Religious Debate Thread

[Nurann]

Lilith? This Lilith?

(vague but mature biblical references: be warned.)
http://www.awakenedwoman.com/lilith.htm
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/ ... habet.html

Wait, so she didn't like being told she was inferior, left, and women are considered sinful because of this? 'Scuse me, but if that's the case then I'm going back to my corner with my little Diana flag now. -_-*

[Rakshash]

Not one that I've come across in the past 5 years. There are so many different groups and traditions and whatever, somebody might have something though. I get the feeling that a biblical-level apocolypse would be generally counter-productive to Everyone, but then again, nature being creative and destructive, neither good nor evil, I suppose the End of the World (biblical style) could be possible if the Lord and Lady felt so inclined. I just haven't heard any arguments as to why They would.

Hmm. Because so often all the potential world ending natural disasters that lie ahead are translated as being a kind of a dooms day which most cultures predict. But I can see how that wouldn't work out in a cyclic setting.

I just think this is a contradiction, seeming that God is credited as creating the universe ex nihilo, and if He was truly all powerful, then there'd be no need to take his time, as He'd be able to create the best possible world with instant ease, since God is wholly good.

I was thinking...nothing fully mature in this world springs into itself fully formed. Babies are really very faulty (alebit adorable) creatures, and its only after years and years that a full fledged productive adult comes into being. The world could be viewed like that...

The reason why there wasn't a 'Daughter of God' was because women were so inferior during Jesus' stay here in Earth.

I'm curious about a historical aspect. Were women crucified like Jesus was? An argument for why Jesus was not a woman could be that the Romans wouldn't have killed him the way they did. I have a feeling they had different ways of punishing women, enslaving them and such. Does anyone know? I'm not a Christian but I think its an interesting argument.

[artemis-lady-warrior]

I couldn't tell you, but I don't think God would have wanted his child "taken advantage of" that way. That always seems to be the fate of women before they are actually killed. It's disgusting and degrading. We're not s** toys fir crying out loud!

[7Knight-Wolf]

Back to creation - I'm assuming you interpret the Bible literally then?

I just think this is a contradiction, seeming that God is credited as creating the universe ex nihilo, and if He was truly all powerful, then there'd be no need to take his time, as He'd be able to create the best possible world with instant ease, since God is wholly good.

On a further note - there's two creation stories in the Bible. The fact that Eve was created out of Adam's rib just doesn't quite seem to be equal to me. Almost as if her creation was an afterthought, as she was made as God noticed Adam had no 'suitiable companion'.

Yes, I do interpret the Bible literally.

Like I said, I don't know why God created the world in a week. As humans I really don't think we CAN know what goes through God's head...

God plans out everything in advance. To say that God created Eve as an afterthought is like saying any one of us could be an afterthought just because we were created later. And remember, God doesn't care about who comes first or who comes last. The Bible says that the last will be honored just as much as the first in his kingdom.

[7Knight-Wolf]

The reason why there wasn't a 'Daughter of God' was because women were so inferior during Jesus' stay here in Earth.

Gotta disagree there. It's true that women were treated as inferiors, of course. But Jesus never once compromised with the insane ideas of this world. Jesus was a rebel who went against every preconcieved notion the Disciples had. If he had wanted to be a woman, he would have been so.

If you read Jesus' conversations with women in the Bible, you'll see that he treats them with the same respect he treats everybody. It's really amazing.

[Sinead]

I've heard of the Lilith theory, and I find it to be completely unsupported. I read the first few chapters of the Jewish Tanakh, which is their Bible, and I found nothing in there of Lilith. However, my roommate replied on that claim with a good amount of eye-rolling that there was a LOT of Jewish mysticism literature, which is where that theory of Lilith came from.

As for the two creation stories in the bible, I'm assuming that you're reading Genesis 1, then Genesis 2, where God created man. Genesis 1 is the summary of the entire creation process. It's the outline, while from Genesis 2 onward is the fleshing out of the story, giving the details.

I haven't read The Shack, and I really don't know if I want to. Yeah, it's Christian fiction, but there's something weird about it that I can't place my finger on. I do know that the "pattern" of Adam-Eve-Jesus sounds interesting, but in all actuality, if you look at the lineage of Jesus, it goes through the men. Eve was made as a companion to Adam, and I just love the JPS translation of Genesis 2:22-24. "And the LORD God fashioned the rib that He had taken from the man into a woman; and He brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This one at last / Is bone of my bones / And flesh of my flesh. / This one shall be called Woman, / For from man she was taken." Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh."

Something medically proven is that if you have a husband or wife (and are faithful to them) for over 25 years, and one of you needs a kidney (I don't know about other organs), no matter what blood type or whatever that you have, the husband or wife is a suitable match for being a donor. Science proved the "become one flesh" bit. Cool, ain't it?

But back to what I was saying about the pattern. To me, it doesn't make any sense, because while Adam and Eve had glorified bodies until the Fall, they weren't God, but were rather His creations. Jesus, however, WAS God's Son, miraculously and supernaturally conceived through God's Spirit. That's a whole long tangle right there.

Just curious. Does anyone here actually believes that Christianity isn't a monotheistic religion, and that it's a tri- or polytheistic one because of the "three Gods?"

Just to clear it up, the Christian view is monotheistic. One God, but in three expressions. There is no Trinity, since that suggests that there are THREE gods. I've heard of religions that believe that Christians believe that the trinity consists of God the Father, Jesus the son, and Mary the Mother. That belief probably comes from the Roman Catholic way of venerating Mary. And while I don't believe that she should be exalted on the level of God, I do believe that she should be respected for the struggle that she had to go through. In those days, they stoned young women for having sex outside of marriage. They also stoned prostitutes who were Hebrew and were caught in the act. If they weren't caught, they weren't stoned. But Mary faced that fate, and knew that if she was to be chosen by God, she was going to have face the judgment and hatred of those around her.

(I might offend people in the following paragraph, but it's a really good example. Please read it without getting angry about what I have to report. I'm the messenger and while I have to agree with one side of the conflict, I'm not speaking against the PEOPLE.)

The same goes for today. If we follow the Bible, and are chosen by God to continue His work, and if we really are God's children and witnesses, we're attacked from all sides, on all levels. People tell us to be silent, to stop telling "lies," and prosecute us. Just recently in Dallas, there was a group of those who adhere to the homosexual lifestyle who protested the preacher's message, and pretty much told him through their actions that he shouldn't be telling his congregation that homosexuality was wrong. The Biblical model of healthy sexuality is one man and one woman. My personal statement upon the matter is "The pieces are made to fit." Furthermore, if the protesters had thought about it, they were actually trying to curb the preacher's right to free speech, which is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Yes, THEY TOO have a right to protest, but to insist that the preacher NOT preach his message? That's what they were trying to do.

(To clarify some things, I REALLY REALLY DON'T HATE those who have a homosexual outlook on life. Honestly, I love them. I don't agree with what they do and how they live, but I can't hate someone just for what they do. They're humans, too. I can't say it enough. I can't hate them for their sexual choices. I just can't agree with them on some matters.)

Once again, back on topic.

God expresses Himself in three ways for three different purposes. God the Father, who disciplines and rebukes us in love to better us, Jesus His Son, who is our brother, co-heir in the inheritance of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Holy Spirit, which is our comforter who dwells within our spirits so that we are able to be guided to where God wants us to be.

And that's all I have time for. I have to get to work, but I hope that this brings a few things to light. As always, if you have issue with anything I've said, and are angry about what I've said, please PM me. Let's keep this forum emotionally-stable! (*grins* yeah, yeah, I know. "Emotional stability? What's that?" lol!)

Love you ladies and gents!

[Beastbot]

Something medically proven is that if you have a husband or wife (and are faithful to them) for over 25 years, and one of you needs a kidney (I don't know about other organs), no matter what blood type or whatever that you have, the husband or wife is a suitable match for being a donor. Science proved the "become one flesh" bit. Cool, ain't it?

Okay, now that's just incredibly awesome.

The same goes for today. If we follow the Bible, and are chosen by God to continue His work, and if we really are God's children and witnesses, we're attacked from all sides, on all levels. People tell us to be silent, to stop telling "lies," and prosecute us. Just recently in Dallas, there was a group of those who adhere to the homosexual lifestyle who protested the preacher's message, and pretty much told him through their actions that he shouldn't be telling his congregation that homosexuality was wrong. The Biblical model of healthy sexuality is one man and one woman. My personal statement upon the matter is "The pieces are made to fit." Furthermore, if the protesters had thought about it, they were actually trying to curb the preacher's right to free speech, which is the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Yes, THEY TOO have a right to protest, but to insist that the preacher NOT preach his message? That's what they were trying to do.

Sadly, that happens a lot. A LOT lot. (Read: Reaction to Proposition 8 passing.)

[artemis-lady-warrior]

To be honest I never heard of this "Lilith" until I was reading something on wikipedia about the Evangelion anime. Not to sound like a complete jerk but I doubt God would have made a "first" Eve.

Beastbot I didn't know you posted! You're so right about Prop 8. You should see how some of the people on youtube are acting toward it. I got one person who accused me of being a Nazi because I agreed with it.

[Beastbot]

Beastbot I didn't know you posted! You're so right about Prop 8. You should see how some of the people on youtube are acting toward it. I got one person who accused me of being a Nazi because I agreed with it.

It's gotten downright hostile in LA.

This is a bit long, but read the whole thing:

http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/ ... fault.aspx

I don't care whether you agree with the proposition or not, this is shameful. In the highest order.

[artemis-lady-warrior]

I just read the article.
I can't believe they would do such a thing. The people who donated to that cause shouldn't have to apologize. They have just as much a right to express their opinions on that subject as anyone else. That is just sickening.

[guruhamboy]

As for the two creation stories in the bible, I'm assuming that you're reading Genesis 1, then Genesis 2, where God created man. Genesis 1 is the summary of the entire creation process. It's the outline, while from Genesis 2 onward is the fleshing out of the story, giving the details.

I can see that actually. Looking into it a bit more the original reference to God was differnet between the texts too - original being less personal than the later.

However, after re-reading it, I can't get around the change in order. Genesis 1 has the order of sea creatures, birds, animals then Adam and Eve. Genesis 2 on the otherhand sees Adam, the Garden of Eden, then all other creatures made as a potential companion for Adam, before Eve is created from his rib.

[Blazemane]

Hey Rakshash:

Myth: But the Quran SAYS so! It SAYS that Muslims, like, should totally kill non-Muslims and stuff! [….Those who aren't killing (and don't get me wrong, I'm glad they don't) are merely ignoring the koran on that subject…..]

Fact: There is a much maligned verse which is sadly misinterpreted by terrorists out to blow up people and by people of other religions and cultures out of plain non-knowing.

Plucked out of the chapter all on its lonesome, this verse says the Muslims are commanded to make war with all the non-Muslims.

But reading it in continuation with the lines before it (like all tales and stories are supposed to be read) the non-Muslims in the verse refers to just ONE party of Arab non-Muslims. There was an alliance between them and the Muslims. Later that party of non-Muslims broke their promise and started a war. It was a verse for that particular group at that particular time at that particular place. It is not a generalized command.

In fact when Muslims and people of other religions share the same land, Muslims are supposed to protect them and help them.

For example the covenant with the Egyptian Christians goes like this:

http://www.razarumi.com/2007/12/14/prop ... ian-copts/

Which verse is it that gets misused? And what implication do the following verses from the Koran have?

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
[2:216] Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not.
[3.157] And if you are slain in the way of Allah or you die, certainly forgiveness from Allah and mercy is better than what they amass.
[3:195-196] Those that suffered persecution for My sake and fought and were slain: I shall forgive them their sins and admit them to gardens watered by running streams, as a reward from God; God holds the richest recompense. Do not be deceived by the fortunes of the unbelievers in the land. Their prosperity is brief. Hell shall be their home, a dismal resting place.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.
[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.
[8.67] It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
[66.9] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be hard against them; and their abode is hell; and evil is the resort.

I’m not a muslim. But from a reader’s standpoint… the words “kill”, “smite”, “fight” and phrases like “strive hard against” seem to indicate a strong commandment towards the radical muslim viewpoint.

Myth: Allah weighs your good and bad deeds on a scale when you die, and if your good outweighs the bad, even then he might just end up saying, “I don’t feel like letting you in,” and throw you into hell anyway.

Fact: No. In fact, the opposite!

Muslims believe their deeds will be counted “on a scale” for or against them. This is what is called justice. But there’s another component of Allah’s dealing with humanity called ‘mercy.’ The idea is if the bad deeds outweigh the good, Allah will have mercy and call it off. ‘The foundation of all deeds is on your intentions.’ If you have intended good, even if you mess up you’ll get into Heaven. That means any Muslim with a good heart, a compassionate nature, who does good deeds for others etc can and will wind up in Heaven.


Myth: Allah wants Muslims to die for Him.

Fact: Allah wants Muslims to live for Him. And when death comes then to die with dignity. In Islamic texts there are many acts given much more importance than going to war. For example if a soldier’s mother forbids him from going to war he is absolutely not allowed to go. Listening to your parents is supposed to be the top of the list of things to do if you’re a Muslim.


Myth: Muslims are snooty snobs who think only they’ll get into Heaven.

Fact: Muslims believe Heaven has many levels, allowing all degrees of good people in. For example many Muslims believe Mother Theresa and the last Pope will go to Heaven whereas Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein won’t. Ultimately your intentions and your acts speak for you.

O.k., again I’d like to reference the Koran. If intention is the basis for heaven, then what implication do these verses have?

[2.98] Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.
[3.149] O you who believe! if you obey those who disbelieve they will turn you back upon your heels, so you will turn back losers.
[3.150] Nay! Allah is your Patron and He is the best of the helpers.
[3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with
[5.80] You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.
[5.81] And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors.
[5.82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.

Notice- all of these verses portray admittance into hell based upon a lack of belief in Allah. So… Mother Theresa and the Last Pope are in grave danger, because they definitely did not believe in the Koran.

And even then, I can only find a guaranteed exclusion from heaven (based on disbelief). I can’t find a guaranteed admittance into heaven to go with it.

You say it’s based on intention. What if that intention is polluted? Most people regard themselves as good-intentioned. Even those who can clearly be viewed as wrong will often hold to the idea that they had good intentions (for example, Hitler, who thought he was saving Germany, and doing a noble cause by filling the world with an Aryan race).

And thank you for that compliment Sinead.

So Nurran, its because of the indestructabilty of matter? I could... almost see that as an evidence against simple non-exsistence after death, except for the fact, that we must know our soul exists and is bound by the same rules that physical laws are bound by.

But even granted that, the indestructability of a person's soul fits into the idea of an afterlife as much as it does the idea of multiple lives. I guess the question is... what evidence distincts the multiple lives idea over the afterlife idea?

Edit: Before anyone replied. To articulate something more clearly

[Rakshash]

*blink*

That’s…a whole lotta verses.

I’ll be as lucid as possible. But it’s gonna be so loooong.

Summary: The meaning of verses of the Quran cannot be understood without an accompanying interpretation and a knowledge of the historic context of that chapter.

Interpretation:

This is the commentary assembled with the support of other verses of the Quran, recorded and verified sayings of Islam’s Prophet, Hazrat Muhammad and good old common sense of eminent scholars. Interpretation is only done by very learned people. It is considered sinful to twist the words to mean something for ones own personal gain (like the proverb “the devil can quote the scripture for his own purposes”). Sadly this is what happens in uneducated out-of-the-way areas and in unsupervised madrassahs.

Historic Context:

Muslims believe the Quran was reveled over a time period of twenty-something years. So there were different things going on at different times. There are different kinds of verses. Verses that order ‘Do good’, ‘Give to the poor’ etc. These are considered constant, for all time, universal.

But then there are commandments for a specific time against a specific people.

For about the first thirteen years of the existence of Islam the first Muslims lived in a town called Mecca. At the time the predominant religion was a polytheist one practiced by the rich and powerful traders, merchants etc. During this time there are chapters of the Quran revealed we call “Makki” i.e. from Mecca. In these we find orders the Prophet and the Muslims to suffer whatever’s thrown at them. A lot of Muslims were tortured and died in this time. Their lands were confiscated and property stolen.

Then came the verse ordering a migration of the Muslims from Mecca to Madina. After this Hijrat (emigration) Islam eventually flourished. But not before the people who had confiscated their lands attacked them in a lot of tiny skirmishes and a few big battles. While the Muslims were here the chapters of the Quran we call “Madni” i.e. from Madina were revealed. The orders here differ in that there was less of the bear-it-in-silence and more of the pick-up-your-sword-and-get-moving. All of the verses you have quoted asking about the implications (except the last from surah 66) were revealed at Medina.



When Muslims are allowed to fight:


While spreading ‘fisad’ i.e. bloodshed is not commendable at all. Muslims consider it permissible in certain conditions.

"Permission is given (to fight) those who have taken up arms against you wrongfully. And verily God (Allah) is well able to give you succor. To those who have been driven forth from their homes for no reason than this that they say 'Our Lord is God…” (surah 22)

Basically self defense against religious persecution.


Battle of Badr:

Shortly after the Muslims settled in Medina they encountered the first war between Muslims and the hostile non-Muslims. the first major battle was at a place called Badr. It was between the polytheists they’d left back at Mecca who were 950 strong against the Muslims 314. The Muslims managed to win anyway but they were in a startling minority.

[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

I did say not to pluck verses out of nowhere.

Without the preceding and following verses the meaning gets distorted.

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

(According to the interpretation the limits referred to were to avoid the damage of property, the killing of non-combatants, women, children, elderly, disabled etc)


[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

(You’ll notice the ‘them’ means those non-Muslims at Badr. The non-Muslims had driven the Muslims out of their homes. The verse says the Muslims should regain their homes at Mecca. “Do not fight with them…until they fight with you” indicated it was defensive battle. "Persecution is severer than slaughter" means its better to die than to live in oppression. )


[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

(If they stopped fighting the Muslims were to stop fighting. Because the only war allowed in Islam is defensive.)


[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

(Another reference to the way the polytheists oppressed and persecuted the Muslims. If they backed down Muslims were supposed to stop their hostilities)

I daresay a call to war is not a bad thing if the nature of it is defensive. And everywhere it is also mentioned to desist and stop when the attackers back off.

[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

[8.38] Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.

[8.39] And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

Context is the same battle of Badr. If the non-Muslims desisted their attack, they would be forgiven and they could all live in harmony. If they attacked the Muslims, then not so much.

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

[8.61] And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
[8.62] And if they intend to deceive you-- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers
[8.63] And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise.
[8.64] O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and (for) such of the believers as follow you.
[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

“Urging to war” was when they would not “incline to peace”. “Twenty patient ones etc” referes to the minority of the Muslims. They were half the number the attacking army was. And they did overcome them.


Another example:

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

The interpretation according to Ibn Kathir (vol 2, p. 68)

“…this verse was revealed after the Battle of Uhud when Muslims had a set back. At that time, a Muslim from Madinah said, "I am going to live with Jews so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." And another person said, "I am going to live with Christians so I shall be safe in case another attack comes on Madinah." So Allah revealed this verse reminding the believers that they should not seek the protection from others, but should protect each other. “

The word for friend is the Arabic ‘awliya.’ It also means lord, master, guardian, protector. For example Allah is referred to as ‘wali’ (which is the singular form of awliya) of the Muslims in the Quran i.e. their lord, master, protector.

It doesn’t mean don’t take them for buddies. It means don’t abandon your side of the battle and flee for cover on the (then) enemies’ side.

I could go on and on. But it’s already too long as it is. If you do want to discuss individual verses perhaps email would be better! Whatever you like.


Non-Muslims in Muslim Heaven

all of these verses portray admittance into hell based upon a lack of belief in Allah

[2:62]
Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the Sabians; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.


"Amongst the Banī Isrā’īl (Children of Isrā’il) there was a believer whose neighbour was an unbeliever. That unbeliever would always show kindness and good conduct towards his believing neighbour. When this unbeliever died, God made for him a house out of a type of mud which shielded him from the heat of the fire, and his sustenance would be given to him from outside his own environment, which was of fire. He was told, ‘This is because of your kindness and good conduct towards your believing neighbour.’”

Allāmah Majlisī , after quoting this tradition, says: “This tradition and others like it are evidence that the punishment of some unbelievers in Hell will be lifted, and the verses of Qur’ān that say the punishment of the unbelievers shall not be lightened are with regard to those who have not performed such good deeds.”
-Bihārul Anwār, Volume 3, Page 377 (Sayings and reports of the Prophet)

“The good deeds of individuals who don’t believe in God and the Day of Judgement and perhaps may ascribe partners to God will cause their punishment to be lessened and, occasionally, be lifted.”
-Ayatullah Mutahhari (Muslim scholar)

According to the interpreters of the Quran there are two kinds of non-Muslims.

Muqasir (Negligent)

This basically refers to people who had their full chance to be Muslims but didn’t. Meaning they were exposed to a good example of Islam or were in contact with certain basic truths but rejected them. These types don’t even acknowledge anything about Islam could possibly be right. It is generally accepted by Muslims that these will face some sort of punishment, even hell.

Qasir (Incapable):

Children, mentally disabled, people living in geographic areas with no or limited access to Islam or to (good) Muslims. This class can also be extended to those who have been brought up in an atmosphere which renders them unable to reconcile themselves to believe the legitimacy of Islam. Or an environment where there is a prejudice against Islam and thinking outside the box.

The latter class is from where Muslim pluralism takes off. It is arguable that with most people today being unaware of what the nature of Islam is they would belong to the “qasir” class. There’s no evidence but I’m fairly certain if you stopped someone in the streets and asked them to name the first Muslim to come to their heads they would probably say Saddam Hussein! *cringe*

In fact from an Islamic point of view Muslims might be the ones to come under fire for not showing their religion in a favourable light. Shame on us, really. We can protest against Denmark and burn flags in the streets but you never see that many Muslims uniting to fight against issues like poverty or corruption. This is a welcome exception:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/ ... 226199440/


Now I’m not saying Islam says ALL non Muslims will go to heaven. There are quite a few places where the Quran remonstrates with “non believers” or rather people of other faiths. Particularly those who worship more than one god. But nowhere does it say that ALL non Muslims will be eternally damned. And like I said before Heaven as Muslims see it has many levels from the lowest to the highest.



If you are really interested in the topic of who goes to hell according to Islam I suggest the “Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of ‘Others’” by
Mohammad Hassan Khalil. Its rather hefty but worth it if you’re interested in the subject:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream ... lm_1-3.pdf


More questions answered later. Very sleepy now.

[Nurann]

So Nurran, its because of the indestructabilty of matter? I could... almost see that as an evidence against simple non-exsistence after death, except for the fact, that we must know our soul exists and is bound by the same rules that physical laws are bound by.

But even granted that, the indestructability of a person's soul fits into the idea of an afterlife as much as it does the idea of multiple lives. I guess the question is... what evidence distincts the multiple lives idea over the afterlife idea?

It's observation of nature. Cycle of seasons, cycle of the day, matter/energy can't be created/destroyed therefore is cycled, etc.

I'll assume you missed the "energy" part because you were distracted by your earlier research against Rakshash.

We're actually saying the same thing here; because energy can't be destroyed, something has to happen to our energy when we die. I'm just adding an extra step to your definition. And if you want to look back to page 9, I talk a little bit about the Summerland. Basically, you know it as Heaven. The difference is one may choose to stay in the Summerland temporarily or permanently. That's the extra step.
Aw'right, lemme dig out some reading material…. Be warned, I'm bad at picking what is the most relevant for quotes, so you're getting the good part of the chapter!

Why? Why are we reincarnated? In common with many other religions, Wicca teaches that that reincarnation is the instrument through which our souls are perfected. One lifetime isn't enough to attain this goal; hence, the consciousness (soul) is reborn many times, each life encompassing a different set of lessons, until perfection is achieved.

No one can say how many lives are required before this is accomplished. We are human and it's easy to fall into non-evolutionary behaviour. Greed, anger, jealousy, obsession and all our negative emotions inhibit our growth. …

The soul is ageless, sexless, non-physical, possessed of the diving spark of the Goddess and God. Each manifestation of the soul (i.e., each body it inhabits on Earth) is different. No two bodies or lives are the same. If this wasn't so, the soul would stagnate. The sex, place of birth, economic class and every other individuality of the soul is determined by its actions in past lives and the lessons necessary to the present.
…

What happens after death? Only the body dies. The soul lives on. Some Wiccans say that it journeys to a realm variously known as the Land of the Faerie, the Shining Land, and the Land of the Young [The footnote states that these are Celtic terms. "Summerland" is a commonly used Theosophical term]. This realm is neither in heaven nor the underworld. It simply is – a non-physical reality much less dense than ours. … Others see it vaguely as a realm without forms, where energy swirls coexist with the greatest energies – the Goddess and God in their celestial identities.

The soul is said to review the past life… . Lessons learned or ignored are brought to light.

After the proper time, when the conditions on Earth are correct, the soul is reincarnated and life begins again.

(Cunningham, 2003, pp. 69-71).

Scott Cunningham's book is a boring read, but it's one of the most recommended books for info on Wicca. I picked through the paragraphs a bit, but I hope that helps clarify things a little.

I did find a few articles for you:

Unfortunately, this is just an abstract, but at least it does show that there is research out there.

This set of case studies has some holes in the data collection methods, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.

In this report, one of the mentioned case studies is the same as one of the case studies from the above article. They compliment each other on a couple of details. It's also an interesting, yet sadly brief, read.

One more, then I've had enough searching for the night. This one concerns birth marks and birth defects corresponding to injuries in deceased individuals. http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... sricha.pdf

And while admittedly there is also research against, it comes back to the fact everything has research for and against. Read it and take what you will from it.

go Rakshash!

[Rakshash]

Notice- all of these verses portray admittance into hell based upon a lack of belief in Allah. So… Mother Theresa and the Last Pope are in grave danger, because they definitely did not believe in the Koran.

“Given the clarity of these verses, it is not possible to give them same special interpretation in order to deny the permanence of the punishment of hellfire. The text of the verses proclaims that permanent residence in hellfire shall be the lot of those unbelievers for whom all possible avenues to salvation are blocked. As for those who have committed a certain number of lesser sins and offences, they shall either spend an appropriate amount of time in hellfire or receive the kindness and forgiveness of God.”
-Interpretation by Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari


I didn’t say I knew for sure where they were. You are right in saying that disbelief is (from a Muslims point of view) a good way to get into Hell. But from an Islamic perspective it is not improbable that they are not in grave danger.

[99.7] So. he who has done an atom's weight of good shall see it
[99.8] And he who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see it

And even then, I can only find a guaranteed exclusion from heaven (based on disbelief).

The Quran refers to ‘unbelievers’ numerous times. The consensus is that this refers to the ‘negligent’ class and not the ‘incapable’ class which believed in things different to Islam but meant well. And that even then ‘good deeds’ could save or lighten a non-Muslims punishment.

You say it’s based on intention. What if that intention is polluted? Most people regard themselves as good-intentioned. Even those who can clearly be viewed as wrong will often hold to the idea that they had good intentions (for example, Hitler, who thought he was saving Germany, and doing a noble cause by filling the world with an Aryan race).

Good intention means the sincere will to do good. Your intention is something Muslims believe only God knows about. For example I could open a hospital in Africa but if I only intended to show off and make people look up to me and not really to do people good then that would definitely detract from my “good deed.”


[67.2] Who created death and life that He may try you-- which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Forgiving

Interpretation by Imam al-Sadiq:

"What is meant here is not the extent or the quantity of deeds, but the highest degree of righteousness. To keep a deed utterly sincere in intention and free of all contamination is more difficult than doing the deed itself. A sincere deed is one in which only God's pleasure is sought and not someone's praise. The intention is better than the deed, or is even identical with the deed, for 'Everyone acts in accordance with his own nature,' (7:84) which means his intention" (Usul al-Kafi, Vol. III, chapter "Ikhlas")

In Islam you have faith in God, if you are a true believer your life will be full of acts stemming from that belief, if those acts you have done are pure in intention and are to please God then they will speak for you and cover up any mistake or bad deed you might have done. On the other hand if a Muslim simply pays lip service to Islam then naturally his or her life will not be full of doing good for others. It’s a cycle: if you believe sincerely then everything you do is automatically good by virtue of a true believer being incapable of thinking, saying or doing anything without the aim of gaining God’s pleasure and serving humanity. Which means he or she will have certain characteristics and lack certain ones (There are six traits that must not be found in a true believer of complete faith, viciousness and ill-temperedness, miserliness, obstinacy, dishonesty, jealousy, and oppression of others. )

Similarly for one who doesn’t believe in God or just pays lip service insincerely, Islam says they wouldn’t behave in the manner befitting a believer and would thus live a life bereft from any good deeds. Or if they did do good deeds they would be tainted by their worldly aim.


Coming back to that fascinating law of physics and energy never dying again:

Every motion and act undertaken by man counts as a good or a bad deed, and at the same time it represents a kind of deposit in the body that is expended in the form of energy. The acts and even the speech in which a person engages are, therefore, differing forms or manifestations of energy, either auditory or mechanical energy, or, in some cases, a mixture of the two.

It can therefore be said that our actions and words, dissolved in the atmosphere in the form of energy, are not annihilated, and that whatever we do in the course of our lifetimes is stored up in the archive of nature, an archive which the powerful hand of God has established and the permanence of which He has assured. The day will come on which nature will return to its true Owner all the trusts that have been deposited in it, and all the energies that have been accumulated in it will display themselves.

Certain Islamic traditions regard obedience to divine command without any fear of punishment or hope of reward as the special characteristic of those who consider themselves always protected and favored by God. It is they who attain the highest degree of sincere devotion to God and knowledge of Him; they think of nothing but earning God's favor and worshipping Him in obedience. This is indeed the way in which God wishes to be worshipped.

Imam `Ali, upon whom be peace, describes this group of men, in a profound and eloquent expression, as "free men." He says:

"Some men worship God in order to attain reward, and this is the worship of traders. Others worship Him out of fear of punishment, and this is the worship of slaves. But there are others again who worship Him out of gratitude and recognition that He is fit to be worshipped, and this is the worship of free men." (Nahj al-Balagha, ed. Fayd, p. 1182)
- Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari



This (http://www.al-islam.org/gallery/kids/Books/bca3/ ) is actually a book for Muslim kids but as far as I’ve seen its one of the few things written in a way someone unfamiliar with Islam can understand. If you want to read on what makes a good Muslim that’s the one to read. You’ll notice it only talks about the ritual part of worship after talking about intentions.


Hitler killed thousands, he comes under the label of a persecutor or an oppressor. If he actually thought he was doing good (which I doubt) then he must have been insane. It goes against your conscience and all major belief systems to hurt people. Anyway his intention to do good was only limited to a certain “chosen people” and not humanity as a whole. Islam hates favouritism and discrimination based on racial differences. Whoever is the most pious and does the best deeds for humanity wins.

I hope that answers your questions.

go Rakshash!

Go Nurann! Woohoo!





(Tiny rant: I have an oral exam Monday and I can’t seem to stop watching TV. *gulp*)