Hey Blazemane.
Rakshash! Hello there, hope you didn't think I'd forgotten about you, hee hee hee.
Hello
God gives time-specific commandments to the Israelites also. But in the Old Testament, it is always given, in the text, what context the commandment is from. My problem with the verses in the Qu'Ran is that they seem to give timeless commandments because they don't explain the context the commandments are given in.
Mmm. I think if one reads the verses one after the other then you’d get it’s referring to an event. If you go a couple of verses back there are mentions of “When God promised you…” and “On that day when…” which refers to some incident or occurrence.
The Quran I have (and most of the ones I’ve seen) have the margins filled with the interpretation by its side. I’ve never seen one in English though otherwise I would have recommended it.
But there are clues if you look for them. For example the eighth chapter is called “Anfal” meaning “the accessions.” A lot of the verses there are related to the battle of badr.
Muslims don’t have a problem with this since along with the Quran we’re supposed to follow “sunnah” which comes from studying the life and behaviour of the Prophet and by extension his followers. That requires a knowledge of history which is prevalent in our culture.
As it stands, I can't exactly debate with you on the verses right now, because I don't have enough basis in Islamic history to verify which verses were from which battles.
This is a complete chronology of Islamic history.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chr ... tury7.html
This is about the impact where the chapter was revealed had on its content.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Sate ... FLSELayout
If he seems to disagree though, I really won't know what to say.
Me neither.
He is extremely experienced with Islamic theology, but I mean- come on- so should the scholars you mentioned be.
But you know, it needn’t be that hard. When it comes to religions Islamic history is relatively recent. I mean, I’ve seen the graveyards of the people who died in those battles and the battlefields themselves. The survivors have had their sayings recorded. If you read the works of any historian (Muslim or not) they will have mentioned two major battles. Badr and Uhud.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Badr
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Uhud
As for the myth you presented, I don't know that anybody said that Allah would through you in hell if your good outweighed your bad. I don't think... anybody thinks that. The closest person to asserting that was me, and what I did say was that our good deeds, in and of themselves would never outweigh our bad deeds.
Erm. *twiddles thumbs*
You haven’t read all the posts here, have you? That myth was actually a quote word for word for something another honourable member said. That was me talking to her.
Notice, you said "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."
Um. Stop me if this sounds funny but I think you’re taking me out of context! Lol.
Do read the conversation before that. The issue was whether Muslims thought they could go to Heaven or not. Non-Muslims didn’t enter into it. And it’s a very good example of what I said before: what precedes and follows a statement has drastic effects on its interpretation. Whether it’s the Quran or a normal conversation. Lol
Secondly, Allah will have mercy if bad outweighs good?
If appropriate, sure. Why not.
But not on everyone?
Depends on what that person is like. A mass murderer claiming to be Muslim will be treated differently from a Muslim who was rude to his neighbour. Similarly a non-Muslim mass murderer will be treated differently from a little old lady who loves Jesus and feeds the birds.
And it's based on intention?
I don't think I can say anymore on this, but yes. A lot of it does. A good guy who does good for worldly gain aint gonna look too good.
So... my problem here is that I see no guarantee, not even for Muslims, and especially not for those who aren't Muslims.
To get into Heaven a Muslim has to avoid the greater sins. This is broken down to the sentence: every Muslim who believes in God, that they are answerable to what they do and does good deeds on this earth will go to Heaven. And repent truly for whatever wrong they've done.
Taking it from that very minimum requirement, a worthy Muslim builds on that. Belief in God in Islam means believing in all the Prophets, angels, heaven, hell etc. It’s a spiral beginning starting with a basic but very necessary belief and reaching out to encompass every aspect of life.
Now what about those who don’t have that necessary belief? Not having the necessary belief is a sin. But its not that simple. If you read the dissertation I posted earlier it mentions the view every school of thought in Islam has on the issue of Heaven for non-Muslims. You can skip to the conclusion if you like. And it ties in with 2:62. .
[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.
Those who believe- The Quran refers to its own believers here, the Muslims.
The Jews, the Christians and the Sabians cannot refer to actual Muslims. As in they do not believe in everything the Quran stands for. Everyone who believes in one God, that they are accountable for their acts and do good have nothing to fear. In the garb of a different religion they may be going through the right motions. Yes, the Quran thinks they should be Muslim. But if they aren’t Muslim and are still somehow on the same track, they have nothing to fear. Not that they’ll be elevated to the highest levels of Heaven next to the believing and practicing Muslims. But it’s a start.
In essence (the answer to your question on what it takes for anyone to get to heaven) the three requirements stated in the verse are how to enter heaven on the basic level. For everyone, especially Muslims and including certain non-Muslims.
BUT having said that, yes, you are right that the Quran is not too happy with non-Muslims. But allowances can and will be made for incapability allowing their intentions were to worship a true creator being.
See, there are non-Muslims and there are non-Muslims. There’s a non-Muslim who while being a non-Muslim believes in God, holds him or herself accountable and does good. This is the code of Islam, if not the actual religion.
Then there are non-Muslims who don’t do all of those three things. The best chance they have is that here and there they’ve done some good out of a natural compassionate nature common to human beings. Muslims believe that we are programmed to practice a good life and that even if someone didn’t hear about the message of Islam they would come to the conclusion that there’s one God if they thought about it. (I think Christianity believes sin is inherent to us and we must fight against that tendency - correct me if I’m wrong.) So if a non-Muslim lived their life as they think a good person should, that’s a point scorer. That will help. And then if they weren’t capable of being Muslim anyway (like I mentioned before, see the two classes of non-Muslims) they wouldn’t be tormented in the hereafter. Out of divine mercy. According to Islam and the statements of scholars I’ve posted before.
And if it is about belief, and we are to conclude this verse refers to any god, does that mean athiests are the ones in the most trouble?
Yes, actually. According to Islam people who believe in an absolute deity have a much better chance.
But only Allah knows the intention of the heart, right? Even we, who held the intentions, how are we to know that in the end, our good intentions were what were prevalent? Haven't we all sinned?
I’ve read what I’ve written again and I see I wasn’t clear. When I said “God alone knows your intentions” I mean God alone is the audience of your inner thoughts. I know the intention of my heart and so, I believe, does God. But you have no way of knowing what my ulterior motives are.
And for non-Muslims, there is still risk, even if you somehow knew you were pure of heart?
Um. I'm sorry but I don't understand this question. Cuz a non-Muslim by virtue of being non-Muslim wouldn't care about the risk, wouldn’t even think there’s a risk. If he/she thought they had the purity of heart necessary to get into Muslim heaven they wouldn't be non-Muslims. Non-Muslims don’t believe the Muslim Heaven exists. The view of non-Muslims in heaven is taken by Muslims who have been told that despite non-Muslims not being on Islam's prescribed safe-and-narrow, there are several factors involved and they may not all go to hell.
But… since all of us obviously have our faults (which is also, completely logically true- don’t we always say nobody’s perfect? So why are people afraid to accept that when they get into a theological discussion? Haven’t we all wrongfully offended someone in our lives?), doesn’t that mean we have all offended whichever God is real in an irrevocable way?
Irrevocable? If you accidently hit me then yes, I’d be hurt but if it was an accident I wouldn’t sue you. Or if you are talking about wrongfully offending someone then…say I wrongfully offended someone but the person I offended forgives me. If I, a mere human being can show mercy, how much more an all-powerful being. Having ultimate power doesn’t mean being terrifying. Only God decides what is irrevocable and what is not.
If we sin against someone so high above us, we have committed an ultimate defiance. And our good acts could never make up for that, not only because we sin more than we do good, but nobody that powerful could be impressed by our good deeds in and of themselves, because God is perfect.
God knows our capabilities and we are His creations. Impress? To impress anyone means to amaze, astound, make an impact on. I doubt a creation can amaze its creator, although the creator will love it. The creator would know its limitations and the heights it can reach.
It’s not about impressing God into canceling our sins. Its about whether we ourselves can be forgiven.
Righteousness in itself is not impressive to God, because since He is completely righteous, we’ll never come close to Him anyways.
I think there’s a very different concept we both mean even while talking about the same thing. It seems as though you’re suggesting that God asks us to be righteous and then compares this with His. Why…where does it say that we have to come close to Him in righteousness? How could we anyway, He isn’t tempted by anything. Stealing, lying, lust aren’t subject to Him.
Sin however is an ultimate defiance, because God is perfect, and because He is so high above us. Think about it- what if I was to disobey my parent? Defiance right? Relatively unlikable consequences. What if I were to disobey President Bush (Well, I am an American), or national law in general? It's an even larger defiance right? I am in much less of a position to threaten him than a parent, and there would be *severe* consequences right? So take that up even more. How about if I sin against God, Who is all-powerful? Considering His eternal position above us, there is actually no limit to the consequences.
If God was a machine who had a predictable response to every situation. You sin this X much you get X much. No compromise. That in effect is what happens in blind justice.
But say you sinned that much. But you’re sorry. And you try to make up for it. You can’t make up for it but you try your best. A loving parent would forgive you if you tried to replace that priceless, irreplaceable vase you broke, so why shouldn’t God forgive you if you sin against Him and repent? Your sin against God cannot hurt Him. He’s above that. You hurt yourself. You dig a pit beneath your feet. If you repent God pulls you out.
I’m gonna ignore the Bush and national law comparison because legalities aren’t merciful. There’s a reason they say “justice is blind.” The parent comparison is much more apt. (Islam says the love of God for us is more than that of seventy mothers- seventy being a number meaning many).
Would you obey God, if God said that obedience meant going to hell, and disobedience meant going to heaven? You must still accept that God wants us to love and obey him, but that love and obedience will still put us in hell.
The answer, from a stand-point of love, would dictate that we obey God regardless. But the answer from a logical, and completely honest stand-point would dicate... well... we're human. Of course we'd opt for heaven.
I realize its an extremely hypothetical situation, but only a just and merciful God would be worthy of such extreme sacrifice. And a just and merciful God wouldn’t condemn one to damnation for loving Him. Suggesting that implies the said God isn’t worth the effort. Like a parent who says “you have to do your homework because its good for you and then I’m going to take your play station away and make you write “I’m a bad person” a hundred times.” There’s no point in loving such a being. It’s madness. I repeat, I realize its hypothetical but I consider it a self-defeating argument.
Between Christians and Muslims, when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son do you honestly think he went ahead with it, the deliberate killing of his own flesh and blood, just for Paradise? Or because he loved God? I don’t think a (loving) parent would sacrifice their child just for eternal happiness. There’s more to that, methinks.
It is very Biblical to have heaven as a motivation. God wouldn't have made it a motivating factor if it was only meant to be a temptation.
To want to go to Heaven and to fear God’s displeasure are good things according to Islam. Everyone who worships God wins. But the worship of one who’s just got their eyes on the prize can not be equal to one who worships out of love. They’re both worshippers, but the latter is more pious. There are people like that, few though they are.
Now, why would a reward be offered, if it wasn't meant to motivate us?
Certainly we should be motivated. And rewarded. But that should not be our sole intention. It’s like…getting legal benefits when you get married. It doesn’t mean you marry just for the benefits.
Nurann:
Someone that is blind has no reason to believe the colour blue exists. To that person, it doesn't. A person with sight can argue that of course the colour blue exits, its right there! But how does the blind person know? Can you give objective proof to a blind person that the colour blue exists? From the blind person's point of view, the simplest answer is that blue doesn't exist because it simply isn't a part of their world. Just because someone can see something you can't, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I really like that argument. It's what people of different faiths scream at each other. Little do they know, everyone feels like that!
Razor One:
Patients were given a pill that they were told would make them better. Lo and behold it did! The pill, however, was made from sugar. Belief does have a power on the human mind. Believing that a pill will cure them cured them of their condition in at least half of the cases tested.
Given that I dont believe god exists, I can see how that could happen instead with prayer. The people believed that prayer would cure them and lo it did. Good for them.
I think its interesting that humans are wired to fluorish on hope. I know you don't believe it but personally I feel like its another proof of why prayer exists. *shrugs* I believe so anyway
Sinead:
Searching for proof of God strengthens faith in God
I fully believe that.
-------------------------------------------------
Phew! Lol.
And my exams are over and I'm dancing on clouds!
(Until January....more exams
)
(EDIT: Before anyone else said anything to clarify a point)