Democratization of Islam

[Inquisitor]

Consider that everyone is ultimately the same, and everyone believes in the same thing but puts a different name or word on it. What would that do to your claims, and how can one negate or refute it?

There is no need to refute it as long as it is ultimately the same.

A related consideration is the issue of understanding. When a person understands Islamic doctrine and finds the truth, doesn't the method of learning change for the person's child, and that person's child, and so on?

But you are still learning the same thing that your forefathers have learnt, so I would say, Yes it could.
ما بايد خود را تطبيق بديم به عصري كه درش زندگي ميكنيم , البته بدون تغييردادن قوانين الهي.


In truth every system is constructed upon a foundation. This base can be anything and varies. As for system, it can be anything, from universe, our bodies to our societies and religions, these are all categorised as systems that may function differently.

All the parallel concepts contradict with what actually is in the universe. Only one side exists, and the other is an illusion invented by mind.

My question was whether it is possible in Islam for the truth of the Quran and Sunnah to be understood without them.

Then how do you explain معاد ?

I can, thanks.

[donsaeid]

welcome back inquisitor!

[Inquisitor]

welcome back inquisitor!

تشكر برادر

I was around and actually responded to one of your posts regarding Hijab

[zubin]

That's interesting... because I'm not the one pretending to be someone else here. In fact, Joubin is my real name while you do not really inquire... and instead repeat the same thing even when totally irrelevant.

It seems to me Inquisitor... unless you negative it... that truth has made you lose your way. It seems that truth can turn into an obsession. The fallible human being is fallible right in this instance... where truth becomes overcome by other things, and one loses their way. [/quote]

Then how do you explain معاد ?

why don't you explain how it relates to my question.


Respectfully yours...

[Inquisitor]

That's interesting... because I'm not the one pretending to be someone else here. In fact, Joubin is my real name while you do not really inquire... and instead repeat the same thing even when totally irrelevant.

Well, if you are really curious about my real name, it's Ali.
If I repeat irrelevant stuff, then why do you bother answering me, then we are both repeaters.

It seems to me Inquisitor... unless you negative it... that truth has made you lose your way. It seems that truth can turn into an obsession. The fallible human being is fallible right in this instance... where truth becomes overcome by other things, and one loses their way.

No one is infallible. (other than prophets and Imams according to Islam).

why don't you explain how it relates to my question.
...

It means hereafter. You tell me how can one not believe in it and reaches so called "perfection" ?

If one of the tenets of Islam had to be abolished, then it is no longer Islam.

[zubin]

If I repeat irrelevant stuff, then why do you bother answering me, then we are both repeaters

Sharing life is part of the Path. No one should be excluded, not you or me.

No one is infallible. (other than prophets and Imams according to Islam).

But there are degress of fallibility. That should be self-evident.

It means hereafter. You tell me how can one not believe in it and reaches so called "perfection" ?

There are very different meanings to hereafter. One over-emphasizes the fallibility of human nature. The extent of fallibility is something clearly measurable. One would clearly need to be on the right end of the truth's circle.

If one of the tenets of Islam had to be abolished, then it is no longer Islam.

Which brings me back to my earlier point on essential versus non-essential tenets. Clearly you don't want to lose the essence of something by emphasizing its details... A quick example is hejab. Hejab is, in my belief, relevant in today's world. It is a detail that protects something essential. However, it might not be relevant at all times or for every person, and an emphasis on it could cause the times and persons to whom it is irrelevant to lose the essence which it protects.

My contention is that if, everyone in the world is naturally inclined to the essential truths and values, then those should be the emphasis and not the details. Again, one can measure what people are naturally inclined to or not.

You might not see the significance of this topic... It may look irrelevant to a diversity of people, but this is at the mediating core of today's conflicts.

You also, don't have to respond unless you see a kernel of value in continuing.

[Inquisitor]

Sharing life is part of the Path. No one should be excluded, not you or me.

I was sharing, you were the one who complained about repeating.

But there are degress of fallibility. That should be self-evident.


There are very different meanings to hereafter. One over-emphasizes the fallibility of human nature. The extent of fallibility is something clearly measurable. One would clearly need to be on the right end of the truth's circle.

Which brings me back to my earlier point on essential versus non-essential tenets. Clearly you don't want to lose the essence of something by emphasizing its details... A quick example is hejab. Hejab is, in my belief, relevant in today's world. It is a detail that protects something essential. However, it might not be relevant at all times or for every person, and an emphasis on it could cause the times and persons to whom it is irrelevant to lose the essence which it protects.

My contention is that if, everyone in the world is naturally inclined to the essential truths and values, then those should be the emphasis and not the details. Again, one can measure what people are naturally inclined to or not.

You might not see the significance of this topic... It may look irrelevant to a diversity of people, but this is at the mediating core of today's conflicts.

.

Measurement cannot be absolute, the existence is not created but sustained. You say there are degrees of fallibility? In Islam, we say Masoom which means infallible (sinless)? Even if you have commited a small sin, you are no longer an infallible.


Hijab is not one of the اصول الدين
We have توحيد ,عدل, نبوت, امامت, معاد

All I am saying is that those are required for human beings in order to reach "Perfection"(according to Islam)

Regarding hereafter; faith, Perfection and piety can't be fully brought to fruition without having a belief in the Resurrection.

You also, don't have to respond unless you see a kernel of value in continuing.

I 'll be happy if we keep continuing the discussion

[zubin]

That's fine, thanks. You didn't quite understand what I meant on measurement. Thank you for the information on Islam's view on things. My only question is whether Resurrection could be interpreted symbolically.

[Inquisitor]

Joubin, in my view, truth is what that exist. In other words if something exists, it is real or the truth.
Imagine an early man, a cave man from ancient times who had no language; as you know we think logically by talking to ourselves in our minds.
the cave man could imagine or visualise events in his memory, although he had no complex concepts such as good and evil; so how could such a man with consciousness or self-awareness have developed the very first concepts?

1- The cave man is walking in the jungle
2- The cave man notices (sees) a snake
3- The snake moves behind a rock
4- He is afraid
5- He waits for about 20 seconds (some time)

The cave man has a copy of the sequences of the events in his mind, he can either visualise that the snake is gone by then or that the snake is still there, no matter what he considers/visualises/believes/thinks/imagines/predicts... whatever that he has in mind if is identical to what actually is in the outside world then he is correct, otherwise wrong.

Remember that it is necessary to disassemble the obvious so we can analyse it very carefully!

The possible conditions are:

A-The snake is gone, but he thinks the snake is still there. (False)
B-The snake is still there, but he thinks it is gone. (False)
C-The snake is gone and he thinks it has gone too. (True)
D-The snake is still there and he also thinks that the snake is there. (True)

Hence by considering the example above we realise that perhaps logic is the ability to be able to compare two or more images, real or imaginary.

So if what we have in mind is identical with what actually is we call it truth, or if not we call it false. Although the cave man had no words or symbols to associate meanings and concepts to them, still he had to deal with these two fundamental concepts of false and truth!

I am saying that the truth is what that exist in the outside world but false only happens or exists in our minds. This is why we are chained to existence and there is no escape! Once you realise that existence is eternal you will be afraid of after death as well.

[zubin]

Inside the mind is real too. You go through a personal resurrection in your lifetime. Its not false... and so it seems that some truths can be interpreted symbolically. Do you understand my question now?

[Inquisitor]

Inside the mind is real too. You go through a personal resurrection in your lifetime.

You go through a personal resurrection in your lifetime.

Give me an example

[zubin]

Give me an example

Please attempt to respond to this analysis.

One's soul can be said to die when engaging in a certain lifestyle (often that of egoism/selfishness/pleasure)... only to be reborn when a person is honest to him/herself about the more meaningful life they really want....

So one's salvation can be seen in not only belief, but experience of resurrection... as can one's jihad or any other concept....

Since there is an experiential, symbolic interpretation of what you said, I find it vague. It's not clear if you are saying that a belief in Resurrection must be one unrelated to personal experience, or can be one that observes one's own personal experience, fate and learning of life. And you would have to give reason for why you rule any of these options out... why should doctrine not be interpreted symbolically, when the symbols really exist in life...

[mike435]

Please attempt to respond to this analysis.

One's soul can be said to die when engaging in a certain lifestyle (often that of egoism/selfishness/pleasure)... only to be reborn when a person is honest to him/herself about the more meaningful life they really want....

So one's salvation can be seen in not only belief, but experience of resurrection... as can one's jihad or any other concept....

Since there is an experiential, symbolic interpretation of what you said, I find it vague. It's not clear if you are saying that a belief in Resurrection must be one unrelated to personal experience, or can be one that observes one's own personal experience, fate and learning of life. And you would have to give reason for why you rule any of these options out... why should doctrine not be interpreted symbolically, when the symbols really exist in life...

why does it have to die
why not just gets dimmed or other words becomes less g-dly

[Inquisitor]

as can one's jihad or any other concept....

Which one ? There are different kinds of Jihad.

Since there is an experiential, symbolic interpretation of what you said, I find it vague. It's not clear if you are saying that a belief in Resurrection must be one unrelated to personal experience, or can be one that observes one's own personal experience, fate and learning of life. And you would have to give reason for why you rule any of these options out... why should doctrine not be interpreted symbolically, when the symbols really exist in life...

I go back to religious texts and then describes them (symbolically,... doesn't matter), consider Yaum Al Qiyama, How can you explain it to me without reffering to religious texts as well. How can you even know such an event will happen without having a belief or reading religious texts, let alone explaining it !?

[zubin]

Which one ? There are different kinds of Jihad.




I go back to religious texts and then describes them (symbolically,... doesn't matter), consider Yaum Al Qiyama, How can you explain it to me without reffering to religious texts as well. How can you even know such an event will happen without having a belief or reading religious texts, let alone explaining it !?

I'm not saying belief in religious text is irrelevant... I'm saying the significance of it is unclear between being symbolic of the reality in one's experience.... and being literally what one should believe in.

This is a problem unless it can be resolved. Your argument is circular so far. You say it will happen because it is written. But I'm saying what is written has two meanings. Which is right? I did not say that the written text has no relevance and there should be no belief in them. I'm saying what exactly should one believe and why?