Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Duffman_

View On Atheists/agnostics

Recommended Posts

Why not? That is a perfectly valid argument.

 

It isn't, however, a suitable argument at this time. I've mentioned before staying on the subject, and I will again. Arguing about what car is the fastest is a perfectly valid argument. Is it suitable in this scenario? Hardly.

 

You asked what our reaction would be. OUR reaction. You asked for a MUSLIM reaction. I gave you one. That was your subject, and it was replied to. End of story. If you would like to discuss the validity of said argument, you should asked, "What is your reaction and WHY?" You neglected to ask for an explanation. Understand?

 

Whatever gets you through the day. I don't pity religious people even though I believe for the most part they're a victim of their own weaker human impluses. I don't let that belief make me dehumanize them. You aren't what you believe.

 

lol

 

Whatever gets YOU through this life. Oh, the irony.

 

I looked at Islam and it weakened my faith in Islam.

 

And yet, you go on and on about other religions. If you had a problem with Islam, the religion, you would have focused on it. Most people usually speak of what they don't like/understand. However, you spent much time talking about "How do you know all other religions are wrong? Why does every religion think it's right?"

 

Number two fault in your argument? Because if you had a problem with Islam alone, you would not be an atheist. You had a problem with GOD.

 

As I've mentioned, believer in a religion to disbeliever in God is a huge step. You skipped the second step, which is disbeliever in the religion. You don't think Islam is wrong because you found fault in it. You think it's wrong because you don't believe in God. The fault is not with Islam. It is with you.

 

Salam.

Edited by Layna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Salaams peeps,

 

The point that I'm getting at is this; I don't beleive in God for the same reason you don't believe in Zeus. Thats the problem with debating the existence of God with religious people. Any arguments you use to prove his exitence can be used by other religions to prove the existence of their God and not yours.

 

The existence of Zeus can be dismissed when looking at the sources and coherence of the message.

 

What would happen to these people? If God is benevolant and all powerful and we are dealing with the eternal fate of countless numbers of souls then why not simply give his followers means to spread his word? It simply makes no sense.

 

I thought you've read the Qur'an back to front many times and grew up in a devout Muslim household?

 

Whatever gets you through the day. I don't pity religious people even though I believe for the most part they're a victim of their own weaker human impluses.

 

If you believe this to be true, you should acknowledge that atheists are also victim of their weaker human impulses. Grandeur, arrogance, defiance and denial. So why did you choose atheism?

 

You see all of these religions and all of these various "truths" and then think to yourself, "they must ALL be wrong, because they are not in accordance with one another"? Is that it? Because, that's really weird.

 

Well said sister. :sl:

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MajidM, I have had many of the same thoughts you have had. I agree with you that most people choose the faith of their fathers. Perhaps "accept" would be a better word than "choose", since I believe that most children are introduced to the "truth" when they are still too young to reason for themselves. By the time they are old enough to reason, they have too much invested in their religion (social network, etc.) to reject it, or even strongly question it.

 

It is, as you have discovered, illogical to believe that a benevolent deity would create an entire universe, and populate it a few billion years later with people, who would be either burned or blessed based on whether or not they believed a certain set of dogma among many competing sets of dogma. When the choice of dogma for the overwhelming majority is made by a simple accident of birth, it becomes nothing more than a lottery. It is even more illogical to assert that the "true" dogma was not revealed to men until thousands of generations of people had already lived and died. This system could not have been designed by a being who shares our own innate sense of fairness. Something doesn't add up. Either the designer (if there is one) is not as fair and just as is claimed, or choice of dogma doesn't truly determine whether an individual is burned or blessed.

 

The rationalizations I've seen Muslims offer on this forum don't transform this into a fair system. "Allah will not punish those who have not heard the truth." I asked whether that meant a child-murderer would be guaranteed a place in Paradise, as long as he lived and died without hearing the Quran. No one could say, because either way obviously violates our inborn sense of fairness.

 

This is the problem with all "revealed" religions: they weren't "revealed" to you. The Jews had to take Moses' word for it that God had spoken to him, and that Moses was accurately relaying what God had said. Christians have to accept that lots of things said about Jesus are accurate, but don't have any way to independently verify the accuracy of any of it.

 

Maybe an angel really did reveal the Quran to Mohammed. That's fine for Mohammed, but it doesn't really resolve anything for me. I've never had an angel recite poetry from God to me, and I've never met Mohammed. Should I just take his word for it that an angel spoke to him? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there is no such evidence. All I have is the word of one man, who isn't even around any more to answer questions.

 

The universe is unimaginably immense. If there is an Intelligence behind it, my belief (or lack of it) in that Intelligence is too insignificant to matter one way or the other. I was not born reciting the Quran or quoting the Bible. I was born with a brain, and with a limited ability to learn about the universe. I take the universe itself as my "holy book." If God wants to teach me something beyond what the universe itself teaches, He is certainly capable of doing so. I am free to choose to follow sensible advice in books written by men, but I am also free to reject that which is illogical, that which contracts the observable facts, or that which is incompatible with my own innate sense of right and wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rationalizations I've seen Muslims offer on this forum don't transform this into a fair system. "Allah will not punish those who have not heard the truth." I asked whether that meant a child-murderer would be guaranteed a place in Paradise, as long as he lived and died without hearing the Quran. No one could say, because either way obviously violates our inborn sense of fairness.

 

What did I reply with to your question? Allah knows best, which He does.

 

Secondly, what do murder and disbelief have to do with one another? We are speaking of disbelief out of defiance, and disbelief because of lack of knowledge. So what logic is it you use that makes you mix disbelief, a sin of its own, with murder, an entirely different sin?

 

If we were talking about the punishment for lying intentionally, it would be like you saying "So someone who murders and lies without being aware that what he says are lies gets away with the lies while someone who is a good in all aspects of his life except constantly lies intentionally gets punished?"

 

Don't arrive at conclusions of your own. You do not know what Allah will and won't do.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

It is, as you have discovered, illogical to believe that a benevolent deity would create an entire universe, and populate it a few billion years later with people,

 

And this is relevant because?

 

who would be either burned or blessed based on whether or not they believed a certain set of dogma among many competing sets of dogma.

 

Truth. Either be burned or blessed according to their adherence to the truth. And this is not illogical as man have been given the faculties to separate truth from falsehood.

 

When the choice of dogma for the overwhelming majority is made by a simple accident of birth, it becomes nothing more than a lottery.

 

Why? The fact that there are conversions is clear evidence that people can choose to believe or disbelieve.

 

It is even more illogical to assert that the "true" dogma was not revealed to men until thousands of generations of people had already lived and died.

 

Wrong. The truth was revealed to the very first man, and reminders were sent throughout time with each Prophet.

 

This system could not have been designed by a being who shares our own innate sense of fairness.

 

According to your own misconceptions.

 

Something doesn't add up. Either the designer (if there is one) is not as fair and just as is claimed, or choice of dogma doesn't truly determine whether an individual is burned or blessed.

 

Or you've completely missed the reality of things.

 

The rationalizations I've seen Muslims offer on this forum don't transform this into a fair system. "Allah will not punish those who have not heard the truth." I asked whether that meant a child-murderer would be guaranteed a place in Paradise, as long as he lived and died without hearing the Quran. No one could say, because either way obviously violates our inborn sense of fairness.

 

And he who stays true to his fitrah without hearing about Islam will be granted Jannah. Ultimately, the judgement lies with God.

 

Maybe an angel really did reveal the Quran to Mohammed. That's fine for Mohammed, but it doesn't really resolve anything for me. I've never had an angel recite poetry from God to me, and I've never met Mohammed. Should I just take his word for it that an angel spoke to him? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but there is no such evidence. All I have is the word of one man, who isn't even around any more to answer questions.

 

The extraordinary evidence is the Qur'an. And the many other signs to complement it.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What is your reaction and WHY?" You neglected to ask for an explanation.

 

Alright...what is your reaction and WHY?

 

Number two fault in your argument? Because if you had a problem with Islam alone, you would not be an atheist. You had a problem with GOD.

 

For the sake of THIS particular discussion I'm talking to a number of Muslims, so what would be the point of disproving Hinduism as you believe it to be false anyways?

 

The existence of Zeus can be dismissed when looking at the sources and coherence of the message.

 

So can the Quran if you choose to look. But like I said; most Muslims don't because it doesn't serve their interests to put it under a magnifying glass. Besides I could have used any number of divine beings as an example. I will if you honestly believe that you have objective, historical and scientific reasons to not believe in a countless number of Gods. I don't think you do.

 

If you believe this to be true, you should acknowledge that atheists are also victim of their weaker human impulses. Grandeur, arrogance, defiance and denial. So why did you choose atheism?

 

I still stand by what I said. If you put 10 people in a vaccum and studied the course of their lives there would be a good probably that 9 out of 10 of them would develop some concept of the divine. The one atheist is still a scientific statistic but their existence is less of a prevailing trend in the greater picture. I think history proves that religion and belief in the divine is more a prevailing trend and the reasons behind their existence can usually be pinpointed after the fact to superficial events. Nearly every culture in every far removed corner of the Globe has independently developed concepts of the divine. Why is Islam any different than these?

 

This question has been answered, most eloquently may I add, time and time again by Layna. I fail to see why you continue to bring it up as one of the chief components of your argument.

 

So far the only answer I have gotten is "God knows best" which is nothing more than a cop out, or "they do not go to hell" which begs the obvious question.

 

It is, as you have discovered, illogical to believe that a benevolent deity would create an entire universe, and populate it a few billion years later with people, who would be either burned or blessed based on whether or not they believed a certain set of dogma among many competing sets of dogma. When the choice of dogma for the overwhelming majority is made by a simple accident of birth, it becomes nothing more than a lottery.

 

Finally, I thought I was going to go crazy there for a minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

The existence of Zeus can be dismissed when looking at the sources and coherence of the message.

 

So can the Quran if you choose to look.

 

Believe me, I've looked.

 

But like I said; most Muslims don't because it doesn't serve their interests to put it under a magnifying glass.

 

It doesn't mean if they did put it under a magnifying glass they would anything other than perfection.

 

Besides I could have used any number of divine beings as an example.

 

And my response would be the same.

 

 

I still stand by what I said. If you put 10 people in a vaccum and studied the course of their lives there would be a good probably that 9 out of 10 of them would develop some concept of the divine. The one atheist is still a scientific statistic but their existence is less of a prevailing trend in the greater picture. I think history proves that religion and belief in the divine is more a prevailing trend and the reasons behind their existence can usually be pinpointed after the fact to superficial events.

 

You failed to answer my question. You are under the delusion that atheism is a sort of realization, a movement away from relying on weak human impulses that cause a belief in a Divine entity. Whether its a prevalent trait or not is irrelevant, using your own logic atheists are also victim of weak human impulses. You claim the belief in the Divine can be pinpointed after superficial events, implying your own disbelief in God is void of any superficial factors. You think its from deep reflection, serious reasoning and logical deduction? Your beliefs are based on the same fallacies of theists (by your own logic).

 

Nearly every culture in every far removed corner of the Globe has independently developed concepts of the divine. Why is Islam any different than these?

 

We call this the fitrah. Whereas you see weak human impulses which cause a people who live on a remote island off South America to pray to a mountain to provide them sustenance, I see the fitrah trying to manifest itself. Yes, their beliefs are false, but the evidence is clear to me. Qur'an confirms that there is an innate nature in humans to worship their Lord. Islam, like all previously revealed sharia provide clear signs for those who wish to reflect.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far the only answer I have gotten is "God knows best" which is nothing more than a cop out, or "they do not go to hell" which begs the obvious question.

 

:sl:

 

With all due respect, it's only a 'cop out' when looked at from your skewed perspective. For me to imply that I could second-guess Divine judgement would be far more absurd. I really don't know what is so difficult to understand:

 

1) Those who have not received the message of Islam will not be judged for rejecting the Truth as they were not privy to it in the first place.

 

2) If someone commits murder, they have commited a major sin, and will be judged for that sin, be they Muslim or non-Muslim.

 

Whether when added up, the balance of their deeds falls on the good side or the bad side is highly specific to each case, hence the global answer of 'God knows best'.

Edited by emel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright...what is your reaction and WHY?

 

You already know my reaction and as to "why" it's the truth? Well, that would be like me asking you to prove to me why it is not the truth. You cannot prove/disprove what others cannot/do not wish to see/understand.

 

But if you are willing to learn about Islam with the intent of discovering it, rather than judging it, let me know.

 

For the sake of THIS particular discussion I'm talking to a number of Muslims, so what would be the point of disproving Hinduism as you believe it to be false anyways?

 

I really have no interest in disproving the existance of Brahma, Shiva, or any of the lesser gods that Hindus worship. I simply shrug and say "that's their choice".

 

And honestly, what is a better reply to ANY question than "Allah knows best"? Who DOES know better? No one.

 

Ninja edit

 

Salam.

Edited by Layna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys as soon as i posted my replies. My computer went on to show the BOD.

I shall come back with another set of 'outdated' arguments.

 

I apolozige. Hope you dont loose me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Those who have not received the message of Islam will not be judged for rejecting the Truth as they were not privy to it in the first place.

 

2) If someone commits murder, they have commited a major sin, and will be judged for that sin, be they Muslim or non-Muslim.

 

You are not answering my questioning. I didn't ask you if they are judged or not by God I'm simply asking you WHERE they go after they die. This is a very important question as it reveals alot about the benevolance of the divine being that created this system and the eternal fate of countless generations. "God knows best" essentially equals "I personally don't know but I'm sure they go somewhere and wherever it is its probably an alright place." If you don't know then simply say you don't know.

 

Also aren't you essentially claiming that morality exists outside of Islam?

 

But if you are willing to learn about Islam with the intent of discovering it, rather than judging it, let me know.

 

So one can't learn about Islam unless they fully intend on discovering it in the first place? That...really makes no sense whatsoever. I guess I couldn't read Mein Kampf unless I fully intended on becoming a Nazi before I even picked it up. Otherwise I would be "judging" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not answering my questioning. I didn't ask you if they are judged or not by God I'm simply asking you WHERE they go after they die. This is a very important question as it reveals alot about the benevolance of the divine being that created this system and the eternal fate of countless generations. "God knows best" essentially equals "I personally don't know but I'm sure they go somewhere and wherever it is its probably an alright place." If you don't know then simply say you don't know.

 

I have answered your question, it is you that is not satisfied with the answer I have given you- and that is merely due to your self-imposed limitations. I have already alluded to the absurdity of expecting a mere mortal to be able to categorically affirm the eternal abode of another human being. I have told you how God has told us people will be judged according to their knowledge and acceptance or rejection of the Truth, and according to their deeds. In fact, for you to prefix your question with the word 'simply' is farcical. If I had a definite answer to that question then what am I doing here?

 

Also aren't you essentially claiming that morality exists outside of Islam?

 

This has already been discussed by Josh; it is termed the Fitrah- The human beings' inherent disposition towards virtue. To claim that non-Muslims have no sense of morality would not only be foolish, but a lie. Islam simply came to re-affirm the highest moral ideals that all the Abrahamic faiths affirmed in their original forms..

 

Majid, we keep returning to the same questions and quite frankly are going around in circles. I for one, am starting to get a little dizzy, can you move this discussion on at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

Majid's premise is basically the following:

 

I find it much easier to define athsiem by explaining the flaws in an individual's belief process which makes him believe in God rather than to disprove the existence of God (which is impossible)

 

The main difference between Religion and Atheism is that Religion satisfies inherent human emotion (fear of death, fear of the unknown) whereas Athiesm gives absolutely no gratification to those same needs and does not purport to have any answers to them whatsover. Belief in God can be recreated in a lab. Atheism can't; people get no benefits in believing the only garuntee they can recieve from death is becoming a corpse and eventually disentegrating into nothing. Usually the harder thing to believe is more likely the truth

 

So the challenge for you is to prove atheists have freed themselves from the flaws of a belief process which makes them believe in God.

 

I have said the following which you have not addressed:

 

Atheism satisfies man's characteristics of defiance and grandeur, to believe he is the master of his own fate and there is no higher obligation on him. Gratification comes in many forms.

 

Which refutes the idea that Atheism is something which people swallow bravely because it is the harsh truth. The fact is Atheism provides gratification to the nafs, which has its own appeal like religion gives gratification to the fitrah. You are under the delusion that atheism is a sort of realization, a movement away from relying on weak human impulses that cause a belief in a Divine entity. Whether its a prevalent trait or not is irrelevant, using your own logic atheists are also victim of weak human impulses. You claim the belief in the Divine can be pinpointed after superficial events, implying your own disbelief in God is void of any superficial factors. You think its from deep reflection, serious reasoning and logical deduction? Your beliefs are based on the same fallacies of theists (by your own logic).

 

So you need to start explaining why atheism is a more logical ideology, because your argument that theists are victim of their own weak impulses is void. You have failed to show that atheists are not victim of the same impulses.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not answering my questioning. I didn't ask you if they are judged or not by God I'm simply asking you WHERE they go after they die.

 

What is the size of the universe?

How many stars are in the universe?

How many galaxies are in the universe?

What is the exact time and date that our sun will burn out as other stars do over time?

What will I eat for lunch tomorrow?

 

Can you answer these questions? No, you cannot. Because you, like any other human being, have limited knowledge about the universe.

 

We CANNOT answer who goes to Heaven or Hell, who is judged by God and how, we can only discuss what Allah has TOLD us. So the next time you dismiss someone when they reply with "Allah knows best", then please answer the 5 questions that I've listed above.

 

So one can't learn about Islam unless they fully intend on discovering it in the first place? That...really makes no sense whatsoever. I guess I couldn't read Mein Kampf unless I fully intended on becoming a Nazi before I even picked it up. Otherwise I would be "judging" it.

 

You are misreading my comment. There's a difference between reading mein kampf because you wish to become a nazi, reading it because you wish to scoff at it and try to rebuke it, and reading it because you are simply interested in reading it.

 

If you are interested in hearing about why I consider Islam the truth, and not simply intent on questioning and disputing my personal beliefs, then I will share them. And no, it is not because I'm sensitive to criticism, far from it.

 

There are things that can plainly be disproven and things that we could both disagree on until literally the end of time, and neither of us can prove to the other why we are right. I have no wish to get sucked into such an argument.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MAJIDM Going back to you original arguments.

 

Which i feel have been going around and around as i had predicted they would. Lets begin fresh if you may.

 

I find it much easier to define athsiem by explaining the flaws in an individual's belief process which makes him believe in God rather than to disprove the existence of God (which is impossible)

So you agree that disprove the existence of God is impossible. According to your logic it would mean that its possible to prove the existence of God. what is arguable is the means to prove it and so we argue about who is right muslims scriptures or christian scriptures. Am i correct ?

 

To any person who believes in an organized religion and KNOW that their God is the only God I would put it like this; If you were born into a Christian family you would KNOW that the Bible is the only word of God, if you were born into a Muslim family you would KNOW that the Quran is the only word of God, if you were born in Ancient Greece you would KNOW that all the Universe's literal elements were supervised by any number of primordial gods, etc

 

There was a time when I prayed because I was taught to. I prayed/believed because I was raised up that way. BUT, later when I begin to read and understand and apply and compare my faith and reasons to other faiths and reasons. I see and understand the truth in mine. I see the falsehood clear from the reality. I believe/pray because I affirm the truth and believe in the truth. This is how a person would convert from Christianity to Islam or from Hinduism to Islam.

 

This is also true for you. Because you claim to be Muslim (which I doubt) and then changed to become a non muslim. So you too at first were influenced by your environment but later (mis) understood and changed to something else. Its not the change that matters but the understanding.

Again environment does not matter much taking in consideration your and me and then also the Quran which tells us about the 2 sons of Adam, Abel and Cain were strikingly opposite to each other. The son of Nuh was not like his father. And the sibilings raised in a family may or may not be as religious as the father/mother. This is true as within a family I know, I see one brother very religious, the sister not at all and the younger sister to be very very religious. The father wishes that his son shave his beard. The mother protests the fathers wishes. So what I am is because of what i was brought up as, may not be true to a great extent.

 

The only reason any other religion is "wrong" and yours "right" is because other religions are not YOUR religion and your opinions on them would exist simply to reinforce your own beliefs.

The same should be true for any one not believeing in a religion. Or being an Aetheist.

 

The main difference between Religion and Atheism is that Religion satisfies inherent human emotion (fear of death, fear of the unknown) whereas Athiesm gives absolutely no gratification to those same needs and does not purport to have any answers to them whatsover. Belief in God can be recreated in a lab. Atheism can't; people get no benefits in believing the only garuntee they can recieve from death is becoming a corpse and eventually disentegrating into nothing.

What is wrong with satisfying a human emotion ? If there is no benefit in believing something why do you propose to believe in it?

 

I never asked you how religious your family is. i wonder why you said you come from a devout sunni muslim family. Also, you never explained what is 'devout'

I asked you what kind of a muslim do you claim you were. And specifically

 

1. how often did you pray fajr on time in the masjid or at home for how long.

2. Did you read the Quran in arabic or some other language and if yes then who's translation.

3. have you read the biography of the Prophet Muhammed sal allauy alayhi wassallm and if yes written by whoom ?

4. How much of the Quran had you memorized ?

 

these are basic questions. hope you dont feel offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which i feel have been going around and around as i had predicted they would. Lets begin fresh if you may
.

 

I welcome that proposition.

 

So you agree that disprove the existence of God is impossible. According to your logic it would mean that its possible to prove the existence of God. what is arguable is the means to prove it and so we argue about who is right muslims scriptures or christian scriptures. Am i correct ?

 

I meant thats its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. But one can use common sense as to find the more likely scenario of the two.

 

There was a time when I prayed because I was taught to. I prayed/believed because I was raised up that way. BUT, later when I begin to read and understand and apply and compare my faith and reasons to other faiths and reasons. I see and understand the truth in mine. I see the falsehood clear from the reality. I believe/pray because I affirm the truth and believe in the truth. This is how a person would convert from Christianity to Islam or from Hinduism to Islam.

 

I know Muslims who consider themselves Muslim having never read the Quran in a language they understand (instead reading it in Arabic phoenetically and convincing themselves they are learning something), I've met Muslims who think the call for prayer is the most beuatiful thing they have ever heard, having no idea what it even means. I've met Muslims who claim they have devoutly believed the message in Islam all their life, having never read any other religious book other than the Quran in their entire lives. I would wager to say that alot of the Muslims you yourself know fit into these categories (I'm using Islam as an example but I by no means believe that Muslims are the only people privy to this phenomenon) So what is it? How can people who have never been exposed to any other ideology than the one they have been taught "know" that it is correct. Is it because they have a sentimental attachment to what they were born into and a vested interest in maintaining it, or is it because they actually are "right" and that they all won the universe's divine lottery and are gifted with a unique deep seated knowledge of the Universe that they can only describe to people that don't have it?

 

You belief in your version of God, a Christian believes in his version of God. You claim he is in denial of the truth, he claims you are in denial of the truth. You claim that his belief is real but not "really real", like yours. Meanwhile he says the same thing about you. How do you that you are right or that that same deep seated unexplainable "feeling" you have that God really does exist is not a sentiment shared just as deeply by him? I keep asking because I have not gotten an answer to that question yet. I've gotten apologetic backpeddling and veiled cop outs that either refer to the riduclous notion that genetics dictate everything we become or that converts somehow single handedly disprove several lifetimes worth of sociological fact.

 

What is wrong with satisfying a human emotion ? If there is no benefit in believing something why do you propose to believe in it?

 

Because it completely destroys the concept of objective truth which religion claims to be based upon. It means that Religion is a tool of the human mind to find stability. It essentially means that God didn't create us, we created God.

Edited by MajidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I meant thats its impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. But one can use common sense as to find the more likely scenario of the two.

 

Common sense: Is that not another very relative word. Can be used by me to prove my points and also used by you to prove yours. ME: Common sense that i am a product of someone elses creation just like anything else that i create. You: Common sense that we believe becuase we are programmed by parents else we wont believe.

So lets both refrain from using this 'common sense' we can of course use the word knowledge, intellect.

 

I know Muslims who consider themselves Muslim having never read the Quran in a language they understand (instead reading it in Arabic phoenetically and convincing themselves they are learning something),

Were you one of such ? if you were then we have a flaw, you never understood what your read and now you go against something that you never understood. However I disagree that to be a negative, defective yes but not negative. I dont know all of the quran but what i know i do know good. Same with my mom. She knows things which i dont even know though she always reads in arabic the reads the translation. Again this is not our topic of discussion. You wrote all this quoting my para in which i was trying to tell you about my transition from faith due to teaching by family to faith by reading, understanding and implementing. (of course all due to guidance from God the almight). So what matters is this transition. You shall rightfull agree too as you claim to have gone thru such which you believe opened your eyes. and i claim ti have gone thru which opened mine. Perhaps this is the crux of our argument as to whose claim is correct.

 

I've met Muslims who think the call for prayer is the most beuatiful thing they have ever heard, having no idea what it even means.

I dont see anything wrong in that either. Just as i would see my child as the most beautiful boy/girl ever. I see my wife/mom/sister the most beautiful women ever. I think its a bit metaphorical and not literal. Its not in my good taste to call such a love as ignorant.

 

I've met Muslims who claim they have devoutly believed the message in Islam all their life, having never read any other religious book other than the Quran in their entire lives. I would wager to say that alot of the Muslims you yourself know fit into these categories

 

Honestly the muslims i met have and do know other religions. They cant understand why an idol of jesus is required for worship, they cant understand wht if everyone become a buddhist and they cant understand what makes people bow down to an idol of the elephant and then carry it and throw it in water. So i may say that I dont see anything wrong in those muslism who devoulty believe in the message without knowing such other religions.. "If there is God, they go to heaven, if not they loose nothing". Either ways dont you think in one life its a bit difficult to have known and mastered to be a physician and a mathematician and a engineer and a pilot.

 

Our real point of discussion:

So what is it? How can people who have never been exposed to any other ideology than the one they have been taught "know" that it is correct. Is it because they have a sentimental attachment to what they were born into and a vested interest in maintaining it, or is it because they actually are "right" and that they all won the universe's divine lottery and are gifted with a unique deep seated knowledge of the Universe that they can only describe to people that don't have it?

 

Would you agree that the example you have given is a generalized one? You nor i can prove that the majority of muslims or other religions have never been exposed to any other ideology even as a passing reference for them to stop,look and evaluate. So lets discuss what is between me, you and any other muslim here on this forumn so then we are talking about real people and real experiences. You narrate yours and i narrate mine and someone else here narrates his.

Is this ok with you ?

Edited by Student

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answers:

 

If we have a sentimental attachment/vested interest to what we were born into : then you would have lost that sentimental attachment/ vested interest having changed from faith to faithless. If you lost it you are a looser in the sense you have lost something and should regain it, if you think you are not a looser then you never had an vested interest. Makes sense?

 

In my case though i was born into it and have had a sentimental attachment (according to your theory), i yet believe in it it andnow its no longer by being born into it but rather having brought more faith into it. One reason being that what i was born into had many add on's which Islam did not preach. Effects of culture, weakness in knowledge etc. A common phenomena.

 

My case is similar to yours. We both changed. i changed from less practice, some innovated practices to more faith in the religion and more practice in the correct form and you changed from ( i dont know what) to complete loss of faith.

 

How about Hamza Yusuf the convert (not a generalized person, we know him or can findout about him)., yusuf estes the preacher. What about them.

 

Perhaps they and me and you all fall into the second category which is

they actually are "right" and that they all won the universe's divine lottery and are gifted with a unique deep seated knowledge of the Universe that they can only describe to people that don't have it?

 

 

You belief in your version of God, a Christian believes in his version of God. You claim he is in denial of the truth, he claims you are in denial of the truth. You claim that his belief is real but not "really real", like yours. Meanwhile he says the same thing about you. How do you that you are right or that that same deep seated unexplainable "feeling" you have that God really does exist is not a sentiment shared just as deeply by him? I keep asking because I have not gotten an answer to that question yet.

I understand. But if you have decided not to evaluate both statements then how do you wish to receive any answers. Like for any study that comes with a theory we evaluate the facts to decide upon it. So to evaluate religions and the concept of God we evalute the statements of every religion and put them to test. Then what your intellect agrees upon you accept.

 

 

It means that Religion is a tool of the human mind to find stability. It essentially means that God didn't create us, we created God.

I disagree with this statement literally. But yes i can say you are near correct if it is in the following way:

It may be true that religion has been distorted by humans and a concept of God created by us to achieve our (human) objectives (short term goal).

Eg. Terrorists using religious scripture to legitimize thier actions, Preists using their position to lay laws on people like the Jew pharisies or the Hindu Bhramins and the Russian leaders.

 

Some used religion to bomb other used the bomb to supress religion.

 

So essentially i find that if i believe in something i preach it. You believe in something and you preach it. So how is it that me with faith is any better than you without faith ? or vice versa and why ? I am refering to this argument again my first reference was this

The only reason any other religion is "wrong" and yours "right" is because other religions are not YOUR religion and your opinions on them would exist simply to reinforce your own beliefs.
The same should be true for any one not believeing in a religion. Or being an Aetheist.

 

 

I keep asking because I have not gotten an answer to that question yet

Have you read the story of Khidr and Musa. In the Quran and the Hadith ? Do you understand why i ask this with reference to your quote above?

 

P.S

Why do you evade my questions aimed to determine what kind of a muslim were you ? I dont wish to know your family and friends. JUST you.

You also did not speak much about the environment with respect to the sons of Adam, Nuh. The family i gave an example of. which concluded with "So what I am is because of what i was brought up as, may not be true to a great extent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we have a sentimental attachment/vested interest to what we were born into : then you would have lost that sentimental attachment/ vested interest having changed from faith to faithless. If you lost it you are a looser in the sense you have lost something and should regain it, if you think you are not a looser then you never had an vested interest. Makes sense?

 

I lost faith because a greater understanding of philosophy, history, and sociological/pshychological trends essentially proves beyond a shadow of doubt that my faith is not unique. People believed just as much in so called "false" Gods long before Muhammed even existed and continued to do so long after he died. I found it to be an absurd notion that I was an exception to the prevailing trends throughout the beginning of recorded human history and that my faith was somehow "deeper" then theirs and that they were in denial of my truth. Is it more likely that I was somehow above the same human impulses that my religious superiors claimed that non-Muslim's were privy to or was it more likely that I myself was a product of them and convincing myself that I wasn't? This is essentially the logical fallacy of organized religion; believing that your version of the divine is somehow all knowing and all powerful yet his word has never broken through the compartively superficial boundries of time, geography, etc. This realization was more powerful than any sentiments or affilitations I felt towards the comfort of my upbringing.

 

I understand. But if you have decided not to evaluate both statements then how do you wish to receive any answers. Like for any study that comes with a theory we evaluate the facts to decide upon it. So to evaluate religions and the concept of God we evalute the statements of every religion and put them to test. Then what your intellect agrees upon you accept.

 

This is also another avenue that religions consistantly fail at, which if you so desire we can switch our discussion to. Religious people's generally decide that they believe in God and then find justifications to fit that preconcieved notion. The reasoning is essentially; "God exists and I KNOW he exists and that he is benevolant, merciful and all powerful, therefore everything must have rationale behind it, its simply a matter of finding it. Its backwards justification starting with an assumption an finding evidence to prove that intial "fact" to be true. Its the exact opposite of the scientific method.

 

Unfortunately, objective fact is something that religions either completely disregard (at which point its follower's insist, when it suits them, that their is some grand metaphor being used) or they are themselves manifestations of primitive attempts at science (at which point it's followers marvel at the scientific revelations inherent within it) The story of Noah's arc for example was considered to be a literal story which actually happened amongst Christians, however when it was soon proven that it was a scientifically impossible occurance it all of a sudden became a metaphorical moral tale which is not meant to be taken literally. Evolution, for example, is considered "junk science" to most religious people's but a virgin birth is perfectly viable. Muslim's marvel that the Quran revelead the concept of a spherical Globe when Greeks had also discovered this, without the help of God, centuries earlier. There is no consistancy; Religious people use science to prove the validity of their religion when it suits them and completely disregard it when it doesn't. This fits into what I was talking about earlier; religious people picking and choosing what they see to maintain their faith instead of serious logical questioning.

 

Muslims often critisize the Bible for being reformed and corrupted (which, believe me, is a valid argument) but fail to consider that the Quran was not even compiled until nearly 50 years after it was first revealed, until which point it was passed through oral tradition. The life of the Prophet Muhammed was not fully compiled untill several centuries after his death, passing through oral tradition amongst followers in that time, during a period of several violent regime changes. Is there any possiblity that some of it was either lost, manipulated or misunderstood. What garuntee is there that any of it is authentic, legitamate and uncorrupted?

 

Were you one of such ?

 

No.

 

Is this ok with you ?

 

Most definately.

Edited by MajidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MasjidM, you have reaffirmed my earlier suspicions, which is that your observation of other religions has led you to your conclusion that Islam must be wrong if so many other religions exist (which is a pretty flawed conclusion, I must say).

 

I'm very pleased to say that I HAVE studied other religions, and found them lacking in many aspects, to the point where I know it is nothing more than man's invention/intervention. However, I doubt that you can do the same without re-establishing your belief in a higher being. Perhaps you need to cross the bridge of picking a religion when you get to it?

 

Muslim's marvel that the Quran revelead the concept of a spherical Globe when Greeks had also discovered this, without the help of God, centuries earlier.

 

Uhh, what? If I'm sitting in my house and, with the help of the Qur'an, discover a scientific fact, does that make it less of a discovery if someone else on the other side of the globe beat me to it? No, it does not.

 

but fail to consider that the Quran was not even compiled until nearly 50 years after it was first revealed, until which point it was passed through oral tradition.

 

During the life of prophet Muhammad:

 

* The Prophet (saas) used to recite the Qur'an before angel Jibreel (Gabriel) once every Ramadan, but he recited it twice (in the same order we have today) in the last Ramadan before his death. Jibreel also taught the Prophet (saas) the seven modes of recitation.

* Each verse received was recited by the Prophet, and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.

* The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet, on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.

* Some of the companions wrote the Qur'an for their own use.

* Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.

 

During the Caliphate of Abu Bakr:

 

* Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur'an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur'an.

* Abu Bakr entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur'an. Zayed had been present during the last recitation of the Qur'an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).

* Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet.

 

 

During the Caliphate of Umar:

 

* Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa. This was due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state and concern about differences in recitation.

* Copies were sent to various places in the Muslim world. The original copy was returned to Hafsa, and a copy was kept in Madinah.

 

The life of the Prophet Muhammed was not fully compiled untill several centuries after his death, passing through oral tradition amongst followers in that time, during a period of several violent regime changes. Is there any possiblity that some of it was either lost, manipulated or misunderstood. What garuntee is there that any of it is authentic, legitamate and uncorrupted?

 

Have you ever studied the method used to discover the authenticity of Hadiths?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majid.

 

The compilation of the Quran does not mean it was collected from scratch. It's like you wrote on loose paper and then you bound it together.

 

So it is the binding of the Quran, that happened later.

 

When the binding happened for the first time soon after the prophet's death, there was a system for it. For every ayah recorded in the memory of the companions there had to be the same ayah written down on any substance; leather, bark, etc. The written ayah needed to have two men witnessing that they say the scribe write it by the dictation of the prophet in his presence.

such is scientific methodology.

 

This man used to live in a gay neighborhood, everyone was gay and he was the only heterosexual. I guess by your above reasoning, the heterosexual is wrong and thus should adopt homosexuality. After all ,as you argued, since the heterosexual is a minority, and sexual preference existed since the stone-age, then the majority must be right.

 

The implication here is:

The homosexual cannot perceive of another community that lives beyond his neighborhood

He has no self confidence to trust that his preference is valid

He has no individual identity

He is easily influence by his surroundings

He is in denial of his inner self, so much so as to change his sexual preference, simply because of a local majority's choice.

He cannot think outside the box; he is narrow minded

He lives by the media preferences and not his own; what he is told is good, and not what he truly thinks is good.

He has no scientific reasoning nor any analytical skills since his conclusions are twisted and non sensical.

He wears glasses; someone with that much perversion of reality has got to be blind.

 

The last sentence of course is my hypothesis that you would challenge to nullify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I lost faith because a greater understanding of philosophy, history, and sociological/pshychological trends essentially proves beyond a shadow of doubt that my faith is not unique. People believed just as much in so called "false" Gods long before Muhammed even existed and continued to do so long after he died. I found it to be an absurd notion that I was an exception to the prevailing trends throughout the beginning of recorded human history and that my faith was somehow "deeper" then theirs and that they were in denial of my truth

 

I did not quite understand, this greater understanding of ......etc has thus led you to believe that there is no God or that Islam as the religion is not the TRUE religion ? If so then is your rationale the same as Dawkins's rationale, (many religions exist so not 'one' can be true) a user posted a cool post about it.

 

You found it absurd to believe that you were an exception to the prevailing trends or many religions, but now that you are truely an exception to a still prevailing trend, how do you find yourself ?

What i dont understand is before it was Islam against all other religions--- you find it absurd

Now its you against Islam and all other religions---- and do you still find it absurd ? It would be strange if not, as essentially your position is still the same.

Do you not realise that Islam was and is essentially a reasoning which came in to establish the truth and distinguish falsehood. Especially about the existence of GOD as compared to GOD'S.

 

Was there a spritual problem you had in believing or was it a technical problem.

 

believing that your version of the divine is somehow all knowing and all powerful yet his word has never broken through the compartively superficial boundries of time, geography, etc. This realization was more powerful than any sentiments or affilitations I felt towards the comfort of my upbringing.

 

This is a strong statement you make Sir. I wonder what exactly did you family whoom you call devout felt about this. Its strange that a fact is erased by fiction. i feel the first sentence of yours is a fiction while the last one (comfort of my upbringing) is a fact.

 

"..........Its the exact opposite of the scientific method." This statement ??? Is this the core of it ? if something is not scientific its false ?

 

Evolution, for example, is considered "junk science" to most religious people's but a virgin birth is perfectly viable. Muslim's marvel that the Quran revelead the concept of a spherical Globe when Greeks had also discovered this, without the help of God, centuries earlier. There is no consistancy
;

There should be no problem to believe in both actually. I mean if apes can turn into humans then a someone can be born of virgin birth.

Are you sure lack of consistency is what troubles you about religion ?

 

 

Religious people use science to prove the validity of their religion when it suits them and completely disregard it when it doesn't. picking and choosing what they see to maintain their faith instead of serious logical questioning.

I agree with you in the first part. I feel its a defeatist attitude to find convincing answers with regards to faith. Like the sun rising in the west thing that many are excietd about because their religion informed them. SO ?? what ???. But dont you think the same goes with science when it tries to say God is not there. But a big 'boom' is.

 

fail to consider that the Quran was not even compiled until nearly 50 years after it was first revealed, until which point it was passed through oral tradition.

See this is the reason i wished to know what kind of muslim you have been. You keep evading my questions regarding that. The way you say 'oral tradition' sounds like me and you talking and soon forgeting what we said. have you heard/read about Soofyaan At Thauree ?, have you heard the arguments of Malik ibn Anas. Layna has said something about this and its quite clear. If you have question about that then you need to study people like Soofyan At Thauree and Imam Malikand

 

Is there any possiblity that some of it was either lost, manipulated or misunderstood. What garuntee is there that any of it is authentic, legitamate and uncorrupted?

So we are on the second part of this discussion. Which is evaluating the scriptures. Are we on the same page ?

The first part being people like me who convert from being a programmed muslim (by family) to becomeing a self programming muslim. Then people like Hamza Yusuf and Yusuf estes who convert from the vested interests (other religion) to Islam. Then people like you who convert from Islam to philosphy.

So essentially we shal discuss the validity of scripture and its claims and why we (me and converts to Islam) believe in Islam and you shall discuss the invalidity of the same. Am i correct ?

 

 

P.S Please do let me know what kind of a muslim have had you been in the past. Your fajr prayers, You did say that you read the Quran in a language that you understood. What language was this ? and whose translation ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not realise that Islam was and is essentially a reasoning which came in to establish the truth and distinguish falsehood. Especially about the existence of GOD as compared to GOD'S.

 

This is truly a ridiculous sentiment to hold that many in this thread are passing off as the basis for their belief in Islam. They speak as if all ideologies and all religious texts were layed at their feet before they were Muslim and using scientific and objective reasoning they "discovered" that Islam was right and the others wrong. As if before they were born, their soul was granted access to all human perspectives and Islam passed the test. The fact that they were born into a Muslim household in the first place was then simply a cosmic coincidence.

 

The fact of the matter remains that most Muslims probably never read the Bible, most never even considered picking it up to see if it was possibly more authentic and that they were simply wrong all along. What would be the point, because "I already know that the Quran is the final word of God, so it would be redundant to reaffirm this." Many probably have never the Quran, but they know it to be authentic and true. Which segways into my next point...

 

Was there a spritual problem you had in believing or was it a technical problem.

 

Both. You need to lose the veneer of spiritual immunity to even allow yourself the forsight to see the technical flaws. If you believe, first and foremost, that God exists and more importantly, that YOUR God exists, then you will simply be blinded to the stunning flaws, contradictions and logical/moral conundrums inherent in your religion. This, of course, is unlikely to happen because people find science to fit their religion rather than use science to try and prove God's existence. If you truly believe that God exists and his word is final that ANYTHING, absolutely anything can be justified, wether it be killing apostates, marrying children or the earth being flat.

 

Are you sure lack of consistency is what troubles you about religion ?

 

One of the many things, yes.

 

I agree with you in the first part. I feel its a defeatist attitude to find convincing answers with regards to faith. Like the sun rising in the west thing that many are excietd about because their religion informed them. SO ?? what ???. But dont you think the same goes with science when it tries to say God is not there. But a big 'boom' is.

 

I disagree. Science exists to prove and provide theory to formerly inexplainable phenomena, not to ensure its own existence. Rather than religion and science being two opposing worldviews which are competing for dominance, religion itself IS a primitive attempt at science. Whereas people who saw the sun rise and had no way of explaining asked "who is making this happen" and found theories to explain it we can now explain how/why it happens.

 

The way you say 'oral tradition' sounds like me and you talking and soon forgeting what we said.

 

Oral tradition implies that there is no way of verifying the authenticity of what is being relayed.

 

P.S Please do let me know what kind of a muslim have had you been in the past. Your fajr prayers, You did say that you read the Quran in a language that you understood. What language was this ? and whose translation ?

 

Since you insist. I prayed mostly 5 times a day. Read the Quran, hadith, shariah in English and Urdu. Don't remember who translated it but I see no point in even asking that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are one of two:

 

1- You suddenly became very accomplished, and highly recognized, and the ceiling of your house could not contain your ego.

In this journey you moved out of your house, out of your traditions, out of your faith, and in to your own head.

If so, then this talk is only to justify the unlawful ways that you have grown in and the vanity of fame at which ever level.

 

2- You thought you are nothing, you thought little of your family, your parents, your surroundings, and your abilities. You grew tired of your situation.

Since identifying fault eventually had to happen and the need to place blame emerged, you could not turn against yourself,

your parents, or your surrounding and instead you turned against your faith. In the meantime you saw opportunity in the anti-you.

They had potential, funds, image, access, etc, and in order to create a bridge that would take you to their world, you thought it was threw discarding you faith.

 

 

Pitty you, little did you know that what you thoght would give you flight would make you drown.

 

It is happening right now for you. As you do, will be done on to you. You have the audacity to transgress on your Lord, and your right are being transgressed upon. If it is not you personally it is someone whose life effects you. You divorced your self from the mercy of Allah, you cannot sleep in peace. Eight hours are not for you. You question and question, no one gives you full trust. You hang in the air, not here nor there.

 

You thought you were escaping your initial claimed nothingness, now you are nothing.

 

hasbi Allah wa ni'ma al-wakeel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that could have made you deviate from your faith is:

 

1- that you are an ill hearted person with manifest ill actions. These don't have to be grave actions, they could be little ones, but their count makes a mountain.

 

2- You were on a wrong creed to begin with; shia, qadiyani, sunni with many innovations and shirk, etc.

 

It is in the above cases that the heart would have been sealed enough to permit deviance.

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


×