mental torment of an atheist

[lubna]

s3

Saba (Sheba)
Chapter 34: Verse 8 (partial)

Window of Hope
"It is those who do not believe in the life to come who are suffering torment as they have gone far in error."

The torment may refer to their punishment in the life to come. Since it will inevitably overtake them, then it is as if they are already in it, just like they have gone irremediably into error.

But the statement may be understood in a different way, which suggests that those who do not believe in the life to come live in torment just as they live in error. This is a profound statement. A person who spends his life without belief in a second life suffers mental torment, as he lives without hope of justice, fair reward or compensation for what happens in his life.

Indeed human life is full of situations and trials which man cannot face properly unless he looks up with hope for justice and reward for good action and punishment for those who do evil. There are things that one cannot do or bear without looking up to God, hoping to earn His pleasure in the life to come, when nothing large or small is overlooked. Whoever is deprived of this window of hope, which brings comfort and satisfaction, undoubtedly lives in torment as well as in error. Such a person suffers all this in the present life, before suffering punishment in the hereafter for his misdeeds which brought about his present life's suffering.

Compiled From:
"In The Shade of The Quran" - Sayyid Qutb, Vol. 14, p. 139

[sipraomer]

Salam. Miss lubna I know that I am making an odd request. But there was a thread which has long been forgotten. The thread name is Anesthetics Haram or halal. No user seems to visit that thread.
http://www.myiwc.com/forums/showthread.php?p=31171#post31171

As it is a very important question and I need to clarify it according to my point of view. Do you allow me to post my article about this subject here. Or will you visit this thread and invite other to re open the discussion in order to get the things straight?

[lubna]

s3

wlecome to our site sipraomer. may your stay be a beneficial one for you and us all Ameen.

members respond in their own time i suppose, so please leave it there ,where it belongs.

Ma'assalama
lubna

[sipraomer]

s3

wlecome to our site sipraomer. may your stay be a beneficial one for you and us all Ameen.

members respond in their own time i suppose, so please leave it there ,where it belongs.

Ma'assalama
lubna

Salam (Peace). Sister the problem is that this question in that post was asked 8 years ago. I have discovered this Islamic site 2 days ago. I posted a reply. I want that poster or the people who have this question in mind to simply read my reply. This is a very important question. That is why, I made this request. Please visit this thread and then observe, what point I am trying to make by requesting you and other users to re open this topic. As it is a very serious matter and people may go astray because of negligance. Let me remind you this too that on the day of judgement the ones who knew will be judged and asked "Did you tell others what you knew". SO this is an issue not to be taken lightly. Let me tell you the question. The first poster asks. Is alchohol Halal using in medicine?

[sipraomer]

s3

Saba (Sheba)
Chapter 34: Verse 8 (partial)

Window of Hope
"It is those who do not believe in the life to come who are suffering torment as they have gone far in error."

The torment may refer to their punishment in the life to come. Since it will inevitably overtake them, then it is as if they are already in it, just like they have gone irremediably into error.

But the statement may be understood in a different way, which suggests that those who do not believe in the life to come live in torment just as they live in error. This is a profound statement. A person who spends his life without belief in a second life suffers mental torment, as he lives without hope of justice, fair reward or compensation for what happens in his life.

Indeed human life is full of situations and trials which man cannot face properly unless he looks up with hope for justice and reward for good action and punishment for those who do evil. There are things that one cannot do or bear without looking up to God, hoping to earn His pleasure in the life to come, when nothing large or small is overlooked. Whoever is deprived of this window of hope, which brings comfort and satisfaction, undoubtedly lives in torment as well as in error. Such a person suffers all this in the present life, before suffering punishment in the hereafter for his misdeeds which brought about his present life's suffering.

Compiled From:
"In The Shade of The Quran" - Sayyid Qutb, Vol. 14, p. 139


I agree to your statement as.... Doctor Zakir Naik of India says an argument regarding the belief of life after death. He was asked by a lady that how can we scientifically convince Athiests who don't believe in heaven or hell or life here after. He responded to that question that according to my logic if 80% of Quran can be proven sicentifically right which talks about the things of the world. The remaining 20 % of ghaib should also be considered right. Then he says that suppose I ask you a question that is it right to rape or is it right to commit theft. People will answer no, it would spread evil in this world. Zakir argued that I can easily say that I will enjoy raping and killing and stealing. I can give you several of arguments. BY stealing I can become Don and buy the politicians to be safe from punishment. I can go visit europe with that stolen money and enjoy life. THousands of excuses can be given. Hitler killed 20 million jews. But if he was to be punished by the court. How many times he would have been hanged. Only for once.Which is the punishment for killing one person. SO a man who doesn't believe in heaven and hell will forget any morals. He will say what the hell I will be punished or hanged for once no matter I kill one hundred humans. So there would be no morals left. BUt Allah has the power to burn sinners in hell. He can renew the flesh of sinners by burning Hitler for 20 million times. So this can be the true interpretation that he will suffer and make others suffer who will not believe in the life here after.
I once debated with an athiest on this issue before watching this program of Zakir in which he gave the argument. ALhamdulilah Allah guided me right and I gave the same argument. That define life Oh Athiests. If there is no hell and heaven. Then how can there be any law or system of justice. Wouldn't people do unlimited rape, unlimited murder, unlimited theft. Wouldn't be the case like this? And Allah knows best.

[sipraomer]

Why can't I see more muslim anthusiasts contributing here. WHy is it so? I see the non muslim sites very populated by non muslim anthusiasts. Doesn't anyone want to learn about Islam or teach others about Islam. I am so sad seeing this reaction.

[roleary]

I agree to your statement as.... Doctor Zakir Naik of India says an argument regarding the belief of life after death. He was asked by a lady that how can we scientifically convince Athiests who don't believe in heaven or hell or life here after. He responded to that question that according to my logic if 80% of Quran can be proven sicentifically right which talks about the things of the world. The remaining 20 % of ghaib should also be considered right. Then he says that suppose I ask you a question that is it right to rape or is it right to commit theft. People will answer no, it would spread evil in this world. Zakir argued that I can easily say that I will enjoy raping and killing and stealing. I can give you several of arguments. BY stealing I can become Don and buy the politicians to be safe from punishment. I can go visit europe with that stolen money and enjoy life. THousands of excuses can be given. Hitler killed 20 million jews. But if he was to be punished by the court. How many times he would have been hanged. Only for once.Which is the punishment for killing one person. SO a man who doesn't believe in heaven and hell will forget any morals. He will say what the hell I will be punished or hanged for once no matter I kill one hundred humans. So there would be no morals left. BUt Allah has the power to burn sinners in hell. He can renew the flesh of sinners by burning Hitler for 20 million times. So this can be the true interpretation that he will suffer and make others suffer who will not believe in the life here after.
I once debated with an athiest on this issue before watching this program of Zakir in which he gave the argument. ALhamdulilah Allah guided me right and I gave the same argument. That define life Oh Athiests. If there is no hell and heaven. Then how can there be any law or system of justice. Wouldn't people do unlimited rape, unlimited murder, unlimited theft. Wouldn't be the case like this? And Allah knows best.

Asalamualaikum sipraomar,
Atheists have morals too, they are just shallow and stem from very basic animal desires and instincts. From what I get of your passage above you are suggesting that without religion, or belief... or perhaps Islam, there can be no morality? But this surely depends on how you define morality. For if you define morality simply as not committing acts such as those mentioned above (murder, rape, theft, etc) then we see everyday morals being adhered to by multi-millions of atheists everyday. Simply for practical animal instincts the atheist knows that by refraining from carrying out "immoral" acts, like murder, he will avoid immediate negative consequences in this life, such as punishment by government or social scrutiny and rejection. Therefore the atheist's animal instincts encourage this sort of morality without any reflection on the hereafter whatsoever, just as one knows to eat when he is hungry.
However if you are referring to morality in the sense of refraining from the above mentioned actions out of reflection on their long term consequences beyond this world then of course an atheist would be completely devoid of any morality whatsoever. But simply refraining from behaving by most typical social norms of morality does not require such reflection, for this reason I find the argument that morality cannot exist without religion unconvincing.

[sipraomer]

Asalamualaikum sipraomar,
Atheists have morals too, they are just shallow and stem from very basic animal desires and instincts. From what I get of your passage above you are suggesting that without religion, or belief... or perhaps Islam, there can be no morality? But this surely depends on how you define morality. For if you define morality simply as not committing acts such as those mentioned above (murder, rape, theft, etc) then we see everyday morals being adhered to by multi-millions of atheists everyday. Simply for practical animal instincts the atheist knows that by refraining from carrying out "immoral" acts, like murder, he will avoid immediate negative consequences in this life, such as punishment by government or social scrutiny and rejection. Therefore the atheist's animal instincts encourage this sort of morality without any reflection on the hereafter whatsoever, just as one knows to eat when he is hungry.
However if you are referring to morality in the sense of refraining from the above mentioned actions out of reflection on their long term consequences beyond this world then of course an atheist would be completely devoid of any morality whatsoever. But simply refraining from behaving by most typical social norms of morality does not require such reflection, for this reason I find the argument that morality cannot exist without religion unconvincing.

Wa Alaikumuslalam.

I am not acting harsh. Pardon me but you have I guess not read the whole passage or skipped one thing. When I mentioned Zakir Naik, I said he says that a criminal can buy politicians and twist laws for his own accord. And there are many people about whom people can't know about their crimes. They are simple very clever or you can say they don't face famous detectives like Sherlock Holmes.:). Apart from the joke, the thing is that there are unfortunately ways for criminals to guard themselves from justice and law. As far as animals are concerned. One can also learn from pigs or hams to do sex in public. A pigs nature is that it also does sex in front of other pigs. But cats and dogs and other animals do the sex privately. You can say they are more civilized in nature:). Now the thing is if one can learn a thing which is good from animals like Allama Iqbal gives examples in his poetry of eagle many times to encourage the muslims to fight the British who were ruling India and other muslim countries as well. He has also given example of tiger. A Muslim king of a state in India called Tipu Sultan was when surrendered by the british troops , he said 'Life of a lion for one day is better than that of a jackal for thousand years." This is the part I agree with you. But the other part is we can also learn bad things from animals like snatching attacking, killing, murduring and being powerful and predator fleeing away from the crime we do. For instance Hitler commited suicide for once. Where as Hitler killed 20 million jews. Or what if I buy and hire a good lawyer and even bribe the judge. So worldly punishment is very limited in this sense. Communist governments have been the governments of Athiest rulers I guess. How many millions they killed you know better than me. A person who doesn't have fear of a divine power will do any crime and go away easily or difficultly. But he will some how succeed. Not if all criminals then the most wiser ones. You know i used to think this alot hits idea. Why locks are made? Locks are made to stop people like us to stop temptation of stealing. Because a thieve is a professional. He learns to break the lock. Otherwise anyone can take a thing if anyone if no one is seeing. The thing which makes him a real professional is the art of stealing.

[sipraomer]

I wanted to merge this with my previous post but I thought its better to make it a separate topic. Now the problem is what is Athieism. Atheism is not the denial of God. Nor it means the denial of religion. But it is a denial of the damage the religous people did. I am referring to Christian Popes and unfortunately those terrorists who blow up innocent civilians but are in truth ignorant of Islam and know not even 1 % of it. They are the bunch of brainwashed people whose aim can be right if it is to stop aggression of tyrants. But the way is far too wrong. And when all the scholars tell them its wrong. And Quran and Hadith say its wrong and they still do it having the right intention will not save them from hell. However I support those who fight those who attack muslims only in the battlefield. Coming to the topic , Atheisim is the denial of Peace breakers. Popes rule in ancient Europe was cruel to that extent that scientists like Galileo who discovered that Sun Orbits the earth was burned because that observation got against bible. Now unfortunately non muslims and especially Athiests see islam the same way and fools who know nothing about islam are representing it in an evil way. Theory of evolution is not a fact and not even one book mentions this as a fact. Darwin wrote a letter to his fellow scientist that I don't agree to this theory my self but I made up this theory to make my understanding of embroyology easy and to make categorization easy. Scientists agree that there are many loop holes in this theory. But to support and symthasize with people like Galileo and following the rule that "The enemy of your enemy is your friend"? Its the thing which has made scientists preach this theory and is still taught in schools to overthrow the barbarity of a religion which was not from God but was man made. The progress of the west is in getting far away from the religion as well as science is concerned and as well as the religion of faked chritianity or other religions are concerned. But following Islam which prohibits stealing by giving the order of punishing by cutting both hands, regardless of the poverty and richness of a person. Which prohibits adultery and unmarital sex which spread diseases like STD Aids. which orders the rulers to practic with justice and with consultation which is a rule of modern democracy despite the fact that supremecy will be of God and not the public. With this one rule I can give you the answer of your question or dis agreement. All the previous content was to built the foundation.

Wine brings certain diseases to humans.
Wine brings grave accidents which result disaster and death.
Wine brings rape/
Wine brings child abuse/
Wine brings mental disorders and psychological problems.

Wine is prohibited in Islam and the punishment is 80 stripes.
No Muslim ruler can legalize wine because the supremecy of Parliament is of God not man. No matter how much public screams no rule against the teachings of Islam can be passed.

George washington said " Democracy means for people by people".
We muslims agree to the first part ie. For people but diagree to the latter which is by people.
WHy?
Because once United states congress passed a law against the legalization of wine. The public protested and the congress had to take back that law.

Public wanted to be diseased, murdered, raped, die in accidents, fall in the abuse of aids, supported child abuse, theft , voilence by only protesting against one thing which is called wine.

Supremecy of Allah or God means benefit for the mankind. A creator knows his creations weaknesses and strengths. He knew Alchohol is bad. He knew the consequences. He knew its result. Only this one rule that Supremency of God is better thatn supremecy of the public supports my arguments that animals can teach you good deeds if you already know the difference. But animals can't teach you each and every law of life each and every rule of life. THey don't have the concept of legal and illegal. They act according to their nature. Humans have the intellect to differentiate between right and wrong. As Augustus of Rome the successor of Julius Ceaser once said. Previous nations were destroyed because of adultery. And now new laws are to be introduced for it.And he was assassinated because of this amendment in laws. He knew adultery destroys societies. But he didn't know to stop it or what should be the punishment. Public didn't believe in the religion of God thus enraged assissinated their King or didn't protest against the assassins who was his cousin or a member of his counsel. All humans are not wise enough and can't be left like animals without limits and bounds other wise they will do what they will think right or will justify their acts. But if laws, limits, rules are made and the right ones are made there would be a proper disciplined system for the benefit of humans themselves that is Islam. You may think what old crap he is preaching his religion simply. But nay, I am only providing you with facts. Just don't forget that wine argument even if you don't agree or forget the rest of this discussion. May God guide and bless us all. And God knows best.

[roleary]

Wa Alaikumuslalam.

I am not acting harsh. Pardon me but you have I guess not read the whole passage or skipped one thing. When I mentioned Zakir Naik, I said he says that a criminal can buy politicians and twist laws for his own accord. And there are many people about whom people can't know about their crimes. They are simple very clever or you can say they don't face famous detectives like Sherlock Holmes.:). Apart from the joke, the thing is that there are unfortunately ways for criminals to guard themselves from justice and law. As far as animals are concerned. One can also learn from pigs or hams to do sex in public. A pigs nature is that it also does sex in front of other pigs. But cats and dogs and other animals do the sex privately. You can say they are more civilized in nature:). Now the thing is if one can learn a thing which is good from animals like Allama Iqbal gives examples in his poetry of eagle many times to encourage the muslims to fight the British who were ruling India and other muslim countries as well. He has also given example of tiger. A Muslim king of a state in India called Tipu Sultan was when surrendered by the british troops , he said 'Life of a lion for one day is better than that of a jackal for thousand years." This is the part I agree with you. But the other part is we can also learn bad things from animals like snatching attacking, killing, murduring and being powerful and predator fleeing away from the crime we do. For instance Hitler commited suicide for once. Where as Hitler killed 20 million jews. Or what if I buy and hire a good lawyer and even bribe the judge. So worldly punishment is very limited in this sense. Communist governments have been the governments of Athiest rulers I guess. How many millions they killed you know better than me. A person who doesn't have fear of a divine power will do any crime and go away easily or difficultly. But he will some how succeed. Not if all criminals then the most wiser ones. You know i used to think this alot hits idea. Why locks are made? Locks are made to stop people like us to stop temptation of stealing. Because a thieve is a professional. He learns to break the lock. Otherwise anyone can take a thing if anyone if no one is seeing. The thing which makes him a real professional is the art of stealing.

Well with what is currently taking place in Mumbai this seems like a ridiculous discussion, but none the less for the sake of argument, I will indulge.
Firstly, I think you may have misunderstood my reference to animals... I was not saying that humans, atheists particularly, choose to mimic beasts, or that they learn behavioral morals from the animals. Rather I was pointing out the fact that the same instincts for survival which are present in all of Allahs creations can influence a form of morality, even absent religion or belief. The same instinct which causes a dog to attempt to mate with another, or to kill a cat for food, is the same sort of instinctual drive which in humans can lead to moral actions. Like a dog recognizes that mating with another or eating a cat will bring him immediate benefits so too a human recognizes that by acting morally he will experience benefits. Perhaps even in the same form as the dog... food or mating partners. This sort of basic instinct to behave morally does not require belief in allah or the hereafter, therefore to say that morality simply cannot exist without religion is false. right?

Also, what about a persons natural inclination towards good, as we are told in the holy Quran man is born in such a state of being that he is predisposed towards righteousness. We see this in many atheistic people who, regardless of their lack of belief, have very high moral standards simply because they know that some things are good and others are bad. Some people are atheist and yet devote their lives to noble causes such as helping those who suffer, giving to the poor, teaching the illiterate, etc. How could you possibly say that morality cannot exist without religion? Have you looked beyond your own society?

[roleary]

I wanted to merge this with my previous post but I thought its better to make it a separate topic. Now the problem is what is Athieism. Atheism is not the denial of God. Nor it means the denial of religion. But it is a denial of the damage the religous people did. I am referring to Christian Popes and unfortunately those terrorists who blow up innocent civilians but are in truth ignorant of Islam and know not even 1 % of it. They are the bunch of brainwashed people whose aim can be right if it is to stop aggression of tyrants. But the way is far too wrong. And when all the scholars tell them its wrong. And Quran and Hadith say its wrong and they still do it having the right intention will not save them from hell. However I support those who fight those who attack muslims only in the battlefield. Coming to the topic , Atheisim is the denial of Peace breakers. Popes rule in ancient Europe was cruel to that extent that scientists like Galileo who discovered that Sun Orbits the earth was burned because that observation got against bible. Now unfortunately non muslims and especially Athiests see islam the same way and fools who know nothing about islam are representing it in an evil way. Theory of evolution is not a fact and not even one book mentions this as a fact. Darwin wrote a letter to his fellow scientist that I don't agree to this theory my self but I made up this theory to make my understanding of embroyology easy and to make categorization easy. Scientists agree that there are many loop holes in this theory. But to support and symthasize with people like Galileo and following the rule that "The enemy of your enemy is your friend"? Its the thing which has made scientists preach this theory and is still taught in schools to overthrow the barbarity of a religion which was not from God but was man made. The progress of the west is in getting far away from the religion as well as science is concerned and as well as the religion of faked chritianity or other religions are concerned. But following Islam which prohibits stealing by giving the order of punishing by cutting both hands, regardless of the poverty and richness of a person. Which prohibits adultery and unmarital sex which spread diseases like STD Aids. which orders the rulers to practic with justice and with consultation which is a rule of modern democracy despite the fact that supremecy will be of God and not the public. With this one rule I can give you the answer of your question or dis agreement. All the previous content was to built the foundation.

Wine brings certain diseases to humans.
Wine brings grave accidents which result disaster and death.
Wine brings rape/
Wine brings child abuse/
Wine brings mental disorders and psychological problems.

Wine is prohibited in Islam and the punishment is 80 stripes.
No Muslim ruler can legalize wine because the supremecy of Parliament is of God not man. No matter how much public screams no rule against the teachings of Islam can be passed.

George washington said " Democracy means for people by people".
We muslims agree to the first part ie. For people but diagree to the latter which is by people.
WHy?
Because once United states congress passed a law against the legalization of wine. The public protested and the congress had to take back that law.

Public wanted to be diseased, murdered, raped, die in accidents, fall in the abuse of aids, supported child abuse, theft , voilence by only protesting against one thing which is called wine.

Supremecy of Allah or God means benefit for the mankind. A creator knows his creations weaknesses and strengths. He knew Alchohol is bad. He knew the consequences. He knew its result. Only this one rule that Supremency of God is better thatn supremecy of the public supports my arguments that animals can teach you good deeds if you already know the difference. But animals can't teach you each and every law of life each and every rule of life. THey don't have the concept of legal and illegal. They act according to their nature. Humans have the intellect to differentiate between right and wrong. As Augustus of Rome the successor of Julius Ceaser once said. Previous nations were destroyed because of adultery. And now new laws are to be introduced for it.And he was assassinated because of this amendment in laws. He knew adultery destroys societies. But he didn't know to stop it or what should be the punishment. Public didn't believe in the religion of God thus enraged assissinated their King or didn't protest against the assassins who was his cousin or a member of his counsel. All humans are not wise enough and can't be left like animals without limits and bounds other wise they will do what they will think right or will justify their acts. But if laws, limits, rules are made and the right ones are made there would be a proper disciplined system for the benefit of humans themselves that is Islam. You may think what old crap he is preaching his religion simply. But nay, I am only providing you with facts. Just don't forget that wine argument even if you don't agree or forget the rest of this discussion. May God guide and bless us all. And God knows best.

to be honest...brother(?), I cannot hardly follow your discussion, you are all over the place, short, sweet, clear points are what is needed for a proper discussion. ;) I caught a lead in to a discussion about the validity in light of shariah that fundamentalist Muslim reformers are employing, some sort of discussion about why the ban on alcohol in America failed, something about why alcohol is prohibited by Allah, a Machiavelli quote, a lead in to a discussion on humans having the ability to reform their animal behavior using intellect and preferably divine instruction, etc. ....

All of these are indeed interesting topics, but lets pick one and stick with it br! :D

[sipraomer]

Well with what is currently taking place in Mumbai this seems like a ridiculous discussion, but none the less for the sake of argument, I will indulge.
Firstly, I think you may have misunderstood my reference to animals... I was not saying that humans, atheists particularly, choose to mimic beasts, or that they learn behavioral morals from the animals. Rather I was pointing out the fact that the same instincts for survival which are present in all of Allahs creations can influence a form of morality, even absent religion or belief. The same instinct which causes a dog to attempt to mate with another, or to kill a cat for food, is the same sort of instinctual drive which in humans can lead to moral actions. Like a dog recognizes that mating with another or eating a cat will bring him immediate benefits so too a human recognizes that by acting morally he will experience benefits. Perhaps even in the same form as the dog... food or mating partners. This sort of basic instinct to behave morally does not require belief in allah or the hereafter, therefore to say that morality simply cannot exist without religion is false. right?

You are again missing my point despite of the fact that you are a mature and wise female. I guess your gender is feminine simply observing your name and my natural instincts by the way.:) Dear sister , if life were that simple as mating, eating or other things. We could say that you are right. But life, social system, economic system, education system, or what ever this world and society is , its very difficult , complicated to understand and to bring it to the heights of perfection. What I am saying is your first words of your first post. That they have shallow morals which they learn from their instincts like animals.Now the thing is why I mentioned the example of Augustus. Because he knew history. And also his instincts were telling him that my country's inner cultural society is going astray, thus Rome will fail soon despite of the fact that she is a super power. That is what happened with Russia. That is what is happening with USA. Secondly observing your example Dog is superior to cat which he will use as his food. Do you agree observing that man should fulfill his hunger in the similar way following his instincts that the western nations could howl over and kill, murder and steal the resources of Asian nations (as a dog is stronger than a cat) which are weak in economic progress except some bunch of countires in which you can count China, Japan, Malaysia and India also as you are an Indian so I will respect that too.:) The point is what amount of morals a man can learn by himself. Augustus knew the wrong but didn't know the solution of the wrong.
American Congress knew what was wrong but were powerless in front of majority wins formula. Majority can also be wrong. It is not always right. That is the thing that how much goodness one can learn or create through his instincts and how will he judge the good is good. Who will be the judge. Do you do math with only instincts. Nay! you have to follow certain rules which are made after a lot of experimentation. Islam came when the experimentation of Philosophers failed and when they couldn't find the solutions of the problems with merely instincts. Morals do exist as you say but they are not in full power or they can't do good as every human will follow his own instinct and judge the right according to his own made values. Every person differs in sense and intelligence.

Also, what about a persons natural inclination towards good, as we are told in the holy Quran man is born in such a state of being that he is predisposed towards righteousness. We see this in many atheistic people who, regardless of their lack of belief, have very high moral standards simply because they know that some things are good and others are bad. Some people are atheist and yet devote their lives to noble causes such as helping those who suffer, giving to the poor, teaching the illiterate, etc. How could you possibly say that morality cannot exist without religion? Have you looked beyond your own society?

As far as this verse is concerned which you mentioned please refer the verse number as I don't remeber it. But I can reproduce a hadith of Holy Prophet Muhammad here. "Every person is born on God's nature (which is Islam). It is his parents and environment which makes him christian or parsi or jew." Again I am not saying that Athiests can't do good. Even George Bush can do good with his money. The problem here is what one can teach to others if he follows merely on instincts. What one can teach others if one has not got a proper education. I am a person. Let me share with you my personal experience. I am a person who learned Quran and Islam with logic and my instincts. But first the matter was there. First the real message was present. Then i pondered upon it and disagreed with the opinions of illeterate people who don't know about this religion and who create their own theories. I learned how to give how to create reasons. In my mind satin placed many reasons in my mind against Islam. But by the grace of God I defeated him with reasons of my own too. That is also a form of Jihad which means inner fighting. I won. But the teaching was already present there but was only misunderstood. My instincts and intellect helped be to learn those but they or anyone else's are not good enough to create it.

[sipraomer]

s3

to be honest...brother(?), I cannot hardly follow your discussion, you are all over the place, short, sweet, clear points are what is needed for a proper discussion. ;) I caught a lead in to a discussion about the validity in light of shariah that fundamentalist Muslim reformers are employing, some sort of discussion about why the ban on alcohol in America failed, something about why alcohol is prohibited by Allah, a Machiavelli quote, a lead in to a discussion on humans having the ability to reform their animal behavior using intellect and preferably divine instruction, etc. ....

All of these are indeed interesting topics, but lets pick one and stick with it br! :D

Points I made.

1. Atheism was created after the theory of Darwin was created or discovered.

2.The survival of the fittest theory was against bible and proved that there is no God as humans have evolved from monkeys or something like that where as bible says that God created Adam and Eve and humans are their children.

3.Pope rule in the west was very cruel. Joan of Arch was burnt because of English conspiracy and POPES were used as tools to prove her a lady who committed heresy. Likewise Galileo who discovered that sun orbits the earth and he was burnt alive because this observation was against a verse of bible.

4.Scientists because of this supported the theory of Darwin which is the theory of survival of the fittest. They know that this theory has loop holes but to degrade the church rule in Europe which was cruel, scientists supported this theory to drive people against christianity so that they could discover science and have the freedom of speech.

5.Atheism came into being because of this theory which supports the idea that this world came into being by it self.

6. Islam how ever is a different religion. Because it is the true religion of GOd.

7.Bible has been changed and christianity has been faked because of this that is why we can't compare bible with Quran and Christianity with Islam.

8. Maullanas have failed to interpret Quran and Islam correctly because they don't know science and modern world needs a modern interpretation of Quran and Hadith not skipping the fact that the roots should remain intact.

9. Scholars like Deedat and Zakir are a true hope to interpret Islam in modern way as they know science and they have studied the religion also.

10. In a democracy the supremacy is of the nation or the people. Representatives fulfill the wishes of people so that they could win votes the next time. They have to change certain decisions as to cool down the mob people create when they protest.

11. Islamic System however supporting people's consultation in making decisions makes one limitation. That is the Supremacy of God. Because of this "the world no matter goes right to left or the sky no matter comes to earth" using as phrase or idiom, no law against the religion can be passed.

12. In the history America once passed a law to prohibit wine. People protested and they had to take back that law.

13.The government of Athiests which is in every way a secular goverrnent can't make laws which are against the wishes of majority of a nation. Its example has been given in point number 12.

14. Wine has many side effects which causes harms like rape, and rape leads to std aids, wine results in swear accidents and deaths, anger and murder, intoxication and dillusion of mind, lever problems etc etc.

15. In a secular democracy like USA wine couldn't be illegalized as people didn't want it to be.

16. In an Islamic state wine and other unethical laws against Islam can't be passed because of the supremecy of God on the parliament in the form of laws of God in Quran and Sunnah. Which will bring benefit to mankind as if we take wine as an example will not be legalized.

17, Christians as well as Athiests or other relgions see Islam as the similar voilent system which popes created. Where as it is for the benefit of mankind. That even if mankind wants wine (just one example) people will not be allowed to drink it. Because Instincts can't be always right. One may want a thing which brings harm to one.


I think I made it clear point by point now. I will be conscious of point thing on next posts with you.:):):):)

[roleary]

LOL, firstly I will have you know that I am neither Indian nor a sister, or female for that matter... but I will take your reference to my approach in discussion as a compliment as I have found that often women excel men in this respect, although not always by any means. My screen name here is actually just the first letter of my first name "R" combined with my full legal name "O'Leary", it is a common Irish name however I am adopted so it is not truly my name, I am actually almost purely Scottish... not sure what made you think I was Indian. Perhaps my comment regarding Mumbai? ...surely you know the news is international?

Anyway br, you seem quite keen in changing the subject in the face of your argument being proven baseless. In fact, if you look at your response to my posts which you quoted, you neither replied to my question in the first section, nor clarified your point as requested in the second section... I will re-present two clear and simple refutations to your claim.

1.So again, regarding your statement that morality cannot exist without religion how do you explain the fact that an atheist who acts in accordance with social morals for self benefit is never the less acting morally? If you cannot answer this question, along with the next, simply without dancing around like a politician, changing the subject, I will withdraw from the discussion (victoriously).

2.Next, how do you explain moral actions conducted simply out of knowledge of right and wrong by a non religious person, for example people who volunteer themselves for charity, help the poor, do good deeds, etc. yet never the less do not believe in the hereafter (I know many such people), if as you say morality cannot exist without belief?

[roleary]

s3



Points I made.

1. Atheism was created after the theory of Darwin was created or discovered.

2.The survival of the fittest theory was against bible and proved that there is no God as humans have evolved from monkeys or something like that where as bible says that God created Adam and Eve and humans are their children.

3.Pope rule in the west was very cruel. Joan of Arch was burnt because of English conspiracy and POPES were used as tools to prove her a lady who committed heresy. Likewise Galileo who discovered that sun orbits the earth and he was burnt alive because this observation was against a verse of bible.

4.Scientists because of this supported the theory of Darwin which is the theory of survival of the fittest. They know that this theory has loop holes but to degrade the church rule in Europe which was cruel, scientists supported this theory to drive people against christianity so that they could discover science and have the freedom of speech.

5.Atheism came into being because of this theory which supports the idea that this world came into being by it self.

6. Islam how ever is a different religion. Because it is the true religion of GOd.

7.Bible has been changed and christianity has been faked because of this that is why we can't compare bible with Quran and Christianity with Islam.

8. Maullanas have failed to interpret Quran and Islam correctly because they don't know science and modern world needs a modern interpretation of Quran and Hadith not skipping the fact that the roots should remain intact.

9. Scholars like Deedat and Zakir are a true hope to interpret Islam in modern way as they know science and they have studied the religion also.

10. In a democracy the supremacy is of the nation or the people. Representatives fulfill the wishes of people so that they could win votes the next time. They have to change certain decisions as to cool down the mob people create when they protest.

11. Islamic System however supporting people's consultation in making decisions makes one limitation. That is the Supremacy of God. Because of this "the world no matter goes right to left or the sky no matter comes to earth" using as phrase or idiom, no law against the religion can be passed.

12. In the history America once passed a law to prohibit wine. People protested and they had to take back that law.

13.The government of Athiests which is in every way a secular goverrnent can't make laws which are against the wishes of majority of a nation. Its example has been given in point number 12.

14. Wine has many side effects which causes harms like rape, and rape leads to std aids, wine results in swear accidents and deaths, anger and murder, intoxication and dillusion of mind, lever problems etc etc.

15. In a secular democracy like USA wine couldn't be illegalized as people didn't want it to be.

16. In an Islamic state wine and other unethical laws against Islam can't be passed because of the supremecy of God on the parliament in the form of laws of God in Quran and Sunnah. Which will bring benefit to mankind as if we take wine as an example will not be legalized.

17, Christians as well as Athiests or other relgions see Islam as the similar voilent system which popes created. Where as it is for the benefit of mankind. That even if mankind wants wine (just one example) people will not be allowed to drink it. Because Instincts can't be always right. One may want a thing which brings harm to one.


I think I made it clear point by point now. I will be conscious of point thing on next posts with you.:):):):)

You made clear a bunch of subjects brought up, which I already eluded too, however you have still failed to apply any of them rationally to defending your position that morality cannot exist without religion. Hence left the questions unanswered...

[sipraomer]

LOL, firstly I will have you know that I am neither Indian nor a sister, or female for that matter... but I will take your reference to my approach in discussion as a compliment as I have found that often women excel men in this respect, although not always by any means. My screen name here is actually just the first letter of my first name "R" combined with my full legal name "O'Leary", it is a common Irish name however I am adopted so it is not truly my name, I am actually almost purely Scottish... not sure what made you think I was Indian. Perhaps my comment regarding Mumbai? ...surely you know the news is international?

Anyway br, you seem quite keen in changing the subject in the face of your argument being proven baseless. In fact, if you look at your response to my posts which you quoted, you neither replied to my question in the first section, nor clarified your point as requested in the second section...
so again regarding your statement that morality cannot exist without religion how do you explain the fact that an atheist who acts in accordance with social morals for self benefit is never the less acting morally? If you cannot answer this question simply without dancing around like a politician, changing the subject, I will withdraw from the discussion (victoriously).

I responded to your questions clearly first of all dear bro. Secondly I am glad that my instincts got wrong as it is my first answer. Instincts can't always be right. Like guesses. Secondly I am not fighting with you. Its a debate and win or loose my aim is to clarify the whole thing. The simple point is that to what extent one can be more moral on mere instincts. On what extent. Ok for instance. Islam says to give oppurtunity to every person to survive or to progress. Now a man having a job if steals will be punished by cutting his hands which will set an example for others not to commit that crime again. The compulsion is that he has to be on a good job which is governments responsibility. ALl his basic needs are to be fulfilled. IF these are not, the government is responsible for his act. I said this thing here for a reason. What is the punishment of a thief or a mugger in the west. 10 20 years. A person who sales pirated software or pirated movies has the penalty of 250,000 $. and 10 year jail. My question is that are these man made rules which are only made through instincts effective. No! Crime rate is the highest dear sir in the west. What I mean is an athiest can understand what is moral but an athiest on mere intincts can't fully comprehend the solution of immoral acts. Morals as far as helping poors is concerned can be achieved by any one. Any bloody fool can understand that helping others is a good deed. BUt what is the reason of poverty and what is its solution. The perfect solution can only be told by God. All this discussion was interlinked and related with one thing. What is Atheism and can Atheists reach the hieghts of morality and solve the problems by simply following there instincts. I didn't change the subject. I gave this much content with this much logic supporting my point that religion of God is the final solution. If I am not able to use more easy and simpler words which you can comprehend. Then I apologize I don't know any easy way. Wish you best of luck. And if you are victorious today give yourself a treat. As ti is 7:23 in the morning in Pakistan. There would be sunset or evening in your country. One important point I like to mention. Also help a begger there. He may pray for you in heart. And treat him/her well.:)

[sipraomer]

And secondly I am happy that this discussion has not gone in vain. As you said that some of the subjects to you are made clear which I raised in points which you previously eluded. No problem still got 40/100 score. I further seek discussions and healthy discussions with you. And by the grace of God we will make clear each others illusions and one day 100/100 score will be achieved.

[sipraomer]

1.So again, regarding your statement that morality cannot exist without religion how do you explain the fact that an atheist who acts in accordance with social morals for self benefit is never the less acting morally? If you cannot answer this question, along with the next, simply without dancing around like a politician, changing the subject, I will withdraw from the discussion (victoriously).

An athiest can act morally without believing a religion. But what level of morality he can reach without believing in a religion. There are certain levels of morality. For instance you can help a begger by giving one buck. But the root problem is poverty and not that one begger. You have to believe and follow the Islamic system in order to solve out that root cause. So that act of moral for an athiest will still remain an uncomplete moral. So a complete apple is better than a half one.


2.Next, how do you explain moral actions conducted simply out of knowledge of right and wrong by a non religious person, for example people who volunteer themselves for charity, help the poor, do good deeds, etc. yet never the less do not believe in the hereafter (I know many such people), if as you say morality cannot exist without belief?

That is good that they do the works of charity without believing in religion. But charity is not an absolute solution in solving the problem of poverty. What solution can an athiest give without the guidance and knowledge of religion. And when I say religion I mean only Islam. What I mean is morality is incomplete without Islam and cruelty will be more dangerous or completely out of bounds without the fear of God. If some one will truly fear God he will not do illegal act. Where as if he will depend on the worldly punishments, then there are many back doors for escaping this punishment. This is the simplest way I could give the answers to your questions. And God knows better.

[sipraomer]

Asalamualaikum sipraomar,
Atheists have morals too, they are just shallow and stem from very basic animal desires and instincts. From what I get of your passage above you are suggesting that without religion, or belief... or perhaps Islam, there can be no morality? But this surely depends on how you define morality. For if you define morality simply as not committing acts such as those mentioned above (murder, rape, theft, etc) then we see everyday morals being adhered to by multi-millions of atheists everyday. Simply for practical animal instincts the atheist knows that by refraining from carrying out "immoral" acts, like murder, he will avoid immediate negative consequences in this life, such as punishment by government or social scrutiny and rejection. Therefore the atheist's animal instincts encourage this sort of morality without any reflection on the hereafter whatsoever, just as one knows to eat when he is hungry.
However if you are referring to morality in the sense of refraining from the above mentioned actions out of reflection on their long term consequences beyond this world then of course an atheist would be completely devoid of any morality whatsoever. But simply refraining from behaving by most typical social norms of morality does not require such reflection, for this reason I find the argument that morality cannot exist without religion unconvincing.

I re read your passage. I realized that I didn't understand your passage that what you meant. I completely agree with you. That athiests have morals but are shallow. And yes I was mentioning morality in this form "However if you are referring to morality in the sense of refraining from the above mentioned actions out of reflection on their long term consequences beyond this world then of course an atheist would be completely devoid of any morality whatsoever". You have told me a fact I knew but forgot in my first post. And I thank you for that. That fact was that morality remains in Atheists too but in shallow form. Which is in-complete form. Now I understand what you were talking. And I explained the point you already knew. But still if we see on the positive side both of us increased our knowledge.

[roleary]

Asalamualaikum br SipraOmar, (sorry for my delay in reply, I have been in New York struggling to obtain visa's)
I think we are for the most part in agreement, although perhaps it is hard to realize this over the computer, I think the difference here between the good acts and behaviors of an infidel and those of a Muslim (righteous Muslim that is) is that a Muslim performs such acts for deeper moral reasons. So I guess if we are to consider morality more than simply acting according to basic descent conduct then I would agree with you that morality does not exist without belief in the hereafter or judgement. But I think many would say that morality is not that deep, rather is just to act and do good deeds for whatever reason,... anyway that was the point I was trying to dig up by arguing that morality can exist without religion. It all boils down to different perceptions of morality, which is a vast and much studied topic in all cultures and philosophies. Just trying to not be one sided here!;)

[sipraomer]

Asalamualaikum br SipraOmar, (sorry for my delay in reply, I have been in New York struggling to obtain visa's)
I think we are for the most part in agreement, although perhaps it is hard to realize this over the computer, I think the difference here between the good acts and behaviors of an infidel and those of a Muslim (righteous Muslim that is) is that a Muslim performs such acts for deeper moral reasons. So I guess if we are to consider morality more than simply acting according to basic descent conduct then I would agree with you that morality does not exist without belief in the hereafter or judgement. But I think many would say that morality is not that deep, rather is just to act and do good deeds for whatever reason,... anyway that was the point I was trying to dig up by arguing that morality can exist without religion. It all boils down to different perceptions of morality, which is a vast and much studied topic in all cultures and philosophies. Just trying to not be one sided here!;)

I agree and God bless you brother. You are an educated person and that is the best compliment I can give. Happy Christmas to you and all the christian community.

[roleary]

Thanks br, I will portray your message of happy christmas to any jews for jesus I may encounter, god forbid.:D