Salam All

How do you propose we eradicate crimes? Unrealistic goal. Again doesnt address justice. basically what you are saying is people will get away.

I conceeded in my comment that we can not always find justice. What i didn't mention was justice is subjective, and what constitutes as justice differs with whoever one asks. If one does not try to live in a society that would want to eradicate crimes being commited then why set laws at all. Even if we do not achieve complete crimeless world atleast the goal is their to atleast minimise it to live in a society worth living in.

Would not a thought of an afterlife punishment, just let people say "hey you know what, people get raped, tortured etc, we shouldn't try our best to get rid of it from society because they will get there just desserts in hell".

So atheist on one hand find hell appalling but the other hand find forgiveness to be appalling as well. A believer who genuinely feels remorseful is not thinking about getting off. Genuine remorse imples he feels bad for what he had done to those he had hurt which often is liberating to the victims. His remorse is not for himself and his suffering but for the suffering he had caused others.

The issue not what someone finds appalling but the notion of perfect justice coinciding with perfect mercy. Both of these can not be achieved and are in direct contradiction. Is a genuinely remorseful man showered with god mercy and not taste hell at all. or is he thrown in hell for a set time no matter if he sincerely repented and must go through the torment even for a short time and then go to heaven. Is it possible according to the quran for a someone to be forgiven his crimes short of shirk and not go to hell even for a short time.

Read my post on the other thread about evidence. Let's suppose the truth is earth is spherical. Just because people didn't have evidence for years of this fact, means the earth is not spherical? You can have multiple beliefs with each claiming they are right with proofs, arguments that the earth is flat, frisbee shaped, square, contradicting each other but people's beliefs doesnt change the one truth that the earth is spherical. The truth is not based on people's beliefs. Just because a man cannot prove that the earth is spherical does that mean that the earth is not?

I agree people believing the earth bieng flat and have justification for doing so, does not mean the earth is flat. Some of the justification for the earth bieng flat in ancient times was that people would go to a high spot and look around in a circular motion, the distance would always be the same to the horizon and as you can see it seemed the earth would appear disk shaped. Anyone can reproduce and demonstate this; so how does one avoid this problem. You see the when it comes to multiple beliefs that have "proofs", Over the ages we have realised how one can distinguish between contradictory claims. It is called falsifiability. If someone provides evidence; we have learnt that accepting evidence/claims that can actually be falsified speeds up the process of sifting through claims. For instance Alot of religious folk do not believe in evolution. the feature of the evolution claim is that it can be falsified and the proponents of the theory have listed the criteria that would disprove evolution should the evidence pop up that matches the falsifying criteria. none as of yet have disproved evolution; so is it fair to say it is most likely true. regardless of what people think is true.

Look through many of the claims one makes and see how many of these claims have an attachment of falsifiability. if a claim cannot be demonstated false in someway it becomes pointless speculation and conjecture, (this doesn't meaning proving a negative btw because that is unfalsifiable). there is no problem with holding beliefs like this but dont go around asserting the truth of the views with out the evidence.

The quran makes claims so people are in their right to assess them, some of these claims are unfalsifiable and then can not be demonstated if they are true or false, so they become meaningless assertions e.g heaven and hell existing.

I agree that truth is not based on peoples beliefs, however what people perceive as truth is based on beliefs. we are all at some point of guilty of this, but some actually acknowledge this and minimise holding beliefs that cannot be demostrated to be true.

I don't think you quite get it. Just because in your mind you dont have the proof that you need or whatever evidence you are looking for you can't find for existence of God, doesn't mean that God doesn't exists. You can have multiple beliefs of God like multiple theories about the shape of earth but that doesn't change the Truth

I did not say that God did not exist and you still haven't realised that atheist positions is NOT God does not exist, But it is the rejection of theist claims that have not met their burden of proof. They look similar but are fundamentally different. Here's why as briefly as i can.

A theist claims God exists, we bieng in the default position say ok whats you justification/proof.
If the theist does not meet the burden of proof/evidence or it is contradictory, then we rightly dismiss thier notion that their God exists.
This does not mean god does not exist but whatever your definition of this God was/is does not exist.
This skepticism can be used for any belief.

You may quite rightly say that the God i believe is unknowable, not able to be comprehended and ultimately unfalsifiable. Let me ask you to reflect on how does one then distinguish between this God and one that does not exist.

You don't have to have a reason to believe that the earth is spherical. You can believe in the truth or falsehood till you come to see the truth. Just the same, you can have no reason not to believe in the existence of God. You can hold onto false beliefs till you see the truth.

I agree you dont have to have valid evidence based reasons to believe anything, hence there bieng bizzare beliefs all around the world and through human existence.

Indeed you can come to see the truth ,does that also include for you that God and afterlife not existing because outside of scripture everyone will not come to the same conclusion of them existing. No i disagree that i can have no reason not to believe in God, the very fact that the theist claims have not been demonstrated is a valid reason not to believe. the final part i disagree with also, this should be discouraged holding false beliefs because they can be outright dangerous. Women have suffered long enough and still suffer because of false beliefs and the list goes on. So it should be encouraged to hold beliefs that again can be demostrated to be true and accurate.

You also skipped over the part where i talked about the difference between something bieng possible and bieng probable. something that is possible isn't always probable, something probable is always possible. When one can demonstate that God is probable which starts with atleast some proof (which can be falsified), however small; then one can hold that maybe in the future it can be further proved to be true.

Why do you think that as an atheist who doesn't believe in God and in the afterlife should then deserve to be in heaven? According to you hell and heaven don't exist. So your question doesn't make sense unless you believe that hell exists but having issues with who goes to heaven and hell?

I'll try to explain why it matters what people think about hell, even if i dont think it exists.
I find it very offensive and upsetting when someone says that i will be tortured forever and/or i deserve it. heres why, if someone for instance said that i deserved currently to be shipped off to bottom of the ocean facility that does not exist and be tortured horrifically for the rest of my life simply for not agreeing with them. Then im perfectly in my right to resent peoples attitude towards what they think will happen to me after i die which is a similar sentiment. you may say well you get racial abuse and etc in real life and move on, however bieng tortured forever volutarily for simply not believing claims or not being part of a favorable group is infinitely more offensive sentiment that can not be compared with any insult that can be expressed in our lifetime.

Also are you implying that Thoughts, doubts and not bieng convinced are crimes worthy of punishment. giveup
if not then why do i deserve hell. it really is quite simple.

Now you are mixing things with Jesus. Ok- either God had a son with a human mother or not. It is the truth or the lie. If it is the truth that god did not have a son then, I chose to believe in the truth. I am not going to hell for believing in the truth. I have been told by Christians that I won't go to heaven till I accept Jesus and will be kept in limbo till I did. I don't argue with them, questioning and having problems with their beliefs. I cannot choose to go to limbo when limbo doesn't exist. Others can claim whatever but that doesn't make it true. Members of flat eath society claim that the earth is flat but does it make it flat. If i claim the earth is spherical and if is the truth then i am right in my claims.

I was just bringing an example of conflicting views. and judging from your reply it seem like you have confirmed what i suspected, you hold beliefs until they can be disproven. I highlighted in previous post as to why this is a nonsensical position because you just end up with endless possibility of beliefs and they shape your actions.

As an atheist according to you there's no hell or heaven. So why are arguing with theists? Having problems with who goes to hell and heaven? According to you, there is no hell and so why do you have a problem with theist beliefs as according to you theist is believing in something that doesn't exist. According to Atheits, we are all delusional. why are you worried about delusional beliefs of going to hell? as according to you, Hell doesnt exist and you are going nowhere. You don't believe that life hereafter exists but what you are saying that if it does, then you want to be rewarded questioning the moral grounds of theist who doesn't think you deserve heaven. Does this even make any sense? For someone claiming to be rational and well reasoned, sure defies logic to me here.

Please see above ive given example earlier. Also id like to add that skeptics want to hold true beliefs, i do not want be slaves of ignorance as that creates observable problems in societies. This is not defying logic at all because false beliefs create problems that wouldnt be there if they didnt hold them e.g sunni stoning of adulterers. Your belief in the quranic God shapes how you see the world, would one not want to know if this view is actually true and justified.

Thanks and I'd rather be gullible than arrogant, egotistical, deaf, dumb and blind.

seems that you are the one bieng arrogant and egotistical by stating that people are dumb, deaf and blind becuase they don't agree with you because they have valid reason to not agree with your assertions.

Atleast you clarified that you don't want to hold beliefs that are actually true but what you think are true and make you feel good.
i apologise if the sentence comes of offensive; there no lighter way of saying it.

Prophet held the belief that the earth was spherical. Should he have held onto the belief that earth is not because he couldn't actually prove it to be true. There are still people who don't believe earth is spherical as they dismiss pictures as fakes. You can show all the evidence but they will not be convinced and believe discarding your proofs till he has himself gone to space and seen earth to be spherical.

Im glad you mentioned this. The earth bieng round was suspected during the greek era. they observed that at the horizon the ships sank like when someone disappears over the hill. so there was justification for holding the belief.
Actually the Prophet would have had to demonstrate what he was saying is true the quran expresses as much, so therefore we examine these claims.

Like i said before about evidence and falsifiability, that really makes it alot easier to drop claims as nonsense and outright absurd. therefore one is in there right to hold beliefs that may later be proven false.

Questions and doubts lead us to truth. the problem isn't people believing the earth is flat its denial of evidence to the contrary or no evidence at all. this can be expanded to the veiw of God because one believes that God definetly exist with no evidence then they are going reject evidence which suggests there version of god is non existent.

The reason some people still believe the earth to be flat because they have polluted their mind with unfalsifiable possibilities and absurd notions of demanding proof of non existance. Ofcourse they are going to be ignorant of the truth.

No, I am not open to the idea of no afterlife just as I am not open to the idea that earth is not spherical. If the truth is God exist, there is afterlife - it sure doesnt make any sense for me to deny what is real. Just because you don't have evidence doesn't mean afterlife doesn't exists.

Basically you are expressing pascals wager and betting your chips with the quran. you can google endless articles about the problems with pascals wager. Though one can see the problems straight away with out bieng told what they are.

All i can do is promote critical thinking, reason and logic. State the importance of evidence and claims that can be falsified in some empirical way. Distance ourselves from subjectivity when truth claims are presented and examine them objectively.

The discussion is on the verge of going circular because though you have not stated it explicitly; your ultimate reliance is that you have faith that you are right. So it would be meaningless to suggest critical thinking to people who jump straight to faith.

sorry for the long read, this is not an attack on your beliefs but just an observation.

Peace peace

Salam All

Ok what if the rapist used condom and left no DNA evidence or the victim was not able to report the incident until a later time when DNA evidence could not be collected or the rapist claimed that the sex was consensual when it was clearly not, then the rapist gets away? How about in wars when women and children are raped by soldiers? The rapist gets away without any punishment. As an atheist doesn't believe in the afterlife then, basically the rapist gets away and there is no justice to the victims.

shouldn't the goal be that we should try to irradicate the act of rape and other heinous crimes and figuring out way to actually achieve justice in reality. Yes we cannot always achieve justice but is this not more reason to attempt to find ways we can. the threat of punishment in an afterlife is not necessarily going to prevent these act from actually happening. There are countless amount of devout religious people who believe in afterlife hell that still commit atrocities. Some may believe that they will be forgiven by God if they genuinely remorseful, in their view they may be getting off lightly

Ok so an atheist cannot reject a God as he doesn't see any evidence. Can he disprove the existence of God though? Can an atheist prove that there is no afterlife and there is no God?

As a theist, my belief in God is not based on some evidence or lack there of. Unlike an atheist, I am not as sure that this life is it and that there is no afterlife. No one has yet died and come back to tell me that for sure. No one can provide evidence of existence of an afterlife or not. This is a statement of fact.

An atheist is sure of his beliefs based on lack of evidence that there is no afterlife. An atheist chooses not to believe whereas I choose to believe.

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim "that God exist and there is an afterlife". Athiest as far as i'm aware do not assert that there is no God, just there is a lack of evidence for one. Also one should be aware that although how hard they may try, one can NOT prove a negative.

If ones belief in God is not based on evidence then what makes a person rule out every other religious belief that is contrary to their own. Most belief systems outright contradict each other and their claims can also NOT be disproven.

The possibility of a God and all beliefs associated with it; may be true. But that is the case with Zues, Odin and Vishnu etc and associated beliefs, existance of these are also possibilities if one can not prove thier non existence in order to reject them. One has to realise at some point that these possibilties are as many as the human mind can come up with. Therefore the onus falls on only accepting claim that can actually be proven or else they all remain in the land of possibilities and fiction.

Athiests do not choose not to believe, but their is actually no reason to believe. Same way there is no reason to believe Santa, the tooth fairy etc because theres no evidence to support them to be true. Or should the position be, believe until thier non existence is proved.

Not saying that he should be punished for not believing but I like to be able to say, Nya Nya I was right and you were wrong. Now don't you feel awfully stupid? I get to be in heavan and you dont. Personally if you ask me, I don't think atheist should be rewarded. Why should they be rewarded with heaven when they chose not to believe? Do you have any convincing argument for why atheist who chose not to believe in the afterlife should be rewarded? If two persons of equal footing who had done good but one is a theist and another an atheist, should both be rewarded equally? Why do you think they should? Personally, I don't think an atheist should be rewarded the same. I would say well good for you that you did all these good deed as it was in your nature to do so but sorry, why should you now want to be rewarded with heaven when you didn't believe in the first place?

If an atheist is right about no God, no afterlife then well it has been good spending time debating with you and death will be the end. The difference between me a theist and an atheist is that I am not as certain as an atheist about there not being an afterlife after death which is a certain thing. That's the difference my friend.

I don't know how people can say to someone you deserve to be tormented forever for simply not believing and still try and take the moral high ground. And add to that we chose to go to hell, Well we don't choose to go to hell, just as you would not choose to go to hell because you did not believe in Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour.

Are you trying to imply that the Gullibility is a fair criteria that God judges by. Well if one feels that rational, well reasoned evidence based beliefs should be punished with torment and gullibility rewarded with paradise. what can one say other than good luck in your endeavors -.

People should be encouraged to hold as many true/accurate beliefs as possible and in order to do this you hold beliefs that can actually be proven/accurate to be true.

It is good to discuss issues because believe it or not beliefs shape people actions and this makes it important to atleast hold accurate beliefs.

Are you open to the idea of no afterlife, if not then you actually have more certianty than atheists. I am open to the possibility of an afterlife but is it probable not unless there is actual evidence for it. possible and probable are not the same, the latter can be atleast asserted with some credible evidence, the former is endless non evidence based assertions.

peace peace

But if you are deaf, dumb and blind, what can God do? I supposed he can make you less dumb, deaf and blind!

i apologise sincerely if i have offended you in any way that you are implying that im deaf, dumb and blind. if not directed at me or others with similar views then my apologies.

But anyway by which criteria does one assess that they themselves are not as you delicately put it dumb, deaf and blind. isn't that rather subjective and attributed to personal feeling that they see the truth and others are too dumb, deaf and blind to see it.

Is the problem that i can't grasp the quran due to lack of understanding and therefore i think it does not sufficiently provide the basis for a belief in Quranic "islam" or is that maybe i do indeed understand properly and the quran is not what it claims to be and inconsistencies i see are actual inconsistencies. How does one distinguish between the two.

i know its rather subjective but id like others way they manage to see the difference between the two states. or is it just trust what we know and go with it because we will find out when we die.

Justamuslim I have read your post that you state your beliefs and i have no problem at all with your position because you have not made claims about about God and religion that you want me to have belief in, so we have no conflict of interest. Yours as you say is a personal choice and that fine as long it does not hamper others. The problem only arises with thiests/anti-thiests when some decide everyone should believe what they do or you will be punished with hell if you don't believe, then the obvious question is Why should I and bring the evidence that what they say is true.

Peace.

atheists aren't choosing not to believe in a god or gods; they merely haven't been convinced of the existence of these characters (e.g. gods, goddesses, angels, demons, etc.), generally due to a lack of proof that they exist. That's where the underlying issue stands.

Regardless of that measure, there will ALWAYS be a philosophical conflict in this regard. Even if theists could somehow prove that a god exists, how would they be able to prove that their god exists? For example, if evidence for a divine, supernatural being surfaced, and it somehow convinced everyone that there certainly is a god, Muslims would all claim that it's evidence of ALLAH's existence, Christians would claim that it's Jesus, Jews would claim that it's HaShem, Hindus would claim that it's Brahma, Greeks would claim that it's Zeus, Romans would claim that it's Saturn, etc. You'd never be able to prove WHICH god it actually is, and that would present another philosophical discrepancy. In addition, if this evidence arose, you'd never be able to prove that there is only ONE god - there'd be the possibility of there being many of them, perhaps in different locations or on different 'planes of existence', etc. There'd be no way to make an accurate determination of this.

i agree entirely with this post and sums up my non-belief position.

What kind of evidence could a person provide to prove their religious belief? i'm not entirely sure but a good start would be something testable and verifiable independently and objectively. i can rule out personal experience and anything that the person presenting the evidence would not accept themselves if the tables were turned. subjective evidence rules itself out as it falls in to personal.

As for the evidence a God can give; that depends on the definition of God we use.
for example IF God is unknowable then no amount of evidence would let us know it is from God.

Peace StopS.

What kind of evidence would satisfy everyone?

Short from God himself showing up , some will never believe, no matter what other evidence is brought up?.

Peace.

The thing is if God is indeed all knowing and all powerful, he could easily show us he exists individually because God, by definition would know what would convince us or would you disagree?.

Salam justamuslim

I understand the point you are making, that one can relinquish all responsibilty and in a sense blame GOD for there actions. Im sure you are aware that there are alot of people who say God told them to do something which one may see as morally wrong.

What i wrote about hell is my current understanding of what i've come across so far with the conditions i found in the quran. I may be wrong and i appreciate reading other peoples views on such topics.

What i'd like to clarify is that this all depends on the assumption that GOD exists. I could perhaps explain better if you could clarify your own position on what attributes/nature this GOD has. I feel it would dishonest of me to assume definitions if you do not agree with them.
Are Gods attributes knowable (to some extent atleast)?
Do you think God is Omniscient?
Do you think God is omnipotent?
How much do you believe God interferes with our reality/existence/world/universe?
What is your position on pre-destination?

when i say free will, what i am refering to is the choices people make.
would you agree with this definition?

I wholeheartedly agree that we do have choices we can make. The thing is our choices are governed by the enviroment we live in and the choices we make to reflect this ,would you agree with this statement. I was highlighting that in the condition that God exists and understanding the quran atleast in sunni islam and some understandings of the quran leads to a blatent contradiction of God will and our own will.

I can only speak for myself when i say that i dont reject God because i have problems with punishment etc. I just as of yet have not come across valid reasons outside of "faith" to believe the Quran version of God exists.

Ok if it is God who leads us astray then removing God from the equation, what explanation do the atheist provide for those who do bad things when God and satan are removed from the equation.

From this i assume your alluding to where do those who dont believe the quran version of GOD exists (or if he does exist and does not intefere at all) where does one get the sense of morality from. How do we conclude what is right and wrong. correct me if im wrong.
This is an interesting question.

Speaking for myself briefly, i get my own sense of right and wrong from an understanding of reality and not assertion of authority. I form my limits with the rational considerations of my own actions and what affect these actions have on others. Do we have a right impose our will on those around us and what will the consequenses be if we do so. People will always do something that will impact negatively and they will suffer the consequenses of their actions.

Why is it that an atheist will support punishment for rape, murder or destruction of property and lives, yet seem to have tremendous issues if God punishes people for these same wrong doing? To an atheist do consequences of ones action hold true only in this life? What about those who get away, then what? If I cause injustice, pain, bloodshed and I get away with it in this life, then I just get away? But is it fair that the person who didn't get away gets punished in this life but the one who gets away doesn't? Does fairness and justice not apply or matter to an atheist?

For me atleast the disturbing thing about eternal punishment, essentailly i could be punished for eternity for simply not having sufficient reasons to believe or that i lack faith. do i deserve any sort of punishment?

I want to believe but there are so little reasons to do it. theres no way to demonstrate to any degree of certainty if is true so it just falls back on faith. like i said in earlier post faith is what people say when they have no good or actual reason to believe something. if you have a reason to do something you dont need faith.

If we are to live cooperatively on this planet and atleast to survive to further generations we need to understand and consider actions that will enable us to successfully acheive this goal. For example from history we can conclude certian actions are deemed bad for survival as a community and species. this is where we get what is right and wrong. Mass murder, war, genocide etc impact negatively on society. weve got to a point in society that their is alot more knowlegde and our understanding of the world is increasing. We moving away from the ignorance of reality and the result is positive.

assuming that this is our only life then the consequences obviously only hold true in this life.
Why does there have to be a need for an extra justice. Id like to believe theres an ultimate justice but in the end it is just speculation of sometthing that may or may not happen. So a person may get away scott free without further punishment if there is no hell. what will one do, hope that it exists. hoping doesnt make it happen.

id like to clarify my own postion is a position that rejects claims that have not met their burden of proof.

peace peace

Salam assissino

When I read this topic, it shocked me how close your views are to my own. I can say that im in exactly your position at the moment.
If im bieng honest, if listed all my views and methodology, no doubt people would consider me athiest; which for me is the default position i.e not believing or taking true unless you have valid justification/evidence to do so. This justification/evidence is different for different people, some set the bar low and some like myself are very meticulous. So don't feel to disheartened at labels; like other posters have said labels dont really tell the whole story. One thing im grateful i learnt from quran only islam and this forum is to challenge ideas and question.

I have the same view with regards sex outside of marriage. I would however like to bring up the issue of STD's, it is obvious to state that their is a greater risk to catch std's when one sleeps around, but however the cause of the problem is not random sex, however it lies in bieng unaware that the person carries a std. Awareness and cause of the problems are the issues and those linking them to sleeping around is abit naive.

Marriage has come up alot for me as ive got to a stage where i'd like to start a family. the worrying thing is that i myself feel incompatible with many religious people. Open-mindness and tolerence i have noticed is more prevelant amongst free thinkers, those who reflect and study tend to be alot more suitable for me atleast. This rarely occurs among devoutly religious people and that is the problem for me. Say you marry a devout sunni/christian/hindu/anti-thiest etc and you have kids, you may indeed be open minded however if you significant other is really devout they will definitely enforce there views on kids. The issue boils down how invested the person is in there beliefs and whether those beliefs allow for them think outside of box.

to reply to your views on miracles. This is what has been the pivotal for me recently. When i first started quran only islam miracles i accepted as a package included with the power of God but chose not to devout time to studying it. I only took up interest in miracles recently when sunni's were flashing around hadiths as proofs of miracles and scientific miracles in the quran. This got me curious.

First we need to define what we mean by miracle ;-

1. a highly improbable but still possible event/occurance e.g falling from a tall building and surviving.
2. an impossible event/occurance which goes against the "laws" that we know govern our reality e.g an actual headless man walking and talking with his head in his arms.

In the case of 1 there are several claims that can fall in to this category, however you need to be aware that this implies that it is able to be explained and examined using science, if not they fall to second category.

Majority of the miracle claims of a religious nature fall in to the second. This is where the problems starts for me. Depending on how one defines God (its pointless otherwise), I'd say for purposes of this, God is limitless/boundless and cannot be comprehended meaning literally God can do absolutely anything. So it is in Gods ability to do the virgin birth.
now here's the thing the quran states that in few places that God does not go against our reality i.e his decree is unchanging (feel free to correct me if im wrong, cant remember the relevant verses might be mistaken), he can but he doesn't becuase of the business of free will etc. However he also states that he shows signs to us for those who believe and these signs include the virgin birth. Jesus was concieved from literally nothing and is like occurance of Adam from nothing ( im aware this is not the only interpretation). We know this from our understanding of reality that this feat is not only impossible but cannot be tested or reproduced. If reality tells us such a thing is impossible and untestable then how is one able to attest to an event such as the virgin birth even happening. Im told its a sign of God and fair enough but thats the same as me telling someone I the hear voices in my head which gives the correct lottery numbers but i choose not to play them. this is also a circular reasoning because God then requires us to believe to believe. When i need a good evidence to believe as a basis.

My view on the punishments in the quran seem to be very excessive and in particular the punishment for disbelievers in hell. The problem for me ties in with the concept of free will and it the following applies to the concept of hell in general for "sinful" acts

1. Did God create hell? according to the Quran i'd say yes.
2. Did God create the criteria by which the universe works and how souls are judged? according to the quran i'd say yes. He set the rules of reality and he set the rules of who goes to heaven and hell.
   3 Does anything happen that goes against God will or does anything occur independantly of God (something that God is NOT aware of)?
   according to the quran id say no. God is omniscient etc.
   4 So ultimately God is responsible for the for who he sends to hell and free will is irrelavent. And to say that we are responsible for our own fates is frankily contradicting various areas of the quran.

Their are various ways one can spin it but this just makes the whole idea of punishment for something god ultimately led us to do quite baffling. This also leads the question of how does one realise he is rightly guided? Like you said alot of question do go unanswered when going from sunni to quran only islam.

Id like to say something about faith. After years of contemplation ive realised in my own view that faith really isn't a pathway to truth. It for me gives me something to believe i have no good reasons to believe. For me in my sunni days it made me quite biased toward favorable sources and jump to conclusion. When i came to quran only i only kept faith in God but made a biased assumption that the quran was the word of God without any justification to do so. So here i am in a poition to evaluate the quran is what it say it is. and honestly its not looking very good.

Ive realised if God exists then he will exist regardless if the quran is true or not. For me my main desire is to know what is true and not what i want to be true, and that is a decision you yourself have to make.

My advise would be go first through the different arguments for GOD. Ontological and so on and also go through the oppositions to them also. then decide do you believe God exist or not. If you feel you like the idea of God then go and read up on various religions that interest you but remember be aware of the jump one can make from saying there is a god to quran is the word of God with no justification, its easy trap to fall in to.

Id also like to add that the quran itself is the claim and CANNOT be used as the proof of itself. by that i mean saying the quran is the word of god because it says it is the word of god is not proof. also contrary to what some may believe you cannot use the quran itself as a proof of GOD because you first have to prove God exists before attribute something to Him. Thats where you have to decide whether you believe god exists or not and analyse the quran to see whether it is the word of God, which i myself have doubts about

Good luck on your journey to truth.

Peace peace

Salam

I recognise your concern when you say that when the prophet is refered to, we don't show enough respect. Let me assure you myself and likely others definitely have respect for the prophet. Some may show by writing SAS or PBUH which is fine and some may find it tedious to write/say which is fine too. Alot of it also comes down to culture of a region, in my community it is considered badmanners to call those older than you by there first name instead its custom to say brother, sister, uncle, aunt etc.

Think of it this way, is it more important to respect him in our hearts or with our mouths by just paying lip service. No sincere muslim who follows the quran would ever bad mouth or have ill intentions in thier hearts regarding the prophet. If some feel the need to show that they respect the prophet then by all means that is fine but do not assume because one neglects saying PBUH or SAS that they do not wish him peace and blessings.

Obviously avid hadith followers will say that paying lip service is compulsory. But the Quran however makes no explicit mention of this being compulsory however it does say ask Allah to send blessing upon him which can be done in numerous ways. for example i do this during dua also asking for blessings on all the prophets.

When comparing the prophet to others, Do you mean comparing to prophet to other prophets. then i am sure you are aware that the quran clearly states not to make distinctions between them. Quran 2136

Peace peace

Salam

You hit the nail on the head student of Allah. The majority of there arguments basically based on premises which are either unfounded or impossible to prove/disprove.

I find it a waste to do rebuttals myself because i admit i do tend to get drawn in to the circular reasoning and is never ending after a point i just give up because they rely on you to spoon feed them. this not an admission of defeat but acknowledgement that the arguments become never ending when alot of assumptions are made and distracts from the underlying point on whether the original premise is true or not.

i have one issue which really hasnt been addressed by those who promote hadith following to be compulsory.
It is stated in the Quran it is the criterion and the majority of sects believe this to be true. the issue then arises when you say they hadiths are needed to understand/explain the quran. this makes the hadith the criterion because a criteria does not need explanation. so the issue for them to work out is. the hadith is the criteria or the quran is, it cannot be both unless they beleive the hadith and the quran are one which however all sects know they are not one and same.

i hold firm the quran is the criteria. So if someone wanted to truely convince me that hadiths are compulsory they will have to disprove and discredit the quran as a criteria only way to do this is to prove as a stand alone book it contains contradictions/misinformation. No sunni/shia etc has yet done this. this is a very slippery slope for them. Readers also need to be aware that supposed missing information and vague verses is not a contradiction or a valid argument for hadiths becuase that is an assumption and false premise (if they truely hold the quran to be a criterion and number one source of islam) that stuff is missing, a criteria by definition does not lack information therefore alot of the arguments available to them go out of the window

Majority of argument against quran only position are based on supposed lack of information in the quran. this premise is what needs to be addressed and arguments are miraculously cut down when they realise that the quran lacking information is a subjective opinion on there part and cannot be proved using the quran itself and therefore not a strong foundation to base arguments on.

my studies so far have bought me to the conclusion that hadiths are not compulsory, however if people feel a need to use them do not make them compulsory for others to follow. plus the argument that we need hadith to understand arabic is invalid and hopefully does not need be explained why. this argument i have heard countless times. what has not understanding arabic got to do with hadiths bieng compulsory ??? o.

sorry for the random rant, got carried away P

Salam

Browsing through that site i found it interesting and worth pondering over, i am a firm believer in to find the truth we need to look at all sides of the argument. I did come across an interesting link to a more detailed site and it has plenty of very very detailed "rebuttals" to alot of arguments against the quran only position. It is the following page

http//www.call-to-monotheism.com/hadeeth_rejecters

If you scroll down that page you see alot of links to articles which cover a wide range of issues. After reading through a couple i seen several interesting points including some very poor ones. I think as open minded, honest and truth seeking muslims it is important to address the arguments rather than dismiss them without thought.

http//www.call-to-monotheism.com/counter_rebuttal_to_a_rebuttal_to__questions_that_the_quranites_have_no_good_logical_responses_to

the following is a counter rebuttal to arnold yasins rebuttal it is an interesting read.

One thing i do notice alot is logical fallacies but the main theme after reading through some of the works on that site is how they have a pre concieved notion that they are already correct. Not assessing that their assumptions may not be correct leads to alot of circular reasoning which can be very frustating and confusing. Those new to quran only islam need to be aware of this. Like roshan said "The real fallacy of their arguments is that they think in reverse, i.e. they get their stuff 'from the hadith' (eg salat) and then try to use the Quran to justify that salat is 'what the hadith says it is'."

if any brothers/sisters have time and up for a challenge feel free to write rebuttals to that site, i like to read others opinions which may highlight points i may have missed myself.

thanks
peace

Salam abdul hadi and student of allah

I really appreaciate your opinions my own thoughts are along the same lines as yourselves. You are right that we cant guide who we love.

I still manage to get resistance when i mention the quran alone as guidance. the major thing i noticed is the emotional attachment alot of muslim still have with traditions. when questioned on the tradition they always end up appealing to emotions by stating how could so many people be wrong and we should thefore ollow the majority. I often been told that we shouldn't question matters of faith. which at the end of the day is faulty reasoning because the quran encourages us to learn understand and ponder.

i think the newest accuse i was given that i was listening to the wrong scholars and my sources are corrupt hich is all very convenient. which naturally leads to the question what makes certain scholars better than others, which criteria is used because it sure isn't the quran. I guess for me to have a valid opinion in thier eyes i'll probably have to have years of schooling at al azhar or any other islamic institution. those who discuss my apparent misguidance often are surprised when im aware of different scholar and general opinions amongst them. i was given a brain ill make my own decision and choices which ammusingly they do exactly the same thing when it thier own choice to follow the traditions and ulema blindly, as the quran say truth is easily distinguished from falsehood.

I just dont how they can be so close minded. their lives could be so much simpler yet they over complicate. i was bought up in a strict sunni household following ahle sunnah, i use to attend plenty of lectures and always heard conflicting accounts, so when i started actually studying the quran i asked allah for understanding of the deen, it all clicked and ive never looked back since. I guess i do see this opposition as the test of my resove and how much faith i actually put in allah.

inahallah i will come through this stronger and with more understanding.

Thanks peace

Salaam Indelwyn

Thank you for response. I rarely get visits from jehovahs witnesses, i had heard of them growing up but hadnt met any till recently. Your post has been extremely useful, i dont like to be too ignorant of others beliefs so atleast when i meet them again i can have a healthy discussion about their ideas and if God wills it maybe bring the truth to them through the Quran because when talking to them they seem to assume i was a traditional muslim and maybe they could be enlightened to the true beauty of the Quran.

Thanks again much appreciated.

Salaam IAMOP and Maverick

I agree entirely with IAMOP's post. When i heard these points, what you posted are the thoughts that ran through my head at the time. The thing is none of what they said really made me think the bible superceeded the Quran but i just wanted a way to better clarify my position next time i encounter them, at first i thought they were just describing how the quran and bible are similar which i was already aware of but later i kind of got the feeling they were saying that maybe the bible was enough which i disagreed with as per the Quran the message of god is the same through the ages so similarities will be there but that doesn't imply we must follow the bible in its entirety.

Peace seekingtruth,

What organization name is listed on the pamphlet?

Keep in mind that no scripture says that the Bible, etc, will not change, it says that the word of God will not change. God's central message has not changed, even though it looks different in the Torah, Gospel, and Quran.

-Joel

The name on the booklet is given as watch tower and tract society.
I assume they dont believe jesus to be son of god but i never got around to asking them.
you make an interesting point about no scripture saying the bible will not change and the quote they provided { the green grass has dried up, blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite}from Isaiah 408, you have explained it really well in your post which were my initail thoughts on it. Gods word can never change and the main message will not change. God also mentions the Quran is protected which i assume is not given in previous scriptures.

i thank you for your thoughts, much appreciated. It nice to know others share similar views to my own it refreshing. )

peace peace

Salaam

http//www.rasoulallah.net/fl_list_en.asp?lang=ar&folder_id=29&parent_id=29

The main misconceptions page is full of interesting yet some disturbing articles. Pay attention to the Aisha marriage explanation hypno >(
what can i say i'm pretty speechless

peace peace

Salaam

was browsing through saw some interesting topics this particularly caught my eye

http//www.rasoulallah.net/subject_en.asp?hit=1&lang=ar&parent_id=29&sub_id=310

"There is another thing that we have to mention here; no order given by Allah is without a season. An experiment was done and a small part of the Black Stone was analyzed, this proved that the Black Stone has special features that aren?t found in any other stone or element on this earth. It has special rays coming out that can affect all people walking around the Ka?ba from a very far distance even if they couldn?t reach it and kiss it because of the overcrowded place. And this proves also that this Stone is sent by Allah from Heaven."

qoute from the article. This is the first time i've ever heard this, very interesting hmm

Peace peace

Salaam

Thank you for the link much appreciated.

peace peace

salam all

i will be fasting the tradition timing this yr due to the fact i am still a beginner in learning the quran and require alot more information regarding this issue before can come to a firm conclusion. god willing.

can anyone help me by explaining why the traditional timing is incorrect and the history behind how the method was estabilished i have trouble finding it, is there any historical evidence that shows that the prophet fasted during the hottest month.

thanks.

salaam,

i agree with all that quran is from god and hadith is from humans.

thanks for all your insights. i'm actually new to this idea of using the quran as the only source of guidance, bieng raised as a sunni is making it hard to break out of tradition . i often hear from sunni's who argue there case that those who stick to the quran minupulate and twist meaning of verses when left to personal interpretation but i personally like the idea as we are all accountable for ourselves and those who wish to mislead will answer to allah and a number of verses make it obvious that allah wants us to learn and understand the quran.

thanks again for your insights

p.s can someone please post links to sources which show how the compilation of hadiths took place. (a link to sunni scholar articles in which they admit the compilation is different would be most beneficial ;D)

thanks peace

Salam all

I have recently been reading up arguments presented by Sunni muslims on the importance of Hadiths, one of my biggest pet peeves is when they present "analogies" on how the "scholar/ulema" and hadiths explain the Quran. the following 3 are the most popular, i've condenced the following, so they may appear in various forms but essentially say the same things.

1. We require a doctor to fix a broken leg, similarly therefore we require the "Ulema/Scholars" to fix spritual problems.

2. a university professor(Quran) teaching a class using his tutorials/notes(Hadith).

but the one that is really popular is the following -

Trying to interpret/understand the quran yourself is the same as an illiterate farmer giving a university lecture on human anatomy (or any other subject).

When first encountering this it can be a stumbling block in a discussion. However one eventually realises by actually thinking that these are actually False analogies the following link is useful to understand how http//www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html.

Here is the problem i have with the first, fixing a broken leg is a specific procedure i.e their is a sure way of fixing it. However curing spritual problems and getting religious decree of the Ulema fails when you realise that there are alot differing opinions on how to "cure" or understand problems, and problem of several subjective opinions that cannot be verified objectively without understanding the said topic oneself. i.e you need to understand a topic yourself if you are to know if you have the correct understanding.

for the second it needs to be realised that the lecturer possessing the information and explaining the information are not mutually exclusive and seperate one source can do both.

the problem with the last one is that the truth of information is not wholly dependant on the attribute of the provider of the information. this can often be disguised as ad hominem fallacies.

These are some of the problem i can currently think of.

I would like to know how other members usually deal with the use of these analogies. feel free to post other ones not listed here.
The rate at which i encounter these ive realised i need to stay on top of their weaknesses.

Peace peace

Salaam

I recently try to introduce my view of quran only islam position to my family. So basically i had several heated discussions on the traditions and their place along side the quran. now the problem is me not bieng very knowledgable i keep coming to a stumbling block when i try to put the point across. They use the argument of obey the messenger etc. which i show verses that say that his duty was only to convey. I also used the argument of the quran bieng complete, fully detailed and explained. i have gained progress with part of my family but some are very much unconvinced, they basically keep saying how to do salat, how to do zakat etc. the argument keeps becoming circular when i say the details are there just need to be willing to see them. dont approuch the quran with pre concieved notions. the one thing they do agre is that the hadiths are partly say bad things.

Now the problem comes when they say why would the prophet say anything bad to do (this is about the resonable hadith) and whats wrong with following them if its backed by quran, this does not sit well with me thats because something sounds is right doesnt nessacerally mean it is and for me comes it down to the quran not having enough details etc. i wanted to ask is there anything in quran about using other non contradicting hadith to supplement the quran or is it against it entirely part of me wants to use them but something kees telling me it could be bidah. am i right in thinking this?

they always say not everyone can understand the quran and only people of knowledge should discuss these things also come to stumbling block of not knowing arabic and they use this as a reason im misinterpreting stuff and am confused. how do i get past these arguments?

also my discussion seem to now have got to the point that part of my family think i am mislead, not open to ideas etc. which is abit irratating. its got to the point where they have involved the dawat e islami sect to try and bring me back to the sunnah. i recently went to the talk and the speaker said the something interesting he quoted the following verse

"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves".

and said this shows that the significance of the prophets sunnah.

he also mentioned a verse refering to the prophet being the reason for creation of the sky/heavens and the earth. but i cant remebr which aya that is has anyone come across a ayat mentioning such a thing that the reason we are on earth is because of/ or sake of the prophet.i seem to have missed it in the quran?

he also went on to mention another verse( cant remember which) and stated that the rank of mohammad(saw) was highest among the prophets and that he is most beloved by allah out of all of them. which for some reason didnt sit well with me. is this valid in the quran i seem to have missed it?

they also mentioned how the prophet can hear us, intercession by him on day of judgement and how if one does not love the prophet he is not a believer are these statements backed by the quran becuase i cant seem to remember verses he used but justified it with a few?

this was a talk by dawat e islami on milad( celebration of prophets birthday), they take sunnah very seriously and i now seem to be on the agenda as the misguided one. im expecting them to highlight the argguments about wisdom, obey the messenger etc. would there be anything else to look out for those who have had debates with this group? id likee to brush up on hadith history and would like to know how important is the reasons for the revalations of the ayats by allah? im not really a big debater and this group are very popular and will keep highlighting my "lack of knowledge" or they wont see my point becuase they may get emotional. i dont really like arguing but i got a feeling they wont leave me alone until i drop my opinion or i make them question there own belief. are there any good questions i could ask them about hadith history, compilation and the islamic jurispudence, fiqh which would maybe hope to let them see the truth?

with my own family they keep saying that i have lost love for the prophet and must love him most in this world is there any justification for this in the quran because i seem to have missed it. i respect the prophet highly and judge his action by the quran but how do i make others see this. i feel the involvement of the dawat e islami will force my family against me. oh well allah guides whom he wills.

sorry about the randomness of the questions
help would be appreaciated.

thanks peace

Salaam

i recently had a discussion with christians about islam and christainity. They proided me with a booklet which compared the bible and Quran and later in the discussion tried to convince me the bible actually supercedes the Quran when i tried to say that i believe the quran supercedes previous scriptures.
In the booklet however i came across 2 points.

the first was regarding the promised paradise bieng here on earth. this is the qoute directly from the booklet-
We read in surah 21 verse 105-{ We wrote in the Psalms after the torah had been given, the righteous will inherit the earth}. compare surah 39 verses 73 and 74.
Yes centuries before, Psalms (zebur) 3729 revealed that the promised paradise would be on earth. It reads {The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and the will reside forever upon it.}

Then the booklet goes on to describe paradise from the Bible.
When reading the quran i always got the idea that the heaven would be somewhere else rather than specifically earth not like what the booklet stated above. Ive read the verses before 21105

21103 (Asad) The supreme awesomeness will cause them no grief, since the angels will receive them with the greeting. ?This is your Day which you were promised!?

21103 (Y. Ali) The Great Terror will bring them no grief but the angels will meet them (with mutual greetings) "This is your Day,- (the Day) that ye were promised."

21103 (Picktall) The Supreme Horror will not grieve them, and the angels will welcome them, (saying) This is your Day which ye were promised;

21104 (Asad) On that Day We shall roll up the skies as written scrolls are rolled up; as We brought into being the first creation, so We shall bring it forth anew a promise which We have willed upon Our?selves for, behold, We are able to do !

21104 (Y. Ali) The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one a promise We have undertaken truly shall We fulfil it.

21104 (Picktall) The Day when We shall roll up the heavens and a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it.

21105 (Asad) AND, INDEED, after having exhorted ,We laid it down in all the books of divine wisdom that My righteous servants shall inherit the earth

21105 (Y. Ali) Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses) My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth."

21105 (Picktall) And verity We have written in the Scripture, after the Reminder My righteous slaves will inherit the earth

these verses 103 and 104 tell me how we will return to God. and the verse 105 describes how the righteous inherit the earth from other those before them who did evil and has nothing to do with heaven well thats the way i see it. I would like to get others views on this matter so i can see other perspectives. insight from former christians and others who have knowledge of the bible would be much appreciated.

the second point the booklet made was how the bible cannot be changed. i quote-

Almighty God could by no means allow such a thing. The Quran declares {None can change the decrees of Allah}.- surah 6 verse 34.
The holy bible makes a similar declaration as follows { the green grass has dried up, blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite} Isaiah 408.
Compare surah 10 verse 94{if you doubt what We have revealed to you, ask those who have read the scriptures before you}

the booklet follows on to say how the verses of trinity was added in the king james version of the bible and how apparently these verses are omitted from modern translations of the bible. It aso mentions that ancient manuscripts obviously older than the Quran are in museams todaya nd when the modern bible is compared these scriptures it means that the text is the same as those written by Gods "inspired" ancient servants.

This was the points above made by the christians i was talking to and they implied that it meant the bible supercedes the Quran because apparently it hasnt changed and is written before the Quran. But it does not go down well with me from the little i know of christain history i assume the writers of the bible didnt live at the time of Jesus. so did the messenger actually say everything in the bible. the quran for me provides a criteria of how to judge truth from false hood.

I would like to hear others views on these to points so i can see ideas i may have missed through my lack of knowledge and ignorance.

may God guide and show us all the truth