Hello research3

Muslims believe that God has given us free will to choose between faith and disbelief, between good and bad, between halal (legal) and haram (illegal).

We believe that we will be held accountable on the Day of judgement for our decisions.

All the best.

 Hello Cordoba and research (why dose everyone have these unusual names? Am I missing something?

I have been interested in this for ever (I'm 56 years) and have asked the question without receiving an answer anywhere.

If God determines everything and only man has free will (determined by God) are mans actions really free or determined by God?

"Muslims believe that God has given us free will to choose between faith and disbelief, between good and bad, between halal (legal) and haram (illegal)."

Is all nature determined by God's law or is it left to its own development. Why is man with his free will different?

"We believe that we will be held accountable on the Day of judgment for our decisions."

Please stop frightening yourself and others with the day of judgment, no one really believes it. It is the only way some people can end a discussion without proving their point. This is not good.

Bismillah,

Tim, how naive do you want to pretend to be?  If you want your name easily researched on the internet, more power to you, but I prefer a little privacy until the day Homeland Security publishes all of the taped conversations they've made of Muslims in America under Bush's rule.  Besides, my nickname means something special.

Are you an atheist?

Fate is a difficult topic because it can go around in circles.  But the answer the brother gave above seems fine to me.  I believe in Judgment Day like Muslims do.  However, I focus on the Hadith which states that when Allah created mankind he promised his Mercy is greater than his Wrath.  And I remember that someone who is not guided or enlightened today may become a strong faithful Muslim tomorrow.

Herjihad, Thanks

First point taken.

Second point wasn't answered. Is everything predetermined or not and what has 'Judgment Day' got to do with it either way?

Please stop frightening yourself and others with the day of judgment, no one really believes it. It is the only way some people can end a discussion without proving their point. This is not good.

"

Oh!! so you don't think that death shall come upon every living thing any time? How strange are your remarks!

"Is all nature determined by God's law or is it left to its own development."

Your question is not correct. There is no difference in "God's law" and "own development". Simply because Allah created everything through some law or as we call it as the "law of nature".

"Why is man with his free will different?"

Your question is incomplete. Different than whom? Whom are you comparing with?

Please stop frightening yourself and others with the day of judgment, no one really believes it. It is the only way some people can end a discussion without proving their point. This is not good.

Tim Evans, What a beguiling (for the doubters!) comment! This is the difference between a believer and a non-believer! A believer looks at the signs before him, the events that take place before his very eyes, the helplessness of mankind to prevent these events and knows surely that that Great SUPER POWER has the ability to achieve whatever He pleases. For the believers the recent events of the last couple of years - the tsunami and the massive earthquakes are but reminders of God's power and they have no doubt as to the day of judgement which will happen whilst the unbelievers dispute about it.

050.019:And the stupor of death will bring Truth (before his eyes): "This was the thing which thou wast trying to escape!"
050.020:And the trumpet is blown. This is the threatened Day.

050.021:And every soul shall come, with it a driver and a witness.

050.022:Certainly you were heedless of it, but now We have removed from you your veil, so your sight today is sharp.

Free will:

Brother Tim Evans!

May peace be on you. You have selected a very sensitive topic which troubled me also for more than 3 years. The most troubling was that if everything is pre-determined then why we are held accountable for our actions? I will try to explain it to you as to How I have understood this concept:

First of all let me tell you that the Quranic Arabic is very difficult to translate because we may not have appropriate words for the exact description in other languages.

The word used here is �TAQDEER� translated as destiny derived form the root word �QADAR� some what meaning a quantity, a volume, a measuring unit or even command/control. This is translated by some that �God has power over all things.�

Let me also explain to you that we are always confronted in our lives one out of these 3 situations:

(1)         COMPULSIONS:  To be born at the destined place is our compulsion. We can�t select our parents, place of birth, death etc. But surely this is all known to Allah and he has given us no authority over it. Even I have lot of compulsions with respect to my body, like I can�t tell my face to stop growing beard, or my hands to grow by some length etc. These are in absolute control of God and I have no authority over these compulsions. Its compulsory for the earth to revolve and sun to shine they have to do it by compulsion. Chicken is to be hatched from the egg and not by birth and it�s a compulsion.

(2)         LIMITATIONS:   We are born with certain limitations, like we can�t fly in air but can jump in air; we can�t run on water but can swim. We can�t convince everyone with our arguments but can explain them in beautiful terms; we can�t limitlessly extend our life but can enhance it by certain precautions etc. We can change our surroundings, environments, friends etc but we can�t live independently of these. But God has all the powers and He alone can change them into compulsions or options.

(3)         OPTIONS:    We have certain set of options like we can choose our friends, our religion our deeds. He has given us the option that we can choose an evil course or a righteous course. He has given us this option by His will, he may have made us without the iota of disobedience like of angels. He has not given the option of disobedience to the angels; they have to obey God under all circumstances. Likewise He has not given the option to the sun to stop shinning or the earth to stop rotating. But it must be remembered that the outcome has not to be linked with the option. Like I might try to kill someone by a bullet but if God has not destined his death he would be saved by maybe hospital authorities, or I might even miss the target. Here I would be rewarded by the nature of my intent and the gravity of the act committed.

Similarly, God does not immediately leash His wrath on someone who acts devilishly. Because it goes against the purpose for which we are sent in this world.

Now God has sent us down on earth with the set of these options, limitations and compulsions as a test as to who will act righteously and who will act devilishly for an appointed term also known as the DOOMSDAY or the LAST DAY. And He told us that we would be rewarded in the next life according to our actions.  

So we have a free will to act, but it is not Absolute Free Will. We may be able to exercise it under some freedom and not absolute freedom. Like once American soldiers desecrated the Quran they told the inmates of prison camp that: �Call your God for help? Where is your God why doesn�t He come for your rescue?� Without realizing that God would not come because if He would come for rescue then where is the test?? Everyone would certainly then be on the desired course. If anyone who commits a sin or a good deed is rewarded immediately then there has to be no free will or the day of judgement.

So along with this free will God sent His messengers and revelations so that it should be known to all that what is right and what is wrong and how we should live. Every time we corrupted the revelations by virtue of our Free Will so God sent another messenger with the same original message until the appointed term grew near. So finally He sent His last messenger Muhammad with the final revelation �QURAN�. He also announced that now this revelation will remain devoid of any corruption and the Free Will or the option to corrupt revelation was changed into compulsion.

Now there comes the thing that God is absolute and His knowledge is also absolute. He knows before hand as to what is to come, how we will behave; how we will act (He is much more knowledgeable than the fortune tellers). So if someone does wrong it is all within his domain to punish him immediately or give him the time to repent. So he has given us the time to think and repent on our follies and He may therefore forgive us. But this time is limited.

As God know by virtue of His knowledge (among our options) as to how we will be behaving He has all written it down. But He didn�t tell us as to how we will act or how we will be living so it doesn�t make any difference for us that whether He has written it down or not. If he would have told us before hand then this world would have been in a chaos and confusion.

Like if God tell me that you will die in a train accident I would immediately stop travelling in train and similarly if everyone knows what he will do then he will try to avert all these things turning everything into a chaos.

So by virtue of His before hand knowledge He knows even who will be performing act for the hell or heaven and He has also written them down. So can He intervene?? Of course He can but He decided not to do that, but He surely guides and helps those who are sincere in their intent and not the arrogant. 

The bottom line remains that �DESTINY IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR ACTIONS WHICH WE ARE TO DO AND WRITTEN DOWN BY GOD, AND NOT THAT HE HAS PREDESTINED OUR ACTIONS BY WRITING THEM DOWN.�   

Hope this addresses some of the concerns.

Shams  Zaman  mailto:[email protected] - [email protected]

Pakistan

Ahmad Joyia, Maryga and Shans Zaman,

Well, I did ask.

Thanks very much for your considerate and fulsome answers?

I can't share your conclusions, but I have learned a great deal about your faith. And I think your answers, essentially that 'determinism' and 'free will' both exist, interact and interchange. I appreciate that you can't accept my interpretation but agreement would require a 'leap of faith' I can't make.

A story about 'Faith'.

A young man once complained to his priest about the poverty, starvation and other cruelties in the world. And said that God would not permit it, therefore there was no God. The priest said that in order to have faith in God the young man must pray. And got the answer, "How can I pray without faith"? 

Oh, did I miss out something here when you say "..I appreciate that you can't accept my interpretation but agreement would require a 'leap of faith' I can't make."

My dear can you elaborate your version of explanation of free will and determinism? I don't see any of your explanation in your post on this thread? So where is the difference and what 'leap of faith' is about? I couldn't get it.

Dear Tim!

This is a very common question asked as to why is there so much of pain and starvation? Well this is also for a test. If Allah has given someone wealth it is for his test that whether he spends it for the needy and poor or just keeps it to himself. Quran addresses this issue in great detail:

2:264, �O you who believe! do not make your charity worthless by reproach and being harsh (in asking for return), like him who spends his property just to be seen by other people and does not believe in Allah and the last day; so his parable is as the parable of a smooth rock with earth upon it, then a heavy rain falls upon it, so it leaves it bare (washing away all his good deeds); they shall not be able to gain anything of what they have earned; and Allah does not guide the unbelieving people.

2:267. O you who believe! spend (benevolently) of the good things that you earn and or what We have brought forth for you out of the earth, and do not aim at disposing off the bad things in charity, of which you would not take it yourselves except with disdain, and know that Allah is Self-sufficient, Praiseworthy.

2:268. Shaitan (devil) threatens you with poverty and enjoins you to be miser, and Allah promises you forgiveness and His blessings in abundance; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing�.

Also in Chapter-104, �1. Woe to every slanderer, defamer, 2. Who amasses his wealth and then keep it counting (with an aim to increasing it); 3. He thinks that his wealth will make him immortal. 4. Nay! he shall most certainly be hurled into the crushing disaster, 5. And what will make you realize what the crushing disaster is? 6. It is the fire kindled by Allah, 7. Which leaps over above the hearts....�

Brother, this life is not an end in itself but provides us with means to achieve an end. That end of which has no limits, where there will be no misery or pain so if you still thank Allah even in misery then you pass the test.

As said in, 3:186 �You shall certainly be tested respecting your wealth/property and your lives, and you shall certainly hear from those who have been given the Book before you and from those who are polytheists very painful and annoying things; and if you remain patient and guard (against evil), surely these are among most steadfast affairs�.

2:155. �And We will most certainly try you with fear(of enemy) and hunger and loss of property and lives and fruits/crops; and give good news to those who remain patient�. 

�Do you think that you would enter the heaven while the state of those who passed away before you has not yet come upon you; distress and affliction befell on them and they were shaken violently....� (2:214)

29:2-3 �Do people think that they will be left away only on saying, We believe, and they will not be tested? 3. And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly judge who are true (believers) and those who are liars�.

Shams Zaman

Ahmad Joyia,

I said, "I can't share your conclusions, but I have learned a great deal about your faith. And I think your answers, essentially that 'determinism' and 'free will' both exist, interact and interchange. I appreciate that you can't accept my interpretation but agreement would require a 'leap of faith' I can't make."

It would have been clearer if it had said "...interpretation of your answers (determinism and free will both exist etc) but agreement would require a 'leap of faith' I can't make."  

Is that clearer?

29:2-3 �Do people think that they will be left away only on saying, We believe, and they will not be tested? 3. And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly judge who are true (believers) and those who are liars�.

Shams Zaman

That is the point of the 'story', but told by a man.

Brother !

This was not told by a man. These are the verses 2-3 of Quran from Chapter 29 (sura 29) revaeled to Prophet Muhammad who spelled them to us. What Prophet said otherwise is known as the Hadith or the sayings of the Prophet. However Quran is the revelations of God and not spoken of by Prophet Muhammad at his free will.

Shams Zaman

Dear Zaman,

Thanks

What I am saying is: That the 'story' I told, was told by a man. I was making the point that if a person has no faith in God they can not  pray or be expected to pray as they are requested or instructed, because they do not have faith. Some may pray just for show, or because they want to fit in with the community. 

My 'story' made a similar point to the verses 2-3 of Quran from Chapter 29 (sura 29) that you quoted. But my 'story' was "told by a man" - me!

I hope I have made myself clear.

Best wishers

P.s Why should the Pope in Rome, the rulers Saudi Arabia, or the great Gurus of India live in fabulous wealth and tell the poor to suffer as a "test."  Your faith enables you to accept this. I have no such faith and cannot accept this as just. 

Bismillah,

The leaders of the world who do not care for their followers will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment.  Muslims are not encouraged to accept these conditions on earth.  We are enjoined by Allah to fight against oppression. 

 The patience and inner strength we are encouraged to have is personal, but when corrupt leaders rule the world, we must rebel and overthrow them using whatever means we have available that are allowed by Allah.

The point of the postings from the Holy Quran about giving in charity is that we are all accountable for our wealth and that we must give to the poor, for that is the only reason we have money, to please Allah, SWT, the Most High and Glorious, by giving to others who don't have it.

And there is absolutely no shame in accepting the charity.  If we are instructed to give it, that also means that poor people are obligated by Allah to take the charity with good will and patience.

Herjihad,

Thanks for this clarification.

"The leaders of the world who do not care for their followers will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment.  Muslims are not encouraged to accept these conditions on earth.  We are enjoined by Allah to fight against oppression." OK, it is very encouraging and even if we don't share the same the same faith.

 "The patience and inner strength we are encouraged to have is personal, but when corrupt leaders rule the world, we must rebel and overthrow them using whatever means we have available that are allowed by Allah." This is of particular interest if you have any references I could access.

"The point of the postings from the Holy Quran about giving in charity is that we are all accountable for our wealth and that we must give to the poor, for that is the only reason we have money, to please Allah, SWT, the Most High and Glorious, by giving to others who don't have it." I have no doubt abouts about the Muslim practice of charity, not only in financial terms, but also in the charitable conduct that makes life tolerable, but that open consideration for others which makes life joyfully. 

"And there is absolutely no shame in accepting the charity.  If we are instructed to give it, that also means that poor people are obligated by Allah to take the charity with good will and patience."  From all I have seen,  poor people are"obligated" to take charity by reason of their poverty alone, not for any other reason. I agree their is no shame in accepting charity, but I will always dispute the very reason for its necessity when we now have the capacity (if not yet the 'will', ) to do away with poverty. And charity on the part of the giver can not be an excuse for not working to end the cause of poverty. 

Who am I to tell the unemployed agricultural workers and their families throughout Asia, Africa and South America that they must accept "aid" with patience and goodwill. The disgraceful conditions of the garment workers of Bangladesh for example, should convince  both hardest and the purest of  harts that they are the most patient people imaginable, but my bet is that their good will is being tested to the limit. And the same for "the masses" everywhere.

Universal Soldier

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
He's been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Labau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put an end to war.

Related:
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/donovan/ - Donovan Lyrics

Tim Evans wrote: A story about 'Faith'. A young man once complained to his priest about the poverty, starvation and other cruelties in the world. And said that God would not permit it, therefore there was no God. The priest said that in order to have faith in God the young man must pray. And got the answer, "How can I pray without faith"?

One thing that puzzles me.. to have a faith you need something to believe in.  When you die you go where ever your god says is heaven.  Where do you go if you dont believe in a god?  Obviously you cant go to hell because with out a heaven you can't have a hell.. only both can exist if you have a god. 

Can anyone answer this for me?

Tim Evans, from your postings it seems to me that you are disillusioned by the actions of those who claim to act in the name of religion. People's behaviours (who claim to act in the name of religion)and faith in the existence of God are two separate issues. If you really dwell upon the second aspect then you must try to block out peoples actions because each one is only accountable for his/her actions.

How to dwell upon the second aspect ie existence of God? There are countless occurences before us that leave us baffled if only we stop and think about them. Why does the Sun rise every morning? How is it that the dry earth is revived again? Why does that seemingly dead seed sprout into a delightful plant and give so much pleasure with its produce? Science can only explain how this occurs but who is behind it? Certainly there is a most powerful force far beyond our imagination that is working to see the constant array of miracles which we pass by without stopping to observe. It is the one who stops to observe and think - it is he/she that finds God and finds peace and comfort in Him. Because He begins to communicate with Him and gets responses (this may sound illusionary to the sceptic, but only the true believer knows it).

Ketchup, this response is also for you.

The Question seems to be this:

People who have a 'faith' tend to believe that the world and their lives, and other peoples lives, are 'determined' by whatever God or force that they believe in. However, allow they believe that God determines everything they also believe that God has given humans 'free will' which can act against what is already 'determined'. ANY OBJECTIONS SO FAR?

People who don't have 'faith' in a God may also believe that things are 'determined', but not by a God. Some of these people believe that every single thing that happens (including all human actions and thoughts) are already 'determined' by what happened before, (fate or destiny if you like) so they have no 'free will', they say. And some say no there is no God, general 'determinism' is true and 'free will' is also true. IF YOU ARE STILL AWAKE, IS THIS ANY CLEARER.

So, here are at least three different ways of thinking and talking about things. Is it any wonder that there is such confusion in discussions? All insist that their view is correct. Should we set out to prove the question either way, or just leave it for everyone to continue with their 'faith' whether it is true or not?

Best wishes

People who have a 'faith' tend to believe that the world and their lives, and other peoples lives, are 'determined' by whatever God or force that they believe in. However, allow they believe that God determines everything they also believe that God has given humans 'free will' which can act against what is already 'determined'. ANY OBJECTIONS SO FAR?

YES. I am a believer in God. And I believe that God answers those who sincerely call upon Him and even what is "determined" can be changed. That limited free will gives us the opportunity to acknowledge Him, obey His Commands and know that He answers the prayers of every sincere suppliant. If we were to believe that everything is determined where is the need to pray or do anything good?

To simply believe that everything is "determined" is fatalistic.

DavidC,

"Non-believers are more concerned with finding cheat codes and hacks
where all the players show up naked."

I say old chap, this is a bit harsh, and wrong. Contrary to your outright accusation of me being a "cheat" etc, I can tell you that there is no dishonesty or advantage in being a "Non-believer" as you say. One reason for this is because we have to put up with rude remarks and worse, from escapists who compare life with a "video game". That is: people who can only respond to life as a compilation of dramatic sounds and images that they bought, or swapped with someone else. Extraordinary!

As was posted earlier, this choice of belief/non-belief is the crux of free
will. "

Please tell us more, how is it the "crux"?

ak,

 Trust me friend, lay off the matrix! 

Ahmad,

The quick straight answer to your wondering is this

"People without faith in God", generally believe that humans developed morality to fit their social, family or personal circumstances and that God or Gods are a creation of man, not the other way around.

I can appreciate that this is unthinkable to people who have a "faith" but let me put this question.

Would people with "faith" have no 'morality' if morality was not commanded by their "faith"? I don't believe they would.

Is anyone saying that people without "faith" in God are immoral?  I can assure you they are not.

A "cheat" is someone who breaks and agreed code to secure an advantage,

Why should it matter if people believe or disbelieve?  Choice and free will is what seperates us from the rest of the food chain....

Think about it....

Muslims are suffering persectution because the world refuses to change to fit in with thier beliefs.. this has been going on for thousands of years.. thats choice.. in those thuosands of years they still follow the good book as it was written with no apparent deviation, something that is hard to mix with the western world.   Get your heads around that.

To be a non-believer in my opinion carries greater benefits.

1. You are answerable to no one but your self.

2. There is no heaven or hell, just the good and bad within us all..

3. Freedom of choice. no chains dictate what you have to wear or do, and as a female its great knowing I can control what happens to my body..  We were born naked, a fact that many people seem to forget.

4. Religion is not used as an arguement every time people poke fun.. weak people use thier religion so others take pity.   Shouting the race card every time your pride is hurt just makes people hate more.

the list is endless....  To have no belief means to have freedom.... a freedom to live the one life we have been given to its fullest.. it doesnt make people immoral.  As i have said before.. good people do good things bad prople dp bad things, only good people do bad things in the name of religion.

Hello,

OK, so it looks if some of us 'Amad Jayia', 'awesom' and 'DavidC', among others are moving toards a position where the, inevitable labels, will be less of a promlem in our discussion.

I have attempted previously to find an agreed starting point for a discussion and, hoping for your agreement, I have posted that piece again below, in order to clarify matters.

"The Question seems to be this:

People who have a 'faith' tend to believe that the world and their lives, and other peoples lives, are 'determined' by whatever God or force that they believe in. However, allow they believe that God determines everything they also believe that God has given humans 'free will' which can act against what is already 'determined'. ANY OBJECTIONS SO FAR?

People who don't have 'faith' in a God may also believe that things are 'determined', but not by a God. Some of these people believe that every single thing that happens (including all human actions and thoughts) are already 'determined' by what happened before, (fate or destiny if you like) so they have no 'free will', they say. And some say no there is no God, general 'determinism' is true and 'free will' is also true. IF YOU ARE STILL AWAKE, IS THIS ANY CLEARER.

So, here are at least three different ways of thinking and talking about things. Is it any wonder that there is such confusion in discussions? All insist that their view is correct. Should we set out to prove the question either way, or just leave it for everyone to continue with their 'faith' whether it is true or not?"

Can I also suggest (for the sake of clarity) that we either tackle 'faith' or 'free will and determinism' seperatly, at least to begin with.   I don't mind which it is. If that can't be done, thats OK, we can just carry on and see what happens.

First

As I understand things, (I don't know physics) everything without exception is matter which is in a constant state of movement and change. Change is not an element of matter, it is its essence.  Movement and change accuse as conflict, or as the Greek philosophers said, 'Dialectically'. So, with 'dialectics' and 'matter' we have what has been called 'Dialectical Materialism', if you want to research this. Please do not jump to final conclsions and start looking for 'labels' just yet!

This 'world view' has no place for spirits of the river, forest or rocks. No animal spirits or gods. No super human, half-god half-man creatures and no 'One God'.  It is believed that each of these ideas of god was man's (all men and women) attempt to understand the world and their place in it. And that each corresponds or reflects a particular economic and historical period in our history, hunting, farming and city dwelling for example.

That should be enough to start with.  I hope it is not offensive to any readers, that is not the intention. However, I can't see how such a discussion can be had, without contradicting deeply held 'faith'.

Best wishes

Thanks bro Tim for your response. Let us see what have I argued and what is little more rationalistic in thinking as what you have suggested in reply to my "wondering".

Tim wrote: The quick straight answer to your wondering is this "People without faith in God", generally believe that humans developed morality to fit their social, family or personal circumstances and that God or Gods are a creation of man, not the other way around.

Well this is simply a faith based statement (by people without faith in God) without formal basis to it. So without arguing its content I shall proceed with the rest of the reply.

Tim wrote: I can appreciate that this is unthinkable to people who have a "faith" .....

Tim wrote: .......but let me put this question. Would people with "faith" have no 'morality' if morality was not commanded by their "faith"? I don't believe they would. Is anyone saying that people without "faith" in God are immoral?  I can assure you they are not.

Tim wrote: A "cheat" is someone who breaks and agreed code to secure an advantage,

Dear Sis (I hope I am not wrong in this title), just to focus you with what my point is on this thread, I would like to respond to your comments.

Ketchup wrote: Muslims are suffering persectution because the world refuses to change to fit in with thier beliefs.. this has been going on for thousands of years.. thats choice.. in those thuosands of years they still follow the good book as it was written with no apparent deviation, something that is hard to mix with the western world.

ketchup wrote: To be a non-believer in my opinion carries greater benefits.

"2. There is no heaven or hell, just the good and bad within us all.." What benefit are you refering here, I don't get it? People of faith have yet another life to consider for all their actions, a life after death, more fuller than this.

"3. Freedom of choice. no chains dictate what you have to wear or do, and as a female its great knowing I can control what happens to my body..  We were born naked, a fact that many people seem to forget." Now if you call ignorance, a benefit, its upto you. Born as a naked doesn't mean to remain naked for the rest of life. Ah! from where shall "morality" be known to mankind if not from "faith"?

"4. Religion is not used as an arguement every time people poke fun.. weak people use thier religion so others take pity.   Shouting the race card every time your pride is hurt just makes people hate more." Yes relegion has been exploited by the many, yet we know that its only the faith that brings morality to humans; a quality differentiating him from the rest of the animal kingdom.

ketchup wrote:  the list is endless....  To have no belief means to have freedom.... a freedom to live the one life we have been given to its fullest.. it doesnt make people immoral.  As i have said before.. good people do good things bad prople dp bad things, only good people do bad things in the name of religion.

AhmadJoyia wrote: Dear Sis (I hope I am not wrong in this title), just to focus you with what my point is on this thread, I would like to respond to your comments.

You are correct with your assumption.

[/quote]

Ketchup wrote: Muslims are suffering persectution because the world refuses to change to fit in with thier beliefs.. this has been going on for thousands of years.. thats choice.. in those thuosands of years they still follow the good book as it was written with no apparent deviation, something that is hard to mix with the western world.

People need something to believe in, I wouldn't dream of saying the west is faithless.. I wasn't even implying that.  What puzzles me is were do we westerners fit in with the Islam ideal.  I know that muslims are very strict over thier faith and follow the good book with great conviction.. the problem seems to be the modern western way of life goes against its teachings.. can we fit in?

ketchup wrote: To be a non-believer in my opinion carries greater benefits. Yap, you are right only if you view it as a "benefit" from a selfish humanistic perspective of this 'world's life'. But not other wise. Let us see, how: "1. You are answerable to no one but your self." Yap! that is great for you. So as long as there is no one else (any human) to see you, you are at liberty to do any thing. This is strange benefit. People with faith always carry an accountablity to God, wherever he goes; seen by other humans or not. So inherantly, people with faith are more responsible for their actions.

For me I don't think it really makes any difference.. I still have a good sense of what is right and wrong.  What I don't have is a sense of guilt which seems to be carried by people of many faiths.. i also accept responsibility for my own actions.

"2. There is no heaven or hell, just the good and bad within us all.." What benefit are you refering here, I don't get it? People of faith have yet another life to consider for all their actions, a life after death, more fuller than this.

This is were we have to disagree.. I don't believe in life after death and that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

"3. Freedom of choice. no chains dictate what you have to wear or do, and as a female its great knowing I can control what happens to my body..  We were born naked, a fact that many people seem to forget." Now if you call ignorance, a benefit, its upto you. Born as a naked doesn't mean to remain naked for the rest of life. Ah! from where shall "morality" be known to mankind if not from "faith"?

If its hot in summer there is no way I would be covered from head to toe with black clothe..

"4. Religion is not used as an arguement every time people poke fun.. weak people use thier religion so others take pity.   Shouting the race card every time your pride is hurt just makes people hate more." Yes relegion has been exploited by the many, yet we know that its only the faith that brings morality to humans; a quality differentiating him from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Can't argue with that...

ketchup wrote:  the list is endless....  To have no belief means to have freedom.... a freedom to live the one life we have been given to its fullest.. it doesnt make people immoral.  As i have said before.. good people do good things bad prople dp bad things, only good people do bad things in the name of religion. So, you tend to say that "good" people are born good and "bad" people are born bad? I am amazed with this thinking. Nevertheless, the most important of all is the question as what is "immoral" and how can you define it, without the aid of faith?

Hell no!  Nurture versus nature and all that.  I didn't say people are born good or bad, social upbringing plays a big factor in this.

What is immoral?  Everyone has values... I will not kill, steal, commit adultery etc I respect my elders and the world around me. 

Dear Tim !

You said:

P.s Why should the Pope in Rome, the rulers Saudi Arabia, or the great Gurus of India live in fabulous wealth and tell the poor to suffer as a "test."  Your faith enables you to accept this. I have no such faith and cannot accept this as just. 

This is not what the faith tells that let everyone suffers who is living in poverty. There is a complete system of charity and wealth sharing in Islam. Why there is so much poverty? Because we don't follow the system. Yet if we follow there would be some who will be tested by different things. A wealthy man is also tested for his wealth:

Shams Zaman  

First who is to decide that what is right and what is wrong? One may give absolute logic in favour of drinking or womanising, some may prove bribery as absolute normal; some may declare homosexuality to be a personal and private affair. While others may destroy half of the mankind in the cause of National Interest, (like of the United States), and some may kill thousands of innocent in the name of Nationalism as was done in case of World War 1. Morality without divine rule has a varying concept and there is no yard stick for judgement.

All give conclusive logic and reasons to justify their actions. Presently all seems to be convinced that whatever set of rules or religion they follow is the right path. George Bush directs his actions towards eliminating evil and not for any reward while Osama also holds the same claim. So are all individuals� right in their claims? Even once every individual had a varying sense of judgement?

 If everyone is not right then who is right and;

What is right? And;

Who set the rules of what is right and what is wrong???

The answer is simple God created this world and He sets the rules for this world. Obviously he has set one set of rules for us.

If there is no divine reward or punishment then God is unjust (and this is absolutely impossible). Why? Because! This world is imperfect, and God can�t do that to us, by creating an imperfect world and forgetting us.

Imagine of a child who got birth in the poorest country of Africa or Asia and died in the same very conditions due to hunger, disease and poverty.

He did not opt for this kind of life. He would have also loved to live like of a Saudi King or a Royal family member. But to be born in a family of his choice was not an option for him.

Secondly, how would you deliver justice to special cases like of Adolf Hitler or Genghis Khan or Mussolini etc who killed millions of innocent people?? (You can certainly feel the pain much more than me for being a Jew as it appears to be from your writing). But none of them could ever be brought to justice. Even if they would have, merely by hanging them to death or giving them the lethal injection, by no means can be termed as justice. The only justice for them can be delivered in the Hereafter through the hands of God.

God doesn�t act abruptly or hastily. Like if God�s book (Quran) is being desecrated or some one is being murdered or being raped or being tortured and he or she cries for God to seek for His help, will the wrath be let loose on the criminal? Surely, no angel will descend to save him/ her and neither God will immediately come for his rescue. So does this mean that God is unkind or can�t see the injustice being done? And if He can see why doesn�t He act or react?

Because God is the most wise and he doesn�t take abrupt decisions. Certainly all good and evil acts will be registered and the punishment and reward will be given in the hereafter according to the deeds. If God acts abruptly then no one will commit any such act and there will be no test. He certainly gives us time to repent and seek forgiveness, but once he gets hold of someone then it�s severe, too severe (hell).

Unfortunately we all think that we have got the ticket to heaven or salvation. Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc all think the same way. But this is not the case; salvation is not in keeping particular types of names, or in belonging to a particular race or believing in absurd ideas.

If there would have been no God I would have done anything to satisfy my whims and wishes, everything murder, rape, anything.

If this is the only life what to care for just enjoy these 30-40 years and disappear!!

Shams Zaman  

ketchup wrote: What is immoral?  Everyone has values... I will not kill, steal, commit adultery etc I respect my elders and the world around me.

The point is, who defines these morals? For us, its very clear from our faith. But how do you get your morals? Who has defined them for you? Why do you think, that you should not kill, steal, commit adultary. Just for example, for you 'adultery' is immoral, but for the most of the westreners, even the word itself is strange. They can't think that life could exist without boyfriend/girlfriend relations. Or perhaps, you may not count these "?friend" relationship as "adultary". Do you? But for people of the faith, any sex outside marriage is considered "adultary" and hence a abominable act. Similarly, the concept of "Dating" is a norm among people without faith, they even encourage/support/promote their children for it; whereas, this is totally a strange thing for people with faith. But again, we have what we call a divine guidance to live our lives in this world. I think, these divine guidelines form the superlative set of moral values that the people without faith, like yourself, love to make them their own corner stone. I have yet to know any moral value, that you think, is not present among these divine guidelines.

AhmadJoyia wrote: ketchup wrote: What is immoral?  Everyone has values... I will not kill, steal, commit adultery etc I respect my elders and the world around me. The point is, who defines these morals? For us, its very clear from our faith. But how do you get your morals? Who has defined them for you? Why do you think, that you should not kill, steal, commit adultary. Just for example, for you 'adultery' is immoral, but for the most of the westreners, even the word itself is strange. They can't think that life could exist without boyfriend/girlfriend relations. Or perhaps, you may not count these "?friend" relationship as "adultary". Do you? But for people of the faith, any sex outside marriage is considered "adultary" and hence a abominable act. Similarly, the concept of "Dating" is a norm among people without faith, they even encourage/support/promote their children for it; whereas, this is totally a strange thing for people with faith. But again, we have what we call a divine guidance to live our lives in this world. I think, these divine guidelines form the superlative set of moral values that the people without faith, like yourself, love to make them their own corner stone. I have yet to know any moral value, that you think, is not present among these divine guidelines.

I think you have answered your own question.  What is socially acceptable in one culture is not socially acceptable in another.. thats culture.   I am probably guilty of all the sins you depise but in my moral code of conduct i believe as long as I am not causing harm or destruction to those around me then I am a "good" person.  Belief/faith is a completely different matter.. I should point out for the record that I was brought up in as a christian, with the christian set of values.. but even from a very young age I never believed in a god.    If you cut out the religion side of it the bible is a very good read but to me it is only a story.... If this all makes me a bad person then so be it.. I could burn in hell if you like.. but as I don't believe in a hell I can't.

What I do have is a conscience.

 Amad and Shams, thank for your contributions.

I will give them the consideration they merit and reply.

I look forward to responses from any learned Muslims who can help with the the questions of 'free will', 'determinism', and 'faith'. 

Amad and Shams, please explain these issues in the most complicated or the most clear way possible. And then in peace, please be quiet, so that the rest of us can seriously study and respond to your answers. If you can't do this please tell us about it. We are not 'un-knowing'.

1) 'free will'

2) 'determinism'

3) 'faith'

Dear all, There are a lot of postings here which I haven't had the time to read. I had read Ketchup's post last night and my response is only to his post. Ketchup wrote:

To be a non-believer in my opinion carries greater benefits.

1. You are answerable to no one but your self.

2. There is no heaven or hell, just the good and bad within us all..

3. Freedom of choice. no chains dictate what you have to wear or do, and as a female its great knowing I can control what happens to my body..  We were born naked, a fact that many people seem to forget.

4. Religion is not used as an arguement every time people poke fun.. weak people use thier religion so others take pity.   Shouting the race card every time your pride is hurt just makes people hate more.

To a believer the "freedom" of a non-believer" is limited to this life which may either be brief or a hundred years, but that freedom will end as soon as he dies. Whereas the believer's freedom is restricted in this world by his Faith in God and in obedience to God's commands. These restrictions are again limited to only this life and his freedom in the next life God willing will be endless.

053.028:But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing against Truth

053.029:Therefore turn aside from him who turns his back upon Our reminder and does not desire anything but this world's life.

053.030:That is as far as knowledge will reach them. Verily thy Lord knoweth best.

I simply said:

 "As I understand things, (I don't know physics) everything without exception is matter which is in a constant state of movement and change. Change is not an element of matter, it is its essence.  Movement and change accuse as conflict, or as the Greek philosophers said, 'Dialectically'. So, with 'dialectics' and 'matter' we have what has been called 'Dialectical Materialism', if you want to research this. Please do not jump to final conclsions and start looking for 'labels' just yet!

This 'world view' has no place for spirits of the river, forest or rocks. No animal spirits or gods. No super human, half-god half-man creatures and no 'One God'.  It is believed that each of these ideas of god was man's (all men and women) attempt to understand the world and their place in it. And that each corresponds or reflects a particular economic and historical period in ourhuman history, hunting,farming and city dwelling for example." There has been no clear response to this yet. Everyone here with brains is sensitive to the stereotyping and scapegoating of Muslims by the 'state', wherever you live,  BUT, whether you like it or not we and our children have a common future.  It is our job to talk with real integrity, not defensive impatience and dismissive contempt.

P.s Are you serious about dialog, argument, struggle, contradiction and 'trial'? Or are you only interested in self?

Here is something really beautiful from Imam Ghazali which I have received:

My view, freewill and predestination don't go together, its one or the other.

Freewill is making choices with all the choices out there. God gave us choices to use our brain, to think and ponder adn all that and make changes where ever necessary.

Feewill, allows freedom of expression to be who we are, to act out the very essense of that.

Predestination is not having any choice, no freewill, as God has determined your life, so what's the use of having freewill and choices? and what's the use of having the saying, "life is what you make it"  or "there's always a choice"

Now as I have said that, i do believe somewhat in destiny, but it is upto us find that destiny.

Ah...I'm probably flawed in this

Maryga wrote: To a believer the "freedom" of a non-believer" is limited to this life which may either be brief or a hundred years, but that freedom will end as soon as he dies. Whereas the believer's freedom is restricted in this world by his Faith in God and in obedience to God's commands. These restrictions are again limited to only this life and his freedom in the next life God willing will be endless.

I agree with that.  My life is limited to one life which I fully intend to live.

I'm not really sure what you mean by these following statements but I will hazzard a guess.  Feel free to correct me were I am wrong.

053.028:But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but conjecture; and conjecture avails nothing againstTruth

My views on my lack of religion means nothing when compared to islam.  I have already figured that one out.  You mean there is no room for movement?

053.029:Therefore turn aside from him who turns his back upon Our reminder and does not desire anything but this world's life.

I should be cast out from society for the way I think?  I find this confusing.  If we are all gods creatures surely we all have a place how ever high or low in the food chain?  To turn my back on something I have to have faced it in the first place.   To have people turn  thier back on me surely goes against the teachings of forgiveness.. How can I accept anything if the teachings shun me in the first place?

053.030:That is as far as knowledge will reach them. Verily thy Lord knoweth best.

Just because I don't believe doesn't mean I think others shouldnt believe.. everyone has a calling of some sort or another.

I may have read your post totally wrong, this is just my interpretation.

ketchup wrote: I think you have answered your own question.  What is socially acceptable in one culture is not socially acceptable in another.. thats culture.

ketchup wrote:   I am probably guilty of all the sins you depise but in my moral code of conduct i believe as long as I am not causing harm or destruction to those around me then I am a "good" person.

So, my question is not of "what" standards but "how" standards for morality are defined by the people of no faith? What are the basis for them?

ketchup wrote:   Belief/faith is a completely different matter.. I should point out for the record that I was brought up in as a christian, with the christian set of values.. but even from a very young age I never believed in a god.    If you cut out the religion side of it the bible is a very good read but to me it is only a story.... If this all makes me a bad person then so be it.. I could burn in hell if you like.. but as I don't believe in a hell I can't. What I do have is a conscience.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

AhmadJoyia wrote: So, my question is not of "what" standards but "how" standards for morality are defined by the people of no faith? What are the basis for them? ketchup wrote:   Belief/faith is a completely different matter.. I should point out for the record that I was brought up in as a christian, with the christian set of values.. but even from a very young age I never believed in a god.    If you cut out the religion side of it the bible is a very good read but to me it is only a story.... If this all makes me a bad person then so be it.. I could burn in hell if you like.. but as I don't believe in a hell I can't. What I do have is a conscience. So, you provided the basis of your consciencness as influence of Christainity but without belief/faith part of it. Hmm!! That is it what I was looking for and it was the sole purpose of my arguments. I think, your answer has provided me yet another example to support my original hypothsis. Thanks.

Each culture has a unique set of moral values, we've already been through this.. natural influence from the environment, upbringing and the world around us leave thier mark, what is ok in one culture is not acceptable in another when religion creeps into it each section thinks its own set of moral values are right and the others are wrong. 

My values are based on the loving family I grew up in.. and the values that are learned from it.. my mother was a christian so I am bound to be influenced by it, would be silly to assume otherwise, but it still doesn't mean I have to believe.. Do not pillage, rape and murder, etc to me is just plain common sense.. for me it is wrong on every level.  This is what my culture has taught me, so assuming these set of values are "right".. because I don't have faith it makes them morally wrong?  Thats assuming morality exists in the first place and isnt just a basis of cultural unbringing..  I believe adultery is wrong there for I would judge, to judge I need a set of morals to follow.. this isn't something I would invent along the way because without them i would have no basis for comparison..

Definition...

mo�ral�i�ty    https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dmorality"> ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (m-rl-t, m�-)
n. pl. mo�ral�i�ties

ketchup wrote: .....Do not pillage, rape and murder, etc to me is just plain common sense.. for me it is wrong on every level....

Just imagine if someone is brought up in a culture of people without faith, how would they view the same principles of morality as you do? Definitely different. Isn't it? Then what would you say about them when you also say

ketchup wrote: ...for me it is wrong on every level

ketchup wrote: I believe adultery is wrong there for I would judge, to judge I need a set of morals to follow..

Mmmm

Seriously, I will excercise my free will and stay out of that thread for now!

Good idea...

;---)

My dear brother Tim, thanks for your input, I was desperately waiting for your comments.

Tim wrote: Islam and the other 'great religions' regards 'human nature' as a constant that can not be changed by religion which only provides "guidelines". In this view no amount of morality can prevent the selfish,rebellious, 'original' sinful nature of man. So by this, man is left with only a superficial veneer of 'morality' but otherwise unchanged.

Tim wrote: Islam and other religions say it is permissible for the wealthy to remain wealthy (because it is human nature to have appetites) as long as charity is dispensed.

Tim wrote:  This only addresses the personal voluntary morality of the individual and dose not answer the social impact of economy which recognises the social forces brought into being by wealth accumulation have a very amoral impact.

The atheists usually have no such concept of man as inherently greedy and do not acknowledge his individual right to accumulate welth to the disadvantage of his fellow humans.  Tim

Ketchup wrote: Mmmm Seriously, I will excercise my free will and stay out of that thread for now!

I am sorry. I have corrected the mistake in my response to your last but one reply on line one. I have added "without" before the word "faith". Kindly see, now if it makes sense. Thanks.

AhmadJoyia wrote: Ketchup wrote: Mmmm Seriously, I will excercise my free will and stay out of that thread for now! I am sorry. I have corrected the mistake in my response to your last but one reply on line one. I have added "without" before the word "faith". Kindly see, now if it makes sense. Thanks.

Can we be moral if there is no god?  Why not?

By nature man is happy chap, and lives in pursuit of happiness so if you value happiness then you also value the happiness of others around you...  Man can be bad but is essentialy good on the inside so does he really need a god to be good?  Can morals not be be learned through logic, reason and emotion?

Is being good instinctive, and part of human nature or is it beaten into us?   If we are forced to be good then a god is essential in creating a moral belief.. if we are only good in this life because the rewards in the next one are far greater then I consider that immoral and pretty selfish.  How can this be morally correct?  That means the existance of morals does not necessarily mean there is a god.. just that som,e need a guiding spirit because they know they can stray off the path.

Has it occured to you that God is just a mispelling of Good?

You say that god exists because we have a set of values that we all follow and cite your reasons that what is good and bad is defined by god....

I see no good reason why man should believe in a god... Some of the worst atrocities in history are accountable to religion even if they are now in a state of peace or semi peace.  I see no logic in religion, just fear and guilt.

Why should I believe in god?

Good thoughts!! However, just imagine if there is no god, then obviously speaking, there is no evil as well. Isn't it? Therefore, there is no concept of morality left out for being either good or bad without the concept of God. I can't be more expletive than this, at the moment, to make you better understand my point.

Secondly, logic in religion must be made independant of the historical persuits among nations, though its a fallacy to assume that most of them were religous motivated.

"Fear and guilt" are not the common denominators of all religions, not of Islam at least. 

Human social organisation is driven by necessity. Religion was a way in which people attempted to explain complexities and the down-right baffling. Hunter-gather communities, nomads, and urban dwellers have all developed distinctive religious cultures.

With the growth of the city states with centralised monarchical government the tendency was towads unified religious imagery i.e. monotheism, 'one-god' patriarchal hierarchy, unsurprisingly just like the 'earthy' arrangements.

The morality that grew up reflected, especially in family-life, morality was governed by and reflected property rights,ownership and inheritance.

Morality grows out of the prevailing economic, political, social and religious history. For sample, until recently the dominant moral landscape in Europe was a Judaic-Christian tradition founded on the Ten Commandment.  These commandments were written (I believe) by people, to reflect and regulate the social life of the tribes and families. It could be argued that the idea of one-god was from the experiences of life in Egypt as slaves under a unified kingdom. Without this disciplined, centralized state it would have been impossible to conquer and rule their neighbors land.

AhmadJoyia wrote: Good thoughts!! However, just imagine if there is no god, then obviously speaking, there is no evil as well. Isn't it? Therefore, there is no concept of morality left out for being either good or bad without the concept of God. I can't be more expletive than this, at the moment, to make you better understand my point. Secondly, logic in religion must be made independant of the historical persuits among nations, though its a fallacy to assume that most of them were religous motivated. "Fear and guilt" are not the common denominators of all religions, not of Islam at least.

How about giving a realistic answer?  Instead of quoting me?

AhmadJoyia wrote: Good thoughts!! However, just imagine if there is no god, then obviously speaking, there is no evil as well. Isn't it? Therefore, there is no concept of morality left out for being either good or bad without the concept of God. I can't be more expletive than this, at the moment, to make you better understand my point. Secondly, logic in religion must be made independant of the historical persuits among nations, though its a fallacy to assume that most of them were religous motivated. "Fear and guilt" are not the common denominators of all religions, not of Islam at least.

Sarcasm sucks... this is the action of a westerner

Ketchup wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Ketchup wrote: Mmmm Seriously, I will excercise my free will and stay out of that thread for now! I am sorry. I have corrected the mistake in my response to your last but one reply on line one. I have added "without" before the word "faith". Kindly see, now if it makes sense. Thanks. Can we be moral if there is no god?  Why not? By nature man is happy chap, and lives in pursuit of happiness so if you value happiness then you also value the happiness of others around you...  Man can be bad but is essentialy good on the inside so does he really need a god to be good?  Can morals not be be learned through logic, reason and emotion? Is being good instinctive, and part of human nature or is it beaten into us?   If we are forced to be good then a god is essential in creating a moral belief.. if we are only good in this life because the rewards in the next one are far greater then I consider that immoral and pretty selfish.  How can this be morally correct?  That means the existance of morals does not necessarily mean there is a god.. just that som,e need a guiding spirit because they know they can stray off the path. Has it occured to you that God is just a mispelling of Good? You say that god exists because we have a set of values that we all follow and cite your reasons that what is good and bad is defined by god.... I see no good reason why man should believe in a god... Some of the worst atrocities in history are accountable to religion even if they are now in a state of peace or semi peace.  I see no logic in religion, just fear and guilt. Why should I believe in god?

More to the point, can you answer my qestion?

Bro, your example of Europe supports my view that Morality grew under the influence of religion; concept of One God or many gods is irrespective and so is its root wether unified kingdom or otherwise etc. The history of religion is replete with examples which can clearly defy your theory of evolution of religions.

Nevertheless, 'Ten commandments' are known as gift of guidance from the divine being, we call Him the God, for a pariticular society to live like humans and not as wild animals. One can imagine what the society would have been without them. The same goes to many other nations/societies who got similar divine gifts, later named as "religion".

Oh, I got two separate comments on my single post. Is there any mistake? First at "How about giving a realistic answer?  Instead of quoting me?" and then "Sarcasm sucks... this is the action of a westerner"

ketchup wrote: More to the point, can you answer my qestion?

So, what's your question? Let me guess. If it is this "Why should I believe in god?" Then, I think, I have already given the answer to brother Tim in one of my previous posts, though not directly. Here it is what I said on page 6. "...To say the least, this is not very correct statement, as far as Islam is concerned. According to Islamic beliefs, God created humans in a perfect shape without any concept of "original sin" attached to it. This world has been created as a test for him, an argument which goes against the concept of unchangeable "human nature". Otherwise, there is no requirement for the test. Isn't it? It this place where the concept of "free will" to pick and choose only through human intellect comes in. How can one justifyably assume to be answerable for his deeds, if God has not given him the intellect to distinguish between the right and wrong? No faith based argument would work here. Only the human intellect is being invoked. So, for those who can't, intellectually speaking, with their altruistic search with honesty to their inner self, find the faith of truth in God, I think, they don't have to worry about their fate in here after."

Kindly read closely to the last sentence of the underlined passage. If you are sincere in finding the answer to your question, then I would suggest that you read Quran. A book that we believe, is a verbatim word of God. I can't state as from where you start, because its not a book of history, nor it is in any choronlogical order. Its a book of faith for those who have sincere desire to find the answer for them to beleive in the existence of God. However, a tip from my personal experience, that whenever I needed a guidance, my earnest desire made me open that part of the book that provided me the guidance that I needed the most, through my own intellectual reasoning. One can call it luck, incedental or whatever, this is how I have experienced it. Systematic study of Quran is also done, but that is only once you believe in the God and on this book.

I hope I have provided you with sufficient reason for faith in God through the example of origins of morality. However, I you are interested in any kind of physical evidence or proof for the existance of God, then suffice is to ask a similar proof from you, for "non existance" of God. Absence of proof doesn't show anything. Isn't it? For us to understand, as people of faith in Islam, we see this riddle as to logically understand that since we are in a 'test', we must not expect  'cheating'? If obvious physical proofs are provided, then it hardly be called as a 'test'. Think about it.

I think let me answer to your riddles where you ask

"Is being good instinctive, and part of human nature or is it beaten into us?   If we are forced to be good then a god is essential in creating a moral belief.. if we are only good in this life because the rewards in the next one are far greater then I consider that immoral and pretty selfish.  How can this be morally correct?  That means the existance of morals does not necessarily mean there is a god.. just that som,e need a guiding spirit because they know they can stray off the path."

Here, I couldn't find the difference between" good is instinctive and part of human nature" and "beaten into us" since both imply inherantly programmed structure without the use of intellectual reasongin or a free will. I leave it to you to explain the differnce. Now coming to your later part of the riddle kindly note that rewards are not the ultimate goals but are the natural consequence of showing your obeidence and love to one's creator. In doing so, one always keep this in his mind, that God is not in need of our love or obeidence but guides us to the right direction for our own benefit. A benefit that has reward in this life as well as in the life here after. Moreso, we know that obeidence to our Creator has given us to stand on the higher grounds of Morality than those who don't. I hope now I have replied to almost all of your questions. Kindly do let me know if any is left over or need more explanation.

AhmadJoyia wrote: Moreso, we know that obeidence to our Creator has given us to stand on the higher grounds of Morality than those who don't.

mmmm......

SO you think you have more of a right to say what morals are ? because you believe in (a) God and have (a) religion ?

Bro Ahmad Joyia, I admire your patience.

018.056:We only send the messengers to give Glad Tidings and to give warnings: But the unbelievers dispute with vain argument, in order therewith to weaken the truth, and they treat My Signs as a jest, as also the fact that they are warned!

018.057:And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the Signs of his Lord, but turns away from them, forgetting the (deeds) which his hands have sent forth? Verily We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this, and over their ears, deafness, if thou callest them to guidance, even then will they never accept guidance.

Maryga wrote: Bro Ahmad Joyia, I admire your patience. 018.056:We only send the messengers to give Glad Tidings and to give warnings: But the unbelievers dispute with vain argument, in order therewith to weaken the truth, and they treat My Signs as a jest, as also the fact that they are warned! 018.057:And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the Signs of his Lord, but turns away from them, forgetting the (deeds) which his hands have sent forth? Verily We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this, and over their ears, deafness, if thou callest them to guidance, even then will they never accept guidance.

Why?  All I see is someone who, no matter what is said can only believe all non believers morals are still born from religion.  Pure folly.. the notion that man can be good without a god should be considered.

p.s i meant to hot edit but hit reply instead.  Was to lazy to edit.

Ketchup wrote:  the notion that man can be good without a god should be considered.

I'd say

"Moreso, we know that obeidence to our Creator has given us to stand on the higher grounds of Morality than those who don't." That is what you believe. You offer no evidence, a) that you have a creator, b) that you stand on higher grounds of morality BECAUSE if you had proof there would be no 'test'. As you believe that a supernatural god set the test that substitutes for proof, you end up going round in circles. This is your 'faith' which I have not desire to take from you, but it is a faith that denies the primacy of matter and humans in human affairs. You are the "non-believer" in the human capacity to develop, change, and improve 'morality'.

Ketchup wrote: [QUOTE=Maryga] Bro Ahmad Joyia, I admire your patience. 018.056:We only send the messengers to give Glad Tidings and to give warnings: But the unbelievers dispute with vain argument, in order therewith to weaken the truth, and they treat My Signs as a jest, as also the fact that they are warned! 018.057:And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the Signs of his Lord, but turns away from them, forgetting the (deeds) which his hands have sent forth? Verily We have set veils over their hearts lest they should understand this, and over their ears, deafness, if thou callest them to guidance, even then will they never accept guidance.

You do not believe that the above texts (which you have put forward as part of this discussion) are the works of men. I wonder, what must it be like for someone who doesn't believe that man's development is as a result of his emergence from the rest of nature and his conflict,  ('work') with nature, including his co-operative social struggle which created all 'moral' understandings, rational and irrational, true and false understandings.  

It seems strange to me not to believe that human destiny is in the hands of humans. It seems to me that non-believers are unable to take full responsibility for the development of morality.

Angel wrote: SO you think you have more of a right to say what morals are ? because you believe in (a) God and have (a) religion ?

ketchup wrote: the notion that man can be good without a god should be considered.

Tim wrote: "Moreso, we know that obeidence to our Creator has given us to stand on the higher grounds of Morality than those who don't." That is what you believe. You offer no evidence, a) that you have a creator, b) that you stand on higher grounds of morality BECAUSE if you had proof there would be no 'test'. As you believe that a supernatural god set the test that substitutes for proof, you end up going round in circles. This is your 'faith' which I have not desire to take from you, but it is a faith that denies the primacy of matter and humans in human affairs. You are the "non-believer" in the human capacity to develop, change, and improve 'morality'.

Now this is strange. I have presented you the logical arguments as how I believe as what I believe. Instead of refuting those arguments logically, I have been labled as "going round in circles". The proof for God, I admitted, can't be presented and but given a logical explanation of it from the overall perspective of faith that I believe in. On the same note, I did ask you to present the evidence of "no God". In the absence of such a proof, that I know as well, I am yet to hear any arguement from you to logically connect with over all concepts of what you believe. Secondly, I have given logical arguments of what I believe as how faith and morality are logically connected with each other. If you have anything to differ or any other view, kindly put forward and we all shall discuss it rationally.

In the end, I failed to understand as when did I ever say that morality can't be improved. On the contrary, I have been giving you the examples from since the era of homo-Sapiens the development of morality among humans. However, its hard to imagine as what tools do you provide, without the aid of faith, to improve upon the "morality"?

This all goes back to belief...

I can't prove God doesnt exist, you can't prove God does exist.. so by that very token it is impossible to say that we can only have morals because of faith.  What does exist is the fact that man is essentially good.  Mothers look after thier children out of love, thats instinct, logic and emotion..

As I have said before, one of us is right, and one of us is wrong or we could both be wrong... this is an unanswerable question, all there can be is belief and disbelief.

It's one big circle.

AhmadJoyia wrote: Thanks sis ketchup. No hard feelings.  I guess, I have provided what all can be said from my side. Let the readers of this forum make up their own mind. Similarly, its upto you, your own human intellect to understand. No compulsion in faith. BTW, in the absence of evidence, I can safely call "no faith" as also a faith. Am I wrong? Best wishes for every one on this thread. Peace.

No taken, this has certainly been an eye openner for me and has certainly had me "thinking" over a few issues. Many thanks for giving me a chance.  It's a shame that all I can give you is "hunches" with no hard facts... the burden of proof for this one unfortunately in my opinion is unobtainable.

Theres no reason why no faith can't be a faith, it's still a belief even if there's not a god in it.

I'm not sure if this linky would interest you... Science-based theories of religion is my way of thinking.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm - http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm

No disrespect meant when I question religion as a whole...

Peace.

Ahmad,

"Now this is strange. I have presented you the logical arguments as how I believe as what I believe." I have no argument with what you 'believe', but you have NT presented logical arguments. Instead of refuting those arguments logically, I have been labled as "going round in circles". The proof for God, I admitted, can't be presented and (but?) given a logical explanation of it from the overall perspective of faith that I believe in. If you are saying that you have given an explanation from the perspective of 'faith', fine, but that is not "logic" it is belief only ="faith". On the same note, I did ask you to present the evidence of "no God". If a person tells me that elements exist which are not on the periodic table of elements, I will ask them to prove there existence of this new element that have been discovered. I am under no obligation to present evidence that proves those elements do not exist. Logic,science and rationalism demands that if you want me to believe something you must prove it. Otherwise it is 'faith' and only 'faith', not logic. It is you who do not believe that everything is material (which is fine with me) but because you can not prove it and  I have no evidence of my own, I don't accept your 'non-belief' in the material world.

I know as well, I am yet to hear any argument from you to logically connect with over all concepts of what you believe. I began exactly such an explanation, but you have ignored it. Check my discussion of 'materialism'.Secondly, I have given logical arguments of what I believe as how faith and morality are logically connected with each other. If you have anything to differ or any other view, kindly put forward and we all shall discuss it rationally. Why are you not content with your 'faith' as faith which I assume gives you purpose and comfort. Why do you feel the need to anchor it or place it in the language of objective, materialism.

In the end, I failed to understand as when did I ever say that morality can't be improved. You say it can't be improved by man without an element that you can,t prove the existence of.

"On the contrary, I have been giving you the examples from since the era of homo-Sapiens the development of morality among humans. However, its hard to imagine as what tools do you provide, without the aid of faith,to improve upon the "morality"? EXACTLY!!! Just because it is "hard" for you to "imagine," without the aid of "faith" it is not hard for everyone.

Please look at my previous posts and I will be happy to talk again.

Best wishes Tim

Thanks for the link.

ketchup wrote: Science-based theories of religion is my way of thinking.

Ahmad,

[QUOTE=AhmadJoyia]Dear Tim thanks for your analysis of my comments though, they are merely refreshing of the same old discussion of "existance/non existance of God". It is fallacy of materialism to assume that science is the end of the story. As I have already argued, science itself is an un-ending process of human intellect, hence incomplete. Do you disagree with this?"                 No, I don't and I don't know anyone who dose.

"If not, then it is even a bigger fallacy to live only in a materialistic world with incomplete understanding." But that is the nature of our existence, the struggle for ever more understanding by survival and development. Understanding is always incomplete for the individual and can only be resolved through co-operation in our struggle with nature of which we are a part. It is not inevitable for people to always be in competition with each other. Necessity for survival will make irrational competition redundant, that, or we we all vanish together.  "Matters of "life" and "death" are the realities of this life, which science is yet to discover about. How long shall it take to do that, no one knows. Would it ever be discovered? No one can say anything about it. For me, as an individual with totally insignificant life span as compared with the creation of this life (by any standards)," Exactly, you "as an individual..." What about us collectively? We have a social existence which helps us to transcend the "insignificant life span" We are the only creature that makes its own history, individually and collectively. But not in conditions we chose.             "I am not willing to surrender to the materialistic approach only. If you like, you can read my personal story posted above." My position is: "a reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but through an analysis of mystic consciousness which is unclear to itself, be it religious or political." consciousness is unclear because it is constantly changing with all other matter." We will need to grasp this socially/co-operatively.

Best wishes Tim  

Dear Ahmed Joya!

Indeed a wonderful post and Logic. It is a truth that there can be no proof or physical evidence offered for the existence of God. It is futuile to argue with the students of Philosphy and reason. The most influential Phliospher of the 20th century Kant logically refuted all the reasons which were previously given for the existance of God. Probably in his work "Critique of Pure Reason".

But after some time in his work "Analysis of Practical Reason" he admitted that without the concept of God human existance is incomplete. He even said that even if there is no God we have to devise a one inorder to keep the concept of morality "Alive".

If such a renound Philospher can come to this conclusion it will require a lot of time and thinking for the ordinary atheist or agnostic to come to this point.

Logic and reason can only lead to skepticism or Agnosticism. That is why it is said in :

2: 2.  This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).
3.  Those who (are ready to) believe in the unseen (which is beyond Human Preception) and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.
4.  And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.
5.  These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful.
6.  Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.
7.  Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them.
18. Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back (from their denial).
Shams Zaman

Shams Zaman wrote: Dear Ahmed Joya! Indeed a wonderful post and Logic. It is a truth that there can be no proof or physical evidence offered for the existence of God. It is futuile to argue with the students of Philosphy and reason. The most influential Phliospher of the 20th century Kant logically refuted all the reasons which were previously given for the existance of God. Probably in his work "Critique of Pure Reason". But after some time in his work "Analysis of Practical Reason" he admitted that without the concept of God human existance is incomplete. He even said that even if there is no God we have to devise a one inorder to keep the concept of morality "Alive". If such a renound Philospher can come to this conclusion it will require a lot of time and thinking for the ordinary atheist or agnostic to come to this point. Logic and reason can only lead to skepticism or Agnosticism. That is why it is said in : 2: 2.  This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil). 3.  Those who (are ready to) believe in the unseen (which is beyond Human Preception) and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them. 4.  And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter. 5.  These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful. 6.  Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. 7.  Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them. 18. Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back (from their denial). Shams Zaman

Shams Zaman

1) Kant was superseded by Hegel and Marx

2)  Is point seven in your list a theological confirmation of 'determinism? 

3) The point of this debate from my position was to develop theory about the religious tendency to leave the poor individual powerless against the wealthy.

Thank you for your contributions.

Best wishes Tim

Bro Shams, thanks for your comments, though I am not worth mentioning at all.

Bro Tim, I think, its negative to get allergic with word "dogma". An open minded person, like you, shall not neglect them without giving them their due share of analysis. Sifting through them rationally and logically. Let me give you an example. Just imagine that in your own search when you say ""a reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but through an analysis of mystic consciousness which is unclear to itself, be it religious or political." ", let us say, you become lucky in finding your own reality, a truth through your own 'mystic consiousness', as you say. Won't you share it with others, for you already said "We will need to grasp this socially/co-operatively"? If yes, then don't you think that for others, it would still be "doctrine"; and, if taken literally may become yet another "dogma" anothe "religion"? Can you ever provide them the "scientific proof" of your mystic experience? Think about it.

Human development has always been through the inspirational work of individuals taken as role models by others. These individuals are the great scientist, may thay be of philosopy (science or ideas), socialology, or the morality. Their ideas are carried by someone to reflect upon his own individual's success. When done collectively, we call it an awaken nation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the working mechanism always remain the "core principles" of these handfull of scientists. Things become "dogma", and hence here when the problem begin to enter, when the issues of "literalism" come into these principles. When these principles are not valued through rationalistic understanding but through symbolic literalism, then emotions play dominant role than the actual understanding of the principles. More troubling, when other politic-socio-economic influences also start playing their role.   

Ahmad, It would always have been an absolute impossibility for the 'individual' thinkers leaders or whatever to have functioned without the entire product of 'social' co-operation of one sort or another.

I am not just talking about basic things like pen and parchment, as important as they have been. I talking about the 'higher' developments of language and thought that proceeds the high points of development, including religion, philosophy, etc. I do not think that ideas spring from the heads of people. First there are the 'external' influences, including all social influences of that are created prior to the thought which all of us have always had to struggle with. I am not sure about the Muslim tradition, but the Bible begins with the 'word' "which was made flesh".  I now believe that this is an inversion of reality. First was the flesh = material world, then came the word and the idea. If you wish to withdraw from this debate I will not feel offended. And you are welcome to make the last contribution.

Best wishes Tim

Tim Evans wrote: I do not think that ideas spring from the heads of people.

Why not?  Mary Kelly wrote Frankenstein based on a nightmare she had.  This could, obviously apply to any writer ahead of thier time.  So why can't ideas come from the minds of man?  Regardless of subject matter....

Tim wrote: I am not sure about the Muslim tradition, but the Bible begins with the 'word' "which was made flesh".  I now believe that this is an inversion of reality. First was the flesh = material world, then came the word and the idea.

Tim wrote:  If you wish to withdraw from this debate I will not feel offended. And you are welcome to make the last contribution.

I think this a polite way of saying "shut up and let others also speak". So I agree. I quit from this thread. No hard feelings. Peace.

How arrogant is man - born of a despicable fluid he knew nothing when he was born, as he grew the ONE who showers countless blessings blessed him with intellect (which he will have only for a while) and now he thinks he is self sufficient - ungrateful is man and how foolish indeed....

Does he not reflect upon the countless miracles he sees around him every moment of the time? Yet he is delusional......pity, pity, pity...!!!!

May Allah guide everyone to the right path, Ameen!

Ketchup wrote: Tim Evans wrote: I do not think that ideas spring from the heads of people. Why not?  Mary Kelly wrote Frankenstein based on a nightmare she had.  This could, obviously apply to any writer ahead of thier time.  So why can't ideas come from the minds of man?  Regardless of subject matter....

How did the farcical concept, notion, of bringing the dead back to life, in one form or another, get into Mary (Kelly?) is it Shelly's? head. The themes love, ambition etc are re-workings, at a new level, as are all ideas. The raw material is experienced via the senses and possessed by the brain. Without the 'external' world including the complex and imperfectly understood self-conscious personal and social world, Mary and everyone can not have ideas that 'spring from their heads'. So, ideas begin and are part of the relationship between people,the world around them especially other people.

Tim Evans wrote: Ketchup wrote: Tim Evans wrote: I do not think that ideas spring from the heads of people. Why not?  Mary Kelly wrote Frankenstein based on a nightmare she had.  This could, obviously apply to any writer ahead of thier time.  So why can't ideas come from the minds of man?  Regardless of subject matter.... How did the farcical concept, notion, of bringing the dead back to life, in one form or another, get into Mary (Kelly?) is it Shelly's? head. The themes love, ambition etc are re-workings, at a new level, as are all ideas. The raw material is experienced via the senses and possessed by the brain. Without the 'external' world including the complex and imperfectly understood self-conscious personal and social world, Mary and everyone can not have ideas that 'spring from their heads'. So, ideas begin and are part of the relationship between people,the world around them especially other people.

That made no sense whatsover.

One thing that sets man apart from the animals is lateral thinking.

Tim Evans wrote: One of the important 'things' that sets man apart from the other animals, is the capacity to consciously make his own history by changing the world and himself, even if it is not under the conditions he would chose.

That blows this...

Tim Evans wrote: I do not think that ideas spring from the heads of people.

Right out of the window.

I find it difficult to accept that this is all predestined.  If everything is done  because of a strict set of rules that have been running from the beginning of time then there is no room for free thought or free will... it would make us no beter than robots.

First, I will admit to being a lurker, contenting myself to read other people's posts to broaden my own knowledge, and sometimes just for pure entertainment purposes.  However, I would like to share something that a wise person once pointed out to me, regarding Free Will and Predestination.

There is no doubt that God gave us Free Will.  We choose our actions on a minute-by-minute basis and must live with the consequences thereof, both short-term (in this life) and long-term (in the next life).  However, to assume that because God is all-knowing, and that Predistination cancels out Free Will, is to attribute human qualities to God, which is a real no-no.  By doing this, we are making the assumption that God knows the future.  In this assumption, we are assuming that God exists in the same one-way time-space continuum that we inhabit.  However, once you understand that God is omniscient and omnipresent, that He exists in a completely different realm that we human beings cannot possibly understand, it all becomes perfectly clear.  God knows all because He transcends time--past, present, and future.

Makes perfect sense.

Kate

Ketchup wrote: Tim Evans wrote: One of the important 'things' that sets man apart from the other animals, is the capacity to consciously make his own history by changing the world and himself, even if it is not under the conditions he would chose. That blows this... Tim Evans wrote: I do not think that ideas spring from the heads of people.   Right out of the window. I find it difficult to accept that this is all predestined.  If everything is done  because of a strict set of rules that have been running from the beginning of time then there is no room for free thought or free will... it would make us no beter than robots.

You have the floor. Please instruct us in your theory of cognition. You should be able to research it in short order on the net and pretend you have an original opinion. Imitation is the best form of flattery but plagiarism is just plagiarism.

Tim Evans wrote: Ketchup wrote: Tim Evans wrote: One of the important 'things' that sets man apart from the other animals, is the capacity to consciously make his own history by changing the world and himself, even if it is not under the conditions he would chose. That blows this... Tim Evans wrote: I do not think that ideas spring from the heads of people.   Right out of the window. I find it difficult to accept that this is all predestined.  If everything is done  because of a strict set of rules that have been running from the beginning of time then there is no room for free thought or free will... it would make us no beter than robots. You have the floor. Please instruct us in your theory of cognition. You should be able to research it in short order on the net and pretend you have an original opinion. Imitation is the best form of flattery but plagiarism is just plagiarism.

No need to get your knickers in a twist but I have to ask, how is this plagiarism?  All I'm doing is tapping out my thoughts infront of a monitor.