Sign of God
-
Peace. JewishDude.
Science is worried about what we can measure. And from that measurement = proof. What if you can't observe something directly and measure it? What does science do then? It tries to measure it indirectly but only via measurement. The problem with Allah is like trying to see the outside of a box from the inside. You can't measure the outside when you are inside. If everything is Allah then we are on the inside. We will never be able to see the outside while we are alive. What scientists can't measure, they argue can't exist.
Religion is about the heart.
Science is about the brain.Sometimes the two cross paths. Religion can embrace science as Allah tells us to. That way we see his marvels. However Science has a difficult time embracing religion as it is very difficult to explain analytically.
This is only partially true. Your statement implies that we are 'inside' Allah, conceptualizing him as the Universe, or perhaps as something that exceeds the Universe but still interpenetrates it, etc. However, the quran doesn't paint this type of picture of Allah, and neither does the bible. Rather, it appears to depict God as a type of anthropomorphic figure who possesses all knowledge and power; in some cases, it actually identifies him as a celestial 'person' (being), with emotions, attributes and physical characteristics. That's the issue when viewed from a scientific perspective.
Many, if not most, scientists see the greatest scope of 'divinity' (if you choose to identify it as such) in the Universe as a whole. Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, refers to pantheism as "sexed-up atheism". And, for the most part, he's absolutely correct!
Science and religion are ultimately incompatible, at least from my perspective. It's not only about science rejecting concepts of religion, but it's also about religious groups embracing science. Most fundamentalist Christian groups adamantly reject scientific ideals, especially as it relates to the 'origin' of the Universe and the generation of species. Many of them have difficulty embracing scopes of biology (species creation vs. evolution via natural selection); geology (age of the earth, e.g. 6 thousand years vs. 4.6 billion years); cosmology (spacial creation "due to the word 'be'" vs. an nuclear-atomic-based explosion); and nearly every other science as well. They don't agree at all, and due to religiously-based enforced ideological dependencies upon ancient "holy" texts, they probably never will.
The quran encourages people to accept science. However, unfortunately, many Muslims don't, which is why they reject a lot of the same scientific ideals that fundamentalist Christians do. In addition, there are even certain Islamic 'scholars' and 'imams' who still claim that the Earth is flat (and no, I'm not making this up)! http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=g84g2KJcUV0
With people thinking like this, how can religion and science ever agree? Science is about examining the natural world and arriving at the 'truth', through reason and experimentation. Religion is about 'feeling' that you already have the truth and rejecting anything that conflicts with it. That makes them, among other things, totally incompatible and irreconcilable.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Hi Ahmad,
My analogy of the box is just that... an analogy. I don't try and say exactly what Allah is. I just wanted to give people a frame of reference. You don't know what type of building you are in if you are in a windowless room. You can conjecture but you will not be able to infer "truth" from this situation. Our "room" with science is our 5 senses. We must make all inferences based on these. What if there is more that our 5 senses can't pick up? Science can't conjecture about that.
I think science and religion can work together. I have elaborated on this in other posts. Science shows us the wonder of the Universe and allows us to see the works of Allah even closer. I think the media makes people think the two are incompatible. I am a scientist (at a research university in the US) and I know lots of other scientists who are very religious. They see no problem with the two. Other people with an agenda (athiests) want us to believe there is a problem.
Just my crazy thoughts...
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
I'd say like this.... science and religion are many times incompatible, but it depends on what particular detail of that discipline of science or religion we are talking about.
A crucial thing people miss, both "scientists" and "religionists" is that reality is reality. And this is NOT the issue of measurable vs non-measurable. Non-measurable doesn't mean false. Especially scientists should and would agree to this. So, what do I mean by this? Well, if we observe a certain level or aspect of reality, then this is reality. For exampe, if science discovers X, then religion must accept this X, otherwise we cannot take this religion, or aspect/part of religion, seriously. Reality is reality. For a religion to be sensible, it has to accept each and every fact that is discovered using the methods of science, and cannot contradict it... with some caution of course, since even science disproves and upgrades itself... so we can never know entirely for sure even about the things we figure out through the discplinies of science.
Scientists should not claim it is proven that there is no God, because this is no less baseless than many stories from religions... they can only say that there is currently no scientific proof of that which we understand God as through the religions.
The issue as I see it, is actually with religion. This is perhaps a bit extreme point of view, but not very unreasonable still. I think we should base our world view on that which we observe, and the scientific method is a great part of that. If we then are able to naturally entertain the idea of a God, then this concept of God must necessarily agree with what we observe, otherwise it would become just mythology.
I do understand that many people cannot entertain the idea of God, and they consequently believe there is no need for a God, and I also think that the issue of God or not-God is not a matter that is important for science. Science doesn't depend on believing in God. Science is based on observations of s.c. natural phenomenon. God is beyond that. But important to note is that believing in God does NOT deny any part of science.. actually, science is an marvellous way to learn about God's creation. Also, science is NOT denying God. If science would disprove something as not real, then that cannot be God, by definition. In this way, God and science are never in contradiction, by definition. This is the real issue... how we define and view God... our definition of God. This is turn does NOT mean we must reduce God to a set of measurable natural phenomenon... because that would just be a renaming of already knows parts of reality, whether it is energy, or the entire universe.
I do agree that science and religion many times are incompatible. But so are God and religion! An image or concept of God on one side, and science on the other side, cannot contradict eachother, by definition. So like I said... the problem of science vs religions arises from i) unrealistic images of God, ii) blind faith in unrealistic or disproven doctrine of religion. Now, 'unrealistic' is not the same as un-seen or un-measurable. But un-seen or un-measurable things, if we claim we have experienced them, must of course not contradict science, whether they can be proven/disproven or not.
God is not equal to Religion! Equating these is at the core of the eternal debate science vs religion.
Peace to all!
-
Peace, JewishDude.
My analogy of the box is just that... an analogy. I don't try and say exactly what Allah is. I just wanted to give people a frame of reference. You don't know what type of building you are in if you are in a windowless room. You can conjecture but you will not be able to infer "truth" from this situation. Our "room" with science is our 5 senses. We must make all inferences based on these. What if there is more that our 5 senses can't pick up? Science can't conjecture about that.
I understand your position, but this characterizes the same ideologies that I discussed... You mentioned that 'science can't conjecture about that', and you're correct. However, why isn't religion held to this same standard? Why is it that, although science is forbidden from developing 'guesses' concerning the world around us, religion is free to do so? You're correct in saying that we can't know what type of building we're in if we're confined to a windowless room. Yet, the problem, which ultimately results in the incompatibility of the two subjects, is that religion does claim to know what type of building we're in, and they even take it a step further - they claim that a man they've never met, apparently named "God", singlehandedly constructed this building specifically for the people confined in the room; they claim that he built many other rooms inside this building as well, which they've never personally seen; they allege fantastic stories about this man's son coming to the building and performing all types of wonderous acts, none of which we've ever seen duplicated (outside of magic tricks and illusions); etc. How are we supposed to take this?
I think science and religion can work together. I have elaborated on this in other posts. Science shows us the wonder of the Universe and allows us to see the works of Allah even closer. I think the media makes people think the two are incompatible. I am a scientist (at a research university in the US) and I know lots of other scientists who are very religious. They see no problem with the two. Other people with an agenda (athiests) want us to believe there is a problem.
My argument was never that science and religion can't work together; it's that they don't work together. Like I said, science is about uncovering the truth. Religion, on the other hand, is about firmly believing that you already have the truth and rejecting anything that conflicts with your idea of what 'truth' is... I'm also a scientist, and I don't know any religious scientists at all. Granted, I know a few who say that they 'think there might possibly be something else out there', but the great majority of them are atheists (which, in my view, includes naturalists and pantheists) and agnostics, especially in my field of biology. Why? Because the more you learn about the natural world, the more you realize how 'chaotic' it actually is, and this makes you wonder How could an omniscient and omnipotent god have created a world in this much disarray? Does the world around us point to creation by an all-wise being, or is it consistent with evolutionary adaptation?
Most people scrutinize every world religion other than their own...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Most people scrutinize every world religion other than their own...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Ahmad,
You are right in a lot of things you are talking about. Lots of "believers" are not being rational.
I hope you get your faith back though, I can see you are doubting God, unless I am wrong and your goal is something else with your discussion. Being intelligent, scientist and not exposed to God's miracles, could probably render someone doubtful. Being intelligent usually means requiring intelligent input bravo
Asking is quite easy, answering can be more difficult brickwall
God bless you
-
Forget intelligence... honest and sincere openness is what is required. I've seen brilliant people, i.e. successful people with very high IQ, on every side... whether it be atheism or traditional sunnism... and intelligence in one area doesn't rule out that the same capacity for intelligence is totally shut off or unused in other areas, such as religion. Many intelligent religious people believe in the most outrageous fairytales, like the pegasus, or at least accept them to be plausible and possible in unconscious fear of questioning the religion that makes up most of their identity (which is why not questioning is tolerated).
(This post was not in reference to any one person of this thread or forum!)
-
Salaam zulf,
True, and it depends on how we define intelligence and an intelligent person too.
God bless
-
Here is a thought....
The scientific method requires proof and hence takes a skeptics perspective. Religion is gives hope and hence takes an optimists perspective.
Does this seem reasonable???
Some more crazy thoughts...
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peace -
Peace everyone,
Deen is a matter of faith given to those who ask or are inspired, There are those who use science as a
reason or excuse not to believe in God simply because they lack humility and are arrogant. Many people
turn to science as a substitute belief system because man is a believer in something, it is our nature.
Also some believe in science blindly then accuse religious folks of the same. For instance, stephan hawking
was wrong about his theory of black holes in the seventies but many scientist and non-scientist alike
believed him blindly! Same for the many scientific "theories" about the universe, each theory has its
adherants, or sects/group of believers without proof, waiting for their "savior" to be proven right in the
future.To each his god and in the end we will find out
There shall be no compulsion in religion the right way is now distinct from the wrong way.
Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that
never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.GOD is Lord of those who believe; He leads them out of darkness into the light. As for those
who disbelieve, their lords are their idols; they lead them out of the light into darkness?these will be
the dwellers of Hell; they abide in it forever.Peace
-
I really like some of the analogies on this thread. I would say that religion, faith and acceptance of God's reality, all relate to our soul and sense of inner peace. We can't quantify and measure a lot of things, and I don't think we need to. Our human experience transcends scientific ways of understanding the world. As Islam describes our purpose as worship/sincerity/devotion to Allah, our Creator, this speaks to our everyday, practical yet also spiritual experience.
-
Trying to prove God through "science" is like trying to prove the sentiment of guilt in a person, with a baking thermometer.
"Ha ha", I must say this made me laugh a little. Thanks for the humor.
God bless you for having humor (and all the other stuff)
-
Here is a thought....
The scientific method requires proof and hence takes a skeptics perspective. Religion is gives hope and hence takes an optimists perspective.
Does this seem reasonable???
Some more crazy thoughts...
JewishDude
peace Salam, Shalom, Peace peaceSalaam,
Well, the faith in religion hopefully makes one an optimist, at least after a while once one has received their response from God through security and contentment. But I guess I know what you are getting at, you mean it takes an optimist to embrace religion fully perhaps. Now when I think of it I am almost sure this is what you mean.
If you have a skeptical approach it will probably cause you to have a hard time embracing religion since it requires a lot of patience and waiting for God to come around. God will shine with absence in a new believer's life, in most cases, and it will make take almost a "blind" optimist to get all the way on a straight path. Sometimes God blesses a man with belief without this person's effort, but will later remove the blessing turning the new uncertain believer into a disbeliever, which is also warned about in the Quran.
It takes that a believing man or woman can see the few white sheep among the jungle of black sheep in this crazy religious world, if you know what I am trying to get at. Despite the fact that we may be lacking live Messengers, we can live in the memories of past Messengers through the scriptures and God's inspiration, and hence become Believers regardless.
To be honest, we may still require proof to be certain believers, but it takes that we are patient and steadfast for a long period of time without being skeptical. I cannot say that I did not require proof myself, I decided, through reason and logic that there must be a Creator those years ago and I did not give up even if I got nothing (from God) for years. There was no physical evidence, no reliable research to go on to back up my choice, but I stubbornly decided that it is completely "normal" to have this believer optimist perspective, and now an atheist will surely have a hard time convincing me to stop believing even with good arguments. I have been opposed by people who wanted to make me return to being a sensible everyday atheist, but I persevered.
I used to live among people who would probably never embrace religion, and I had no inspiration that way, from the beginning all I had was a dusty bible and some words about religion from a corrupt church. I lived a faithless life for years and I drank heavily, stole, sometimes took some light recreational drugs, was with women outside marriage, and other things I will not tell you about here, but you see me now, I am blessed and it may be due to the things I mentioned earlier in this post. I shaped up, I stopped drinking, stopped doing other bad things, and a year later I met a believing woman entirely coincidentally, and I was promoted at work. Changing faith I had been doing for a very long time, but it was that final move I did just a few years ago that gave that starting point on my religious career.
My case shows you God can show His grace to even the most unlikely folks around you. Of course it was already pre-written that I would follow this destiny, but one should never be prejudiced. Now my duty does no longer seem to be to convince myself but others.
The religious path has been at several milestones, New Age, Jehova's Witnesses, Islam, but now I am finally at being simply a Believer realized you should divide your religion into sects.
I have heard people talk about Muhammad being a Pagan before God guided him and I am sure Muhammad could have been doing other unrighteous things as well just like me. It does not matter what you have done earlier in your life if you decide you change and/or God decides to bless you, you will turn into a devout believer if you just fight for it.
It is probably the worst among you who turn out to be the best believers. Never lose faith for what you have done, keep fighting.
God bless you all with certainty
p.s. by the way, I used to be lying quite a lot too in the past, mostly due to fear, but that was also among the changes I promised myself, and also God after a while d.s.
-
Peace, JewishDude.
The scientific method requires proof and hence takes a skeptics perspective. Religion is gives hope and hence takes an optimists perspective.
Does this seem reasonable???
You're absolutely correct in stating this - religion is designed to give "hope", while science is designed to uncover "truth". They're not the same, and they can even, at times, be contradictory, as the truth isn't always 'cookies and milk'... In any case, what appears to pacify people isn't always true. Of course, I'm not going to knock people's perspective if they want to accept what makes them 'feel good'; however, it's arrogant at best to assume that, just because it makes them 'feel good', it must be recognized as undoubtedly true.
Again, I don't have an issue with anybody believing in whatever they want to believe in. Hell, if people want to believe that Jesus flew into 'heaven' in front of a crowd of people, or that Muhammad was somehow elevated to the 'seventh heaven' on the back of a winged horse (unicorn?) so that he could meet God and all the prophets, then that's on them. As there's apparently 'no compulsion' with regard to religious ideals and practices (Q. 2256), I'm also not going to be the person to judge one's beliefs if he or she chooses to accept them... However, again, just because this person accepts those ideologies as 'subjectively' true, that does NOT make those concepts objectively true, and that's my primary issue with it. It's still a "belief" (faith, conjecture, assumption), regardless of how you slice it.
Hypocrisy is on the rise. Religious zealots and fundamentalists are saying, "Science is wrong; the quran/bible is right!" They're saying, "Evidence doesn't amount to anything if it disagrees with ." They're asserting, "Scientists (particularly atheistic ones) are arrogant because they don't believe in the wisdom of ." When they can't objectively validate their beliefs, they cite quranic references like, "You have your religion (or god), and I have mine," and "There's no compulsion in religion"; but this doesn't stop them from asserting that their (merciful? compassionate? loving? forgiving?) god is planning to throw all unbelievers into an eternal, fiery hell to burn indefinitely, where he will chain them to a seventy-cubit chain and force the residents there to eat poisonous thorns and drink scorching-hot water, all while the flames burn off parts of their bodies and roast them through-and-through... Pretty reasonable, right?
I choose to stick with the facts. When fundamentalists cease claiming that their views are 'objectively' true, and when they admit that they merely believe (or, better yet, have 'hope' in those things and they don't actually know them to be true, then there will be no reason to test their views against science and reason. They should consider their own religious views as "something that may or may not be true, but it makes me feel good" - not as something that's undeniably true, in which anyone disputing it must be 'stupid', 'blind' and 'arrogant', deserving to be thrown into a fiery blaze.
Do you disagree?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam Ahmad Bilal,
No one is guilty until proven otherwise, God will judge between us (in my belief). Treat everyone with respect. It is up to God to decide who is good or bad. It is arrogant to believe you are absolutely the one who is right. Let people have their faith and have your own. Just engage them if they engage you, in self-defense, and cease if they put up the white flag.
Most people do not follow the directions pointed out in the scriptures, but that is their problem. You cannot force someone to have your belief, they must choose themselves.
I hope this makes sense Ahmad, I hope I did not just state the obvious. What you said in your post is basically true, religious zealots are careless about other human lives just because of their hypocritical belief system.
I do not know what your belief on this is, but I think barely no one, of not no one, can interpret the Quran accurately as it was meant to be understood those 1400 years ago or whenever in ancient time it was written. So few people are 100% sure whatever God meant, especially not the religious zealots that include some odd hadiths with pretty harsh measures included in them. Sometimes things are interpreted the way you want to understand it too.
Calling someone names or be aggressive against someone is incompatible with the Quran.
God bless you
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
No one is guilty until proven otherwise, God will judge between us (in my belief). Treat everyone with respect. It is up to God to decide who is good or bad. It is arrogant to believe you are absolutely the one who is right. Let people have their faith and have your own. Just engage them if they engage you, in self-defense, and cease if they put up the white flag.
I completely agree. However, as you probably know, if everyone thought of things like this, then there would be no fundamentalists and extremists, declaring that their beliefs are "objectively" true, and that whoever disagrees with those beliefs is an infidel (or whatever other derogatory names used to fill in the blank), destined to burn in hell for an eternity. That's why science, logic, and rational thinking are important, especially when it comes to scrutinizing religious beliefs.
Most people do not follow the directions pointed out in the scriptures, but that is their problem. You cannot force someone to have your belief, they must choose themselves.
That's not entirely true. The problem is people's desire to carefully scrutinize everyone else's beliefs, but not their own. The problem is blind devotion to any religious scripture, to the extent of asserting that other people's "scriptures" and beliefs are wrong, since they may be incompatible with the quran, bible, etc. The problem is the literal interpretation of these "scriptures", to the point that fundamentalists assert that everyone who doesn't believe in those books deserves to be killed and tortured (after death) for an indefinite period of time... And, if you really can't force someone to adopt your beliefs, then Islam wouldn't have become as prominent as it became throughout Africa and the Arabian peninsula (via 'spreading religion with the sword', Christianity wouldn't have become as popular as it became throughout Europe and the rest of the world (via torturing and killing all nonbelievers), etc. In reality, religion has been forced on people for centuries, and it's still being forced on people - but now, rather than murdering all adults who dispute the authority of these religious beliefs and traditions, people indoctrinate their children into these religious groups and teach them that everyone who believes (and teaches) contrary to those beliefs is destined for the 'wrath' of their merciful gods.
I do not know what your belief on this is, but I think barely no one, of not no one, can interpret the Quran accurately as it was meant to be understood those 1400 years ago or whenever in ancient time it was written. So few people are 100% sure whatever God meant, especially not the religious zealots that include some odd hadiths with pretty harsh measures included in them. Sometimes things are interpreted the way you want to understand it too.
If this is the case, then why should we follow the quran at all? If we can't determine what it's actually saying, then how can we claim to be going in the right direction, in accordance with what the 'author' wanted?
Here's an objective position, based on a derivative ideology of Islam propagated throughout the United States. In the early 1930s, a man named Wallace Fard Muhammad (or "Prophet W.D. Fard" began promoting this interpretation of Islam in Detroit, Michigan. One of his core teachings was that, among other things, Muslims would receive a 'reward' for slaying four "devils" and beheading them. And, coincidentally, one of his primary teachings was that the 'white' man (e.g. Caucasian, European, etc.) was the "devil". In 1932, one of his followers took this idea exceptionally literally, and he took it upon himself to brutally murder four people. Later, when asked about this doctrine and behavior, especially when viewed from the standpoint of traditional Islam, Mr. Fard declared that this psychopathic man merely 'misinterpreted' his ideologies - according to Fard, his teachings weren't about physically killing people; the teaching was about murdering the "devils" inside, or the negative aspects of yourself.
Now, whether the teaching was about literally killing "devils" (unbelievers, Europeans, or whatever) is open to interpretation. We don't actually know what Mr. Fard meant when he initially authored the doctrine of his organization, which later became known as the Nation of Islam. We only know what he said later, after the fact. Otherwise, we only know what the words say...
The relevance? This is the consequence of fundamentalist theology! The teachings of Mr. Fard aren't much different from the quranic doctrines concerning 'slaying unbelievers wherever you find them'. Like the student of Mr. Fard, many traditional Muslims interpret those quranic passages literally, and it leads them to brutally torture and kill others who disagree with their ideologies... Did Allah (or Muhammad) "mean" for it to be interpreted in this way? We don't know; again, this concept is open to interpretation. We only know what the book says, and it clearly says to slay the idolators (Q. 95), chop of their heads and fingers (Q. 812), occupy their lands (Q. 2144), imprison them (Q. 473, 4), and commit many other atrocities!
If we wouldn't accept the teachings of Mr. Fard concerning 'murdering devils', then why should we accept the teachings of the quran?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam,
Does the Quran teach this? Nooo
In that case, misinterpretation through wishful thinking.
God bless you
-
Peace, Man of Faith.
Does the Quran teach this? Nooo
In that case, misinterpretation through wishful thinking.
Does the quran teach what? I already provided a reference to what the quran says...
We only know what the book says, and it clearly says to slay the idolators (Q. 95), chop of their heads and fingers (Q. 812), occupy their lands (Q. 2144), imprison them (Q. 473, 4), and commit many other atrocities!
And, if you're talking about in comparison to the concept taught by Mr. Fard in his Islamic school of thought, those concepts discussed in the quran are a lot more heinous than merely talking about beheading "devils" - the quran actually says this and much, much worse! At least Mr. Fard proposed the idea that, once those people were killed, there was no coming back for them; they were gone forever. The quran, on the other hand, says that Allah (God) will bring those 'guilty' victims of murder back from the dead, perhaps in a 'spiritual' body of some sort (depending on your interpretation), and viciously torture them for an eternity! According to most Islamic authorities, the torture of hell will be so horrendous that, although the quran discusses it in 'allegorical' ways, there's no way to sufficiently compare it to anything on Earth; it will be so intensely horrible and painful that we can't even fathom in our minds how utterly terrible it will actually be.
Yet, your concern is whether or not Fard taught the teachings of the quran? Tell me, sir - which set of teachings sound better to you? Both sets sound pretty horrible to me, but that's just my perspective. When viewed beside each other, though, there's literally no comparison. One book advises its small (but growing) organization of fundamentalist Muslims to kill four people. The other book commands its followers, which are generally composed of about 1/3 of the planet's population, to torture and kill millions (or even billions) of "infidels"; and then, after the 'righteous believers' are finished torturing and killing these infidels, God will resurrect them so that he can do some additional torturing of his own, this time more heinous and gruesome than can even be imagined. Oh, and did I mention that, when God does it for the second group, he plans on torturing those infidels forever? Yes, that's correct - they get the Energizer Bunny treatment the torture just keeps going and going and going and going, etc.
What do you think? How is the quran any better than the book written by Mr. Fard, which he claims was also authored by Allah?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam Ahmad,
Sorry, I do not interpret/ understand the Quran this way. No point arguing what I do not believe is true.
Either the Quran is contradicting itself, or your interpretation is faulty, or I am completely misguided. This is not the religion I embraced that you describe, if that is so, then the Quran is either corrupted or misinterpreted.
If the main idea behind Islam is a religion of peace, then your description makes it very evil and oppressive,quite the opposite of what the words wishes to describe it.
Note that I was a Believer before I stumbled upon the Quran and I was a Believer even if I knew the Bible had to be severely corrupted because of the nonsense I found when I read it. The least nonsense of them two I found in the Quran, but some gross elements I discovered happened to be due to misinterpretations in the case of the Quran.
If now the corrections of the gross elements happen to be due to wishful thinking, then even the Quran is distorted, but I will remain a Believer. It is not the scriptures that make me a Believer, it is that I perceive God?s presence in my life.
Like I hope you have understood, Ahmad Bilal, I try to be a quite rational and logical man, and I do not disregard your criticism of the Quran. It will not move my standing regarding God or the three basic commandments to believe in God, believe in eternal life and be righteous, it is probably the main idea of all present world religions too. I am not narrowing myself down to simply the traditional Islam, I am following God's religion, no matter the name of the religion.
Sometimes it is good that people like you exist, Ahmad, because you question everything and raise awareness of issues that are either due to misinterpretation, distortion or that the source is utterly fake.
I respect you, brother, no matter if you are a believer or non-Believer. I do not judge you and I do not affect your destiny. It would be sinful for me to wish you harm and I treat you as anyone else. Of course I respond accordingly if you humiliate me or mock me or anything similarly, but I respect you and I try to control myself if you provoke frustration in me. It is what my religion tells me to, to be peaceful.
I think, or hope, that my behavior is much better than many atheists, or other Believers. Otherwise I would be a bad Believer.
Please, dear Ahmad, do not put me in a stereotypical category for having my faith, as I do with you. Having belief in non-existence of a god is a faith too.
Peace
Salaam Ahmad,
Sorry, I do not interpret/ understand the Quran this way. No point arguing what I do not believe is true.
Either the Quran is contradicting itself, or your interpretation is faulty, or I am completely misguided. This is not the religion I embraced that you describe, if that is so, then the Quran is either corrupted or misinterpreted.
If the main idea behind Islam is a religion of peace, then your description makes it very evil and oppressive,quite the opposite of what the words wishes to describe it.
Note that I was a Believer before I stumbled upon the Quran and I was a Believer even if I knew the Bible had to be severely corrupted because of the nonsense I found when I read it. The least nonsense of them two I found in the Quran, but some gross elements I discovered happened to be due to misinterpretations in the case of the Quran.
If now the corrections of the gross elements happen to be due to wishful thinking, then even the Quran is distorted, but I will remain a Believer. It is not the scriptures that make me a Believer, it is that I perceive God?s presence in my life.
Like I hope you have understood, Ahmad Bilal, I try to be a quite rational and logical man, and I do not disregard your criticism of the Quran. It will not move my standing regarding God or the three basic commandments to believe in God, believe in eternal life and be righteous, it is probably the main idea of all present world religions too. I am not narrowing myself down to simply the traditional Islam, I am following God's religion, no matter the name of the religion.
Sometimes it is good that people like you exist, Ahmad, because you question everything and raise awareness of issues that are either due to misinterpretation, distortion or that the source is utterly fake.
I respect you, brother, no matter if you are a believer or non-Believer. I do not judge you and I do not affect your destiny. It would be sinful for me to wish you harm and I treat you as anyone else. Of course I respond accordingly if you humiliate me or mock me or anything similarly, but I respect you and I try to control myself if you provoke frustration in me. It is what my religion tells me to, to be peaceful.
I think, or hope, that my behavior is much better than many atheists, or other Believers. Otherwise I would be a bad Believer.
Please, dear Ahmad, do not put me in a stereotypical category for having my faith, as I do with you. Having belief in non-existence of a god is a faith too.
Peace
May God, or what you believe in, bless you