Speaking Directly

iUseVi

OK, I'm sorry I know very little of Islam, but I have a quick question.

Do you believe that God speaks directly to you? As in an audible voice, or through the Qur'an, or in your thoughts, or in any other way?

Thanks.

wes

No, God doesn't speak to Humans directly at all. He only spoke to Prophets via Angels and not directly.

As for the Koran, that the word of God relayed to man via the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (relayed via an Angel).

Also, Muhammad was the last prophet (for most Muslims sects, but there are one or 2 who believe different), so God doesn't talk to people anymore.

hivizman

wes wrote: »

No, God doesn't speak to Humans directly at all. He only spoke to Prophets via Angels and not directly.

For reference, the Qur'an includes the following verse: Surah Al Shura 42:51 (Yusuf Ali translation of meaning - my comments in square brackets):

It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration [revelation], or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger [an angel] to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for he is Most High, Most Wise.

The one possible exception to this relates to the Prophet Moses. In Surah Al Nisa 4:164, the Qur'an states:

Of some messengers We have already told thee the story; of others we have not - and to Moses Allah spoke direct.

If we use the word metaphorically, then God 'speaks' to us all the time through His Signs, including the Qur'an, but God doesn't speak to us directly in a literal sense.

iUseVi

Thank you for your responses.

Jannah

My aunt thinks the Virgin Mary speaks to her directly.....
the again, my aunt is a complete crackpot!!!

Her friend phoned her up and asked if she should go on a pillgramage to Lourdes, my aunt said hold on, I'll call you back later, called back later after "calling upon" the Virgin Mary and said "Eileen, you take that pillgramage because if you don't, it'll be like spitting in the face of Jesus".........

I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE LIVE LIKE THAT!!

hivizman

Jannah wrote: »

My aunt thinks the Virgin Mary speaks to her directly.....

Mentioning Lourdes reminded me of the old movie The Song of Bernadette, where Bernadette has a vision of a beautiful lady who announces herself by saying "I am the Immaculate Conception". It seems strange enough to converse with the Virgin Mary, but to be spoken to by an abstract concept???

Jannah

Yep, she can switch it on in a minute and in seconds she'll have a long rambling message directly from the Virgin Mary...
same woman travels half an hour to prayer meetings because the one in her locality isn't "intense" enough(!!)
I think that some old people just suddenly realise "Hey, what the hell, I'm going to die soon- ah well, better start getting grossly overly religious and hope it makes up for the past 60 years of doing sweet nothing"

merrionsq

Now try applying that sort of logical/critical thinking to another religion. They may not be as tolerant of your wit!

onedmc

1. God sent moses to give mankind strightforward rules to live by. The 10 commandments.
Jews, christians and muslims believe in Moses

2. God realised that mankind wasn't able to follow these rules so he sent his son (representative) to show mankind how to live by these rules.
Christian and muslims believe in Jesus

3. This was good but mankind still ended up interpreting the life/acts of Jesus as it wasn't recorded as it happen. So he sent another representative to act as an intermediary and write down exactly what the rules of life should be. This was the Koran.
Muslims believe that the Koran is therefore the word of god.

I know this is a simple interpretation that may not in FACT be correct but afterall I am a christian, and it does allow me to understand the thinking behind the conflicts.

DinoBot

onedmc wrote: »

1. God sent moses to give mankind strightforward rules to live by. The 10 commandments.
Jews, christians and muslims believe in Moses

2. God realised that mankind wasn't able to follow these rules so he sent his son (representative) to show mankind how to live by these rules.
Christian and muslims believe in Jesus

3. This was good but mankind still ended up interpreting the life/acts of Jesus as it wasn't recorded as it happen. So he sent another representative to act as an intermediary and write down exactly what the rules of life should be. This was the Koran.
Muslims believe that the Koran is therefore the word of god.

I know this is a simple interpretation that may not in FACT be correct but afterall I am a christian, and it does allow me to understand the thinking behind the conflicts.

On point 2. Although muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet they dont believe in him as gods son.

Nice little timeline. Wonder why it took three attempts to get the message to mankind ?

Jannah

merrionsq wrote: »

Now try applying that sort of logical/critical thinking to another religion. They may not be as tolerant of your wit!

Yes, I am aware that quite a few old people freaking out as their near death and becoming completely absorbed with religion is a worldwide phenomenon- sadly. Pity, really. In fairness, I don't think anyone could really contradict that statement, its fairly true when you look around. Personally, whatever gives them comfort, but I'm pretty sure you won't catch me marching into mass when there's only so many half hour sessions left in me!

hivizman

DinoBot wrote: »

Nice little timeline. Wonder why it took three attempts to get the message to mankind ?

Not just three attempts: as the Qur'an notes (Surah Al Nahl 16:36, Yusuf Ali translation of meaning):

For We assuredly sent amongst every people a messenger (with the command), "Serve Allah, and eschew evil": of the people were some whom Allah guided, and some on whom error became inevitably established.

So in the past, God sent His message through many messengers, some of whom are known to us and others are unknown, in the foreknowledge that the message was going to be misunderstood and garbled. This human free will is a pesky thing!

Jannah

onedmc wrote: »

1. God sent moses to give mankind strightforward rules to live by. The 10 commandments.
Jews, christians and muslims believe in Moses

The 10 Commandments were a complete train wreak, to say the least. But hey, if you still believe in rules that "forgot" rape, genocide, gender equality etc and went on to speak of how to deal with your slaves, commit mass genocide and sell your daughters... well, I don't quite know what to say to you
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56176588&postcount=62

Also, I agree with Dinobot- God must have been a fairly sloppy worker if it took him 3 attempts and still his laws still aren't working properly. Give me Irish law any day of the week- no beheadings, slavery, treating women like property or chopping off of limbs.

onedmc

Jannah wrote: »

The 10 Commandments were a complete train wreak, to say the least. But hey, if you still believe in rules that "forgot" rape, genocide, gender equality etc and went on to speak of how ...

The Omnipident one just didnt think of these things. Remember he's a man doing a DIY job, so its an ongoing project .....

Wibbs

DinoBot wrote: »

Nice little timeline. Wonder why it took three attempts to get the message to mankind ?

That's always troubled me and it goes for many religions. The later incarnations claim the previous ones were corrupted by man or were incomplete. Which does beg the question how could God/Allah get it "wrong" twice and then finally gets it right with say the Quran? This is not just about Islam either. As I say, it could be equally argued about Christianity and Judaism too.

Surely if a God wanted us to live correctly by his law then this law would have been very clear from the start and wouldn't require confusing and often incompatible installments. While we could reduce the basis of the law to ten commandments or treat others well, the nuances depending on the faith could end you up in hell. It also begs the question about all those who belived in earlier revelations that later revelations consider wrong. What happened to them as far as judgement is concerned? The stock answer of "Allah is all merciful", "God moves in mysterious ways" or the Irish version, "ah sure God is good", doesn't really cut it theologically.

Who knows a completely new offshoot or continuation could spring up tomorrow and gain favour and previous incarnations may be considered wrong by them. Now of course Muslims believe that they have the last revelation, but I'm sure in the 100's of years before Mohammed, Christians and Jews thought the same. Indeed still do.

Schuhart

Wibbs, you've returned a Moderator. Twice a Moderator.

And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Wibbs wrote: »

That's always troubled me and it goes for many religions. The later incarnations claim the previous ones were corrupted by man or were incomplete.

Indeed, but I suppose what various believers will say is they expect the message to develop over time in any event. Plus, while we might assume from the outside that everyone should have an equal chance for Paradise, both Quran and Bible seem to contain quotes to the effect that some of the faithless have had their ears covered by God so they just won't get the message. Hence, as at least one believer has said to me in discussion on Christianity, maybe God doesn't give everyone a chance for redemption. If its his creation, he can do what he likes.

On the principle of why the divine message might go pear shaped several times, that seems to be wrapped up in that conundrum of free will. Leaving aside how its meant to work if God knows everything in advance, in principle if we have free will it presumably means the ability to mess up the message. Of course, in principle, there's then no reason to particularly feel one version of the message is less likely to be screwed up than any other, but I think that reflects the way that we would tend to evaluate faith the way that we'd evaluate any other phenomenon.

I think the gap between how the believer and unbeliever approach faith is well caught in a post of PDN's some time back. I think the thing to note is how his faith grows as an iterative process, starting with far more immediate concerns than the theoretical basis for free will, say.

I think its in this space that we start getting what unbelievers find frustrating when believers seem to push past what seem to us pretty obvious flaws in the foundation of their faith. Its that the things we see just aren't the core of the faith. The decision to accept Quran or Bible as authoritative is not because of historical evidence. Its because of its proven ability to be relevant to that individuals life. So questions like 'but why are all the other faiths wrong', which seems of prime importance to us, is actually a secondary consideration for a believer.

hivizman

The Ahmadi sect, who consider themselves to be Muslims, believe that, although the Qur'an is the final and eternal Word of God, this does not mean the end of divine revelation. They argue that a belief that God stopped granting revelations with the Prophet Muhammad implies that God's revelatory aspect is not eternal, which would contradict the belief that God is immutable. Presumably, though, if God is still granting revelations, they would simply reiterate the Qur'an? Does that mean that we could receive revelations only in Arabic, or would the revelations be in their own languages? At least Christianity believes that the Holy Spirit inspires translations of the Bible, so we don't have to be able to read the original Hebrew or Greek to obtain the full meaning of the Old and New Testaments.

The Baha'i faith believes that Muhammad was not the final messenger. God reveals his message on a progressive basis through time. Some of God's message consists of eternal truths that are reinforced by each messenger while other parts of the message are more appropriate to the state of development of humanity. For example, many of the more "ritualistic" aspects of Islam, such as the precise method of prayer, may have been relevant in advancing God's message in earlier times but are now unnecessary. Adherents of the Baha'i faith believe that the faith's founder Baha'u'llah (1817-1892) is the divine messenger of our age.

This view of progressive revelation seems to be rather convenient because it suggests that earlier revelations were not "wrong" but rather "right for their time", but then I ask why (a) God seems to grant revelations only at intervals of several centuries if not millennia, rather than granting revelations in "real time", and (b) why should we assume that the Qur'an is the final revelation?

The question of what different religions believe will happen to adherents of other religions is an interesting one. Sometimes I get the impression that the view of Islam is a tolerant one, at least for the widely defined "People of the Book", including Jews and Christians - if you keep to the beliefs of your own faith, your good deeds will be rewarded, whereas at other times I get the sense that at least some Muslims would argue that anyone not agreeing with their precise interpretation of Islam are irrevocably damned. There's the same tension among Christians, with more liberal Christians believing that there are many routes to salvation and eternal life while other Christians hold that the only road to salvation is through Jesus Christ. Muslims deny both the divinity of Christ and the atoning death of Jesus on the cross, and hence are damned.

As a woolly-minded liberal, I tend to look for what is common in religions, what they teach us about living a good (in several senses) life. Too much debate over theology can be bad for us. To end with a hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, the nights."

Schuhart

hivizman wrote: »

This view of progressive revelation seems to be rather convenient because it suggests that earlier revelations were not "wrong" but rather "right for their time", but then I ask why (a) God seems to grant revelations only at intervals of several centuries if not millennia, rather than granting revelations in "real time", and (b) why should we assume that the Qur'an is the final revelation?

Indeed, but does this not reflect how the path to belief is an individual process. I mean, it does make sense to me that in assessing a religion the sequence of events should be something like:
1. How credible is the 'God concept' to begin with?
2. Even assuming that God, how credible is the claim that religion X is the true God's religion?
3. Can the existence of religion X equally be accounted for as a human invention?

Logically, only if those kinds of questions can be answered would it matter whether or not the actual doctrines of the faith were good or bad for people.

But that assumes the outlook captured in that Carl Sagan quote It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. However, a reasonably valid course of action is to actually ignore that outlook and simply go with whatever belief system feels right. In that context, it becomes irrelevant as to why God picked a particular vessel for the message, or why the message might have changed over time, as the answer is just 'whatever'.

The proof is simply the inductive process of noticing the faith is something that makes the individual content, and the disproof of divine inconsistency is the corollary that if it wasn't true the believer would be no longer content. Put another way, to an extent the argument for atheism can involve arguing that many people are not 'meant' to be content. When you reflect on it, the consequences of that view are actually not light. Accepting a degree of divine incoherence might actually involve less cost.

the_new_mr

You're very welcome back Wibbs. Good to see you back here. And a moderator too. The force is with you but you are not a Jedi yet. Sorry, couldn't resist (and yes, before anyone points it out, I do realise that I'm making myself out to be Darth Vader )

Honestly though, good to see that someone like yourself is a moderator.

To comment on a few of the points brought up in this thread:

The Islamic view of previous religions (such as Christianity and Judaism) is that they were for a certain people for a certain time whereas Islam is for all people for all time starting from the time of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him).

Also, there is a verse somewhere in the Quran (that I'm having trouble locating at the moment so would appreciate it if someone else would) that states how the preservation of the holy scriptures of the Taurah and the Gospel were the responsibility of the holy men whereas the preservation of the Quran is God's responsibility.

As hivizman already pointed out, the Quran makes it clear that there were messengers of whom we are not told about specifically that carried the message to other people (I believe that Buddha could have been one such messenger but only God knows for sure).

One point I felt very important to comment on was the Islamic view of people who died in the past without knowledge of revelation. This view was very clearly laid out in Surat Ta-Ha when Moses (peace be upon him) was preaching to Pharaoh.

Ta-Ha - 50-51:
"(Pharaoh) said: "What then is the condition of previous generations?"; He replied: "The knowledge of that is with my Lord, duly recorded: my Lord never errs, nor forgets,-"

Also, to comment on a point that hivizman brought up, although Moses (peace be upon him) was talked to directly, it was from behind a veil (the burning bush).

Finally, to answer the original poster's question. Although I believe that there will no longer be anymore more revelation in the sense of clear messages like those of the Gospel and the Quran, I do believe that God does send people messages sometimes.

These can be from simply guiding us in one direction (making a particular path easier to follow than another), to answering our questions through reading holy scripture (I've often found that a prayer/question I was asking/wondering about was answered almost straight away when I picked up the Quran... although I'm sure some skeptics will be quick to point out that I see the answers there because I want to) to more obvious "signs" (I've had some very eerie experiences in my life... some a bit too personal to mention... and impossible for any skeptic to explain).

hivizman

the_new_mr wrote: »

Also, there is a verse somewhere in the Quran (that I'm having trouble locating at the moment so would appreciate it if someone else would) that states how the preservation of the holy scriptures of the Taurah and the Gospel were the responsibility of the holy men whereas the preservation of the Quran is God's responsibility.

Are you thinking of Surah Al-Hijr 15:9-13?

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). We did send messengers before thee amongst the religious sects of old; But never came a messenger to them but they mocked him. Even so do We let it cree into the hearts of the sinners - That they should not believe in the (Message); but the ways of the ancients have passed away.

The reference to the preservation of the Tawrah and Injil is I think in Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:44:

It was we who revealed the Law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's Will, by the Rabbis and the Doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's Book, and they were witnesses thereto.

the_new_mr wrote: »

Finally, to answer the original poster's question. Although I believe that there will no longer be anymore more revelation in the sense of clear messages like those of the Gospel and the Quran, I do believe that God does send people messages sometimes.

These can be from simply guiding us in one direction (making a particular path easier to follow than another), to answering our questions through reading holy scripture (I've often found that a prayer/question I was asking/wondering about was answered almost straight away when I picked up the Quran... although I'm sure some skeptics will be quick to point out that I see the answers there because I want to) to more obvious "signs" (I've had some very eerie experiences in my life... some a bit too personal to mention... and impossible for any skeptic to explain).

Sorry, but I tend to be a skeptic here - I think that we remember the specific instances where there are connections in our lives (I've also had the experience of finding answers to questions in things that I happened to be reading at the time), but forget the many cases where there are no obvious connections. However, thinking back to the discussion on qadar, it would make sense, if God wants us to do something, and knows in advance that we are more likely to choose what God wants if we have a sign, that we would interpret signs in favour of one direction rather than another as God's encouragement to us to exercise our free will in a particular way. This sounds very complicated, but it's basically the same issue as whether God answers our prayers.

the_new_mr

Thanks for the verse. The second one was the one that I meant.

I think I see what you're getting at about the God answering prayer bit with certain signs being made clear to us depending on the prayer itself. I myself have experienced this kind of thing a lot.

Actually, this might sound a little crazy (and perhaps, a little petty?) but I often feel that God kind of sends me signs with certain films. Like there have been times where the theme of a certain movie seems to fit directly with my present thoughts. Now, I know that it's human nature to see what we want to see: Essentially meaning that I saw the links in a particular movie because of what was on my mind at the time (the same way someone who has just broken up or something seems to feel that all love songs are about their exact situation).

But there is one particular circumstance that I've had with the same recurring movie coming on TV at the most peculiar moments where my thoughts on a certain subject were at their most intense. I actually typed out the circumstances that made me feel the most sort of weirded out but I deleted the text. It somehow feels too personal to talk about... even vaguely. Sorry about that. Maybe I'll share the experience with you one day.

hivizman

Curiously, while I was thinking about qadar, free will and why God seems to permit evil, I looked up the verses in the Qur'an about Job, and found this in Surah Al-Anbiya 21:83-84:

And (remember) Job, when he cried to his Lord, "Truly distress has seized me. But Thou are the Most Merciful of those that are Merciful." And we listened to him: We removed the distress that was on him, and We restored his people to him, and doubled their number - as a Grace from Ourselves, and a thing for commemoration, for all who serve Us.

Now, you could get very sophisticated and argue that God already knew that Job was going to entreat in this way and had willed that Job would be restored, so it only seemed to Job that God was actually listening and responding to his prayers, but perhaps it's simpler for us to understand this as a case of "God responding to prayers". Similarly, as long as we don't get superstitious about it, it may be simpler to think that God is "speaking" to us through signs and what skeptics deride as coincidences. Maybe it was a coincidence that I happened to find a verse on God listening and responding to prayers?

Jannah

the_new_mr wrote: »

Actually, this might sound a little crazy (and perhaps, a little petty?) but I often feel that God kind of sends me signs with certain films.

But there is one particular circumstance that I've had with the same recurring movie coming on TV at the most peculiar moments where my thoughts on a certain subject were at their most intense. I actually typed out the circumstances that made me feel the most sort of weirded out but I deleted the text. It somehow feels too personal to talk about... even vaguely. Sorry about that. Maybe I'll share the experience with you one day.

Seeing 'signs' in the media and believing that they are meant for you (be it films, newspapers, books) is actually a mental disorder, usually schitzophrenia...

the_new_mr

Thanks for that Jannah

Although I can assure you that the particular cases where it's happened to me have not been schizophrenia. I'm sure you'll say: "That's exactly what a schizophrenic would say" but what can I say? The particular incident that happened is beyond any possible scope of schizophrenia. And I'm not one of those people that sees signs in the most obscure places or sees them all the time and is convinced that God is talking to them all the time.

I guess it comes down to the idea of coincidence. If you believe that there are no coincidences (except maybe in something like a game of cards) then you believe that nothing would have happened without a reason and, for me, it usually happened when I was feeling completely lost about something and was asking God for guidance. I'm sure a sceptic would say that I saw signs because I believed I would but what are ya gonna do?

hivizman wrote:

Now, you could get very sophisticated and argue that God already knew that Job was going to entreat in this way and had willed that Job would be restored, so it only seemed to Job that God was actually listening and responding to his prayers, but perhaps it's simpler for us to understand this as a case of "God responding

I know what you mean. I think I touched on this idea on the thread about fate. Since we're moving along the 4th dimension of time, we see a choice, take an action (i.e. choose an option) and then see a consequence of that action. One event following another. God already knew we would pray to Him so had already set the events in motion but that doesn't mean we didn't have to make the choice. The only difference is that God knew we were going to make the choice before we did.

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote: »

Thanks for that Jannah

Although I can assure you that the particular cases where it's happened to me have not been schizophrenia. I'm sure you'll say: "That's exactly what a schizophrenic would say" but what can I say? The particular incident that happened is beyond any possible scope of schizophrenia. And I'm not one of those people that sees signs in the most obscure places or sees them all the time and is convinced that God is talking to them all the time.

Im sure its not as complex as schizophrenia, Id say its much more likely to be confirmation bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

hivizman

DinoBot wrote: »

Im sure its not as complex as schizophrenia, Id say its much more likely to be confirmation bias.

Odd - ten minutes ago I was having a conversation with a friend about confirmation bias.

I agree with you, DinoBot, that we tend to notice and remember things that fit in or resonate with what we're thinking about and disregard the many other things that don't fit in (presumably the sociobiologists will have an explanation that this sort of mental filtering helps us to survive). And I'm sure we all have particularly spooky stories to tell of coincidences (signs?) that have happened just when we needed them. Anyway, even if we believe in signs, how can we be sure that it's God who left the signs rather than the devil?

the_new_mr

DinoBot wrote:

Id say its much more likely to be confirmation bias

Yeah, I thought it would have a term like that. Thanks for educating me on the term. I don't think I had/have it though (at least in the cases I have in mind). Sorry to disappoint you

hivizman wrote:

Anyway, even if we believe in signs, how can we be sure that it's God who left the signs rather than the devil?

Interesting question. But I don't think that the devil is capable of "changing" stuff in that way. AFAIK, his only ability is temptation. "The devil whispering in your ear" as such

Jannah

DinoBot wrote: »

Im sure its not as complex as schizophrenia, Id say its much more likely to be confirmation bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Wow, now there's one I haven't heard of before! But yup, methinks its an accurate diagnosis! *pats the_new_mr's hand* We're taking you for a rest, wouldn't that be nice? Yes?

the_new_mr wrote: »

Thanks for that Jannah

Although I can assure you that the particular cases where it's happened to me have not been schizophrenia. I'm sure you'll say: "That's exactly what a schizophrenic would say" but what can I say? The particular incident that happened is beyond any possible scope of schizophrenia. And I'm not one of those people that sees signs in the most obscure places or sees them all the time and is convinced that God is talking to them all the time.

I guess it comes down to the idea of coincidence. If you believe that there are no coincidences (except maybe in something like a game of cards) then you believe that nothing would have happened without a reason and, for me, it usually happened when I was feeling completely lost about something and was asking God for guidance. I'm sure a sceptic would say that I saw signs because I believed I would but what are ya gonna do?

I told a shrink that coincidences didn't exist and that it was fate aswell and she thought I was completely off of my trolley- wouldn't advise letting the medical profession hear such things!! Now everything is a coincidence, I just happen to see things at a certain time for no particular purpose <= GROWTH!

the_new_mr

Jannah wrote:

wouldn't advise letting the medical profession hear such things!!

Unless, of course, the person I was talking to was a believing psychotherapist

Jannah wrote:

We're taking you for a rest, wouldn't that be nice? Yes?

Although I personally am not offended (really, I don't let these things get to me), schizophrenia is a genuine mental disorder and nothing to be ashamed of. It shouldn't be made fun of. Although not strictly covered by the forum charter, I'll place this under "being naughty"

Jannah

the_new_mr wrote: »

Unless, of course, the person I was talking to was a believing psychotherapist

Lol, now that'd make an interesting thread- I wonder at what stage they draw the line...?

the_new_mr wrote: »

I'll place this under "being naughty"

Naughty but nice

Hobbes

Jannah wrote: »

Seeing 'signs' in the media and believing that they are meant for you (be it films, newspapers, books) is actually a mental disorder, usually schitzophrenia...

Actually you should do some reading up on how media works these days. Generally the message does have a target demographic. Schizophrenia tends to be a bit more complicated then what you make it out to be.