Do you believe in God?

[tonmoy]

Looks like someone was napping too much in their science class

Seriously, what kind of question is that? Your great grand father is not a fish. But if you go back millions of generations, all of our ancestors were not humans.

Cmon dude... Adam is made from Dust... God transformed the Silicon to Carbon based compounds and given it life. Than realized it was too much work to break down Silicon atoms to carbon.. so for next creation he ruptured Adam's rib, took it out of his chest and used it like a seed to create Eve...

They both had same DNA.... next they had unprotected sex to create offspring who inturn performed incest to populate the world.

Than the world got corrupt (including babies and infants), except for one 500 year old man and his family (Noah)... God wanted to do a "alt Cltl Del".. but he did not want to create creatures by nuclear fission (Silicon to carbon transformation) , so he ordered Noah to build the arc and shove the millions of species inside it. Everyone else died because of flood (since that was the most convinient way for God to kill everyone).. and incest followed by more incest.. and now u and me are here.



Everything makes perfect sense.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

There has been many theological treatments of the "omnipotence paradox", but in few words it's a question with flawed premises because you have to admit that you definition of God isn't God anymore.

Exactly, there is no God.

 

[Musakhel]

Resurrection of the Dead is ONLY after the Judgement Day. So no one can be there in heavens which ever level, before Resurrection, except for Jesus whom God took with Him. This Isra & Miraj story contradicts Islam’s most basic theology.

No it dosen't, the view of Ahlus sunnah is that the prophets are alive in their graves.

 

[Mages]

Yes the basmala was revealed to the prophet (s) later on, and became a sort of marker for the beginning of a new sura as per the Companions. As Suyuti has a whole sub chapter on this in his book on the Qur'anic sciences, and that's the reason there's a jurisprudence difference between law schools on whether to consider it a part of the sura in itself or not.

Whether you call it a marker or else , who gave Uthman or anyone the authority to add anything in the Quran? No wonder , as you said, Muslims can't agree among themselves. The word Ar Rahman is not just in the basmala, it's even inside the verses chronoligally before sura 17:110 (50 in chrono) e.g 50:33, 20:90, 19:93, 25:60, 26:5, 36:11 etc. How did this happen? Was it inserted by the same ones who inserted the basmala?

 

[Mages]

While I personally believe that the ascension to heaven, the buraq and journey from Makkah to Jerusalem to be highly metaphorical with no physical basis, the aspect of the story that you highlighted is not contradictory because the rules do not apply to prophets and messengers.

They were the chosen ones and do not have to go through the trial on the Day of Resurrection.

As per Islamic belief, all the prophets, messengers and the Prophet Muhammad PBUH’s companions (the ones who were given tidings of heaven during their lifetime) are in heaven already.

No it dosen't, the view of Ahlus sunnah is that the prophets are alive in their graves.

The most authentic of the Sunnahs say otherwise. The contradiction remains.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?"…… He said, "You will see Allah (your Lord) in the same way. On the Day of Resurrection….….Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers……..
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 806 Book of Call to Prayers (Adhaan)

 

[Mamoon]

The most authentic of the Sunnahs say otherwise. The contradiction remains.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The people said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?"…… He said, "You will see Allah (your Lord) in the same way. On the Day of Resurrection….….Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers……..
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 806 Book of Call to Prayers (Adhaan)

Prophets, messengers, martyrs and the chosen ones are heaven in spiritual form, but their bodies are still on Earth.

On the Day of Resurrection, the bodies of all human beings will be resurrected and the destined ones will enter Heaven in their physical form (with their spirits residing within their bodies just like during their lives).

Similarly, those who are destined for Hell will enter Hell in physical form. That is the whole point of the Day of Resurrection; it is the resurrection of your physical body; the spirits of the dead are not in the world anyway.

They are in Barzakh, the temporary state between life and afterlife. People who are destined for Heaven or Hell without trial bypass this state, but everyone else has to go through it.

Barzakh is different for good and bad souls, so everyone knows what is waiting for them in the afterlife, unless The Almighty pardons the bad souls on the Day of Reckoning.

 

[enkidu_]

Whether you call it a marker or else , who gave Uthman or anyone the authority to add anything in the Quran? No wonder , as you said, Muslims can't agree among themselves. The word Ar Rahman is not just in the basmala, it's even inside the verses chronoligally before sura 17:110 (50 in chrono) e.g 50:33, 20:90, 19:93, 25:60, 26:5, 36:11 etc. How did this happen? Was it inserted by the same ones who inserted the basmala?

'Uthman (r) and the Companions were contemporaries to the prophet (s). They weren't like Paul who "met" Jesus after the latter's death in some hallucination and who's epistles still constitute the major parts of the New Testament. They had the legitimacy to partake in such exercises i.e. edition (not amendment) of the text.

Muslims agree on the basics of the faith and the pillars of religion, which actually matter, intra-fiqh discussions are of no importance to the post-mortem situation of the soul.

As for your Qur'anic chronology, there are many schools of thought. Orientalist Nöldeke said that "ar Rahman" was mainly important in what he termed as the middle Meccan period, while Carl Ernst in his book on "How to read the Qur'an" contrasts it with the (more traditional) Egyptian one, and for instance, while the German scholar put the Fatiha at 48, the Egyptian chronology puts it at 5, so actually making it the first sura where the ar Rahman name has been used.

Even if we forget the questions chronology, it might only simply mean that the types of audience towards which verses were revealed : not all were in public and not the whole public was of the same emotional typology to give such reactions.

 

[Mages]

Prophets, messengers, martyrs and the chosen ones are heaven in spiritual form, but their bodies are still on Earth.

On the Day of Resurrection, the bodies of all human beings will be resurrected and the destined ones will enter Heaven in their physical form (with their spirits residing within their bodies just like during their lives).

Similarly, those who are destined for Hell will enter Hell in physical form. That is the whole point of the Day of Resurrection; it is the resurrection of your physical body; the spirits of the dead are not in the world anyway.

They are in Barzakh, the temporary state between life and afterlife. People who are destined for Heaven or Hell without trial bypass this state, but everyone else has to go through it.

Barzakh is different for good and bad souls, so everyone knows what is waiting for them in the afterlife, unless The Almighty pardons the bad souls on the Day of Reckoning.

Where in the Quran or Sahih Sunnah does it says that all prophets are already in heaven but in spirit form even before the Day.

 

[Mages]

'Uthman (r) and the Companions were contemporaries to the prophet (s). They weren't like Paul who "met" Jesus after the latter's death in some hallucination and who's epistles still constitute the major parts of the New Testament. They had the legitimacy to partake in such exercises i.e. edition (not amendment) of the text.

Adding words is not editing but amending. I actually suspect Uthman even added an entire chapter.

Muslims agree on the basics of the faith and the pillars of religion, which actually matter, intra-fiqh discussions are of no importance to the post-mortem situation of the soul.

No they don't always. Some even don't consider each other as Muslims in the first place.

As for your Qur'anic chronology, there are many schools of thought. Orientalist Nöldeke said that "ar Rahman" was mainly important in what he termed as the middle Meccan period, while Carl Ernst in his book on "How to read the Qur'an" contrasts it with the (more traditional) Egyptian one, and for instance, while the German scholar put the Fatiha at 48, the Egyptian chronology puts it at 5, so actually making it the first sura where the ar Rahman name has been used.

So now the Egyptian chronology of revelation by which everyone uses may be inaccurate? Hmm...It doesn't matter because the word Ar Rahman is all over the Quran even in the verses and not just basmala. So using the German one too, you can still find Ar Rahman before 17:110 was revealed.

Even if we forget the questions chronology, it might only simply mean that the types of audience towards which verses were revealed : not all were in public and not the whole public was of the same emotional typology to give such reactions.

It is strange that after 50 suras revealed , well into his prophethood that the Arabs did not hear it before. Even if it true, I can understand if the prophet (e.g recorded in hadith etc) had replied to them ascertaining it but instead of that Allah has to immediately intervene with a verse which very obviously is in a defensive tone.

 

[Mamoon]

Where in the Quran or Sahih Sunnah does it says that all prophets are already in heaven but in spirit form even before the Day.

Anything that is not mentioned in the Quran but is believed by the Muslims is sourced from the narrations of the Prophet, which along with the Quran, is the only true source guidance and knowledge in Islam.

 

[Mages]

Anything that is not mentioned in the Quran but is believed by the Muslims is sourced from the narrations of the Prophet, which along with the Quran, is the only true source guidance and knowledge in Islam.

Of course. That's why I requested you to back up what you claimed with reference. Which Sahih hadith, what no?

 

[Mamoon]

Of course. That's why I requested you to back up what you claimed with reference. Which Sahih hadith, what no?

“The soul of the believer is a bird hanging in the trees of Paradise, until Allaah restores it to its body on the day when He resurrects him.”

This is a hadees narrated in Muwatta. I believe you can find the reference number if you look it up. However, the Muwatta’s authenticity is debated because by some scholars and is not considered as reliable as Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, so it is not certain if this a reliable hadees.

Nonetheless, it is a comprehensive hadees when it comes to making the distinction between the soul and the body, and how the Day of Resurrection is simply a reunion of the two.

Furthermore, considering the widespread Islamic belief that soul departs the body upon death and briefly returns for the trial in the grave, it is safe to say that hadees appears to be considerably authentic.

However, it is ambiguous in the use of the words “believers” and “paradise”. Do these believers include all pious Muslims or only the ones destined for Heaven without a trial (prophets, messengers, martyrs and chosen ones)? If it is the former, the usage of the word would most likely be a reference to Barzakh, because not all muslim souls can enter paradise before the Day of Resurrection.

I had this narration in mind when I answered your previous post, and it took me a while to find the exact hadees. I would like to read a commentary of this narration to see how scholars have explained the usage of the two aforementioned words.

 

[enkidu_]

Adding words is not editing but amending. I actually suspect Uthman even added an entire chapter.

The majority of Shi'a scholars accept the 'Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an, the one Sunni's use. Shi'as would have been the first to reject it otherwise, and it would have been their best argument as well.

No they don't always. Some even don't consider each other as Muslims in the first place.

I'm talking about basics and fundamentals, like tawhid and the arkan ("pillars").

So now the Egyptian chronology of revelation by which everyone uses may be inaccurate? Hmm...It doesn't matter because the word Ar Rahman is all over the Quran even in the verses and not just basmala. So using the German one too, you can still find Ar Rahman before 17:110 was revealed.

It is strange that after 50 suras revealed , well into his prophethood that the Arabs did not hear it before. Even if it true, I can understand if the prophet (e.g recorded in hadith etc) had replied to them ascertaining it but instead of that Allah has to immediately intervene with a verse which very obviously is in a defensive tone.

Actually I don't know where you're getting at. At first I thought you were referring to Nöldeke(-Schwally)'s discussion about how the "middle Meccan period", as he calls it, is characterized by the use of the Name ar Rahman, which we never see before, and never see again, neither in the "late Meccan period" nor in the Medinan one. His methodology has been criticized by other Western scholars, like Neal Robinson and Daniel Madigan. But as I told you, you can rationalize it : even if it has been used tens of times before (using any chronology), it just happened that it's at a particular time than the Meccans began to react skeptically. Al Wahidi's work doesn't even cover 10% of all the Qur'anic verses, and AFAIK very few if any on the pre-17:110 uses of Rahman, so we can't know whether the Arab pagans exposed the same amount of criticism before. And ofc Allah (swt) will defend His prophet.

Btw what's your own faith (or lack of) ? I need an answer, not the usual "it doesn't matter".

 

[Musakhel]

“The soul of the believer is a bird hanging in the trees of Paradise, until Allaah restores it to its body on the day when He resurrects him.”

This is a hadees narrated in Muwatta. I believe you can find the reference number if you look it up. However, the Muwatta’s authenticity is debated because by some scholars and is not considered as reliable as Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, so it is not certain if this a reliable hadees.

Nonetheless, it is a comprehensive hadees when it comes to making the distinction between the soul and the body, and how the Day of Resurrection is simply a reunion of the two.

Furthermore, considering the widespread Islamic belief that soul departs the body upon death and briefly returns for the trial in the grave, it is safe to say that hadees appears to be considerably authentic.

However, it is ambiguous in the use of the words “believers” and “paradise”. Do these believers include all pious Muslims or only the ones destined for Heaven without a trial (prophets, messengers, martyrs and chosen ones)? If it is the former, the usage of the word would most likely be a reference to Barzakh, because not all muslim souls can enter paradise before the Day of Resurrection.

I had this narration in mind when I answered your previous post, and it took me a while to find the exact hadees. I would like to read a commentary of this narration to see how scholars have explained the usage of the two aforementioned words.

Under Maliki fiqh the muwatta is considered more authentic than Bukhari.

 

[Mages]

“The soul of the believer is a bird hanging in the trees of Paradise, until Allaah restores it to its body on the day when He resurrects him.”

This is a hadees narrated in Muwatta. I believe you can find the reference number if you look it up. However, the Muwatta’s authenticity is debated because by some scholars and is not considered as reliable as Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, so it is not certain if this a reliable hadees.

Nonetheless, it is a comprehensive hadees when it comes to making the distinction between the soul and the body, and how the Day of Resurrection is simply a reunion of the two.

Furthermore, considering the widespread Islamic belief that soul departs the body upon death and briefly returns for the trial in the grave, it is safe to say that hadees appears to be considerably authentic.

However, it is ambiguous in the use of the words “believers” and “paradise”. Do these believers include all pious Muslims or only the ones destined for Heaven without a trial (prophets, messengers, martyrs and chosen ones)? If it is the former, the usage of the word would most likely be a reference to Barzakh, because not all muslim souls can enter paradise before the Day of Resurrection.

I had this narration in mind when I answered your previous post, and it took me a while to find the exact hadees. I would like to read a commentary of this narration to see how scholars have explained the usage of the two aforementioned words.

Under Maliki fiqh the muwatta is considered more authentic than Bukhari.

So there is nowhere, neither the Sahih Sitta nor the Muttawa (which is not accepted by non Malikis as Sahih) states that prophets are already in heaven in spirit prior to the Judgement Day.

 

[JaDed]

Yes..but is the question about religion or God?

 

[Musakhel]

So there is nowhere, neither the Sahih Sitta nor the Muttawa (which is not accepted by non Malikis as Sahih) states that prophets are already in heaven in spirit prior to the Judgement Day.

Authentic hadith are not limited to the sahih sitta.

 

[Mages]

The majority of Shi'a scholars accept the 'Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an, the one Sunni's use. Shi'as would have been the first to reject it otherwise, and it would have been their best argument as well.

Unlike the hadiths, there is only one Quran in hand now whether the Shia scholars think it is perfect or not. It doesn't prove or disapprove anything.

Every single word in the Quran is supposedly of Allah. If you look in the Book all over, whenever Allah instructs the prophet/men to utter/repeat a speech , He would add “Say” before the verse e.g 13:16, 22: 1, 113: 1, 33: 41, 3: 26 etc. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. Only in Al- Fatihah, Allah is literally praying to Himself as the “Say” is missing. I think this is a prayer co-existed separately but was later added in the Quran as a chapter by Uthman.

Actually I don't know where you're getting at.

What I’m getting at is that the so called Books of God (including Quran) are not from the same Creator of us & the universe but rather made by men claiming to have direct hotline to Him.

Btw what's your own faith (or lack of) ? I need an answer, not the usual "it doesn't matter".

I believe that God made the universe but we made up religion as our universe.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

I believe that God made the universe but we made up religion as our universe.

You do believe in God? What sort of God?

 

[Mages]

You do believe in God? What sort of God?

I don't know. I guess I believe that the universe has a (collective?) intelligence. We may call it God etc for lack of definition and linguistic limitations. While I would not want to think our existence has no purpose at all, I do not think God micro manages our lives etc. Still exploring & reflecting on life and reality. My beef is with organised religions, especially ones that claim exclusive ownership of truth & morality.

 

[yasir]

While I personally believe that the ascension to heaven, the buraq and journey from Makkah to Jerusalem to be highly metaphorical with no physical basis, the aspect of the story that you highlighted is not contradictory because the rules do not apply to prophets and messengers.

They were the chosen ones and do not have to go through the trial on the Day of Resurrection.

As per Islamic belief, all the prophets, messengers and the Prophet Muhammad PBUH’s companions (the ones who were given tidings of heaven during their lifetime) are in heaven already.

First off, why we should assume it was metaphorical, did God or Mohammad said it was metaphorical??

When we cannot explain what is literally said by holly sources, faithful fall back to COP out options, "it was just a story/metaphor". All that stuff is cherry picked. If I am not mistaken, Mirage journey was touted by some at that time was false and did not happen or Prophet saw dream, but then some of the faithful defended it as if Mohammad has said he travelled through heaven, then he actually did. Prophet did not say, guys this is just a metaphor, you don't need to take it literally or did he??

Also, as discussed earlier in this thread: God/Prophet goes out of there way to give it a physical touch. Traveling on horse(which was main mode of transportation at the time) that had wings(give it both physical and magical characteristics, not to mention extra speed to make you believe), that was really traveling fast(again trying to convey travel did happen). Same way traveling to multiple places within Earth and to skies within one night, also leading you to believe something physically happen...

Now in modern day, we know how wast is universe(how difficult it is to travel at c or escaping verse), its not that long ago (1916), we thought Milky Way is entire universe, well there are billions of milky ways (aka Galaxies) in the universe, who knows there are billions of verses like ours...All this Cosmos is not centered around our planet or that desert or that one family of Ibharim as Quran led you to believe. You need a lot of mental magic and way more fear in your mind to shut off all that reality and assume all this COSMOS revolves around Mohammad & Ibharim's God

Secondly, Can you explain me what is spirit or spiritualism?? - This is another big COP out like Mr Religion/Faith which people are throwing around here and else where, even better than Science which has lot more data/evidence and foundation behind it.

 

[yasir]

I believe that God made the universe but we made up religion as our universe.

Well God may not live in this realm but it is not beyond logic. What we see in this COSMOS, entities/things evolves from simple to complex. Small particles combine to become bigger ones and so on bigger structures are made. Atom is made of smaller particles, those have to exist before Atom can be formed and so on...Similarly life evolved from self replicating molecule to single cells to complex structure...Again it starts from simple and move towards complex...

God Hypothesis is completely opposite, the most complex, the super being/entity (whatever you call it) was made first, apparently he is not composed of any smaller parts/particles/energy etc. And he some how comes from nothing, there is no explanation of how that some thing like that was possible. It is lot harder to formulate God before atom, particles energy or even nothingness, how is that even possible?? - Its like saying iPhone came first and it created LCD, Camera, plastic, metal etc.

We have gone through 3000+ Gods in human history, yet nobody come even close to explain this model(God from nothing). Most of us are baffled at how universe can come from nothing, yet we are ready to believe God can easily come from nothing(I am baffled at utter surrender of intellect, waste of entire enterprise of Science)...We need lot more mental gymnastics to buy this God from nothing Hypothesis...If God can come from nothing.

Possibility of small building blocks of matter/energy/laws from nothing is far greater, specially when you look at possibility of verse spawning all the time randomly, with different sets of characteristics(laws, energy /matter density and properties), some of them will be stable and can survive like ours. We see something similar in evolution of life, mutations play important role in providing diversity and richness in living beings, mutations that survive in a given env, can blossom and evolve. At high level possibility of evolution of verses(physics, matter, energy and its laws) could be similar to how life has evolve on our planet.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

God Hypothesis is completely opposite, the most complex, the super being/entity (whatever you call it) was made first, apparently he is not composed of any smaller parts/particles/energy etc. And he some how comes from nothing, there is no explanation of how that some thing like that was possible. It is lot harder to formulate God before atom, particles energy or even nothingness, how is that even possible?? - Its like saying iPhone came first and it created LCD, Camera, plastic, metal etc.

Most of us are baffled at how universe can come from nothing, yet we are ready to believe God can easily come from nothing(I .

Thank you, I did not have the simple to complex argument in my arsenal.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

First off, why we should assume it was metaphorical, did God or Mohammad said it was metaphorical

The more the world is educated, the more of the Qur'an is seen as metaphorical.

In a hundred years or less Hell will be metaphorical too.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

I don't know. I guess I believe that the universe has a (collective?) intelligence. We may call it God etc for lack of definition and linguistic limitations. While I would not want to think our existence has no purpose at all, I do not think God micro manages our lives etc. Still exploring & reflecting on life and reality. My beef is with organised religions, especially ones that claim exclusive ownership of truth & morality.

Just because there is no God of any type does not mean our lives don't have purpose.

Are you talking about the Gaia hypothesis, when you talk about the universe, or is it earth that has collective intelligence?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Cmon dude... Adam is made from Dust... God transformed the Silicon to Carbon based compounds and given it life. Than realized it was too much work to break down Silicon atoms to carbon.. so for next creation he ruptured Adam's rib, took it out of his chest and used it like a seed to create Eve...

They both had same DNA.... next they had unprotected sex to create offspring who inturn performed incest to populate the world.

Than the world got corrupt (including babies and infants), except for one 500 year old man and his family (Noah)... God wanted to do a "alt Cltl Del".. but he did not want to create creatures by nuclear fission (Silicon to carbon transformation) , so he ordered Noah to build the arc and shove the millions of species inside it. Everyone else died because of flood (since that was the most convinient way for God to kill everyone).. and incest followed by more incest.. and now u and me are here.
Everything makes perfect sense.

This deserves a reread <applause>

 

[DeadBall]

This deserves a reread <applause>

Still don't get why the fishes got off scott free.

 

[yasir]

The more the world is educated, the more of the Qur'an is seen as metaphorical.

In a hundred years or less Hell will be metaphorical too.

Some Christians, specially the ones who are on the fence, do not literally believe in Bible or Virgin Birth or Hell, many of those core ideas are getting out of fashion in liberal circle. Creationism Movement is dying out, their last hold out is Bible Belt, even in the Bible Belt millennials are embarrassed of theological strong hold. Atheists in Millennials are far higher than any other past generations of US. I was surprised while talking to my Son's friends, how many of them debate on these topics, how many are open Atheists in High School...

Here on PP, few years back there were very few Atheists, but now I see lot more people on this side of the fence. But they we also have Trump and Khadam Rizvi phenomenas

 

[yasir]

I don't know. I guess I believe that the universe has a (collective?) intelligence. We may call it God etc for lack of definition and linguistic limitations. While I would not want to think our existence has no purpose at all, I do not think God micro manages our lives etc. Still exploring & reflecting on life and reality. My beef is with organised religions, especially ones that claim exclusive ownership of truth & morality.

How Vs Why:

"Why" is a presumptive question, you are already making an assumption about what you are seeking. In most cases, first you have to understand "How" before going to the next level "Why"...First we have to understand what and how about COSMOS, before we go to the "Why" part...This is one of the reason Science has better success than other methods (Theology, Spiritualism etc) at understanding COSMOS. Science is blindly following evidence, whole focus is to get deeper in to the evidence food chain, rather than making assumptions about it...Fantasy models don't have much substance, their foundation is not strong, it worked for primitive and midivil time, when focus was more on obedience (since they needed soldiers not scholars) but falls flat as Science gets strong hold in society and culture...

What is special about religious Purpose??

Purpose is function of what we understand about COSMOS. In past we were very self-center, our tribes had localized purpose, our Gods were localized and purpose build around what one can fantasied in that local ENV. Living is desert, hot is bad, spring is good. That's why everything about Muslim's Hell revolves around hot things(fire, boiling oil, burning skins, etc), heaven revolves around nice weather, comfort, women, licker etc which was hard to get in that ENV or were source of entertainment. Since religions are created by men, there is too much womanizing, drinking in heaven, there is nothing else to do in there. How that is such a great purpose of life??

Love for God, is another COP out, nobody had explained me what "Love of God" means? - You are worshiping him so that he can favor you with heaven, how that is some thing so moral or pure. How that is even love in the first place, its like a "Fish Love"...You basically love things (fantasize about those things) you will get after worshiping him(with assumption he will give you, because he gets happy when people worship him and he has all those things)...This is plain old "Kissing Up", I don't get how that is something so holly or super special purpose of life??

 

[Mages]

Just because there is no God of any type does not mean our lives don't have purpose.

Are you talking about the Gaia hypothesis, when you talk about the universe, or is it earth that has collective intelligence?

How Vs Why:

"Why" is a presumptive question, you are already making an assumption about what you are seeking. In most cases, first you have to understand "How" before going to the next level "Why"...First we have to understand what and how about COSMOS, before we go to the "Why" part...This is one of the reason Science has better success than other methods (Theology, Spiritualism etc) at understanding COSMOS. Science is blindly following evidence, whole focus is to get deeper in to the evidence food chain, rather than making assumptions about it...Fantasy models don't have much substance, their foundation is not strong, it worked for primitive and midivil time, when focus was more on obedience (since they needed soldiers not scholars) but falls flat as Science gets strong hold in society and culture...

What is special about religious Purpose??

Purpose is function of what we understand about COSMOS. In past we were very self-center, our tribes had localized purpose, our Gods were localized and purpose build around what one can fantasied in that local ENV. Living is desert, hot is bad, spring is good. That's why everything about Muslim's Hell revolves around hot things(fire, boiling oil, burning skins, etc), heaven revolves around nice weather, comfort, women, licker etc which was hard to get in that ENV or were source of entertainment. Since religions are created by men, there is too much womanizing, drinking in heaven, there is nothing else to do in there. How that is such a great purpose of life??

Love for God, is another COP out, nobody had explained me what "Love of God" means? - You are worshiping him so that he can favor you with heaven, how that is some thing so moral or pure. How that is even love in the first place, its like a "Fish Love"...You basically love things (fantasize about those things) you will get after worshiping him(with assumption he will give you, because he gets happy when people worship him and he has all those things)...This is plain old "Kissing Up", I don't get how that is something so holly or super special purpose of life??

You guys reading too much in what I wrote. To insist God exist or God does not exist is futile & does not reach a conclusive debate. For me, “God” a personal thing & I do not claim to have all the answers. Yeah, purpose of life could be life itself. I’m more into discussing religionist/”God”s who claim monopoly of wisdom.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Here on PP, few years back there were very few Atheists, but now I see lot more people on this side of the fence. But they we also have Trump and Khadam Rizvi phenomenas

I think Trump was a reaction to Obama. Had to Google Khadam Rizvi, a firebrand Brelvi, he and Hafiz Saeed should get in the ring and duke it out.

 

[sweep_shot]

As a Muslim, I believe in God.

I think this universe is way too systematic and hence I believe there is a Creator.

 

[JaDed]

As a Muslim, I believe in God.

I think this universe is way too systematic and hence I believe there is a Creator.

As a Muslim you believe in religion or religious form of God.
A person not being Hindu, Muslim cN believe in God without believing in religion

 

[sweep_shot]

As a Muslim you believe in religion or religious form of God.
A person not being Hindu, Muslim cN believe in God without believing in religion

To be fair, I would still believe in God even if I were not a Muslim. I have never questioned existence of God.

This world would make no sense if there was no God.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

As a Muslim, I believe in God.

I think this universe is way too systematic and hence I believe there is a Creator.

Then the question remains who creates the creator. Its has to start from somewhere.

If there is no god just thinking about it, its very scary how universe was created.

 

[sweep_shot]

Then the question remains who creates the creator. Its has to start from somewhere.

If there is no god just thinking about it, its very scary how universe was created.

It has to start from a source and that source is God.

God wasn't created. He just exists.

 

[Robert]

It has to start from a source and that source is God.

God wasn't created. He just exists.

But if everything has to start from a source, what is the source of God? You have violated your own argument.

 

[Technics 1210]

But if everything has to start from a source, what is the source of God? You have violated your own argument.

How did the universe come into existence from absolute nothing in your creatorless, unintelligent, and random universe?

As it has been mentioned before, Athiests believe that something can come from nothing in their world, like the universe, thus applying their logic, why cannot God?

It doesn't matter whether the pretentious claim *they do not know*, because God or no God, both sides need to explain how something can come from nothing.

 

[Robert]

How did the universe come into existence from absolute nothing in your creatorless, unintelligent, and random universe?

As it has been mentioned before, Athiests believe that something can come from nothing in their world, like the universe, thus applying their logic, why cannot God?

It doesn't matter whether the pretentious claim *they do not know*, because God or no God, both sides need to explain how something can come from nothing.

Answered this already. Didn’t come from nothing, came from a primordial infinitely dense point before which time did not exist.

 

[Technics 1210]

Answered this already. Didn’t come from nothing, came from a primordial infinitely dense point before which time did not exist.

Nice play on words. That single point also had energy. I suppose that came from nothing too.

 

[Robert]

Nice play on words. That single point also had energy. I suppose that came from nothing too.

It didn’t have anything we can describe.

There was no time prior to it. I know this is a difficult concept. If you try to visualise all matter, energy, dimensions and time radiating out in a 4D funnel... but then reverse the direction of the funnel as Hawking said to Penrose, everything concentrates down to a single point beyond which there is no space and time for anything to exist in.

Penrose is still with us and hypothesises the oscillating universe, but it is looking like our universe will never contract again due to the cosmological constant, getting bigger and darker and colder and emptier into infinity.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

But if everything has to start from a source, what is the source of God? You have violated your own argument.

Robert this is what spins my heads...

 

[sweep_shot]

But if everything has to start from a source, what is the source of God? You have violated your own argument.

What if God doesn't need a source and He just always existed?

 

[Chrish]

Probably something is out there.

Or we might be advanced form of artificial intelligence/ program designed by “god” for his/ their entertainment/ experiment

 

[uberkoen]

Believing in God and believing in religion are two separate things.

A lot of people here seem to confuse the two.

I have my issues believing in religion. For example, why did only past generations get a Prophet who had direct communication with God and why not us? People say Islam was completed when the Prophet delivered his speech on the day of Arafat. However, if religion was completed why are there so many sects? Fact of the matter is there are still a lot of uncertainties over which sects are created. So religion is not perfect nor was it completed on that day.

Regardless of all that, back to my original question: Why did only past generations get this special treatment and why not us?

Why are we not allowed to witness miracles that generations in the past have witnessed? Why is God being unfair to Muslims of future generations? Why did He create people in the first place? Just to worship him? This sounds rather narcissistic. Why create heaven and hell? What's the point of all of this? Seems a bit too far fetched if you ask me.

 

[Robert]

What if God doesn't need a source and He just always existed?

You are positing a being for which there is absolutely no evidence, therefore your questions are untestable, therefore meaningless.

Religious people say nothing can come from nothing, then posit a being that did, contradicting their own argument.

 

[Technics 1210]

It didn’t have anything we can describe.

There was no time prior to it. I know this is a difficult concept. If you try to visualise all matter, energy, dimensions and time radiating out in a 4D funnel... but then reverse the direction of the funnel as Hawking said to Penrose, everything concentrates down to a single point beyond which there is no space and time for anything to exist in.

Penrose is still with us and hypothesises the oscillating universe, but it is looking like our universe will never contract again due to the cosmological constant, getting bigger and darker and colder and emptier into infinity.

Nice play again, but you need to explain where this matter and energy comes from. Like I said, forget time, it's irrelevant. Plus this is all hypothesis, no evidence to support anything here.

You believe there was nothing before the point of singularity, and even if you don;t then this difficult concept you speak of is beyond the realms of human understanding. Which means, you undermine your own argument both ways.

You believe there was nothing, but if there is nothing, then there is something, beyond our understanding. This is your belief in a sentence.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

At the time when Islam was being created and prior with Judaism and Christianity, it was acceptable to keep slaves and have intercourse with them, at the time it was common norm to share the booty of war, you could share the women between you and have intercourse with them. At the times when you aligned with other sects you would get woman as gifts.

Now truthfully if you would ask a educated muslim now is this acceptable in this day and age, what would the answer be? Islam allows this.

Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah was given to Prophet muhammad as a gift, she was a concubine to prophet, she bore a child out of wedlock.

All im saying is in those days it was common norm to do all those things and it was acceptable in society, nowadays no sane person would agree.

Islam to me is more of a identity, if anyone really thinks about it, we are more cultural than actually religious....

 

[Robert]

Nice play again, but you need to explain where this matter and energy comes from. Like I said, forget time, it's irrelevant. Plus this is all hypothesis, no evidence to support anything here.

You believe there was nothing before the point of singularity, and even if you don;t then this difficult concept you speak of is beyond the realms of human understanding. Which means, you undermine your own argument both ways.

You believe there was nothing, but if there is nothing, then there is something, beyond our understanding. This is your belief in a sentence.

I can’t explain it any better than I already have. It’s anti-intuitive I know, as to make sense if it you have to think backwards in time instead of the usual way, to reach this infinitely dense single point at the beginning of time.

Penrose and Hawking supplied the mathematical proof, then Bell Labs and NASA provided the hard evidence. I suggest you read ‘Hawking for Beginners’, as I did, for a better explanation. ‘Bang!’ by Patrick Moore and Brian May helped me too.

 

[Musakhel]

Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrated that Nu`man bin Sa`d said:

“In my presence, Nawf bin `Abdullah came to `Ali and said, “O Leader of the Believers! There is an assembly of about fourty Jews standing outside, and they are here to ask you a few questions.”

`Ali invited them in and asked them to put forth their questions. They asked `Ali different questions regarding the reality and howness (Kayfiyyah) of God (Allah). Imam `Ali bin Abi Talib, the great jurist, said the following in response to their questions:

O Assembly of Jews , listen to me. Do not be concerned about asking anyone but me in this affair.

My Lord – Mighty and Majestic – He is the First, without beginning

He is neither intermingled with His Creation

Nor is He in a state in between that

He is not a ghost or spirit that is remote

He is not remote where He does not know His Creation

He did not appear at some point where it could be said He is created

No, Majestic is He that He be decribed in this way when He has given all things their shape

He has always been and does not change through time

He was – when there was no thing – without time or place

And He is now as He ever was!

He is not distracted by different affairs

How can He be decribed as are ghosts and how can He be truly praised by people?

How can this be when He is not within things so as to be called separate?

He is without likeness and how yet He is closer to you than your jugular vein!

He is as far as can be from any likeness with the creation

The slightest thing from His Creation is not hidden from Him

Whether it is the slightest statement off the tongue, the hidden action or the single footstep

In the great shadows of the night, the shining of the moon, the brightness of the sun, nothing is hidden from Him when He is the source of light for all things.

He surrounds all in His Creation, whether it is the sudden onset of night or the sudden brightness of the day without His being encompassed by the creation.

He knows about every place and all of what is and will be

And also the end of all things that are to come

Time and ending is something that has been given to the creation.

Limits are only attributed to created things and not Him.

He did not create the things from the foundations of eternity where they always existed

Nor did He create from existing things already present.

No! Rather He created what He made and established its’ creation from nothing.

He gave shape and good form to everything.

He is One and Unique in His Oneness

There is nothing the creation can do that can harm Him and there is no way the creation can benefit Him

He is quick to answer the supplications of those that call upon Him

Yes, indeed the angels in the skies and earths obey Him.

His knowledge of all that has died or ceased is just as full as His knowledge of all things living and what is in the highest skies.

The same holds true for His knowledge in every thing and all the voices and languages do not confuse or baffle Him.

He hears all the different voices and languages without limbs or organs

Indeed He is the Designer and the All Seeing, The Knower of all affairs, All Living, Self Sufficient

Glorified be He, He spoke to Musa directly without the need of limbs and instruments, lips or throat.

Glorified and Exalted is He from having a similarity like the creations.

Whoever claims that Our God has boundaries, then He does not know the Creator that is worshipped

The same is said of the one who says that the places encompass Him

This claim means that He is mingled with and contained by the creation!

No, He surrounds and encompasses every place.

The one that claims He is surrounded by His Creation when he describes the Most Merciful while He has no revelation or text to prove this, I have this question for him:

Describe for me (angel) Jibril, Mika’il, Israfil! Go ahead! I defy you to do so!

Are you then unable to describe what is a creation like you?

Are you unable to describe just a creation when you describe the Creator with form and organs, this same One who is neither overtaken by sleep nor slumber!

This is the same One who owns all that is in the skies and the earths, what is between them! He is the Lord of the Glorious Throne!

 

[miandadrules]

Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrated that Nu`man bin Sa`d said:

“In my presence, Nawf bin `Abdullah came to `Ali and said, “O Leader of the Believers! There is an assembly of about fourty Jews standing outside, and they are here to ask you a few questions.”

`Ali invited them in and asked them to put forth their questions. They asked `Ali different questions regarding the reality and howness (Kayfiyyah) of God (Allah). Imam `Ali bin Abi Talib, the great jurist, said the following in response to their questions:

O Assembly of Jews , listen to me. Do not be concerned about asking anyone but me in this affair.

My Lord – Mighty and Majestic – He is the First, without beginning

He is neither intermingled with His Creation

Nor is He in a state in between that

He is not a ghost or spirit that is remote

He is not remote where He does not know His Creation

He did not appear at some point where it could be said He is created

No, Majestic is He that He be decribed in this way when He has given all things their shape

He has always been and does not change through time

He was – when there was no thing – without time or place

And He is now as He ever was!

He is not distracted by different affairs

How can He be decribed as are ghosts and how can He be truly praised by people?

How can this be when He is not within things so as to be called separate?

He is without likeness and how yet He is closer to you than your jugular vein!

He is as far as can be from any likeness with the creation

The slightest thing from His Creation is not hidden from Him

Whether it is the slightest statement off the tongue, the hidden action or the single footstep

In the great shadows of the night, the shining of the moon, the brightness of the sun, nothing is hidden from Him when He is the source of light for all things.

He surrounds all in His Creation, whether it is the sudden onset of night or the sudden brightness of the day without His being encompassed by the creation.

He knows about every place and all of what is and will be

And also the end of all things that are to come

Time and ending is something that has been given to the creation.

Limits are only attributed to created things and not Him.

He did not create the things from the foundations of eternity where they always existed

Nor did He create from existing things already present.

No! Rather He created what He made and established its’ creation from nothing.

He gave shape and good form to everything.

He is One and Unique in His Oneness

There is nothing the creation can do that can harm Him and there is no way the creation can benefit Him

He is quick to answer the supplications of those that call upon Him

Yes, indeed the angels in the skies and earths obey Him.

His knowledge of all that has died or ceased is just as full as His knowledge of all things living and what is in the highest skies.

The same holds true for His knowledge in every thing and all the voices and languages do not confuse or baffle Him.

He hears all the different voices and languages without limbs or organs

Indeed He is the Designer and the All Seeing, The Knower of all affairs, All Living, Self Sufficient

Glorified be He, He spoke to Musa directly without the need of limbs and instruments, lips or throat.

Glorified and Exalted is He from having a similarity like the creations.

Whoever claims that Our God has boundaries, then He does not know the Creator that is worshipped

The same is said of the one who says that the places encompass Him

This claim means that He is mingled with and contained by the creation!

No, He surrounds and encompasses every place.

The one that claims He is surrounded by His Creation when he describes the Most Merciful while He has no revelation or text to prove this, I have this question for him:

Describe for me (angel) Jibril, Mika’il, Israfil! Go ahead! I defy you to do so!

Are you then unable to describe what is a creation like you?

Are you unable to describe just a creation when you describe the Creator with form and organs, this same One who is neither overtaken by sleep nor slumber!

This is the same One who owns all that is in the skies and the earths, what is between them! He is the Lord of the Glorious Throne!

How can nothing be said after the use of so many words?

 

[troodon]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION], if God is not a Ghost or not even a Spirit, what is he/she?

Islamic scriptures clearly says that God has a shin and he/she sits on a throne and talks. So we clearly know that God has a definite shape.

 

[Musakhel]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION], if God is not a Ghost or not even a Spirit, what is he/she?

Islamic scriptures clearly says that God has a shin and he/she sits on a throne and talks. So we clearly know that God has a definite shape.

Whatever You may thing of As god, God is other than that.

If you take thing literally, than You would believe in an anthropomorphic God, but That is not What muslims believe in, never Has Verses which mention Hand or other Limbs which people would associate with creation are ever taken literally to Mean That God Has a hand.

These fall into the verses which God Describes below in the Quran.

3:7) It is He Who has revealed the Book to you. Some of its verses are absolutely clear and lucid, and these are the core of the Book.5 Others are ambiguous.6 Those in whose hearts there is perversity, always go about the part which is ambiguous, seeking mischief and seeking to arrive at its meaning arbitrarily, although none knows their true meaning except Allah. On the contrary, those firmly rooted in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it; it is all from our Lord alone.’

 

[troodon]

Whatever You may thing of As god, God is other than that.

If you take thing literally, than You would believe in an anthropomorphic God, but That is not What muslims believe in, never Has Verses which mention Hand or other Limbs which people would associate with creation are ever taken literally to Mean That God Has a hand.

These fall into the verses which God Describes below in the Quran.

3:7) It is He Who has revealed the Book to you. Some of its verses are absolutely clear and lucid, and these are the core of the Book.5 Others are ambiguous.6 Those in whose hearts there is perversity, always go about the part which is ambiguous, seeking mischief and seeking to arrive at its meaning arbitrarily, although none knows their true meaning except Allah. On the contrary, those firmly rooted in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it; it is all from our Lord alone.’

So basically, just believe blindly. Asking questions is discouraged.

Allah has a shin and Feet.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/166843/affirmation-that-allah-has-two-feet

Also, Allah sits on his throne. So he has a back. I think this much is confirmed.

 

[miandadrules]

Whatever You may thing of As god, God is other than that.

If you take thing literally, than You would believe in an anthropomorphic God, but That is not What muslims believe in, never Has Verses which mention Hand or other Limbs which people would associate with creation are ever taken literally to Mean That God Has a hand.

These fall into the verses which God Describes below in the Quran.

3:7) It is He Who has revealed the Book to you. Some of its verses are absolutely clear and lucid, and these are the core of the Book.5 Others are ambiguous.6 Those in whose hearts there is perversity, always go about the part which is ambiguous, seeking mischief and seeking to arrive at its meaning arbitrarily, although none knows their true meaning except Allah. On the contrary, those firmly rooted in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it; it is all from our Lord alone.’

How can you possibly know what is the truth and what is a lie if we follow this edict?

 

[Musakhel]

So basically, just believe blindly. Asking questions is discouraged.

Allah has a shin and Feet.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/166843/affirmation-that-allah-has-two-feet

Also, Allah sits on his throne. So he has a back. I think this much is confirmed.

You Qoute from A salafi site, and One of the dispute that Sunnis have with salafi is there anthropomorphic beliefs, however even the Salafi do not liken The Hand or foot mentioned in the Quran Or hadith as like the creation, they do not offer any explanation beyond that.

 

[Musakhel]

How can you possibly know what is the truth and what is a lie if we follow this edict?

The clear verses are sufficient in following the religion.

 

[miandadrules]

The clear verses are sufficient in following the religion.

That makes no sense.

It just sounds like you’re desperately trying to defend a position you have been indoctrinated in. This is a good example of a foreclosed identity.

It would be classed as abuse under any other circumstances.

 

[miandadrules]

You Qoute from A salafi site, and One of the dispute that Sunnis have with salafi is there anthropomorphic beliefs, however even the Salafi do not liken The Hand or foot mentioned in the Quran Or hadith as like the creation, they do not offer any explanation beyond that.

As the Quran is the literal word of God (technically it’s the literal word of Gabriel but let’s not split hairs) how does one decide literal from analogous?

 

[Musakhel]

As the Quran is the literal word of God (technically it’s the literal word of Gabriel but let’s not split hairs) how does one decide literal from analogous?

The explanation is given by scholars you can read about it here https://www.darulfatwa.org.au/en/quran-contains-two-types-of-ayat/

 

[miandadrules]

The explanation is given by scholars you can read about it here https://www.darulfatwa.org.au/en/quran-contains-two-types-of-ayat/

Do you honestly believe that this provides a satisfactory answer?

 

[Musakhel]

Do you honestly believe that this provides a satisfactory answer?

I Have read Translations of the Sanusi and tahawai creed, which give even more detail on the Beleifs( aqeedah) of Muslims, but yes What mentioned in that link is A good explanation which is easy to understand.

 

[miandadrules]

I Have read Translations of the Sanusi and tahawai creed, which give even more detail on the Beleifs( aqeedah) of Muslims, but yes What mentioned in that link is A good explanation which is easy to understand.

After going around circles you’ve pretty much validated my original point.

 

[Musakhel]

After going around circles you’ve pretty much validated my original point.

What is your objection?.

 

[miandadrules]

What is your objection?.

Can we distinguish between a lie and the truth if we follow your edict?

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

[MENTION=142623]Musakhel[/MENTION], if God is not a Ghost or not even a Spirit, what is he/she?

Islamic scriptures clearly says that God has a shin and he/she sits on a throne and talks. So we clearly know that God has a definite shape.

I fail to understand the point of your argument.

Let's assume that its proved that he does/doesn't have a physical form. What then?
What sort of knowledge are you trying to gain from the answer to this question?

Or is the argument just to prove a point for the sake of it without any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

Also why do people think they can decode Quran completely?
I mean it is the Word of Allah.

Humans are still trying to decode what famous historical/philosophical figures wrote/implied e.g Allama Iqbal, Shakespeare, Da Vinci etc yet here we are thinking ourselves capable enough to squeeze every ounce of knowledge from the Word of Allah. Good luck with that.

 

[miandadrules]

Also why do people think they can decode Quran completely?
I mean it is the Word of Allah.

Humans are still trying to decode what famous historical/philosophical figures wrote/implied e.g Allama Iqbal, Shakespeare, Da Vinci etc yet here we are thinking ourselves capable enough to squeeze every ounce of knowledge from the Word of Allah. Good luck with that.

Hilarious.

A book created specifically for humans by the the ultimate, all knowing being required interpretation?

How can we even begin to know if it’s the truth or a blatant scam if we can’t even comprehend it.

There is nothing complicated or detailed in it. All cults use the same approach. To mire everything in ambiguity.

 

[troodon]

Also why do people think they can decode Quran completely?
I mean it is the Word of Allah.

Humans are still trying to decode what famous historical/philosophical figures wrote/implied e.g Allama Iqbal, Shakespeare, Da Vinci etc yet here we are thinking ourselves capable enough to squeeze every ounce of knowledge from the Word of Allah. Good luck with that.

If Humans cannot understand what Quran says then what is the point of Prophet Muhammed receiving the Ayas from Jibril?
Quran itself says that Quran was revealed in Arabic language so that people understand it easily.

 

[troodon]

I fail to understand the point of your argument.

Let's assume that its proved that he does/doesn't have a physical form. What then?
What sort of knowledge are you trying to gain from the answer to this question?

Or is the argument just to prove a point for the sake of it without any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

I was commenting on Musakhel's post.

The point of my post is the contradictions in Muslims opinions regarding Allah. It seems Muslims cannot even seem to agree upon what Allah is.

 

[Hadi Rizvi]

If Humans cannot understand what Quran says then what is the point of Prophet Muhammed receiving the Ayas from Jibril?
Quran itself says that Quran was revealed in Arabic language so that people understand it easily.

Bro you really need to work on your comprehension skills. I said COMPLETELY.
I never said you can't understand a single ayah from Quran.
I was implying that the more historical/Islamic knowledge you have the more you'll be able to extract from a single ayah of the Quran.

You wouldn't expect a 3rd grader to solve Euler's equations and Calculus.
Similarly, you can't expect a normal human to FULLY understand every single ayah of Quran.

 

[troodon]

Bro you really need to work on your comprehension skills. I said COMPLETELY.
I never said you can't understand a single ayah from Quran.
I was implying that the more historical/Islamic knowledge you have the more you'll be able to extract from a single ayah of the Quran.

You wouldn't expect a 3rd grader to solve Euler's equations and Calculus.
Similarly, you can't expect a normal human to FULLY understand every single ayah of Quran.

You have scholors like Tabari, Ibn Kathir who have spent all their lives in explaining Quran. You can read through them.
On one hand Quran says it is a complete book and was revealed in a language that you can understand and on the other hand no one can fully understand what it is.
So which one is true here.

80% of the Muslim population in the world cannot speak Arabic. So how is it revealed in a language that Muslims can understand?

Back to the topic, Islamic literature clearly tells us that Allah has physical body parts and he sits on a throne and it is carried by Deers AKA Angels.

 

[Musakhel]

Can we distinguish between a lie and the truth if we follow your edict?

The ambiguous verses are never to be taken in isolation, otherwise you will make the mistake as other posters in this thread has done in liking Allah to his creation, but if you have read the Quran, you would know that Allah says

[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.

 

[sweep_shot]

Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,

Allah, the Eternal Refuge.

He neither begets nor is born,

Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (Quran - 112: 1-4)


===============================================

These four powerful verses describe who God is. You either believe or you don't.

La ilaha illallah.

 

[Musakhel]

You have scholors like Tabari, Ibn Kathir who have spent all their lives in explaining Quran. You can read through them.
On one hand Quran says it is a complete book and was revealed in a language that you can understand and on the other hand no one can fully understand what it is.
So which one is true here.

80% of the Muslim population in the world cannot speak Arabic. So how is it revealed in a language that Muslims can understand?

Back to the topic, Islamic literature clearly tells us that Allah has physical body parts and he sits on a throne and it is carried by Deers AKA Angels.

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/littlk.htm

It's a long read, but Explains why we don't take Ambiguous verses literally.

 

[uberkoen]

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/littlk.htm

It's a long read, but Explains why we don't take Ambiguous verses literally.

How would you define an ambiguous verse? Something could be ambiguous to you but not to someone else.

 

[JaDed]

Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,

Allah, the Eternal Refuge.

He neither begets nor is born,

Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (Quran - 112: 1-4)


===============================================

These four powerful verses describe who God is. You either believe or you don't.

La ilaha illallah.

Thats religious GOD.. once again.. please separate it out from what you believe is the creator to what creator could be to an agnostic..

 

[Musakhel]

How would you define an ambiguous verse? Something could be ambiguous to you but not to someone else.

Already posted above, check the link I posted above.

 

[troodon]

Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,

Allah, the Eternal Refuge.

He neither begets nor is born,

Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (Quran - 112: 1-4)


===============================================

These four powerful verses describe who God is. You either believe or you don't.

La ilaha illallah.

Who said the above verses?

So Allah vouching for himself. Very believable.

You guys have no problem believing the above which obviously has no proof, but you have trouble believing Evolution which at least has some proof.

 

[sweep_shot]

Who said the above verses?

So Allah vouching for himself. Very believable.

You guys have no problem believing the above which obviously has no proof, but you have trouble believing Evolution which at least has some proof.

You remind me of the doubters who used to doubt the prophets (peace be upon them all) back in their days.

I believe in God for many different reasons. Main reason is I find order in whole universe. There are clear signs of intelligent designs.

Evolution is complete horseshit. I have no trouble in disbelieving in it.