Peace, @good-logic.

Just to clarify, by "you," I didn't mean you in particular. I was speaking generally...

However, I think my point still stands. You said:

@good-logic said in People of the Qur'an are more divided?:

it does not matter because "Salaat" is a connection to GOD and a private relation between the individual and GOD Alone first even when done in groups.
There is no benefit to each other from doing "Salaat" in groups,except our identity . As groups we are uniting on GOD Alone and serving GOD Alone . Each individual in the group has come to do "Salaat" to connect /commemorate/dedicate this time to GOD Alone.

Even if we suppose that there's very little benefit to performing salaat in groups (which I would personally disagree with), that doesn't actually fix the problem. You're arguing that salaat is a "private relation between the individual and GOD Alone." However, how are you determining this? Again, the Quranist movement can't even agree on what salaat is! So, how do you know it's an individual practice?

What is salaat?

When you say that 'each individual in the group has come to do salaat,' that's incorrect, at least in a Quran-Alone context. Rather, each individual has decided what salaat means to him (or her), and they independently act according to their own individual beliefs and ideas. And that's simply not how any of the (classical) Abrahamic faiths have ever operated. Everyone is supposed to be on one accord.

To reiterate, salaat, according to the Quran, is an actual thing — meaning it has its own ontological value. In other words, when God tells people to do (or keep) the "salaat," He's instructing them to perform and maintain a specific thing. Thus, if you and the person next to you are both doing "salaat," but your 'salaats' look different, then one (or both) of you is wrong. That same idea can be applied across the board.

For example, let's assume that the shahaada is a religious rite (as it is in most Islamic sects). If God assigned that shahaada, then everyone is required to say that shahaada; and they can do that individually or collectively. However, if everyone's shahaada is different, then there's clearly a problem.

Peace, and God bless.

Peace, @good-logic.

I don't entirely disagree with you. We do have a personal responsibility toward God, and we're all individually accountable to Him. However, our alignment within His system — whether you believe that to be Islam, or if you believe it to be something else (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, etc.) — will be expressed through a collective (and cooperative) institution.

Thus, I'm not saying that we're not all individually responsible for our deeds. I'm saying that the guidelines for our deeds — the things we're supposed to do — are presented to the collective; and the things we're supposed to do are real things.

I'll put it like this... God, according to the Qur'an, tells the believers to do specific things (e.g. salaat, zakaat, etc.). That implies that those things have ontological value in and of themselves. In other words, they're not arbitrary words that each individual can interpret on their own. "Salaat" refers to a specific thing; and, if you do something other than that specific thing, then you're (definitionally) not doing "salaat." Thus, it's incumbent upon the believers, whoever they are, to know (and agree on) what exactly "salaat" is and how to do it.

So, again, I'm not saying we're not individually responsible for our personal actions. We are. However, God sent His messages down to groups of people, not individuals. Therefore, we're all tasked with doing the same thing (e.g. salaat, zakaat, etc.). God sent down one command to everyone because everyone should, generally speaking, agree on what that thing is. That's the collective element. Everyone got the same message, and there's an objective way to understand that message.

To put it simply, if you think you're the only person in the world who truly knows and understands what "salaat" means, then maybe you're the one in error.

Peace, and God bless you as well.

Peace, @good-logic.

While I agree that “salvation” (depending on how you define that) is based on what we do as individuals, the system itself — “Islam,” or submission — is a collective act. The Quran emphasizes this over and over again:

And hold firmly together to the rope of Allah, and do not be divided. Remember Allah’s favour upon you (plural) when you (plural) were enemies, then He united your hearts, so you(plural) — by His grace — became brothers. And you (plural) were at the brink of a fiery pit and He saved you (plural) from it. This is how Allah makes His revelations clear to you, so that you may be guided. (Q. 3:103)

Again, God’s system was never designed to be individualistic. Redemption is a collective process. Yes, individual people are required to play their respective parts, but God has always saved and redeemed them in groups — first, the nation (or children) of Israel, then the Church (or followers) of Jesus, and finally, according to the Quran, the ummah (or community) of Muhammad.

In the above passage, the “rope of Allah” is a collective instrument that the people are instructed to hold onto together. The fiery pit is referring to hell, and the people are saved from it as a group. The command to ‘not be divided’ implies that they’re expected to be on one accord. Thus, the idea that Islam is entirely individualistic clearly conflicts with this.

Peace.

Peace to all.

I know I’m a bit late, but I figured I’d comment on this…

The concept of unity is important within any religious context. Islam itself claims to be a continuation of the previous faiths, just as the Quran is said to be a continuation of the previous books. Those faiths are, among other things, organized and, to some degree, centralized. God has always situated His redemptive works within groups and societies, not individual people. For example, Israel was a nation; Jesus’ followers were a class of people; Muhammad’s followers made up an “ummah”/community; etc.

God has never constructed an individualistic system. That’s why the Quran says to ‘bow and prostrate with those who bow and prostrate.’ Fighting is prescribed for people in groups, not as individuals. Entire nations were destroyed for neglecting or rejecting God’s ordinances. Even the opening prayer of the Quran alludes to a collective body of people:

“You (alone) WE serve, and you (alone) WE ask for help. Guide US to the straight path.”

The idea that God has constructed His system to cater to individual people is totally incompatible with every scriptural revelation. The people of every generation are consistently told to serve/worship God as a unit. Thus, if people can’t agree on what they should be doing, especially regarding major issues, that’s a big problem that needs to be addressed.

Peace.

People are individuals and no two people are exactly the same or have the same views in all the subjects/topics. This is a fact in all sects/religions/races...etc.
So, if people have disagreements ,this is natural. It does not mean "divided" .
Qoran confirms this ,but asks that we respect our differences and find a common ground in "GOD Alone" and the basics of being good and having good morals.
Respecting others includes respecting their choice providing they do not aggress.

I agree with this to a certain degree, but there are also problems with this notion. If we look at things from the perspective of the Sunni and/or Shia, the so-called Qur'an-Alone movement looks insanely "divided", even when it comes to basic ideas. Both of those groups embrace principles regarding the 5 Pillars of Islam. When it comes to Qur'anist groups as a unit, in comparison to a 5-Pillar ideology

1. They don't agree on the "shahaada" - some of the differences there are pretty stark.

2. They don't agree on "salaat", or (in some instances) even what the term means and implies. For those who believe it to refer to prayer, they can't agree on whether they're supposed to do 2 prayers, 3 prayers, 5 prayers, or even 7 prayers! Some people believe it refers to a general type of communion or meditation with God or with others, and some people have different meanings altogether.

3. They don't agree on "zakaat", or (again) even what the term means. Some people say it refers to 'purity', and some people say it refers to 'charity'; some people say it means something completely different than both of those concepts. For the ones who say it refers to charity, some believe it means a certain percentage of one's income (like the traditional-Islamic 2.5%), while others say that it simply refers to the 'excess' of what you have. There are many variances in what this even implies.

4. There's vast disagreement on "siyaam". Most people I've talked to say that this refers to fasting, but some people even disagree with that notion. For those who believe in fasting during the month of Ramadhan (and some don't believe in that either, citing that "ramadan" isn't referring to a month at all), there's still disagreement regarding the degree of fasting. Some believe that people should fast for a 30-day month, while I've seen other people believe that the timeline of fasting is as low as 3 days.

5. There's even a massive disagreement on "hajj" and what this means. Some people believe it doesn't refer to a pilgrimage at all, and many of those who do believe it to be a pilgrimage don't know whether this pilgrimage goes to Makkah, Jerusalem, India, or even Egypt!

My overall point is this the Qur'an-Alone group is extremely "divided", in nearly every sense of the word. They don't even agree on what it means to follow the "Qur'an Alone" in a general sense - some believers follow traditional (historical) connotations inherent in the hadiyth and sunna, while some follow the Appendices of Dr. Rashad Khalifa, etc. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there really isn't a Qur'an-Alone "movement" at all; they're just a bunch of random people believing whatever they want to believe. In order for there to be a movement of any sort, there has to be a unifying factor to establish a connection between the group. In this case, there really isn't.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, FreedomStands.

The Qur'an seems to say a person does not have the power to eliminate evil, that God is the source of the evil, and God is the source of the conflict, not allowing people to unite.

It says even that "had we willed you would have been one community" and things like that, which means "we do not will it, it will not be so".

So it isn't just the Media, but the Master of the Media, and that isn't just Satan, but rather it is only God Ultimately, the one filling your eyes with whatever it is filled with, and your brain, controller of information, creator and dispenser of evil of every sort known and unknown, experienced and not yet experienced, there is no other.

At least there is more than enough confirming that from the Qur'an, but regardless of the Qur'an, science, common sense, linguistics, and whatever else also point towards the same logical necessity.

There is just no way around it.

God is the source of everything, or else what you're calling God isn't worthy of being called God, but rather there is then some Greater Determiner, and I only worship the Ultimate, nothing less. Most people say they worship God, and what they consider Ultimate, but then they define it in such ways that make it clear there are other powers that are the real Ultimate, so it is the Only Ultimate that I worship, not the lesser things, and this can be derived through careful analysis and the Qur'an can be used to also affirm it.

We've actually discussed this before, and this is an area where we certainly differ. If God creates the conflict and separation, and there's nothing we can personally do to eliminate this problem, then this scope would have to be applied to everything. And that creates a major issue.

Are we responsible for the choices we make? Do we have any control over what we do, what we think, etc.? And, if not, how can we legitimately be punished by God (via "heaven" or "hell&quot for the things He causes us to do? Wouldn't that make God unjust, unmerciful, tyrannical, etc.? Do we bear any responsibility for the things we do? Or are we merely victims of God's whims on behalf of us?

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, FreedomStands.

I find it curious that you would somehow feel that you didn't do the thing when you are the one doing the thing? Do you have any experience contrary to that? It is you who is doing the thing, you are the one, those are your hands moving, your body doing it, whatever else. Just like if a tree catches on fire, it is the tree that is burning.

It might help you to understand what I was saying if you think of a book in which things are written yet the characters in the book are the ones doing the things, they have no idea that they are in a book and it is being written. Yet if this is too mind-boggling and offensive to you, then don't concern yourself with it at all, and concern yourself only with the immediate level of awareness where you are clearly doing the things.

This is ultimately what my issue is, given the concept you presented. I would, of course, only concern myself with my immediate actions and activities, because I'm not consciously aware of other factors acting in accordance with a predetermined purpose and set of values. However, in reality, is it really ME acting at all? If God is the One Who made the decision that I'd do whatever I would do, and I have no power to usurp God's decree, then how am I in control of my actions? Logically, I have no choice but to do the thing that God ordained for me to do, whether I know these "plans" in advance or not. I'm not actually acting in accordance with anything I've decided, whether it seems to be so or not; I'm merely doing what God has dictated that I do, whether I'm consciously aware of His plans or not.

There is no freedom of choice as far as humans are concerned - there is only God's choice and determination.

So, if we view this rationally, how can I be held accountable for my (seeming) choices? For instance, if I choose to murder someone in cold blood, and I act according to this decision, how do we perceive this? Have I really made the decision to murder someone, or did God actually devise the plan? When I (seemingly) decided to take someone's life, is it based on a notion that I've executed? Or, am I merely acting according to "the plan" that's already been devised for me? And, hypothetically, if God decides that I will brutally murder someone in cold blood, but I don't want to be a murder, is there any way for me to go against His plans and avoid killing?

God is the only power, the power in and behind everything, but if that is where you find some objection, then there are many options of Shirk that are welcoming and ready to associate with God other creators. As for me though, I can not ever claim any other power or creative ability attributed to any but God, and this is a religion called Islam.

It is a religion that believes that deaths are not accidental even if they appear to be, but they are all precise and not even a minute of difference can be made in them.

These ideas are present in both the Bible and the Qur'an and elsewhere.

I'm not negating any of that, nor am I asserting the existence of another power beside God. I'm solely talking about control. God is certainly in control, but I think we disagree on the degree of control He exhibits.
Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, FreedomStands.

I'm very surprised you somehow came to those conclusions when I thought I had been explicit about how God must have a "will" and "decision" making ability and can not be "blind" or a "blind force". Is it really true that you read all that I wrote and still came out of it without seeing any of those points I made? This is highly disturbing to me.

Firstly, God is neither a "he" or "she" because those terms have to do with genitalia mainly.

God is not conditioned, not bound by causation, if there is any law of karma it is law that only exists by God continuously upholding it and is under the power of God, there is nothing working "automatically" or "self-animated" without God.

Every single aspect of your example, moment to moment, was "information" and no part of it could exist if God did not create that specific information and who received it and how they received it and what they received was the specific information they received and no others received that same information. I explained all this at length in my post, so I'm kind of doubting you really thoroughly read it.

To plan out things "in advance" there has to be Time over God when Time is under God it is a perception created by God and God is not under anything nor is there any power other than God or "law or system" that "co-exists" with God or "before God" or "above God" or "with God" and things like "time" were the very names of the other "Gods" people used to associate with God (Zurvan for example). It is quite clearly Shirk.

The only "information" you yourself have specific access to is whatever you experience as you experience it which is unique to you, and all that information, that specific experience and everything in it and how it is, is the creation of God, there is no other creator.

Please, can you read it? How could it be that you read what I wrote out in such a lengthy way explaining all these things and come up with these questions when I was so explicit in my detailing all that. How could you come to these conclusions by reading all I wrote? Please tell me you didn't feel like reading the whole thing and just skimmed it to get what you thought was the "jist" and came up with those questions that were clearly outlined in what I wrote, because it is just too saddening and disturbing to me that you could have read every single word I wrote in that thread carefully and then still come up with these things even when they were explained at length in what I wrote.

Maybe try these links then as well, which also answer these things, but please read the article I linked thoroughly and slowly and carefully even if you did before, because I was very clear in that I thought

http//lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=59014

Actually, I did read the entire post. In fact, I read it several times to grasp the entirety of the information you were promoting. That's how I came up with the questions - because they appear to conflict with certain notions outlined in the Qur'aan itself. You said previously that you're not negating the notion of free will, but it certainly seems like you are. God is the Only One in control of anything, and every action taken by anyone (along with any of the effects orchestrated by those actions) are carefully planned and caused by God.

The example I gave concerning the smoker dropping his cigarette and initiating a fire (and explosion) are proponents of this same concept, and that's why I find it very intriguing. You're saying that God not only caused the smoker to drive to that specific gas station and get gas, you're also saying that He also caused the man to light up and smoke the cigarette. He caused the man to drop the cigarette, but He also directed the cigarette to land in that specific spot on the spilled gas, rather than causing it to fall somewhere else. That's absolute control; there's no getting around that point. With that kind of control, there can be no "free will". And that would make God a monster! If we remove the smoker and replace him with a drunk driver, an even bigger theological problem ensues, especially since, according to most Islamic enthusiasts, God explicitly condemns the drinking of alcohol. If I drink a bunch of liquor, get excessively intoxicated, hop in my car and drive down the road, and ultimately hit someone, killing the person, you're implying that God is responsible for taking the life. In fact, from the notion you provided, it seems as if I hold no responsibility in it at all God was the one Who drank alcohol (e.g. using my body, that is), got behind the wheel of an automobile, and killed someone.

How can he, therefore, justifiably throw me into hell for HIS/ITS own wrongdoing?

If God has a (and, from your perspective, the only) free will and mind, then He/It also has the ability to stop me from doing whatever I did and the outcomes associated with it. How could God possibly be "good" if, considering all the circumstances, He makes the decision to cause me to commit wrongdoing and take a life unnecessarily? If He has instituted 'divine laws' and mandates, such as 'not murdering others' or 'not drinking alcohol' (some would say 'getting intoxicated&#039, why is He not following His Own precepts? Wouldn't that make God a hypocrite? And, if God somehow fell to the depths of depravity, which you are indirectly implying that He does quite frequently (due to causing people to commit horrendous crimes), having the knowledge of all of these events "in advance" (if we use time as a reference point) but not stopping them, wouldn't this make God to appear powerless?

My questions are based on my interpretation of your assessments. According to you, I am nothing more than information. If I asked you, "What does God do?", I assume that you would probably assert that God does EVERYTHING. And, philosophically, that presents a major problem. If God does everything, that means that I don't do anything - thereby ridding myself of all forms of blame and accountability. God is the One Who does everything. God is the One Who kills people. God is the One Who commits adultery. God is the One Who steals and robs banks and grocery stores. God is the One Who associates partners with Himself! I don't - and, in fact, CAN'T - do any of it; God is the One Who is responsible. And, based on this assessment, God is the One Who should be judged and thrown into hell - not me. I was just the 'vessel' that God used to perform all types of deplorable acts. None of it was me. It was all God.

On a larger scale, we could even conclude, based on this assessment, that God alone is responsible for the havoc wreaked by Islamic groups like ISIS and Boko Haram. God is the One Who tortured and killed millions of Jewish people during the holocaust, using Adolf Hitler as His vessel. God is the One Who caused men to travel on ships to enslave African people for hundreds of years. God is the One Who caused Islamic militants to kidnap hundreds of schoolchildren and brutally rape, torture and kill them. God is the One Who causes, by means of implanting "information" (or unavoidable direction), serial killers to slaughter masses of innocent people. Why should any of them be "punished" for crimes they ultimately had no control over? In addition, God is the One Who performs all righteous and pious acts, which negates the idea of people being "rewarded" for following His laws and policies. Everything is designed, planned and orchestrated by God. And, obviously, this throws JUSTICE out of the window completely.

So, based on this perspective, I should "worship" God; why? Simply because He's 'bigger' than I am? Not because He's good or admirable or just? It should solely be based on the idea that He's more powerful than I am and that He's in control of my life and death (even though none of that can truly be substantiated anyway)? That's called FEAR, not reverence. I can't admire God, based on those circumstances, any more than I could admire a bully who forces people to submit to his terror. God just happens to be a bigger bully than all of the other ones...

If that's not how you were trying to convey your points, then please make the correction; but that's exactly how I interpreted your essay. We are nothing more than information, and we are living out our experiences by means of this information. However, we don't have any control over the information (in which we are or receive), nor do we have any control over the experience. We're, more or less, robots doing what we've been programmed to do by our "designer". We can't turn to the right or to the left unless the "designer" causes us to do so. Everything is out of our control, and God is the One directing and causing.

On a side note, when I refer to God as a "he", I do that solely because that's the way people generally grasp the concept of God, as conveyed in the Bible, Qur'aan, etc. It's just an easier way to express the concept, based on societal norms. Even the Hindu "Brahma", who is said to be genderless, is referred to as "he". I'm not saying that God is a 'male'.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, FreedomStands.

Most people misunderstand me, What people are experiencing as "Free will" does exist. Also, God can create any form of justice system, and God created this particular form we know of, that is all I've been saying, but people keep misinterpreting me and claiming I am denying their experience of "free will" which I am saying is something they are experiencing and I am not denying that experience they are clearly having, and I am also saying that God created the justice system. If someone says that the Justice system was before Allah or Allah didn't make everything then these are simply people who are not really following logic or even what the Qur'an says.

You bring up some fantastic points which I have been trying to make myself for the same reasons! Yes, you must know what you are worshiping, and if you "don't know" or think "it could be this or that" then you do not have a strong or accurate concept of God at all and those people are just flirting with idolatrous notions.

I have explained everything at length and in clear detail (though people still seem to misunderstand it strongly) in this post, which I'd appreciate greatly if you read, since it answers your questions

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607171.msg362129#msg362129

I speak of only what is absolutely knowable through thinking carefully, and if anyone denies the existence of "anything" such as the experience of "stuff" in the vaguest sense or the existence of "information being experienced by them in any way" they are just being contentious liars and I frankly hate their guts for it.

As you'll see in my posts after my nice explanation there. I will read it along with you, and I hope you read it very slowly and carefully and see how cautious I have been to only speak of what is absolutely necessary to any common sense thinking person, and have not gone into conjecture or guessing and I know very clearly what it is that I worship and why it can only be that and I will not worship anything but that because I explain why anything less than that is not something I would call God ever.

Thanks for the link. I understood your post, and I agree with it to a great degree... I disagree to a degree also, however. For example, if we characterize God from that perspective, how could we rationally suggest that "he" could be encompassed within a framework of informational stimulation at all? In fact, from this standpoint, wouldn't God actually be an inanimate "it" more than anything? Logically, the only things we can associate with the notions in which Allah is characterized (by way of your description) are inanimate, at least from our perspective. For example, most of the things you mentioned can be said of the Universe, or existence/reality, itself. However, does the Universe have a "will"? Can it make "decisions"? Again, not from our perspective. The Universe, as it appears to me, is completely unaware of, and unconcerned with, our existence and experience. Worshiping God is as meaningless as worshiping the Universe; as baseless as 'bowing down' to Reality.

You seem to be depicting God, in a way, as a type of "eternal, conscious force or power". The problem I have with this is based on the comparative view of things we have NOTHING with which to associate this. God, from this viewpoint, is literally unlike anything we could possibly imagine or characterize, and that makes it impossible to define or understand him/it.

In addition, your notion raises the question of whether or not God is bound by the "laws" of cause and effect (or 'karma&#039. You made the statement that God 'creates what he/it wills', to which I agree. Yet, everything is stimulated through the means of previous causes, which can generally be assessed, evaluated, and even predetermined. Here's a fictional (and completely unrealistic too, but spare me) example

A man smokes a cigarette at a gas station while putting fuel in his vehicle. He pulls the nozzle out of the tank prematurely, spilling gas on the ground. He notices what he did, and gets alarmed. This causes him to jump backwards to avoid getting gas on his clothes, consequently dropping the cigarette from his mouth. The cigarette lands in the spilled gas. A fire is generated, and it quickly begins spreading. His vehicle explodes, igniting a fire throughout the rest of the gas station. The entire gas station blows up. Four people are killed in the explosion.

Which part of the explosion did God cause? Did He cause the man to begin smoking? Did He cause the spill, the dropped cigarette, the location in which it fell, the fire, the initial explosion, etc.? Did He cause all of them individually, or did one naturally lead to the others? Did God plan everything out in advance and 'cause' the man to need gas, or was this due to his excessive driving habits? Or were all the said events completely due to "chance"? That question may sound completely trivial, but I think it's important because the 'answer' illustrates exactly how much control God actually has over everyday events. Are we the ONLY 'information' being projected through our experience, or do the other factors (e.g. cigarette, gas, fire, pump, vehicle, etc.) also experience events as well, as (seemingly) 'primitive' forms of information?

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, FreedomStands.

Thanks for posting all of those etymological definitions. They can be very helpful for those who don't understand the meanings of the words used in the Qur'aan, especially from a linguistic point of view...

We can't really give God anything, and God has no need for anything, nor can we really serve God anything, but God gives us everything, we give God nothing, though God is also what makes us worship or not worship, creating all that happens.

So even if it says "serve God" we don't serve God really. Even if it says "pay God" we can't pay God really, God gives us everything, we can give God nothing, there is nothing we can give God.

I think this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". Who and what is Allah to you?

In addition, if God is Who dictates whether we 'worship' Him or not (assuming that this is a commandment of His), then how can He manifest justice if He punishes us for not doing so? Given your position, there's no free will, and we can't voluntarily make the decision to worship (or serve) God at all; He's actually the One doing everything. So, how could heaven and hell/paradise ever be justified for those who worship God and those who don't?

We are in a state of surrender (whether God makes us aware of this or not), and it wouldn't matter if God said "worship me" or "I have a huge ego" or any of these silly things, because we're directing our worship to the Ultimate, not some specific thing, not an idol, but whatever is absolutely Ultimate, of which there is no greater, the absolute Greatest. Why get hung up on words and their meanings so much? Yes, words are important, and we can define them carefully as to how we mean them, but they are not worth getting bogged down with or hung up about.

So lets say it was written in the Qur'an "I have a huge ego, worship me, it pleases my huge ego", would that change our religion or way, our millat, deen, tao, whatever, at all? Would it mean to throw the whole Qur'an in the garbage can and forget any benefit that might be derived from it? Would it mean that you are no longer still under the power of the Ultimate, dependent on the Ultimate, made to suffer or succeed by the will of the Ultimate alone? No, certainly, it wouldn't matter. The religion, the deen, the millat, the tao, the dharma, whatever you want to call it, this strategy is Surrender, it is the logical conclusion to the realization of the one we can not overcome or defeat who has power over everything. It is a realization only given to those God wills to give it to, and you can not come to it on your own, just like you can not come to any understanding, good or bad, on your own, nor are you ever self-sufficient as you might imagine, but always dependent from even before your birth. You do not have any immortality, you do not have any presence, you are whatever Allah makes you to be, and Allah can change you, and Allah can destroy you, and Allah can call you to account, and Allah can harm you, and Allah can give you pleasure unbounded, and Allah can make you a saint in piety, Allah can make you a devil in mischief, and to Allah belongs everything everywhere, the heavens and the earth and all that is in between and beyond. Do you imagine that you're some immortal beings that can question Allah and do as you please? It is Allah who schemes, Allah who might make you think you are able, or willing, when it is actually the will of Allah working in everything, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to their destruction, and to some Allah leads them by their own hands and feet to work righteousness and be rewarded, and Allah can harm those righteous ones too, and Allah can shower blessings upon the wicked, and Allah is capable of everything, the only Free Will who is unconditioned, unbounded, unlimited.

Now why have you all come to this website? Allah has brought you here, but for different reasons perhaps, some of you will be led astray here, others will be strengthened in goodness, some of you will take the knowledge and be harmed by it, and some will use it for benefit. Why not use this website and these words to make speeches of exceeding beauty regarding Allah and also to take what is best? Why not purify yourselves and your religions and shed away silliness and bad ideas, even by exploring your doubts and thinking "even if" such and such, we are following this way for the reason that we are aware of surrender to the Ultimate, that we can't overcome the Ultimate, so make your practice and your thoughts pure for Allah only. You will not be able to do it, save if Allah wills.

Again, this is entirely dependent on how you define "God". When you refer to God as being "The Ultimate", what do you mean? What exactly is Allah to you? Is He some type of celestial being, like an alien? Is He a Universal force of some kind, like gravity or electricity? Is He a base of material, like an atom? Is He a human like us? Some people portray God as some type of superhero character out of a comic book, like Thor or Superman. Reasonably, we must conclude that, if He can write books, talk to people and send prophets, He must be something; otherwise, we could logically conclude that He (probably) doesn't exist at all... So, what is He? How do you perceive God, and how do you validate your view of Him?

When you (assumingly) make the choice to worship God, what are you worshiping?

Many people say that they don't know what God is, and that's reasonable based on the context. However, that logic has its own share of problems, the biggest being If you don't know what (and, therefore, "who&quot God is, then how can you be sure that you're not worshiping an idol or false deity?

Peace, and thanks for your post.

Ahmad

Peace, Man of Faith.

It does not mean worship. It means to be in servitude/serve.

Why does an Almighty God need worship anyway? To boost a huge ego?

You cannot flirt with God to improve your standing. You need to show the caliber of your character.

I actually agree with you concerning this. The Arabic word "Ibaada" means to serve, not to worship. To worship God is meaningless and, from my understanding, we are never instructed to 'worship' God in the Qur'aan. We are consistently told to acknowledge and serve (e.g. through obeying) Him. If God mandated that we worship Him, it would imply that He needs us to satisfy His ego, which completely negates the idea of Him being "supreme".

If we want to please God, we need to follow His guidance and instruction. No "religion" is required.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, Jafar.

Both of us contain some error in our statement.. Bible is a bundle of books..

It should be

• The Torah bundle contains "God depicted as Human" description.. (He eats and drinks, wondering where Adam is, got pissed off, jumped out from a box to attack the Philistines etc...)
• The Nevim bundle (e.g. book of Isaiah, Jeremiah et al) contains the notion of "God Here There Everywhere" a.k.a Panentheism.. And within the Nevim bundle there's a description that the scribes has written lies about God.
• Majority part of the book within the Gospel bundle support Panentheism.
• Writings of "Early Christian Father" contains the notion of Panentheism. (God a.k.a The Father is here there everywhere, Kingdom of Heaven is here there everywhere, He 'sees and hear' from all angle etc..)

Pardon the late reply, sir... I agree with you on some of your points, and I think a lot of it depends on the context of the passage(s) in question. The Torah depicts God as an anthropomorphic figure. The Nevi'im, for the most part, cosigns the Torah, depicting God in a similar fashion. However, it presents Him as being an anthropomorphic figure Who is no longer restricted to being a 'national' deity among the Israelites, for the most part at least; rather, He's often presented as being a Universal anthropomorphic "father" figure Who lives outside of the Earth, e.g. 'heaven'. And then, of course, the Ketuvim, presents God in a similar manner.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, Jafar.

Most of the Traditional Muslims I've met throughout my life, other than the most strict of Salaafis, tend to view ALLAH as being omnipresent, insisting that He both permeates every aspect of the Universe and transcends it. That, by definition, is panentheism. This belief is widespread among the Muslims I know, from Sunni and Shi'a Muslims to those of the Ahmadiyya Community. Very few of them view God as sitting atop a literal "arsh"/throne (which many interpret as a 'postion of authority&#039 in a distant "seventh heaven".

Which inline with the description of God a.k.a YHVH in the Bible..

thus saith YHVH "The heaven is My throne, And the earth is the footstool of My feet What manner of house will ye build Me?"
(Isaiah 661)

Quran, Gospel and Bible (and also Brahman in Veda, Tao in Taoism etc..) all teaches Panentheism..

This actually isn't completely true. To the contrary, that's actually the case with all of the listed 'scriptures' other than the Bible! The earliest notions of God, as depicted in the Torah, are completely anthropomorphic, not panentheistic. The Biblical YHVH, especially according to the Torah, is a physical (or 'super-physical&#039 being who walks the Earth like a man, talks to humans, eats, sleeps (or rests), touches people, smells things, etc. According to the Bible, Moses (e.g. Moshe) even had to travel up a mountain in order to meet with God, who descended to the top of this mountain to talk to his prophet

And Adonai (YHVH) descended on Mount Sinai, on top of the mountain, and Adonai (YHVH) called Moshe up to the top of the mountain. And Moshe went up. (Exodus 1920)

Commentary on this passage, given by Rashi, says the following

The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai I may think that He actually descended upon it. Therefore, Scripture says ?You have seen that from the heavens I have spoken with you? (Exod. 2019). This teaches that He bent down the upper heavens and the lower heavens and spread them upon the mountain like a spread on a bed, and the Throne of Glory descended upon them . ?

Again, the early students of the Torah (and the Biblical deity in general) undoubtedly viewed Him as being anthropomorphic. Panentheism, although popular now among many Bible-enthusiasts, was never taught in the actual Biblical text. According to the Bible, God is a specific person in a very specific (although often unknown) location. The passage you posted from Isaiah 661 further asserts this, based on the above-mentioned context, and that verse isn't being figurative at all - it's literally saying that God's "home" is in the sky and that the Earth is literally His 'footstool'. In fact, the context in which He's speaking in Isaiah 661 can even be relayed a different way 'I don't need your temple. I already have a home, and it's in heaven. The entire Earth is my footstool, so what good is your temple (e.g. which is inside the Earth) to me?'

Ultimately, the Bible, and consequently the earliest Christians, did not depict God as being panentheistic at all. Everyone perceived God as being a physical, anthropomorphic figure. And, of course, the evidence used to substantiate that belief was the Bible itself. This is the opposite of the Qur'aanic depiction of ALLAH (God), which totters between providing explicit panentheistic notions about God and ambiguous statements concerning His nature.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace.

This is actually a two-part question... According to the Qur'aan, ALLAH blew His spirit into Adam (man), and then He commanded the angels to prostrate to him (Q. 1528, 29). If the angels are commanded to prostrate solely to God, and not to anyone or anything else, then wouldn't this imply that ALLAH was somehow IN (e.g. inside) Adam? And, if He wasn't, then was God commanding the angels to practice a form of idol-worship? In other words, was Adam a vessel that ALLAH was using to 'house His spirit'?

The reason I said that this is a two-part question is because of the context. Also according to the Qur'aan, Adam committed an act of rebellion and sinned against himself, even though he had this 'spirit of God' in him. That spirit didn't make him act more like God, because, if it did, he wouldn't have been able to commit a sin (unless we're also implying that God Himself can 'sin&#039.

Could we be vessels for (the spirit of) ALLAH? Perhaps. The Qur'aan, as well as the Bible, imply this in many places. However, this doesn't mean that we instinctively act in accordance with Him, or do things the way He'd do things. Whether we are vessels or not, we still have the ability to choose our paths and impact our eventual outcomes.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, hawk99.

I tend to agree that at least the biological/behavioral science branch of anthropology is indeed science
however, my point of view may be biased due to my religious beliefs, having said that, I would not conclude
what scientist would say in regards to the existence of God because there is no unilateral agreement.
The confusion of whether God is physical versus supernatural, is a non starter because scientist
of the empirical persuasion have no input due to the fact there is nothing to measure! Therefore we must leave
the sciences that require measurement and repeatability out of the discussion and discuss the subject
as supernatural where it clearly belongs, and that is within the human brain like other non tangible characteristics.
That only leaves the sciences of observation followed by conclusion like in post #133. The attempt at defining God
in actuality quite easy, because men have wrote about God in many texts, and these texts should be examined to
bring us to a reasonable conclusion about who or what God is.

I apologize for the late reply...

I highlighted the portion of your post that I tend to have some skepticism about... I agree that, when it comes to any supernatural power (e.g. gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc.), there is nothing to measure. However, that also illustrates why I say that many scientists would scientifically reject those ideas. If something can't be tested or measured, then we can't prove that it actually exists. We can only speculate and believe. And, needless to say, that doesn't fit into the realm of scientific thought because, of course, we can believe in Santa Claus and his band of elves too - that doesn't make them real.

Concerning the books, particularly with regard to what people have written about God(s), I can agree with you to an extent on a philosophical level. However, that's also dependent on preconceived notions. For starters, people have written books on many different gods and divine figures, not just the Islamic concept of God (e.g. ALLAH). A simple trip to a local library will uncover thousands of documents about Brahma, Vishnu, Ahura-Mazda, Mithra, Amun-Ra, Yahweh, Zeus, Apollo, and many others. And, even worse than this, these deities aren't all related philosophically - Brahma is a pantheistic god, Vishnu is a force of destruction and desolation, Ahura-Mazda is a dualistic god ("evenly matched" against the evil god Ahriman) of light, Mithra is a messianic god, Amun-Ra and Apollo are solar gods, Yahweh is a physical (and anthropomorphic) national god, and Zeus is a material god atop a large mountain who is the "chief" of a group of other gods. In other words, they can't reasonably be talking about the same figure in all of them, especially due to the striking differences between them. And, again, this is a very small list.

Hypothetically, if we did sit down and read through ALL of those books concerning the various gods and goddesses throughout the world and its history, what conclusion would we come up with? Which god would be perceived as the "right" one? Well, that's not difficult to address either. As the saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding!" The fact is, nearly every society in the world, throughout history, has possessed and revered a solar deity. This dates back to the ancient Nubians, Egyptians, Indians and Mesopotamians, which are considered the oldest of the world's (religious) civilizations. Even the Central and South American societies, which some contend are just as old, had a solar god (e.g. Viracocha). Why? Because the existence of the Sun is something that nobody can deny. If people need evidence for the existence of their divine figure(s), all they have to do is look up in the sky! That alone tells me that, if knowledge and belief of all deific figures was somehow lost, and people were searching for a 'new god' to worship, they would probably look toward something physical - and the Sun would be the primary candidate (the Universe as a whole, or Nature, would probably come in at a close second-place)!

To sum it up, personally, I think that, if people objectively read about every deity and studied every "holy book" throughout the world, basing their conclusions on the validity of the arguments therein, very few people would believe in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic deity. The Bible doesn't provide any ideas concerning the validity of the "god argument" at all, for example. It builds on the foundational principle that these people (e.g. the Israelites) already know that God exists and have supposedly physically seen all of the things that He's done for them. The Qur'aan actually does expound on the concept of divinity in a rational method, which is great and sufficient to many - but it does this on the premise that people already believe in ALLAH and acknowledge His existence. Instead of saying, "This is how you know I'm real," it opens on the basis of, "You already know that I'm real, and this is what I've done (and do), and this is what I want you to do!"

And, by the way, this isn't including the originating functions of the messages themselves! Outside of the concepts relayed in Judaism, all of the other facets of revelation are completely limited. In other words, they were all revealed to ONE MAN in an isolated area when he was all by himself, with nobody else present to witness the event. For some unknown reason, the other inhabitants of the land in which the man dwelt (and possibly throughout the rest of the known world) are expected to blindly believe and follow him based on abstract ideals, such as his "moral character" or his "great piety", etc. Again, the only religious philosophy in which I'm aware that steers away from this premise is the Judaic one, since ALL of the Israelites (supposedly) heard God speak to them collectively at Mount Horeb, or Sinai. All of the other guys had dreams concerning God's plan and commands, they heard "voices" inside their heads, they spoke to Him secretly when nobody else was around, they had visions of His majesty, etc. - which are all things that can't be objectively verified or substantiated. Sure, some of these people performed fantastic 'miracles' to validate their divine mission; but these can't be substantiated either. At the end of the day, it's all based on hearsay.

What's your view concerning that?

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, Man of Faith.

I appreciate your tinkering, brother Ahmad. You surely add to the topic.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your perspectives as well. They definitely give me new ideas to consider.

Be of one with God

Indeed! You do the same, sir.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, hawk99.

Based on cross cultural behaviors that are common to all humans, we can conclude that some things are true
or real and are a part of our existence, our very essence. If we consider anthropology a field of science, could
we not conclude that according to science God does exist? Of course if one were to conclude that anthropology
is not science but pseudoscience then my conclusion can be taken off the table. Some don't believe in love, but
many do believe so, likewise music is universal but some have no need for it. God or spirituality is universal but
some are nonbelievers.

Personally, I think anthropology is a field of science, to a degree at least. And yes, I think that we can conclude scientifically that God does exist. However, the problem lies in the literary perspective rather than the scientific. Any scientist would say that God definitely exists, depending on how you define the word "god". That's where the issue comes in. If someone came out and said, "I am God" (e.g. one who possesses power, influence, knowledge, or anything else he/she uses to define the term), then scientists would absolutely agree; although they may differ on the magnitude of the mentioned qualities, THAT "god" absolutely exists in the real and natural world, and that's something that's undebatable.

The same thing applies when 'scientific pantheists' state that "God" is synonymous with the Universe (in the absolute sense). Again, scientists can't argue with that notion. They can't prove that a pantheistic god doesn't exist, since that would be tantamount to stating that the Universe (e.g. reality, nature, energy, etc.) doesn't exist. It all depends on how we define the word "god". On the same note, if someone stated that God is literally a giant, invisible man in the sky, then those same scientists would probably laugh you out of the conversation.

Both figures are called "God", and both are philosophical notions. One philosophical concept is also a physical (material) concept, though, which means that it can be tested, measured and assessed. The other, being a 'spiritual' (supernatural) concept, can't be tested or analyzed at all. You can have knowledge of one, while the other can only be believed. That's where the scientific line is drawn. If something can be accepted without proof, then it can also be dismissed due to the lack of proof.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, good logic.

I am glad you said
Washing is not a ritual, it is a necessity.
Eating is a necessity, or else your physical body dies

Exactly what salat is to me (my soul) ,a necessity.

I agree with you on this issue. I don't necessarily subscribe to all of the ritualistic aspects of traditional Islam, but I don't think they're wrong either. Everyone has their own way of serving God, in accordance with their own understanding of His message. Indeed, people often turn their leaders - and (gasp!) even their books - into idols without knowing it. However, I don't think these are necessarily encompassed within the rituals themselves. It's more along the lines of their intentions when it comes to the rituals.

Concerning the current traditional Islamic approach to the Kaaba, the Qur'aan actually speaks of people who revere places like that and indulge in that type of service to ALLAH

Absolutely, to God is the true system. And those who set up allies beside Him "We only serve them so that they may bring us closer to God." God will judge between them in what they dispute; for God does not guide him who is a liar, a rejecter. (Q. 393)

This is exactly how most traditional Muslims feel about, and treat, the prophet Muhammad and the Kaaba. They blindly accept the hadiyth and sunna attributed to him because they believe that these things will bring them closer to God. They march around a stone cube and kiss a mindless rock because they believe that these things will bring them closer to God. It's notable that they condemn the Jews at the Wailing Wall for the exact same practice!

Now, are the Jews and Muslims idolaters in the same sense that Christians and Hindus are? Probably not, at least not according to most people. However, according to the Qur'aan, idolatry is idolatry - whether it's due to the glorification of prophets and messengers, taking religious leaders as Divine authority figures and protectors, practicing unauthorized traditions, assigning people Divine attributes, or doing all of the numerous other things mentioned in the books concerning idolatry. It's all the same according to the Qur'aan. All of the people who practice those things (knowingly, at least) end up in the same place.

When we dedicate all of our actions to the one god (e.g. ALLAH), without assigning any partners to Him, that's not idolatry. And, personally, I think a person can definitely do this while still performing certain rituals in accordance with their understanding of God's message. It all depends on the perspective.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, Man of Faith.

The important thing is to know the substance of what it teaches and not so much about "belief" and then live accordingly. The thing about belief and ritualistic behavior is just people who are void of understanding. Iman can be seen as a meter from 0 to 1 and at 1 then you are whole (one) with God and a good soul which is the real intention for us and not some sectarian mumbo-jumbo about a skyman (love your sarcastic definition) that must be pleased in primitive ways.

It is silly to me to measure things in belief anyway as God testifies that it is alive and you just have to decide to follow and you see that the universe exists (God) and all that you see is God and God has no need of anything from us and thus not any belief. Giving God needs would make God primitive and with an ego and atheists would have a point. And then if people would realize the meaning of iman then they would realize that submission and belief is not what God asks of people but God invites to harmonization/entering into symbiosis with what is God and to live LIKE God and be a part of the oneness. If we would realize God's intricate function then we would realize the universe takes no space but could just be seen as a singularity yet with a mass packed into a non-existent space. The universe is spacious, I do not mean anything else, only that to God it is just One. Your mission is to be part of existence (God) and not an anomaly to it. God uses 'We' frequently in Quran for a reason. Imagine 'the Borg' in 'Star Trek' if you have ever watched it and then you see a bit of the condition you should get with God, except that God is perhaps not so insistent and forceful (until the promised day). Consider the concept of symbiosis rather than distance yourself to God like something you have to be afraid of as many people do about God.

Hence rituals have no purpose at all since God needs no such worship but the best "worship" is done by allowing yourself to be one with God and hence live like God in judgment and deed. See what I mean?

I love how you expounded on this, brother, and it completely makes sense. I absolutely agree with your points, and I appreciate your sharing your wisdom on this matter. I don't think it could've been broken down in a better way! Thanks for that post.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, Man of Faith.

My latest studies of the language behind "belief" reveals that the phrase may as well mean 'be of one(s) in God and not the traditional system of "belief".

Honestly, I haven't done any research concerning that position, and it may indeed be the case. Different people tend to translate it in different ways. Edip Yuksel, for example, chooses to translate the passage as saying "those who acknowledge", rather than the traditional 'those who believe' statement. I guess it all depends on one's interpretation.

My question is Is it necessary to still "believe" in the Book, since ALLAH (God) stated, according to the Qur'aan, that we have "bayyinah"/proof? Which is greater, believing or knowing? What's the difference between the two, and why are they mentioned separately and independently throughout the Qur'aan?

Peace,

Ahmad