Person who believes in God but does not practice organized religion

Ikrame

I think the message of the quran is not found only in the quran. For me personally i find it hard to judge a person who doesn t believe in a creator but practices the messages(being good etc) does he go to hell. i really don t know.
maybe it s worst if you reject the message than reject a creator because God is sufficient by Himself

Man_of_Faith

Peace Java Latte

It is not so strange that people see it is from God because it is narrated by The Master alone compared to all narrations composed by humans out there. Before that the testaments were written by human devotees except what was given to Moses on tablets and which original seem to be long lost (the Ark of the covenant).

God bless you

JavaLatte

I think the message of the quran is not found only in the quran. For me personally i find it hard to judge a person who doesn t believe in a creator but practices the messages(being good etc) does he go to hell. i really don t know.
maybe it s worst if you reject the message than reject a creator because God is sufficient by Himself

We cannot judge that they are wrong and will go to Hell, and

do not forget that we also cannot judge (and cannot guarantee) that they are right and will not go to Hell.

Peace.

Existential1

We cannot judge that they are wrong and will go to Hell, and

do not forget that we also cannot judge (and cannot guarantee) that they are right and will not go to Hell.

That is correct. I think people who are righteous w/out knowledge of God are not excluded from Paradise. I believe this was explained to us through

"...So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ."

Each individual must strive to understand God on their own terms with what God gave them. If He willed, we would all have no choice but to follow Him. He gave us free-will, I believe, so that we could prove our commitment to Him. Some people have an easier path than others to do that.

peace

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

262 Indeed, those who believed, and those who became hudan (literally repenters) or the nasara (literally helpers) or the sabian (literally rejectors) ? who believed in Allah and the last day and acted appropriately ? so for them their reward is with their Master, and they don?t have any fear, nor will they grieve.

(My personal translation; cross checking is recommended.)

I believe the term "Sabian" (which literally translates to "rejector" or "rejectionist&quot refers to people who reject organized religions / scriptures but do believe in God/Allah, have faith in accountability for thier action after death (i.e. last day) and act appropriately. (According to some reports, the followers of Muhammad (pbh) in the early days were also used to be called Sabians because they rejected all established religions in the land at that time.) This term potentially includes the deist or the followers of Brahmoism or similar groups. Even if we do not accept that the specific term "sabian" covers these groups - the broad principle of the quoted verse quite clearly does.

But it is also my opinion that staying on the path of righteousness is more difficult being a rejector than being a pious /religious person - especially for the common mass.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

JavaLatte

Peace.

If we truly* believe in God (or trying to submit to God, or at least trying to get closer to God),

then I think hopefully there is hope for us to pass God's court safely.

*not fake, not pretend

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

As long as people have faith in God and stand by the same "ruleset" as presented by God in the revelations that exist then there is nothing to fear or any grief.

And I do not blame anyone for being put off by people who perverted the interpretation of the available material.

We need to keep together as humans and it is this mushrik-behavior that causes all the problems. Or the ones who simply want to spread mischief because they are evil and opponents of God.

I am glad that our faith (often called "islam&quot came out to be harmonious after understanding it better.

God bless you

muslims

http//www.quotesvalley.com/images/33/my-religion-is-very-simple-my-religion-is-kindness-35.jpg

I wish I could ask Dalai Lama what is "kindness" because I believe his interpretation might not be accurate . . . since I don't believe Muhammad and the companions are "preaching the Quran", bring "kindness" (as per Dalai Lama interpretation) and then successfully acquired new muslim countries where everyone is happy and brought Islam to different parts of the world. These are real facts and there are many Muslim countries all over the world, and it cannot be through "preaching the Quran", explaining about Allah, angels, paradise, "smiling" and bring "kindness" to others. laugh

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

How about fighting oppression that is decreed?

But kindness goes a long way. I still have no wonder about Jesus alleged saying ifsomeone slaps you on one side offer them the next. The lesson in that is it does not help the situation to return the violence back.

But obviously not only kindness would work against groups like ISIS because Satan has made their deeds look pleasing to their eyes. And I am not sure myself what the individual footman would enjoy of strict Shariah laws. When they have their foundation of mischief I think they will regret fighting for it if they live in that society, but likely they will have animosity and restlessness until they are going back to God. Sometimes people are oblivious to what kind of reason they are fighting.

But to convert your enemy to God's unity you cannot violently just approach them in arguments, but you have to sharpen and subdue your tongue and show your best. Jesus said something about what challenge is it to show love towards those already inclined towards you. If you can love your enemy then you have an advantage. That does not say you have to love his deeds, but empathy goes a long way. Many times people fight because of frustration of something and there is always a reason people fight. But certainly many times they are merely wicked.

You should always try to find out why a person fights you and perhaps it is a viable cause and then perhaps you could compromise. Jesus said If they ask for your cloak then offer your tunic too. Humbleness.

You see that Jesus only spoke in allegories. But what he meant was that if someone complains of not getting the right measure on scales, for example, then give him a little more than just what would make him satisfied.

But the alleged passivism of Jesus people seem to derive from the Gospel testimonies is falsehood. Jesus acted outwards pretty much.

However when he talked about throwing away all your money and join him he was serious. But it all depends on our faith really. And the society was probably different with more hospitality when he was alive so he could probably stay as a guest here and there. Well he did pretty much a hajj when he was around in that narration.

And during that time you could likely throw away all your money and possessions and preach and work for people along the way.

We could learn something from that too now in 2014 and it is all our dependence upon all comfortable things and the countless amount of trash that we buy for our homes that we could live without.

We buy too many unnecessary things and many have to admit they buy a new car just to own new things and this and that and they have dreams of living in mansions when nearly a tent would suffice.

But that was just a modern lesson based on what Jesus said.

Greedy people will have a difficult time entering the gates of Heaven.

God bless you

muslims

How about fighting oppression that is decreed?

Yes. . and it have been decreed in the Quran and has not been nullified.

I believe it is to strive for "unity within diversity" and "freedom of religion", this is the kindness that Allah is referring to.
Therefore, no one is allowed to condemn other religions, denominations, beliefs and traditions

and this sometimes, would call for war against sectarians, against sectarianism
which what happened during the Medina period, the aggressive Islam

but when there is no threat to unity and there is freedom of religion , maybe it is the kindness as what Dalai Lama described
which what happened during the Mecca period, the peaceful Islam

Both is Islam. . and both is "kindness", because Muhammad did that and it is clear facts that there are wars during his time.

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

Yes. Verily if you save people from oppression then that is kindness. And it is true that oppression is worse than murder.

God bless you

Lena

What about illiterate people or traditional tribal peoples who believe in one God and lead a righteous life but they cannot read or understand many verses in Quran? Doesn't one have to have a reasonable level of literacy to research and understand many verse of Quran?

Jafar

What about illiterate people or traditional tribal peoples who believe in one God and lead a righteous life but they cannot read or understand many verses in Quran? Doesn't one have to have a reasonable level of literacy to research and understand many verse of Quran?

They do good deed, then it's all fine.

I wish I could ask Dalai Lama what is "kindness" because I believe his interpretation might not be accurate . . . since I don't believe Muhammad and the companions are "preaching the Quran", bring "kindness" (as per Dalai Lama interpretation) and then successfully acquired new muslim countries where everyone is happy and brought Islam to different parts of the world. These are real facts and there are many Muslim countries all over the world, and it cannot be through "preaching the Quran", explaining about Allah, angels, paradise, "smiling" and bring "kindness" to others. laugh

There's something wrong in people's 'general assumption'.

The fact most probably are

1.Muhammad did preached kindness.
2.Muhammad did not preached the Quran.
3.Muhammad did not invade another countries
4.Muhammad did not invented a religion named Islam.

Fact supporting (2) The Quran which we have today was codified by somebody else around 20 years after Muhammad's death
Fact supporting (3) There isn't any evidence to support Muhammad invaded another country during his lifetime.
Fact supporting (4) The Shahada of Islam which mandated a testimony to Muhammad.

Comparing the (possible) case of Muhammad with the case of Jesus, we can see similar pattern.

1.Jesus did preached kindness.
2.Jesus did not preached the Gospel. (The Gospel was codified some years after Jesus lifetime, the same case with Quran)
3.Jesus did not invade another countries (clear, there's no evidence of it)
4.Jesus did not invented religion named Christianity. (clear, there's no record showing Jesus converted anyone or invented a religion)

Furthermore; I'm now intrigued on how people came to believe in a 'holy book'.

Book is among human's technological advancement.
It requires ink to write and paper as medium.
It requires ink and paper to be invented first.

The belief in a 'holy book' is similar to belief in a 'holy software'.
It requires a computer to be invented first.

Perhaps... sometime in the future, somebody will invent a belief in a 'holy software'.
And it shall become a religion so common that no one will ever bothered to question the 'oddity' of such belief.

And (few) brave people will start to ask
"What about those who lived before the invention of computer?"
"How will they be guided without the << name of the holy software >>?"

Salam / Peace

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum brother Jafar.

While in most posts your wisdom and openness thoroughly impress me ? in some others, like the one above, you really surprise me with rather weak arguments and suppositions. Let me give a bit more details

?Muhammad did not preach the Quran... The Quran which we have today was codified by somebody else around 20 years after Muhammad's death?.

For how many authors born before 15th century would you be able to produce ?original manuscripts"? Even for authors born 100s of years before Muhammad (e.g. Homer, Aristotle etc.) we do accept, in good faith, certain books were authored by them without seeing the original manuscript written by them. Then how come the absence of original manuscript from Muhammad?s era prove that he did not preach the Qur?an? To establish such a unique claim, at a minimum you need to a) produce an alternate hypothesis and b) offer some sort of proof / argument to support your alternate hypothesis ? which you didn?t.

The political history of the so called ?Khulafa-e Rashedeen? era is well documented. It is well established that there was bitter rivalry between various subgroups ? shia, sunni, Ismailist and so on. These were people contemporary to Muhammad and they also witnessed the gradual codification of Qur'an. Had someone other than Muhammad come up with the Qur?an, or part of it ? there would have been some record of opposition from some group to that effort. However, there is widespread consensus about the Qur?an being preached by Muhammad among all groups and subgroups who call themselves Muslims. As far as I am concerned - this adequately establishes that Qur?an was preached by Muhammad (pbh). In fact, there is a widespread consensus among historians that the most certain identity of Muhammad (pbh) is that he was an Arab who preached the Qur?an. Every other ?story? that we know about him has much less factual support.

On a related note, Jesus did not preach Gospel is also an invalid statement. Gospel is by definition the ?Teachings of Jesus?. So, at best you can say the Gospel that we have with us may not be the accurate or real Gospel ? since there are several different versions of Gospel with us today. For Qur'an even that sort of argument doesn't fly because the maximum variation in Qur'an script that we have with us today (Warsh, Hafs etc.) is limited to insignificant variations in vowels and perhaps a few words here and there.

? The belief in a 'holy book' is similar to belief in a 'holy software'. It requires a computer to be invented first.?.

The premises of this argument is that ? ?holy books? did not exist from the beginning of humanity ? so ?holy books? cannot come later to guide humans. Otherwise it would be unfair to the earlier generations.

The above argument is only valid if someone believes or proposes that the belief in / knowledge of a certain holy book or set of holy books is mandatory to live a functional / acceptable life. But not all ?holy books? present itself like that, especially not Qur?an. It only presents itself, at the very beginning, as a guidance for those who believe in it (Ref 22-5). Furthermore, the Qur?an categorically rejects the idea that belief in / knowledge of any particular holy book is mandatory for one?s guidance

365 O! Fraternity of the book - why do you debate concerning Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not sent down but from after him? So, why do you not understand?

(My personal translation, cross checking recommended.)

What is mandatory for our life ? the intellect and conscience - did exist from the beginning of mankind; holy books came later on only to serve as a guidance and a reminder. Such a definition / understanding of the concept of ?holy book? invalidates your argument above.

Think of a Museum ? which starts up as a small simple private collection? then gradually grows big. At a certain stage it becomes so complex that the Museum owners decide to issue a guide book for the visitors. The fact that the guidebook was issued many years after the opening of the museum does not invalidate the fact that the guidebook was issued by the museum authority. Only if someone claims that without the guidebook one cannot visit / enjoy the museum ? you may argue that it cannot be true because the museum functioned quite well without any guidebook for many years.

Dear brother Jafar ? you seem to have chosen a path to lead an appropriate / moral life believing and understanding God in your own way. You also seem to be confident that you do not need a holy scripture to guide you. At least, as far as I am concerned, that is absolutely alright. But let us ? none of us ? assume we have understood all of God?s plans / intensions. God may choose to guide some with a book, some with a snake and some with a flood. Let?s all have the humility to focus on our own path ? if we are too busy criticizing the paths of others, we may lose sight of the one we are following.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

Jafar

Salamun Alaikum brother Jafar.

While in most posts your wisdom and openness thoroughly impress me ? in some others, like the one above, you really surprise me with rather weak arguments and suppositions. Let me give a bit more details

Thank you, and please do not hesitate to 'attack' my argument if you perceive it as weak.

?Muhammad did not preach the Quran... The Quran which we have today was codified by somebody else around 20 years after Muhammad's death?.

Then how come the absence of original manuscript from Muhammad?s era prove that he did not preach the Qur?an? To establish such a unique claim, at a minimum you need to a) produce an alternate hypothesis and b) offer some sort of proof / argument to support your alternate hypothesis ? which you didn?t.

There can be hundreds of variant hypothesis.
Yet I deemed it as 'futile' as none of those other hypothesis can be proven anyway.

But the fact remains, there's no Muhammad's Quran as we speak..

As far as I am concerned - this adequately establishes that Qur?an was preached by Muhammad (pbh).

And where is this Book of Quran that did exist during Muhammad's lifetime?

On a related note, Jesus did not preach Gospel is also an invalid statement. Gospel is by definition the ?Teachings of Jesus?. So, at best you can say the Gospel that we have with us may not be the accurate or real Gospel ? since there are several different versions of Gospel with us today.

In the same manner as "Muhammad did not preached the holy book today named Quran" the same can go for "Jesus did not preached holy book today named Gospel".
The argument is very simple it's because the holy book named Quran and the holy book named Gospel did not exist during their lifetime.

Having said that, based on the Gospel that we have today Jesus often quoted many verses from Tanakh.
Thus we can say that Jesus preached the Tanakh and the Tanakh does already exist during Jesus lifetime.

For Qur'an even that sort of argument doesn't fly because the maximum variation in Qur'an script that we have with us today (Warsh, Hafs etc.) is limited to insignificant variations in vowels and perhaps a few words here and there.

The variation or non-variation is irrelevant...
To me variation is normal, due to how human brain works..

? The belief in a 'holy book' is similar to belief in a 'holy software'. It requires a computer to be invented first.?.

The premises of this argument is that ? ?holy books? did not exist from the beginning of humanity ? so ?holy books? cannot come later to guide humans. Otherwise it would be unfair to the earlier generations.

The above argument is only valid if someone believes or proposes that the belief in / knowledge of a certain holy book or set of holy books is mandatory to live a functional / acceptable life. But not all ?holy books? present itself like that, especially not Qur?an. It only presents itself, at the very beginning, as a guidance for those who believe in it (Ref 22-5). Furthermore, the Qur?an categorically rejects the idea that belief in / knowledge of any particular holy book is mandatory for one?s guidance

This is true and exactly my point.
And it's valid not only for the book named Quran, but other books as well.

What I'm 'attacking' here is not the book per se, but people general perception of the book.
Because it's not the idol's fault to become idolized..
When people love something too much, they exaggerate the thing that they love beyond the actual fact.

What is mandatory for our life ? the intellect and conscience - did exist from the beginning of mankind; holy books came later on only to serve as a guidance and a reminder. Such a definition / understanding of the concept of ?holy book? invalidates your argument above.

Be consistent, and so does probably holy software in the future...

Think of a Museum ? which starts up as a small simple private collection? then gradually grows big. At a certain stage it becomes so complex that the Museum owners decide to issue a guide book for the visitors. The fact that the guidebook was issued many years after the opening of the museum does not invalidate the fact that the guidebook was issued by the museum authority. Only if someone claims that without the guidebook one cannot visit / enjoy the museum ? you may argue that it cannot be true because the museum functioned quite well without any guidebook for many years.

This is more accurate the non-museum owners (third parties) might decided to develop museum guide software downloadable to the visitor's handset. Thus the visitor have choices on which museum guide software that he want to download. Each of the software have their own strength and weaknesses. Which is okay.

What's not okay is when the visitor think that "his downloaded software of the museum is infallible" as thus render the other software as 'fake'.

Because honestly, all are 'fake'...
Because the museum owner did not actually developed any of those software....

You also seem to be confident that you do not need a holy scripture to guide you. At least, as far as I am concerned, that is absolutely alright.

On contrary I think I need millions of scriptures (and software or other means) to guide me.
Whether they're holy or not it doesn't matter..
I don't think there's such thing as one truest and holiest scripture (or holy software).
I think none of those books (or software) are holy..

But let us ? none of us ? assume we have understood all of God?s plans / intensions. God may choose to guide some with a book, some with a snake and some with a flood. Let?s all have the humility to focus on our own path ? if we are too busy criticizing the paths of others, we may lose sight of the one we are following.

Some with fire, some with lightning, some with snake, some with a flood, some with a burning bush....
It doesn't matter...

Actually I'm criticizing the path of those who are too busy criticizing the paths of others.. and thinking that there's only one true path that is his/her path.. which has been told in his/her infallible holy book.

Salam / Peace

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum brother Joseph.

The ?fact? according to you post of June 19, 2014, 095102 AM was ?Muhammad did not preached the Quran.?
The ?fact? according to you post of Today at 095644 PM was ?But the fact remains, there's no Muhammad's Quran as we speak..?

If you understand that these two statements are not same, and the second does not automatically prove the first, then I believe I have conveyed what I wanted to say. I do not claim that I have the proof that Muhammad preached the Qur?an ? I have not lived in Muhammad?s era and I have not seen him preach. Just like I have no proof that man ever landed on moon. I have never been on moon myself - so there is no way I can prove there was ever a moon landing. Even the stones they claim to have collected from moon can be fake, right? However, the signs, indications which have reached me are enough for me to believe that Muhammad was the first person to preach the Qur?an and that moon landing actually happened. I simply do not have enough evidence or reason to reject these widely held beliefs. If you do not believe, it is fine ? there are conspiracy theorists who do not believe in moon landing either, then who cares. But do not claim ?Muhammad did not preached the Quran? as a ?fact? ? because you simply do not have any proof either way.

On contrary I think I need millions of scriptures (and software or other means) to guide me.
Whether they're holy or not it doesn't matter..
I don't think there's such thing as one truest and holiest scripture (or holy software).
I think none of those books (or software) are holy..

That?s alright as well. You can and should think / believe based on your conscience and intellect. The entire question of God and angels and Holiness of Books are in the realm of ?unobservable? (al?ghaib)? Qur?an claims to be guidance only for those who are ready to put their belief in unobservable. For those who are not ready ? it is merely some writings on paper.

Best regards,
Arman

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum brother Jafar.

I am extremely sorry I called you Joseph in my earlier post... it is an unintentional "slip of keyboard". Hope you can overlook this silly error.

Regards,
Arman

Jafar

Salamun Alaikum brother Joseph.

The ?fact? according to you post of June 19, 2014, 095102 AM was ?Muhammad did not preached the Quran.?
The ?fact? according to you post of Today at 095644 PM was ?But the fact remains, there's no Muhammad's Quran as we speak..?

If you understand that these two statements are not same, and the second does not automatically prove the first, then I believe I have conveyed what I wanted to say. I do not claim that I have the proof that Muhammad preached the Qur?an ? I have not lived in Muhammad?s era and I have not seen him preach. Just like I have no proof that man ever landed on moon. I have never been on moon myself - so there is no way I can prove there was ever a moon landing. Even the stones they claim to have collected from moon can be fake, right? However, the signs, indications which have reached me are enough for me to believe that Muhammad was the first person to preach the Qur?an and that moon landing actually happened. I simply do not have enough evidence or reason to reject these widely held beliefs. If you do not believe, it is fine ? there are conspiracy theorists who do not believe in moon landing either, then who cares. But do not claim ?Muhammad did not preached the Quran? as a ?fact? ? because you simply do not have any proof either way.

Let's give it other name, thus we can avoid any 'subjective fondness' towards 'names/identity', in this case an identity / name of "Quran".

Miguel received some 'inspiration' and he preached it to the public.
The audience was so mesmerized with his preaching, some of them record / memorize his preaching.
It's unknown whether Miguel also keep note of his inspiration, perhaps he did perhaps he did not.

Miguel died.
The notes of his preaching / inspiration, lingers on through the hands of his audience.
Some years later the authority codified the preaching / inspiration and name it "La Lectura".

Since Miguel already died when "La Lectura" was codified, he did not have the chance to review the "La Lectura".

Questions

Did Miguel preached "La Lectura"? (of course not! the "La Lectura" was not even exist during Miguel's lifetime)

Does "La Lectura" contains Miguel's preaching / inspiration? (Perhaps yes)
Does "La Lectura" contains only Miguel's preaching / inspiration without any mistake or additional things?
(Perhaps not, there might be some error here and there and some idea that's not coming from Miguel is being included within)
Does all of Miguel's preaching / inspiration 100% recorded in "La Lectura"?
(Perhaps not, there's possibility of inspiration / preaching which Miguel did that's not being recorded in "La Lectura&quot

Further

The authority declared "La Lectura" to be holy and infallible and those who questioned / challenge the "La Lectura" will be punished according to the authority's law.

Additional Thing To Ponder

Has "La Lectura" become an 'idol' in this case?

After some few centuries

The "La Lectura" fans club thinks that only those who believe in "La Lectura" shall earn heaven and those who are not shall be put to hell because they don't believe in "La Lectura". In an effort to convert the entire earth to be "Lecturians", thus save them from the punishment of hell, the "La Lectura" was distributed to the chinese.

The chinese did not like the book, because

It's in medieval Spanish
It contains stories about the life of French and Latin heroes that the Chinese are not familiar with.

In response to that; the "Lecturians" said that the Chinese are doomed for hell due to their 'heresy' to "La Lectura".

Salam / Peace

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum Brother Jafar

This is really getting interesting. You have provided your version of the story. I tend to agree to most of it - but this is only your version. I am adding my notes in red below.

Let's give it other name, thus we can avoid any 'subjective fondness' towards 'names/identity', in this case an identity / name of "Quran".

Miguel received some 'inspiration' and he preached it to the public.
The audience was so mesmerized with his preaching, some of them record / memorize his preaching.
It's unknown whether Miguel also keep note of his inspiration, perhaps he did perhaps he did not. Story goes that he did keep copy - but those were destroyed later - to be explained below.

Miguel died.
The notes of his preaching / inspiration, lingers on through the hands of his audience.
Some years later the authority codified the preaching / inspiration and name it "La Lectura" and supposedly destroyed the notes from Miguel's time to avoid confusion. Since the death of Miguel his followers bitterly sub-divided amongst themselves on the question of who will succeed Miguel. But all the fighting groups unanimously agreed that "La Lectura" is an accurate and complete codification of Miguel's preaching / inspiration. They neither objected to the idea that "La Lectura" is meticulously based on recordings from Miguel's preaching nor did they object to the destroying of the older records.

Since Miguel already died when "La Lectura" was codified, he did not have the chance to review the "La Lectura".

Questions

Did Miguel preached "La Lectura"? (of course not! the "La Lectura" was not even exist during Miguel's lifetime) Disagree - "La Lectura" is supposedly only a collection of what Miguel preached - it is only codified under a title. Based on the consensus of all the followers of Miguel it can be reasonably ascertained that Miguel preached the contents of La Lectura and he wanted these to be read as a consolidated book named "La Lectura".
Next
Does "La Lectura" contains Miguel's preaching / inspiration? (Perhaps yes)
Does "La Lectura" contains only Miguel's preaching / inspiration without any mistake or additional things?
(Perhaps not, there might be some error here and there and some idea that's not coming from Miguel is being included within) - Theoretically possible, but without any proof such acquitions are nothing but conjecture.
Does all of Miguel's preaching / inspiration 100% recorded in "La Lectura"?
(Perhaps not, there's possibility of inspiration / preaching which Miguel did that's not being recorded in "La Lectura&quot Theoretically possible, but without any proof such acquitions are nothing but conjecture.

Further

The authority declared "La Lectura" to be holy and infallible and those who questioned / challenge the "La Lectura" will be punished according to the authority's law. At the same time there was no shortage of people who challanged the authority of these same authority figures, but they also agreed on the point of "La Lectura" being taught by Miguel.
Additional Thing To Ponder
Has "La Lectura" become an 'idol' in this case?
Idol for those who take it blindly. For those who study it and then after deliberation comes to the conclusion that it is indeed flawless per their understanding (both morally and intellectually) - then no. Saying "I believe whatever my father says" - is blind faith, but saying "I believe whatever my father says because I never found him saying anything wrong to me" - is a statement of trust.

After some few centuries

The "La Lectura" fans club thinks that only those who believe in "La Lectura" shall earn heaven and those who are not shall be put to hell because they don't believe in "La Lectura". "La Lectura" HAS become an 'idol' in this case. In an effort to convert the entire earth to be "Lecturians", thus save them from the punishment of hell, the "La Lectura" was distributed to the chinese.

The chinese did not like the book, because

It's in medieval Spanish
It contains stories about the life of French and Latin heroes that the Chinese are not familiar with.

In response to that; the "Lecturians" said that the Chinese are doomed for hell due to their 'heresy' to "La Lectura".

I agree that anyone has right to like / not like "La Lectura". However statement of truth does not become wrong because of some one liking or disliking it. I may not like "Theory of Relativity" because I do not understand it - but that does not make the theory wrong. Not liking "Theory of Relativity" or not being able to understand is perfectly alright - but claiming "Theory of Relativity" may be wrong, or may not be from Einstein - without understanding it or providing any reason for such acquisition, is unacceptable behavior.

Salam / Peace

Jafar

Salamun Alaikum Brother Jafar

This is really getting interesting. You have provided your version of the story. I tend to agree to most of it - but this is only your version. I am adding my notes in red below.

Thank you..

I agree that anyone has right to like / not like "La Lectura". However statement of truth does not become wrong because of some one liking or disliking it. I may not like "Theory of Relativity" because I do not understand it - but that does not make the theory wrong. Not liking "Theory of Relativity" or not being able to understand is perfectly alright - but claiming "Theory of Relativity" may be wrong, or may not be from Einstein - without understanding it or providing any reason for such acquisition, is unacceptable behavior.

The basic differences here is that the Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not and so far has never been "Idolized".
Furthermore given nobody has invented the religion of "EINSTEINISM" .. yet as of now, but who knows someone might be in the future...

Nobody has ever came up with argument of "Theory of Relativity is true because Einstein said so"..
Everyone is free to challenge the truthfulness of "Theory of Relativity" and also to challenge perhaps it was not Einstein who first discovered it..

Thus one of the intriguing fact here is actually
"HOW COME LECTURIANS DEVELOPED SUCH ATTITUDE?"

When does it starts ? and why?
Why did they developed a mindset of "We need a holy book and the only true holy book is LA LECTURA"?

Continuing the story on Miguel. La Lectura and The Lecturians..

In response to The Lecturians accusations of "Heresy" due to not giving a 5 star review of their holy book "La Lectura".
The Chinese are basically confused...

Within the chinese society they have hundreds of books, some of them are WANG BA DAN, GUAI LO and BAICHI..
Yet nobody within the society considered any of it as "holy".
And nobody think that "we need a holy book in order to be saved", such mindset just do not exist within their society.

Thus in response to Lecturians accusations of 'heresy', the chinese translated WANG BA DAN, GUAI LO and BAICHI to Spanish.
Give it to the Lecturians and said

"Lecturians, amigos, here are some of our books translated to your language."
"You're free to believe in it as a whole, believe only some part of it or not believe in any of it at all".
"Unlike you, we will not accuse you of heresy on whatever opinion that you have regarding WANG BA DAN, GUAI LO or BAICHI".
"To be frank, we're confused of your fanatical view on your La Lectura book, we don't have such view in our society".

Which one is relatively more 'sane' here?
The Chinese? or the Lecturians?

Did Miguel preached "La Lectura"? (of course not! the "La Lectura" was not even exist during Miguel's lifetime)
Disagree - "La Lectura" is supposedly only a collection of what Miguel preached - it is only codified under a title. Based on the consensus of all the followers of Miguel it can be reasonably ascertained that Miguel preached the contents of La Lectura and he wanted these to be read as a consolidated book named "La Lectura".

There's no way Miguel was saying
"Let me quote you from chapter 4, verse 16-20 from La Lectura".
Given La Lectura was not yet there / in existence during Miguel's lifetime.

It's as ridiculous as hypothesizing Jesus ever said
"As it's written on Gospel of Matthew 5, verses 3 to 20, which said... ".

Salam / Peace