I knew that sooner or later I will write this article. Although I suspect that it's useless for the typical human being. I believe this will be the last article I write in a long time to come. It strikes me as humorous to see how the old generation tries to engrave their beliefs in their children's minds and how this usually succeeds, and how ridiculous those children are in engraving different beliefs in their heads as if they were any better than their parents. Yet they fight illogically for these beliefs as their parents fight illogically for theirs. And this cycle seems to continue forever.
It strikes me absurd how humans attach themselves to words that they cannot even begin to understand. Independence, a synonym of selfishness. Freedom, a synonym of irresponsibility. very glittery words that are meaningless. Why not attach yourself to words like sacrifice? truth? Which means following what is right no matter how difficult and inconvenient it is? It is sufficient for truth seekers that they seek truth, and that they are willing to accept the truth even if it destroys everything they have ever believed. But it seems that humans create a religion out of everything they come to believe, truth seekers don't.
I will end my series of articles with the article which states my justification for why I believe Islam is so justifiably certain to the extent it nears absolute certainty:
-
Divine revelation can't have many different versions. Muslims throughout the world read the same text. Yet protestants and catholics differ to what God's words actually are. Contrast the Qur'an with the thousands of biblical manuscripts where no two are identical. And what is more surprising is that the older the manuscript, the more it conforms to what the Qur'an has taught. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidence. I very much encourage you to read this article on the Comma Johanneum if you truly seek enlightenment. But I doubt that even truth could wipe centuries of lies. What is being discovered through manuscripts has been taught by the Qur'an centuries before.
يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا ﴿النساء: ١٧١﴾
Translates: "O people of the book, do not transgress in your religion and say about God nothing but the truth. Jesus the son of Marry is the prophet of God and his Word which he bestowed on Marry and a Spirit from him. So believe in God and his prophets and do not say 'Trinity'. Desist, it is better for you, God is only one God. Exalted is He from having a son, for Him is all that is in the heavens and on earth. And enough is He a Guardian".
- Divine revelation can't be for certain people or races, this contradicts the idea of God's justice. Both Islam, Christianity & Jewdism accept converts, although Jewdism doesn't encourage them. Any religion that claims guidance and righteousness to a specific race is logically flawed and unacceptable for me.
- Religion must be public, any people who claim their knowledge and wisdom is for them, or to specific individuals among them. And is to be kept secret from others also cast into doubt their own beliefs as truth is not to be kept secret, but publicly spread to all mankind to guide them aright.
- Divine revelation does not contradict science. When you find Christians like Dr. Keith Moore whose textbooks on embryology are the most selling textbooks worldwide and Dr. Maurice Bucaille vouching for Islam's scientific accuracy, while they remain Christians to this day, then you have to wonder why they do that. Christians have done a great job at bashing both of these scientists in every possible way for simply telling what they believed was the truth. Instead, why do people who ask others to believe in their beliefs find none from OTHER faiths vouching for them?
- Show me how many Islamic imams have converted to other faiths and creeds, no matter how unorthodox they are. Priests and preachers, the highest positions in Christian theology, are converting as they recognize Islam to be the truth. How many imams and Islamic leaders, not commoners, have you seen converting to other faiths? Hey, Don't take my word for it.
-
The Quran is a book of logic and reason, it clearly states the logic behind its arguments. How many religious books do you know of which has a verse saying:
وَمَن يَدْعُ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلٰهًا آخَرَ لَا بُرْهَانَ لَهُ بِهِ فَإِنَّمَا حِسَابُهُ عِندَ رَبِّهِ إِنَّهُ لَا يُفْلِحُ الْكَافِرُونَ ﴿المؤمنون: ١١٧﴾
Translates: "Whoever worships a deity besides Allah without proof of him, then his judgment is with his lord, the disbelievers will not prosper". It also shuns believing in what your parents and ancestors believed in blindly.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُوا حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ ﴿المائدة: ١٠٤﴾
Translates: "And if they are asked to follow what God has revealed and to follow the prophet, they say, enough for us what we found our fathers doing. Even if their fathers knew nothing and were not rightly guided?". Of course sunnis say this verse doesn't apply to them, shii's say it doesn't apply to them. But in fact, it applies to any human who takes the teachings of his parents and fathers without contemplation.
In philosophy, people who follow their own uncertain conjectures and doubts are basing their beliefs on shaky foundations. Doubt and uncertainty is not enough to thwart pure truth. Truth is what a human needs to base his beliefs on. This is also echoed in the Qur'an:
وَمَا يَتَّبِعُ أَكْثَرُهُمْ إِلَّا ظَنًّا إِنَّ الظَّنَّ لَا يُغْنِي مِنَ الْحَقِّ شَيْئًا إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ بِمَا يَفْعَلُونَ ﴿يونس: ٣٦﴾
Translated: "Most of them follow only conjectures, conjecture cannot replaces truth in any way, Allah knows well what they do".
- One of the most profound effect that lead me to believe in the Qur'an was studying other religious texts and manuscripts. The shepherd of Hermas, the OT, everything is like a spiral perfected in the Quran.
-
How could a human challenge people to come up with a verse like those in it? Have you ever tried to really sit down and write something similar? I have! Why do we humans trivialize things that are really astonishing? This is specially true for Arab speakers. Why is the Qur'an the only text in its genre? If it's simply a new literary genre not known before, then why aren't books similar being published? No human, since Muhammad's death, has been able to meet this challenge. Not only does it pose the challenge, but it prophecies that this challenge will never be broken.
وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِّن مِّثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا شُهَدَاءَكُم مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ ﴿٢٣﴾
فَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلُوا وَلَن تَفْعَلُوا فَاتَّقُوا النَّارَ الَّتِي وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَافِرِينَ ﴿٢٤﴾
Translates: "If you are in doubt of what we sent to our servant, then come with one suraa like those in it and ask your helpers besides Allah if you tell the truth. Yet if you do not - and you cannot - then avoid a fire fuled by men and stones prepared for the disbelievers"
I really wanted to elaborate on so many points. But the idea I want to portray is that my beliefs are very justifiably certain to a level that nears absolute certainty. Yet I never claim that I have reached absolute knowledge and I'm always searching for the truth. But truth that is backed by logic and reason. Not simply mimicking others like a parrot.
It seems that people who attack Islam have never even took to themselves to read the Qur'an as I have read their scriptures. I can outright point you to sites that take verses out of context to prove that the Quran teaches things it never does. The Quran calls humans to contemplate it and study it and decide for themselves. It takes a logically sound argument in its adoption.
أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا
Translates: "Will they not contemplate the Qur'an, if it has been sent from anyone other than Allah they would have found therein many contradictions". Also:
سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ ﴿فصلت: ٥٣﴾
Translates: "We will show them our signs in the horizons and in their own selves until it becomes evident to them that this is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord bears witness to everything?"
(Please enable the
(Please enable the <blockquote> tag.)
>
> Muslims throughout the world read the
> same text.
So? Jews too read their own "same text", the Torah, which consists of the same 304,805 letters throughout the world. Yet you won't say theirs is the true religion.
Interestingly, that's what wikipedia has to say about Islam's view of the Torah:
"[...] believe that this original revelation was modified (tahrif, literally meaning corrupted) over time by Jewish and [...]"
If the Torah was modified over time, how is it that you can find only one version of it?
A deception in such grand a scale would have required some coordination, planning, scheming. How is it that no trace of it is found in the Jewish literature?
And if the Jews managed to do such a perfect work of deception, why should we reject the possibility that the Qur'an underwent the same process?
>
> It seems that people who attack Islam have
> never even took to themselves to read the
> Qur'an as I have read their scriptures.
I think you're wrong here.
To know a religion we don't need to look at its scriptures. It's at its followers that we need to look.
>
> Divine revelation can't be for certain people [...]
What revelation?
The Islamic one? It was made to a certain man only: Muhammad. No witnesses. It was unlike the other revelation, which was felt over the whole world, and which is therefore closer to your ideal.
>
> http://www.watchislam.com/videos/video.php?vid=3
Thanks for the link. I sat through all of it. It was a good show.
What's better, Christianity or Islam? That's a difficult question. The first is idolatry. The second isn't. Yet I know that if you poll the crowd sitting on those blue plastic chairs in that video, most wouldn't want me alive. So I prefer idolatry.
So? Jews too read their own
I wouldn't totally agree with that, the documentary hypothesis which is almost unanimously accepted by text critics says otherwise, check it out.
Or perhaps check out the article on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I quote from it
It's nice to know they don't considerably differ, but they do differ. Which one is the inspired? The one currently present today or the differing dead sea scrolls? To be fair, the Sana Manuscripts are proving to be the first historical challenge ever to the Quran, but without a scholarly study of the findings, they remain to be very questionable with some citing the sana manuscripts as pro quran's divine origns and others quoting the same manuscripts as deviating from the current text. The truth on this will clear out with time.
Followers at which day and age? Intelligent Christians today or Christians of the dark ages who prosecuted scientists and did witch hunts? Muslims of Islam's golden age or pathetic Muslims of the current age? Orthodox Christians or liberal ones? It is perhaps the most rejected thought to judge a religion by its followers. There is, in the end, a clear scripture. If you so find a scripture logical, ethical and compelling to you, when everyone who claims to follow it is contradicting it, then you judge that the religion is sound and the problem is with the people. Evidently, I'm totally against judging a religion by its followers, especially that followers of religions like Christianity almost reflect nothing inside their scriptures. I'm open to show you examples if you like.
And who witnessed the revelations of the Torah or the Gospels? And why does revelation to one man seem like a negative to you? It is only logical that God's revelation to a prophet would only be to him. Then you have only one person to scrutinize. Either acknowledge or reject. Islam's influence all over the world is truly felt, despite the fact that it may not be well known. Check out the article on Islam's Golden Age to see for yourself.
Have you ever tried to poll what the Quran thinks of you? If I were to judge Islam by what many Muslims do then I would have long rejected it, but I judge it by what its divine book says. As I judge Christianity by its scriptures, which, thank God, are almost never followed by people who call themselves Christians.
Hello, I enjoyed reading
Hello,
I enjoyed reading your article because it's written in a civilized way!
However, I humbly have to say that your article doesn't differ much from other apologies when it comes to understanding the Christian faith and it's perception of the Bible (The Book) and to Divine Revelation.
1- Christians do not look at the Bible as Muslims look at the Quran. Thus it will be very misleading to look at the Bible the same way you look at the Quran.
1.1 - The revelation for us is Jesus Christ. To avoid entering in pre 451 A.D debates about the nature of Jesus, I will simple tell you that Catholics and Protestants along with Greek Orthodox believe that Jesus is GOD and man at the same time! Which is a blasphemy for Muslims by the way, and I respect that given that you respect our fundamental belief. To make a long story short, you can say that the Holy Bible is the Historical record of the revelation. Some people may find my definition very simple, but it's good to make you understand my point.
1.2 - Revelation for Muslims is the Quran (please do correct me if I am wrong!) For Muslims the Quran has been given by God to Muhammed via the angel Gabriel. Thus, for Muslims of course, the Quran is final and indisputable Word of God. Believe it or not, this is a blasphemy for Christians :).
Conclusion - Based on 1.1, Christians' beliefs, what has been mentioned in 1.2, Muslims' belief, is not acceptable and VICE VERSA!:)
I am sorry if my answer was long. We can write a lot about this subject.....
Peace be upon you
Thanks for sharing. Perhaps
Thanks for sharing. Perhaps what you say is true, but still, there must be some source that Christians derive their creeds and beliefs from, and if this is not the bible, then what is it?
The first point in my article shows how the words in the bible have been changed to emphasize creeds that no other verses explicitly supported. And perhaps the even more saddening fact is that Christians still resist its removal which shows how so many do not care for truth. On the other hand, as difficult as it was for me, I do reject many of the orthodox Muslim beliefs because I find that to follow the truth is so much more important than to cling to what my family has taught me. It was very difficult to really disregard things that I had been taught were so indisputable and infallible, but I would rather stand in front of God and tell him that when everyone was mimicking I was searching for my own answers. Searching for the truth as he has commanded.
What I'm stating is not new found discovery, I strongly urge you to read this article on Isaac Newton's religious views.
May God's peace and guidance be upon us all.
Why do people search for
Why do people search for truth and believe in god (no matter what god)? I think It's because of fear of diseases and desire for prosperity and happiness. No one wants to suffer. This is what all religions stand on. Major religions offer a human to make a deal (blackmail)- you won't enter the gates of paradise if you don't ... <- complete it in accordance to a religion. Any religion is just a part of human world and it plays some its role... But the world stays as it is and will do further. Truth, lie - important components of human society - they're needed for life to keep going. Human society is a live organism which has a balanced mechanism for searching for truth and making lie - not every lie is evil, and not every truth is good. Every religion is governed by a human being, thus it is a replication, a product of human nature, human being activity. But a human being is sinful, so the conclusion is ...
I cannot agree with that
I cannot agree with that totally. Because philosophically, this is an assumption regarding religions that is guilty of generalization. Any claim in the world deserves to be taken without prior assumptions on its validity or invalidity before a conclusion is to be reached. The more neutral way is to begin with no assumption that a religion is or is not a byproduct of human thought, because such an assumption is impossible to validate and building on it is building on an unproven assumption, namely, that religions are all a result of human endeavors.
Why do people search for truth and believe in God? The real question would be, why take the quite tempting assumption that no God exists as for granted? I'm not arguing for or against religions, but I'm simply against creating assumptions for or against a specific religion without proper study. Each individual piece of knowledge in this world needs to be validated on its own. Humans cannot rid themselves of previous assumptions, this is true, but they could minimize them to as much as humanly possible, I try to reach the limit in this by not allowing an unproven idea to affect my reasoning, how well I have done that is open for debate.
If you'd like, please read The forgotten path, Memories and if you may The power of certainty.
I have tried to pose what I think are things that distinguish Islam from all other religions on earth, things that simply need to bring the human mind to the inevitable question, why is Islam so different than any other religion in this regard? Islam is by far one of the most restrictive religions I know of, yet as with all human ethical systems, it is tempting to disregard truth in favor of what one desires even if that means creating an invalidated assumption and considering it an inerrant fact. Perhaps these two verses in the Quran are very descriptive indeed:
"Or do they say: he is possessed (the prophet). No, he has brought them the truth, but most of them hate the truth, and if the truth had followed their desires then the heavens and the earth and all that is in them would have become corrupt, we have brought them their scripture, yet they turn away from their scripture" 23:70-71
about the first point..
about the first point.. reading the same text. i don't think it's a very good point. it could apply to just about any book. Including Harry Potter. Or lord of the rings. or an mp3 file of a song. that there are many exact copies of something does not add to its truthfulness.
The science point is also pretty shaky.. Science changes. The Quranic text would have to keep shape-shifting all the time to keep up with that.
The conversion to other religions.. well.. muslims don't make it exactly easy on people who convert from islam. You know.. the murtadd thingie, etc..
Truth with a capital T has been used and abused to do so much harm.
Maybe you need that certainty.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts..
Well, scriptures are
Well, scriptures are commonly regarded as evolving text that evolved over time, thousands of manuscripts of the bible, no two identical have been discovered, advocating that the bible has been revised and edited over time to endorse certain beliefs and diminish others. The link in my first point is a very clear and enlightening proof of that.
The Quran, on the other hand, is a dilemma in this regard, there are no manuscripts that differ from each other suggesting evolution over time. Although the sanaa manuscripts are the latest attempt to prove that the Quran, like any other human work, has evolved over time and has not just appeared out of the blue. Yet I have two objections to the sanaa manuscripts, Dr. Puin works from the common oriental assumption that the Quran is simply a human work.
This is very evident in the last quote in the article I pointed to:
"So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Qur'an is Allah's unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Qur'an has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Qur'an has a history too. The Sana'a fragments will help us accomplish this."
Why does Dr. Puin say that this will help us prove that the Quran has a history rather than saying that by examining these manuscripts we will discover weather the Quran has a history or not? This, unfortunately, is an indicator that he has prior unvalidated assumptions that he holds to. I try not to assume the Quran's divinity or its human origins as this assumption is simply impossible to validate. The other is that the conclusions of the sanaa manuscript research has not been yet been fully published, you find Muslims quoting it as a proof of Islam's divinity and Christians quoting it as a proof of Islam's human origin. Usually when I see this in arguments using the same source, I simply disregard it until true results by the researchers are revealed. A book, I understood, by Dr. Puin is currently being written on this subject.
The science argument stands, as some knowledge reaches a level called fact rather than theory. For example, it is a fact that genes exist. Taking the stance of nothing can be certain is called Philosophical Skepticism and I have replied to it in my article The power of certainty.
The conversion from Islam to other religions, although religiously banned in sunni faith as "murtad", is in truth nonpunishable by any law today, so any Muslim is really free to change his religion, yet as I have stated, Muslim clerics or sheikhs are not changing religions, no matter how unorthodox their beliefs are. Christian priests and preachers are. You are very very encouraged to watch the movie I linked to because it is simply highly thought provoking. I must say that the "murtad" law in itself is not even endorsed by all Muslims, I personally reject it, not out of mere personal desire, but out of doubt as to its origins in Islamic history.
Hope you find my reply genuine and enlightening :)
It's about time we drop
It's about time we drop religion altogether and adhere to its tenets. Love God and each other with all our heart, body, mind, and soul. Treat each other well.
Religion serves to separate us, whereas spirituality brings us together. Your time here on earth will not be judged by your faith, but what you have done for the benefit of this planet and all its inhabitants.
Peace be with you,
B
Yes, I believe that some
Yes, I believe that some religions and some understanding of certain religions separate humans from each other. But I genuinely believe that Islam does not. This is from my own study of Islam, not my mere desire that it would be like that. Like any idea on earth, Islam has the abstract and pure idea that I try to reach, and humans' perverted interpretations of these ideas that more than once caused suffering and destruction.
As to what people have done for this planet and its inhabitants, what you say is true, but lacking. There are humans born with disabilities and others born in places where they can simply never have the chance to contribute to this world's progress. I believe that Islam is a trigger for innovation, but I believe that we will be judged by faith, because this is the only thing that is attainable by all humans. True Islam is a trigger for innovation and kindness towards mankind. Checkout this encyclopedia article on Islam's golden age.
Post new comment