keep it that way.

Although that is food for some.

Seen a family of children that couldn't walk, it's been a decade or two and now they do.

:/ ...I wouldn't rule out anything.

Except those that really would eat you alive.

It's a learning experience.

 

[kritikvernunft]

seem to be unclear regarding the prophethood of Muhammad pbuh

Actually, I am not unclear at all on this matter. Muhammed, may he rest in peace, is a very useful prophet of God. I have never rejected his prophethood. On the contrary, his prophethood was clearly necessary to set a number of issues straight. However, my personal style if to avoid mentioning human beings too often in religion. I seriously prefer to mention the Quran than Muhammed. As you know, people can easily exceed the limits of their religion when mentioning persons. Therefore, I am definitely not a fan of that practice. There is no danger in mentioning the One God in religion. It is pretty much the only concept in the universe that is practically impossible to subvert or re-purpose for deception. Furthermore, I generally refuse to talk about prophet Muhammed with pagans. The pagans easily say blasphemous things about Muhammed or even "Allah". They seem to enjoy attacking that particular name of God, actually. So, I have learned not to use it too often, because it may trigger ugly pagan retorts. But then again, if I became so attracted to Islam, this is not in spite of the pagans not liking it, but rather because of the pagans not liking it. They don't like Islam. So, I like it. They more they do not like it, the more I do. Islam is probably just another anti-pagan tool in my arsenal. I really, really do not like the pagans. I repudiate them. I denounce them. The pagans and me will never get along. That would just be impossible. Anti-paganism is certainly one of my favourite hobbies, not even necessarily related to Islam.

 

[Scimitar]

Actually, I am not unclear at all on this matter. Muhammed, may he rest in peace, is a very useful prophet of God. I have never rejected his prophethood. On the contrary, his prophethood was clearly necessary to set a number of issues straight. However, my personal style if to avoid mentioning human beings too often in religion. I seriously prefer to mention the Quran than Muhammed. As you know, people can easily exceed the limits of their religion when mentioning persons. Therefore, I am definitely not a fan of that practice. There is no danger in mentioning the One God in religion. It is pretty much the only concept in the universe that is practically impossible to subvert or re-purpose for deception. Furthermore, I generally refuse to talk about prophet Muhammed with pagans. The pagans easily say blasphemous things about Muhammed or even "Allah". They seem to enjoy attacking that particular name of God, actually. So, I have learned not to use it too often, because it may trigger ugly pagan retorts. But then again, if I became so attracted to Islam, this is not in spite of the pagans not liking it, but rather because of the pagans not liking it. They don't like Islam. So, I like it. They more they do not like it, the more I do. Islam is probably just another anti-pagan tool in my arsenal. I really, really do not like the pagans. I repudiate them. I denounce them. The pagans and me will never get along. That would just be impossible. Anti-paganism is certainly one of my favourite hobbies, not even necessarily related to Islam.

SO what religion do you identify with?

It seems you have taken the long way round to actually making the declaration of faith in Islam.

I declare : There is no deity worth worship except for the One God (Al-Lah) and Muhammad is the servant messenger of God.

This is the declaration in English, and this is what you agree with.

I'm just curious, as to which religion you identify with when you:

1) recognise there is only One God
2) that Muhammad is the servant and messenger of God.

To me, you spell Muslim, but what do you think?

Scimi

 

[kritikvernunft]

SO what religion do you identify with?

Obviously, Islam is absolutely the closest to what I personally believe.
If the Islamic religion did not exist, we would have to invent it.

It seems you have taken the long way round to actually making the declaration of faith in Islam.

I first made up my mind as to what I believe, and then I more or less matched it with an existing religion. So, yes, it probably sounds like a detour! ;-)

I declare : There is no deity worth worship except for the One God (Al-Lah) and Muhammad is the servant messenger of God. This is the declaration in English, and this is what you agree with.

Of course, it is better to stick to a standard, official declaration.

However, what I personally think, in order to avoid mentioning persons in religion, I'd rather claim:

There is no deity worthy of worship except for the One God (Al-Lah) and the Quran is his Law.

Ultimately, religion is and will always remain a Law, that is, a list of forbidden behaviours. Being a believer means that you agree to refrain from engaging in such forbidden behaviours. So, yes, I accept the Allah's Law, if only because of the benefits of doing that: there is just one legitimate lawmaker, who is Allah. That clearly means that all other lawmakers are not legitimate. You can imagine that this doctrine suits me absolutely fine. Indeed, how many additional lawmakers next to or above Allah could we ever need, before all our needs for such additional lawmakers next to or above Allah would entirely be satisfied? Therefore, we of course need Allah as exclusive lawmaker, because that allows us to happily reject all other candidate lawmakers. In other words, Islam is not just a religion. It is also a powerful political instrument. I can happily see around me that I am not the only person insisting that other lawmakers than Allah are not legitimate.

I'm just curious, as to which religion you identify with when you:
1) recognise there is only One God
2) that Muhammad is the servant and messenger of God.
To me, you spell Muslim, but what do you think?

Yes, of course. Islam is absolutely the closest to what I really believe, that is, my non-official declaration:

[1] In the One God we trust and in nothing else. Everything else must therefore be treated with varying levels of suspicion.
[2] To the Quranic and Sunnah Laws of the One God we obey. We must ultimately always seek to repudiate laws from all possible other sources.

Since it is clearly possible to use the official declaration to achieve the unofficial one, I am more than happy with Islam, the Islamic community, and its official declaration. You see, when the Muslims defend the official declaration, they are obviously also busy protecting my unofficial one. Therefore, I will never say that all of this is not nicely useful. As I have mentioned before, if the Islamic religion did not exist, we would obviously have to invent it.

 

[Scimitar]

I did not wish to proselytize, I was just genuinely curious...

...now with this out of the way. I do wonder how long it will take you before you, yourself, of your own accord and will, to decide to say the official shahadah.

Sooner or later, I believe it may just happen, And God knows best.

God bless and guide you, Ameen.

Scimi

 

[kritikvernunft]

I do wonder how long it will take you before you, yourself, of your own accord and will, to decide to say the official shahadah.

Of course, I am ok with the official shahada. I have actually just said it, but you cannot hear that from where you are sitting! ;-)
Ashadu Allah illah aha, il-Allah, ana Mohamedan rasul Allah.

As you can imagine, I would not object to saying the shahada, if only for political reasons. Why would I want to go it alone? It would not make much sense, would it? ;-)

 

[AabiruSabeel]

I highly recommend you to go through these two threads:

http://www.islamicboard.com/hadith/22043-legal-status-sunnah-islam.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/hadith/1063-article-status-sunnah-islam-post328450.html#post328450


They are a long read but very important to understand.

 

[Scimitar]

Well, I must admit, I'm quite pleased with your embracing Islam the way you have. Some will advice that you must now do this and do that and so on so forth, but take it slow. Don't over burden yourself with learning everything at once - but do intend to learn as you go

The shahadah is traditionally taken with two Muslim witnesses present.

Ash hadu Allah ilaaha illallaahu wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu-wa-rasoolullaah!

I bear witness that there is only Allah (one God), and Muhammad is the servant and messenger of Allah.

Welcome to the largest extended family network in the world if you have any questions, issues, fears, or objections - do let us know bro.

We are here to help.

If you would like, I can send you out a New Muslim Pack which would include items to facilitate your understanding of Islam further (get in touch via PM when you have made 25 posts). Or you can request one here: http://www.newmuslimsproject.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56&Itemid=200141

In fact there are quite a number of Muslim websites which do give away New Muslim Packs, for new reverts to Islam.

By the way, when you do Shahadah, all your previous sins are wiped from your record, you are reborn without sin - and all your good deeds remain on your record - like this, you stand better than I as I currently do. Amazing.

Allahu Akbar.

Scimi

 

[Scimitar]

There are some cases when I love to be proven wrong, this is one of those

I'm very surprised and happy at the same time For a guy who doesn't like surprises, this has totally thrown me in a very pleasant way,

I edited my post on the previous page and ate my words.

Scimi

 

[kritikvernunft]

There are some cases when I love to be proven wrong, this is one of those I'm very surprised and happy at the same time For a guy who doesn't like surprises, this has totally thrown me in a very pleasant way, I edited my post on the previous page and ate my words.

The funny thing is that when I tell to other people my views and opinions, especially to non-Muslims, they trivially easily adopt them and even repeat them. At the same time, most Muslims that I speak with, will just consider my ideas indeed a rather Islamic way of seeing things -- so they already more or less think like that themselves -- even though they will often also say that I have a strange way of expressing things.

To that extent, I may sometimes express and paraphrase Islamic views in an unexpected way.

I perfectly-well accept that quite a few people are confused when they hear me.

I sound hyper-rational. I probably am. Hyper-rationality, however, is something that people will more associate with atheism than with religion. So, it may indeed sound strange when someone is religious in a hyper-rational way.

You see, rationality does not represent obedience or disobedience to our Master, the illustrious Allah. It is not possible to qualify someone rational, solely on those grounds as being obedient or disobedient to his celestial majesty, our very beloved God. It cannot be understood as a statement of belief or disbelief in God. It is entirely unrelated. It is just a personality trait. It really does not say anything about someone's faith in our Master. My personality may be hyper-rational, but why would that automatically make me a lesser servant of the Almighty? Why would faith be the monopoly of people who are naturally attracted to mysticism?

I also consider emotions something to be for a man to strictly control. Women are perfectly well allowed to show emotions in public, but as a man, I am actually not keen on doing that. That does not mean that I would have no emotions at all, but only that I prefer to strictly control them in public. That is another personality trait that people may confuse with lack of faith. Refraining from being emotional in public, does not mean that someone would be a lesser servant of our beloved master, the illustrious Allah. Therefore, yes, I am religious, but quite a bit in my own way, which is the result of personality traits and certainly not of lack of faith.

In terms of practical implementation and rollout of Islam, I am badly stuck on the fact that I cannot easily find the same crowd that you can find here -- literate and intellectual Muslims -- in the territorial area where I live, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Over 10 years ago, I decided to leave Europe and move here, mostly because it is so trivially easy to get a visa here to stay for as long as you want. At the same time, the local government does not interfere here with what you do. If you pay your yearly visa, they will leave you alone. That is what I was looking for the most. In that respect, Cambodia is a fantastic country. No government trying to regulate every aspect of your life or trying to get you to do things that you don't want. They really let you be and leave you alone. What other country is there like that? Hard to find ...

Concerning Islam, I would have picked Malaysia or Indonesia instead, if their visa regimes had allowed it, but the administrative context in these countries is totally unusable for my purposes.

So, I find myself here in the middle of Buddhist territory, with most Cambodians being not particularly literate or intellectual either, and barely speaking English, while Muslims are few and far between, basically unfindable. So, that's not good for rolling out Islam or doing additional implementations, such as doing a ramadan implementation, or things like that.

I would consider moving elsewhere, but most countries that I know of have obnoxious visa regimes for foreigners. So, I am probably going be forced to make do with Cambodia, but that is not a good location for all things Islam. I would love to find a country with a more Islamic population, and a sufficiently liberal visa regime, but I am afraid that this will not materialize any time soon.

So, we are sitting on a practical problem "in the real world" with all kinds of obstacles and impediments. It means that in all practical terms, I am trying to painstakingly roll out things by myself here. So, that pretty much limits all of it to internet forum memberships and writing posts and remarks online without ever really meeting like-minded people "in the real world".

 

[Scimitar]

That was quite interesting and insightful to read. Thumbs up.

I find Islam to be the most rational way of life/religion in the world. When I read the Qur'an, I find that Allah is asking us to question may things, everything, and to use our God given faculties of reason, logic, rationality etc all the good stuff to help us in order to find the middle path. I feel you are naturally inclined to Islam, it's your natural state - or what is known as "fitra" in Arabic.

For now though, as a Londoner who is trying to find his sleeping pattern and failing, I must sign out.

Hopefully we can chat again tomorrow in sha Allah, but for the meantime, I'd like to leave you this: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134333960-concept-god.html

God bless you bro, and take care.

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

I declare : There is no deity worth worship except for the One God (Al-Lah) and Muhammad is the servant messenger of God.

I just want to comment that one can agree with this without being Muslim. For example, I agree with this statement, but I consider Muhammed to be a messenger of God for Muslims, but not a messenger for me. I believe that different messengers of God were meant for different kinds of people.

 

[Scimitar]

I just want to comment that one can agree with this without being Muslim. For example, I agree with this statement, but I consider Muhammed to be a messenger of God for Muslims, but not a messenger for me. I believe that different messengers of God were meant for different kinds of people.

i'd like to hear why.

Scimi

 

[fschmidt]

i'd like to hear why.

If God only needed one messenger, then God would have only sent one messenger. Otherwise it is like God made a mistake with all the other messengers, and that doesn't make sense.

Why does God need multiple messengers? Because different kinds of people respond to different kinds of messages. Some people relate very well to the Quran, but I relate more to the Old Testament. The short version of each religion/message is that Islam is about submission to God, Christianity is about faith in a particular interpretation of God, and the Old Testament is about wrestling with God which means questioning everything until one finds one's way to God. (Judaism is none of these, it is submission to the rabbis.)

 

[Scimitar]

If God only needed one messenger, then God would have only sent one messenger. Otherwise it is like God made a mistake with all the other messengers, and that doesn't make sense.

ok, I can answer this in sha Allah.

Why does God need multiple messengers? Because different kinds of people respond to different kinds of messages. Some people relate very well to the Quran, but I relate more to the Old Testament. The short version of each religion/message is that Islam is about submission to God, Christianity is about faith in a particular interpretation of God, and the Old Testament is about wrestling with God which means questioning everything until one finds one's way to God. (Judaism is none of these, it is submission to the rabbis.)

Your premise is this:

God sent messengers to many communities and thus, He is faulty - and if God was perfect then He would in His infinite wisdom, send only one messenger. For all people's.

My answer:

God did indeed send messengers to many communities, a messenger from their own people... let's take the example of the Old Testament Prophets and Messenger's shall we?

How many Prophets and Messengers did the Children of Israel kill, exile or ridicule in the worst ways? Quite a few right? Was it the Messengers who were at fault? or the people they were sent to for disobeying God's messengers, and worse - killing them, exiling them, etc?

The Children of Israel were at fault.

How about Jesus pbuh? Was he not only sent to the lost sheep of Israel? And how did they treat him? They tried to crucify him, but God raised him to HIMSELF this is when the covenant was broken... the final straw... God takes away the land of the Israelites who were descended from Abraham pbuh and gave the covenant to their brethren, from the line of the first born of Abraham, Ishmael pbuh - through his descendant, Muhammad pbuh.

Up to this point, where Jesus was sent - God had promised the Israelites that HE will continue to bless them and give them prophets and messengers to keep them guided but with the children of Israel wanting to kill the Messiah they were awaiting, Jesus pbuh, they'd totally rejected God's promise and covenant and this was the final straw that broke the camels back, so to speak. Hence, it was time to make HIS word heard all over the world.

Enter the descendant of Ishmael, pbuh, - Muhammad pbuh - who was sent as a mercy to mankind, and not just a people - tasked with ensuring the measures were put in place to get the true creed of the Abrahamic tradition to the four cardinal corners of the planet - and this is exactly what happened.

So when you claim God made a mistake - I would have you understand that God makes no mistakes but repeatedly gave the children of Israel chances over and over again to keep the covenant intact - which they failed in doing. This covenant had to pass - onto the descendant from Abrahams lineage through Ishmael his first born son - and thus we see the promise fruit all over the world today.

Christianity of today is a Pauline invention as the disciples of Jesus pbuh were hunted down by the very same Paul who was a mercenary hired to hunt down those early companions of Jesus pbuh until they were either exiled from the holy land by themselves for their own safety or killed in the process by the long arm of the Judeo-Roman establishment of the period.

Christianity thus, never saw a gospel of Jesus in any written form, but was an oral tradition which became extinct and thus the four authors of the New Testament - Matthew, Mark Luke, John are marked with an X after their name as no one knows who these men were in history... I ask you, would you believe in a text book authored by someone who didn't leave you his last name?

As for the Torah, it was once a complete work, but the Torah disappeared and was no longer a circulated holy work when the children of Israel were in bondage in babylon... it wasn't until one Prophet had to re-form it from memory without no one to check his accuracy of statements made within - came to pass and Jesus pbuh came to recorrect the corruptions the children of Israel had entered into it or the laws they removed from it - that Torah is still very much in use today as corrupt as it is... it still allows the children of Israel to commit usury on other peoples and even their own - a grave sin.

Why all these corruptions, you ask? well did God ever say He will preserve their holy books? NO. He didn't say so in the OT, nor did he mention it in the NT...

...Yet, the Qur'an which is a guidance for all of mankind contains this verse:

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). - 15:9, Qur'an.

And more than 14 centuries have passed and not a single letter has been added, removed or changed in it. Islam has spread to all nations and the theology sound, One God - worship HIM alone - ascribe no partners to HIM...

Whereas with Christianity, varying theologies by which any Christian can, if they choose to, interpret it as they wish... and with NT's with books added, removed and a lot more besides, as well the fact that the four attributed authors of it, are mysteries in history...

...The Torah, corrupted due to the greed of the rabbi's.

But only the Qur'an remains intact, audibly recited to heart by millions of Muslims around the globe.

The Prophet pbuh last sermon specifically addresses the issues of racism and makes this a thing of the past as no nation, no race no creed is to be left out of the fold of Islam should they choose to embrace it - this is for all of humanity, and as such we find it is the fastest growing faith in the world - as God intended.

Soon, very soon the numbers of Muslims will swell to beyond what any faith has ever seen before in the history of mankind and that is the promise of the revelation. Despite the Wests attack on the middle east where millions of Muslims have been murdered in cold blood.

I have just demonstrated to you how your ideas about religion were half correct and then gave you the contextual dissemination of historical and religious nuances which led us to this point in order to prove to you that your ideas were only half wrong because they were OOT.

Scimi

 

[kritikvernunft]

For example, I agree with this statement, but I consider Muhammed to be a messenger of God for Muslims, but not a messenger for me.

Islam is a concrete practical instantiation of the abstract concept of religion. At the abstract level, of meta-theology, I just liberally theorize too. Everything at the level of meta-religion is just a mathematical object, totally divorced from the real world. Then, yes, I also propose statements and then investigate their consistency, and then I share my findings with other people.

In the real world, you have real religions, and not just abstract meta-theological concepts.

In the real world, a real religion will be judged by its actual, practical usefulness.

Islam has managed to congregate 1.5+ billion followers, many of whom are staunch believers. This is a feat.
The power that emanates from the practical, concrete real-world scripture of the Quran, is also quite spectacular.
Prophet Muhammed, may he rest in peace, has managed to really pull it off in the real world, regardless of any abstract, meta-religious conceptual considerations.
All of this is no longer just a mathematical object.

So, given the idea the idea that you may have goals that you want to achieve in the real world, the question now rather becomes: How can you instrumentalize the concrete, practical tool of Islam in order to get where you want to be?

For example, I believe that there is just one legitimate law maker, the One True God, and that all other law makers can only be frauds.
So, ok, now let's roll out this view and implement it in the real world.
You will quickly discover that the false law makers do not shy away from using violence in order to impose their falsehoods onto you.
Therefore, you will need some real teeth to back up such views.

It is only because we have enormous reserves of staunch Islamic combat units in stand by, that I can happily assert that since the false law makers use violence in their attempts to impose their falsehoods onto us, that they must also be willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in.

It is the metaphysical power itself, that keeps emanating and radiating from the Quranic scripture and that nicely coordinates the Muslim defenses, that allows me to happily call the pagans' bluff. Do you know of another concrete, practical religion that would be useful for such purpose? Not me.

It is the concrete, practical existence of a paradigm like Islam that allows me to ignore the pagans and their utterly false law makers, because in the meanwhile I can see their severed arms and legs flying around on television. As I have clarified already, if anybody believes that their false, pagan law makers can be sitting as gods next to or above the One True God, then in that case, they must be willing to risk their lives and die for what they believe in. They should be so grateful to all the staunch Muslim believers who give them the opportunity to actually prove that they are truly willing to risk their lives and die for their pagan gods. They should profusely thank them for such opportunity. The believers of the pagan god of feminism, should understand that their false, pagan god has become very powerful now. Their false god now legitimately insists on receiving human sacrifice. Their false, pagan god is entitled to human flesh and blood now. Therefore, these pagans should be grateful to the Muslims that they slaughter some of them so that the impatient pagan gods of feminism, the democratic voting circus, and other false, pagan law making, can eat and drink the flesh and blood of its own believers. Everybody should be grateful, because the One True God is great!

 

[Scimitar]

I am a staunch pacifist except in one situation, attack my home, or my family - and it's on!

Scimi

 

[kritikvernunft]

I am a staunch pacifist except in one situation, attack my home, or my family - and it's on!

We are just a few small grains of salt in an enormous pile. So, we can safely claim that we do not control it. So much the better, actually, because otherwise they would accuse us of controlling it!

In fact, we are quite lucky that it is the power that emanates and radiates from the Quranic scripture that controls everything. That is why we do not have to be worried about what exactly it will all lead to. We would only need to worry if we had to decide all of that by ourselves. That would be an annoyance. So, I am more than happy to let the metaphysical origin of the Quran decide how things should be going.

By attacking the meta-origin of the Quran, the pagans have awoken a giant.
They are certainly aware of the fact that everything incessantly keeps maneuvering against them.
They are dangerously surrounded. You can also clearly hear the increasingly louder sound of the sharpening of the swords.
Nothing good can come out of this for the pagans.
I wonder what they will be doing next, because if were standing in their shoes, I would no longer know what to do at this point.

 

[fschmidt]

In the real world, a real religion will be judged by its actual, practical usefulness.

I agree with this, and with the rest of what you wrote. So let me clarify my position.

The obvious 2 practical religions are Islam and Christianity. Since I live in a post-Christian country, I know much more about Christianity than about Islam. The biggest problem with Christianity is that Christians do not actually follow what Jesus said (and yes, Paul is partly to blame for this). If Christians actually followed what Jesus said, it wouldn't be a bad religion. But there are at least a few Christian groups who mostly follow what Jesus said, these being the traditional Anabaptists. These are good people. But most modern Christians are a disaster who completely reject God's will. Jesus came to support God's will, and modern Christians reject God's will in Jesus's name.

Now here is the point. Being a false member of a religion is worse than not being a member at all. The typical modern Christian is worse than an atheist, in my opinion, because he is misusing God's name (violating the third commandment). Someone should only become Christian if they are sincerely committed to following the teachings of Jesus. And someone should only become Muslim if they are sincerely committed to following the Quran. Someone who is not committed to following the Quran should not become Muslim just because of Islam's "practical usefulness".

This then leaves the question of what practical choice should a person make who wants to follow God without joining Christianity or Islam. My personal answer is to honestly submit to one of these religions without falsely joining it. This means to accept something like dhimmi status to Islam, or to humbly associate with an Anabaptist group and abide by their rules without joining. I have a thread on this topic here:

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/134333230-dhimmi.html

 

[kritikvernunft]

If Christians actually followed what Jesus said, it wouldn't be a bad religion.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that one. Christianity is crooked, already at the meta-religious level. There can never be a correctly functioning implementation of that thing. Its core axiomatization is utterly false, since it is trivially easy to demonstrate that it is an invalid, contradictory and inconsistent mathematical object at the meta-level.

And someone should only become Muslim if they are sincerely committed to following the Quran. Someone who is not committed to following the Quran should not become Muslim just because of Islam's "practical usefulness".

The Quran is its own axiomatization. What are saying, is not a valid derivation within the Quranic axiomatic system. Therefore, it is a unsubstantiated. Adding your own rules to existing Quranic axiomatization amounts to heresy ("innovation"). Your views are not just unsubstantiated, they are seriously worse than that. They can impossibly ever be substantiated from the Quran. In other words, they are not just heretic. They are fundamentally and utterly heretic.