Foundational beliefs of the faith

realdanbreen

I'm not into long winded posts so can someone give me a yes or no answer.
Do Muslims believe that all non muslims are bound to go to hell?

Defender OF Faith

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm not into long winded posts so can someone give me a yes or no answer.
Do Muslims believe that all non muslims are bound to go to hell?

We Muslims believe that one of the characteristics of God is justice, and that in the day of Judgement no soul will be treated unjustly. "And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if there is [even] the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it forth. And sufficient are We as accountant"(24:47) We believe that God does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity.

Those who had died without knowing God due to the circumstances in their life that prevented them from searching for him and his path, will be treated fairly. Some scholars of Islam say that such people will be presented in front of God and as a test of their obedience to him, will be asked to enter hell fire, and if they obey God and enter it they will find it to be paradise, this is one of the many opinions on the matter but regardless one of the 99 attributes of God is "The Just" and thus every soul will be treated fairly and justly.

Here we need to understand who a Muslim is. A Muslim is a person who submits to God. It is not the name of a caste or race. That is to say, any human can be a Muslim if:
(a) He believes in one and only one God.
(b) He leads a good life by submitting to that one God.

However we also believe that in order to praise and worship God in the way he decreed, wants and love; one must follow Islam the religion & its teachings and depending on the degree of how the true massage of Islam reached him God will treat him accordingly.

realdanbreen

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

We Muslims believe that one of the characteristics of God is justice, and that in the day of Judgement no soul will be treated unjustly. "And We place the scales of justice for the Day of Resurrection, so no soul will be treated unjustly at all. And if there is [even] the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it forth. And sufficient are We as accountant"(24:47) We believe that God does not charge a soul except with that within its capacity.

Those who had died without knowing God due to the circumstances in their life that prevented them from searching for him and his path, will be treated fairly. Some scholars of Islam say that such people will be presented in front of God and as a test of their obedience to him, will be asked to enter hell fire, and if they obey God and enter it they will find it to be paradise, this is one of the many opinions on the matter but regardless one of the 99 attributes of God is "The Just" and thus every soul will be treated fairly and justly.

Here we need to understand who a Muslim is. A Muslim is a person who submits to God. It is not the name of a caste or race. That is to say, any human can be a Muslim if:
(a) He believes in one and only one God.
(b) He leads a good life by submitting to that one God.

However we also believe that in order to praise and worship God in the way he decreed, wants and love; one must follow Islam the religion & its teachings and depending on the degree of how the true massage of Islam reached him God will treat him accordingly.

So in the case of the billions of people who lived and died before Islam or Christianity was founded you say they will be treated 'fairly', does that mean they will escape hell?Or if a Christian leads a good life and believes in one God they will also be OK .

Defender OF Faith

realdanbreen wrote: »

So in the case of the billions of people who lived and died before Islam or Christianity was founded you say they will be treated 'fairly', does that mean they will escape hell?

We Muslim believe that God is absolutely just and fair and on top of that he's a most merciful God and one of his 99 attribute "The All-Compassionate" and "The All-Merciful" & "The Subtle One", I cannot speak on behalf of God and say what his judgment will be on these people, however I my faith tells me that each soul will be treated justly and fairly added to that is his mercy whom in a hadith described; "When Allah created the heavens and the earth, he created one hundred mercies, each one can cover what is between the earth and the heaven. He allocated to the earth only one, with which the mother is compassionate with her child; the beast and the bird are compassionate with their babies. When the Day of Judgment comes, Allah will complete His mercy." All of this mercy necessitate that only the most wicked,oppressors and transgressor will be punished in hell along with those who disbelieve after knowing and rejecting the truth.

To add that just because a person is a Muslim that does not immediately mean free access to heaven, we believe that on the day of Judgment we will all be questioned the Muslim included, in the Hadith;

“The son of Adam will not pass away from Allah until he is asked about five things: how he lived his life, and how he utilized his youth, with what means did he earn his wealth, how did he spend his wealth, and what did he do with his knowledge.”


Muslims will be asked if their prayers were done completely and with good quality. Allaah speaks about how in that day " their tongues, their hands, and their feet will bear witness against them as to their actions". surat An-Nur, (verse 24). Also Allah (S.W.T.) says "And they will say to their skin:" Why did you bear witness against us? "They will say "Allah has caused us to speak, as He cause all things to speak." ( Surat Al-Fussillat, Verse 21) and this is from his justice on that day you yourself will testify for yourself.

realdanbreen wrote: »

If a Christian leads a good life and believes in one God they will also be OK .

The Qur'an speaks and say;

{Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.} 2;62

"He stated that the earlier nations who were righteous and obedient received the rewards for their good deeds. This shall be the case, until the Day of Judgment. Therefore, whoever follows the unlettered Messenger and Prophet shall acquire eternal happiness and shall neither fear from what will happen in the future nor become sad for what has been lost in the past......Similarly There is a difference of opinion over the identity of the Sabians. Mujahid (scholar of Qur'an) said that, "The Sabians are between the Majus, the Jews and the Christians. They do not have a specific religion.'' ibn-kathir

I highlighted the word "one god" because the Christian belief after Paul teachings, has never really knew monotheism, with the concept of trinity and Jesus divinity both of which the Qur'an speaks against and prove to be false; as God being 3 in 1 or Jesus being his begotten son was a concept never taught by Jesus and the Qur'an speaks about how in the day of judgement Jesus(pbuh) himself will be questioned regarding this matter*

*http://quran.com/5/116-119

realdanbreen

Fair play to you dof for the explanations. I guess my main aprhension about the main religions, Islam,Christianity,Judaism,Hindu & Buddhism, is that they were founded only a couple of thousand of years ago.Why did God not make himself known to the billions of humans that lived on earth before that?

Defender OF Faith

Ah I get you now, to begin with I would like to remind you that history did not record the events of all the previous nations, & just because we do not know of prophets in ancient nations it does not mean they did not exist, Allaah speaks in the Qur'an and say "...and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past)."[35:24] along with another verse that further emphasis this point: "And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods."[16:36].

That's why we believe that God had sent prophets and messengers to every nation since the dawn of mankind,from the beginning with Adam(pbuh) to the end with Muhammed(pbuh). Only 25 prophets have been mentioned in the Qur'an, and only God knows the true number of the prophets and messengers he sent and he will never punish anyone who had not received the massage or one whom the massage reached him in a corrupted/disfigured way "And never would We punish until We sent a messenger."[17:15].

From this we believe that every prophet of God came with the same massage which is surrender, submission, obedience, sincerity and finally to be in peace with whatever God gave you, and all these words encompass the meaning of the Arabic word "Islam". Islam means the complete submission and obedience to God. Therefore, all prophets were indeed Muslims because they were true submitters to the will of God, the Creator.

A religion should not be limited, in order to suit all people. It should not be called after a person or a tribe or a geographic region like Hinduism which is called after Hind or India, Judaism after the tribe of Judas, Christianity after Jesus Christ and Buddhism after Buddha. Since there is One God and one human kind there is One Sender and one recipient, therefore it is logical to have one religion sent by God to the human kind with different messengers through different eras.

The religion of God we believe is called Islam which is a concept meaning: submitting to God and worshipping Him purely without associating other gods with Him, in order to reach peace and harmony with the universe.

Now you might ask why we believe that Muhammad (pbuh) was the final prophet/Warner? Because we believe Allaah/God has perfected and completed His religion to mankind as mentioned in the Quran (5:3):{…This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion…}
So the previous prophets before Muhammad (pbuhl) preached Islam by asking their followers to believe in only one unique God, the creator. Over time, people changed this ideology to what is known today as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc… It is mentioned in the Quran what is translated as:

{Do you claim that Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and their descendents were Jews or Christians? Say, "Are you more knowledgeable than Allah?” Who is more unjust than he who conceals the testimony received from Allah (Islam)? Allah is not unaware of what you do."} (Chapter 2, Verse 140)

Furthermore, the prophet have said:"I am most akin to Jesus Christ among the whole of mankind, and all the Prophets are of different mothers but belong to one religion and no Prophet was raised between me and Jesus."
In conclusion, we believe that Islam is the final revelation from God sent to humanity.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

Absolutely yes. I posit a greater being that created the universe and humans etc in a fit of pique after (the deity equivalent of) a drunken rage. He kept his eye on it for a few billion years but then got bored and switched off all communication channels and forgot about it. Plausible to me.

Convenient for you, yes. It's great to be able to sit on the fence, and to not have to defend your actual position that God doesn't exist (even if you claim that "it's plausible" a greater being did create the universe, you don't believe it), and instead focus on the usual attacking "logical fallacy", "delusion" rhetoric.

130Kph wrote: »

What? I don’t know what you’re on about - are you afraid Ireland could implement the policies of chairman Mao???

It's not a hypothetical question of could - it's the actual reality of today. It's not only greed at government/leader level, but also at the individual level. Our greed for shiny diamond rings has fuelled wars in Africa with countless untold misery, our greed for electronic devices has fuelled war in the Congo for conflict minerals (and the millions that have suffered as a result), I don't need to go into oil. Beyond that, our greed for cheap goods has resulted in us cleverly exporting slaves (because it wasn't cool to have them around anymore), so that we now enslave people in their own countries, and pay them pennies for goods they produce for our consumption. No other civilisation in humanity has consumed the earth at a faster rate than what we are doing today and despite stark warnings about climate change, our collective greed and inability to act will result in us destroying the planet. In 2015, despite how clever we think we are - we are probably one of the most irresponsible civilisations in human history, and we could learn a hell of a lot from our "medieval" ancestors who were content living off the land they lived on, but unfortunately we're too busy getting carried away with our "modernness". Once the horse has bolted, and when it's too late to actually make a difference, our governments probably will introduce laws to curb how much we consume, but until then, they're all too busy competing against one another on a global scale, and mass consumption goes on.

130Kph wrote: »

Just to recap, I read this answer to the problem of malevolence as: I don’t have an answer to this, so I’ll use the standard issue-dodging place-holder slogan instead (we don’t know the mind of Allah). The reason you don’t have an answer is because there isn’t one.

Is the reason you don't have an answer to how the universe came about because there isn't one? ... Or is it that there probably is an explanation out there, but you don't know it.

130Kph wrote: »

You seem to be quite confident and generous of spirit in debates here. I think it’s because you know you can’t be ‘got’ i.e. your belief can’t be falsified by anyone or any thing. This must make debating your religion quite satisfying.

For you, the only purpose of new scientific evidence is to slot into and support your belief. This is self-delusion, pure & simple. Even the innocuous phrase “I don’t have all the answers” cleverly plays a bit part in this self-delusion.

Finally, to support this delusion I think you require that this path to truth is publicly accepted as
1. of equal merit to the scientific method and at the same time,
2. an alternative path to the scientific method.
That's something I will not grant, not a chance.

Your hopelessly flawed path (like that of millions of religious people) doesn't even qualify as a useful path to decide which brand of corn flakes to buy. In my objective opinion and with goodwill & due respect, using such self-delusion to reach truth, in 2015, is degrading to human dignity.

Where did all that come from? My path IS the scientific method. The alternative path starts only when science can give no more. I've already said I don't think science, in of itself, will ever explain our existence, and new scientific evidence will only propose what happened at the start of the universe, and not explain why it came into being. I'm realistic about what science can and will achieve. I therefore view science and Islam as complementing each other, not competing. I don't expect you to agree with my perspective, but I genuinely don't understand how you don't see the rationale behind it.

130Kph

confusedquark wrote: »

It's great to be able to sit on the fence, and to not have to defend your actual position that God doesn't exist (even if you claim that "it's plausible" a greater being did create the universe, you don't believe it), and instead focus on the usual attacking "logical fallacy", "delusion" rhetoric.

I may have said “I don’t think a God exists” before (which is too loose a terminology for this topic) but my position is :- I don’t know. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim. Trying to shift it to those who admit they don’t know, just will not wash. Its like people who believe in leprechauns insisting that those who are agnostic on the issue have to prove leprechauns don’t exist.

The religious may like to frame this as convenient for agnostics but it really isn’t the case. The only way to legitimately avoid the burden of proof is to not make huge, extraordinary claims in the first place.


I’d like to correct a mistake I made towards the end of my last post.
I should have said it’s ok to think what science discovers is just showing how an intelligent designer created the universe. While it obviously isn’t my choice, holding this view does no harm to anyone and is not unreasonable.

But when religious people impute a specific set of characteristics onto an intelligent designer, in this case Allah, <b>that is</b> delusional. I could phrase it in a softer more politically correct way but that wouldn't be as clear or honest.

For example, the treatment of cows as sacred in Hindu culture is, in my opinion, a particularly galling piece of buffoonery that again only comes about from unsubstantiated beliefs mixed with ancient folklore. What is this but delusional??

To bring it to the extreme to clarify the point: - I could define a personal religion where I am instructed to blind in both eyes, every individual that doesn’t accept the truth of my religion, whenever I encounter them. Again, if I held this belief, I would be completely delusional (& criminally insane) since it has no substantiation.

It is NOT pejorative to describe your position (i.e. Islam as truth & especially the characteristics of Allah) as delusional; neither did I mean it to be. When it appears someone has a delusion, stating it to be so, is not insulting. If the person perceives it to be insulting, that is entirely up to him/her. Others members of society do not have to pander to such offence-taking.

Is the reason you don't have an answer to how the universe came about because there isn't one? ... Or is it that there probably is an explanation out there, but you don't know it.

There definitely is an answer but I don’t know what it is. Lots of people smarter than I are working on this question. What I absolutely will ,<b>not</b> do is assert that unsubstantiated ancient folklore (enforced for most people until relatively recently with family pressure or threats) holds the truth.

By the way, I don’t think there is an answer to the problem of malevolence. What I left unsaid is the consequence of this : - either there is no intelligent designer or if there is one, he/she/it is an irredeemably sadistic degenerate (by modern humanist standards).

On your paragraph about greed and problems of modern civilisation, one small error is – neither total nuclear war nor worst case climate change (say Earth having an atmosphere like Venus) will destroy the planet

While all important issues, they don’t affect whether Islam is true or not. What I’m reading from this therefore is, you think humans are a pestilence on the Earth and we can restrain our worst habits by using Islam. Again, I disagree politically and philosophically with this.

I am more in tune with this guy twitter.com/sapinker. He has lots of facts & evidence that undermines many of the fashionable myths that everything’s going to hell in a hand basket. His main position on the current setup is: - (lots of things are improving and) don’t believe all the doom-mongerers in the media and elsewhere.

My path IS the scientific method. The alternative path starts only when science can give no more. I've already said I don't think science, in of itself, will ever explain our existence, and new scientific evidence will only propose what happened at the start of the universe, and not explain why it came into being.

I do get what you’re saying and what I’m saying is there is no alternative path at this time. Its fine to wonder about alternative possibilities but its delusional to worship unsubstantiated folklore-defined characters.

confusedquark

130Kph wrote: »

Its like people who believe in leprechauns insisting that those who are agnostic on the issue have to prove leprechauns don’t exist.

The religious may like to frame this as convenient for agnostics but it really isn’t the case. The only way to legitimately avoid the burden of proof is to not make huge, extraordinary claims in the first place.

No, it's like people who believe in leprechauns getting those who are agnostic on the issue to admit that they don't believe leprechauns exist (vs proving they don't exist), as opposed to a position of "I don't know if they exist".

It's simple - if you reject all religious scriptures as being ancient folklore, you're adopting a position that God doesn't exist.

130Kph wrote: »

But when religious people impute a specific set of characteristics onto an intelligent designer, in this case Allah, <b>that is</b> delusional. I could phrase it in a softer more politically correct way but that wouldn't be as clear or honest.

If one believes that the universe with all it's complexities was created by a greater being, then it's not a far stretch to believe that greater being could and would communicate with us. When the specific set of characteristics have been communicated to us by the intelligent designer Himself, I don't see how that is delusion. A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. So whilst you can label my belief as unsubstantiated or ancient folklore, unless you can provide superior evidence to the contrary, you're not in any position to label it delusional.

130Kph wrote: »

For example, the treatment of cows as sacred in Hindu culture is, in my opinion, a particularly galling piece of buffoonery that again only comes about from unsubstantiated beliefs mixed with ancient folklore. What is this but delusional??

I'm not going to defend all religious beliefs, because I reject all but one of them as well, and I agree that the treatment of cows as sacred is folly.

130Kph wrote: »

There definitely is an answer but I don’t know what it is. Lots of people smarter than I are working on this question. What I absolutely will ,<b>not</b> do is assert that unsubstantiated ancient folklore (enforced for most people until relatively recently with family pressure or threats) holds the truth.

That's your opinion and belief and you're very well entitled to it.

130Kph wrote: »

By the way, I don’t think there is an answer to the problem of malevolence. What I left unsaid is the consequence of this : - either there is no intelligent designer or if there is one, he/she/it is an irredeemably sadistic degenerate (by modern humanist standards).

Key words there being "by modern humanist standards". I'll copy and paste my original point "as clever as we think we are, we can't always comprehend what Allah's (subhana wa'tala) plans are".

130Kph wrote: »

On your paragraph about greed and problems of modern civilisation, one small error is – neither total nuclear war nor worst case climate change (say Earth having an atmosphere like Venus) will destroy the planet

While all important issues, they don’t affect whether Islam is true or not. What I’m reading from this therefore is, you think humans are a pestilence on the Earth and we can restrain our worst habits by using Islam. Again, I disagree politically and philosophically with this.

Yeup, that was my point. It doesn't strictly affect whether Islam is true or not, but that was not the reason it was brought up. I cited it as my argument for not suppressing religion (and not necessarily just Islam - many other religions preach along the same lines re greed), because of the protective effect it has against this greed. Again, you're free to disagree.

130Kph wrote: »

I am more in tune with this guy twitter.com/sapinker. He has lots of facts & evidence that undermines many of the fashionable myths that everything’s going to hell in a hand basket. His main position on the current setup is: - (lots of things are improving and) don’t believe all the doom-mongerers in the media and elsewhere.

Let's hope he's not delusional.

130Kph wrote: »

I do get what you’re saying and what I’m saying is there is no alternative path at this time. Its fine to wonder about alternative possibilities but its delusional to worship unsubstantiated folklore-defined characters.

Lol, so it's fine to "wonder" about alternative possibilities but it then becomes "delusional" to form an opinion that one of those alternative possibilities makes the most sense after objectively examining all the evidence to hand?

130Kph

I don’t know if an intelligent designer exists. There is a minuscule possibility that one exists so I don’t rule it out because I would see that as jumping to an unsound conclusion (like in a murder trial). If you don’t accept this is my position that’s unfortunate. There are loads of posters (e.g. on A&A) who do say such a being doesn't exist so you could debate them on this point. It might be illuminating.

confusedquark wrote: »

<B>When the specific set of characteristics have been communicated to us by the intelligent designer Himself</B>, I don't see how that is delusion. A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. So whilst you can label my belief as unsubstantiated or ancient folklore...

Even this paragraph is on shaky ground. You believe the characteristics have been communicated to us by the intelligent designer Himself and at the same time you agree that I am within my rights to define Islam as unsubstantiated.

This bolded part of the above quote is probably the core issue of the whole thread & issue of religion overall (i.e. unsubstantiated). Well, I’ve given all my observations & criticism of religions and if I kept going, I’d only be going back over the same ground again.

I think religion is to use 60’s slang “far out” and is at least 400 years past its sell-by date. I accept people being deeply spiritual and/or feeling connected to an unknowable greater being, but I think defining a personality for this being and believing ancient books with numerous petty rules and regulations was not healthy for society as a whole in 1615, let alone today.

Anyway, bonne continuée

confusedquark

Apologies again about such a late reply. Life's been busy.

130Kph wrote: »

I don’t know if an intelligent designer exists. There is a minuscule possibility that one exists so I don’t rule it out because I would see that as jumping to an unsound conclusion (like in a murder trial). If you don’t accept this is my position that’s unfortunate. There are loads of posters (e.g. on A&A) who do say such a being doesn't exist so you could debate them on this point. It might be illuminating.

If you are serious in your emphatic rejection of all religion, but at the same time can be open to the possibility of an intelligent designer existing, then good for you. I don't need to repeat myself.

130Kph wrote: »

Even this paragraph is on shaky ground. You believe the characteristics have been communicated to us by the intelligent designer Himself and at the same time you agree that I am within my rights to define Islam as unsubstantiated.

This bolded part of the above quote is probably the core issue of the whole thread & issue of religion overall (i.e. unsubstantiated). Well, I’ve given all my observations & criticism of religions and if I kept going, I’d only be going back over the same ground again.

Is it really on shaky ground though? Most beliefs are unsubstantiated - that's why we call them beliefs, and not proofs.

Regarding substantiation being the issue - it sort of is, but even substantiation can be a relative matter. I'd consider Islam substantiated because of the evidence it presents and how it reflects our world and lives. Somebody else will choose to reject that evidence and it becomes unsubstantiated for them.

We are going back and forward, but it's a simple enough matter really - it's not hard to appreciate why somebody would hold a certain viewpoint given all the evidence (and lack thereof) we have at hand. I don't particularly agree with the logic that the universe doesn't have a creator - but each to their own.

130Kph wrote: »

I think religion is to use 60’s slang “far out” and is at least 400 years past its sell-by date. I accept people being deeply spiritual and/or feeling connected to an unknowable greater being, but I think defining a personality for this being and believing ancient books with numerous petty rules and regulations was not healthy for society as a whole in 1615, let alone today.

I've already outlined my argument regarding why "petty" rules and regulations are good for society, and the world at large, so no point repeating them again.