What are the limits of your belief?
-
Maybe I am over thinking but I think that?s what people do sometimes. Look at the example of sura albaqara 267, it could have been any cow but they kept questioning 268 - 270. So sometimes being pedantic complicates things. I?m in a position where I am basically questioning everything I have come to believe. It?s hard to break loose of the bias that existed so sometimes it?s hard to ?think? right.
yeh the ?how? is obviously in the book, I?m just trying to understand the book. And different people will do different things based on understanding. So I?m trying to accept that rather than thinking there is a singular way.
-
Asalaamu Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh
John, I must disagree with you on Jesus and his teachings.. it is quite clear in Matthew 518-19;
18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.This would mean to say, that all the laws of the Old Testament are to be upheld, in their punishments and such. Before someone quotes the adultress story, this is faulty and most biblical scholars see it as an interpolation to the text.
I am a former Christian Minister, this was taught as how we as ministers were supposed to look at it and teach to our congregations. There are many places though, in the New Testament, where you would think Christians are just not reading their holy book closely. Re-reading the New Testament and the Old in a critical manner coupled with the revelations of the Qur'an is what brought about my change. I suppose you could say, my heavy study of christianity led me to Islam. Conversely, my heavy study of Islam led me away from hadiths as viable.
I am a Christian Minister, but my studies of the bible have led me to become a God-alone Christian and a Muslim/Christian.
-
Peace,
I said in my previous that I must stress that this topic is not about the divinity of the Quran, nor its content.
It is possible for two people to witness the same event, and come to logically sound and mutually exclusive conclusions that are equally correct.
Impossible? Check out Relativity http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoMHence, I can read the Quran and see a divorce where someone else sees a stick, and we can both be equally right.
The two persons were neither on the same platform nor were they both mobile. What's the different values between you and the other person?
If it's era/time, well, this can be understandable. Since the qur'ann is for all the people all the time everywhere, we cannot get stuck to past interpretations. In fact, we do not keep to our own same understanding throughout our life, because our experience changes, and we see more/different points that were hidden from us before.To your question I believe that the qur'aan is from God, otherwise, I wouldn't bother. So the extent of my belief is illimted. Yet, because of what God tells us of His attributes, I cannot uphold an interpretation that is contradictory to His attributes.
Taking the example of wife beating, I can't see that the god who describes Himself as fare and just, would sanction a punishment based solely on gender. The god that describes Himself as all knowing, does not know that females also can be bread winners; the god who describes Himself as wise will not sanction a punishment for a wife who is nashez, but not a wife who is committing adultery in front of her husband. And above all, I believe that when God says that it's for people who reflect, who have working minds, who reason...etc He means what He says. -
Peace all,
@ Wakas
I am surprised you found no evidence for my interpretation. 4153 is pretty clear to me for example. Simply put, if AQ did not resonate with who we are and what we experience, it wouldn't make much sense.
Then I must've misunderstood you. Perhaps you are talking about the alledged universal, and timeless appeal of the Quran, which the verses do speak of. Previously I thought you were referring to the theory of the "evolving Quran" in which the meanings of the verses adapt to the ever changing circumstances. I am sceptical to this theory. There is no denying that the Quran does evolve, but this is our own doing, and not some inherent quality in the quran, nor do I think its author intended it to be so, at least not completely.
The verses speak of a change in us that will make the Quran more acceptable. However, what is happening now is a changing of the Quran, not us, to be make it more acceptable. Sure, we are not tinkering with the ink, but we are transforming it through interpretation. It it is the same thing, basically. Free-Minds is exhibit A.
In the times when women were of no political import, there was no demand for a women friendly Quran. Now that we have changed, we are demanding a quran that gives women rights, and we have got it. Hence, we are changing the Quran towards us, and not changing ourselves to the Quran. That is why I am asking what the limits of belief are. How much are you ready to change in the name of the Quran, and what do you require from the Quran?
Many people are not aware of their limits, and what this implies. You believe in the divinity of the Quran, but you have projected so much of yourself on the Quran that in fact you have made yourself holy.
God is like a blank canvas. It is pure, untainted, fresh, innocent. These are the qualitites that the color white symbolizes, and white is a balanced combination of all colors.
Then you come along and emphasize one color and reject the other, and all of a sudden you have a caricature of yourself which you do not recognize. And that caricature you confuse with god. You are only worshipping yourself.This is not ill-intended criticism of you, Wakas. But do you think this applies to you?
Are you alluding to 'confirmation bias'?
I was not, but I see will have to later in this post.
This is what I was saying Some take the word of the Quran as final. If this someone is having difficulties with his wife, and is engaged in a literary debate about the word Idrib, then what will happen is that linguistics decides whether the wife gets a divorce or a beating. Do you see my point? I recall reading one forum member saying that if the meaning was to shoot his wife, he would do that too. That scared me a bit, since that very same forum member did not believe idrib meant beat. He had allowed dictionaries to decide, and luckily for his wife, the dictionaries just happened to save her. What do you think of this? Is this any way to go about such important issues?
Good question. I try to be, but it is very difficult.
You said this when I asked you about your indifference to the outcome, but then you say later Personally, I think AQ is the Word of God, that is my working hypothesis, and I am in an ongoing verification process.
Don't you see a conflict between the two? How can you remain indifferent to the word of God?
And it is somewhat ironic that you wrote that sentence right after mentioning confirmation bias, when that sentence is a classic example of such bias.
What made you chose your current working hypothesis? Also have you tried changing your working hypothesis?The greatest battle is the battle within.
And the battle is pointless. Why are you fighting yourself? That only fuels the fire.
Yes, you are imperfect, but you are not incomplete. True, there will be bias, there will be all kinds of limits, but this is how it must be when you have the courage to be involved.
Love your foolishness, it is required, it is mandatory. When you get involved, when you jump in the ocean, you will get wet. You cannot avoid it.
You need not drown though, simply be aware of the water. Similarly, you need not let your foolishness fool you, just be aware of it. If you are unaware, then even your sincerity will be insincere!
In the ocean, you cannot avoid to get wet. You can cheat, you can put on swimsuits, wetsuits and all kinds of suits, but then you are not involved. It merely appears so.
Similarly, people appear involved in Islam, with their suits on. Their traditional, ali baba clothing. Their beards, their curly toe shoes, their hijabs, their ups and downs in prayer.
Even when they are fasting they are merely feeding their ego "Look how devoted I am, I have fasted every day, how many days have you fasted?".This is because believers are unaware, and awareness is what I'm trying to raise. People believe in the Quran, but they have never known the fabric of their belief.
Be aware and love your flaws. Muhammed did so. In the Quran we find many of his flaws. They were so dear, so important that he mentioned them in the Quran!
And here we are, trying to forget our flaws. Suppressing them, avoiding them. The most foolish battle is the battle within.
But people love it! We love those who fight themselves. We revere them, honor them!
The celibate is honored, the virgin is honored, the one who fasts is honored, and everyone of them is doing nothing but fighting themselves.
Fighting sexuality, and they become the most sexual people, all their dreams are just about sex. Fighting hunger all they can think of is eating.
If you fight your foolishness, you will become the greatest fool ever!I watched that video, and I understood it to mean that in each person's own frame of reference each is correct, which I agree with. However, if they were to compare and weigh the evidence, there is only one truth, and that is it was a simultaneous double lightning strike. This would be worked out if the train passenger took into account the speed of the train heading towards the front strike, and away from the back strike, resulting in seeing the front strike first.
Or at least, that is my understanding.
What you refer to as evidence is simply a set of assumptions. Speed, who is moving, and who is not, cannot be determined. Try it. Motion is relative.
I said they were simultaneous because the video seemed to imply the stationary person on the platform was equidistant between the strikes and he saw them the same time.
This is also an assumption, the distance need not be equidistant at all. It is also an assumption in the video that the lightning did hit simultaneously. It might as well have hit first on the back of the train, and then on the front. This way the train passenger would have seen the lights hit simultaneously, and the observer on the platform seen one before the other. Also, the case is further made more complex because you cannot determine the nature of you frame of reference when you are inside it. Cosider the fact that if you are inside a train with no windows, you cannot decide whether or not it is moving if it does not accelerate.
Interestingly, that video seems to show that only the person who has all the info knows the truth. Read in conjunction with 37, in this case, that would be God.
This seems reasonable.
@everyone else
I'm off to see Transformers on the cinema. Will reply to you ASAP.
Nadeem
-
Greetings, John.
scratches head I am very confused and maybe you can help me here.. I was struggling with whether to make this a private message or not.
I will keep it brief. I would be rather fascinated to see how you remain christian and yet know the truth of the Qur'an?
When I came across the truths of the endless revisions of the bible and how none of the OT prophecies apply to Jesus, and how Jesus could be God. Perhaps you are blithely ignoring those masses of verses that deal with this to make the NT palatable.
I mean no disrespect nor to be facetious.. I am genuinely curious.
-
Greetings, John.
scratches head I am very confused and maybe you can help me here.. I was struggling with whether to make this a private message or not.
I will keep it brief. I would be rather fascinated to see how you remain christian and yet know the truth of the Qur'an?
When I came across the truths of the endless revisions of the bible and how none of the OT prophecies apply to Jesus, and how Jesus could be God. Perhaps you are blithely ignoring those masses of verses that deal with this to make the NT palatable.
I mean no disrespect nor to be facetious.. I am genuinely curious.
I consider myself Christian because I follow the message of Jesus, not the man (yes I did say man). I do not believe Jesus was the only begotten son of God. I believe he was the son of Joseph. Have a look at my website at www.ChristianChurchOfReality.com that will explain it completely.
-
peace Nadeem,
Yes, you did misunderstand me. The verses I cited say there are ayaatin/signs everywhere and it all points to the truth of AQ, and we have an inclincation towards this and AQ is about us. That means it is built in such a way that it will resonate with who we are and what we experience. We have an inner compass within us that is capable of finding the truth. So, if you come across something that doesn't feel right, maybe its not right, that's all I'm saying. It is simply a matter of weighing up the evidence when options exist.
Sure, we are not tinkering with the ink, but we are transforming it through interpretation. It it is the same thing, basically. Free-Minds is exhibit A.
Of course, as a whole, there will be some rubbish/inaccurate content on free-minds (especially on the forum), but there will also be quality/accurate content.
In the times when women were of no political import, there was no demand for a women friendly Quran. Now that we have changed, we are demanding a quran that gives women rights, and we have got it. Hence, we are changing the Quran towards us, and not changing ourselves to the Quran. That is why I am asking what the limits of belief are. How much are you ready to change in the name of the Quran, and what do you require from the Quran?
I am not aware of such, but of course, I/we could be deluding ourselves. I would need a specific and definite case.
But do you think this applies to you?
Do I project some of myself upon AQ? Of course I do. Each person has their own reason, bias, knowledge, experience etc. Do I project myself so much upon it that I twist it to follow what I think to be right? I try not to, and all I can do is try. God has all the info and knows me, and He will be my judge as to this. It is all upon the individual, and this is justice.
This is what I was saying Some take the word of the Quran as final. If this someone is having difficulties with his wife, and is engaged in a literary debate about the word Idrib, then what will happen is that linguistics decides whether the wife gets a divorce or a beating. Do you see my point? I recall reading one forum member saying that if the meaning was to shoot his wife, he would do that too. That scared me a bit, since that very same forum member did not believe idrib meant beat. He had allowed dictionaries to decide, and luckily for his wife, the dictionaries just happened to save her. What do you think of this? Is this any way to go about such important issues?
You keep going on about it only being about linguistics and dictionaries. That is not what it is all about. Perhaps you mean in this case it is. In any case, that is not true either. Perhaps you are unaware of this but I am currently studying this issue and I will post what I find for all to see, and I would welcome feedback from you on it.
And it is somewhat ironic that you wrote that sentence right after mentioning confirmation bias, when that sentence is a classic example of such bias.
Let me quote what I said for you to re-read
Personally, I think AQ is the Word of God, that is my working hypothesis, and I am in an ongoing verification process.
Note, I did not say "AQ is the Word of God". I dont think I have ever said this in the forum. Is having a "working hypothesis" confirmation bias"? Please cite your evidence. Let me provide some definitions
Working hypothesis A suggested explanation of a group of facts or phenomena provisionally accepted as a basis for further investigation and testing.
Confirmation bias a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and to irrationally avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.
If I had "confirmation bias" then why do I happily watch TV programmes trying to disprove religion or God, or read philosophers who do not believe in God, or discuss with atheist and agnostic friends about God and islam, and why do I read sites that attack The Quran, or review/analyse various interpretations that differ to my view?
What made you chose your current working hypothesis?
Study. Life. Experience. Philosophy.
Also have you tried changing your working hypothesis?
See my above comments on confirmation bias.
And the battle is pointless. Why are you fighting yourself?
The most foolish battle is the battle within.
Really? See below
Many people are not aware of their limits, and what this implies.
This is because believers are unaware, and awareness is what I'm trying to raise.
Exactly. Self-analysis, self-reflection, removing one's bias, improving one's methodology, ensuring one is sincere. That is the battle I'm referring to.
What you refer to as evidence is simply a set of assumptions. Speed, who is moving, and who is not, cannot be determined. Try it. Motion is relative.
I know that motion is relative, and I've read that before, e.g. motion is only perceptable to an outside observer. Classic example is a lift.
This is also an assumption, the distance need not be equidistant at all. It is also an assumption in the video that the lightning did hit simultaneously.
No, the truth is it was simultaneous, but the perception of each observer was different. As I said there is a difference between asking which did you see first? and what occurred first when all the info is taken into account?
