Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?

[Skavau]

You don't know enough about the human body to know what perfection is, and when challenged most of you are content to give the usual sophmoric examples which is intellectually stultifying at best .. I don't want to waste my time on just one chapter on cell physiology with you, let alone everything else..

Fine.

Fortunately since the contents of the human body had absolutely nothing to do with my argument that eternal torture in hell for finite crimes is unjust, I remain unconcerned.

I never said God is just because it states so in the Quran, I don't discuss Quranic contents with folks who don't even believe in God, it is purpose defeating!

Apparently you don't discuss anything with people who disbelieve in a God, you just seem to sit here ridiculing them, typing scornfully at them and generally looking down on them.

I deal with folks to their basic level of understanding. Religiosity, jurisprudence etc. is far too advanced so stop making up contents of things I never introduced to a topic!

You demonstrated how the human body was imperfect in your post by pointing out the problems with it. You did not however, which is my point now actually address the post you originally quoted. I was talking about torture in hell.

 

[جوري]

Fine.

Fortunately since the contents of the human body had absolutely nothing to do with my argument that eternal torture in hell for finite crimes is unjust, I remain unconcerned.

was it not you who brought up imperfection of the human body just a post ago? Again, I can only work with what you write!

Apparently you don't discuss anything with people who disbelieve in a God, you just seem to sit here ridiculing them, typing scornfully at them and generally looking down on them.

I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!

You demonstrated how the human body was imperfect in your post by pointing out the problems with it. You did not however, which is my point now actually address the post you originally quoted. I was talking about torture in hell.

Any aberrancy should direct our attention to what goes right all the time that we take for granted, and for the most part responsible for!

cheers

 

[Azy]

The answers are so predictable and meaningless I'm honestly beginning to think that Skye is actually one of those language mimicry programs.

So far none of you have provided us evidence that anything in existence is due to anything other than God's existence

Nice try, but that's just another way of saying your view "I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument?" only applies when you feel like it.

The claims of creation in the manner of Ibrahimic tradition predate any claims I've made by at least 3 millennia, I'm not an impatient man but it's about time somebody came up with the evidence.

Evidence of is our existence here...

Erm, every creation story be it Quranic, Hindu or Spaghetti Flying Monsterism all end with us here.
That doesn't tell us about anything except your continued reliance on circular logic.
"We are here because creation happened because we are here"

Where did the microbes come from? and how did they sprout reticular matter and devlop sentience? by large leaps of faith? you are hilarious!

For the first, I've said I don't know but there are more plausible explanations than special Creation, for the second, evolution over the intervening 3.5 billion years as shown in the fossil record.

I don't see anything in MY religion that doesn't support or contradicts science!

Self contradiction in 32:4 vs 41:9-12, creation in 6 and 8 days or aeons.
Instantiation of mankind from dust, not supported.
One pair of humans to populate the earth, not supported.

41:12 And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function.
And We adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure:
such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

Seven heavens? Each with a function? Secure lights to the skies nearest the Earth? Heavens and stars created after the Earth?
No contradictions you say? Pull the other one.

Oh and you still haven't answered Skavau regarding how Allah could be seen as Just and Merciful when applying an infinite punishment for a finite transgression by a finite being.

 

[جوري]

The answers are so predictable and meaningless I'm honestly beginning to think that Skye is actually one of those language mimicry programs.

IS that something you failed to enroll for on your way to basic vocational training to foster self-esteem?

Nice try, but that's just another way of saying your view "I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument?" only applies when you feel like it.

This ping pong game is getting tiresome, if you can't do what is asked of you, don't propel the ball back, it is pitiable. I have already stated in my previous post, religion is faith based on observed natural phenomenon in the known world, none which you have accounted for scientifcally! If you can't or won't then give it a rest, I am not amused by your oh so noetic come backs!

The claims of creation in the manner of Ibrahimic tradition predate any claims I've made by at least 3 millennia, I'm not an impatient man but it's about time somebody came up with the evidence.
Erm, every creation story be it Quranic, Hindu or Spaghetti Flying Monsterism all end with us here.
That doesn't tell us about anything except your continued reliance on circular logic.
"We are here because creation happened because we are here"

I have no idea what you are trying to assert here? What claims, what do you want? further who cares whether you are patient or not, like we have to honor your self-aggrandizing fest on an Islamic forum. Once you advance yourself beyond food articles as dieties can we engage in adult conversation, otherwise you put it best, conversation ends here!

For the first, I've said I don't know but there are more plausible explanations than special Creation, for the second, evolution over the intervening 3.5 billion years as shown in the fossil record.

shown what in fossil record? you have jumping genes, and framshift mutations in fossil records at work? further how does evolution disprove a God, I really fail to see your point, again because you have failed to demonstrate or prove it!

Self contradiction in 32:4 vs 41:9-12, creation in 6 and 8 days or aeons.
Instantiation of mankind from dust, not supported.
One pair of humans to populate the earth, not supported.

how is creation of six days a contradiction? how are two humans populating the earth a contradiction, further what is your alternative, I mean you contend we came from single-celled or noncellular organisms that lack even mitochondria, and that propelled itself to higher life organisms, further split into male and female and you find that less absured than two humans copulating? and you want to speak of unsupported? are you for real?

Ansar Al' Adl
What Was Man Created From?

Concerning the thirteenth alleged contradiction,

Quote:
What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.

Original creation
19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?
The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:
Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)
Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1

Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:
If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation (SOURCE)
21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)
The following link also comments on this:
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_58.html

Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:

Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:


"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin". (SOURCE)
And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:
The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;


something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)
Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah. (SOURCE)
The full explanation of the Qur'anic account of embryology can be read here:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal...iarismGreek/8/
For further information, one may examine the following two articles:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=4811&dgn=4
http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...rticle&aid=102

[/COLOR]

(Ansar Al Adl)Which was Created first, the Heavens or the Earth?

Concerning the tenth alleged contradiction:

Quote:
Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].

Verses in question:
2:29 He it is Who created for you all that is on earth. Then He ascended towards the heaven and made them seven heavens and He is the All-Knower of everything.

And
79:27-31. Are you more difficult to create, or is the heaven that He constructed? He raised its height, and He has equally ordered it, Its night He covers with darkness, and its forenoon He brings out (with light). And after that He spread the earth; And brought forth therefrom its water and its pasture...

1. At first sight, it may seem as though these verses contradict because 2:29 mentions the earth before the heavens, while in 79:27-21, the situation is reversed. However, on closer inspection, we discover some significant differences:
A) 2:29 mentions the development of the heavens into seven layers, not their initial creation which is described in 79:27-31.
B) 2:29 describes the creation of the earth and its features while 79:27-31 only descibres the spreading of the earth
Thus, based on the two verses we know two things:
1. The creation of the earth preceded the formation of the heavens into seven layers
2. The creation of the heavens preceded the 'spreading' of the earth.
And a third point is logically concluded from the above:
3. The creation of the heavens preceded their formation into seven layers
However, it is not know from the verses whether the creation of the heavens preceded the creation of the earth or vice versa, or whether they occured simultaneously. Some Qur'anic commentators took one view while others took another. What we do know is that the heavens and the earth were created and then subsequently the earth was spread and the heavens formed into seven layers. This interpretation is supported by the classical commentaries of the Qur'an. As Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi (d. 1273CE) states in his monumental Al-Jaami` le Ahkaam al-Qur'an when giving his opinion on the Qur'anic description:
I believe that what Qatada said is sound Allah willing: that Allah first created the smoke of heaven and then created the earth and directed Himself to heaven, which was smoke and [He] arranged it and then He smoothed out the earth. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.200, emphasis added)
Imaam Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d. 1372CE) also distinguishes between the different stages in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim, while presenting a slightly different view:
It already has been mentioned previously in [the Tafsir of] Surat Ha Mim As-Sajdah that the earth was created before the heaven was created, but it was only spread out after the creation of the heaven. This means that He brought out what was in it with a forceful action. This is the meaning of what was said by Ibn Abbas and others, and it was the explanation preferred by Ibn Jarir [At-Tabari (d. 923CE)] (fn. At-Tabari 24:208). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 10, p. 350, emphasis added)
Thus, the commentators are agreed that the difference in verse 2:29 and verses 79:27-31 relates to the different stages in the creation of the heavens and the earth, with the earth's 'spreading' occurring after the creation of the heavens and the development of the heavens occurring after the creation of the earth. The commentators only differ regarding the creation of the earth preceding the creation of the heavens, or vice versa, or if they were both created simultaneously.

Scientific research describes the creation and formation of the earth in the following stages:
Differentiation in the first few 100's of millions of years led to the formation of the core and the mantle and a crust, and initiated the escape of gases from the moving interior that eventually led to the formation of the atmosphere and oceans.
The earliest Earth was probably an unsorted conglomeration, mostly of silicon compounds, iron and magnesium oxides, and smaller amounts of all the natural elements. It became increasingly hotter as the protoplanet grew.
...After loss of the hydrogen, helium and other hydrogen-containing gases from early Earth due to the Sun's radiation, primitive Earth was devoid of an atmosphere. The first atmosphere was formed by outgassing of gases trapped in the interior of the early Earth, which still goes on today in volcanoes.
For the Early Earth, extreme volcanism occurred during differentiation, when massive heating and fluid-like motion in the mantle occurred. It is likely that the bulk of the atmosphere was derived from degassing early in the Earth's history.
...Lava flowing from the partially molten interior spread over the surface and solidified to form a thin crust. This crust would have melted and solidified repeatedly, with the lighter compounds moving to the surface. This is called differentiation. Weathering by rainfall broke up and altered the rocks. The end result of these processes was a continental land mass, which would have grown over time. The most popular theory limits the growth of continents to the first two billion years of the Earth. (SOURCE)
The above description informs us that the earth was initially one mass and through differentiation and volcanic out-gassing, the early atmosphere formed. Then, cooling of the earth resulted in the formation of land mass.
These descriptions concur with the Qur'anic desciption that the earth (2:29) and the heaven (79:27) were created and were originally one mass and then seperated (verse 21:30), the heavens were then developed into seven layers (verse 2:29) and the earth's crust was later spread out (79:30). The last description may be a reference to the cooling of the earth's crust, or it may be a reference to continental drift.
Thus, we find that the Qur'an does not contradict itself here, but instead contains accurate details regarding the formation of the earth in the stages.

2. According to an alternative interpretation, verse 2:29 is rendered as follows:
He is the One who created for you all that's inside earth (Matter), then turned to the sky and perfected seven universes therein, and He is fully aware of all things.
Therefore, verse 2:29 is taken to refer to the creation of the universe and it is not the creation of the earth being described here, but rather what is in the earth, or matter. And verse 79:30 is referring to the spreading of the earth, which has been defined before.

3. A third explanation argues on the understanding of thumma, which does not always indicate sequential order. The meaning of Thumma is explained very well by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Meaning of "Thumma" & "Yawm". Therefore, when verse 2:29 says that Allah created the earth and thumma He turned to the heavens, this could also be read as "Furthermore He turned to the heavens" which does not necessarily imply that the creation of the heavens is after the creation of earth. Critics argue that when it says God turned towards the heaven, this implies a sequential act. But this is not entirely true, as God could have turned to the heaven at any point in the past, not necessarily after the creation of the heavens. This point is emphasized in the classical tafsirs as well. Imaam Qurtubi writes:
In His words "then directed", the word "then" is simply a narrative aid and does not imply any time sequence in the matetrs referred to. (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur'an, Dar Al-Taqwa Ltd. 2003, vol. 1, p.199)
Similarly, Imaam Ibn Kathir writes:
It is said that "Then" in the Ayah (2:29) relates only to the order of reciting the information being given, it does not relate to the order that the events being mentioned took place, this was reported from Ibn 'Abbas by 'Ali bin Abi Talhah. (fn. At-Tabari 1:437). (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 1, p. 180)
Thus, this explanation is not in conflict with the traditional understanding of the earier Muslims.
From the above points, it should be clear that these verses do not in any way constitute a contradiction

41:12 And He [it is who] decreed that they become seven heavens in two aeons, and imparted unto each heaven its function.
And We adorned the skies nearest to the earth with lights, and made them secure:
such is the ordaining of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

Seven heavens? Each with a function? Secure lights to the skies nearest the Earth? Heavens and stars created after the Earth?
No contradictions you say? Pull the other one.

(Ansar Al Adl)
Were the Heavens and the Earth called together, or ripped apart for Creation?

Concerning the eleventh alleged contradiction:

Quote:
Calling together or ripping apart? In the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together [41:11], while 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.

Let us first read the verses in question:
41:11 Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."

And:
21:30 Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

Simply by taking a quick look at the verses, one already begins to see that these verses do not pose a contradiction at all. Furthermore, it there is a lack of scientific knowledge displayed by the author of this allegation, as we shall see.

1. These verses are not referring to the same concept at all. Let us examine the two different concepts of astronomy involved here:
a)From research in astronomy, human beings have begun to understand a concept known as the Big Bang, which describes the origin of the universe. Verse 21:30 is widely held by Muslim scholars to refer to the Big Bang, when the universe was initially combined as a primary nebula and then exploded leading to the formation of various galaxies etc. (This scientific miracle is described here and here). With this mind, the Qur'an is actually very accurate in describing the initial union of all creation before being split.

b)The concept of the Big Bang is very different from the concept of accretion of cosmic dust. The latter describes the formation of stars and planets throught the condensation or 'coming together' of matter in space. Verse 41:11 is generally taken by Muslim scholars to refer to the collection of cosmic dust into the various celestial bodies present today, specifically the heavens and the earth. Perhaps the misunderstanding arises from interpreting the heavens in this verse to be another reference to the universe as a whole. But as we have already explained, this is not the case. The word as-samaa simply describes what is above, and in this case simply refers to the immediate atmosphere of the earth. Verse 41:11 is described in greater detail here and well as here.
2. Verse 21:30 can also be taken to refer to the earth's atmposphere as well, without any conflict. If one considers the formation and development of earth, the original atmosphere was blended together with the Earth and only became seperate in its second stage. Hence, verse 21:30 is very accurate in describing the heavens and the earth as initially joined together before being cloven asunder, either by volcanic out-gassing or cometary impacts. According to this interpretation, verse 41:11 would be chronologically before verse 21:30.

3. An additional point can be made about the phrases used in verse 41:11. When the verse mentions that the heavens and the earth were ordered to come, this does not necessarily imply that they actually came together and merged. Other verses of the Qur'an used the same phrase:
37:83-84 And verily, among those who followed his (Noah's) path was Abraham. When he came to his Lord with a pure heart.
It is obviously understood that Abraham did not come to his Lord physically, but rather in terms of submission and obedience. Hence, this verse could simply be taken as God asking the heavens and the earth to submit to His will, either voluntarily or involuntarily. From this linguistic perspective, there is also no conflict between this verse and 21:30.
These explanations sufficiently demonstrate how these verses cannot be considered a contradiction in any way.

The Number of Days Taken to Create the Universe

Concerning the eighth alleged contradiction:


Quote: ( Ansar Al adl)
Six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to eight days.

This one will require some more detail in the analysis and explanation.

The Qur'an clearly mentions that creation took place in six days:
7:54 Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days...

Now let us examine the verses 41:9-12:

41:9. Say: "Do you verily disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two Days and you set up rivals (in worship) with Him? That is the Lord of the Universe.

41:10. He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings upon it, and measured therein its sustenance within four Days, for all those who ask (about its creation).

41:11. Thumma(Moreover/then), He turned towards the heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come both of you willingly or unwillingly." They both said: "We come, willingly."

41:12. So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the cosmic heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

There are various explanations that can be given here:

1. The first explanation is the classical and most common one, but we shall elaborate upon it in greater detail. The classic scholars of the Qur'an have mentioned that the four days mentioned in verse 41:10 includes the two days mentioned in verse 41:9. This was the explanation provided by Al-Qurtubi, Al-Zajjaaj and Al-Baghawi. Indeed this is a very logical approach because there is no indication that verse 41:10 describes a period subsequent to that described in verse 41:9. Verse 41:9 is in the form of a question, while 41:10 explains the point further. It is logical that the development of mountains, the bestowment of blessings, and the measure of sustenance would denote the full development of the earth, including its period of creation mentioned in 41:9.
A similar example would be if one were to say, "I read the first chapter of that book in two days, and I finished the entire book in two weeks." Or if one were to say, "The teacher taught us the basics in two days, and we understood all the details within three weeks."
Obviously, in both cases, the second period of time can be taken to include the first period of time.
One objection that is raised to this explanation is that the second stage described in 41:10 presupposes the existence of the earth and therefore does not include its creation. Is this true? The indication of time in 41:10 is given by saying "fee four days". When fee is translated as within, then this period can clearly include the previous period describing the creation of the earth. As illustrated by the second example provided, understanding the details of a subject does entail understanding the basics, but this does not mean that the basics cannot be included in the second period of time if the preposition 'within' is used. So if it is said that we understood the basics in two days, and we understood the details within three weeks, even though the details requires the basics, the second period of time still includes the first period. Moreover, the period of time is connected to the measurement of sustenance, which does not need to occur after to the creation of the earth. Rather, it occurs during the earth's creation as well.

Another objection to this explanation is that it is scientifically innaccurate to say that the earth was formed before the heavens. This objection interprets the heavens in this verse to refer to outerspace, and claims that it is innacurate to say that it was only 'smoke' even after the earth was created. But these critics do not realize that the heaven in this passage refers to the atmosphere of the earth, as is indicated by the mentioning of the seven layers, and each with its own property or command (this description is explained here ). The term used for heaven in the Qur'an is As-Samaa. This basically denotes whatever is above or beyond the earth. Depending on the context of the verse, it can be taken to mean atmosphere of outerspace. In these verses, only after mentioning the atmosphere does verse 41:12 mention As-Samaa Ad-Dunyaa or what can be translated as the cosmic heaven. The cosmic heaven refers to outerspace while the heaven described in seven layers refers to the earth's atmosphere. So to answer this objection, any student of science knows that the atmosphere has developed greatly since the formation of the earth. The modern atmosphere is often referred to as the 'third atmosphere'. The first atmosphere that formed with the earth was very primitve and very different from our modern atmosphere. The original atmoshpere consisted of mainly helium and hydrogen, and was soon dissipated by the heat of the earth. The second atmosphere was formed after volcanic activity and primarily consisted of carbon dioxide and water vapor. There was some nitrogen but virtually no oxygen. So the development of the modern atmosphere was clearly after the creation of the earth, which is exactly as the verses state. Interestingly, the modern atmosphere also formed after the existence of early life and the abundance of rain, which Allah often describes as His blessings in the Qur'an. This is exactly as the Qur'an has stated in verses 41:9-12.
The above explanation is evidently the best and most logical. Nevertheless, we shall quote some other explanations given by muslims to allow the reader some choice in selecting the best refutation to this allegation.

2. The word yawm, which has been translated as day can also mean period. It has been explained thoroghly by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Length of God's Days. If we understand yawm as period, there can be no contradiction because the same action can be measured in different periods of time. Here Allah is providing the details on the stages in the development of the earth and the rest of the universe. These verses demonstrate the design and wisdom in nature, and the bounties Allah has favoured us with. Therefore, Allah has chosen to mention the periods seperately in more detail.

3. The third explanation does not say that the second period includes the first, but instead argues that the last period (mentioned in 41:11-12) of two days, occurs simultaneously in relation to the first two periods. Therefore, the earth was created in two days simultaneously with the creation of the heaven, then the mounatins and blessings were added in four days, adding to a total of six days. This explanation translates thumma as moreover instead of then. In other words, the period described in 4:11 is not subsequent to the previous verses, but rather it occurs parallel to the creation of the earth in 4:9. The meaning of Thumma is explained very well by Moiz Amjad in his article entitled The Meaning of "Thumma" & "Yawm". Critics argue that when it says God turned towards the heaven, this implies a sequential act. But this is not entirely true, as God could have turned to the heaven at any point in the past, not necessarily after the creation of the heavens.

4. A similar explanation to the above is that the two days taken to create the heavens are not to be added to the previous days. This argument does not debate the meaning of thumma but instead argues that nowhere in the passage does God mention the creation of the heavens. It only mentions the further development of the heavens. So this can either be taken to refer to the atmosphere or outerspace, as both are compatible with this description. In other words, the earth was created as described in 41:9-10, and the creation of the heaven is not mentioned at all in this passage. The passage only mentions the further perfection and development of the heavens, indicating that they were created while the process described in 41:9-10 was going on. This explanation is also sufficient to explain the allegation.
Before finishing with this allegation, there is still another issue to comment on. Some people have inquired about a hadith found in Sahih Muslim that describes the order of creation. Concerning this hadith, it is sufficient to quote a fatwa from IslamToday.com:
As for the hadîth in Muslim, it reads:
Allah created the dust on Saturday. He created the mountains on Sunday. He created the trees on Monday. He created the despised things on Tuesday. He created the light on Wednesday. He scattered the beasts throughout it on Thursday. He created Adam (peace be upon him) in the late afternoon on Friday as the last creation on the last hour of Friday, between the late afternoon and the night.
There are numerous criticisms against it.

Al-Bukhârî writes in al-Târâkh al-Kabîr:
“Some of them have said that it is from Abû Hurayrah who took it from Ka`b al-Ahbâr. This is the most correct view.”
Ibn Kathîr, in his commentary of the Qur’ân writes:
This hadîth is one of the unusual hadîth found in Sahîh Muslim. `Alî al-Madînî, al-Bukhârî, and a number of other leading scholars of hadîth have criticized it, saying that it is the statement of Ka`b and that Abû Hurayrah merely heard it from Ka`b al-Ahbar and some narrators merely got confused and attributed it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). This has been thoroughly researched by al-Bayhaqî.
Ibn Taymiyah comments:
“It is a defective hadîth. It has been declared defective by more than a few scholars.” [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (17/236)]
Moreover, regarding the text itself, al-Qurtubî points out in his commentary on Sahîh Muslim that the text does not convey its meaning with sufficient coherence. He writes in al-Mufhim:
This hadîth has been related in other sources besides Sahîh Muslim with various conflicting narrations. In some of them the Earth is created on Sunday and Monday while the mountains are created on Tuesday and the trees, rivers, and inhabitants are created on Wednesday, and the Sun, Moon, stars, and angels created on Thursday, and Adam on Friday. These are single-narrator hadîth that conflict with one another and do not provide any practical instruction. We must not rely upon them in determining the order of appearance of created things during those days.
What he is saying is that even if we regard the hadîth as authentic – as a number of scholars do – there remains the problem that there is too much incoherence in its many conflicting narrations to provide evidence for the order of events.

And Allah knows best.

Fatwâ Department Research Committee of IslamToday chaired by Sheikh `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî
The above fatwa clarifies that the narration is not only defective but that it contains other points which are inconsistent with similar narrations. As far as the text of the narration itself is concerned, since we know that the arabic term yawm can refer to either a day or a period of time, then the only point in the narration which would appear to conflict with science is the saying that light was created on the fourth day. Concerning this part of the narration, it is interesting to read the commentary of Sahih Muslim written by Imaam Abu Zakariyya An-Nawawi (d. 1300CE):
The Messenger's Saying (peace be upon him): "And He created light (ar. Noor) on the fourth day"

This is how it has been narrated in Sahih Muslim as noor but in the transmission of Thabit ibn Qaasim it says noon with the letter 'Nûn' at the end. Al-Qaadi said "It refers to the fish". (Saheeh Muslim Bi-Sharh An-Nawawi, 4997)
This seems to suggest the creation of aquatic life before that of humans.

The above discussion should clear any confusion regarding the account of creation in the Qur'an and in the hadith

What Was Man Created From?

Concerning the thirteenth alleged contradiction,

Quote: Ansar Al Adl)
What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.

Original creation
19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?
The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:
Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)
Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1

Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:
If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation (SOURCE)
21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:
Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)
The following link also comments on this:
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_58.html

Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:

Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:


"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin". (SOURCE)
And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:
The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;


something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)
Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah. (SOURCE)
The full explanation of the Qur'anic account of embryology can be read here:
http://www.load-islam.com/C/rebuttal...iarismGreek/8/
For further information, one may examine the following two articles:
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=en...&QR=4811&dgn=4
http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...rticle&aid=102

Courtsey of Br. Ansar Al Adl!
So maybe you can demonstrate your account of the events in lieu of your bombastic declamations plagiarized from the web, surely you must have known they'd be answered here, and that we'd know you don't own a copy of the Quran let alone read a page of it!

Oh and you still haven't answered Skavau regarding how Allah could be seen as Just and Merciful when applying an infinite punishment for a finite transgression by a finite being.

In fact I already have, you might benefit reading more, and braying and pounding less what do you think?

cheers

 

[Skavau]

was it not you who brought up imperfection of the human body just a post ago? Again, I can only work with what you write!

Absolutely.

However, my initial post that you responded to was this:

You are so close and yet so far. For me, the claim that Allah is infinitely just and merciful is outright contradicted by any assertion that "deserving folks" will be tortured for eternity in hell. Infinite torture for finite crimes is completely disproportionate and therefore unjust. Any damage or oppression that is mustered in a finite lifetime is outweighed by the punishment in this instance.

Secondly, saying that God is just because the Qu'ran claims God is just is a circular argument.

You did not address any of the part highlighted in red. So much for working with what I write.

I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!

See, the thing is - I do not look down on theists, I do not scorn theists and I do not ridicule theists. So if you're mirroring an attitude, it is certainly not mine.

Moreover, two wrongs do not make a right.

Any aberrancy should direct our attention to what goes right all the time that we take for granted, and for the most part responsible for!

Eh?

 

[جوري]

Absolutely.

However, my initial post that you responded to was this:



You did not address any of the part highlighted in red. So much for working with what I write.

Tha analogy of checks and balances is a response to it. So much for you reading?!

See, the thing is - I do not look down on theists, I do not scorn theists and I do not ridicule theists. So if you're mirroring an attitude, it is certainly not mine.

it is ramapant amongst atheists, the only atheist on board who shows a measure of respect is gator!

Moreover, two wrongs do not make a right.

Glad you've come to that conclusion

cheers

 

[Skavau]

Tha analogy of checks and balances is a response to it. So much for you reading?!

I was reading.

As you would have noticed, I failed to see the relevance to it.

it is ramapant amongst atheists, the only atheist on board who shows a measure of respect is gator!

I suppose you've got some very accurate statistics which demonstrate that rampant scorn, disrespect and ridicule exist about theists amongst atheists?

Either way, it is not an attitude I have and I would appreciate it if you did not show it towards me.

Glad you've come to that conclusion

I hope that you agree with it, seeing as your own actions imply otherwise.

 

[جوري]

I was reading.

As you would have noticed, I failed to see the relevance to it.

That is your problem, not mine, but just so I'd have fulfilled my civic duty

Allah Is Merciful: Why Punishment?

Question
Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. Allah will put some people into Hell fire for eternity on the Day of Judgment. How can I explain to a non-Muslim that my God is Merciful when some people will be condemned forever? Jazakum Allah khayran.

Date
05/Aug/2003

Name of Mufti
Muzammil Siddiqi

Topic
Muslim Belief



Answer



Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.


In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.



Dear sister in Islam, thanks for your interesting question that shows your keenness to get yourself well acquainted with all what relates to your religion. May Almighty Allah help us all abide by His rules and regulations, Amen.



Responding to the question in point, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states:


“Allah (Mighty and Exalted Be He) is indeed very Merciful, Loving and Compassionate, but He is also Just and Severe in punishment. According to the Qur’an, Allah is “Forgiver of sins, Accepter of repentance, the Stern in punishment, the Powerful…” (Ghafir: 3). It is wrong to accept only some aspect of Allah and ignore or negate some other aspects. When people believe only in the love of Allah and ignore His justice and power they become careless and do whatever they wish. When people believe in the justice and power of Allah and ignore His love and compassion they become hermits and monks and run away from the world and its enjoyments. Islam teaches us a balanced life and so it teaches us both aspects of Allah’s Being.


Allah created human beings and He gave them everything for their existence. He guided them through His Prophets and Messengers and gave them all the possibilities to be good and faithful, but if they still reject Him and turn away from Him, then He does not care for them. Such people by their own actions have made themselves unworthy of His love and compassion. He warned them again and again that the consequences of their sins and rebellion will be severe, but if they did not pay any attention to Him, so why should He show any mercy to such ungrateful, stubborn, and evil creatures. Allah says in the Qur’an: “O human being, what has deceived you about your Lord Most Beneficent? Him Who created you, fashioned you in due proportion, and made you right; and in whatever form He willed for you, He set you. But no, you do deny the Day of Judgment! Indeed over you are keeping watch the honorable beings; writing down (your deeds). They know what you do. The Righteous will be in Bliss; and the Wicked will be in the Fire, which they will enter on the Day of Judgment.” (Al-Infitar: 6-15) And Allah says, “We wronged them not, but they it was who did the wrong.” (Az-Zukhruf: 76)”



You can also read:


Islam Teaches Us to be Forgiving and Pardoning


Why Does Allah Allow Suffering and Evil in the World?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...nglish-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar
seems you and a million other think along the same lines.. can you have 'light' without darkness? by what contrast?
it amuses me, how some think one should be rewarded at all times by God because he is merciful and have a carte blanche in the process to committ all evil deeds!

I suppose you've got some very accurate statistics which demonstrate that rampant scorn, disrespect and ridicule exist about theists amongst atheists?

It is a patent observation judging just from how many 'humanistic atheist' websites on google to mock religion, and the lot of you on board!

Either way, it is not an attitude I have and I would appreciate it if you did not show it towards me.

should you continue to write in a way I find less than appropriate, I'll meet it with like reaction!

I hope that you agree with it, seeing as your own actions imply otherwise.

see previous reply!

cheers

 

[Skavau]

I will address your article in a separate post presently.

It is a patent observation judging just from how many 'humanistic atheist' websites on google to mock religion, and the lot of you on board!

I suspect it is no more than the amount of websites that mock, insult and ridicule atheism. Irrespectively, they are both wrong.

should you continue to write in a way I find less than appropriate, I'll meet it with like reaction!

Do drop the pomposity. Are you telling me that you treat those who you deem to type inappropriately with contempt, ridicule and scorn?

Moreover, what precisely is inappropriate about how I type? I have to say I consider my interaction with others generally very bland.

see previous reply!

Strange.

Earlier on, you said:

"I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!"

I then pointed out that two wrongs do not make a right, to which you implied agreement with and yet you still persist in typing to people you do not respect with contempt, ridicule and scorn. Why is this?

 

[جوري]

I will address your article in a separate post presently.

Really, I can hardly wait!

I suspect it is no more than the amount of websites that mock, insult and ridicule atheism. Irrespectively, they are both wrong.

There is no comparison.. there is nothing 'sacred' to atheism to mock!

Do drop the pomposity. Are you telling me that you treat those who you deem to type inappropriately with contempt, ridicule and scorn?

Based on content yes!

Moreover, what precisely is inappropriate about how I type? I have to say I consider my interaction with others generally very bland.

not bland, at times very instigating!

Strange.

Earlier on, you said:

"I merely mirror their own attitudes toward theists. It is my privilege!"

I then pointed out that two wrongs do not make a right, to which you implied agreement with and yet you still persist in typing to people you do not respect with contempt, ridicule and scorn. Why is this?

As stated prior it is my privilege.. I don't resign to the other cheek for a modus vivendi!

cheers

 

[Skavau]

There is no comparison.. there is nothing 'sacred' to atheism to mock!

It doesn't matter if atheism is not considered sacred or is not sacred - the point is that it is insulted by theists just as much as atheists insult theism. It also doesn't make atheists like myself any more irritated when insulted just for holding a single disbelief.

Based on content yes!

That is not a nice character trait.

not bland, at times very instigating!

How so?

As stated prior it is my privilege.. I don't resign to the other cheek for a modus vivendi!

Okay.

So you admit that 'Two wrongs do not make a right' does not apply to you.

 

[Skavau]

Allah Is Merciful: Why Punishment?

Question
Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. Allah will put some people into Hell fire for eternity on the Day of Judgment. How can I explain to a non-Muslim that my God is Merciful when some people will be condemned forever? Jazakum Allah khayran.

Date
05/Aug/2003

Name of Mufti
Muzammil Siddiqi

Topic
Muslim Belief

“Allah (Mighty and Exalted Be He) is indeed very Merciful, Loving and Compassionate, but He is also Just and Severe in punishment. According to the Qur’an, Allah is “Forgiver of sins, Accepter of repentance, the Stern in punishment, the Powerful…” (Ghafir: 3). It is wrong to accept only some aspect of Allah and ignore or negate some other aspects. When people believe only in the love of Allah and ignore His justice and power they become careless and do whatever they wish. When people believe in the justice and power of Allah and ignore His love and compassion they become hermits and monks and run away from the world and its enjoyments. Islam teaches us a balanced life and so it teaches us both aspects of Allah’s Being.

Okay. We're not at the point just yet. Whether a 'balance' must exist has very little to do with justification for eternal torture in a hellfire.

Allah created human beings and He gave them everything for their existence. He guided them through His Prophets and Messengers and gave them all the possibilities to be good and faithful, but if they still reject Him and turn away from Him, then He does not care for them.

Okay.

So why does this justify eternal torture in a hellfire? Belief is not a choice and nor is it a conscious act of vindictive spitefulness. It is a subjective conclusion that an individual reaches after a specific experience of natural phenomena. There is no question of being able to by 'choice' change that conclusion, because at that point you have already made it. You can only change your belief if you are convinced that your belief is wrong and/or that another belief is right. To do that you must be exposed to different viewpoints or different experiences in life.

I might be an Atheist, but I am not an Atheist because of a 'hatred of belief' or 'arrogance' or 'denial' or for any other rhetoric that some theists like to pretend I am, but I am an Atheist because I contest the existence of a God. I am a Soft Atheist in that I do not declare that there is no God but I simply disbelieve in the assertion that there is a God. As stated, my disbelief in the God proposition rests with skepticism and lack of evidence and/or reason under my world view to suppose a God. I cannot at all 'change' my belief because I would have to be sincerely convinced of its falsehood and/or the validity of another belief to do so.

And this brings me to my point - disbelief or belief in God is based on a sincere conclusion of reality, then why should those who disbelieve in God be sent to hell for all eternity? It is the equivalent of sending someone to hell for getting their information incorrect. It is also grossly unjust. Disbelief in God at most would last a lifetime whereas torture in hell lasts eternity. How is it just to send someone to hell for getting their information wrong? Which is exactly what this is.

Such people by their own actions have made themselves unworthy of His love and compassion. He warned them again and again that the consequences of their sins and rebellion will be severe, but if they did not pay any attention to Him, so why should He show any mercy to such ungrateful, stubborn, and evil creatures.

Stubborn? Evil?

The article writer assumes an image of disbelievers of Islam actively rejecting the word of God. As if disbelievers actively and willfully ignore the word of God and almost attack it. The opposite is quite true. Most Non-Muslims probably have only a passing knowledge of Islam. How can you call people who are aware of Islam only as a religion 'ungrateful, stubborn and evil'?

 

[جوري]

Okay. We're not at the point just yet. Whether a 'balance' must exist has very little to do with justification for eternal torture in a hellfire.

in fact it has everything to do with it!

Okay.

So why does this justify eternal torture in a hellfire? Belief is not a choice and nor is it a conscious act of vindictive spitefulness. It is a subjective conclusion that an individual reaches after a specific experience of natural phenomena. There is no question of being able to by 'choice' change that conclusion, because at that point you have already made it. You can only change your belief if you are convinced that your belief is wrong and/or that another belief is right. To do that you must be exposed to different viewpoints or different experiences in life.

Belief is very much a choice, we aren't animals. we are all born with the ability to reason and define our purpose, those of us born with a certain handicapped are exempt from such choices and like children are not accountable, but what is the excuse of any thinking rational adult? to have everything for free and think one is entitled to it?

I might be an Atheist, but I am not an Atheist because of a 'hatred of belief' or 'arrogance' or 'denial' or for any other rhetoric that some theists like to pretend I am, but I am an Atheist because I contest the existence of a God. I am a Soft Atheist in that I do not declare that there is no God but I simply disbelieve in the assertion that there is a God. As stated, my disbelief in the God proposition rests with skepticism and lack of evidence and/or reason under my world view to suppose a God. I cannot at all 'change' my belief because I would have to be sincerely convinced of its falsehood and/or the validity of another belief to do so.

In that case, I don't understand why any description of heaven or hell affects you as an atheist? Why are you so aghast of the thought of eternal punishment if the the sole notion of God is ludicrous to you?...

And this brings me to my point - disbelief or belief in God is based on a sincere conclusion of reality, then why should those who disbelieve in God be sent to hell for all eternity? It is the equivalent of sending someone to hell for getting their information incorrect. It is also grossly unjust. Disbelief in God at most would last a lifetime whereas torture in hell lasts eternity. How is it just to send someone to hell for getting their information wrong? Which is exactly what this is.

Again, I don't see how if you don't believe in God or with to abide by his rituals would be concerned at all of being sent to hell eternally? You were in fact given the message and you refused it, it didn't appeal to you, it didn't make sense, whatever it is, atheism is your path, then no such thing as hell exists, and you can live your life free from thoughts of it!

Stubborn? Evil?

The article writer assumes an image of disbelievers of Islam actively rejecting the word of God. As if disbelievers actively and willfully ignore the word of God and almost attack it. The opposite is quite true. Most Non-Muslims probably have only a passing knowledge of Islam. How can you call people who are aware of Islam only as a religion 'ungrateful, stubborn and evil'?

مَّنِ اهْتَدَى فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدي لِنَفْسِهِ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيْهَا وَلاَ تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولاً​

Transliteration Mani ihtada fainnama yahtadee linafsihi waman dalla fainnama yadillu AAalayha wala taziru waziratun wizra okhra wama kunna muAAaththibeena hatta nabAAatha rasoolan

Who receiveth guidance, receiveth it for his own benefit: who goeth astray doth so to his own loss: No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another: nor would We visit with Our Wrath until We had sent an apostle (to give warning).

Whoever adopts the right path does so for his own benefit, and whoever goes astray does so to his own detriment, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another, and it is not Our way to punish (anyone) unless We send a Messenger.


No one will be punished until they have been given the message, but once they receive and reject it, then they should prepare to handle the consequences!

cheers

 

[Skavau]

in fact it has everything to do with it!

How so?

Belief is very much a choice, we aren't animals.

No it isn't.

You cannot 'choose' your beliefs, you can only choose what you do. I did not 'choose' to be an Atheist, I concluded it. You did not 'choose' to be a Muslim, you concluded it. It is a conclusion of yours that Islam is correct and that Islam must be followed. You cannot sincerely change this belief unless you find evidence which refutes your current beliefs, or find a more convincing belief.

we are all born with the ability to reason and define our purpose, those of us born with a certain handicapped are exempt from such choices and like children are not accountable, but what is the excuse of any thinking rational adult?

Excuse me?

I don't need an 'excuse'. The whole point of my post there was that people should not be required to explain their beliefs. A belief is a conclusion that an individual reaches upon a specific observation of natural phenomena and a specific set of knowledge learned throughout their life. I don't need an excuse, all I need to be is sincere. I honestly do not believe in the existence of a God/s and this disbelief is based on contention, not reprehensible motives.

to have everything for free and think one is entitled to it?

Eh?

In that case, I don't understand why any description of heaven or hell affects you as an atheist?

It doesn't, personally. I just bought it up because I read your post in a discussion subforum. It is somewhat relevant to this thread whether it effects me or not.

Why are you so aghast of the thought of eternal punishment if the the sole notion of God is ludicrous to you?...

I consider it hypocritical to claim that God is benevolent, all-just and all-merciful and then claim that God sends non-believers to hell for eternity.

Again, I don't see how if you don't believe in God or with to abide by his rituals would be concerned at all of being sent to hell eternally?

I'm not.

But if Islam is true, I don't think it is fair I get sent to hell for eternity simply for getting my information incorrect.

You were in fact given the message and you refused it, it didn't appeal to you, it didn't make sense, whatever it is, atheism is your path, then no such thing as hell exists, and you can live your life free from thoughts of it!

I do.

I'm just debating and discussing on here.

No one will be punished until they have been given the message, but once they receive and reject it, then they should prepare to handle the consequences!

What constitutes receiving the message? If a Non-Muslim just happens to have heard of Islam, but knows very little about it - is that hearing the message?

 

[جوري]

How so?

What do you mean how so? Do you think for instance one who commits murder, essentially perfect and gets away with it, shouldn't be held accountable? The system exists so that everyone pays their dues! It is really that simple!

No it isn't.

Yeah it is, to believe or not is very much a choice!

You cannot 'choose' your beliefs, you can only choose what you do. I did not 'choose' to be an Atheist, I concluded it. You did not 'choose' to be a Muslim, you concluded it. It is a conclusion of yours that Islam is correct and that Islam must be followed. You cannot sincerely change this belief unless you find evidence which refutes your current beliefs, or find a more convincing belief.

I did very much choose my beliefs, for the longest time, I lived as an atheist, then an agnostic, then later in my twenties and after much reading chose to be a Muslim, it is a choice, It is a choice to practice and a choice to make it a way of life, you getting lost in semantics to make a moot point isn't helping you, rather a way to wash your hands out of your decision making!

Excuse me?

I don't need an 'excuse'. The whole point of my post there was that people should not be required to explain their beliefs. A belief is a conclusion that an individual reaches upon a specific observation of natural phenomena and a specific set of knowledge learned throughout their life. I don't need an excuse, all I need to be is sincere. I honestly do not believe in the existence of a God/s and this disbelief is based on contention, not reprehensible motives.

All right then, that is your choice, we al live by the choices we make.. You don't need to justify your beliefs to me, I am neither your judge nor executioner. We all lie in the beds we make!

Eh?

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? you'd gladly pay for O2 hospital and doctor and medication bills, should you be suffering from COPD because of life style choices such as smoking which render you unable to breathe, yet feel no such need to offer the most remote of payment for having your heart beat 100,800 beats per day or your lungs roughly breathe 23,000 involuntairy breaths including higher function when you sleep so if you should slip into a state of imbalance either your apneustic or Pneumotaxic center take over and inhibit you from dying, or your kidneys filtering about 180 quarts of blood so you don't end up in a coma, etc etc etc etc X a life time per person and you don't see fit that you should offer the smallest gratitide for one who granted you all of this?

It doesn't, personally. I just bought it up because I read your post in a discussion subforum. It is somewhat relevant to this thread whether it effects me or not.

If eternal life doesn't affect you, then it shouldn't be a topic for discussion. I'd personally enjoy life if I were an atheist and not spend so much time being philosophical in things that wouldn't benefit me whatsoever.

I consider it hypocritical to claim that God is benevolent, all-just and all-merciful and then claim that God sends non-believers to hell for eternity.

See all previous replies. I consider it hypocritical to expect without offering!

I'm not.

so why question it on any grounds?

But if Islam is true, I don't think it is fair I get sent to hell for eternity simply for getting my information incorrect.

If it is true, then you make your grievences known on the day of recompense!

I do.

I'm just debating and discussing on here.

What do you gain from such a debate?

What constitutes receiving the message? If a Non-Muslim just happens to have heard of Islam, but knows very little about it - is that hearing the message?

Everyone is raised on their intent. I don't know what constitutes receiving the message!

cheers

 

[Gator]

so why question it on any grounds?

What do you gain from such a debate?

Just a comment on this point since it comes up often. The reason why I question theists about their religion is to see the thinking behind it. Its not about God.

Simply, what I gain from such a debate is insight into you.

(sorry for jumping in y'all).

 

[Skavau]

What do you mean how so? Do you think for instance one who commits murder, essentially perfect and gets away with it, shouldn't be held accountable? The system exists so that everyone pays their dues! It is really that simple!

Sure.

But there is a difference between a murderer and someone who disbelieves in the existence of God. To murder is to commit an act of evil, to disbelieve in God is just to not believe in something.

Moreover, neither murder or disbelief in God should command eternal torture.

Yeah it is, to believe or not is very much a choice!

No it isn't. To believe is to conclude.

I did very much choose my beliefs, for the longest time, I lived as an atheist, then an agnostic, then later in my twenties and after much reading chose to be a Muslim, it is a choice

More accurately, you were an atheist - then events made you become an agnostic, and then eventually you became convinced of Islam. There was no choice involved. There was only choice in your actions.

It is a choice to practice and a choice to make it a way of life, you getting lost in semantics to make a moot point isn't helping you, rather a way to wash your hands out of your decision making!

It is a choice to practice and make it a way. But what you actually believe, deep down - cannot be a 'choice'. To demonstrate my point - could you honestly, sincerely just suddenly 'decide' to accept Christianity? You could pretend to be a Christian, live a Christian lifestyle but unless you actually are convinced that Christianity is true - you would be in denial.

Moreover, I am not attempting to wash my hands out of decision making.

All right then, that is your choice, we al live by the choices we make.. You don't need to justify your beliefs to me, I am neither your judge nor executioner. We all lie in the beds we make!

Okay then.

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? you'd gladly pay for O2 hospital and doctor and medication bills, should you be suffering from COPD because of life style choices such as smoking which render you unable to breathe, yet feel no such need to offer the most remote of payment for having your heart beat 100,800 beats per day or your lungs roughly breathe 23,000 involuntairy breaths including higher function when you sleep so if you should slip into a state of imbalance either your apneustic or Pneumotaxic center take over and inhibit you from dying, or your kidneys filtering about 180 quarts of blood so you don't end up in a coma, etc etc etc etc X a life time per person and you don't see fit that you should offer the smallest gratitide for one who granted you all of this?

I never said that.

To me, lest you forget - there is nothing to thank. I don't believe I was created.

If eternal life doesn't affect you, then it shouldn't be a topic for discussion. I'd personally enjoy life if I were an atheist and not spend so much time being philosophical in things that wouldn't benefit me whatsoever.

That would be you, not me.

And I do not ascribe to the theory of not discussing things that do not effect me. I find the background story of Mass Effect absolutely fascinating and I enjoy discussing it. Just because it doesn't effect me doesn't mean I shouldn't have an interest in it or not discuss it.

See all previous replies. I consider it hypocritical to expect without offering!

Whether that is true or not, this has nothing to do with any of my arguments about hell.

so why question it on any grounds?

I like the topic? I like to discuss things?

What do you gain from such a debate?

Depends.

New information, new insight, sometimes nothing. Do I need to gain something?

 

[جوري]

Sure.

But there is a difference between a murderer and someone who disbelieves in the existence of God. To murder is to commit an act of evil, to disbelieve in God is just to not believe in something. Moreover, neither murder or disbelief in God should command eternal torture.

Even murder can be expiated if one is sincere, but your feelings on the matter isn't really what commands what happen in the hereafter.. In fact there is no sin greater than 'kufr'
I am curious however, how do you think punishment should be dispensed to someone who has commited the perfect crime if there is no such thing as a hereafter?

No it isn't. To believe is to conclude.

You keep maintaining that, and I likewise maintain that you want to get lost in semantics. logical free thinking adults are responsible for their choices and decisions and religion is very much a choice, we have many young children on board who chose to be Muslim and also chose to keep such a decision from their parents lest they be punished for it.

More accurately, you were an atheist - then events made you become an agnostic, and then eventually you became convinced of Islam. There was no choice involved. There was only choice in your actions.

How far are you willing to go to make a nonpoint? this isn't philosophy 101. you either make a choice that you want to be something or you a choice to be another!

It is a choice to practice and make it a way. But what you actually believe, deep down - cannot be a 'choice'. To demonstrate my point - could you honestly, sincerely just suddenly 'decide' to accept Christianity? You could pretend to be a Christian, live a Christian lifestyle but unless you actually are convinced that Christianity is true - you would be in denial.

I believe christianity to be true indeed just not the most correct, they are people of the book, to choose christianity is to go backwards not forwards, I don't deny Jesus or that there is a form of a bible out there though not in its current form. If Islam weren't around, I'd probably be Jewish, as christianity defies all logic to me, and thus wouldn't be a good choice for a religion!

Moreover, I am not attempting to wash my hands out of decision making.

Sure if you say so!

Okay then.


I never said that.

To me, lest you forget - there is nothing to thank. I don't believe I was created.

hehehehe... ok you weren't created, a stork brought you to your parents, and no one is forcing you to give thanks..

That would be you, not me.

And I do not ascribe to the theory of not discussing things that do not effect me. I find the background story of Mass Effect absolutely fascinating and I enjoy discussing it. Just because it doesn't effect me doesn't mean I shouldn't have an interest in it or not discuss it.

You wish to discuss it under what grounds? a thriller? a bedtime story? a nice piece of fiction? you should at least highlight your interests, so if it is a complete waste of our time we'd quit.
There is punishment too for wasting time in vain discourse you see which personally I'd like to avoid.. I'd hate to spend my time idly if it were for your mere amusement. I am not here to amuse or fascinate anyone!

Whether that is true or not, this has nothing to do with any of my arguments about hell.

You are the one mentioning that 'it if were true' again, you should in the least be consistent!

I like the topic? I like to discuss things?


Depends.

New information, new insight, sometimes nothing. Do I need to gain something?

Of course there has to be gain.. Do you think I like sitting here straining my eyes and putting off a million other things that are pilling on me for nonesense?!

cheers

 

[Azy]

I have already stated in my previous post, religion is faith based on observed natural phenomenon in the known world, none which you have accounted for scientifcally!

None? This is basically the God of the gaps argument, science has explained a great many things which were once evidence of the Almighty, as time goes on the list diminishes.
How exactly does one conclude the God of the Quran from observing nature?

What claims, what do you want?

What claims? Every claim related to God or world religions.
c. 1500BC Moses comes down from the mountain with a list carved into a tablet.
"Hey guys, I went up this mountain and spoke to God. He told me to let you know that these are the rules from now on, ok?"
"Bro, you've been up there alone for quite a while, how do I know you didn't just write those yourself?"

Since day one noone ever came up with any evidence of God's existence or that his will has been dictated in the manner described by the Book(s).
I don't doubt that most people here believe wholeheartedly in the word of the Quran but when people are so vehement about obtaining evidence for claims made by others it makes me wonder what these
people have done to validate the factual accuracy of their own opinions.

In order for me to convince you otherwise about the origins of the world you require a how from science, spelled out in detail.
If I challenged you on the how of God, what answer would I get? "Don't know, he's God, he just did it. Don't ask how because you probably wouldn't understand."
It's a lie that religion gives you any of the right answers, it just prevents you from asking the right questions.

shown what in fossil record? you have jumping genes, and framshift mutations in fossil records at work? further how does evolution disprove a God, I really fail to see your point, again because you have failed to demonstrate or prove it!
--
how are two humans populating the earth a contradiction, further what is your alternative, I mean you contend we came from single-celled or noncellular organisms that lack even mitochondria, and that propelled itself to higher life organisms, further split into male and female and you find that less absured than two humans copulating? and you want to speak of unsupported? are you for real?

3.5 billion years of life on Earth with a gradual development and increase in complexity from microbes to humans. It isn't evidence against God, but it is evidence against what is allegedly God's word.

There is no evidence in the fossil record that humanity started 40-85 (depending on who you ask) generations before the Prophet with the sudden appearance of a single pair of humans (and if ahadith are to be believed, humans that are 90ft tall).
Does the presence of 60,000 year old human remains in australia agree with this Quranic account? Maybe they all lived to 2000 years old and mastered shipbuilding in the desert. Perhaps Eve was so genetically disimilar to Adam that all the races of humanity came about in
a dozen generations of interbreeding.

how is creation of six days a contradiction?

Why, if the Quran is meant to be clear and precise, fully detailed and with nothing excluded, does it take several hundred lines of alternate interpretations to explain away a small handful of passages?
Additionally they all have errors. (You could have just linked, not everyone wants to read all those passages inline.)

The explanation by Ansar for 6 days in one place vs 2+4+2 in another, that some are to be understood as simultaneous is akin to me saying:
I washed my clothes on Monday. I ironed my clothes on Tuesday. I picked up my dirty clothes on Monday.
There is nothing elegant about this, and it is in contravention of Quranic principles.

Surah 11, Verse 1 This is a scripture whose verses are perfected and then explained.
This verse indicates that no words are wasted in the Qur'an, it could not be in a better form. One could not use fewer words to say the same thing. To do so would add unnecessary information.

Depending on which way you look at it there is either redundancy or missing detail, which both go against properties of the Quran defined within it. The fact that the creation is described 5 times is a little redundant, no?

Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.

http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~wuhsi/elements.html lists 17 elements and their use in the body, note it does not include hydrogen, carbon, oxygen or nitrogen.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2002/fs087-02/images/fig04.gif relative abundance of elements in earth's crust. A few more than 16...

The cosmic heaven refers to outerspace while the heaven described in seven layers refers to the earth's atmosphere.

Not sure how you would reconcile that with the placement of the stars...
41:12 So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard.

 

[Skavau]

Even murder can be expiated if one is sincere, but your feelings on the matter isn't really what commands what happen in the hereafter.. In fact there is no sin greater than 'kufr'

I know this is the case.

I also believe that this specific case is unjust.

I am curious however, how do you think punishment should be dispensed to someone who has commited the perfect crime if there is no such thing as a hereafter?

Define the 'perfect' crime here.

Moreover, justice would be dispensed the old fashioned way. We would find them and take them into custody.

You keep maintaining that, and I likewise maintain that you want to get lost in semantics. logical free thinking adults are responsible for their choices and decisions and religion is very much a choice

What you learn and what you decide to do in life is a choice, but what you believe is not.

we have many young children on board who chose to be Muslim and also chose to keep such a decision from their parents lest they be punished for it.

Actually, we have many young children on board who concluded Islam is true and chose from that to become a Muslim.

How far are you willing to go to make a nonpoint? this isn't philosophy 101. you either make a choice that you want to be something or you a choice to be another!

This is extremely relevant to the topic. If belief is not a choice, but only a conclusion - then punishment for any kind of belief becomes inherently unjust.

I believe christianity to be true indeed just not the most correct, they are people of the book, to choose christianity is to go backwards not forwards, I don't deny Jesus or that there is a form of a bible out there though not in its current form. If Islam weren't around, I'd probably be Jewish, as christianity defies all logic to me, and thus wouldn't be a good choice for a religion!

There we go then. You couldn't just 'believe' in Christianity by choice.

hehehehe... ok you weren't created, a stork brought you to your parents, and no one is forcing you to give thanks..

I was caused, not created.

You wish to discuss it under what grounds? a thriller? a bedtime story? a nice piece of fiction? you should at least highlight your interests, so if it is a complete waste of our time we'd quit.

Interest. There is no grounds otherwise.

There is punishment too for wasting time in vain discourse you see which personally I'd like to avoid.. I'd hate to spend my time idly if it were for your mere amusement. I am not here to amuse or fascinate anyone!

Are you informing me that God, as per Islam prescribes punishment for idle amusement?

Of course there has to be gain.. Do you think I like sitting here straining my eyes and putting off a million other things that are pilling on me for nonesense?!

Clearly not.

But you are not me. I don't mind discussions like this.