Jump to content
Islamic Forum
al faqeer

People of The Book" & The Muslims

Recommended Posts

Cause and Effect

 

The third rational concept is the most damning, because scientists use it themselves to substantiate their formulae. It again is based on observation and reality. It basically states that for something to occur in reality a cause must exist.

 

If a man pushes a trolley the gain in momentum was caused by the man.

 

If a ball falls to the ground then the loss of position was caused by gravity.

 

If a bridge collapses then the breakdown in structure was caused by stress.

 

These few examples that have been given should illustrate the point that is being made. That every limited thing is caused by some other limited thing (or a collection of limited things, which comprises a limited thing anyway).

 

The question then arises that if everything is caused by something else preceding it, what caused the universe. Scientists argue that the universe was created from the debris of a previous universe, and that universe was created from the debris of a previous universe… and so on.

 

This is what they term the eternal chain.

 

But as mentioned before in the Limited/Unlimited concept, a limited thing cannot have a limitless dimension.

 

If you limit any part of a thing then the whole thing becomes limited.

 

Our universe is limited.

 

If our universe is part of the eternal chain, then the chain must be limited.

 

So the chain cannot be called eternal because eternal means never ending.

 

So the first link in the chain was limited.

 

How did this first link get created?

 

What initiated the conditions necessary to create the first link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

We must draw the conclusion, that an unlimited cause was responsible for the creation of the initial link. In addition since limited things do not have a mind of their own, we must also deduce that the unlimited source was responsible for the subsequent maintenance of order.

 

Who made God then?

 

This is probably the most asked question concerning the Creator. Every theist and atheist alike has thought about it, even if he/she could not answer it or did not wish to delve into it for fear of blaspheming.

 

Indeed, the reaction of most Muslims is either to shun the question or answer it without giving an explanation by declaring 'no one made God because he is Eternal! The confusion this creates, for a sincere seeker of the Truth is that on the one hand Muslims (and other theists) use the argument that every effect requires a distinct prior cause to prove that our universe could not have always been there, nor did it make itself or for that matter come from nothing. Therefore it must have been created or caused to come into being by some separate entity (ie. God). On the other hand, the same people appear to be anomalous in their line of argument by claiming that God was always there and was not caused. The questioner in this case is not denying that God exists. But is merely in doubt as to how can God could have always been there and had no beginning. In this article we shall endeavor to put an end to this controversial question by using a unique approach.

 

We need to first define what a Question is:

 

1 A Question is a sentence requesting information or an answer.

 

Now let us define what an Answer is:

 

2.An Answer is an explanation for an unknown thing that the question poses.

 

Hence we can safely state that the presence of an answer necessitates the existence of a question i.e. if there is no question there will be no answer. So, For example, if we define that a cat is an animal that cannot talk, and if someone then asks if the cat speaks Chinese, there is no answer to this question since it is a logical mistake as per definition and it carriers with it a supposition that the cats talks.

 

If we put the data concerning cats into a computer including the fact that cats cannot talk, how would the computer answer the above question? It would probably be programmed to display on the screen: "Question is illogical". It would be an incorrect answer to say: "No the cat cannot speak Chinese" because the implication is that it can speak although not Chinese, Equally incorrect is the answer: "the cat cannot speak," since that is the answer to a different question, namely: "Can the cat speak?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question might be: "Is Germany the largest continent in the world?" Of course the definition of Germany is that it is a country and not a continent. But if one was to answer by saying: "Germany is not a continent" he would not be answering the above question but rather the question "is Germany a continent?" but with regards to the question: "Is Germany the largest continent in the world?" it is an illogical question according to the definition of Germany (i.e. that it is a country). On the other hand, if one answers by saying: "No Germany is not the largest continent in the world," he would still not be answering the question properly as he is indirectly implying that Germany is a continent although not the largest.

 

It is important to show the illogical nature of questions that are asked about the essence of God e.g. "Who created God?"

 

At this point, let us remind ourselves of the usual definition of God: we believe that God created everything including time, space, matter, energy and life. Thus, logically, the creator cannot be subject to the laws and concepts, which he created including time and space.

 

However, examining our above question about God, reveals that it carries with it an implicit assumption of time succession i.e. that God is subject to time.

 

The question: "who made/caused God?" implies that there was another thing/cause that existed before God existed and that thing is the power that created God at a later period in time.

 

The question also carries the supposition that the supposed creator of God is also subject to Time since it was there before it created God. In fact, the question assumes that Time is an eternal law and not a created law and that time was there before everything else, and everything else is subject to it. This, however, is not correct. Time is just one of the laws of the universe and a mere creation of God. Time is no more than an effect that depends on the observer’s motion and the speed of light, and can become zero (theoretically) i.e. void. Since Time exists within the universe and God is not part of the universe (or part of any of His creation for that matter), it naturally follows then that God is not under the influence of Time. Hence, God is Eternal and to ask a question which contains a negation of this attribute and an implication that God is subject to Time is in fact to not ask a question at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because the question then contains erroneous assumptions that make it inadmissible, non-scientific and meaningless. Such a question is not a question and therefore does not have a direct answer. It is similar to asking: How acute are the corners of a circle?" Because this question contains an intrinsic contradiction as per definition of circles, it becomes totally unintelligible and hence nullifies its validity as a question i.e. effectively the question does not exist.

 

Anybody advocating atheism ought to prove that time is absolute and eternal before posing the question, in the same way that someone who asks whether the cat speaks Chinese or not should first prove that cats can speak in the first place.

 

"Who is better in speech than the one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says I am one of the Muslims?" (Qur'an 41:33)

 

 

Any questions or if you find anything ambigious or in need of elaboration please freel free to ask.

 

Your brother in Islam

Salman al-Farsi[at]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.ummah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/forum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm impressed with your way of reasoning, al faqeer, as well as your inclusion of other theists into the equation. If all Muslims were like you... I disagree on the substance, though.

 

How did religion appear?

 

I'll skip the period when primordial apes were evolving into humans because we'll get stuck at this point for obvious reasons :D

 

Early people were natural pagans, busy about their daily chores. As they developed hunting, agriculture and various trades, they started noticing the movement of the Sun and eclipses, Moon phases and other natural phenomena for which they found no simple explanation. The 'smart' among them claimed there were 'gods' behind all these phenomena - the god of the sun, the god of the wind, and so on. The 'smartest' of those presented themselves as spokespeople for these gods and enjoyed life serving these gods, rather than working in the fields or chasing wild animals.

 

Nation-states were developing and religious beliefs mimicked their structure: one ruler, one god, the main one. Later, only one god, other small deities became angels, prophets etc. If you tabulate the world's religions by age you'll notice how this progression took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not being scientific or exact in details, of course, - the point is to show the trend, rather than the actual evolution of religion.

 

As time passed, rulers and priests realized that in order to strengthen their rule they need to unite more people and more lands, many of whom prayed to different gods. One ruler, one religion. This is what was required.

 

Jews got stuck with Judaism.

Indians with Hinduism or Buddhism. Other ethnic groups with other religions, some of which no longer exist, or remain in small numbers.

Arabs embraced Islam.

 

Russian prince Vladimir who ruled over a collection of pagan lands had the benefit of choosing the religion for the united country he sought to build. He rejected Catholicism for lack of ceremony, Islam for alcohol ban, and chose the Byzantine branch of Christianity, which is still the religion of choice for Russians. As well as Islam which was initially brought by the Tatar hordes which defeated the disorganized Russian princes and their armies but later settled down in Russia and have lived in peace for centuries with Orthodox Russians, in fact - we have twenty million Muslims in Russia (population 142 million) and in Moscow alone there are two million muslims out of 10 million.

 

Religion was frowned upon in the Soviet period. Churches, synagogues and Masjids were closed down or turned into storehouses. Now these three faiths and numerous religious sects are flourishing. And religion is now encouraged by the authorities. Not any religious belief though - just Russian Orthodoxy and Islam. The reason, I believe, is because both faiths haven't changed or reformed for centuries and our rulers don't like change, or perhaps, this is exactly why they don't like change because their thinking has been affected by religious traditions predominant in the country, even though they were probably irreligious themselves.

 

This is why Russia and most of the Islamic world are opposed to the 'West' - they want to live in the 21st century by relying on traditions that stem from the Middle Ages. Christianity in the West has reformed and changed to adapt to needs of the times. We, to the contrary, want to adapt these needs to our religious beliefs.

 

This is being done in two different ways. Very much like financial pyramids, Islam is keen on recruting new members because to survive without reform it needs to embrace more people. Russian Orthodoxy is acting like a policeman, banning all other Christian faiths and sects, imposing chaplains in the army, building churches and so on and so forth.

 

Many religious Russians, btw, are increasingly embracing Islam, but the church doesn't see it as a problem to its own membership. Many historically Islamic people are Russian Orthodox by faith. These two religions co-exist peacefully in Russia. And even the Chechen war, paid for by Islamic states and encouraged by Russian rulers who need a burning conflict to distract people's attention from other problems, doesn't seem to spoil these relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the existence of god and my burning in hell, it is irrelevant, al faqeer. People need to enjoy the gift of life and not concentrate on the possible (impossible, of course) afterlife. If I go to hell, I'll go to a Russian hell, as promised by the Orthodox believers, so it is unlikely we'll meet there, brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One remark, al faqeer. If you are looking for evidence or proof of the teachings of Islam (and other religions to this effect) you violate the main tenet of all religions: not to question their dogmas.

 

You seem to doubt what the Quran says because you are looking for proof elsewhere: science, theories, common knowledge. You are applying today's achievements to explain what was written centuries ago. All holy books are vague enough to apply cybernetics and quantuum mechanics to them and say "Wow, they knew about this long time ago, this proves the knowledge was given to them by God."

 

Do I not wonder about the wonder of life? I do! But I don't look for an explanation in holy books. Does Darwinism explain everything? Of course, not. But there is genetics now, which shows additional evidence that I and my cat have many genes in common, and that there is only one different set of genes in the makeup of my DNA code and that of an African ape. Other scientific schools will lead to more results, some proving and some disproving the evolution theory. I understand I may never know everything because life is so complicated.

 

If people want to believe in gods, let them. But if we base our life and science and work on religion, we'll have a talibanized planet, and your site will be closed down too.

Edited by Russian Visitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are asking "How acute are the corners of a circle?" - The answer is "A circle has no corners"

 

You are asking "Who created God" - the answer is "There is no god. What you describe as 'god' is the creation of people's imagination, fed by lack of knowledge, by fear and by the imposition of religious beliefs by power-hungry rulers who find it easier to control illiterate masses and whom they promise that their miserable existence will be rewarded with paradise."

 

Any more questions? Don't hesitate to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

believe that besides Jesus, Moses or Muhammad, God sent many prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Joseph throughout history, and they love all these prophets.

 

In the Old Testament they attribute horrible things to the Prophets. They even accuse Prophet Suleyman (AS) of shirk towards the end of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace from our Lord,

 

You have rather strange ways to interpret several passages, but since interpretation is a difficult task, I will not try to convince everyone these are not the correct ones. I only notice in passing that You seem not to know there has been indeed one virgin that gave birth to a son :D

 

"Zebulun and Naphtali" who were treated with contempt earlier is Arabia, these border areas of israel describe areas beyond borders ("on the other side of Jordan").

Definitely not. Zebulon and Naphtali were the names of two Jewish tribes resp. of the regions were these tribes were located. Both were on the western bank of the Jordan. The region "beyond the Jordan" is neither Sebulon nor Naphtali, it is the eastern part of ha-galil, the Land of the heathens. Approx the Golan area, in our modern terms.

 

"Way of the sea" is Red Sea and Persian Gulf surrounding holy places of Muslims,

The "sea" mentioned is the same as the "sea of Galilee" in the NT. Its no part of the ocean. And all landscapes mentioned in Is 8:23 - 9:1 group around this "sea".

 

2. The people who walk in darkness

Will see a great light;

Those who live in a dark land,

The light will shine on them.

Quoted in Matthew 4:15, and instead of implementing Your own imaginary interpretation, You should follow the interpretation giving in the book.

 

This point at least is a clear examples that Your interpretations are delibarate, accomodated to Your views, not checked against the real meaning of these verses. A look on a map that shows where Zebulon, Naphtali or ha-Galil (in the original sense of the word) were located will soon reveal Your error.

 

And, btw, when You say in Your first posting that " tree (Judaism and sect of it, Christianity) was cut down (removed from religions of right way)", You say something entirelys different that the original poster. You demolish any common ground that may exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace from our Lord,

Is 9:6. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;

And the government will rest on His shoulders;

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Thats the text, now Your interpretation:

As Jesus, also Mohammed (puh) were given to us, although in case of Jesus focus is much more in his birth. Government will rest on shoulders of Mohammed, and on Him who send Mohammed and ordered him to act and to do as he did, in founding of government.

So this on on Mohammad? I have never heard the title Mighty God has ever been applied to him. Look for another child that got this "name"!

 

[[added the greeting and the words "Your interpretation"]]

Edited by looking by

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JESUS WARNED ABOUT "APOSTLE" PAUL, BEAST (“WOLF IN LAMBS CLOTHINGâ€) HIMSELF! (Allah knows best)

What's that?

Acts 9:13ff But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem;

14. and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name."

15. But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of israel;

16. for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake."

ýÃÇÌÇÈ ÃäÇäíÇ íÇ ÑÈ Þà ÓãÚÊ ãä ßËíÑíä Úä Ã¥ÃÇ ÇáÑÌá ßã ãä ÇáÔÑæÑ ÃÚá ÈÞÃíÓíß Ãí ÇæÑÔáíãý. .13

ýæååäÇ áå ÓáØÇä ãä ÞÈá ÑÄÓÇà ÇáßåäÉ Çä íæËÞ ÌãíÚ ÇáÃíä íÃÚæä ÈÇÓãßý. .14

ýÃÞÇá áå ÇáÑÈ ÇÃåÈ. áÇä Ã¥ÃÇ áí ÇäÇà ãÎÊÇÑ áíÃãá ÇÓãí ÇãÇã Çãã æãáæß æÈäí ÇÓÑÇÆíáý. .15

ýáÇäí ÓÃÑíå ßã íäÈÛí Çä íÊÃáã ãä ÇÌá ÇÓãíý. .16

You uttered a blaspemy against a messenger chosen by our Lord. You don't know what You were doing, may God forgive You.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace from our Lord,

In the Old Testament they attribute horrible things to the Prophets. They even accuse Prophet Suleyman (AS) of shirk towards the end of his life.

This a minor error (if it is an error at all) than to commit shirk by calling a mere human sinless...

 

BTW: shirk or shirq? (I'm ever stuck at linguistic questions, it's my hobby :D ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As you see, connections in history are too much even for Christians to deny these prophecies, and Christians do not really have any reasonable (with deeper meaning) explanation for these parts of sayings of Jesus.

-------------------------------------------------

Matt.20:1. "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

 

3. "About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5. So they went.

 

"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'

 

7. " 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered."He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'

 

8. "When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'

 

9. "The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

 

13. "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14. Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' (26)

16. "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

 

Some could say (and had said) that verses in Matt.20:1-16 question actually point to divine generosity that transcends human ideas of fairness. Yes it can do that TOO (although first group complaining about payment because of extra-work and master getting furious about it does not really support it), but it is far more complex and long for that alone. It would have just be easy to say that master gives denar for workers, and that’s it.

 

 

This following true story will explain the above quoted parable of Jesus:

 

A young backslidden hurting woman came to her mother with this;

 

"Mom, I know I did wrong in leaving my husband, and leaving my sons also.

I have not been obedient to Jesus and have messed up my life.

I am so sorry to God.

But, as I sat on your couch very sad, Jesus touched me and I started crying.

I am so happy now because He reminded me of his parable of the landowner

who hired workers to work in his vineyard.

He told me that even though I have come in to work for him at late in the day

instead of in the morning, he said I will get paid the same wage as those who have been working all day.

His workers who did not leave their spouses or mess up their lives as I did,

but they have borne the burden and heat of the day.

The faithful workers cannot compalin because Jesus promises all of us eternal life...

the same wage will be paid to those who started early and for those who came in late like me.

 

Her life was blessed greatly by God nad she is doiong better thane ver.

 

When she cried to Jesus he reminded her of his parable and she understood that it was

not too late to start doing what is right before God.

 

This is Christianity's understanding of Jesus' parable of the Landowner, the Landowner is Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The world will become a different place when people come to realize that religion obscures people's minds, obstructs science and leads to wars and enmity. True, many scientists believe in gods, but they don't base their scientific work on religious dogmas. True, many politicians are believers but they act contrary to what their holy books say. And so do terrorists, although they do find justification for terror actions in their holy books. Christians do this to a lesser extent, Muslims, for some reason, more.

 

But to say atheism and atheists are your enemies.... People have the right to believe in any idol they want, but they also have the right not to believe in gods and creation. I don't, and I think that people who believe in god are weaker than me because they cannot look straight into the face of life and death but look for comforting lies. Believers are weak, but I don't consider them enemies. It is a pity that you as believer consider atheists as your enemies.

 

My moral standing as an atheist is based on life principles and not on the false principles of religion.

 

 

 

God calls you, not a fool, but the fool.

 

Morals come from the Mosaic Code.

 

Yes, tell me about Hammarabi and the Vedas and whatever, but

it was God who gave us the Law which Law taught us right from wrong.

 

Man's very nature does good and evil, but it is God who told us NOT to do evil.

 

This is found first in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God calls you, not a fool, but the fool.

 

Morals come from the Mosaic Code.

 

Yes, tell me about Hammarabi and the Vedas and whatever, but

it was God who gave us the Law which Law taught us right from wrong.

 

Man's very nature does good and evil, but it is God who told us NOT to do evil.

 

This is found first in the Bible.

hello :D

I was thinking...for example...laws of hammurabi, it date back to round 18 century bc and written in stone..literally. :D

what about the laws of god..when did it exist? and in what form.

obviously which ever came first can't be the copycat.

Furthermore there are people with no god...or thousands of Gods and they still have morals quite similar to theists.

peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does Darwinism explain everything? Of course, not. But there is genetics now, which shows additional evidence that I and my cat have many genes in common, and that there is only one different set of genes in the makeup of my DNA code and that of an African ape. Other scientific schools will lead to more results, some proving and some disproving the evolution theory. I understand I may never know everything because life is so complicated.

 

If people want to believe in gods, let them. But if we base our life and science and work on religion, we'll have a talibanized planet, and your site will be closed down too.

 

so u seems to belive in darwinism right? Lets see this now..

 

Self-Sacrifice in Nature Proves Darwinism to be False

 

The theory of evolution claims that the natural world is the scene of merciless competition, and the theory's supporters try to inculcate this idea into the minds of others. Actually, the erroneous belief that nature is simply an arena of struggle has been a part of the theory since evolution was first proposed. The mechanism of "natural selection" promulgated by Darwin, the theory's author, proposes that creatures strong enough to adapt to their natural environment are able to survive and reproduce, while those that are too weak die off. According to this idea of "natural selection," nature is a savage battleground where creatures contend with one another in merciless struggles for survival, and where the weak fall victim to the strong.

 

According to this idea, every creature must be strong enough to overcome others, if its species is to survive. In such an environment, there is no room for self-sacrifice, altruism, or cooperation because these could prove disadvantageous. Accordingly, every creature must be entirely selfish, concerned only for its own personal food, security, and well-being.

 

But, is the natural world really an environment where creatures engage in pitiless combat with one another, where cruelly selfish individuals strive to outdo everyone else and destroy them?

 

No! The observations made in this regard do not agree with evolution. Nature is not merely the place of competition that evolutionists claim. On the contrary, many species offer countless instances of intelligent cooperation: One animal may sacrifice its own well-being to the point of risking death; yet another may put itself in danger for the sake of the flock or herd, with no possible promise of reward. In his book entitled Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry) Dr. Cemal Yildirim, a professor and himself an evolutionist, explains why Darwin and other evolutionists of his time thought as they did:

 

Scientists of the nineteenth century were easily misled into adopting the thesis that nature is a battlefield, because more often than not, they were imprisoned in their studies or laboratories and generally didn't bother to acquaint themselves with nature directly. Not even a respectable scientist like Huxley could exempt himself from this error.1

 

In his book, Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, the evolutionist Peter Kropotkin writes about the support that animals give to one another, citing the error that Darwin and his followers fell into:

 

... the numberless followers of Darwin reduced the notion of struggle for existence to its narrowest limits. They came to conceive the animal world as a world of perpetual struggle among half-starved individuals, thirsting for one another's blood… In fact, if we take Huxley, who certainly is considered as one of the ablest exponents of the theory of evolution, were we not taught by him, in a paper on the "Struggle for Existence and its Bearing upon Man," that, "from the point of view of the moralist, the animal world is on about the same level as a gladiators' show. The creatures are fairly well treated, and set to, fight hereby the strongest, the swiftest, and the cunningest live to fight another day."… t may be remarked at once that Huxley's view of nature had as little claim to be taken as a scientific deduction.2

 

True; there is a struggle and conflict in the natural world. But along with this fact, there is also self-sacrifice, enough to prove that the idea of natural selection, so basic to the theory of evolution, is totally groundless. Natural selection does not add any new features to any given species, nor can it change existing features to create an entirely new species. These facts stop evolutionists in their tracks; and their stalemate in this regard is discussed in the journal Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology):

 

The question is, why do living beings help one another? According to Darwin's theory, every animal is fighting for its own survival and the continuation of its species. Helping other creatures would decrease its own chances of surviving, and therefore, evolution should have eliminated this type of behavior, whereas we observe that animals can indeed behave selflessly.3

 

These facts about the natural world completely invalidate evolutionists' claim that nature is an arena of self-interested struggle, where the individual who best protects his own interests comes out on top. With regard to these characteristics of living creatures, John Maynard Smith poses a question to his fellow evolutionists:

 

Here one of the key questions has to do with altruism: How is it that natural selection can favor patterns of behavior that apparently do not favor the survival of the individual?4

 

John Maynard Smith is an evolutionist scientist and evolutionists cannot give an answer in the name of their theory to the question he has asked. (For examples of the extraordinary self-sacrifice and mutual assistance among creatures in the world of nature, see Harun Yahya's, Devotion Among Animals Revealing the Work of God, Global Publishing, Istanbul: 2004)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The world will become a different place when people come to realize that religion obscures people's minds, obstructs science and leads to wars and enmity. True, many scientists believe in gods, but they don't base their scientific work on religious dogmas. True, many politicians are believers but they act contrary to what their holy books say. And so do terrorists, although they do find justification for terror actions in their holy books. Christians do this to a lesser extent, Muslims, for some reason, more.

 

But to say atheism and atheists are your enemies.... People have the right to believe in any idol they want, but they also have the right not to believe in gods and creation. I don't, and I think that people who believe in god are weaker than me because they cannot look straight into the face of life and death but look for comforting lies. Believers are weak, but I don't consider them enemies. It is a pity that you as believer consider atheists as your enemies.

 

My moral standing as an atheist is based on life principles and not on the false principles of religion.

 

In history, christians have done much more killing and such in name of their religion.

 

In both World Wars there were almost 100 million death people by people who had been raised to christian culture and moral-behaviour and values. I do not even bother to mention more about other previous christian-based wars, claiming millions. Just sad stories of millions victims.

 

And... If you say I am weak because I am a Muslim... I quess we have nothing else but conflict ahead, and that we really are enemies. Sad but true (as Metallica said), if you wanna take that road. We are not weak. If you say so, prepare to be erased, even if it would took 100 years (take a look into immigration- and birth-rates). It is how things have gone this far, and it is how things are going to be. We have dealt with crusaders, we have dealt with Mongols, and we have dealt with communists. And we WILL take on you if you try to take on us. NOBODY will call us "weak". We have proud, something unfamiliar to you.

 

Believe or do not believe, it does not matter to me. But just stay out of our sight, if you have nothing else to say but that we are "weak". Those "weak" people may just as well take your life, if they wish.

 

Believe me, you DO NOT want conflict between Islamic and western civilizations. People who have principles of "turning other cheek" or "only my own life matters" have little change against people who are willing to die for their beliefs (in battle even).

 

Islam has been done, planned, to take over, conquer, this all. With or without your approval. Can´t you see even that?

 

By the way, just to make it clear, I have nothing against darwinism. Nothing happens without Allah. Not even "random" Big Bang or evolution. It is said in Koran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm impressed with your way of reasoning, al faqeer, as well as your inclusion of other theists into the equation. If all Muslims were like you... I disagree on the substance, though.

 

How did religion appear?

 

I'll skip the period when primordial apes were evolving into humans because we'll get stuck at this point for obvious reasons :D

 

Early people were natural pagans, busy about their daily chores. As they developed hunting, agriculture and various trades, they started noticing the movement of the Sun and eclipses, Moon phases and other natural phenomena for which they found no simple explanation. The 'smart' among them claimed there were 'gods' behind all these phenomena - the god of the sun, the god of the wind, and so on. The 'smartest' of those presented themselves as spokespeople for these gods and enjoyed life serving these gods, rather than working in the fields or chasing wild animals.

 

Nation-states were developing and religious beliefs mimicked their structure: one ruler, one god, the main one. Later, only one god, other small deities became angels, prophets etc. If you tabulate the world's religions by age you'll notice how this progression took place.

 

 

So early people were pagans (according to Islam prophets wee send to guide people only in certain time and places).

 

But where does that put you?

 

You are much worst than them, as you have all possible information and knowledge to change your beliefs. Those "pagans" did not have that possibility. And according to Islam that is why Allah will not punish them.

 

Progression... = Evolution.... = Islam, last world wide religion. Evolution. You said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not being scientific or exact in details, of course, - the point is to show the trend, rather than the actual evolution of religion.

 

As time passed, rulers and priests realized that in order to strengthen their rule they need to unite more people and more lands, many of whom prayed to different gods. One ruler, one religion. This is what was required.

 

Jews got stuck with Judaism.

Indians with Hinduism or Buddhism. Other ethnic groups with other religions, some of which no longer exist, or remain in small numbers.

Arabs embraced Islam.

 

Russian prince Vladimir who ruled over a collection of pagan lands had the benefit of choosing the religion for the united country he sought to build. He rejected Catholicism for lack of ceremony, Islam for alcohol ban, and chose the Byzantine branch of Christianity, which is still the religion of choice for Russians. As well as Islam which was initially brought by the Tatar hordes which defeated the disorganized Russian princes and their armies but later settled down in Russia and have lived in peace for centuries with Orthodox Russians, in fact - we have twenty million Muslims in Russia (population 142 million) and in Moscow alone there are two million muslims out of 10 million.

 

Religion was frowned upon in the Soviet period. Churches, synagogues and Masjids were closed down or turned into storehouses. Now these three faiths and numerous religious sects are flourishing. And religion is now encouraged by the authorities. Not any religious belief though - just Russian Orthodoxy and Islam. The reason, I believe, is because both faiths haven't changed or reformed for centuries and our rulers don't like change, or perhaps, this is exactly why they don't like change because their thinking has been affected by religious traditions predominant in the country, even though they were probably irreligious themselves.

 

This is why Russia and most of the Islamic world are opposed to the 'West' - they want to live in the 21st century by relying on traditions that stem from the Middle Ages. Christianity in the West has reformed and changed to adapt to needs of the times. We, to the contrary, want to adapt these needs to our religious beliefs.

 

This is being done in two different ways. Very much like financial pyramids, Islam is keen on recruting new members because to survive without reform it needs to embrace more people. Russian Orthodoxy is acting like a policeman, banning all other Christian faiths and sects, imposing chaplains in the army, building churches and so on and so forth.

 

Many religious Russians, btw, are increasingly embracing Islam, but the church doesn't see it as a problem to its own membership. Many historically Islamic people are Russian Orthodox by faith. These two religions co-exist peacefully in Russia. And even the Chechen war, paid for by Islamic states and encouraged by Russian rulers who need a burning conflict to distract people's attention from other problems, doesn't seem to spoil these relations.

 

 

So Islam would be faith of Russians if this one guy in Kiova would have chosen religion by reasonable reasoning, not by degree of alcoholism by his subjects.

 

I think that would have given something to think about for Russians for centuries to come after that, with all its weird experiments (insane dictators killing millions, invaders from Europe reaching Volga that was former border between christians and Mongol-Muslims, land-slaves until 19th century, communism, vodka-bottles in dinner table, etc...).

 

Have you heard that in few decades amount of Muslims (by cultural-backround) in Russia will by pass amount of christians. Population of Russian christians will be reduced to half (because of low birth-rates) in something like 50 years (into little more than 50 million).

 

And by the way, during Soviet Union, Muslims were nor oppressed nearly as much as christians, maybe partly because Muslims were allies for bolsheviks against persecuting tsarist-regime (allied with curch) trying to convert them to christianity even by force. Communists did not do that. Muslims were equal at last during communism, even by equal persecution with another faiths such as christianity. But christianity was main target as it was associated with west and its capitalism.

 

If you would have been a Muslim ("convert", such as f.ex. Lenin perhaps) in that time, and desided to go on for a jihad to lift off oppression of Muslims, what would have you done to get Russian people behind your idea? Certainly offering Islam as an option was not an option, as it was despised and oppressed willingly by Russians.

 

When Soviet Union broke down, Central-Asian Muslim-states were last to give up from that system (according to statistics it would not have token long time when Muslims would have been dominant religion in Soviet union).

 

Soviet Union mixed populations of Russia (as in Moscow), and spreaded Islam all over that state.

 

THIS is an example how clever Allah´s plans can be (in Koran He says that "they plan, but Allah plans too, and Allah is best of planners"). He can even use atheism for benefith of Islam. For example in Europe secularism has made room for "invasion" of Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One remark, al faqeer. If you are looking for evidence or proof of the teachings of Islam (and other religions to this effect) you violate the main tenet of all religions: not to question their dogmas.

 

You seem to doubt what the Quran says because you are looking for proof elsewhere: science, theories, common knowledge. You are applying today's achievements to explain what was written centuries ago. All holy books are vague enough to apply cybernetics and quantuum mechanics to them and say "Wow, they knew about this long time ago, this proves the knowledge was given to them by God."

 

Do I not wonder about the wonder of life? I do! But I don't look for an explanation in holy books. Does Darwinism explain everything? Of course, not. But there is genetics now, which shows additional evidence that I and my cat have many genes in common, and that there is only one different set of genes in the makeup of my DNA code and that of an African ape. Other scientific schools will lead to more results, some proving and some disproving the evolution theory. I understand I may never know everything because life is so complicated.

 

If people want to believe in gods, let them. But if we base our life and science and work on "religion, we'll have a talibanized planet, and your site will be closed down too.

 

 

So you can not understand how totally different dogmas can support each others? Let us say, that in Bible coming of Islam was prophesied (as I wrote earlier in this discussion about parallels of Jesus)- Does that not give you anything to wonder about? How can there be such "coincidence".

 

Again, with science it is similar thing. All basic knowledge were informed in Koran, in a way that did fit "knowledge" of people of that time (so that they did not refuse its message as "inaccurate"), and still fits into frames that science has given today (after 1400 years), allthough it all depends on interpretations. But if it would not depend on interpretations, how would you think it could be possible to fit same message to "scientific-knowledge" of people 1400 years ago and today? It is miracles of Koran, when it stated f.ex. that "sun swims in its course appointed", for people of that time (especially in christian Europe) it meant that sun goes around earth (as they "knew"), but now we "know" that it goes in its course around centre of our galaxy, ending to a black hole some day eventually, in an empty space full of death stars and black holes.

 

There is nothing as deep and multiple-meanings in any other books with such variations and possible interpretations. F.ex. Allah informed Mohammed (pbuh) conserning situation of that present day that "unbelievers will not be protectors but of each others, unless you do not protect yourselves". It does not take much of thinking to realise that situation has remained the same for last 1400 years.

 

"there is only one different set of genes in the makeup of my DNA code and that of an African ape"

 

And that does not make you humble?

 

Well, in Koran Allah said that He can make monkeys or pigs out of humans. Darwin made you monkeys, and beer, vodka and television made you pigs (at least if asked from your wifes). And all of those were created by Allah.

 

Sad to say this, but if and when this planet will be "talibanized" (f.ex. during next ice-age not so far away, because of melting of polar-caps and reduce in currents of Golf-stream by fresh water messing with the flow of it, 20% reduction during last 5 years), it is just because Muslims have had enough because of people like you. You guys will be lucky if you are not executed in borders of Islamic states when you look for refugee-status from south because of ice-age.

 

In Koran it is said that when Jesus will come back, he will "breake the cross". Try to think for meanings for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are asking "How acute are the corners of a circle?" - The answer is "A circle has no corners"

 

You are asking "Who created God" - the answer is "There is no god. What you describe as 'god' is the creation of people's imagination, fed by lack of knowledge, by fear and by the imposition of religious beliefs by power-hungry rulers who find it easier to control illiterate masses and whom they promise that their miserable existence will be rewarded with paradise."

 

Any more questions? Don't hesitate to ask.

 

 

A circle has corners, much of them. Those blocks forming circle are just too small to see, for you at least. Just think about atoms.

 

God created man, man created God (because God created man such), and then man created excuses why there would not be God, eventhough man could not possible have any clue about that matter as God created man such that he will not know about Him if He will not inform about Himself.

 

Capish?

 

If God created imagination of humans, and imagination of humans created God, how can He not excists?

 

By the way, muslims have been (or should have been) through demands of their religion much else than "illiterate", or without adopting new knowledge, we have Koran that orders some things, you know...

 

And Islam took place of rulers trough Allah, there is no pope or "divine right" in Islam, not even preasthood.

 

And about that reward through "miserable existence".... It can not be that miserable, as thousands or even millions of Muslims troughout history have been willing to give up smiling their existence in this world for sake of their religion, that gave meaning and happiness for their existence, leading them to give it up (even by trying to terminate existence of others).... It is parallel.

 

In case of christianity this marxist-ideology could fit... ´But what did I say about relationship between communism and Islam in my earlier writings? In Islam we seek favours of Allah not just in next world, but also in this one too. For sake of Islam itself. It is like machinery.

 

Please, hesitate before you ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace from our Lord,

 

You have rather strange ways to interpret several passages, but since interpretation is a difficult task, I will not try to convince everyone these are not the correct ones. I only notice in passing that You seem not to know there has been indeed one virgin that gave birth to a son :D

 

Where did I refused that belief? What are you talking about? Read my writing, and Koran about birth of Jesus, again.

 

Definitely not. Zebulon and Naphtali were the names of two Jewish tribes resp. of the regions were these tribes were located. Both were on the western bank of the Jordan. The region "beyond the Jordan" is neither Sebulon nor Naphtali, it is the eastern part of ha-galil, the Land of the heathens. Approx the Golan area, in our modern terms.

 

"Birth and Reign of the Prince of Peace

1. But there shall be no gloom to her that was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali; but in the latter time hath he made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations."

 

"BEYOND THE JORDAN"... Where do you think that Isaiah were writing this? In western or eastern side of Jordan? Where do you think Golan-area is? It is east from Jordan.

 

And if this is prophecy (as you claim that it is prophecy about Jesus), do you REALLY think that all these words in it should be taken literaly, word by word? Is it not that in these prophecies we are given descriptions about something like, more than excact information? Boy, Bible will turn WEIRD if you start to read it with such literaly, do you really think that you are "seed" in "good land" or do you consider yourself as a human being and a believer?

 

So these tribes are used to describe areas unknown for people of that time, they did not have much clue what was beyond it. Just as Romans named modern Tunisia/Libya "Africa", and whole continent got its name from it.

 

And were not people east from Jordan "heathens" at that time, from Jewish perspective?

 

The "sea" mentioned is the same as the "sea of Galilee" in the NT. Its no part of the ocean. And all landscapes mentioned in Is 8:23 - 9:1 group around this "sea".

Quoted in Matthew 4:15, and instead of implementing Your own imaginary interpretation, You should follow the interpretation giving in the book.

 

My "imaginary interpretation" is as valid as interpretation of who ever wrote that passage in Bible. Jesus did not say it for sure, it is interpretation of writer in later generations (Bible was written decades after Jesus was gone).

 

And again, people of israel did not have such much knowledge about geography at that time to say anything about any other "sea", all bodies of water were similar to them. And if you take a look at the map, area of Israilites streched from Red Sea to Mediterrean Sea (remember Sinai), as it does even today. And Red Sea is excactly to south from Galilea, just in same level.

 

This point at least is a clear examples that Your interpretations are delibarate, accomodated to Your views, not checked against the real meaning of these verses. A look on a map that shows where Zebulon, Naphtali or ha-Galil (in the original sense of the word) were located will soon reveal Your error.

 

And Jesus said that he had not been send but to "lost sheeps of israel". But you, pagan-christians, do not take that literaly. That will reveal your errors in understanding interpretations.

 

And, btw, when You say in Your first posting that " tree (Judaism and sect of it, Christianity) was cut down (removed from religions of right way)", You say something entirelys different that the original poster. You demolish any common ground that may exist.

 

Btw, I did NOT say anything different. Judaism (and its branch christianity) were just removed from "only right religion"-status to "People of the Book"-status when Islam appeared. So that "cutting" had, again, much more deeper meaning than one you take literalily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats the text, now Your interpretation:

 

So this on on Mohammad? I have never heard the title Mighty God has ever been applied to him. Look for another child that got this "name"!

 

[[added the greeting and the words "Your interpretation"]]

 

As I said, description in both cases, with christianity (Jesus) and Islam (Mohammed, pbuh) were more about descriptions of religions themselves, not about prophets.

 

Which religion you think has A "Mighty God", Islam (just take a look how proudly Allah declares in Koran how only He is right and all others are wrong, even if it would be taken to point of a sword, to be said shortly), or christianity with "Jesus-loves-and-forgives-you-all"-god?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×