Why believe in God?

StopS

May be some atheists see this as" GOD ALONE" site and choose not to bother.

Also, what is not productive, is making a comment without producing a good argument / proof to back up your claim/opinion.

Wow, I rarely see such open minded comments. I don't go to a Muslim forum to proselytise but learn, observe and comment when I see a glaring misrepresentation.

Personally, I don't require or need a god. I can't see anything that a theist or believer can do or contribute that I can not.

I have a social backdrop which is stimulating and warm, so I don't require the social interaction religions offer.
I am happy with my job as well as my private life and don't require further peer confirmation through religion.
I have a purpose which is to enjoy this life here and be as supportive towards others as I can be and later be remembered as a great human being.

But not everyone is so lucky and needs or just enjoys the fringe benefits of religion.
What is equally important is that I don't require answers to each and every question. I am quite happy with hearing an "I don't know" when asking what caused the spontaneous merging of inorganic cells to form organic materials. Maybe I will never know. Fine. It does not force me to automatically substitute this with a god.

In summary, I can understand why some people like the idea of believing in a super-natural being which represents a gigantic authority where humans considered evil can get away with it here on Earth, but not forever and not with an all-powerful being around. Some people like the idea of having guidance and the feeling of self-righteousness. And who does not like the idea of justice and being rewarded for being good and getting punished for being bad? The only remaining problem is to determine what exactly is being good and being bad - when they are not extremes but get blurry.

good_logic

Peace StopS.

I am really glad that you are happy.

I sincerely mean it.

Other people are just as happy believing in GOD.

Peace.

Magnus

Some people like the idea of having guidance and the feeling of self-righteousness.

It is my experience that self-righteousness is incompatible with humility, which in turn is a prerequisite for guidance, which we indeed pray and strive for, God willing.

Zulf

The idea of Everything arising by coincidence, accident and by random, I see as a something you escape to when you cannot see anything else. What is coincidence, accidents and randomness anyway? Aren't they described as such simply due to the fact that their chains of cause and effect are too complex for us to grasp, or that we for some other reason cannot grasp it?

One may see reality and define God as that which BY DEFINITION is the cause of this. Then there is no need to discuss details or lower images that don't make sense. People reject the idea of God because the images and theories of God often don't make sense.
If we just feel that God is that from which all comes, we can agree on this, and the leave the details.

If creation is a light beam, then there must be a light source. This we can agree on. Describing this source can then be debated forever.

uZi

I asked the same question.. why should i believe in God? Whats the purpose?

but i started thinking that the existence of a God creates purpose in life.
There are many people who ask 'why would God exist and not help the millions of people under poverty and suffering' in an attempt to prove that God DOESNt exist.

On the contrary, I believe this is proof that he DOES exist. I believe this is all a test by God.
All the people who have suffered will be rewarded while all the evil corrupt greedy tyrants of this world will be punished.

A belief in God creates hope and a purpose for living.

neb87

I asked the same question.. why should i believe in God? Whats the purpose?

but i started thinking that the existence of a God creates purpose in life.
There are many people who ask 'why would God exist and not help the millions of people under poverty and suffering' in an attempt to prove that God DOESNt exist.

On the contrary, I believe this is proof that he DOES exist. I believe this is all a test by God.
All the people who have suffered will be rewarded while all the evil corrupt greedy tyrants of this world will be punished.

A belief in God creates hope and a purpose for living.

This belief is basically what kept me going through periods of doubt. At the end of the day, believing that there is a God and that He is Good, makes me a stronger person able to keep trying to make the world a better place even when all the bad seems overwhelming. So, when my doubts are at their strongest, I hold on to logic. It would be illogical to abandon Islam, when I can clearly see that it makes me stronger with getting involved in activist projects. Not ideal, but it's kept me searching through the hardest times, until I could overcome the doubts.

hawk99

Why do you believe in God? I have found no reason to believe any God actually exist, and why would you believe a book at face value? I don't get this, and I'm honestly interested in the responses to this.

Why not believe in God? I have found many reasons to believe God actually exists,
The Quran proves it should be taken at face value? I get it. and I'm honestly interested
in a response to this.

Peace

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, hawkninetynine.

Why not believe in God? I have found many reasons to believe God actually exists,
The Quran proves it should be taken at face value? I get it. and I'm honestly interested
in a response to this.

Are you asking whether or not the Qur'aan "proves" that it should be taken at face value, or are you stating that, from your perspective, the Qur'aan DOES prove that it should be taken at face value? I don't completely understand your statement in regards to this...

The prime reason why many people believe in any god (or gods) is due to fear of the unknown. They form the generative conclusion that, "This life can't be all there is." Otherwise, they make the common assumption, "All of this beauty and splendor must've been designed by some grand designer," etc. In addition, the concept of divinity gives people hope (and faith) for the future, particularly with regards to what will happen to them after death. Generally, people who struggle throughout their lives wish for (or even await) some type of "happy ending" once their lives are over. That's generally why religiosity is dramatically higher in poor countries, especially when compared to economically-thriving countries, where religiosity is increasingly lower. Those who've had to struggle for lengthy periods of time want some type of 'reward', which they assume they won't receive during their lifetimes. This can also be applied to the concept of justice; people who feel they've been wronged in some way by others who are seemingly 'above the law' want those wrongdoers to suffer the 'punishment' for their crimes after death, since they probably won't experience it while they're alive.

There are other factors too, but I won't discuss them at the moment...

Peace,

Ahmad

neb87

Peace, hawkninetynine.

Are you asking whether or not the Qur'aan "proves" that it should be taken at face value, or are you stating that, from your perspective, the Qur'aan DOES prove that it should be taken at face value? I don't completely understand your statement in regards to this...

The prime reason why many people believe in any god (or gods) is due to fear of the unknown. They form the generative conclusion that, "This life can't be all there is." Otherwise, they make the common assumption, "All of this beauty and splendor must've been designed by some grand designer," etc. In addition, the concept of divinity gives people hope (and faith) for the future, particularly with regards to what will happen to them after death. Generally, people who struggle throughout their lives wish for (or even await) some type of "happy ending" once their lives are over. That's generally why religiosity is dramatically higher in poor countries, especially when compared to economically-thriving countries, where religiosity is increasingly lower. Those who've had to struggle for lengthy periods of time want some type of 'reward', which they assume they won't receive during their lifetimes. This can also be applied to the concept of justice; people who feel they've been wronged in some way by others who are seemingly 'above the law' want those wrongdoers to suffer the 'punishment' for their crimes after death, since they probably won't experience it while they're alive.

There are other factors too, but I won't discuss them at the moment...

Peace,

Ahmad

The part of your post I bolded isn't entirely true. Islam has been on a steady rise in North America for some time, now, with a massive increase in interest following 9/11. In Europe, the decline of traditional authoritarian religions has held steady and secularism continues to rise, but the belief in God has also held steady, nonetheless. It's just that in European culture, religious identity is extremely unlikely to be tied to a person's social identity and is considered more personal, therefore, Europeans are much less likely to attend any church or "vote with their Bibles" as is common in America.

Also, from a personal standpoint; I didn't turn to Islam out of a desire for a "reward" or justice in the next life, I stayed with it because it showed me how to attain my personal rewards and social justice for all in this life. I can't speak for all believers, but I know this to be true of my Christian friends as well, and I suspect it's true for a lot of Muslims, too.

I don't disagree with you about the motivations in poorer countries, though. That has kinda been the whole point of a lot of religions for a long time; keep the masses happy with nothing in life while they wait to die. That explains why secularism has been on the rise in areas where people have more access to education. Too many people are now familiar with the negative effects of theocracy so they go in the complete opposite direction. On the other hand, a lot of people are now seeing how to have belief without complacency or intolerance.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, neb87.

There are a few issues, theologically, with your post, especially from a traditional Islamic perspective.

The part of your post I bolded isn't entirely true. Islam has been on a steady rise in North America for some time, now, with a massive increase in interest following 9/11. In Europe, the decline of traditional authoritarian religions has held steady and secularism continues to rise, but the belief in God has also held steady, nonetheless. It's just that in European culture, religious identity is extremely unlikely to be tied to a person's social identity and is considered more personal, therefore, Europeans are much less likely to attend any church or "vote with their Bibles" as is common in America.

You're correct - Islam has been on the rise in North America, although I wouldn't call this rise "steady". However, we have to look at the foundational aspects of what you call "Islam". For example, a large aspect of Islamic growth in North America can be attributed to the dramatic increase in membership in the Nation of Islam, headed by Eugene Walcott (e.g. "Minister Louis Farrakhan&quot, which is based out of Chicago. Indeed, they classify themselves as Muslims, following the tenets of the religion of Islam. Yet, most Muslims throughout the world do NOT recognize them as being part of the Islamic family in America due to some of the principles they propagate. The same can be stated concerning the recent rapid increase in membership of the Moorish Science Temple of America, which is also based out of Chicago, in which their late leader, Timothy Drew (e.g. "Noble Drew Ali&quot, declared himself to be a prophet in the modern times. The traditional Islamic world proclaimed that this was incompatible with the Qur'aanic statement concerning Muhammad (or "Mohammed", as the students of Noble Drew Ali refer to him) being the 'last prophet'. In addition, Noble Drew Ali even authored a "Koran", generally known today as the (Circle 7) Holy Koran of the Moorish Science Temple, based on the "Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ" by Levi Dowling, which is completely contrary to traditional Islamic ideals.

Not satisfied? The Ahmadiyya Islamic sect (which is actually comprised of two separate sects) has grown dramatically within the past 15 years in both the United States and Canada, mostly based on their publicized broadcasting of their message and the widespread use of the late Maulana Muhammad Ali's translation of the Qur'aan; this group was recognized as "Un-Islamic" by traditional Muslim leaders. Other groups, such as the Aswad Hanafi Muslims, the Ansaar Allah Community, the Theosophical Muslim Community, the Society of Hebrew Muslims, the Aswad al-Akbar Society, and even the El Rukn Fellowship group (which is directly tied to a growing streetgang based in Chicago), all refer to themselves as Muslims (or "Moslems&quot. Are they accepted among the traditional Islamic populace? Absolutely not!

Yet, their numbers are used when statisticians claim that Islam is "on the rise". Hell, some of them even use statistics in relation to the modern growth of the Five Percent Nation of Gods and Earths, particularly during the widespread appeal of hip-hop music in American urban communities, due to their statement regarding practicing "Islam" (although most of them staunchly refuse to call themselves "Muslims" or possessors of any religious affiliation)! So, believe me - the claim that Islam is "on the rise" in North America is not impressive to me at all, nor are the statistics accurate.

In addition, statistically, the belief in a god has dramatically decreased in America, especially in light of the propagation of atheists and agnostics gaining widespread appeal and influence. For example, the membership of the group American Atheists increased dramatically after Richard Dawkins released his book "The God Delusion", propagated his book on television, and then sponsored documentaries (known respectively as "The Root of All Evil" and "Enemies of Reason&quot concerning the points addressed in the book, which were aired in America and parts of Europe. The Freedom From Religion Foundation swelled in numbers after Professor Victor Stenger published and released his book entitled "God The Failed Hypothesis", in which he questions religious enthusiasts and supporters concerning the scientific validity of modern religious belief... If we want to be fair, then we also have to cite the fact that superstitious claimants and conspiracy theorists are "on the rise", especially in connection with the so-called 'Illuminati' controlling the global social, political and economic scene. Oh, and we also have to recognize the fact that these groups began swelling dramatically after the "9/11 attacks"...

Also, from a personal standpoint; I didn't turn to Islam out of a desire for a "reward" or justice in the next life, I stayed with it because it showed me how to attain my personal rewards and social justice for all in this life. I can't speak for all believers, but I know this to be true of my Christian friends as well, and I suspect it's true for a lot of Muslims, too.

I agree with you, and many people have varying reasons for their beliefs. I merely cited what I regarded as the most common - other than, of course, the position of those who've held onto religious cultures and communities that they've been raised in, primarily because of family or social traditions and norms. In all, though, we can conclude that many people do it for differing reasons; it ultimately depends on one's perspective and upbringing.

I don't disagree with you about the motivations in poorer countries, though. That has kinda been the whole point of a lot of religions for a long time; keep the masses happy with nothing in life while they wait to die. That explains why secularism has been on the rise in areas where people have more access to education. Too many people are now familiar with the negative effects of theocracy so they go in the complete opposite direction. On the other hand, a lot of people are now seeing how to have belief without complacency or intolerance.

Is it really possible to have religion without complacency and intolerance? The concept of religion is to differentiate people to divide them and to keep them distinct. "If you don't believe what I believe, then you're not with me." That's the traditional religious mindstate, even among so-called Qur'aanists and Qur'aan-Aloners. Even Christians don't get along anymore, because Christianity isn't reflective enough; now there are Baptists, Protestants, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, etc. And now, all the groups have subgroups to supplement their divisive perspectives... What do you think? Is there "unity" in Islam?

The lack of unity promotes intolerance, since religious people generally can't claim to be going to "heaven" without threatening to send other people (particularly those who disagree with their views) to "hell". Complacency naturally comes as well, since people can't think of the 'afterlife' without developing a determination of what they want when they get there, which is ultimately everything they can't have here! Once they begin to think that some outside (supernatural?) agent is going to put bread on their table, that's usually when they decide to stop working and start praying.

Peace,

Ahmad

neb87

Peace, neb87.

There are a few issues, theologically, with your post, especially from a traditional Islamic perspective.

You're correct - Islam has been on the rise in North America, although I wouldn't call this rise "steady". However, we have to look at the foundational aspects of what you call "Islam". For example, a large aspect of Islamic growth in North America can be attributed to the dramatic increase in membership in the Nation of Islam

The highlighted portion is provably untrue as the NOI does not publish it's membership numbers. BUT, based on third-party observation of how many people attend their mosques or community functions, and general population survey results their numbers are currently estimated at between 10,000-50,000. This would be a massive DECREASE from their membership of 500,000 just 50 years ago under Malcolm X. There has been very little interest in the NOI among American converts and you shouldn't present such information without backing it up with hard numbers. It's an insult to American converts who have no interest in joining a racist organization that has been designated as a hate group in the same boat as the Westboro Baptist Church.

Also, as of the latest polling data 23% of all people who self-identify as Muslim in America are native-born converts ,25% are native-born Muslims, and the rest are foreign-born Muslim citizens. Even the most conservative estimates say that Islam is on it's way to becoming the second-largest religion in the States in the next 2-10 years, at the current rate of conversion.

In addition, statistically, the belief in a god has dramatically decreased in America, especially in light of the propagation of atheists and agnostics gaining widespread appeal and influence.

I suggest you read this before you make any more generalizations about religion in America. Only 16% of Americans are reported as being "unaffiliated with any particular religion" and of these only a quarter are atheist or agnostic. The rest are individuals who've left a church without joining a new one, but still hold their beliefs. The "belief in a god" has NOT dramatically decreased in America, in fact, it's only gotten more diverse as more people are switching faiths or choosing to go their own way instead of belonging to an organized religion.

Is it really possible to have religion without complacency and intolerance? The concept of religion is to differentiate people to divide them and to keep them distinct. "If you don't believe what I believe, then you're not with me." That's the traditional religious mindstate, even among so-called Qur'aanists and Qur'aan-Aloners. Even Christians don't get along anymore, because Christianity isn't reflective enough; now there are Baptists, Protestants, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, etc. And now, all the groups have subgroups to supplement their divisive perspectives... What do you think? Is there "unity" in Islam?

The diversity of Christianity in America has rarely been a cause of any great distress. As an American and a former Christian, I can tell you from first-hand experience that most demoninations get along with each other pretty well, in practice. The different scholars like to disagree on theology, but the people themselves rarely treat each other as "other". I've only seen that with extremists such as Westboro or the polygamous Mormons. In fact, after turning atheist at 13 I still regularly attended one of many non-denominatioal Christian churches (which are also on the rise, btw) where I met many other atheists and agnostics who were not treated as something less-than.

As for complacency, the "better" religious groups are well-known for their community outreach programs. Even the infamous NOI were well-respected for their hugely successful efforts at clearing out drug dealers and prostitutes from low-income neighborhoods in the 90's. I don't agree with the theology of Mormonism or their tactics, but I would never deny that their missionary work in the third-world is well-intentioned. In my experience with volunteer work, I've found that there are more people around who identify as religious or at least agnostic than atheist. Not to say that there are none, because that would be a blatant lie, but it's undeniable that a belief in God DOES push people to do more good works for their community.

My bottom-line is that you cannot look at how religion is abused in oppressed countries and then just assume it has the same function in countries that have less overt oppression. There are far too many other factors at play for why it's being used negatively over here and positively over there.

The lack of unity promotes intolerance, since religious people generally can't claim to be going to "heaven" without threatening to send other people (particularly those who disagree with their views) to "hell". Complacency naturally comes as well, since people can't think of the 'afterlife' without developing a determination of what they want when they get there, which is ultimately everything they can't have here! Once they begin to think that some outside (supernatural?) agent is going to put bread on their table, that's usually when they decide to stop working and start praying.

The lack of "unity in beliefs" SOMETIMES promotes intolerance, but SOMETIMES it's used to promote a more realistic concept of "unity in diversity". From what I've seen, more and more people are just coming to realize that the former concept is unattainable, but the latter is entirely doable. I see it work with my own eyes and try hard to live it myself, everyday. As you and I both stated, culture and individual personalities matter much, much more than religion to how people use whatever tools they have.

Complacency does not "naturally" come with religious belief. If a people are already beaten down to the point where they see their situation as hopeless, then yes, religion may be used as a crutch to help bear it. BUT, it is just as likely that an oppressed people will use religion as a stick to help them beat off their oppressors. There are examples of both scenarios in history and in modern times.

neb87

Hell, some of them even use statistics in relation to the modern growth of the Five Percent Nation of Gods and Earths, particularly during the widespread appeal of hip-hop music in American urban communities, due to their statement regarding practicing "Islam" (although most of them staunchly refuse to call themselves "Muslims" or possessors of any religious affiliation)! So, believe me - the claim that Islam is "on the rise" in North America is not impressive to me at all, nor are the statistics accurate.

I didn't address that statement in my first post, because I have no idea what you're saying here, but just for the record, I think it should be pointed out that it is complete and utter nonsense.

This highlighted statement has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN REALITY, WHATSOEVER. There is NO connection between Hip Hop and Islam in America beyond the normal occurence of religion and art intersecting. I, personally, can name more bands that are connected to Judaism (one, Matisyahu) than I can Hip Hop artists connected to Islam (zero), simply because there is NO mainstream or well-known connection there.

The statement that there are people in American urban communities "claiming" to practice Islam for no apparent reason, is complete garbage and you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to slip that in as a valid claim.

There is no connection between the rise of conversion to Islam and "urban communities" other than the fact that a little less than half of all new converts are African-American, but White-Americans make up about half, too. It's pretty evenly split across racial lines.

Edit I thought of one Muslim Hip-Hop artist; Lupe Fiasco. But the fact that it took me nearly 20 minutes to think of just one further proves that there isn't any mainstream connection in the States between Islam and Hip-Hop.

hawk99

Peace, hawkninetynine.

Are you asking whether or not the Qur'aan "proves" that it should be taken at face value, or are you stating that, from your perspective, the Qur'aan DOES prove that it should be taken at face value? I don't completely understand your statement in regards to this...

The prime reason why many people believe in any god (or gods) is due to fear of the unknown. They form the generative conclusion that, "This life can't be all there is." Otherwise, they make the common assumption, "All of this beauty and splendor must've been designed by some grand designer," etc. In addition, the concept of divinity gives people hope (and faith) for the future, particularly with regards to what will happen to them after death. Generally, people who struggle throughout their lives wish for (or even await) some type of "happy ending" once their lives are over. That's generally why religiosity is dramatically higher in poor countries, especially when compared to economically-thriving countries, where religiosity is increasingly lower. Those who've had to struggle for lengthy periods of time want some type of 'reward', which they assume they won't receive during their lifetimes. This can also be applied to the concept of justice; people who feel they've been wronged in some way by others who are seemingly 'above the law' want those wrongdoers to suffer the 'punishment' for their crimes after death, since they probably won't experience it while they're alive.
There are other factors too, but I won't discuss them at the moment...
Peace,
Ahmad

No I did not ask if the Qur'aan "proves" that it should be taken at face value.
The question mark is a typo.

Here is the correct sentence The Quran proves it should be taken at face value.

The point is everyone has their reason for believing what they believe. You get
no argument from me.

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

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, neb87.

The highlighted portion is provably untrue as the NOI does not publish it's membership numbers. BUT, based on third-party observation of how many people attend their mosques or community functions, and general population survey results their numbers are currently estimated at between 10,000-50,000. This would be a massive DECREASE from their membership of 500,000 just 50 years ago under Malcolm X. There has been very little interest in the NOI among American converts and you shouldn't present such information without backing it up with hard numbers. It's an insult to American converts who have no interest in joining a racist organization that has been designated as a hate group in the same boat as the Westboro Baptist Church.

Also, as of the latest polling data 23% of all people who self-identify as Muslim in America are native-born converts ,25% are native-born Muslims, and the rest are foreign-born Muslim citizens. Even the most conservative estimates say that Islam is on it's way to becoming the second-largest religion in the States in the next 2-10 years, at the current rate of conversion.

Some of your points are grossly inaccurate. For example, the Nation of Islam (NOI) experienced a rapid increase in membership during the 'reign' of Louis Farrakhan, particularly after the widely-publicized "Million Man March" conducted during the 1990s. The Saviours' Day events are becoming more prominent, particularly among celebrities. Additionally, they experienced an increase in membership (and member-involvement) during the era of one of their prime former ministers, Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who later left the Nation and went on to lead the New Black Panther Party. The books written by Nation of Islam members Wesley Muhammad and Wakeel Allah have also sparked widespread interest in the organization and Islam as a whole. And, contrary to your statement, the Nation of Islam DOES release the information concerning its membership - perhaps not to outsiders, but it is released among the membership.

Also, the Nation of Islam can't reasonably be compared to the Westboro Baptist Church; the ideals maintained within the organizations are vastly different. The Nation of Islam, for instance, teaches "black separatism", not racial hatred or discrimination. The Westboro Baptist Church teaches hatred and discrimination towards non-Christians, particularly aimed at those who disagree with their religious viewpoints.

Also, you can't separate the populace that is recognized as "native-born" Muslims from the converts, at least not in the sense of alienating them from the Nation of Islam. The rise of Islam during the 1950s and 1960s, during the era of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (e.g. Malcolm X), many people became Muslims and began rearing their children under the same religious beliefs and tenets. In 1975, the Nation experienced the death (or, some say "departure&quot of Elijah Muhammad, and his son Wallace Delaney Muhammad changed the NOI's program to an Orthodox Islamic perspective, changing its name to "The American Muslim Mission", along with his name to Warith Deen Muhammad. Many Black American Muslims in urban communities are products of the organization he established in the 1970s.

I suggest you read this before you make any more generalizations about religion in America. Only 16% of Americans are reported as being "unaffiliated with any particular religion" and of these only a quarter are atheist or agnostic. The rest are individuals who've left a church without joining a new one, but still hold their beliefs. The "belief in a god" has NOT dramatically decreased in America, in fact, it's only gotten more diverse as more people are switching faiths or choosing to go their own way instead of belonging to an organized religion.

How do you know what these people "believe" after they've left their established religious groups? The rise in membership among groups like American Atheists, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Council for Secular Humanism is reasonable proof to show the increase in atheism and agnosticism in America... How do you classify people who've chosen not to become part of any organized religion, and what leads you to believe that they still have 'faith' in the same concepts and ideals?

The lack of "unity in beliefs" SOMETIMES promotes intolerance, but SOMETIMES it's used to promote a more realistic concept of "unity in diversity". From what I've seen, more and more people are just coming to realize that the former concept is unattainable, but the latter is entirely doable. I see it work with my own eyes and try hard to live it myself, everyday. As you and I both stated, culture and individual personalities matter much, much more than religion to how people use whatever tools they have.

Complacency does not "naturally" come with religious belief. If a people are already beaten down to the point where they see their situation as hopeless, then yes, religion may be used as a crutch to help bear it. BUT, it is just as likely that an oppressed people will use religion as a stick to help them beat off their oppressors. There are examples of both scenarios in history and in modern times.

So, would you say that organized religion has helped more people than it's hurt? Or, would you say the opposite is true?

Peace,

Ahmad

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, neb87.

I didn't address that statement in my first post, because I have no idea what you're saying here, but just for the record, I think it should be pointed out that it is complete and utter nonsense.

This highlighted statement has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN REALITY, WHATSOEVER. There is NO connection between Hip Hop and Islam in America beyond the normal occurence of religion and art intersecting. I, personally, can name more bands that are connected to Judaism (one, Matisyahu) than I can Hip Hop artists connected to Islam (zero), simply because there is NO mainstream or well-known connection there.

The statement that there are people in American urban communities "claiming" to practice Islam for no apparent reason, is complete garbage and you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to slip that in as a valid claim.

There is no connection between the rise of conversion to Islam and "urban communities" other than the fact that a little less than half of all new converts are African-American, but White-Americans make up about half, too. It's pretty evenly split across racial lines.

Edit I thought of one Muslim Hip-Hop artist; Lupe Fiasco. But the fact that it took me nearly 20 minutes to think of just one further proves that there isn't any mainstream connection in the States between Islam and Hip-Hop.

Your claim is absurd. There are plenty of Islamic hip-hop artists, and the concepts inherent in Islam (or, what is identified as Islam) have been promoted in hip-hop since its conception. Since the widespread appeal of hip-hop music, represented by Islamic (and pseudo-Islamic) artists in the industry, people have begun clinging to the 'culture' of Islamic revolution. Artists such as Eric B and Rakim, Brand Nubian, Poor Righteous Teachers, the Wu Tang Clan, Jurassic Five, Big Daddy Kane, Pete Rock and CL Smooth, Tragedy Khadafi, King Sun, Gangstarr, Kool Moe Dee, and Lakim Shabazz ushered in the hip-hop religious revolution, particularly with the principles inherent in the Five Percent Nation of Gods and Earths; and modern artists like Common, Erykah Badu, Jay Electronica, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Busta Rhymes, Wale, Capone-N-Noreaga, Nas, AZ, Canibus, Lord Jamar (as a solo artist), Sun Tzu Cadre, Sunz of Man, Styles P, Papoose, and many others are STILL openly promoting Islamic concepts in their music. That's not even mentioning pioneers like The World Famous Supreme Team, Grand Puba and Shabazz The Disciple, who projected their own perspective of hip-hop and put it into motion, with their methodology still being used today. Hell, even T-Pain and Akon claim to be practicing Muslims in today's hip-hop generation!

And you're seriously saying that it took you twenty (20) minutes to think of Lupe Fiasco, and you couldn't think of any others? You obviously don't listen to much hip-hop music...

I can name many, many hip-hop (and R&B) artists who promote (or promoted) Islamic concepts in their music. Again, hip-hop was started and perfected by Islamic (or, again, pseudo-Islamic) artists. The fact that you can only name one Islamic hip-hop musician, and it took you twenty minutes to do so, shows me that you don't know much about the subject you're trying to talk about.

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

Peace Ahmed,
Just wanted to throw in some of my ideas into the discussion.

Is it really possible to have religion without complacency and intolerance? The concept of religion is to differentiate people to divide them and to keep them distinct. "If you don't believe what I believe, then you're not with me."

When looking at religions of the world, it indeed seems that religion produces at least arrogance. With arrogance I here mean a mindset that I'm holier than thou and that I know how things are and you are mistaken. This seems very typical with the majority of people following religion. It all seems to be about division and separation. At least this is my own observation, whether accurate or not. Of course it is a generalization, but quite representative I think.

That's the traditional religious mindstate, even among so-called Qur'aanists and Qur'aan-Aloners. Even Christians don't get along anymore, because Christianity isn't reflective enough; now there are Baptists, Protestants, Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, etc. And now, all the groups have subgroups to supplement their divisive perspectives... What do you think? Is there "unity" in Islam?

What do we mean with unity? What are the criteria for calling something unity? You just have to select the suitable level of zoom in order to find unity. At one level we could even say that there is no unity at all... since every individual is unique in thinking and perception of the world and the resulting held world view and concepts. So what is unity?

Spontaneously though, I'd say there is NOT unity in Islam, looking at the level of sects and sub-sects.

The lack of unity promotes intolerance, since religious people generally can't claim to be going to "heaven" without threatening to send other people (particularly those who disagree with their views) to "hell".

Yeah, sort of.

Complacency naturally comes as well, since people can't think of the 'afterlife' without developing a determination of what they want when they get there, which is ultimately everything they can't have here!

This may be true for some, but not at all for all. This is a bit like a text book description of what believers of Religion X believes. Perhaps this may be the case for many people, who have a very materialistic view of everything (72 virgins etc)... but it is not a general case for anyone who believes in a Creating power.

Once they begin to think that some outside (supernatural?) agent is going to put bread on their table, that's usually when they decide to stop working and start praying.

This is due to an unrealistic world view.

To think of God/Allah/Source/Creating Power as a OUTSIDE agent per definition means you get it wrong. This is a description of a god from mythology... a person in the sky.
The 'supernatural' idea is only held by those who do not feel the presence of that which people call The Creator. By calling it supernatural, you are actually calling it 'outside', 'abnormal' and 'other'... which means it is no more than a fictional character in your mind.
Those who stop working and just prays, also do not understand how things work in life. This behavior is unrealistic. The laws and rules of this life is the same for all, believers or not. Praying without action is useless.

A. One issue is that those who cannot sense Source/Allah/God (i.e. atheists etc) assumes that all others (those who claim to believe in that Source) are all alike. I'd say this is far from the truth. I tend to see the majority of the followers of religion actually as followers of culture and tradition. Yes, you may claim to believe in God, but what sort of faith is that really? Do you actually have a sense of God, or you just claim to have? Perhaps there are infinitely many levels of faith. So, just because you claim to believe in God, it doesn't really say much about your ACTUAL faith. No-one can say ANYTHING about the faith of another. I should not even say 'majority of those who' like I have done in this post. Who am I to judge others? It many times says more about me than about those I'm talking about. What does it matter to others anyway what they believe? The only thing that matters in society is how we behave with each other. Let our actions speak! The business of belonging to groups is more about psychology and politics and less about actual faith. Why else are religions distributed geographically in groups? Culture and heritage!

B. Someone who cannot sense God (whether atheist or religious believer) simply cannot imagine the existence of God. They assume the non-existance of God, since that's all they can do, and therefore the discussions will at best be philosophical. When a God-person and a non-God-person discusses God, they are discussing DIFFERENT things.

Peace!

neb87

Peace, neb87.

Some of your points are grossly inaccurate. For example, the Nation of Islam (NOI) experienced a rapid increase in membership during the 'reign' of Louis Farrakhan, particularly after the widely-publicized "Million Man March" conducted during the 1990s. The Saviours' Day events are becoming more prominent, particularly among celebrities. Additionally, they experienced an increase in membership (and member-involvement) during the era of one of their prime former ministers, Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad, who later left the Nation and went on to lead the New Black Panther Party. The books written by Nation of Islam members Wesley Muhammad and Wakeel Allah have also sparked widespread interest in the organization and Islam as a whole. And, contrary to your statement, the Nation of Islam DOES release the information concerning its membership - perhaps not to outsiders, but it is released among the membership.

Some of your "facts" are grossly inaccurate.

-The Million Man March was NOT a NOI event. It was partially sponsored by them and ATTENDED by civil rights activists of ALL faith backgrounds.

-Your claim that there has been a rise in interest has already been proven incorrect. If you wish to cling to it, anyway, despite expert observations to the contrary, fine, keep living in your dream world.

-What the members of NOI are up to has no bearing on your false claim that there's widespread interest in them among the African-American population. Don't change the subject.

-Dr. Khalid Abdul Muhammad was associated with a FEW of the most politically charged musical acts of the early 90's and not at all in his capacity as a member of the NOI but in his role as an artist, himself. Public Enemy and Rage Against the Machine are hardly mainstream acts, their messages were already controversial, and 2 acts that disbanded in the 90's have no bearing on current culture.

-Name ONE current celebrity publicly tied to the NOI. People who got involved with them in the early 90's do NOT count, since, as I've already stated, that was at a time when they were actively trying to clean up their public image by toning down the hate speech. (And this, itself, was a response to their dwindling numbers.)

Also, the Nation of Islam can't reasonably be compared to the Westboro Baptist Church; the ideals maintained within the organizations are vastly different. The Nation of Islam, for instance, teaches "black separatism", not racial hatred or discrimination. The Westboro Baptist Church teaches hatred and discrimination towards non-Christians, particularly aimed at those who disagree with their religious viewpoints.

We're not talking about what they claim to teach in their pamphlets. We're talking about how they're perceived by the general public and rather or not their philosophy holds any widespread appeal. You can try to separate the two all you want, but the fact remains that to the general public they're seen as an extremist group that preaches hate.

Also, you can't separate the populace that is recognized as "native-born" Muslims from the converts, at least not in the sense of alienating them from the Nation of Islam. The rise of Islam during the 1950s and 1960s, during the era of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (e.g. Malcolm X), many people became Muslims and began rearing their children under the same religious beliefs and tenets. In 1975, the Nation experienced the death (or, some say "departure&quot of Elijah Muhammad, and his son Wallace Delaney Muhammad changed the NOI's program to an Orthodox Islamic perspective, changing its name to "The American Muslim Mission", along with his name to Warith Deen Muhammad. Many Black American Muslims in urban communities are products of the organization he established in the 1970s.

This was just a long-winded way of acknowledging the FACTS I already presented to you. Long story short; in the 70's, the membership of the NOI dropped DRAMATICALLY when the vast majority of their members left to join mainstream Islam. If you think their children and grandchildren should not be included in the wider Islamic community because their parents/grandparents used to belong to the NOI, then I don't know what else to say to you.

How do you know what these people "believe" after they've left their established religious groups? The rise in membership among groups like American Atheists, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Council for Secular Humanism is reasonable proof to show the increase in atheism and agnosticism in America... How do you classify people who've chosen not to become part of any organized religion, and what leads you to believe that they still have 'faith' in the same concepts and ideals?

I know what these people "believe" because of what they SAID. Did you read the link I gave you? I didn't make that up, it's right there in the information. They were ASKED if they retained their faith after leaving the church and they said "Yes." Also, if you actually READ up on things before speaking about them, you would see that the increase in the popularity of atheist and agnostic groups is NOT because of an increase in atheists. It shows a growing trend of atheists reaching out to each other and forming "churches" of their own, instead of practicing "no-religion" on their own. It's actually a pretty interesting subject, but reading up on it would take away your ability to insert your own uninformed opinion on them and their motives.

We classify people who choose not to participate in organized religion as "people who choose not to participate in organized religion". As for what leads me to believe that they still have faith, I usually just go by what they TELL me.

So, would you say that organized religion has helped more people than it's hurt? Or, would you say the opposite is true?

I would say that when people learn about the faiths of others and then DO NOT dismiss what they say as invalid or some kind of conspiratorial lie, religion can help a lot of people.

neb87

Peace, neb87.

Your claim is absurd. There are plenty of Islamic hip-hop artists, and the concepts inherent in Islam (or, what is identified as Islam) have been promoted in hip-hop since its conception. Since the widespread appeal of hip-hop music, represented by Islamic (and pseudo-Islamic) artists in the industry, people have begun clinging to the 'culture' of Islamic revolution. Artists such as Eric B and Rakim, Brand Nubian, Poor Righteous Teachers, the Wu Tang Clan, Jurassic Five, Big Daddy Kane, Pete Rock and CL Smooth, Tragedy Khadafi, King Sun, Gangstarr, Kool Moe Dee, and Lakim Shabazz ushered in the hip-hop religious revolution, particularly with the principles inherent in the Five Percent Nation of Gods and Earths; and modern artists like Common, Erykah Badu, Jay Electronica, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Busta Rhymes, Wale, Capone-N-Noreaga, Nas, AZ, Canibus, Lord Jamar (as a solo artist), Sun Tzu Cadre, Sunz of Man, Styles P, Papoose, and many others are STILL openly promoting Islamic concepts in their music. That's not even mentioning pioneers like The World Famous Supreme Team, Grand Puba and Shabazz The Disciple, who projected their own perspective of hip-hop and put it into motion, with their methodology still being used today. Hell, even T-Pain and Akon claim to be practicing Muslims in today's hip-hop generation!

And you're seriously saying that it took you twenty (20) minutes to think of Lupe Fiasco, and you couldn't think of any others? You obviously don't listen to much hip-hop music...

I can name many, many hip-hop (and R&B) artists who promote (or promoted) Islamic concepts in their music. Again, hip-hop was started and perfected by Islamic (or, again, pseudo-Islamic) artists. The fact that you can only name one Islamic hip-hop musician, and it took you twenty minutes to do so, shows me that you don't know much about the subject you're trying to talk about.

Peace,

Ahmad

I'm familiar with almost all of the artists that you listed here and the only ones who are actually Muslim are Busta Rhymes, T-Pain, Akon, Big Daddy Kane, Mos Def, and Nas. Of those, the only one who made his private religion a part of his public persona as an artist was Mos Def and he is a Sunni Muslim. Busta Rhymes and Big Daddy Kane both only embraced religion after retirement. T-Pain and Akon were both simply born into Muslim families. I also think it's telling that very few of the artists you listed are currently active and the ones who are have no bearing on the point you're trying to make here.

As for the others on your list, you seem to be confusing Afrocentricity with Islam. I have no idea why, but I'm only here to point out inaccuracies and/or blatant lies in what you're saying about things you clearly haven't researched. I, personally don't see too many connections between Afrocentrism and Islam, but if you see similiarites, that's fine, just don't present that as something universal and especially don't make up connections that are NOT there.

Also, what the heck do you mean by "Islamic concepts"? You just posted a list of artists from the Conscious Hip-Hop genre, and shoe-horned Islam in there. I am a fan of most of those artists and the only "Islamic concepts" I hear in their music is the promotion of education, a call for unity in the Black community, and a shunning of vice. In case you haven't heard, the Quran does NOT have a monopoly on those ideas. One does not have to be familar with or connected to Islam to teach any of those concepts.

Hip-Hop was NOT started or perfected by Islamic artists. The fact that you would even say something so demonstrably untrue is a sign of your desperation to force some kind of link between the two. The closest even experts who go to college to study the history of Hip-Hop can get to pinpointing the origin of the art form is the African-American spoken-word artists of the 1940's collaborating with jazz musicians.

The reason I couldn't think of any other artists related to Islam is because Lupe Fiasco is the ONLY ONE who makes his private religious life publicly known in his music and that was only with one song at the beginning of his career called "Muhammad Walks", the rest of his work is focused on universal concepts not pertaining to religion or faith. Other than that, there are no other mainstream artists who talk about Islam in their music, no matter how hard you try to imagine otherwise.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

When looking at religions of the world, it indeed seems that religion produces at least arrogance. With arrogance I here mean a mindset that I'm holier than thou and that I know how things are and you are mistaken. This seems very typical with the majority of people following religion. It all seems to be about division and separation. At least this is my own observation, whether accurate or not. Of course it is a generalization, but quite representative I think.

I completely agree... And, as you mentioned (and before I catch a bunch of backlash for the statement), it's a generalization, and it doesn't specifically apply to each individual person. However, I think it's quite representative of reality...

What do we mean with unity? What are the criteria for calling something unity? You just have to select the suitable level of zoom in order to find unity. At one level we could even say that there is no unity at all... since every individual is unique in thinking and perception of the world and the resulting held world view and concepts. So what is unity?

Spontaneously though, I'd say there is NOT unity in Islam, looking at the level of sects and sub-sects.

That's exactly what I was alluding to. There are now hundreds of Islamic sects around the world, and each group calls its rival groups "disbelievers" and "hypocrites", etc. There may be a level of unity within a specified mosque; but there isn't much unity among the entire Islamic (Muslim) populace. They've differentiated themselves to the extent of being completely separate religions; they merely call themselves by the same names.

This is due to an unrealistic world view.

To think of God/Allah/Source/Creating Power as a OUTSIDE agent per definition means you get it wrong. This is a description of a god from mythology... a person in the sky.
The 'supernatural' idea is only held by those who do not feel the presence of that which people call The Creator. By calling it supernatural, you are actually calling it 'outside', 'abnormal' and 'other'... which means it is no more than a fictional character in your mind.
Those who stop working and just prays, also do not understand how things work in life. This behavior is unrealistic. The laws and rules of this life is the same for all, believers or not. Praying without action is useless.

A. One issue is that those who cannot sense Source/Allah/God (i.e. atheists etc) assumes that all others (those who claim to believe in that Source) are all alike. I'd say this is far from the truth. I tend to see the majority of the followers of religion actually as followers of culture and tradition. Yes, you may claim to believe in God, but what sort of faith is that really? Do you actually have a sense of God, or you just claim to have? Perhaps there are infinitely many levels of faith. So, just because you claim to believe in God, it doesn't really say much about your ACTUAL faith. No-one can say ANYTHING about the faith of another. I should not even say 'majority of those who' like I have done in this post. Who am I to judge others? It many times says more about me than about those I'm talking about. What does it matter to others anyway what they believe? The only thing that matters in society is how we behave with each other. Let our actions speak! The business of belonging to groups is more about psychology and politics and less about actual faith. Why else are religions distributed geographically in groups? Culture and heritage!

B. Someone who cannot sense God (whether atheist or religious believer) simply cannot imagine the existence of God. They assume the non-existance of God, since that's all they can do, and therefore the discussions will at best be philosophical. When a God-person and a non-God-person discusses God, they are discussing DIFFERENT things.

That's a very interesting perspective... What's your view concerning naturalists and pantheists? Also, if God can't theoretically be detected by the senses, or anything else other than a scope of "feelings" (which are ultimately nothing more than reactive chemicals in the brain), then how can we make the determination that he's "real"? Rationalization, based on the concept of objective reality, is how we separate fact from fiction. So, if we can't logically define and characterize God, then can we really claim to know that he's real at all? And, as it applies to your ideologies, do you view God as being 'personal', or is he completely incomprehensible?

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

That's a very interesting perspective... What's your view concerning naturalists and pantheists? Also, if God can't theoretically be detected by the senses, or anything else other than a scope of "feelings" (which are ultimately nothing more than reactive chemicals in the brain), then how can we make the determination that he's "real"?

This is what I cannot explain. When I say "feelings" I'm not talking about emotions... because they are just another form of thoughts. How do you explain sound to someone deaf, or visuals to someone blind? You cannot transmit the experience to such a person.
We cannot determine the "reality" if we cannot sense it. Simple as that. The five sense won't help. The mind (thoughts and emotions) won't find it. Either we sense/grasp/know it, or we don't.

Rationalization, based on the concept of objective reality, is how we separate fact from fiction. So, if we can't logically define and characterize God, then can we really claim to know that he's real at all? And, as it applies to your ideologies, do you view God as being 'personal', or is he completely incomprehensible?

You are right in what you say, but there is more to it. The "ceiling", or limits, of objective reality, is still determined by our perception... so what is objectivity if not just consensus, or a least common denominator, of subjective perceptions. ALL we perceive enters our perception through our senses.

We can logically think that since there is something, aka creation, then there is a source. But to call that source "he", giving it human characteristics, and making it a separate entity, is less than convincing. It's not logically sound.

I think of God as the source of all. The reality of God can be "known". But this knowing cannot be explain to someone else, and it may sound totally incredible and baseless, hence it is useless to try to convince people of it. That's it.

Further more, I suspect that different people can have different "degrees" of this "knowing/seeing/sensing/grasping".

All the best