Am I still a Muslim?
-
After having read the posts in this thread it seems you would not believe without concrete evidence.
I definitely see where you are coming from, before I read the Qur'an I felt the same way -- but I pose a question to you. Had there been hard evidence, would everyone not believe? Is that what God really asks of us?
From reading the Qur'an, I get the message that God wants us to put our trust in him. It is similar to a man coming to you, and narrating an extraordinary tale. It is of no difference of to him whether you believe his story or not, he knows it to be true.
And then the question arises, if the Qur'an is not from God -- how does one explain Muhammad's extraordinary insight? The greatest philosophers who have ever lived haven't managed to come close to recording something like the Qur'an, yet are held in higher esteem in the west.
Agreed
It is a question of trust as you point out.
Muslims have to learn to understand that our deen has nothing to with the kuffars
and that there is a veil between them and us.In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Say, "O you disbelievers.
"I do not worship what you worship.
"Nor do you worship what I worship.
"Nor will I ever worship what you worship.
"Nor will you ever worship what I worship.
"To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."
Peace
O0
-
After having read the posts in this thread it seems you would not believe without concrete evidence.
I definitely see where you are coming from, before I read the Qur'an I felt the same way -- but I pose a question to you. Had there been hard evidence, would everyone not believe? Is that what God really asks of us?
From reading the Qur'an, I get the message that God wants us to put our trust in him. It is similar to a man coming to you, and narrating an extraordinary tale. It is of no difference of to him whether you believe his story or not, he knows it to be true.
And then the question arises, if the Qur'an is not from God -- how does one explain Muhammad's extraordinary insight? The greatest philosophers who have ever lived haven't managed to come close to recording something like the Qur'an, yet are held in higher esteem in the west.
I have no clue who the "you" is, but if you would ask me, I would answer, yes, I need to know that I believe what I believe for a reason. That's why you have empirical, versus stated beliefs. You have Occurrent, Dispositional, Explicit, etc Beliefs.
http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/I once thought I saw a UFO. Later inspection showed me it was wishful thinking combined with a trick by my brain. So I stopped believing I saw a UFO.
Exactly! This is what I explained when defining atheism bring evidence or stop believing and atheism automatically vanishes by definition.
And that is precisely why there is something called faith. Which I lack. So if a person claims he has a Toyota in his garage I accept it. If the claim is there's an invisible dragon in my garage or a 747 I sort of would expect extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
Or, to go back to my own story I REALLY believed there was a UFO, but since nobody else could corroborate my vision and I could provide only my testimony, the story died. Through rational reasoning.
What "extraordinary insight" are you talking about? I am not aware of anything extraordinary said of Muhammad. Except maybe the splitting of the moon, but that is more allegoric than factual.
What exactly would you call "like the Qur'an"? And if someone did, who would be the judge and by what standard? Sorry, the inimitability claim fails badly in reality.So, yes, I see no benefit to "believe without concrete evidence". But as you see I don't look down on believers or insult them. I don't say I am absolutely right and I admit mistakes. I hope I answered what you were curious about.
-
I have no clue who the "you" is, but if you would ask me, I would answer, yes, I need to know that I believe what I believe for a reason. That's why you have empirical, versus stated beliefs. You have Occurrent, Dispositional, Explicit, etc Beliefs.
http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/I once thought I saw a UFO. Later inspection showed me it was wishful thinking combined with a trick by my brain. So I stopped believing I saw a UFO.
Exactly! This is what I explained when defining atheism bring evidence or stop believing and atheism automatically vanishes by definition.
And that is precisely why there is something called faith. Which I lack. So if a person claims he has a Toyota in his garage I accept it. If the claim is there's an invisible dragon in my garage or a 747 I sort of would expect extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
Or, to go back to my own story I REALLY believed there was a UFO, but since nobody else could corroborate my vision and I could provide only my testimony, the story died. Through rational reasoning.
What "extraordinary insight" are you talking about? I am not aware of anything extraordinary said of Muhammad. Except maybe the splitting of the moon, but that is more allegoric than factual.
What exactly would you call "like the Qur'an"? And if someone did, who would be the judge and by what standard? Sorry, the inimitability claim fails badly in reality.So, yes, I see no benefit to "believe without concrete evidence". But as you see I don't look down on believers or insult them. I don't say I am absolutely right and I admit mistakes. I hope I answered what you were curious about.
Hi StopS
I tend to agree with you generally on this. Though I consider myself at this point neither yet a believer nor yet an unbeliever. Do you have any opinion on this.
-
Hi StopS
I tend to agree with you generally on this. Though I consider myself at this point neither yet a believer nor yet an unbeliever. Do you have any opinion on this.
Hahaha, this is not to taken lightly and not intended as a joke.... but if you don't believe, you are, by definition, a non-believer. I don't see the possibility of believing something exists just a little bit.
What some people do is say I think there was a creator who push-started everything and set this Universe into motion and then "retired" and is no longer involved in the day-to-day operations. That would be a deist.
On the other side you have people who don't see any evidence for the existence of a god and don't require or need one either, which are anti-theists. So you get this whole scale with a range of possibilities
anti-theist----------------atheist--------------------agnostic-----------------------deist-----------------------theist-----------------------gnostic theist
^
|
Are you here? -
Hahaha, this is not to taken lightly and not intended as a joke.... but if you don't believe, you are, by definition, a non-believer. I don't see the possibility of believing something exists just a little bit.
What some people do is say I think there was a creator who push-started everything and set this Universe into motion and then "retired" and is no longer involved in the day-to-day operations. That would be a deist.
On the other side you have people who don't see any evidence for the existence of a god and don't require or need one either, which are anti-theists. So you get this whole scale with a range of possibilities
anti-theist----------------atheist--------------------agnostic-----------------------deist-----------------------theist-----------------------gnostic theist
^
|
Are you here?Very well said StopS! So I have put my balancing act together.
---I should stand between heaven and hell in the center of nothing I suppose---. -
I have no clue who the "you" is, but if you would ask me, I would answer, yes, I need to know that I believe what I believe for a reason. That's why you have empirical, versus stated beliefs. You have Occurrent, Dispositional, Explicit, etc Beliefs.
http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/My beliefs are empirical indeed -- some of the things in the Qur'an are extraordinary claims, others less so. I have to ask though, what reason would be sufficient for you to believe? I refer back to my allegory earlier; it is of no difference to the man whether he convinces you or not, he decided of his own will to tell you the tale. I think what more we are looking at here, rather than types of belief, are types of analytical behaviour.
I infer that you believe things based on the truths present and work backwards from there, I believed in the Qur'an by working from the basis that this is a series of 'truths' being presented to me, and then compared them with my own experience and knowledge. As in modern science, even things that have been observed to be true remain a theory. Without the willingness to accept something alternative is the truth, it becomes impossible to progress.
I once thought I saw a UFO. Later inspection showed me it was wishful thinking combined with a trick by my brain. So I stopped believing I saw a UFO.
I don't feel this is a fair analogy, seeing something in the sky could be anything from a unique angle of an object in the sky, to indeed, a UFO. The Qur'an is either the work of man, or the work of God as it claims.
And that is precisely why there is something called faith. Which I lack. So if a person claims he has a Toyota in his garage I accept it. If the claim is there's an invisible dragon in my garage or a 747 I sort of would expect extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.
Again, I don't feel this is a fair analogy. It feels a lot like the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument. If you switch God with something ridiculous and remove the basis of the belief in God -- i.e his works, then it is only logical that you wouldn't believe the claim.
What "extraordinary insight" are you talking about? I am not aware of anything extraordinary said of Muhammad. Except maybe the splitting of the moon, but that is more allegoric than factual.
Not 'of Muhammad', 'by Muhammad'. If you take away God being the author of the Qur'an, then the book must be written by Muhammad -- or Muhammad and his allies. In this case, one would consider the Qur'an to be something extraordinary Muhammad wrote, in the same way The Illiad is something extraordinary Homer wrote.
What exactly would you call "like the Qur'an"? And if someone did, who would be the judge and by what standard? Sorry, the inimitability claim fails badly in reality.
A book claiming to have knowledge 'of the Unseen' if you like. As for judges, considering humanity is subjective the only fair judge would be all of those who read it. However, this is irrelevant, as is the question posed at the end of my first post. The Qur'an itself claims it is of no difference whether you believe it or disbelieve in it, for the author is free of need.
-
My beliefs are empirical indeed -- some of the things in the Qur'an are extraordinary claims, others less so.
Does that mean I can delete the word faith from my vocabulary? If your belief would have empirical evidence it would not be called belief but knowledge.
I have to ask though, what reason would be sufficient for you to believe? I refer back to my allegory earlier; it is of no difference to the man whether he convinces you or not, he decided of his own will to tell you the tale. I think what more we are looking at here, rather than types of belief, are types of analytical behaviour.
Proof. Extraordinary proof. That is what it would take to make me accept that a being "created" everything. If a fair and just person tells me something and does not care whether or not I believe it on blind faith I should not have to bear any consequences. If "analytical behaviour" is faith versus evidence I agree.
I infer that you believe things based on the truths present and work backwards from there,
Opposite. I look at evidence and see where it takes me. Only if confronted with a ready-made statement do I ask for evidence.
I believed in the Qur'an by working from the basis that this is a series of 'truths' being presented to me, and then compared them with my own experience and knowledge.
What is a "series of truths"??? Are there more than 1 truth?
If you work on the premiss that the Koran is true you don't care for the truth. This is not a judgement of the Koran, but anything.
As in modern science, even things that have been observed to be true remain a theory. Without the willingness to accept something alternative is the truth, it becomes impossible to progress.
How can the Koran or its contents progress?
I don't feel this is a fair analogy, seeing something in the sky could be anything from a unique angle of an object in the sky, to indeed, a UFO. The Qur'an is either the work of man, or the work of God as it claims.
- Did I say anything about sky? No, it was right in front of me, only half a mile away.
- I disagree. Strongly. There are other alternatives. It could be written by aliens or represent a collection of stories developed out of society, not the "work of man".
Again, I don't feel this is a fair analogy. It feels a lot like the 'flying spaghetti monster' argument. If you switch God with something ridiculous and remove the basis of the belief in God -- i.e his works, then it is only logical that you wouldn't believe the claim.
Why and how is this unfair? Is the claim that "something" intelligently designed and created everything normal, rational or reasonable? No, of course not. It is extraordinary. It is not a matter of not believing the claim but not believing the claim without strong evidence.
Not 'of Muhammad', 'by Muhammad'. If you take away God being the author of the Qur'an, then the book must be written by Muhammad -- or Muhammad and his allies. In this case, one would consider the Qur'an to be something extraordinary Muhammad wrote, in the same way The Illiad is something extraordinary Homer wrote.
Why? Why on Earth is there a dichotomy Muhammad or not Muhammad? How about poets? Story tellers? Cultures? History? We have multiple stories from different eras and different regions. Do you seriously believe that everything was collected and compiled within just a few years or 2 or 3 decades?
A book claiming to have knowledge 'of the Unseen' if you like. As for judges, considering humanity is subjective the only fair judge would be all of those who read it. However, this is irrelevant, as is the question posed at the end of my first post. The Qur'an itself claims it is of no difference whether you believe it or disbelieve in it, for the author is free of need.
Then every James Bond, Sherlock Holmes or Harry Potter would qualify. How would those who read any book be able to judge whether it is "like" the Koran? And what if they say yes?
If you really believe that "it is of no difference whether you believe it or disbelieve in it" I don't understand why anyone then should be tested and subsequently punished. After all there is only this one book. -
Peace StopS.
What kind of proof would you accept that a " Designer/creator" exists?
If I suggest the following
( GOD? Designer of the universe? Surely HE will leave some kind of proof? Sign? code?)
( Phi, ? constant- = 1.61803? is the creator s signature on all HIS designs i.e The golden ratio? Science has proved ? See Dr Steven Markout 25 year study- that the relative ratio 1.61803? relates to all created structure of our universe. Also the sequence 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,? ? The work of Fibonacci, also called the sequence of nature, has a connection with the golden ratio ? See science research on flowers, spirals, DNA, etc?-
The golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence permeates throughout the universe in both organic and inorganic worlds and at all scales and levels to such a degree that the probability of this being chance/ coincidence is virtually impossible. Hence a Designer, Creator exists.You will probably say it is just " nature"?
Or this is not "Science"?Or are you going to Wait until the "Creator" shows up. He will come down ,at the right time predetermined by Him! So wait, we too are waiting!
Peace.
-
Peace StopS.
What kind of proof would you accept that a " Designer/creator" exists?
If I suggest the following
( GOD? Designer of the universe? Surely HE will leave some kind of proof? Sign? code?)
( Phi, ? constant- = 1.61803? is the creator s signature on all HIS designs i.e The golden ratio? Science has proved ? See Dr Steven Markout 25 year study- that the relative ratio 1.61803? relates to all created structure of our universe. Also the sequence 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,? ? The work of Fibonacci, also called the sequence of nature, has a connection with the golden ratio ? See science research on flowers, spirals, DNA, etc?-
The golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence permeates throughout the universe in both organic and inorganic worlds and at all scales and levels to such a degree that the probability of this being chance/ coincidence is virtually impossible. Hence a Designer, Creator exists.You will probably say it is just " nature"?
Or this is not "Science"?Or are you going to Wait until the "Creator" shows up. He will come down ,at the right time predetermined by Him! So wait, we too are waiting!
Peace.
My rationale is different would there be no possibility of discovering Pi without a god? Is there one particular religion where the followers discovered Pi? Is there proof that only a god could have revealed Pi?
Now do the reverse what is special about this ratio? Is the fact that it is infinite the appeal and the claim to mysticism? Does that make it the target of wishful thinking.And so on. So we see that this is not the kind of proof which is persuasive. I would love to see a 14 billion year-old book, perfect and without error, meaning not requiring any context, clearly worded and automatically changing language depending on the reader. I would love to see a justification for continuous testing and hell. There's probably a long list like this in my head somewhere.
-
And so on. So we see that this is not the kind of proof which is persuasive. I would love to see a 14 billion year-old book, perfect and without error, meaning not requiring any context, clearly worded and automatically changing language depending on the reader. I would love to see a justification for continuous testing and hell. There's probably a long list like this in my head somewhere.
A hi-tech book for all times, it will hold no surprise or a quest for knowledge, just turn the era, turn the page until it reaches your time and there You are an all embracing believer. yay
-
Peace StopS.
I think I get you. You would like to see " God Himself descending along with the Angels", then you will believe.
I am absolutely certain you are going to see it. However it is going to be too late, if you wait until then?
Peace.
-
I think it's interesting that the first "issue" you listed was the sex before marriage issue.
-
After having read the posts in this thread it seems you would not believe without concrete evidence.
I definitely see where you are coming from, before I read the Qur'an I felt the same way -- but I pose a question to you. Had there been hard evidence, would everyone not believe? Is that what God really asks of us?
From reading the Qur'an, I get the message that God wants us to put our trust in him. It is similar to a man coming to you, and narrating an extraordinary tale. It is of no difference of to him whether you believe his story or not, he knows it to be true.
And then the question arises, if the Qur'an is not from God -- how does one explain Muhammad's extraordinary insight? The greatest philosophers who have ever lived haven't managed to come close to recording something like the Qur'an, yet are held in higher esteem in the west.
StopS' post is good.
Yes it's come to a point where I need concrete evidence because I cannot rely on faith anymore.
My dilemma is that if God wants all of mankind to believe in his existence then why make his revelations so vague and devoid of evidence. I'm sure God asks of all of mankind to believe in him but even God knew from the beginning that this was impossible as there would always be non-believers. And like I said before I put my trust into Allah wholeheartedly for my whole life, but that never did anything for me. Anything I assumed to be beneficial was only the reaction of my emotions and now I do
I think it's interesting that the first "issue" you listed was the sex before marriage issue.
Whats interesting about this?
I don't have a GF if thats what you're thinking.
-
StopS' post is good.
Yes it's come to a point where I need concrete evidence because I cannot rely on faith anymore.
My dilemma is that if God wants all of mankind to believe in his existence then why make his revelations so vague and devoid of evidence. I'm sure God asks of all of mankind to believe in him but even God knew from the beginning that this was impossible as there would always be non-believers. And like I said before I put my trust into Allah wholeheartedly for my whole life, but that never did anything for me. Anything I assumed to be beneficial was only the reaction of my emotions and now I do
Whats interesting about this?
I don't have a GF if thats what you're thinking.
No, I wasn't thinking that at all. What you do in your personal life is not my business.
In the past, when I began losing interest in the Christian faith, I would number my issues with it from most important to least. I was shocked to see that my biggest issues were always the ones that limited certain aspects of my personal life (not listening to music, being told who I could date, etc.). The issues that really mattered were always further down on the list (Jesus being so highly revered, hellfire, etc.).
It took me a while to realize that I didn't have an issue with God at all...I always believed in Him. It was the practicing faith I had issues with. Doctrine.
Fast forward to a few months ago when I walked away from "mainstream" islam. It was the same thing My biggest issues were the ones that were on a more personal level. I was getting worn down with all the doctrine and dogma of the hadith.
Always remember that we are not robots You can do whatever you please at any time. As for consequences of certain actions, Allah knows best.
-Amina
-
Peace StopS.
I think I get you. You would like to see " God Himself descending along with the Angels", then you will believe.
I am absolutely certain you are going to see it. However it is going to be too late, if you wait until then?
Peace.
As I have said previously, if there is such a thing as omniscience, it would serve to determine what it is that would convince me.