why do we have to believe?
-
JW,
Firstly, I was not referring to my patients specifically. Please do not assume unless it is clear. Secondly, I didn't really conclude anything, hence word usage such as "maybe". Thirdly, when I said "and maybe that is why God put them there" I was referring to those situations that require bettering, and this encompasses a huge variety of things, some of which directly involves people, some of which does not. I was not implying that their (I assume you mean people) sole purpose of being there was to better others. To be fair, I could have clarified this point but to be honest I wasn't expecting someone to take it the way you did. I was referring to the relationship or the connection between an individual's internal situation and their external situation. The link between the two, leading back to the opening post of the thread, i.e. to serve the whole = serving the God.
However, having said that, in part, "bad" things exist, as a means to test/distinguish us, according to AQ. One could say the same about "good" things however.
-
Why is "shirk" the unforgiveable sin while anything else can be forgiven? It is not harming anyone else?
And why do we have to believe? God always talks about almumineen/muslimeen/ahl alkitab as those who will know no fear while the mushrikeen/kuffar are the ones who will be hell-bound - if you are an atheist but a good person where does that leave you?You would be showing ingratitude towards God.
3040 God who created you, then He provided for you, then He puts you to death, then He brings you to life. Is there any among the partners you set up that can do any of this? Be He glorified and exalted above what they set up.
3045 So that He will reward those who acknowledge and do good works from His grace. He does not love the ingrates.
2266 He is the One who granted you life, then He puts you to death, then He brings you back to life. Surely, the human being is unappreciative.
-
Salaam farida
Actually this is from my post and alan is quoting me.
God never asked us to believe in His existance. In fact, the expression "existance" does not even exist in the qur'aan. How can one believe in the "existance" of God when we do not know what God is? That's why the old and still going on ddebate of whether God exists or not is still not won, and wont be one, by any one side. We only know His attributes, of which are "The Peace", "The Justice"; "The safety bestower"...etc If you study the straight path, which is the core of the message, it's all aiming at speading safety in the world through charity, justice and support of truth. It does not contain "believing in God" either, but not to set partners...not to follow commands other than those of God.
The qur'aan says it contains all examples. Do we have an example of a good, peaceful and charitable "non believer"? No of course, because a non believer is by definition a "non peaceful, non safety bestower".
I really enjoyed this post of Samia's and would like to discuss it further. Its theme is similar to FearfulofAllah's article 'Categories of People in the Quran' (http//www.free-minds.org/mumin2). In that article, FearfulofAllah states ?belief in god? as ?the conscious act of doing good, out of unselfish motives, even if it is at a personal cost?.
He further clarifies One may be publicly an atheist and reject completely the notion of any supernatural power but if that person consciously does good acts as a matter of principle in life, then for the sake of this discussion, that person will be considered as having ?belief in god?. By this definition, the opposite is also true that a person, who normally does only bad things, lacks ?belief in god?, even if that person claims to believe in god.
Samia seems to be implying the same thing (if I'm understanding her correctly).
In response to Samia's post, aalamakto posted the following
Salam Samia,
18103 Say ?Shall we inform you of the greatest losers??
18104 ?Those whose efforts in the worldly life were wasted while they thought they were doing good!?
18105 These are the ones who rejected the revelations of their Lord and His meeting. So their works were in vain, and We will not give them any value on the Day of Resurrection.
18106 That is their recompense, Hell; for what they rejected and for taking My revelations and My messengers for mockery!5646 And they persisted in the great blasphemy.
5647 And they used to say ?After we die and turn to dust and bones, we will get resurrected??
5648 ?As well as our forefathers??Works do not matter if they reject the revelations of God and his meeting.
What are everyone's thoughts on this response? Is 'belief in God's existence' actually prescribed upon us, or at least implied? Is 'belief in god' simply 'belief in doing good,' in a way that a staunch atheist can still have 'belief in god' ? If so, what of the verses aalamakto posted?
Peace.
-
I really enjoyed this post of Samia's and would like to discuss it further. Its theme is similar to FearfulofAllah's article 'Categories of People in the Quran' (http//www.free-minds.org/mumin2). In that article, FearfulofAllah states ?belief in god? as ?the conscious act of doing good, out of unselfish motives, even if it is at a personal cost?.
He further clarifies One may be publicly an atheist and reject completely the notion of any supernatural power but if that person consciously does good acts as a matter of principle in life, then for the sake of this discussion, that person will be considered as having ?belief in god?. By this definition, the opposite is also true that a person, who normally does only bad things, lacks ?belief in god?, even if that person claims to believe in god.
Samia seems to be implying the same thing (if I'm understanding her correctly).
In response to Samia's post, aalamakto posted the following
What are everyone's thoughts on this response? Is 'belief in God's existence' actually prescribed upon us, or at least implied? Is 'belief in god' simply 'belief in doing good,' in a way that a staunch atheist can still have 'belief in god' ? If so, what of the verses aalamakto posted?Peace.
Peace,
Welcome back!
I think you are on to something. I have been thinking about this, as well. Isn't belief more about what we do, then what we say? (612-3, 244-45, chapter 107). Are atheists denying The God, or an illogical view of a god? 678 is a good example of Abraham realizing what God is not.
I think, we aught to start with what is God? 226 says that God is the truth. I ,also, take God to mean our noble side (we all have the energy of God - 1529). 65 defines the rejecters/disbelievers/truth concealers as those, who deny/conceal the truth, when it comes to them. There is no example of them doing good things.
This is why we must condition our soul, and grow it (salat and zakat), because it yields to us doing good things. And, this is why satan is always used as a symbol for evil. Because, he tries to deter us from 'the path'.
If so, what of the verses aalamakto posted?
If we read carefully, it says they THOUGHT they were doing good. 211 mentions this, as well. 18105 mentions ayats/signs. These signs also exist in our own souls (4153, 5120-21).
-
Peace,
Welcome back!
I think you are on to something. I have been thinking about this, as well. Isn't belief more about what we do, then what we say? (612-3, 244-45, chapter 107). Are atheists denying The God, or an illogical view of a god? 678 is a good example of Abraham realizing what God is not.
I think, we aught to start with what is God? 226 says that God is the truth. I ,also, take God to mean our noble side (we all have the energy of God - 1529). 65 defines the rejecters/disbelievers/truth concealers as those, who deny/conceal the truth, when it comes to them. There is no example of them doing good things.
This is why we must condition our soul, and grow it (salat and zakat), because it yields to us doing good things. And, this is why satan is always used as a symbol for evil. Because, he tries to deter us from 'the path'.
If we read carefully, it says they THOUGHT they were doing good. 211 mentions this, as well. 18105 mentions ayats/signs. These signs also exist in our own souls (4153, 5120-21).
Thanks for the welcome back, it's been a while.
I agree with most of your points Jack. With regard to the verses aalamakto posted, though, you say it mentions they 'THOUGHT' they were doing good. True, 18104 says that. 18105, though, seems to imply that the works were 'good' but were ultimately 'in vain' because they rejected the revelations and mocked them. I say it seems to imply they were 'good' because 105 says "We will not give them any value on the Day of Resurrection" --because-- 'they rejected the revelations of their Lord and His meeting.'
Maybe it's a mistranslation issue. Maybe only the English appears to say that their works are in vain BECAUSE they rejected the revelations, not because they in actuality were not good (as you imply). Hopefully an Arabic speaker can clarify.
Or maybe, and I think this is the more extreme interpretation, their works are rejected because they were not actually objectively good (i.e. the works went against revelation, as well as common human decency). From the context of the surrounding verses, this seems not to be the case, but I am open to discussion on it.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
-
this is sort of linked to my what does God get out of it question...
Why is "shirk" the unforgiveable sin while anything else can be forgiven? It is not harming anyone else?
And why do we have to believe? God always talks about almumineen/muslimeen/ahl alkitab as those who will know no fear while the mushrikeen/kuffar are the ones who will be hell-bound - if you are an atheist but a good person where does that leave you?thanks all!
Peace all,
Thanks for all your replies ... Im glad people went back to this question, since the debate died down for a while. I cant reply to everything now - since there was so much. But it seems that the words "amana" commonly translated as belief need to be examined deeper. Also, it still doesnt answer the question about WHY belief is so vital? I know many athiests who are more "muslim" than muslims. They do not ackenowledge or believe in God - so why should their good deeds go to waste as per 18.104-106. The rejection/kufr is punishable too.
Also - in terms of shirk - after talking to mum who's always wise - maybe shirk is unforgivable because of what it leads to - if you place anything above or equal to god - be that money, friends, your ego - it will lead to a downward spiral of selfishness in the world - which goes against everything God tells us to follow - ie. shirk is the root of all evil. So while you may do bad things - God is forgiving, but shirk cannot be forgiven because of the evil it leads to?
Ill write more later - im tired and am not sure my post is even coherent at the moment!
-
Thanks for the welcome back, it's been a while.
I agree with most of your points Jack. With regard to the verses aalamakto posted, though, you say it mentions they 'THOUGHT' they were doing good. True, 18104 says that. 18105, though, seems to imply that the works were 'good' but were ultimately 'in vain' because they rejected the revelations and mocked them. I say it seems to imply they were 'good' because 105 says "We will not give them any value on the Day of Resurrection" --because-- 'they rejected the revelations of their Lord and His meeting.'
Maybe it's a mistranslation issue. Maybe only the English appears to say that their works are in vain BECAUSE they rejected the revelations, not because they in actuality were not good (as you imply). Hopefully an Arabic speaker can clarify.
Or maybe, and I think this is the more extreme interpretation, their works are rejected because they were not actually objectively good (i.e. the works went against revelation, as well as common human decency). From the context of the surrounding verses, this seems not to be the case, but I am open to discussion on it.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Same here.
Works here, couldn't possibly mean good works; because they are contrasted with believers doing good work (18107). The word translated as 'works' is aamal ;which just means something one does. Same word is used in 18107, but this time it mentions good work, along side it.
Ayn-Miim-Lam, for those who wish to research it.
7147 is very interesting I think. It mentions the works being canceled, yet it also says that they are called to account for precisely what they did. 274, 358, and 2938 show how this work can appear good. 4037 shows this in action.
1115 also mentions the fairness in judgement.
-
Same here.
Works here, couldn't possibly mean good works; because they are contrasted with believers doing good work (18107). The word translated as 'works' is aamal ;which just means something one does. Same word is used in 18107, but this time it mentions good work, along side it.
Ayn-Miim-Lam, for those who wish to research it.
7147 is very interesting I think. It mentions the works being canceled, yet it also says that they are called to account for precisely what they did. 274, 358, and 2938 show how this work can appear good. 4037 shows this in action.
1115 also mentions the fairness in judgement.
7147 is a very important verse and merits further study.
Of the other verses you cited, I find 274 to be most illuminating "Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, we adorn their works in their eyes. Thus, they continue to blunder."
This seems to imply an active process by God (or as I like to think of it, a universal law as prescribed by god) that works to distort the value of one's action contingent upon the intention behind that action.
'believe in the Hereafter,' as we have come to learn through the rest of the reading, isn't simply a belief in a garden beneath which rivers flow. Rather, it is a belief in a system of requital in which intentions+actions yield consequences, negative or positive, for the intender/doer of said actions.
Each action is is actually a bifold occurrence an Intention behind an event {I}, and the Event Itself {EI}.
274 and the other verses seem to imply that an 'I' colors the value of an 'EI.' If one's I is misguided (i.e. if one 'disbelieves in the system of requital', the effect of one's EI is similarly misguided and ultimately rendered useless ('nullified' to use 7147's parlance).
335 sheds light on this I/EI idea "...You do not commit a sin if you make a mistake in this respect; you are responsible for your purposeful intentions. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
The verse, while referring specifically to the protocol of adopting a child, indicates that mistakes do not count against us. And of course this is common sense. One's EI, though presently negative in consequence, does not actually impact one's soul negatively if the negative I is absent.
Anyway, coming back to the original topic of actual belief in the existence of a god and whether a failure to do so results in the nullification of works. The best explanation I can come up with is that a belief in the Hereafter or a belief in an ultimate system of requital is impossible without an attached belief in 'the divine' who prescribed said system. This is the ancient Moral Lawgiver theistic argument.
An atheist, then, who does not believe in a system of requital has a distorted 'I' component behind his or her actions, which would render the effect of his or her EI's meaningless.
But we still come back to the question do atheists who continually do 'good works' (by which, I mean, works that on the outside appear good to us, e.g. giving to charity, honoring parents, etc., and not just works that they THINK are good a la Pharaoh's own self-deception) have their works nullified simply because their I is not rooted in a belief in a system of requital? Seems 'unfair.' I must be missing something here.
If an atheist gives to charity because he wants to alleviate a child's suffering FOR THE SAKE OF ALLEVIATING THE CHILD'S SUFFERING, and not because of a deeper belief in a system of requital, is that work rendered nullified? If so, why? Because the EI as practiced by the atheist doesn't impact the universe positively (hard to believe that's true; after all, the child's suffering has been alleviated)? Or is it because the atheist never intended to receive any reward/positive consequence for his action anyway because, by definition, he believes in no such thing and doesn't care, i.e. you get what you ask for?
Again, just thinking out loud.
-
Wanted to add one more thing.
In his article, FearfulofAllah states that the muslimeen follow the natural law of things, and do not necessarily need to believe in god. They simply do good, and do not harm others. Mumineen, on the other hand, have more responsibility and must 'believe in god.'
This muslimeen/mumineen distinction in terms of necessity of belief in god is an interesting one. I'm just not so sure it's true.
An example of a verse that seems at odds with that concept
1084 Moses said, "O my people, if you have really believed in GOD, then put your trust in Him, if you are really submitters (muslimeen)."
Seems like the concept of 'muslimeen' and 'believe in God' and putting 'trust in Him' are inseparable.
-
7147 is a very important verse and merits further study.
Of the other verses you cited, I find 274 to be most illuminating "Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, we adorn their works in their eyes. Thus, they continue to blunder."
This seems to imply an active process by God (or as I like to think of it, a universal law as prescribed by god) that works to distort the value of one's action contingent upon the intention behind that action.
'believe in the Hereafter,' as we have come to learn through the rest of the reading, isn't simply a belief in a garden beneath which rivers flow. Rather, it is a belief in a system of requital in which intentions+actions yield consequences, negative or positive, for the intender/doer of said actions.
Each action is is actually a bifold occurrence an Intention behind an event {I}, and the Event Itself {EI}.
274 and the other verses seem to imply that an 'I' colors the value of an 'EI.' If one's I is misguided (i.e. if one 'disbelieves in the system of requital', the effect of one's EI is similarly misguided and ultimately rendered useless ('nullified' to use 7147's parlance).
335 sheds light on this I/EI idea "...You do not commit a sin if you make a mistake in this respect; you are responsible for your purposeful intentions. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
The verse, while referring specifically to the protocol of adopting a child, indicates that mistakes do not count against us. And of course this is common sense. One's EI, though presently negative in consequence, does not actually impact one's soul negatively if the negative I is absent.
Anyway, coming back to the original topic of actual belief in the existence of a god and whether a failure to do so results in the nullification of works. The best explanation I can come up with is that a belief in the Hereafter or a belief in an ultimate system of requital is impossible without an attached belief in 'the divine' who prescribed said system. This is the ancient Moral Lawgiver theistic argument.
An atheist, then, who does not believe in a system of requital has a distorted 'I' component behind his or her actions, which would render the effect of his or her EI's meaningless.
But we still come back to the question do atheists who continually do 'good works' (by which, I mean, works that on the outside appear good to us, e.g. giving to charity, honoring parents, etc., and not just works that they THINK are good a la Pharaoh's own self-deception) have their works nullified simply because their I is not rooted in a belief in a system of requital? Seems 'unfair.' I must be missing something here.
If an atheist gives to charity because he wants to alleviate a child's suffering FOR THE SAKE OF ALLEVIATING THE CHILD'S SUFFERING, and not because of a deeper belief in a system of requital, is that work rendered nullified? If so, why? Because the EI as practiced by the atheist doesn't impact the universe positively (hard to believe that's true; after all, the child's suffering has been alleviated)? Or is it because the atheist never intended to receive any reward/positive consequence for his action anyway because, by definition, he believes in no such thing and doesn't care, i.e. you get what you ask for?
Again, just thinking out loud.
Of the other verses you cited, I find 274 to be most illuminating "Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, we adorn their works in their eyes. Thus, they continue to blunder."
This seems to imply an active process by God (or as I like to think of it, a universal law as prescribed by god) that works to distort the value of one's action contingent upon the intention behind that action.
'believe in the Hereafter,' as we have come to learn through the rest of the reading, isn't simply a belief in a garden beneath which rivers flow. Rather, it is a belief in a system of requital in which intentions+actions yield consequences, negative or positive, for the intender/doer of said actions.
Each action is is actually a bifold occurrence an Intention behind an event {I}, and the Event Itself {EI}.
274 and the other verses seem to imply that an 'I' colors the value of an 'EI.' If one's I is misguided (i.e. if one 'disbelieves in the system of requital', the effect of one's EI is similarly misguided and ultimately rendered useless ('nullified' to use 7147's parlance).
335 sheds light on this I/EI idea "...You do not commit a sin if you make a mistake in this respect; you are responsible for your purposeful intentions. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
The verse, while referring specifically to the protocol of adopting a child, indicates that mistakes do not count against us. And of course this is common sense. One's EI, though presently negative in consequence, does not actually impact one's soul negatively if the negative I is absent.
Good points, I agree.
Anyway, coming back to the original topic of actual belief in the existence of a god and whether a failure to do so results in the nullification of works. The best explanation I can come up with is that a belief in the Hereafter or a belief in an ultimate system of requital is impossible without an attached belief in 'the divine' who prescribed said system. This is the ancient Moral Lawgiver theistic argument.
An atheist, then, who does not believe in a system of requital has a distorted 'I' component behind his or her actions, which would render the effect of his or her EI's meaningless.
But we still come back to the question do atheists who continually do 'good works' (by which, I mean, works that on the outside appear good to us, e.g. giving to charity, honoring parents, etc., and not just works that they THINK are good a la Pharaoh's own self-deception) have their works nullified simply because their I is not rooted in a belief in a system of requital? Seems 'unfair.' I must be missing something here.
If an atheist gives to charity because he wants to alleviate a child's suffering FOR THE SAKE OF ALLEVIATING THE CHILD'S SUFFERING, and not because of a deeper belief in a system of requital, is that work rendered nullified? If so, why? Because the EI as practiced by the atheist doesn't impact the universe positively (hard to believe that's true; after all, the child's suffering has been alleviated)? Or is it because the atheist never intended to receive any reward/positive consequence for his action anyway because, by definition, he believes in no such thing and doesn't care, i.e. you get what you ask for?
What if belief in 'the ultimate system of requital' is doing good works? I take the concepts of hell and heaven to be states we experience in this life and the next. Hell is the absence of God; God will not evolve 'them' (2174). Hence, they don't 'experience' God.
Going back to Pharoah, 2839 "And he and his troops were arrogant in the land without any right, and they thought that they would not be returned to Us." Wasn't this affirmed through their behavior? i.e. They did these things because they didn't believe in the ultimate requital.
Pharaoh and his people experienced punishment/torment (which is the fire ultimately), 311.
Maybe, an atheist does believe in the 'ultimate requital', because when they, let's say, give to someone in need they are saving them from 'hell'. Maybe, their 'reward' is evolving their own nafs/soul. 2281 says that each soul will be paid for what it 'earned'.
Let's say, hypothetically, that they are 'disbelievers'. 911 says that they can be brothers in our system if they bring salat and zakat; simple as that. Why can't an atheist fit this mold?
1084 Moses said, "O my people, if you have really believed in GOD, then put your trust in Him, if you are really submitters (muslimeen)."
Seems like the concept of 'muslimeen' and 'believe in God' and putting 'trust in Him' are inseparable.
If 'belief' in God was just believing in a deity, wouldn't this make satan 'muslim'? (528, 848, 5916)
Again, just thinking out loud.
Please do so more often. hmm
-
Perhaps an analogy, just to see what happens...
What if a person lived in a kingdom, which had a king ruling over the area, and the king's laws were effectively The Quran's laws, but not identified as such, i.e. they were the king's own and not tied to a scripture. If the person in the kingdom followed these laws and was asked why do you follow these laws? What's the possiblities?
- I follow them because I feel they are the right thing to do, they are fair etc.
- If i dont follow them i will be punished by the law/king
What if the king is the only one who undertakes all punishments for non-compliance, but the person has never seen or met the king, thus is not 100% sure the king exists or not, yet he still follows the laws. What does that mean?
- He thinks it is more likely than unlikely the king exists, thus errs on the side of caution and follows the laws. Is this belief in the king's existence?
- something else?
If we look at (1), if the law is indeed just/fair/etc, then its origin likely comes from a just/fair source. If a person follows this because they feel it is right, that means they are also just/fair/etc. Why would a person such as this not acknowledge the source in this case? I'm sure some would, but not all. So what is stopping them? What is the difference between those acknowledging the source and those who do not? Maybe pondering on this will help us understand it better.
Reminds me, conceptually, of 1074-5.
- So woe to the ones who go/turn towards,
- But of their bond are unaware/heedless.
-
Interesting analogy Wakas.
With regard to option 1, I believe there is a subset of possible residents. It's a minor but meaningful distinction 1A) I follow my own moral compass...which happens to coincide with the King's laws.
I bring this up because it is what agnostics/atheists often say. Clearly, agnostics/atheists can be good people. If you ask an atheist why he is, say, giving to charity, he'll say something like 'because it is ultimately beneficial to society' or 'it's the right thing to do.' If you press him further and ask why it's the right thing to do or why he should be concerned with what benefits society, most atheists give a group-based argument on morality as members of society, we come to natural agreements (the whole natural contract idea) on what we do or do not like happening to us. I don't like it if you steal my property because that hurts me, so I won't do the same to you. The so-called golden rule. In other words, an atheist may have a similar moral code to the king's (or the quran's) but his use of such code has nothing to do with the authority of code-giver, in this case. If the atheist were to be shipped out and dropped onto a random deserted island populated by some other society and away from the king's authority, the atheist would live by the same moral code.
So we come back to the same question the atheist in our hypothetical, who acts exactly the same way the best believer would act, but for different reasons, is he still 'believing in god'? Can his group-based morality argument --that it is best to live by the golden rule-- be tantamount to 'believing in god'? I don't think the quran supports such a view, but maybe I'm wrong.
-
If 'belief' in God was just believing in a deity, wouldn't this make satan 'muslim'? (528, 848, 5916)
Well that leads back to the definition of muslim / mumin. Satan was a kafir - since he "concealed" the truth. And I take muslim to be "submitter" - Satan did not submit. But he did believe in God - so was he mumin (taking the superficial meaning of the word here) ?
So we come back to the same question the atheist in our hypothetical, who acts exactly the same way the best believer would act, but for different reasons, is he still 'believing in god'? Can his group-based morality argument --that it is best to live by the golden rule-- be tantamount to 'believing in god'? I don't think the quran supports such a view, but maybe I'm wrong.
I agree with Caveman here... You are not "believing in God" just by doing good deeds.
What is the purpose of the Quran - is it not to send down a system for all to live by, with justice, safety etc? So if you do those things, and promote that peaceful system without the intention of abiding by Gods laws/without a belief in God, why is it wasted? Which brings me back round to my original post of " why do we have to believe?" -
Well that leads back to the definition of muslim / mumin. Satan was a kafir - since he "concealed" the truth. And I take muslim to be "submitter" - Satan did not submit. But he did believe in God - so was he mumin (taking the superficial meaning of the word here) ?
He was far, far... from it.
http//www.free-minds.org/node/10
234 We said to the angels, "make obeisance to Adam," so they made obeisance except for Iblis, he refused and became arrogant, and became of the rejecters/ingrates.
3873 Thereupon the angels agreed to make obeisance to him, all of them together.
3874 Except Satan; he turned arrogant, and became one of the rejecters/ingrates. -
You are not "believing in God" just by doing good deeds.
I am suggesting that 'belief in God', is not a literal belief in God. For example 28.
Anyone can say they believe in God, does this make it so? What about those who spread hate and violence in the name of God? What does their superficial belief prove?
I don't know for certain, whether atheists can be muslims or not. I am just considering this possibility.
-
Peace to all,
Belief in the Qur'aan entails more than just knowing something; it involves acting upon the knowledge. The fundamental areas of belief, according to the scripture, are (1) Allah, (2) Angels, (3) Prophets and Messengers, (4) Books/Scriptures of Allah, and (5) the Afterlife, or day of judgement... Anybody can claim to believe in these things, but this form of "belief" doesn't mean anything unless we act upon this belief. We "believe" that Allah exists by conducting ourselves in the best manner, since He sees everything we do. We "believe" in the angels by following our good impulses and rejecting negative things, which is what the angelic beings represent and teach. We "believe" in the prophets and messengers by accepting their righteous messages and following their examples outlined in the scriptures. We "believe" in the scriptures of Allah by studying them and living according to their doctrines. And we "believe" in the life after death by applying all of the other forms of "belief", living as if we'll be accountable before Allah, even after this life has perished.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
I am suggesting that 'belief in God', is not a literal belief in God. For example 28.
Anyone can say they believe in God, does this make it so? What about those who spread hate and violence in the name of God? What does their superficial belief prove?
I don't know for certain, whether atheists can be muslims or not. I am just considering this possibility.
Those that spread hate and violence are not doing it for God, they are doing it for their own selfish reasons. No one can believe in an all forgiving, all loving God and feel hate.
