Why believe in God?

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, hawkninetynine.

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Ahmad

neb87

Peace, hawkninetynine.

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

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

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

Peace,

Ahmad

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

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

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

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, neb87.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Ahmad

neb87

Peace, neb87.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neb87

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

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

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

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

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

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

hawk99

Peace, hawkninetynine.

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

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

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

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

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

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Say, "O you disbelievers.

"I do not worship what you worship.

"Nor do you worship what I worship.

"Nor will I ever worship what you worship.

"Nor will you ever worship what I worship.

"To you is your religion, and to me is my religion."

Peace

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, neb87.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Ahmad

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, neb87.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, sort of.

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

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

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

This is due to an unrealistic world view.

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

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

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

Peace!

neb87

Peace, neb87.

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

Some of your "facts" are grossly inaccurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

neb87

Peace, neb87.

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

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

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

Peace,

Ahmad

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

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

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

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

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

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

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

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

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

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

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

This is due to an unrealistic world view.

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best

hawk99

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

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

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

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

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

All the best

Agreed

Also remember the enormously important reality of our observable existence that
is beyond all emotion (normally) and that is BALANCE
Hot-cold, wet-dry, mumin-kaffir, of course I could go on with opposites but I hope you
all get the point. There must be non-believers if there are believers. Positive-negative,
light-dark, acid-caustic.

If their rejection gets to be too much for you, you should know that even if you dug a tunnel through the earth, or climbed a ladder into the sky, and produced a miracle for them (they still would not believe). Had GOD willed, He could have guided them, unanimously. Therefore, do not behave like the ignorant ones.

Peace

supportpeacenotwar

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

That's a good point. It's as though some people want a type of proof that means every little single detail is set in place - but I don't think you get this with anything in life. It seems more like the proof is there, open to those who want to get it and appreciate it and there is still room for people to disbelieve such as all the questioning over Moses and so on. But there are further elements and questions about the belief in God and the Hereafter that are mentioned in the Quran such as do you believe you will be left without justice (not sure what the verse number but that is my paraphrasing) and the point that everything we know around us was not created in play and it is purposeful. The point about justice is important - if there is no final justice, then what it the justice that we provide for ourselves? Doesn't our notion of justice tie in with the idea that final justice will be meted out - that there is some objective notion of justice out there?

Sorry if this is going a bit off topic, these are just thoughts that came to mind.

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

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

I see your perspective, but that's what I have a hard time grasping... How can we come to "know", "sense" or "grasp" it? Isn't that also a facet of the mind, particularly aimed toward faith and belief? If I wanted to somehow verify the existence of a supernatural entity (e.g. 'god&#039, how would I go about doing so? Where would I even start?

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

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

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

That's still a subjective position, since you specifically referring to "creation". Science doesn't necessarily confirm the idea regarded as 'creation' - it merely confirms the presence of 'existence'. And, by position, there's no "source" (e.g. creator) necessary from this type of perspective. That's why people often equate God with nature and/or energy. In other words, modern 'scientific religiosity' teaches that God is the Universe, and that the Universe is God; they're one and the same... Now, of course, to a traditional (or even non-traditional) Muslim, this is unacceptable, even blasphemous. However, in reality, it's nearly impossible to reconcile modern scientific propositions with the idea of a personal god who creates worlds, performs miracles, sends prophets, writes books and hears prayers. From a philosophically defined and logical standpoint, it's totally nonsensical. That's one of the main reasons why people are convinced that science and religion can't coexist, especially in a naturalistic (and skeptical) world.

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

Peace, Zulf.

I see your perspective, but that's what I have a hard time grasping... How can we come to "know", "sense" or "grasp" it? Isn't that also a facet of the mind, particularly aimed toward faith and belief? If I wanted to somehow verify the existence of a supernatural entity (e.g. 'god&#039, how would I go about doing so? Where would I even start.

Yeah I know what you mean. Actually, this whole thing with knowing/sensing seems nonsensical and unfounded... for the very reason that it is the mind that comes to this conclusion. But this experience is not like something the mind understands. It's a little bit like trying to logically understand the flavour chocolate. Well, you can understand how molecules interact with your sensory organs and signals being interpreted by the brain, but you cannot grasp the very experience of the flavor... that, you can only experience. Of course this is a bad example, since we can figure out the mechanisms of the experience all the way till the electric signals in the brain, sort of... but, we don't know about what happens between the electricity in the brain and our experience in our consciousness. We have defined impulses as consciousness, but that's just a decided definition... is it just that? Is everything in our lives just electric impulses and molecules in the brain?

In any case.. I don't claim to posses the truth... these are just my experiences... and I know I can never convince anyone about them... and there is no need to.

About your initial question... where to start... well, I only know one place, but it is very easy to misunderstand that as something religious and hence dismiss it. I believe, from experience, that anyone can do this... and often it happens in very difficult times (and there can be different reasons for that). What I'm talking about is to totally let down the guard, relax the mental resistance... and desire to be shown (in WHATEVER way) the truth about reality. This desire is directed toward "something bigger"... no matter what it is.... we are NOT concerned with what that is. Forget all about God. Just be purely desiring to be shown something that you currently do not see. Direct it to "that which is above all else". Dare to ask without knowing, without believing, without having proof or signs. The important matters here are two things.

We need to have the desire to find the truth, WHATEVER it may be.... which means we have to be relaxed and open, without ideas about how things should be or what they cannot be. This is not the same as accepting things we don't believe in... how could we? We always have good reasons for believing what we believe, as we see it. It is rather about suspending disbelief and giving the UNKNOWN a chance to come in and be seen, IF it is there.
We have to take the initiative, like closing eyes and nose and jumping into the water, without knowing first. It's like the farmer who waits for the first tiny seedlings to come up, so that he has proof that he'll have a crop, so that he then confidently can sow all the seeds. This farmer will never have a crop. He has to take the initiative. He can't sit around a wait for proof. So we should also take the initiative. We should put out a desire and question into "the universe" without assumptions, and then just let it be. We should take the risk of totally relaxing within... for some time ceasing to be run by the mind and its beaten tracks... and let "the heart" sense the things that the mind cannot sense... 'cause the mind doesn't sense anything, it only reasons things out.

I know all this sounds just like philosophies, and probably stupid, nonsensical and intangible... but I cannot explain it better at this point in time. I know it works for me. I have lots of resistance in me, and it is not easy to shed it. It takes time and effort... but it has done great good for me.

To summarize it briefly, I have come to see the mind as a marvelous tool that is doing all it can to protects us through instincts and inherited behaviour etc, but we need to understand the proper role and limitations of the mind. When the mind is let loose, it will not guide us, but lead us astray, although it does its best. Resistance comes from the mind. Resistance will prevent us from seeing all those aspects/dimensions of reality that there is. The mind cannot see these, simply because it is not made for this. We should instead "think", or rather experience/sense, with our "hearts". I mean, look at the world today. It's in a mess, in havoc. We are ruining eachother and we are ruining the planet. The mind, with all it's ingenuity and intelligence, has not been able to create anything sustainable. Why does it take damage before some of us understand? You don't need to believe in a god to understand that there is something deeper within us that KNOWS what's right. Of course, even this example is bad since people will always say that it is the mind that knows this, but it sometimes has other overriding priorities. So, either we feel/sense/experience it, or we don't. But anyone can. But it is us who has to take the initiative to crack that hard shell of resistance that we carry around... so that we can open up to all there is. If we wait for proof, we'll end up waiting forever. It's like asking for proof that you have a pencil in the hand. Ok, you feel it and see it, but maybe you are delusional, maybe you think you live in a matrix or dream and the pencil isn't real. You want proof that there is a pencil and it is real. Where will you find such a proof? And what value and purpose would such a proof have? Will it change something?

Either we experience it, or we don't. It cannot be explained.

I should not ramble on anymore.
I'm just a human being, with limited understanding. This is how I currently see things and I have tried to put it in words. I have no clue to what degree I'm right or mistaken. We are all on individual journeys.

Cheers and take care!

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, Zulf.

I understand your philosophical viewpoint, especially with regards to personal experiences. However, I can't use this as a valid position reared toward reality, and there are several reasons for that... Here's a brief example

A woman prayed for the Christian God to 'show himself' to her, due to what she regarded as her 'bad luck'. Her prayers lasted for weeks, and nothing happened. Eventually, she gave up, stating that God must not be real, since he didn't respond to the prayers (even though Jesus explicitly said that God would do so)... Well, according to this woman, about three weeks later, she received an "answer" to her prayers. She got up one morning and decided to eat a light meal for breakfast (or brunch). As she was preparing her meal, a grilled cheese sandwich, she noticed something peculiar once she took a few bites - the face (or, what she perceived to be a face) of the Virgin Mary was on her toasted bread! She was so shocked that she sealed up the half-eaten sandwich and kept it for over ten years, claiming that her luck changed dramatically from that day onward, even to the degree of her winning 70,000 American dollars at a casino - all thanks to this "holy toast"! And no, I'm not making this up... http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4019295.stm

Experience doesn't always authenticate reality. Sometimes, especially due to our values and preconditions, we tend to see and feel things that aren't really there. This "Virgin Mary Sandwich" is a prime example of this. Did God actually, miraculously draw a picture of Mary and place it on this woman's toasted bread? The idea of that sounds plain silly, if not completely ridiculous. We know, through rational thought, that people often see what they want to see - whether what they see is real or imaginary.

Now, is there anything wrong with believing in God? Of course not - that's not my position at all. However, I do believe that we need to be able to verify and authenticate our convictions. Otherwise, who's to say whether our beliefs are warranted or not? We could be completely delusional, just like this woman - as well as the thousands of people who wholeheartedly believe in this magic toast. If we can't confirm what we believe through science and rational thinking, then what makes us so sure that we're right and everyone else is wrong?

Peace,

Ahmad

Zulf

I know... I see the dilemma. Those that are delusional don't realize it. However, are they open to this possibility?
I maintain that either we see, or we're blind. If we're blind (delusional or not), we won't realize it, because we don't know what it is we don't see, since we've never had the experience of it. It would only be an intellectual exercise. This is also why it is useless for one to try to convince the other. But I also maintain that this fact however doesn't mean that the seeing persons are clueless about his/her own situation. But of course there is no way to tell, from the outside. There's a difference between seeing and blind, to use allegorical words.

Best regards

Ibrahim-Khalil

Really interesting topic. Just to add my 2 cents to discussion on links between Islam and Hip-Hop. I agree with most what the brother Ahmad said about this. Islam is like unofficial religion of Hip-Hop. People often call some rappers muslims, and they are really not (they are not traditional muslims). I know a lot about the american Hip-Hop, and I'm listening to it a lot. And forgive me for my bad english, by the way.
Peace.