What Constitutes a Muslim?
-
Peace greenleaves
you wrote
once they recieve such guidance they leave everything near & dear to them for the love of God
I believe this is excessively simplified even though there is a parcel of truth in it. Any human being, believing in god or not, makes choices in his life. Once these choices made responsabilities come from them and people can't just leave everything behind. I believe the god also wants us to assume our responsabilities in this life, while submitting. One doesn't have to exclude the other. May be I just didn't get what you really meant, because in a short post it's impossible to state it all. Life is never that simple.
Elke
-
Salaamun All
It is my understanding that a muslim is one who obeys the following ayat
2.131 When his Lord said to him, Be a Muslim, he said I submit myself to the Lord of the worlds.
- Behold! his Lord said to him "Bow (thy will to Me)" He said "I bow (my will) to the Lord and Cherisher of the Universe.
Allah, specifically, asks Abraham to "surrender" to Him and not to "bear witness" to anything. A muslim, then, is one who surrenders to Allah by establishing solaa as delineated in Al-Quran.
-
Peace Elke,
One doesn't have to exclude the other. May be I just didn't get what you really meant, because in a short post it's impossible to state it all. Life is never that simple.
Of course not! I love God and for God I am not going to forget about my parents, pets and friends just because God is there.
My point was when we recieve guidance from God, the true Muslims are those who once realize what they were believing in or doing was wrong will leave it even if it means leaving those/such things would cause them hardship at first instead of ease.
A classic example is that of any prophet...take Moses as an example. Moses was raised in the royal pharoh's family as one of their own, but when he recieved guidance from God, he stood up against the pharoh, though he knew all too well doing so would cause him hardships not ease.
-
Peace be upon you Green Leaves,
Of course not! I love God and for God I am not going to forget about my parents, pets and friends just because God is there.
The God permeates the parents , pets, and friends. It is about recognizing that oneness.
-
Peace be upon you Nadia,
Nadia, how is that different? YOu take the "symbolism", the lesson contained in the symbolism, and apply it to all levels of objectivity (objective creation).
My understanding above is about the signs we were talking about...which can be seen to confirm the truth in the quran can come from different places, be it archeology, chemistry or whatever depending on the experiences of the people who study it...indeed we take the symbolism (this is my personal understanding, i am not saying it is the sole truth, or the only correct understanding, maybe somewhere down the line it might change according to new information) which is a PART of it and apply it if we so choose(the wonder about symbolism is that it is relative and different people will see it differently all according to what their understandings are) that doesn't take away a PART that is literal or physical...and can be used to confirm the truth to people whose inclinations or experience in this life extends to the physical sciences etc....
Give me an example of the literal so I can understand better.
Like i wrote to mquran I can see that what's vouchsafed are different methods from which we might see the quran as the truth...not 'just' symbology....
You can't insist that ONLY one way is right or correct...there are many ways to confirm the truth...and the quran caters to all kind of people.
Please give an example.
Quote
The part of wisdom that cannot be known is the subjective realm.If it cannot be known then it is not known. But i bet we even have different understandings regarding what we consider known and unknowns...this is rumsfelds understanding
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
I don't think either of us are being deceptive like Rummie D
We know of the subjective realm by the experience of not being able to percieve that which percieves, the seer. -
Peace Kyle,
Give me an example of the literal so I can understand better.
Sure, this is a thread that has an interesting article that has many points that i already knew about...but here's an excerpt from it...
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3050
Many centuries before the onset of Muhammed's Prophethood, there was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word dharrah commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts. This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet, interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Qur'an which states
" He is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that..."
I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we talked a great deal about this - it was illustrated by slides and so on. He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a "leech-like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks. Dr. Moore also wrote a book on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information in Toronto, it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the newspapers across Canada, and some of the headlines were quite funny. For instance, one headline read "SURPRISING THING FOUND IN ANCIENT BOOK!"! It seems obvious from this example that people do not clearly understand what it is all about. As a matter of fact, one newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, "Don't you think That maybe the Arabs might have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe there were not scientists, but maybe they did something crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things."
The professor immediately pointed out to him that he had missed a very important point - all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and had been projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, "It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago, they could not have seen it!". All of the descriptions in the Qur'an of the appearance of the embryo are of the item when it is still too small to see with the eye; therefore, one needs a microscope to see it. Since such a device had only been around for little more than two hundred years, Dr. Moore taunted, "Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that? You really should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory." In fact, when he was asked "How do you explain this information in the Qur'an?" Dr. Moore's reply was, "It could only have been divinely revealed."!
Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Qur'an mentions a certain city by the name of 'Iram (a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was non-existent as far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the cities with which Elba had done business. Believe or not, there on the list was the name of the city of 'Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of 'Iram!
In these examples, we see people having different inclinations/experiences/professions might find the reading to hold truths that are as literal/physical as others might consider them to be symbolic.
I don't think either of us are being deceptive like Rummie
We know of the subjective realm by the experience of not being able to percieve that which percieves, the seer.That quote is quite something isn't it lol
But honestly, you have to explain the last statement...i can't pretend to have understood the implications of a sentence actually having the word seer and subjective in them! ? )Nadia
-
The word Muslim cannot mean whatever you want it to mean, it means what it means and that is it. There is no room for religious interpretations when we are seeking after truth. Muslim is a Classical Arabic term and a Modern Arabic term. In it's Classical Arabic meaning it means mainly 'to submit (to anything)' and it is used in context. It should only be understood in its Classical Arabic meanings when it is seen in the Koran.
In its modern Arabic sense it is used as someone who identifies with Muhammad as God's most important messenger and believes in the 5 pillars. The most important part will come under debate here because people here are trying to redefine Islam because they don't like how Muslims definte it now.
Frankly the word has become a loose term. It generally applies to anyone who is willing to call themselves Muslim (whatever that person believes). But it also generally does not apply to those who do not believe in Muhammad and the book that he revealed.
I can with surety say that if a person does not believe that Muhammad is God's messenger and that the Koran is God's message then no one will consider him or her a Muslim. So as a loose definition of the term Muslim it can be put as "any believer in the Koran and Muhammad as God's messenger."
By far-fetched arguments it can be argued by some that every godly person before Muhammad and the Koran somehow believed in Muhammad and the Koran still. And those same people will believe that all of these people were Muslims. I will not even begin to argue those far-fetched arguments in this post to save myself and other from the widespread panamonia that would defintely ensue if I began to address this.
But to put it matter of factly, Islam (in Classical Arabic) mainly means "submission" and Muslim mainly means "submissive."
In no more of a way does the word Muslim all alone mean "submissive to God" or "Someone who loves God" or "someone who believes in God" than the word "Submission" all alone means all of these concepts.
To put it simply (Understanding the 'equal' sign to mean 'is definined as')
If 'Muslim' = Submissive to God, one who loves God the most, or one who recognizes God, etc.
THAN
The word 'submissive' = submissive to God, one who loves God the most, or one who recognizes God, etc.
Therefore
If the word "Muslim" means anything other than the word "Submissive" then the word "Submissive" has to mean all of those things too, because Muslim=Submissive.
If 'Muslim' is defined as 'Submissive to God, one who loves God most of all, or one who recongizes God, etc.'
THAN
The word 'Submissive' is definted as 'submissve to God, one who loves God most of all, one who recognizes God, etc.'
Just as we know that the word 'submissive' and 'submission' cannot mean all of these meanings that we are trying to give as the true meanings of 'Muslim' and 'Islam', the words 'Muslim' and 'Islam' cannot mean all of these things either. Why?
Because 'Muslim' simply means 'Submissive'
AND
'Islam' simly means 'Submission'
Everyone here should stop trying to hold on to a term that does not fit the message or the title that the Koran intends for us. Even its modern meaning does not best describe the creed of those who follow the Koran.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace be upon you Nadia,
Quote
Give me an example of the literal so I can understand better.Sure, this is a thread that has an interesting article that has many points that i already knew about...but here's an excerpt from it...
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3050
Quote
Many centuries before the onset of Muhammed's Prophethood, there was a well-known theory of atomism advanced by the Greek philosopher, Democritus. He and the people who came after him assumed that matter consists of tiny, indestructible, indivisible particles called atoms. The Arabs too, used to deal in the same concept; in fact, the Arabic word dharrah commonly referred to the smallest particle known to man. Now, modern science has discovered that this smallest unit of matter (i.e., the atom, which has all of the same properties as its element) can be split into its component parts. This is a new idea, a development of the last century; yet, interestingly enough, this information had already been documented in the Qur'an which states" He is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that..."
Quote
I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Keith Moore for a television presentation, and we talked a great deal about this - it was illustrated by slides and so on. He mentioned that some of the things that the Qur'an states about the growth of the human being were not known until thirty years ago. In fact, he said that one item in particular - the Qur'an's description of the human being as a "leech-like clot" ('alaqah) at one stage - was new to him; but when he checked on it, he found that it was true, and so he added it to his book. He said, "I never thought of that before," and he went to the zoology department and asked for a picture of a leech. When he found that it looked just like the human embryo, he decided to include both pictures in one of his textbooks. Dr. Moore also wrote a book on clinical embryology, and when he presented this information in Toronto, it caused quite a stir throughout Canada. It was on the front pages of some of the newspapers across Canada, and some of the headlines were quite funny. For instance, one headline read "SURPRISING THING FOUND IN ANCIENT BOOK!"! It seems obvious from this example that people do not clearly understand what it is all about. As a matter of fact, one newspaper reporter asked Professor Moore, "Don't you think That maybe the Arabs might have known about these things - the description of the embryo, its appearance and how it changes and grows? Maybe there were not scientists, but maybe they did something crude dissections on their own - carved up people and examined these things."The professor immediately pointed out to him that he had missed a very important point - all of the slides of the embryo that had been shown and had been projected in the film had come from pictures taken through a microscope. He said, "It does not matter if someone had tried to discover embryology fourteen centuries ago, they could not have seen it!". All of the descriptions in the Qur'an of the appearance of the embryo are of the item when it is still too small to see with the eye; therefore, one needs a microscope to see it. Since such a device had only been around for little more than two hundred years, Dr. Moore taunted, "Maybe fourteen centuries ago someone secretly had a microscope and did this research, making no mistakes anywhere. Then he somehow taught Muhammad and convinced him to put this information in his book. Then he destroyed his equipment and kept it a secret forever. Do you believe that? You really should not unless you bring some proof because it is such a ridiculous theory." In fact, when he was asked "How do you explain this information in the Qur'an?" Dr. Moore's reply was, "It could only have been divinely revealed."!
Quote
Additionally, the 89th chapter of the Qur'an mentions a certain city by the name of 'Iram (a city of pillars), which was not known in ancient history and which was non-existent as far as historians were concerned. However, the December 1978 edition of National Geographic introduced interesting information which mentioned that in 1973, the city of Elba was excavated in Syria. The city was discovered to be 43 centuries old, but that is not the most amazing part. Researchers found in the library of Elba a record of all of the cities with which Elba had done business. Believe or not, there on the list was the name of the city of 'Iram. The people of Elba had done business with the people of 'Iram!In these examples, we see people having different inclinations/experiences/professions might find the reading to hold truths that are as literal/physical as others might consider them to be symbolic.
I've never stated anything symbolic about "atoms" nor "leech like clots". The city of Iram is not fantastic evidence to me. I think we should take it subject by subject, because I can see clearly that you misunderstand me.
Quote
I don't think either of us are being deceptive like Rummie
We know of the subjective realm by the experience of not being able to percieve that which percieves, the seer.That quote is quite something isn't it
But honestly, you have to explain the last statement...i can't pretend to have understood the implications of a sentence actually having the word seer and subjective in them!You can see and manipulate physical matter, that is not "you", you can see and maniulate your body, that is not "you", you can "experience and change your thoughts and emotiojns, they are not "you", so who are you? You are THAT which sees but cant be seen, that which percieves but cannot be percieved. When you understand that then you can truly speak of monotheism (ONENESS). D
The God said "It was not YOU who threw, it was WE"
Think about it.
-
Peace Kyle,
You are THAT which sees but cant be seen, that which percieves but cannot be percieved. When you understand that then you can truly speak of monotheism (ONENESS).
The God said "It was not YOU who threw, it was WE"
Beautifully stated! We are ONE, inseperable, except by illusion.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace Kyle,
Sigh...
I've never stated anything symbolic about "atoms" nor "leech like clots". The city of Iram is not fantastic evidence to me. I think we should take it subject by subject, because I can see clearly that you misunderstand me.
Therein lies the problem...now evidence is relative according to what we believe in or want to believe in?
To someone who does not know anything about physical science, the atoms and leechlike clots will darn well be symbolic until the said person studies matter...real matter...not the stuff of dreams aka sandman.But are you saying there is nothing symbolic about the smallest particles or leechlike clots? Simply put brother...what you already know to be real ceases to be symbolic is it? Oval earth? That obviously doesn't matter to the great amount of signs in the reading that we will only witness or verify after our lifetimes...since we don't know those, they can only be symbolic....
We know of facts that are real, which are mentioned in the reading...why can't this truth then extend to the rest of the reading? Oh i know, the statements of verification are then taken to the extreme...tell me...did God intend on asking His servants to verify something in this lifetime that is clearly and absolutely impossible i.e. heaven and hell? Say there is a symbolic heaven and hell...please verify this symbolic heaven and hell for me here that exists after death...I would sincerely be interested in this..
You can see and manipulate physical matter, that is not "you", you can see and maniulate your body, that is not "you", you can "experience and change your thoughts and emotiojns, they are not "you", so who are you? You are THAT which sees but cant be seen, that which percieves but cannot be percieved. When you understand that then you can truly speak of monotheism (ONENESS).
Thats very nice...
There comes a point where we take God's word/promise to be the truth. Please explain to me how we verify concepts that we have no evidence for until we expire...
Btw, can we please start another thread for this?...This is very off topic to the current thread.
Nadia
-
Salaamun alaikum Nadia,
We know of facts that are real, which are mentioned in the reading...why can't this truth then extend to the rest of the reading? Oh i know, the statements of verification are then taken to the extreme...tell me...did God intend on asking His servants to verify something in this lifetime that is clearly and absolutely impossible i.e. heaven and hell? Say there is a symbolic heaven and hell...please verify this symbolic heaven and hell for me here that exists after death...I would sincerely be interested in this..
The 'symbolic' (i prefer the term 'immediate') states of heaven and hell are what we experience daily. Heaven and hell are respectively representations of bliss and suffering in the world.
thanks and peace.
-
Peace mquran,
The 'symbolic' (i prefer the term 'immediate') states of heaven and hell are what we experience daily. Heaven and hell are respectively representations of bliss and suffering in the world.
Thank you mquran, your understanding is quite close to mine...i actually asked this question to Kyle because he believes that to have faith in something is to see it (personally witness), and/or when you see something happen over and over again, then you can have faith in future events. I've noticed though, death is different from dormancy in the sense that it is a permanent barrier from this world.
Nadia
-
-
Peace mquran,
In my understanding, the principles which govern our evolution and is contained in The Book. These principles are then extrapolated into the unseen period. We cannot directly witness the unseen period, imho.
I concur.
Nadia
-
Peace be upon you Nadia,
Sigh...
Sister, if that is your feeling of the discussion, then it is a waste of your time to continue.
Quote
I've never stated anything symbolic about "atoms" nor "leech like clots". The city of Iram is not fantastic evidence to me. I think we should take it subject by subject, because I can see clearly that you misunderstand me.Therein lies the problem...now evidence is relative according to what we believe in or want to believe in?
I said no such thing. We look for verifyable ebidence, this is the basis of my argument. Where do you see anything about belief? My position is to extract the laws from the moral lessons and have faith that they work because you are WITNESSING THEM work every second of your consciousness. Again, we can take it subject by subject you you can have a better understanding.
To someone who does not know anything about physical science, the atoms and leechlike clots will darn well be symbolic until the said person studies matter...real matter...not the stuff of dreams aka sandman.
If a person reads about "atoms" and leech like colts, and has no understanding of what these are, it would be FOOLISH to try to devise an understanding wethere literal or allegorical. I don't think that is the case with either of us, if you think it is with me, please point out the word I don't understand above. Which of the above terms do you say the people of that time did not understand? The word "Atom" comes from the Kemetic(egyptian) word "atem/atum" which indicates the knowledge of the concept of smallest particle, and a leech is an animal.
But are you saying there is nothing symbolic about the smallest particles or leechlike clots?
Sure, we can probably see similarities on other levels.
Simply put brother...what you already know to be real ceases to be symbolic is it? Oval earth? That obviously doesn't matter to the great amount of signs in the reading that we will only witness or verify after our lifetimes...since we don't know those, they can only be symbolic....
You are loosing me, I would rather take a direct example, like Musa crossing the river and you tell me what error you see as well as how you understand it.
We know of facts that are real, which are mentioned in the reading...why can't this truth then extend to the rest of the reading? Oh i know, the statements of verification are then taken to the extreme...tell me...did God intend on asking His servants to verify something in this lifetime that is clearly and absolutely impossible i.e. heaven and hell? Say there is a symbolic heaven and hell...please verify this symbolic heaven and hell for me here that exists after death...I would sincerely be interested in this..
Weve discussed the garden (not heaven) and the fire before. They are the conditions that you find yourself in RIGHT NOW based on your doings(thoughts and actions). Can you not verify the up and down states in your life and everyone around you?
Quote
You can see and manipulate physical matter, that is not "you", you can see and maniulate your body, that is not "you", you can "experience and change your thoughts and emotiojns, they are not "you", so who are you? You are THAT which sees but cant be seen, that which percieves but cannot be percieved. When you understand that then you can truly speak of monotheism (ONENESS).Thats very nice...
I did not state it for its niceness, I want you to refelct on it and test it for yourself and tell me if you do not witness the same experience.
There comes a point where we take God's word/promise to be the truth.
No, we have faith in the LAWS, that they will work for us, we don't just read a book and have blind faith. Following the LAWS takes time, so we need patience withour "salaat"(learning processes). If you have no faith in LAWS, then you will not have the patience to get to the ENDING TIME, where effects(results) are found.
Please explain to me how we verify concepts that we have no evidence for until we expire...
If you are referring to the STATES of the Garden and Fire, we experiecne them right now, we SEE the effects of these states.
-
Peace be upon you Nadia,
Quote
The 'symbolic' (i prefer the term 'immediate') states of heaven and hell are what we experience daily. Heaven and hell are respectively representations of bliss and suffering in the world.Thank you mquran, your understanding is quite close to mine...i actually asked this question to Kyle because he believes that to have faith in something is to see it (personally witness), and/or when you see something happen over and over again, then you can have faith in future events. I've noticed though, death is different from dormancy in the sense that it is a permanent barrier from this world.
I don't understand, my understanding is the VERY SAME as MQuran, but you agree with him and differ with me? How is that? If you agree that these states are going on right now, then why cantyou SEE/WITNESS them yourself? How can you say you agree that they are going on right now if you have not WITNESSED them?
-
Peace be upon you,
I also agree one must have faith in the Unseesn because it cannot be witnessed with the eyes, but we can SEE/WITNESS the EFFECTS of the Unseen. Remember, everything is created in PAIRS, we can address it from both sides. The EFFECT part seems to be the experience.
-
-
Peace be upon you Joe,
Kyle I thought this was wierd too. Maybe the way you and MQ talk about it seems to bounce off differently to different people?
Sure, its about perception, I find that the people who HATE me talking about symbolisms tend to discard all of my understandings. I think this was a clear example.
This was something like the psychology behind Good cop, Bad cop D
-
Peace Kyle, all
Sister, if that is your feeling of the discussion, then it is a waste of your time to continue.
Brother, i love our discussions..no need to be touchy.
If you would have been a little patient you could have seen my understanding which is as follows
I said no such thing. We look for verifyable ebidence, this is the basis of my argument.
What is verifiable evidence? As we have seen it is a relative term to you.
If a person reads about "atoms" and leech like colts, and has no understanding of what these are, it would be FOOLISH to try to devise an understanding wethere literal or allegorical.
Just like a lot of people read about stuff they don't understand as of yet and try to put their own spin on it? My point is that there is information and knowledge out there that we DO NOT HAVE as of yet and many other people DID NOT either...it would be foolish to assume that we have worked out a perfect understanding...and/or to deny that certain things just do not happen when we do NOT have God's complete knowledge and wisdom about the universe.
Weve discussed the garden (not heaven) and the fire before. They are the conditions that you find yourself in RIGHT NOW based on your doings(thoughts and actions). Can you not verify the up and down states in your life and everyone around you?
What evidence have you that these states will exist after death or even that we will be resurrected? We see these states but are they constant as we are promised? Have we witnessed constant bliss or agony? You talk about personally witnessing signs like moses' stick...yet become inconsistent when talking about heaven and hell, why? We see sticks and snakes around us, we know matter transmutates, so if these two are linked you scream bloody murder... Your linking of temporary states of bliss and agony in this life to the next are a leap as we have no proof/evidence that these will continue forever and/or remain constant. Have you witnessed anyone who is in a state of permanent bliss or permanent agony in this life? We see the changes but that is not what we are promised. So what exactly have you witnessed in this life that leads you to say that these states will be permanent or even exist after death...or even if there is life after death? You link concepts without personally witnessing with your eyes? Congrats because thats what i do too.
Then, you say...when we see something happen again and again we have faith in future events...nowhere is it imperative that the same thing must happen again and again for us to have faith in the same thing happening again or disallowing the said thing from ever having happened...for example everyday is different...if we now only talk about just the major basic things happening again and again..then you must allow the possibility of minor different variables (stick = snake minor in the light of the major events...after all, is the creation of the universe more difficult or a stick to snake or even that of a human?)
7927 Are you (a) stronger creation or the sky/space (which) He built/constructed it?
Your faith can be termed as blind by an atheist. You can't verify and have evidence that AFTER we die we will be resurrected and exist in the "states of mind of a garden or hell". We can sleep and get up...but if we are in the 'forever' sleep where our bodies turn to dust and bones...no one can have clear evidence or witness and/or verify what happens AFTER death. True, we do sleep regularly and get up...but has any one human or even an animal gotten up after death to your knowledge? Even the plants that lie dormant in winter come back in bloom in the spring...notice the word dormant...like sleep...if we kill this plant or it dies of it's own accord, it will not bloom in the spring or any other season in this world ever again.
We have NOT witnessed any such effects that make us certain that there is life after DEATH, or constant states of bliss or agony, as this is not to be found in this life, that evidence can't be found...if it was then we would have no atheists...
1749 They say "What! when we are reduced to bones and dust, should we really be raised up (to be) a new creation?"
1750 Say "(Nay!) be ye stones or iron,
1751 "Or created matter which, in your minds, is hardest (to be raised up),- (Yet shall ye be raised up)!" then will they say "Who will cause us to return?" Say "He who created you first!" Then will they wag their heads towards thee, and say, "When will that be?" Say, "May be it will be quite soon!
4617 And who said to his parents "Ugh to you do you promise me that I will be brought out, and the generations/centuries had past/expired from before me?" And they, seek/ask for help (from) God "Your calamity/scandal/woe believe, that truly God's promise (is) truth ." So he says "That (is) not except the first's/beginner's myths/baseless stories ."
Your confirmation apparently doesn't prove to the disbelievers that a human being can be resurrected...sure they see the earth being resurrected after winter while it was dormant, animals waking up after their sleep...but do they see a human being or animal or plant resurrected after death before their eyes? That would be evidence indeed for them to know it can happen...but it does NOT exist...if it happened again and again or just once to every person why on earth would ANYONE deny it? According to the verses above...God is trying to build a logical argument for the disbelievers...so that they use their abilities/reasoning to figure out, NOT because they have to see it to believe it. This logical deduction would still be a theory until it comes to pass. There is NO absolute confirmation. That is faith.
If you say that we don't need physical confirmation or to personally witness, we can deduce or have a theory then you have faith...even scientists have 'blind faith' in black matter...its not a bad thing...our reasoning must be used not the fact that we must see it to believe it...or since we never saw it, it can't exist..black matter can't be seen yet it does exist according to theory.
No, we have faith in the LAWS, that they will work for us, we don't just read a book and have blind faith. Following the LAWS takes time, so we need patience withour "salaat"(learning processes). If you have no faith in LAWS, then you will not have the patience to get to the ENDING TIME, where effects(results) are found.
No one is asking you to JUST believe without some reasoning as to WHY/HOW, this is a fact. Moses's stick turned into a snakelike thingy...This is apparently not a run of a mill event. We use logic, scientific knowledge, theories to advance how or why such an event might occur. Since we havent seen it, but we have knowledge of such an event whether in a book or otherwise. Knowledge has reached us.Thus, saying it doesnt happen doesnt cut it. There are lots of things we used to say don't happen, yet scientific knowledge progresses to the point that what we thought impossible isn't.
Our discussion revolves around this key verse always, let me proffer my understanding
"And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and mind, all these you are responsible for." (Quran 1736)
Sure we can all connect the dots and logically deduce the possibilities...have theories...thats what we ALL do whether we see symbology or physical/literal in the verses...but if you are saying you have to personally witness something to believe in its veracity is false as we have just seen above. No one witnesses life after death, even the effects of life after death...effects of life after death seems like an illogical statement...Shouldn't it be the effects of this life on the life after death for it to be semantically correct? In which case it's still impossible as no one witnesses life after death to tell us what the effects are of this life are on that life.
The statement to verify all information imo is telling us not to believe without our reasons...we should not listen and just believe. We should all have our reasons (meaning we should think about everything) and logical deductions to believe what we do. As we see we are supposed to hear all words and follow the best...
3918 Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best (meaning) in it those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued with understanding.
No where is it stated or even possible that throughout time we will all hear the same words and follow the same best words, in different times this information will be different, except for God's scriptures which have the same basic points. We will have to adapt to the time period we are born in by learning what we know of in that time period, examining and deducing/having theories about what we believe in and WHY including God's books and the world around us...we will all have our different reasons and thinking, whether logical or intuitional or whatever..and follow what we think is best by working out and/or eliminating or thinking of certain possibilities we reach something that can be plausible to us and sufficient to stand before God as our reasons...which will vary person to person...that is what i belive we are asked to do...have reasons...and we better make sure that they can tumble with the best of them as no doubt we should be prepared for the day when we will be asked about them. This surety of being asked about them is what makes us want to refine and hone our understandings and reasons...this shows that we have spent time and effort into looking at everything, studying the world God's signs and finally decided on a course/understanding that is the most plausible to us. This indeed is not easy, and it puts a lot into perspective and makes us grow and during the course of doing this, we come across discoveries,truths, we have a sense of what we are obligated to do, we want to better ourselves and others etc etc(i could go on) which is why i believe we have been asked to do this.
Not because we HAVE to see something before we believe it OR we MUST personally witness every sign.
Thus in the end...all of us are in the same boat of having faith as the rest who believe that God's promise is the truth..because there are some things we just can't personally witness.
Nadia