~ From Islam To Atheism Back To Islam Again

[Mayana]

So you're implying that we're asking whom for forgiveness in Islam?

[Dust]

Please easyyyy on the discussion here. I've been up for 16 hours, at school for 11 hours. My brain is functioning even less then usual. lol

1. They have either been altered (e.g. Judaism, Christianity), don't make sense to me (polytheistic religions), are not just (Zoroastrianism [there's no concept of hell, human beings are taken to be smart enough to realize they commited mistakes and that's enough of a punishment =/ ] ), are man-made (scientology lol)
2. Because I do not see a single flaw in it, it his flawless; I can hold the miracle of the prophet sas in my hands right now - the Qur'an, and find answers to EVERY possible issue in the Qur'an and Sunnah.
3. 9821026212
4. That leads me back to my previous statement: Study Islam, not Muslims. The creation is flawed, the creator is flawless.

Our whole discussion stemmed from the "the right path has being made distinct from the false." To which you stated that it is "clearly" drawn. So far, you've had to demonstrate what that means. Therefore, it is not "clearly" drawn. If it was, there would not be so much chaos within Islam today.

[Dust]

So you're implying that we're asking whom for forgiveness in Islam?

It is parallel system: without the interpretation of the clergy, in Islam, you cannot accept a certain hadith or reject a certain hadith. Without hadith you cannot interpret the Quran. Therefore, you are stuck, just like the Catholics. So, it is only with the blessing of the clergy that you can interpret what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, it has not been made distinct. Unless, you can present another option.

[Mayana]

Our whole discussion stemmed from the "the right path has being made distinct from the false." To which you stated that it is "clearly" drawn. So far, you've had to demonstrate what that means. Therefore, it is not "clearly" drawn. If it was, there would not be so much chaos within Islam today.

It still is very clear to me.
When I tell you milk is white and you ask what 'white' is, it is difficult to define something so basic, that is why it is difficult for me in my limited capabilities to explain something to you that is very vivid and obvious to me. I apologize if I confused you or caused any chaos..

It is parallel system: without the interpretation of the clergy, in Islam, you cannot accept a certain hadith or reject a certain hadith. Without hadith you cannot interpret the Quran. Therefore, you are stuck, just like the Catholics. So, it is only with the blessing of the clergy that you can interpret what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, it has not been made distinct. Unless, you can present another option.

In Islam, you don't ask clerics for forgiveness.
In Islam, you follow the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the prophet.. Of course you can study all that on your own but it is permissible to rely on scholars who have devout their lives to studying these matters. You don't have to, you make a choice.

[Dust]

Milk being white or not is not that hard to distinguish. Your analogy was not a good.

Don't forget that today there are Atheists who accept Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. We have Muslims who are becoming Atheists or we have Christians who are becoming Atheists. There is a mixture of everything. So, it is not as easy as your milk analogy.

Further, you don't physically ask forgiveness from an Islam cleric however, without his interpretation your self-study cannot happen. Here allow me to demonstrate: What makes a Sunni different from a Shia?

[Mayana]

A Shi'a believes that Ali (ra) was the caliph after the prophet (sas), Sunnis believe the first caliph was Abu Bakr (ra).

You are jumping from topic to topic too, first you asked a question regarding theology as a whole and not in regards of Islam in particular, then you took my answer and applied it to Islam and now you are asking about denominations of Islam. You are now discussing in detail and still referring to my initial answer that was a general statement. =/

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Please easyyyy on the discussion here. I've been up for 16 hours, at school for 11 hours. My brain is functioning even less then usual. lol

It's okay, you can take your time to reply, there's no urgency, dearest sister. /MWMN

[Mayana]

Hmmm. You got me thinking, halaka.

I'll get back at you on this one.

[Dust]

A Shi'a believes that Ali (ra) was the caliph after the prophet (sas), Sunnis believe the first caliph was Abu Bakr (ra).

You are jumping from topic to topic too, first you asked a question regarding theology as a whole and not in regards of Islam in particular, then you took my answer and applied it to Islam and now you are asking about denominations of Islam. You are now discussing in detail and still referring to my initial answer that was a general statement. =/

Actually, we are still talking about the same topic. We are not jumping.

What we have done so far is to demonstrate that it does not boil down to the "right path" being "clearly" drawn. A lot of thinking is required.

If we simply take this simple difference between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam we could see that if one was to reject the first three caliphs they are Hell bound and if one was to accept the first three caliphs you are Hell bound.

It is the same incident of the Iran-Iraq war. They each declared their dead martyrs.

As such, the "right path" has not been drawn "clearly." As such, someone on the Day of Judgment can say to God, if He exists: "There was no sufficient evidence that you existed for everyone was murdering in your name."

[BehavedMaseed]

It's okay, you can take your time to reply, there's no urgency, dearest sister. /MWMN



But they've been altered according to you and the only evidence you have for this is your Holy Book, which again, is not very objective according to those who have been accused of being misled. The Jews say that their Hebrew Tanakh are as authentic now as they were 3,000 years ago. Also, why did it take God three altered books to finally say that, "okay, this fourth book will not be altered, I decree it!"?

If Zoroastrianism doesn't have a concept of hell, how can you automatically qualify it as false? Have you seen hell? You didn't reject Zoroastrianism on very objective grounds, unfortunately...

The Scientology bit reminds me of something very interesting. A bunch of Star Wars nerds wanted the Star Wars religion of Jedis, the Force and what not to be registered as an official religion. They high-ups said that their religion is obviously false and man-made. However, what if all other religions were scrutinized like this? Aren't all religions started by men who claim to have divine communication? Why are old religions authentic and new ones false? Is it because during the old times, people didn't have the intellectual or scientific know-how to refute the claims of holy men as they do now?




But there are many scientific flaws in the Quran and Sunnah which need paragraphs upon paragraphs of truth-bending to be explained in accordance with what we know now. That's probably the main thing that convinced me that Islam man-made just like the rest of the religions. I objectively studied each unscientific reference in the Quran and Sunnah and I realized that an obviously divine book wouldn't get it wrong so often and wouldn't need tonnes of explanation. The Quran and Sunnah also contradict themselves and one another on many occasions.




The old lady who picked up said that Gulbadan Khan Durrani doesn't live here.





I've studied Islam a lot. I was Sangar around 5-6 years ago. I was Sangar for a year. I didn't have a beard but I was just as aggressive as he is now. I'd make Takfeer on people everyday. I'd argue on the lunch table that people's hands should be chopped off because not doing so goes directly against the Quran and going against the Quran deliberately makes us Murtid. I'm not kidding. I still have my Islamic book collection in my shelf, which include two biographies of Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab.

Islam is anything but flawless, if seen objectively. However, nowadays, people feel very sentimentally about their faith. For example, they are seriously moved when they're told in class about the greatness of their religion, the sacrifices of the Sahaba, the piety of the Rashideen Khalifas, how Usman's beard used to be soaked with tears, how Hussain sacrificed himself and his family for the sake of Allah, etc, etc... Religion is close to their heart and they just can't see it objectively. They are very emotional. So when I spew my atheistic poison around, they automatically read and reject all I have to say. It's like an automated process. I'm evil so everything from me is evil.

You see Nobody is saying Relgion should be banned. We just saying that Relgion should not interfear in Politics or how the Pashtun Nation is run.

Relgion divides people and turns good people violent. Remember the Cartoons? The west knows how to stir Muslim Emotions and make a mockery of them but they dont do it because they feel sorry for Muslims and avoid their "Conquer Europe" "take danish women as war booty" Protests outside danish embassies in europe.

In the case of Pashtuns, Islam is used by Radicalist groups such as taliban and alqueda for a Political and power agenda, Alqueda recently are promoting the whole black flags of khorrsan non sense into the minds of vulnerable Afghans, they tell them that Afghanistan is where the army of black flags will arise just to gain support from the gulable and innocent Afghan public for their POLITICAL jihad against the West.

Its no wonder people such as Sangar stated on another thread that our Pashtun region should be renamed as Khorrasan. You can see how the Arabisation has influenced our Pashtun Nation.

We sit there crying for Arabs in yeman, Palestine and how we could help them while we are topped one of the worldst most poorest,under developed, terrorised nation on the whole Planet, yet we insult and call for the killings of our intellectual community, our schools are bombed and our future is destroyed.

Relgion has played a big role in the destruction of our Nation. When Afghanistan was progressing into a successful modern state, the Mullah aka Peshawer seven joined hands with Socialist Shias such as Bhutto to overthrow and destroy Afghanistan. These people dont want Pashtun Unity, they want Arab Unity and to make sure Arabs are strong and powerful.

Doesnt ever bother you why there has been absolutely no fatwa or decree calling for the Killing of Dubai Arabs and Sheiks who harbour Prostitutes from Russia, and the selling of Alcohol? you ever seen a single protest around the world condeming sucide bombing?

Kind Regards

[Mayana]

Actually, we are still talking about the same topic. We are not jumping.

What we have done so far is to demonstrate that it does not boil down to the "right path" being "clearly" drawn. A lot of thinking is required.

If we simply take this simple difference between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam we could see that if one was to reject the first three caliphs they are Hell bound and if one was to accept the first three caliphs you are Hell bound.

It is the same incident of the Iran-Iraq war. They each declared their dead martyrs.

As such, the "right path" has not been drawn "clearly." As such, someone on the Day of Judgment can say to God, if He exists: "There was no sufficient evidence that you existed for everyone was murdering in your name."

If I murder in your name.. does that make you bad?
If you have clearly told everyone not to kill, not to harm one another and people still explicitly do what you've told them not to, does that make you guilty? Or is it their shortcoming..?

There is more than sufficient evidence and I have addressed that in the first replies, e.g. big bang theory, nature, equal number of atoms etc. All this should serve as enough evidence that there is a creator. What way you choose to your creator is a different story. Are you talking about belief in God or Islam in particular and it's denominations?

[Dust]

If I murder in your name.. does that make you bad?
If you have clearly told everyone not to kill, not to harm one another and people still explicitly do what you've told them not to, does that make you guilty? Or is it their shortcoming..?

There is more than sufficient evidence and I have addressed that in the first replies, e.g. big bang theory, nature, equal number of atoms etc. All this should serve as enough evidence that there is a creator. What way you choose to your creator is a different story. Are you talking about belief in God or Islam in particular and it's denominations?

Our discussion is about the "right path" being drawn "clearly."

My argument is that it is not.

Your argument of the " big bang theory, nature, equal number of atoms etc." does not play a role because all other religions also preach that God exists. Therefore, if we go based on this explanation of yours to prove the existence of God, then it should not matter what religion you follow, for all religions preach that God exists.

However it is deeper than that. Otherwise, there would not be bloodshed. Hence, the different denominations would present their "version" of truth differently.

Just to recap what I am saying: If God exists then someone can easily say that there was no sufficient evidence of His existence and should not be punished. That is why I asked if there is another option by which we can look at this dilemma of the defender against the plaintiff?


What you are saying is that Islam is correct and is it like identifying that milk is white. I am saying no it is not.

[Mayana]

Your argument of the " big bang theory, nature, equal number of atoms etc." does not play a role because all other religions also preach that God exists.

Here.

Here is where the miscommunication happened.

You asked how God can put people into hell for not believing in Him when there is no evidence of His existence (sorry I don't remember your exact words..). I stated that the right path (evidence of His existence, belief in God) has been clearly distinguished from the wrong path. That's it, Islam doesn't even come in at that point. My initial argument was about believing in God vs. not believing in God and not Islam vs all other religions. And of course.. all/most religions teach the existence of God.

[Dust]

Here.

Here is where the miscommunication happened.

You asked how God can put people into hell for not believing in Him when there is no evidence of His existence (sorry I don't remember your exact words..). I stated that the right path (evidence of His existence, belief in God) has been clearly distinguished from the wrong path. That's it, Islam doesn't even come in at that point. My initial argument was about believing in God vs. not believing in God and not Islam vs all other religions. And of course.. all/most religions teach the existence of God.

However, your second video promoted Islam. The "right path" is not distinct for one still has to choose which God.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Dust, faith is belief. It is not based on empirical evidence like in natural science.

And if you disbelieve, then it means your heart is not pure. You have bad intentions. This is why you are misguided and led astray.

But people with a soft and clean heart are guided by allah and led to Islam.

If it is too difficult for you to accept or believe in, then its fine. Go and be a disbeliever.

Disbelievers will burn in hell eternally. This is what we believe. You might not believe that, its entirely up to you.

Dont expect religion to fit into your criteria in order for you to accept it.