Some Basic Islamic Beliefs

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . to accept monotheism anew is a greater merit than one realises, because it was by choice, as opposed by birth. The Hebrew belief is by birth and almost enforced by God, thus in a sense less meriting than Islam - which took it on board by witnessing it displayed by others.

This is not quite accurate. A person may be born "Jewish" by ancestry, but he or she is not really "Jewish" by religion until he or she has a bar or bat mitzvah. In order to qualify for that ceremony, the person must demonstrate the belief, as well as a lot of other things. This leaves thirteen years to develop the belief.

 

[soullust]

Very good that Islam upholds the ONE God belief. However, when this is attached to the name of a messenger as the required condition of Monotheism, it presents a problem. The vital factor of Monotheism, introduced in the Hebrew bible, commands one to love the stranger - which means one from a different belief.

There is no merit in only loving one from one's own belief - a fatal error of most belief systems. And another belief refers to one which does not share any common beliefs with you - but is nonetheless a good person by deeds and actions. From this we learn that the message transcends the messenger - and if the message is not accepted by humanity - it impacts on the entire belief system.

Good tell them to start loving the Jewish, Us Cristian's are getting upset with ll your bickering.

 

[spidergoat]

Buddhism isn't polytheism.

 

[Ja'far at-Tahir]

Buddhism isn't polytheism.

I know, I was mainly refering to Shinto and so on.

 

[IamJoseph]

Buddhism isn't polytheism.

Ultimately, there is no such thing as polytheism or of nature.

 

[spidergoat]

No such thing as polytheism? No such thing as nature? I'm pretty sure polytheism exists, whether or not multiple gods exist.

 

[IamJoseph]

Good tell them to start loving the Jewish, Us Cristian's are getting upset with ll your bickering.

The messengers are only to speak in the language of a people. Europe was never able to maintain a belief without images - and that is what was given it. The images are bridges and they all lead to the same point. That is why it is ok to ask for messages as opposed only a messenger.

Why would a Norwegian be expected to harken to a middle-eastern figure whose name he could not pronounce? Yet everyone can harken to a good message - why is that not sufficient? A messenger can render one quagmired in a straight jacket, whereas a good message can free you.

 

[IamJoseph]

No such thing as polytheism? No such thing as nature? I'm pretty sure polytheism exists, whether or not multiple gods exist.

When push comes to shove, all Eastern religions agree the numerous dieties represent only agents. And yes, there is no old man with a white beard called 'NATURE' - this is a recent term applied for the inexplicable. At best, nature is a state of mind or being applied to things which we see but cannot explain, and a state is nothing other than an effect.

 

[spidergoat]

Nature is the natural world. It exists beyond a reasonable doubt. And polytheism exists without a doubt; meaning- there are people that believe in multiple gods/spirits.

 

[IamJoseph]

Nature is the natural world. It exists beyond a reasonable doubt. And polytheism exists without a doubt; meaning- there are people that believe in multiple gods/spirits.

Well, I happen to believe there is nothing natural about the world and there is no such thing as nature, just as there is one supreme spirit behind all multiple spirits. Originally, people believed in the wind and the sun - as dieties controlling the world - now we see the sun as being an effect of other phenomena. Nature is akin to the wiring in your computer. The notion that a car manual is the end all and proof there is no car maker is a folly - the reverse applies, both in the small and big picture.

These beliefs in dieties were reasonable beliefs for its time - and a step in understanding the universe after telescopes emerged. How or why Monotheism was envisioned by Abraham is also a wonder for its time, but it is fully a scientific and mathemtacal premise. Eventually, the buck has to stop at ONE - else science and math makes no sense.

 

[Michael]

Why would a Muslim go to a Buddhist temple in order to pray? Infact why would a Muslim go to any of these places in order to pray? Polytheism is obviously a sin according to Islam (see: shirk) thus it doesn't make any sort of sense for one to go to a temple or whatever in which Pagan gods are worshipped.

That's exactly right. The Japanese polytheistic Shinto faith provide areas of prayer for visiting Buddhists within their sacred grounds. The Buddhists provide Shinto Shrines within their Temple grounds. Notice how tolerant each are of one another's faiths - even though they are very very different belief systems. Shinto is indigenous Japanese faith whereas Buddhism is a religion based on Hindu Philosophy. Yet, here we have two different faiths able to coexist in such peaceful harmony with one another.

In 900CE China you'll find the emperor of Chang'an (then the worlds' largest city) paid for and ordered the construction of Mosques for Muslims to pray in when they visited China. He himself was Taoist and probably Buddhists as well. Wasn't that nice of him? Wasn't that tolerant of him? What a great religious paradigm non-monotheisms set as examples of multicultural respect.

It should be noted that while Muslims were more than happy to take advantage of Chinese hospitality, due to the monotheistic Islamic intolerant religious paradigms, Muslims never reciprocated such generosity of spirit in their own Capitol for the visiting Chinese merchants. We still see to this day a lack of religious generosity in Islamic countries 1100 years later. Too bad too because it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[iceaura]

Read the quote replied to. Muhammad is claiming something was given to him alone that has been the common possession of humans for millenia.
”
No, he is not, this your own interpretation/reading of the text.

Here's the text as posted:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: “I have been given five things that no one has been given before me… (Among them is that) the earth has been made for me as a Mosque and a source of purification.

Your interpretation would differ from mine exactly how?

For thousands of years people have considered the earth as having been given to them as a place of worship, etc, and a source of purification. Muhammad is wrong about that, in that quote.

 

[spidergoat]

Well, I happen to believe there is nothing natural about the world and there is no such thing as nature, just as there is one supreme spirit behind all multiple spirits. Originally, people believed in the wind and the sun - as dieties controlling the world - now we see the sun as being an effect of other phenomena. Nature is akin to the wiring in your computer. The notion that a car manual is the end all and proof there is no car maker is a folly - the reverse applies, both in the small and big picture.

These beliefs in dieties were reasonable beliefs for its time - and a step in understanding the universe after telescopes emerged. How or why Monotheism was envisioned by Abraham is also a wonder for its time, but it is fully a scientific and mathemtacal premise. Eventually, the buck has to stop at ONE - else science and math makes no sense.

You just need to go one step farther and realize there aren't any gods or spirits. From many to one to none. There is no scientific basis for any gods.

 

[IamJoseph]

You just need to go one step farther and realize there aren't any gods or spirits. From many to one to none. There is no scientific basis for any gods.

There is a specific basis for a Creator - because we have a universe - its a scientific premise. There is no basis for saying there is nature - which assumes a complexity occuring on its own - this is not a scientific premise. The correct answer is there must be a Creator but we cannot prove it.

Example. If we find a lock on Mars, we may assume it is a random co-incidence. Not so if we also find a key exactly fitting that lock. There are too may complexities, fully intergrated, to be a co-incidence. That such majestic engineerings in the universe came of itself - is not vested in any science or math. It is better to be wrong for the right reasons - than be right for the wrong reasons.

 

[spidergoat]

It did arise by itself. There was not a scientific basis for this until the discovery of evolution. It explains how an iterative process can produce complexity out of simplicity. The universe was not fine-tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the situation it evolved in.

Here is one question for you then. If complexity needs complexity to exist, where did the original complexity come from?

 

[IamJoseph]

This leaves thirteen years to develop the belief.

Not so if he is fully emersed in that religion and merely following the steps mandated by it. How many children under 13 can break from the mould - hardly any. Basically, it is extremely rare that one decides his own religion is inadequate and leaves it. This phenomenon occured with Abraham, and he had to flee from his country with a death sentence on his head. Today, one follows what they are born into - although the internet appears to have loosened these shakles.

 

[spidergoat]

- although the internet appears to have loosened these shakles.

Thank God! Actually, for me it was just the Library. And of course, secular society and science.

 

[IamJoseph]

It did arise by itself. There was not a scientific basis for this until the discovery of evolution. It explains how an iterative process can produce complexity out of simplicity.

No, it does not, when examined carefully. What factor would you nominate that causes this interaction? Of note is that these interactions are not generic but specific. Evolution comes from Genesis, and is an after the fact process - meaning there is no evolution without an already existing construct: otherwise what will evolution evolutionise?

The universe was not fine-tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the situation it evolved in.

Yes it was, and this is described in Genesis. Prior to life, there were a host of anticipatory actions, without which life could not occur. These are expressed by the fundamental examples:

LIGHT SEPERATION FROM DARKNESS

WATER SEPERATION FROM LAND

DAY SEPERATION FROM NIGHT.

These critical seperation factors are seen on earth, where life emerged - they are not seen in the other planets. The metaphor applying is:

THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS.

Here is one question for you then. If complexity needs complexity to exist, where did the original complexity come from?

Yes, good question, but well factored in. Obviously, what you are referring to is a program, as in a chip in your mobile. These are forces which enable a particle to behave in a certain way, and to pass on this program in repro. The word described in the Hebrew is an ancient and mysterious word, loosely translated as 'SEED' - which can refer to essence; program. We know today our bodies contain recepticles for programs, such as DNA and genes - but these are not random performing data - they perform specific tasks with a pre-determined end result. Each group of cells perform only immediate and specific actions - meaning they are programmed for specific tasks. Basically, what you call NATURE are the networks which conduct and process these tasks on micro and macro levels throughout the universe. Here, nature is akin to the wiring in your mobile chip: it does not negate the chip maker but affirms it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Thank God! Actually, for me it was just the Library. And of course, secular society and science.

And yet, you're a Zionist who believes "his people" are entitled to a Jewish state and that "Jewish culture" must be preserved. And inspite of being a Buddhist you call yourself Jewish. So obviously there are limits to what education can accomplish

Why would a Muslim go to a Buddhist temple in order to pray? Infact why would a Muslim go to any of these places in order to pray?

Its not a question of why they would, the question is can they?And the answer is Yes they can, it is makrooh not mamnooh to pray in temples, and it is makrooh because people of other faiths may not like to see Muslims praying in their places of worship so one must avoid it so as to not cause offence. In Islam the only criteria for a masjid [prayer location] is taharat [cleanliness], the presence of things around is irrelevant, no matter the idols around you, you are not praying to them. It is understood that all religious places are places where people pray to God and for a Muslim, it is all one God.

…if God had not driven some people back by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, where God's name is mentioned much, would have been pulled down and destroyed (Qur'an, 22:40)

 

[IamJoseph]

And yet, you're a Zionist who believes "his people" are entitled to a Jewish state and that "Jewish culture" must be preserved. .

You have conveniently, but unwarrentedly, ignored that the Jewish state also has a factual historical back-up of its land - more so than any Islamic claim to any land. This is borne out by historical and scientific proof - yet you pose a false scenario as if Israel is only based on a religious premise.

Further, what is so evil in a Jew having an attachment to his own land - even if based on a genuine belief - is a Hindu bad for such a preference - is a Muslim bad for believing Mecca is an Islamic land? What Islam is demanding is hardly the rights of any neo Pretend Palestineans invented by Arafat - more truthfully, it is engaging in a demand of genocide and the negation of a 4000 year nation. Let's not be confused - the end result of your demands have no other meanings. The last thing Islam needs is 'LAND' - you have been given 80% of your lands which you never owned just 120 years ago. So much for so called sacred islamic soil.