Support NeoGAF

[OttomanScribe]

Mighty nod there, looking forward to reading it. Any other you may recommend? I tend to prefer reading material from people outside the faith who show objectivity with their assessment. But if you have any books especially about islamic history please do share!

Armstrong's 'Short History of Islam' is interesting. Jonathan Lyons' 'The House of Wisdom' is also a decent history, I met him recently, he actually interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini and his wife. In terms of the character of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) I always go to one of the oldest of the traditions: the Shama'il of Tirmidhi. Also Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad's translation of Qasidah Burdah is awesome.

In terms of visuals, there is an excellent set of photos call 'Reflecting the Orient' that I found once upon a time, and they are a beautiful journey through history (they contrast traditional miniature paintings with photos from around the Muslim world).

Also some great reading is Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad's 'Contentions' http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/ not related to history or anything in particular, but they are just awesome.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

My understanding is that the most logical source for all that I perceive is something 'causal, uncaused', a grand exception to the general rule.

That isn't a logical argument though... That is a logical fallacy, specifically it's special pleading (in this context, everything must be caused except the uncaused God)... In order to continue with this premise, you have to go back and fix this logical fallacy or it isn't a sound argument.

This is what I name God. This is the God described in the Qur'an, with attributes that relate to and give meaning to the things that I observe as being attributes of creation. My acceptance of God is thus on three levels, belief in the concept of God, belief that this is best described in the Revlation given to Mohammed ibn Abdullah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and that he did not lie when he said it was revelation and finally my own experiences as follows.

After you rethink that first argument, I would be interested in how you determined that Mohammed (I'm abbreviating here, don't know the significance of writing the whole thing, and I'm not meaning to be disrespectful), was telling the truth. I'm not saying that he was lying, maybe he was mistaken? Is that a possibility?

It is not that it would be too personal to share as much as it is very difficult to describe, both in the sense that a non-Muslim will find it hard to comprehend (as I would have) and that it was an... extraordinary experience. It was through the practice of Tasawuf, which is the mystical science of Islam (coming out as 'one of those' in this thread lol).

As to how I determined it was God, I didn't conduct a peer reviewed triple blinded trial it was simply made clear to me in a way that was beyond denial, a feeling of certainty that defies description. Sure that is a bit hazy for others to accept, but I don't require that of them.

So it was a feeling, in a rough sense? Something that you felt was 'real'? What about all those that have other, contradictory religious experiences, or even non-religious experiences?

There needs to be a choice, at least from my perspective, were it something self evident, there would not be a single kafir on earth.

I am saying that it is in the hands of God, none are saved except through His Mercy. If one seeks an understanding of what constitutes a kafir (one who rejects) then the best description according to the scholars is one who is in a position to call the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) a liar. It is also understood that revelation has come to all peoples, and those who know not are judged according to what is revealed to them or what remains of such revelation.

It is said that many Muslims will also taste hell, as a means of burning off their sin before entry to the Garden. Hell is not necessarily eternal for all people.

I'm not saying that he is a liar, he could just as likely been mistaken. I have not experienced personal revelation, why do you think that is the case? Would it be fair if I was sent to hell if I hadn't experienced any of the things you have? In any case, does someone actually deserve to burn in hell, from my perspective this God is looking like he/it is immoral.

The moral laws or codes are not worshipped in and of themselves, they are a means of worship. It is not realistic to compress the Sha'riah, I have a bookcase full of books on the subject and they would not even begin to get the entirety of it. If one has to look to the core, there are the five pillars;

Shahadah: Testification of faith, one testifies belief in the core tenets of Islam, belief in One God, belief in the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) etc.

Salat: Prayer, the praying of the obligatory prayers, defined through the way which the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) prayed, and as he commanded 'pray as you see me pray'.

Hajj: the pilgrimage to Mecca is an obligation upon all Muslims of age who can afford it.

Zakat: the arms levy, one is to give a percentage of his income to the poor, either in his family, in his community, or the community of others, in that order, if they are capable of doing so.

Sawm: fasting, one must fast the month of Ramadan, within the ascribed limits, from before dusk til the setting of the sun, as a means to instil humility, to create focus in worship, to create solidarity with the poor and to build faith for the rest of the year.

...Not much here for the betterment of humanity, I do like the Zakat though. From an outside perspective I would say four of them are amoral and the Zakat is a moral proposition.

 

[Prine]

Armstrong's 'Short History of Islam' is interesting. Jonathan Lyons' 'The House of Wisdom' is also a decent history, I met him recently, he actually interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini and his wife. In terms of the character of the Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) I always go to one of the oldest of the traditions: the Shama'il of Tirmidhi. Also Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad's translation of Qasidah Burdah is awesome.

In terms of visuals, there is an excellent set of photos call 'Reflecting the Orient' that I found once upon a time, and they are a beautiful journey through history (they contrast traditional miniature paintings with photos from around the Muslim world).

Also some great reading is Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad's 'Contentions' http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/ not related to history or anything in particular, but they are just awesome.

Brother, thanks. Alot of valuable information and direction here, thank god for the stream of bank and national holidays here in the UK, gives me ample time to decide how im going to read all these books. Your para about the photos has me especially intrigued - sounds magnificent. Ramadan round the corner, this will be good preparation for it (insh'allah).

 

[OttomanScribe]

That isn't a logical argument though... That is a logical fallacy, specifically it's special pleading (in this context, everything must be caused except the uncaused God)... In order to continue with this premise, you have to go back and fix this logical fallacy or it isn't a sound argument.

I feel that the only logical assumption is that there must be an exception to the rule. For there is no other explanation otherwise for all that I perceive, either there is something that is the cause of it all, which was not in itself caused, or there is nothing. I know there is not 'nothing' there is my perception, therefore at the core of it, this has to be caused, and the thing causing it has to be an exception to the rules that I understand.

You can assert that this is a fallacy, but I do not accept that there is any more logical an explanation for existence and the very fact the existence is experienced makes us ask the question. All questions come back to that one, either one accepts it, or they do not, the answer is not absolutely certain, rather it is a choice. I choose to believe.

After you rethink that first argument, I would be interested in how you determined that Mohammed (I'm abbreviating here, don't know the significance of writing the whole thing, and I'm not meaning to be disrespectful), was telling the truth. I'm not saying that he was lying, maybe he was mistaken? Is that a possibility?

I do not believe, from what I know of him, that such a thing is a possibility. I have found amongst the Believers people of his way. Those with an unbroken chain of learning to him, and amongst such people there is a character that one finds nowhere else. These people are, despite this, not better than the dust in the mouth of the horses ridden by his enemies, their character, contrast to his, is pale indeed. These are people whose character is such that they do not lie, that there is no selfishness in them. They are like this because they are like the one they love, and the one they love is a thousand times better than them.

The other proof that I take (which I forgot to mention previously) is the Qur'an. The Qur'an, as revelation, is a kind of ever present miracle. In Arabic, it is a speech that is impossible to take as being the product of humanity, its complexity and poetry is too myriad. While the Messenger of Allah (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) was an intellect like no other, even he, the illiterate Prophet (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) would not have been able to make such a thing.

It is this alone that led people like Martin Lings to become Muslim, Lings studied linguistics, studied the Qur'an and came to the conclusion that it was beyond anything humans could compose. The same is true of many of the Arabs at the time of the Messenger (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam). This is of course of little applicability to you, unlearned in classical Arabic, but what I know of it, and what I read in the Qur'an it is true. This is the one test given to humanity, if they believe that the Qur'an is not the Word of God, make something like it.

So it was a feeling, in a rough sense? Something that you felt was 'real'? What about all those that have other, contradictory religious experiences, or even non-religious experiences?

I believe that other religions are able to tap into a similar experience of the divine, though not have it as something that begins to clothe them. I have never heard of any one who was without some form of religion describe such a thing, nor did I feel it as an atheist. It was not simply a feeling, it was also perceptual, a peeling back of the layers of creation, the veils between me and God. AlhamduliLlah (All praise be to God).

I'm not saying that he is a liar, he could just as likely been mistaken. I have not experienced personal revelation, why do you think that is the case? Would it be fair if I was sent to hell if I hadn't experienced any of the things you have? In any case, does someone actually deserve to burn in hell, from my perspective this God is looking like he/it is immoral.

You are not in a position to attempt to teach morality to the Creator, no offence intended. If one takes God to exist, then everything that we have is borrowed. All our experiences are leant to us from the uncreated divine reality. In this sense, calling out God as immoral seems a futile thing, as all you are is a gift from Him. I do not believe in the God that some Christians claim. As I quoted earlier, 'the same God whose Mercy will be overwhelming on the Day of Judgement is the cause of mass extinctions, take refuge in God, from God, take refuge in the creator of the storm'.

You and me both are nothing in the face of all that is, and certainly nothing in contrast to God.

...Not much here for the betterment of humanity, I do like the Zakat though. From an outside perspective I would say four of them are amoral and the Zakat is a moral proposition.

Like I said, the morality of the Sha'riah is extensive, it is holistic, addressing all aspects of the life of a believer. The practice of these things is about morality, Shahadah is about recognising truth, prayer is about humbleness, Hajj is about the brotherhood and sisterhood of all mankind and fasting is about gratitude. All are about worship.

Brother, thanks. Alot of valuable information and direction here, thank god for the stream of bank and national holidays here in the UK, gives me ample time to decide how im going to read all these books. Your para about the photos has me especially intrigued - sounds magnificent. Ramadan round the corner, this will be good preparation for it (insh'allah).

Insha'Allah you are in the UK? Well you could go and see the Shaykh, which would be far better than reading lol. The UK is blessed with far more alim than here in Aus, and the distances are far less. Insha'Allah my wife will be travelling to the Rihla in Turkey, but because of my studies and finances I will be unable to make it.

We are very lucky to have Sheikh Faraz Rabbani, Ustadh Usama Canon and Sheikh Habib Umar bin Hafiz visiting Australia in a short amount of time

Yeah the book (reflections) is magnificent, if problematic in some places (you might want to skip the back three pages or so). If you like watching stuff, this is one of my favourite documentaries:
From Tarim to Granada: There is No Conqueror Except God

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I feel that the only logical assumption is that there must be an exception to the rule. For there is no other explanation otherwise for all that I perceive, either there is something that is the cause of it all, which was not in itself caused, or there is nothing. I know there is not 'nothing' there is my perception, therefore at the core of it, this has to be caused, and the thing causing it has to be an exception to the rules that I understand.

You can assert that this is a fallacy, but I do not accept that there is any more logical an explanation for existence and the very fact the existence is experienced makes us ask the question. All questions come back to that one, either one accepts it, or they do not, the answer is not absolutely certain, rather it is a choice. I choose to believe.

Ok, this is where my focus will be, because your argument for the existence of God is fallacious, and thus it isn't a properly formulated position. Your second paragraph is suggesting that I am simply asserting a fallacy, in fact we are using a deductive argument which strive to provide conclusive proof and result in either a valid or invalid conclusion. By using a logical fallacy it makes your argument invalid.

If you would like me to break down why this is the case further, I can do so. But you currently don't have a belief in God based on formal logic. I probably shouldn't have gone any further than my first point because that is conceding ground with which I haven't agreed to your original premise.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Ok, this is where my focus will be, because your argument for the existence of God is fallacious, and thus it isn't a properly formulated position. Your second paragraph is suggesting that I am simply asserting a fallacy, in fact we are using a deductive argument which strive to provide conclusive proof and result in either a valid or invalid conclusion. By using a logical fallacy it makes your argument invalid.

If you would like me to break down why this is the case further, I can do so. But you currently don't have a belief in God based on formal logic. I probably shouldn't have gone any further than my first point because that is conceding ground with which I haven't agreed to your original premise.

I need you to break down why my assertion is fallacious as I don't see how you have.

It seems to me that there are two choices here, either there is an exception to the rule, or there is not. It seems to me that there being an exception is the most likely of the two scenarios, as were there to be no exception, then either nothing would exist, alternatively things have always existed, without cause, which is in itself an exception which brings us back around again.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I need you to break down why my assertion is fallacious as I don't see how you have.

It seems to me that there are two choices here, either there is an exception to the rule, or there is not. It seems to me that there being an exception is the most likely of the two scenarios, as were there to be no exception, then either nothing would exist, alternatively things have always existed, without cause, which is in itself an exception which brings us back around again.

There are a couple of fallacies that you are perpetuating, you use special pleading for one. In the sense that 'God' is the 'uncaused cause', you are making special rules that only apply to the thing you're arguing for. I could say that everything needs a cause, except for the universe coming into existence, this is equally as descriptive as your proposition, yet both are equally fallacious.

You also use an Argument from Incredulity (I'm not calling you incredulous, it is a specific kind of logical fallacy), in the sense that you're stating the cause and effect relationship at a time when we don't know if this relationship is similar to how we observe it today. The cause and effect relationship may have no bearing on reality proceeding Planck time, so you are stating this relationship existed in its current form before Space/Time and it's fallacious for you to do so.

Even if I was to except the 'uncaused caused' argument (which I can't do because it contains logical fallacies), the best you can muster from this argument is a Deistic God. You are making a tremendous amount of leaps using this line of argument to reach a theistic God, and then specifically the God described in Islam.

 

[Ashes]

Perhaps he is not saying:

Everything is cause and effect. Except for one thing.

Which is what you are implying. And thus the logical fallacy is clear.

Perhaps indeed he saying:

Most things are cause and effect, with of course the one exception.


The second proposition is applicable to scientific phenomena is it not?

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Perhaps he is not saying:

Everything is cause and effect. Except for one thing.
Which is what you are implying. And thus the logical fallacy is clear.

Perhaps indeed he saying:

Most things are cause and effect, with of course the one exception.


The second proposition is applicable to scientific phenomena is it not?

I understand what ottomanscribe is arguing, it is a logical fallacy though and thus an invalid proposition.

 

[Ashes]

But then how do you refute the second proposition?

 

[RustyNails]

There are a couple of fallacies that you are perpetuating, you use special pleading for one. In the sense that 'God' is the 'uncaused cause', you are making special rules that only apply to the thing you're arguing for. I could say that everything needs a cause, except for the universe coming into existence, this is equally as descriptive as your proposition, yet both are equally fallacious.

What he's doing is taking his logic to conclusion, whereas you are denying him from doing so. His conclusion is God, whereas you are claiming those are 'special' rules without reaching to conclusion yourself. It's hardly a fallacy, because the onus is not on OS to describe why he believes it's God and not something else. He could say it's Pink Pony and his argument would still be valid.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

What he's doing is taking his logic to conclusion, whereas you are denying him from doing so. His conclusion is God, whereas you are claiming those are 'special' rules without reaching to conclusion yourself. It's hardly a fallacy, because the onus is not on OS to describe why he believes it's God and not something else. He could say it's Pink Pony and his argument would still be valid.

That isn't how logical fallacies work in a deductive argument. Using logic to reach a logical conclusion means that you can't include logical fallacies in your argument. We are trying to discern the truth of the claims and in this case using logical fallacies invalidates the conclusion.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

But then how do you refute the second proposition?

His second proposition about cause and effect? I have already done that.

 

[OttomanScribe]

There are a couple of fallacies that you are perpetuating, you use special pleading for one. In the sense that 'God' is the 'uncaused cause', you are making special rules that only apply to the thing you're arguing for. I could say that everything needs a cause, except for the universe coming into existence, this is equally as descriptive as your proposition, yet both are equally fallacious.

This is not about applying a special pleading to something I am arguing for, as I was not arguing for anything when I came to this conclusion, I was an agnostic atheist at the time. I am well aware of the different logical fallacies (I spend most of my time listening to sceptical podcasts) but I do not see how special pleading applies here. The word 'God' is simply the word I give to the aforementioned 'exception to the rule'. It is not that I say that God is the exception to the rule, rather I assume that, logically, there must be an exception to the rule, and that exception is what I call God. God is the word that I give to the paradigm of the uncaused causal. This is not a post-hoc justification, rather it is following a logical train of understanding.

My reasoning does not say that this is the only understanding, merely the one that to me seems most logical.

You also use an Argument from Incredulity (I'm not calling you incredulous, it is a specific kind of logical fallacy), in the sense that you're stating the cause and effect relationship at a time when we don't know if this relationship is similar to how we observe it today. The cause and effect relationship may have no bearing on reality proceeding Planck time, so you are stating this relationship existed in its current form before Space/Time and it's fallacious for you to do so.

I am not talking about some 'kick off' event occurring to start the universe, making my argument from the shadowy 'pre-big-bang' area. I am rather talking about every single instant of existence as we, or at least I (I have no evidence that you exist beyond a perception that lies to me, coming back to Descartes' demon) perceive.

Even if I was to except the 'uncaused caused' argument (which I can't do because it contains logical fallacies), the best you can muster from this argument is a Deistic God. You are making a tremendous amount of leaps using this line of argument to reach a theistic God, and then specifically the God described in Islam.

Explain to me why this understanding leads to Deism, rather than Islam's understanding of God? I don't believe in a clockwork God, I believe in a God that is the ultimate cause of all things at all points. The reasons that I believe this is the God described by Islam I have already set out. Simply calling 'logical fallacy' and 'tremendous amount of leaps' is insufficient, you have to fault these arguments.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I'm out at the moment, so I can't respond properly. I'm not sure you understand the formation of an argument (deductive) based on logical principals. The only way anyone can logically critique an argument/position is to point out where the premise contains logical fallacies, and that is what I have done. If you said your position (Gods existence) wasn't based on logic then I wouldn't have gone this formal route. Will post again tomorrow

 

[OttomanScribe]

I'm out at the moment, so I can't respond properly. I'm not sure you understand the formation of an argument (deductive) based on logical principals. The only way anyone can logically critique an argument/position is to point out where the premise contains logical fallacies, and that is what I have done. If you said your position (Gods existence) wasn't based on logic then I wouldn't have gone this formal route. Will post again tomorrow

It is not sufficient to label things a logical fallacy, you have to show how the logical fallacies you attribute apply.

I have pointed out how special pleading does not work, as your argument, that I am giving a post hoc attribution of an exception to God, does not follow. What I am doing is pointing out a logical exception, and then labelling that exception. The two are distinct logical premises.

Similarly you say that I am using our ignorance of what occurred before the Big Bang as an excuse to make an irrefutable and unsupported claim. However my assertion is not about a cause occurring before the Big Bang, rather it is a claim about the nature of reality itself.

 

[RustyNails]

That isn't how logical fallacies work in a deductive argument. Using logic to reach a logical conclusion means that you can't include logical fallacies in your argument. We are trying to discern the truth of the claims and in this case using logical fallacies invalidates the conclusion.

You are not following. He is reaching to a conclusion which you inherently find to be a "logical fallacy". Think of it this way. If OS does not put a conclusion to his logic train, it will keep going back and forth and the universe will be an infinite series of causal events. Him putting uncaused cause to a sequence of caused causes is a conclusion of the logic he is arguing because you reach a point where you are at "step 0" (big bang/whatever). According to OS, step 0 needs a cause as well and he justifies it with God. This is the exception to the original logical statement. It is not a logical fallacy simply because you can continue arguing with "OK, who caused God?"

 

[OttomanScribe]

You are not following. He is reaching to a conclusion which you inherently find to be a "logical fallacy". Think of it this way. If OS does not put a conclusion to his logic train, it will keep going back and forth and the universe will be an infinite series of causal events. Him putting uncaused cause to a sequence of caused causes is a conclusion of the logic he is arguing because you reach a point where you are at "step 0" (big bang/whatever). According to OS, step 0 needs a cause as well and he justifies it with God. This is the exception to the original logical statement. It is not a logical fallacy simply because you can continue arguing with "OK, who caused God?"

I don't think this is necessarily what I am arguing brother

I think the point more generally is correct, but I am not bothering going back to the Big Bang or anything else of that kind. I think my argument is inherent in the fact that the idea and the observation of 'cause and effect' exist. I believe that logically there must be an exception to the rule. An observable step zero is not required, the idea of cause and effect requires either infinity (which is where choice of belief comes in) or an exception. I don't justify it with God so much as label that exception as God. Since the label 'God' is applied to the unique exception to the rule, asking for a cause of that exception is illogical, as God is the name given to the unique exception.

The argument that this is about the big bang is an empirical one.

 

[Ashes]

I still think the phrasing of the question may be wrong.

Where did life come from? non-life? Well not really. It didn't really come from a place.

So what happend before god A,B,C may by logically impossible to answer. I don't know how to demonstrate that though.

How do you contemplate the idea of something being outside of the framework of existence for example?

 

[OttomanScribe]

How do you contemplate the idea of something being outside of the framework of existence for example?

You cannot, in any real sense other than the most important one, how that thing relates to you.

 

[Ashes]

You cannot, in any real sense other than the most important one, how that thing relates to you.

So do we then declare:

a, nothing can be outside the framework of existence
or
b, it is possible, but we seem to be unable to comprehend it.

By framework of existence I mean, time/matter/space.

 

[OttomanScribe]

So do we then declare:

a, nothing can be outside the framework of existence
or
b, it is possible, but we seem to be unable to comprehend it.

By framework of existence I mean, time/matter/space.

We cannot declare a. We can logically conclude b, but our comprehension will be limited to things like functional understandings.

 

[Ashes]

That's what needs to be described I think. A model of existance outside of what we know.

 

[OttomanScribe]

That's what needs to be described I think. A model of existance outside of what we know.

Is that a question?

 

[Ashes]

Not really. More of a post-conclusion observation for a future essay.

 

[RustyNails]

I don't think this is necessarily what I am arguing brother

I think the point more generally is correct, but I am not bothering going back to the Big Bang or anything else of that kind. I think my argument is inherent in the fact that the idea and the observation of 'cause and effect' exist. I believe that logically there must be an exception to the rule. An observable step zero is not required, the idea of cause and effect requires either infinity (which is where choice of belief comes in) or an exception. I don't justify it with God so much as label that exception as God. Since the label 'God' is applied to the unique exception to the rule, asking for a cause of that exception is illogical, as God is the name given to the unique exception.

The argument that this is about the big bang is an empirical one.

Sorry I didn't mean to mis-interpret what you were saying. I merely inferred your exception as a conclusion within your logic framework.

 

[Cryptic Psychedelic]

A new member for MuslimGAF reporting in

These verses have always interested me and it's lead to alot of heated debate whenever I discuss it with my friends.

"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, ... whoever believes in Allāh and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve ." Quran 2:62

"Those who believe (in the Qur'an) those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Sabians and the Christians― any who believe in Allāh and the Last Day, and work righteousness―on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Quran 5:69

"Verily, those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians, and the Majus, and those who worship others besides Allāh, truly, Allāh will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Verily! Allāh is Witness over all things awitness." Quran 22:17

A definition of Sabian

as-Sābi'ūn is the plural of Sābi', which means "proselyte" (such as an apostate from Islam) who has left his original religion, or anyone who has left the religion that he used to follow and joins another. The Arabs called such a person Sābi'.

A definition of Majus

Majūs (Arabic and Persian: مجوس, pl. majūs&#299 was originally a term meaning Zoroastrians[1] (and specifically, Zoroastrian priests). It was a technical term, meaning magus, and like its synonym gabr (of uncertain etymology) originally had no pejorative implications

An interesting example.

In al-Andalus the pagan non-Christian population were called majus and could either have the status of mozarab or of majus

Well, the point that I always stress whenever I'm debating these points is that many Muslims believe wrongly that they're the one only people who'll be allowed into heaven. From what I've read on the Sabians and the Majus, many of them did worship creation but acknowledged that there needed to be a Greater Being.
So basically, my question is would basic acknowledgement of Monotheism or Theism be enough for entry into heaven even if a person is not part the three Abrahamic Religion ?

 

[Maleficence]

I don't know why people get so hung up on who is eligible for heaven or not, quite frankly. In the end it is for god to decide and no one else. Why is it important for humans to know who will and won't go to heaven?

Just live your life as you see fit, live your life as a good person, follow the teachings and beliefs you hold true, and see where it get's you.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Salaam everyone. Wha guan?

 

[Cryptic Psychedelic]

I don't know why people get so hung up on who is eligible for heaven or not, quite frankly. In the end it is for god to decide and no one else. Why is it important for humans to know who will and won't go to heaven?

Just live your life as you see fit, live your life as a good person, follow the teachings and beliefs you hold true, and see where it get's you.

I believe that people try to justify their beliefs by the whole eligibility thing and in some cases, it's about ego. I personally know alot of muslims who look down on followers of other religions and non-religious people because of this.

 

[Yasir]

I believe that people try to justify their beliefs by the whole eligibility thing and in some cases, it's about ego. I personally know alot of muslims who look down on followers of other religions and non-religious people because of this.

Salaam brother

You know I think we've come to a point where pretty much everyone just hates each. First, we had feable minded Muslims denying Christians and Jews heaven, and now we have feable minded Muslims denying Muslims heaven.

It's a weird state of affairs we live in today. As the world evolves and we propel ourselves forward in technological advancements, it seems the more primitive people become.

/is in deep thinking mode

 

[crazy monkey]

no body no matter how learned or big mulla can say anything about who is going haven or hell.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Asalaamu Alaykum brothers (likely accurate guess),

Feel free to head over to the Muslim Check in Thread to get a handle on the Ummah's representation on Gaf introduce yourself.

As to 'perennialism' (which is the belief implied in psychs post) I think we need to be wary of taking a selective grouping of Qur'anic verses as the justification for any belief. Islam is a holistic religion, not only in its application but in the sense that the source of its understanding must be understood as a single message. In this sense taking individual verses and neglecting the entirety of the message can be a problematic stance.

That said, I agree with Mal, in that it should not be a major concern to us the status of any group in relation to salvation. Our primary concern should indeed be our own status in that sense. Shortly put; 'our own problems are sufficient for us'.

Ahlan wa sahlan y'all

 

[OttomanScribe]

no body no matter how learned or big mulla can say anything about who is going haven or hell.

Me, an unlearned person, can say that I know for certain that a certain individual is destined for the punishment of God.

Abu Jahl.

 

[GillianSeed79]

Sorry for bumping thread, but I came to a conclusion with it being Easter and all (well Easter was yesterday techincally) that I honestly don't know that much about the Muslim faith having grown up in the Judeo-Christrian belief systems of the west. Pardon my ignorance, but is there like an Apostles' Creed for Muslims where they lay out the tldr version of what they believe? The most I've been able to gather is that the Koran is basically God saying no, no the the other two versions of the bible kind of got it wrong and this is what I really meant to say and Mohhamed was the prophet that conveyed that message. Sorry, that sounds very sacrilegous. I apologize. The only other thing I think I know is that Jesus isn't the son of God to Muslims, but a respected prophet of sorts.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Sorry for bumping thread, but I came to a conclusion with it being Easter and all (well Easter was yesterday techincally) that I honestly don't know that much about the Muslim faith having grown up in the Judeo-Christrian belief systems of the west. Pardon my ignorance, but is there like an Apostles' Creed for Muslims where they lay out the tldr version of what they believe? The most I've been able to gather is that the Koran is basically God saying no, no the the other two versions of the bible kind of got it wrong and this is what I really meant to say and Mohhamed was the prophet that conveyed that message. Sorry, that sounds very sacrilegous. I apologize. The only other thing I think I know is that Jesus isn't the son of God to Muslims, but a respected prophet of sorts.

There are quite a few such texts, usually concerned with explanations of tawhid and other such things, though none quite as short as the Apostle's creed. I think something like the Al Ghazzali's Ihya' Ulum al-Din might be comparable. In general, Islam is a very deep and complex faith, both in terms of belief and practice. Any believer is encouraged to study as much as they can as a means of increasing their faith and practice. This is why such succinct summaries would be less common.

Indeed my favourite book of fiqh (jurisprudence) is called 'The Reliance of the Traveller', a book designed to be a short copy to be taken with one who is travelling. It is this big:

That said, there are many verses of the Qur'an that describe quite succinctly the nature of God. My favourite would be the ever present Surah Ikhlas (Certainty):

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only!
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.

Another thing comparable to the Apostles creed is the testification of faith (shahadah) that is repeated throughout the daily life of a Muslim, and is the thing said as the act of 'conversion'.

It is La ilaha ill-Allah, Mohammedan Rasul-Allah. There is nothing worthy of worship save God, and Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the Messenger of God.

You are right in your assertion that we do not believe that Jesus is the son of God/God. We reject all forms of anthropomorphism when it comes to God. The idea of a God that 'rests' or a God that needs to take Human form in order to dispense Mercy through suffering... or even a God capable of 'suffering' is abhorrent to the Muslim. We view Isa (alayhis salaam), Jesus, as a Prophet of God, like Moses, Adam, Noah (alayhis salaam) and the other Prophets of prior revelation.

The Messenger of God, our Master Mohammed (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) is the 'seal of the Prophets', he comes as the final capstone to the revelation brought to humanity, a confirmation and an expansion upon that given to the Ahlul Qitab (the 'people of the book', the Jews and the Christians, amongst possible others). He confirms those things of certitude and correctness in the beliefs of the Christians and the Jews, and rejects those mistakes that have kept into the creed of those groups. These would include the 'chosen' status of the Beni Israel, the deification of the Prophet Isa (alayhis salaam), the splitting of God in the Trinity etc.

Was there any aspect of belief you specifically wished to enquire about?

 

[bigboss370]

soo i'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but here goes:

i have a friend who refuses to put pics of herself on facebook because she says it is against her religion (islam), even posting a pic of her eyes won't do..

is she right? if so then in islam should all women always be covered except to their spouses?

sorry i dont know much on the topic, i want to try and convince her its okay to post pics or to at least give a compelling discussion to her that it is okay even if she refuses..

the way i see it i don't think God intended for his creation to be completely covered up, i mean he made them after all right? im not saying lewd or skanky dressing is okay, but at least showing face and hands bare should be alright no?

 

[OttomanScribe]

soo i'm not sure if this is the right thread for this but here goes:

i have a friend who refuses to put pics of herself on facebook because she says it is against her religion (islam), even posting a pic of her eyes won't do..

is she right? if so then in islam should all women always be covered except to their spouses?

sorry i dont know much on the topic, i want to try and convince her its okay to post pics or to at least give a compelling discussion to her that it is okay even if she refuses..

the way i see it i don't think God intended for his creation to be completely covered up, i mean he made them after all right? im not saying lewd or skanky dressing is okay, but at least showing face and hands bare should be alright no?

There are three questions here. I know people who don't show pictures of themselves on facebook because they don't have pictures taken of themselves in general, as they hold this to be impermissable (making an image). This is a position held by some scholars, though a minority.

The second question is about veiling, and you ask for what 'Islam' says on the issue. In this sense it is very difficult to describe what 'Islam' says, as the religion is not a monolith, one cannot go and ask 'Islam' what the position is on this matter.

The scholarly consensus is that both women and men have 'awrah' (private parts) of which they cannot show to anyone. What counts as 'awrah' depends on this person that the individual is with. For example amongst woman, a woman is able to show everything above her navel and bellow her knees.

The scholarly condition however differs on what counts as a woman's 'awrah' in the presence of unrelated men. Some say that everything except the eyes needs to be covered. Others hold that everything except the face and hands is awrah.

The third question is not one that you ask, but rather one that I ask. If she does not wish to post pictures of herself, why do you wish to change her mind? If it is part of her religion, and is harming no one, on what grounds would you seek her to go against what she believes is moral?

 

[Kraftwerk]

Serious question, not trying to start anything here or sound like a smart brat

Alcohol is haram in Islam.

Some medicine contains alcohol, and they are allowed in Islam.

So, what is the consensus on, let's say this:

I am thirsty and go to a bar with a friend, and have a cocktail. I do not get intoxicated, and the alcohol level is very low that is doesn't cause any harm to my organs.

Thoughts?

Again, asking this out of curiosity.

 

[Zapages]

Serious question, not trying to start anything here or sound like a smart brat

Alcohol is haram in Islam.

Some medicine contains alcohol, and they are allowed in Islam.

So, what is the consensus on, let's say this:

I am thirsty and go to a bar with a friend, and have a cocktail. I do not get intoxicated, and the alcohol level is very low that is doesn't cause any harm to my organs.

Thoughts?

Again, asking this out of curiosity.

Alcohol is allowed to be taken if it is in medicine.... As for your second question, no that will not be allowed as you are drinking alcohol for your recreational needs. Try a soda/water/carbonated drinks etc.

 

[d[-_-]b]

Serious question, not trying to start anything here or sound like a smart brat

Alcohol is haram in Islam.

Some medicine contains alcohol, and they are allowed in Islam.

So, what is the consensus on, let's say this:

I am thirsty and go to a bar with a friend, and have a cocktail. I do not get intoxicated, and the alcohol level is very low that is doesn't cause any harm to my organs.

Thoughts?

Again, asking this out of curiosity.

IIRC, alcohol is not haram through the Quran but an analogical reasoning by Hazrat Umar (Raziallah Anho).

 

[OttomanScribe]

Serious question, not trying to start anything here or sound like a smart brat

Alcohol is haram in Islam.

Some medicine contains alcohol, and they are allowed in Islam.

So, what is the consensus on, let's say this:

I am thirsty and go to a bar with a friend, and have a cocktail. I do not get intoxicated, and the alcohol level is very low that is doesn't cause any harm to my organs.

Thoughts?

Again, asking this out of curiosity.

As Zapages says, it is permissable to consume alcohol if it is a necessary part of medicine. Just as one can eat pork if they are starving and there is nothing else.

As to the second question, the consensus is that 'that which intoxicates in large quantities, should be prohibited in small quantities'. So you could not have a cocktail and still be in the realm of permissibility.

There is no scholar that will make it permissible for you to consume alcohol for recreation.

 

[OttomanScribe]

IIRC, alcohol is not haram through the Quran but an analogical reasoning by Hazrat Umar (Raziallah Anho).

Alcohol is directly described as sinful in the Noble Qur'an, 2:219

They ask you (O Muhammad ) concerning alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: "In them is a great sin, and (some) benefit for men, but the sin of them is greater than their benefit." And they ask you what they ought to spend. Say: "That which is beyond your needs." Thus Allah makes clear to you His Laws in order that you may give thought.

 

[d[-_-]b]

Alcohol is directly described as sinful in the Noble Qur'an, 2:219

And you learn something new everyday :O

 

[Sutton Dagger]

It is not sufficient to label things a logical fallacy, you have to show how the logical fallacies you attribute apply.

I have pointed out how special pleading does not work, as your argument, that I am giving a post hoc attribution of an exception to God, does not follow. What I am doing is pointing out a logical exception, and then labelling that exception. The two are distinct logical premises.

Similarly you say that I am using our ignorance of what occurred before the Big Bang as an excuse to make an irrefutable and unsupported claim. However my assertion is not about a cause occurring before the Big Bang, rather it is a claim about the nature of reality itself.

Alright, I'm back (sort of) from the long weekend, hopefully everyone had a good break.

Now, back to our discussion.

It is quite clear that there is some misunderstanding here (as evidenced by other people not understanding your position Ottoman), which I think stems from your use of the term 'Uncaused cause', notice the singular denomination. There is a general understanding of the use of this term to describe a being who caused the universe (which adheres to a cause and effect relationship), yet it is uncaused itself, right?

So what you're saying is that the infinite space/time/matter proposition is invalid? Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, why is that proposition inherently invalid? Because infinity as a concept is hard for us to fathom?

In any case, you have then labelled this 'exception' to the cause-effect relationship (is this an event, you haven't explained what this exception entails) God? Why does it need to be labelled God, why not the 'Universe'.

Looking forward to continuing our discussion, the Ad hominem approach is unfortunately all too common on GAF, I think a reasoned, logical 'argument' is the best approach.

 

[OttomanScribe]

It is quite clear that there is some misunderstanding here (as evidenced by other people not understanding your position Ottoman), which I think stems from your use of the term 'Uncaused cause', notice the singular denomination. There is a general understanding of the use of this term to describe a being who caused the universe (which adheres to a cause and effect relationship), yet it is uncaused itself, right?

So what you're saying is that the infinite space/time/matter proposition is invalid? Even if there is an infinite regress of causes, why is that proposition inherently invalid? Because infinity as a concept is hard for us to fathom?

I think that an infinite regress of causes could be theoretically valid, however to me it seems the less likely of the two.

In any case, you have then labelled this 'exception' to the cause-effect relationship (is this an event, you haven't explained what this exception entails) God? Why does it need to be labelled God, why not the 'Universe'.

Why would it be labelled the 'Universe'. The Universe is clearly bound up in the constant appearance of cause and effect.

 

[OttomanScribe]

To any non-Muslims who have seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP8jTCpDvBQ

how did you find it?

I was curious about what it was like through non-Muslim eyes.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I think that an infinite regress of causes could be theoretically valid, however to me it seems the less likely of the two.

Why would it be labelled the 'Universe'. The Universe is clearly bound up in the constant appearance of cause and effect.

'Less likely' according to you does not make the proposition invalid, and propel 'God' up to the position of likely?

Well you can see how existing definitions can cause misunderstanding then, It could be 'Universe' in the sense that it is space/time/matter occurring from an uncaused event which then depend on a cause-effect relationship... Confusing, right?

So what has labelling this apparent 'exception' (which we have determined is your preference for existence, not logically absolute), given us in the way of a logical explanation that the 'Universe' couldn't? They both contain preconceived baggage.

How about you set out your logical argument in a simple A=B, B=C, A=C fashion so that I can critique it effectively.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

To any non-Muslims who have seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP8jTCpDvBQ

how did you find it?

I was curious about what it was like through non-Muslim eyes.

Thanks for posting, will check it out when I have time.

 

[OttomanScribe]

'Less likely' according to you does not make the proposition invalid, and propel 'God' up to the position of likely?

I did not say that it makes the position invalid, I believe that the both are logical propositions. Maybe I didn't make it clear in my previous posts, I believe that both the existence or non-existence of God are logical propositions, for belief must be a choice. What I am showing is that belief in God is not illogical, and is therefore something one can believe.

Well you can see how existing definitions can cause misunderstanding then, It could be 'Universe' in the sense that it is space/time/matter occurring from an uncaused event which then depend on a cause-effect relationship... Confusing, right?

So what has labelling this apparent 'exception' (which we have determined is your preference for existence, not logically absolute), given us in the way of a logical explanation that the 'Universe' couldn't? They both contain preconceived baggage.

How about you set out your logical argument in a simple A=B, B=C, A=C fashion so that I can critique it effectively.

I feel I have already done this and we are now going back over ground already trodden.