I have been thinking & reading about religion, how it might be man made or created by God/gods. Never came to Sam Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29) until a couple of days ago, the man is totally anti religion & is interesting to read.


**********

“[R]eligions, like languages, evolve with sufficient randomness, from beginnings that are sufficiently arbitrary, to generate the bewildering – and sometimes dangerous – richness of diversity.” Harris finds a historical origin for religion and religious traditions, and it is not flattering: “The Bible, it seems certain, was the work of sand-strewn men and women who thought the earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of emerging technology.”

Religions are humanly constructed traditions and at their center are corrupted texts that were cobbled together by provincial, ignorant men who knew less about the world than any high-school teenager alive today. Sounds devastating, but when you get right down to it, all it amounts to is the assertion that God didn’t write the books or establish the terms of worship, men did, and that the results are (to put it charitably) less than perfect.

The usefulness of religion, the fact that it gives life meaning, that it makes people feel good is not an argument for the truth of any religious doctrine. It's not an argument that it's reasonable to believe that Jesus really was born of a virgin or that the Bible is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. You can only believe those things or you should be only able to believe those things if you think there are good reasons to believe those things.

This is not about christianity, it's just that it's not easy to find something similar on islam.

Quran (koran) was sent to Mohd by God through Jibreel (Gibrael) & his followers wrote them down, through out his life. After his death the quran was 'unified', do you believe that no changes (minor or major) happened?

There are many other religions & beliefs, too many to count actually.

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally organized around supernatural and moral claims, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

The main discussion here is:

Is religion man made? Created just to understand this weird universe & find answers to them. Or was/were they sent by God/gods to mankind in order for them to follow it?


*****

Too much? I know, but this is a very deep & sensitive topic; I just can't start one without structuring it well.

I just hope that it is discussed well & respect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_%28author%29
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/is-religion-man-made/ - a must read

Religion is a human instinct.
Its existence is based on human existence...
'Nough said.

Good topic Spirit.

There is no harm in wanting to understand as our brains can not help to wonder why.


I have come to understand that in Jesus's time and place, life was very hard for the common man. And the state religion of Paganism only served to validate the supremacy of the Roman Empire and the Emperors.


So I can very much see how Jesus's message that all will be saved and the meek shall inherit the Earth, was very appealing to common people. It validated their existence and made them feel good about their otherwise miserable lives.

So Jihad, you say that Jesus was the one who started the whole idea of religion? So it is man made.....

Religion is from God. However, the interpretations of religion are man-made. For instance, Islam is from God. However, you have the Salafi, Shia, Sunni, etc interpretations which are man made. A lot of people say that this is "shariah" and that if you don't believe in it that means you are going against God. That is not true. That is their interpretation of Shariah, which could be very different from what God sees Shariah to be.

I think that if the end result is rationality, equity and justice then that is God's religion of truth. However, if someone goes saying that the Shariah entails oppressing women and the weak, the killing of people just because they are non-Muslims and on the whole leading to very irrational, arbitrary and unjust results, then their interpretation of religion is corrupted.

Maybe you have seen it, but:

Enjoy the first 36min of ---> Zeitegeist (http://zeitgeistmovie.com/).


+Salam.

I'm not sure if this is the book Hamza Yusuf was talking about, but it takes the worst of religion and best of science and goes Ha! See! Religion is bad!

very well said sophis^catrina, for the first part

in my opinion, religion is from God but beliefs are man made.
religion is inborned in humans but some of them turn to believe in something else according to their personal interpretations as sophi said which make these beliefs man made.

Quran (koran) was sent to Mohd by God through Jibreel (Gibrael) & his followers wrote them down, through out his life. After his death the quran was 'unified', do you believe that no changes (minor or major) happened?




is the glorious Quran man made?

I will give you these examples:


Dr. Tariq Al Suwaidan discovered some verses in the Holy Quran that mention one thing is equal to another, i.e. man is equal to women. Although this makes sense grammatically, the astonishing fact is that the number of times he word man appears in the Quran is 24 and the number of times the word woman appears is also 24, therefore not only is this phrase correct in the grammatical sense but also true mathematically (24= 24).

Upon further analysis of various other verses, he discovered that this is consistent throughout the whole Quran, where it says one thing is
like another. See below for some astonishing results:-

The word number of times mentioned in Arabic Quran:

Dunia (one name for life) 115 �
Aakhirat (one name for the life after) 115
Malaikat (angels) 88 � Shaytan (satan) 88
Life 145 � Death 145
Benefit 50� Corrupt 50
People 50 � Messengers 50
Eblees (king of devils) 11 � Seek refuge from eblees 11
Museebah (calamity) 75 � Thanks 75
Spending (sadaqah) 73 � Satisfaction 73
people who are Mislead 17 � Dead people 17
Muslimeen 41 � Jihad 41
Gold 8 � Easy life 8
Magic 60 � Fitnah (dissuasion, misleading) 60
Zakat (taxes Muslims pay for the poor) 32 �
Barakah (increasing or blessings of a wealth) 32
Mind 49 � Noor (light) 49
Tongue 25� Sermon 25
Desire 8 � Fear 8
Speaking publicly 18� Publicising 18
Hardship 114 � Patience 114
Muhammad 4 � Sharee*ah (Muhammad's teachings) 4
Man 24 � Woman 24

And amazingly enough have a look how many times the following words appear:-

Month 12
Day 365
sea 32
Land 13
Sea + land = 32 + 13 = 45
% sea = 32/45 * 100 % = 71.11111111
% land= 13 / 45 * 100 % = 28.88888889 = 100.00

Modern Science has only recently proven that the water covers 71.111 % of the earth, while the land covers 28.889 %.

Is this a coincidence?

Who taught the illiterate prophet Mohammad (PBUH) all this?

Allah,the All Mighty taught him this.
As the Quran tells us:

(This is) a Book, the Verses whereof are perfected (in every sphere of knowledge, etc.), and then explained in detail from One (Allah),Who is All-Wise and Well-Acquainted (with all things).' (Quran 11:1)

The above is from the the series of the scientific miracles in
Quraan, by Dr. Tariq Al Suwaidan.

for us muslims we believe blindly in our glorious Quran, and we don't need all the above mircles to prove the Quran is from Allah swt.

but this is for you non muslims to appreciate why do we muslims believe blindly in our glorious Quran.

^^ the usual clouds, nothing new

With all do respect, but:

You are off topic my buddy, scroll up to where I clearly stated

The main discussion here is:

Is religion man made? Created just to understand this weird universe & find answers to them. Or was/were they sent by God/gods to mankind in order for them to follow it?

This has nothing to do with the books, but the ideology of religion. The books are just mere tools.

Anyways, am not expecting much from you. Thanks though

So Jihad, you say that Jesus was the one who started the whole idea of religion? So it is man made.....

No, I did not say that at all.

I was talking about why certain ideas, like religion, are appealing to people.

El Rey, exactly. Thing is God knows what is the perfect truth. Yet, we Muslims aspire through our own ijtihad/reasoning to the truth. If a result is not good, then we go back and re-interpret God's words until we get a successful result. Contrary to popular belief, the Quranic verses are not straightforward and they are subject to different interpretations.

So when we see failed Islamic states who say that they impose Shariah law, yet have results that are oppressive and unjust, that a reasonable mind cannot fathom, such as Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Iran, Pakistan, and so on .... this is not because Islam is a failure, but rather that their interpretation of it is the wrong one.

Let me give you a simple example. When Jerusalem fell within the hands of the Crusaders (Al-Salibiyeen), this had meant that the Islamic state had failed. That even though Shariah law was imposed, Allah let the Christians take the holy land from the Muslims. The Muslims realised that their interpretation of Islam was not correct, and they went back to the Qura'n and re-interpreted it to reclaim the holy land, and these Muslims were Nur Al-Din and Salah-Al-Din (Saladin).

This conception that there was one pure version of Islam that we must go back to is simply untrue. After the Qur'an was revealed, it was interpreted in various different ways. Now we only have four mathabs in Sunni Islam. In the 12th century, there were over one Hundred and twenty mathahib.

for us muslims we believe blindly in our glorious Quran, and we don't need all the above mircles to prove the Quran is from Allah swt.


Really? I do remember the Qur'an rejecting the concept of blind faith and calling such people to be worst than animals (hum kal-an3am, bal-athal). Allah does not tell us to believe in him blindly, He constantly gives us reasons on why we should believe in Him - He tells us to observe creation, the heavens and earth, He retells the stories of history, and He constantly tells people to use reason and rationality. There is no such thing as blind faith in Islam. The most used word in the Quran after the word 'Allah' is 'Knowledge' ... because through knowledge can we truly believe in Allah. So really, let him (spirit) question all he wants, since this will just increase his understanding.

Let me give you a simple example. When Jerusalem fell within the hands of the Crusaders (Al-Salibiyeen), this had meant that the Islamic state had failed. That even though Shariah law was imposed, Allah let the Christians take the holy land from the Muslims. The Muslims realised that their interpretation of Islam was not correct, and they went back to the Qura'n and re-interpreted it to reclaim the holy land, and these Muslims were Nur Al-Din and Salah-Al-Din (Saladin).

So Muslims went to reclaim the Holy Land from the very people(Christians and Jews) who made the land Holy to begin with?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying one religion is better than the other.

The Crusaders had their own agenda, which some argue was not purely religous.

Really? I do remember the Qur'an rejecting the concept of blind faith and calling such people to be worst than animals (hum kal-an3am, bal-athal). Allah does not tell us to believe in him blindly, He constantly gives us reasons on why we should believe in Him - He tells us to observe creation, the heavens and earth, He retells the stories of history, and He constantly tells people to use reason and rationality. There is no such thing as blind faith in Islam. The most used word in the Quran after the word 'Allah' is 'Knowledge' ... because through knowledge can we truly believe in Allah. So really, let him (spirit) question all he wants, since this will just increase his understanding.

sophie why you always misunderstand me?

read again what I said

for us muslims we believe blindly in our glorious Quran, and we don't need all the above mircles to prove the Quran is from Allah swt.

what I want to say is clear

we muslims believe BLINDLY that the glorious Quran is from Allah swt not man made.

or do you have a shroud of doubt about this fact sophie?

There's been a big atheist movement in the last few years, didn't you hear about it? I guess it wasn't popular in the middle east :p


Epicurus [341–270 B.C.] Greek philosopher

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

we muslims believe BLINDLY that the glorious Quran is from Allah swt not man made.


Who wrote them down? Am sure not god nor angels:rolleyes:
Tell us who wrote it down?

Who wrote them down? Am sure not god nor angels:rolleyes:
Tell us who wrote it down?


I will leave it to you to find out.

I hate debating with atheists.

I rest my case.

spirit ain't an athiest...Or so I think.
He really does believe in God. Or he believes in something.
But he's kinda unsure I guess.

Anyhow, to be more practical:
spirit, there were special people appointed by the prophet to 'write down' the Qura'n as instructed by the prophet PBUH. They were his most trusted of his companions. The Qura'n was 'revised' on yearly basis between Gibreel PBUH and the prophet PBUH so that nothing was 'missed out'. Secondly, as Muslims we believe the Qura'n could never be tempered with even if people tried...Since it is the Final Revelation and thus Allah SWT protects it from any human interference.

This is the Muslim side of it...
You are of course free to believe whatever you want to believe.

human beings always craved for a superior being to look up to and to pray to. in Malta we have the oldest free standing temples in the world...they used to worship the sun god, the rain, nature, the godess of fertility etc....
times passed and humankind had people who were focus points for belief. the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and more. they all preached almost the same thing... some people need religion because it gives them a conscience, it tells them what's good and what's bad. it molds their lifestyle and how they act in their daily life. i know a lot of people who don't believe in anything, and they live a good life just the same.
my husband is not affiliated with any religion. he wasn't christened and does not pray. he's a very good man. when he met my parish priest before we got married, spent three hours talking alone. the priest came back to me saying..this guy is as good a christian as the best of us.

i believe that Our religion was brought to us by allah swt...

our guides are Quran and sunnah, Quran was given to mohammad (PBUH) by jibreel, from god...

and sunnah, was mohammad's says and acts, inspired and guided by Allah SWT...

so Islam wasnt man made...

but if ur talking about Religion in general, it's a concept that came before Islam, yet, that doesnt make Islam man made...

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying one religion is better than the other.

Don't worry :flower:.

So Muslims went to reclaim the Holy Land from the very people(Christians and Jews) who made the land Holy to begin with?

The Muslims went to reclaim a city that was a part of their empire, which they did reclaim.

Jerusalem became under Muslim rule in the year 638, due to the Arab-Muslim conquests throughout the Middle East which established the Islamic empire(s). What is interesting to note is that before the Arab-Muslim expansion, in the time of Constantine (the Romans), Jews were banned from entering Jerusalem. It was only after Jerusalem was under the Islamic empire, that the Jews were allowed back into the city by the Muslim rulers.

The European kings went on the first crusade around the year 1095. After almost 500 years of Jerusalem being under Muslims rule, Jerusalem was besieged by the First Crusaders who killed most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants during the Siege of Maarat in 1098. They committed grave atrocities, such as mass executions, throwing of the heads of Muslim over besieged cities, exhibition and mutilation of naked Muslim cadavers and even cannibalism. Obviously, all this caused great distress to the Muslims, since the original inhabitants of the city were being butchered by these foreign European crusades. Finally, in the year 1187, Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt, recaptured Jerusalem, following the Battle of Hattin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#_note-30

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#First_Crusade_1095-1099

we muslims believe BLINDLY that the glorious Quran is from Allah swt not man made.

or do you have a shroud of doubt about this fact sophie?

Muslims do not believe blindly, they were/and still are astounded by its magnificent verses (in the Arabic version obviously). The Qur'an is the miracle that was given to the Prophet :PBUH: from God. It is the mu3jiza and proof of Islam, and that is why they believe in it.


Who wrote them down? Am sure not god nor angels
Tell us who wrote it down?

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf gives a lecture on 'How the Holy Qur'an was compiled' which hopefully should answer your questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYwvgXOU1e4&feature=related

Who wrote them down? Am sure not god nor angels:rolleyes:
Tell us who wrote it down?


"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)."
[Al-Qur’an 15:9]

Is religion man made? Created just to understand this weird universe & find answers to them. Or was/were they sent by God/gods to mankind in order for them to follow it?
Working your mind 'only' in the matter, will sure lead to a 'not sure' answer. No one of us have seen earth being created. Nor anyone of us had an eye sight of God, the Angels or even devil. It is just information passed from a generation to another.

Now:
Is religion man made? To begin, in the English language the word 'religion' is different than the Arabic word 'Deen' while we refer to both as for the same meaning. In English religion is:
re·li·gion
1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
As you can see, it is more of a 'belief' that you one have regarding the cause and purpose of the universe.

Now, in Arabic:
دان أ ـ دان يدين دَيْناً: أخذ الدين ودانه يدينه دينا: أعطاه دينا. لازم ومتعد. وأدانه: أعطاه وأقرضه إلى أجل. وتدين؛ أخذ دينا أو صار ذا دين.

دين والدين؛ ماله أجل، والموت، وكل ما ليس حاضراً، والجمع ديون وأدين. مثل أعين وقد ورد (الدين) في؛ " إذا تداينتم بدين إلى أجل مسمى فاكتبوه(( 282 / البقرة، وفي 11، 12 / النساء.

دن ب ـ دان يدين ديناً؛ تأله وعبد وأطاع وأنقاد.

دن جـ ـ دانه يدينه ديناً؛ حاسبه وقضى فيه وجزاه.

دين فالدين على هذا هو الطاعة بالجزاء والشريعة التي يقضى ويطاع بها.

والأقرب أن تكون صيغة (ديْن) أصلا لصيغة (دِين) لأنها أدنى إلى السهولة. ويرجح ذلك أن كلمة (دين) تطلق في بعض مدلولاتها على كل ما ليس حاضراً، فمعقول أن تكون (دين) بمعنى طاعة أو جزاء مأخوذة من (دين) بمعنى غير الحاضر، لأن أساس الأديان كلها الإيمان بأمر وراء هذا الوجود المحسوس الحاضر، وبجزاء مؤجل، والخشوع والخضوع والانقياد للمعبود كما

إن كلمة الدين تأتي مرة من فعل متعدٍّ بنفسه: دانه يدينه، وأحيانا من فعل متعدٍّ باللام: دان له، وتارة من فعلٍ متعدٍّ بالباء: دان به، وباختلاف الاشتقاق يختلف المضمون الذي تعطيه العبارة.

1- إذا قلنا دانه دينا قصدنا بذلك أنه ملكه، وساسه وقهره، وحاسبه، وجازاه وكافأه. فالدين هنا يأخذ معنى الجلال والملك والتصرف بما هو ميزة الملوك من الملك والتصرف. ومن ذلك: مالك يوم الدين أي يوم المحاسبة والجزاء. وفي الحديث: "الكيِّس من دان نفسه وعمل لما بعد الموت" أي حكمها وضبطها، والديَّان الحكم القاضي.

2- وإذا قلنا دان له بمعنى أطاعه وخضع له. فالدين هنا هو الطاعة والخضوع والعبادة، كقوله تعالى: "إنا لمدينون" أي مملوكون.

وواضح أن هذا المعنى الثاني ملازم للأول ومطاوع له دانه فدان له، أي أجبره على الطاعة فخضع وأطاع.

3- وإذا قلنا دان بالشيء بمعنى أنه اتخذه دينا ومذهبا أي اعتقده أو اعتاده أو تخلق به. فالدين هنا هو المذهب والطريقة التي يلتزم بها الشخص نظريًّا أو عمليا. تقول العرب: ما زال ديني وديدني أي عادتي، والمذهب النظري عنده هو عقيدته ورأيه الذي يعتنقه، ومن ذلك قولهم دينت الرجل أي وكلته إلى دينه، ولم أعترض عليه فيما يعتنقه.

4- تأكيدًا على هذه المعاني اللغوية فإن كلمة الدين عند العرب تتضمن علاقة بين طرفين يعظم أحدهما الآخر ويخضع له، فإذا وصف بها الطرف الأول كانت خضوعا وانقيادا، وإذا وصف بها الطرف الثاني كانت أمرا وسلطانا، وحكما وإلزاما، وإذا وُصف بها إلى طبيعة العلاقة بين الطرفين كانت هي الطريقة المنظمة لتلك العلاقة، أو الشكل الذي يمثلها
the word 'Deen' is derived from the word "dan" which the indicate the state of being obliged to someone with fellowship, money or belief. So Religion in the Arabic language differs from the English one in the sense that it holds more 'loyalty' than relativity. In Arabic there is a relation between two entities in which one obliges himself to the other's wishes or orders.

This is the key!
Religion as we 'Muslims' knew it is a two sides relation, in both ways your question can be answered. So religion is two identical parts, one part is man made, which is the belief and obligation, and the other part is the information sent by God to mankind on how to probably follow Him.

Messengers of God are all of them a 'passage' and an 'outlet' of this information. So there should be a link between God and the Human so the chain be completed, and there we have the Angel (The Holy Spirit) peace be upon them all.

If you were to send a message to someone, would you send it in an unknown language? Or in a 'non-receivable' form? Sure you will send your message with the most understandable form you can produce! Read this:
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful'
" 94. What kept men back from belief when Guidance came to them, was nothing but this: they said, "Has Allah sent a man (like us) to be (His) Messenger."

95. Say, "If there were settled, on earth, angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should certainly have sent them down from the heavens an angel for an apostle."

Al-Israa [94-95]

The Muslims went to reclaim a city that was a part of their empire, which they did reclaim.

Jerusalem became under Muslim rule in the year 638, due to the Arab-Muslim conquests throughout the Middle East which established the Islamic empire(s).

I think the issue, related to this thread, is that religion as we know it today is a consequence of actions in the past. And one who studies history can see how single events in the past had significant impact on today.

For example, you mentioned Emperor Constantine. Constatine was the first Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity and thus set in motion the conversion of the Roman empire from Paganism to Christianity. If Constantine had not converted to Christianity, Christianity would not be the major religion of the Western world today. Many will say it was God's will.

There are similiar parallels with Islam, if one is willing to objectively look at it. Though I know many will say it is all Allah's will.

I think the issue, related to this thread, is that religion as we know it today is a consequence of actions in the past. And one who studies history can see how single events in the past had significant impact on today.

For example, you mentioned Emperor Constantine. Constatine was the first Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity and thus set in motion the conversion of the Roman empire from Paganism to Christianity. If Constantine had not converted to Christianity, Christianity would not be the major religion of the Western world today. Many will say it was God's will.

There are similiar parallels with Islam, if one is willing to objectively look at it. Though I know many will say it is all Allah's will.

True. Islam was the world's largest religion during the Islamic civilization, which expanded from Europe to the East. However, during the time of colonialism by the British, French, etc then Christianity became the world's largest religion. While, now because of the spread of Islam in Europe and North America, it is the fastest growing religion.

There is one thing that I need to point out. Although a lot of the Islamic Empire/the territories was spread because of battles. When these territories fell under Islamic rule, the inhibitants were not forced to convert to Islam and they were well protected under the Islamic rulers. For instance, when it comes to Jerusalem ...

After a brief and bloodless seige, Muslims seized control of Jerusalem from the Byzantines in February 638. Caliph Omar Ibn al-Khattab accepted the city's surrender from Patriarch Sophronius in person.

Omar was shown the great Church of the Holy Sepulchre and offered a place to pray in it, but he refused. He knew that if he prayed in the church, it would set a precedent that would lead to the building's transformation into a mosque. He instead prayed on the steps outside, allowing the church to remain a Christian holy place.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-umar-mosque.htm

After a prolonged siege of Jerusalem, the Muslims finally entered the city peacefully following the signing of a treaty by the Patraich of Elya Al-Quds (i.e. Jerusalem) and Umar himself. Several years earlier, the Patriach had announced that he would not sign a treaty with anyone other than the Caliph himself. For this reason, `Umar personally came to Jerusalem after Muslims had established control of all the surrounding territory. According to both Muslim and Christian accounts, `Umar entered the city humbly, walking beside a donkey upon which his servant was sitting. He is said to have been given the keys to the city by the Orthodox Christian Patriarch Sophronius, after conducting the peace treaty known as the Treaty of Umar, the English translation of which is provided below:

“ In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Beneficent.
This is what the slave of Allah, Umar b.Al-Khattab, the Amir of the believers, has offered the people of Illyaa’[1] of security granting them Amaan (protection) for their selves, their money, their churches, their children, their lowly and their innocent, and the remainder of their people.

Their churches are not to be taken, nor are they to be destroyed, nor are they to be degraded or belittled, neither are their crosses or their money, and they are not to be forced to change their religion, nor is any one of them to be harmed.

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

An issue with religion is it creates divisions where none existed before.

This is why religion should be separated from politics.

An issue with religion is it creates divisions where none existed before.

This is why religion should be separated from politics.

Religion is always getting into politics, all the wars were because of religion or included somewhere or another. The west AND east succeeded in separating them & the middle east is still stuck with religion as a LAW!! or they think so; most are controlled by islam. It's time for us to evolve as well.

^I don't see it that way...
Religion can be a FORCE used by politicians to cause rage/enthusiasm into the public.
That is quite true.
The West didn't separate them, nobody will succeed in separating them. It's far too tempting politically to have them together...Didn't you know why President Bush invaded Iraq?
Yup...'Cause 'God told' him so!

Religion is always getting into politics, all the wars were because of religion or included somewhere or another. The west AND east succeeded in separating them & the middle east is still stuck with religion as a LAW!! or they think so; most are controlled by islam. It's time for us to evolve as well.

the West seperated politics from religion but they still start wars :rolleyes:

It's time for us to evolve as well

so excluding religion from politics is evolving ? how touching

Religion was never separated from politics nor will ever be. Which is I think a pity.

Ever saw an atheist president?

isn't the current regime of Turkey is atheist ?

isn't the current regime of Turkey is atheist ?

Not at all, the prime minister was once put in prison for threatening the secular nature of the state, and the president is a former member of an Islamist group.

Religion in the beginning is just a message from God to people thro a prophet. After a while it is developed and evolved by people.
Is the the current Islam that we have is man made? yes, in my humble opinion, it is man made, not totally of course.
You see muslims living a certain lifestyle, thinking that its the ideal islamic way, while other muslims live in a different lifestyle, thinking that their way is the ideal way. Which one is right? Nobody! The former group followed their scholar and the latter group followed another scholar.
The problem is when people equate the words of a scholar to the words of God.
I'm sure many of you have seen it here too, when a person argues with what a scholar said, people go like:"hey! that's a famous reliable muslim scholar! Don't dare to argue with what he said!"
He is a scholar, at the same time, he is a man, his preferences will always affect his judgment!

I did not clarify. When I said religion should be separate from politics, I meant a Government should not be beholden to and dictated to by one particular religous establishment.

However, it is impossible, unreasonable and unneccessary to ask the citizens and the politicians themselves to deny their own religous beliefs or to deny the influence of religion on the values of society.

the middle east is still stuck with religion as a LAW!! or they think so; most are controlled by islam. It's time for us to evolve as well.

Of course its time to evolve and they should. The problem isn't with Islam. It's the Muslims who claim that Islam does not allow them to evolve. It's the Muslims who claim that the laws they are following are God's laws. It's the Muslims fault for following blindly old laws and not putting their own effort to update their laws. Stupid laws that cause backwardness, humiliation, oppression, and unjustice are not God's laws - there are by Muslims who use the name of God to justify them.

This is why religion should be separated from politics.

And be like the secular west! :rolleyes:

There's nothing as 'improvement of laws'.
There's an old law. And a new law.
By 'improving an old law' you are simply making a new law.

Is that the point you intended to make sophis?
Imo, there are no Muslims or Islamic States that apply Shari'ah laws as they were applied around the world today anyhow...
Yes, Iran and KSA included.

There's nothing as 'improvement of laws'.
There's an old law. And a new law.
By 'improving an old law' you are simply making a new law.

Is that the point you intended to make sophis?
Imo, there are no Muslims or Islamic States that apply Shari'ah laws as they were applied around the world today anyhow...
Yes, Iran and KSA included.

Hmm, I wonder if there isn't a position in between.

For example, though I am not an expert, from the little research I have done, it seems that it was once the seeming "consensus" among Muslim scholars that all images of living things were haram.

But perhaps that is just because certain questions hadn't been thoroughly discussed among them...they hadn't thought of the questions.

Then photography comes along. Is it the same? Many scholars now have to ask a new question. And the answer comes from some: Not the same. More like a mirror than like drawing. So it's not haram.

Then Muslims start reflecting more deeply. Really, what is the difference between photography and a drawing? If you mess with your filters to get a colored effect and then photoshop, how much difference is there between that and using a pen?

It forces you to dig deep and to think about the purpose of the law in ways that older generations didn't think about.

So you come up with "new" answers. But in a way they are "new" answers, because the questions are new.

This kind of thing is usually called "development". It's not the same as simple "change".

"Development" is the unfolding of what is already contained inside. Like an acorn becoming an oak tree.

And the implications may sometimes mean a different approach to interpretation of a particular provision of law or a particular reading of a passage or understanding of a principle than before.

But...there is a danger of going too far and just making excuses for yourself. So, you get a reaction. "Fundamentalists" try to say: No change! Everything is clear! The same as always!

But of course, what they are doing isn't the same as always either, because they are interpreting new questions also.

Really, trying to honestly find the core principle that you can't betray (avoiding just "copying the secular West") and trying to honestly grapply with difficult new questions and not pretending they aren't there is possible. But it's the most difficult and it gets you the most criticism from both sides.

There's nothing as 'improvement of laws'.
There's an old law. And a new law.
By 'improving an old law' you are simply making a new law.

Is that the point you intended to make sophis?
Imo, there are no Muslims or Islamic States that apply Shari'ah laws as they were applied around the world today anyhow...
Yes, Iran and KSA included.

Both, you can make new laws or modify old laws. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of shariah law is man-made. The evolvement of it stopped in the 12th century due to political problems. Did you know in the Maliki mathhab, a man/wali had the right to force his daughter into marriage? Obviously, this is not applicable to this day and age so it was deleted from the countries that apply Maliki laws. So yes, obviously Shariah law has to be revised to meet modern needs, and the Quran serves as giving the general guidelines.

The scholars nowadays most of the time do "taqleed", or "copying" what the medieval scholars said, which is really silly since life has changed since then. What needs to be done is "ijtihad" - critical analysis. Thankfully, there are some who did in the last century such as Muhammed Abduh... or even Dr Jamal Badawi ... For instance, the verse that relates to transactions when it comes to debt, that requires a man or two women ... scholars who do ijtihad say this will not be applicable nowadays when the woman is a commercial lawyer, and the man is someone who is illiterate when it comes to the law. The verse was sent down in the 7th when women did not have much experience when it came to commercial transactions, that's why the Quranic solution gave the most just result. However, in this day and age taking the witness of a man who has no idea abt the law to be equal to that of two women, when these women could be commercial lawyers - is silly and produces arbitrary results. When interpreting the Quran, the basic principle is sought and isn't changed, which is to make sure that the transaction is safe and its contents are not forgotten leading to a fair result, while the literal reading is changed.

The scholars nowadays most of the time do "taqleed", or "copying" what the medieval scholars said, which is really silly since life has changed since then. What needs to be done is "ijtihad" - critical analysis. Thankfully, there are some who did in the last century such as Muhammed Abduh... or even Dr Jamal Badawi ... For instance, the verse that relates to transactions when it comes to debt, that requires a man or two women ... scholars who do ijtihad say this will not be applicable nowadays when the woman is a commercial lawyer, and the man is someone who is illiterate when it comes to the law. The verse was sent down in the 7th when women did not have much experience when it came to commercial transactions, that's why the Quranic solution gave the most just result. However, in this day and age taking the witness of a man who has no idea abt the law to be equal to that of two women, when these women could be commercial lawyers - is silly and produces arbitrary results. When interpreting the Quran, the basic principle is sought and isn't changed, which is to make sure that the transaction is safe and its contents are not forgotten leading to a fair result, while the literal reading is changed.

Yes, I first heard about this controversy from my friend Bob Spencer who as you know is highly critical of Islam: "the gates of ijtihad are closed."

Apparently, this is--or was--the dominant paradigm at least among the Sunnis.

But it doesn't seem workable, does it? It's nice to hear that the Muslims I admire are questioning that idea. It seems to me that it's impossible to avoid it, though I can see why some might feel it's dangerous.

But it doesn't seem workable, does it? It's nice to hear that the Muslims I admire are questioning that idea. It seems to me that it's impossible to avoid it, though I can see why some might feel it's dangerous.

True and the commercial area is an example (below).

Actually the main problem is funding and investing in people who will do the job of revising the laws - and its very tough, but it needs to be done. For instance, in the commercial sector when it comes to Islamic finance or Islamic banking, top lawyers from all over the world (in general London was the base) were called in to revise the laws. What they would do is to take the secular laws and then use the Quranic principles as a way to modify the banking/commercial laws to make them Islamic. Funnily enough, Islamic banks started springing up, Islamic finance is now booming all around the world, and it is the hottest new thing in the commercial law firms - even the Japanese want to deepen their understanding of it!

If all this investment and funding into training lawyers did not happen, then we (Muslims) would still have been stuck with commercial 12th century laws that have no place in today's society. We would not have been able to have Islamic finance products. The same thing (of revising) has to be done with other areas of Islamic law, but the problem is no one is interested in investing in it, since it does not bring in any money, as opposed to the commercial law which is very profitable.

You misunderstood me.

I meant that saying "the gates of ijtihad are closed" isn't workable.

You misunderstood me.

I meant that saying "the gates of ijtihad are closed" isn't workable.

Oh sorry abt that :p

Oh sorry abt that :p

No my fault. I was unclear...it's a bad habit of mine! :(

The scholars nowadays most of the time do "taqleed", or "copying" what the medieval scholars said, which is really silly since life has changed since then. What needs to be done is "ijtihad" - critical analysis. Thankfully, there are some who did in the last century such as Muhammed Abduh... or even Dr Jamal Badawi ... For instance, the verse that relates to transactions when it comes to debt, that requires a man or two women ... scholars who do ijtihad say this will not be applicable nowadays when the woman is a commercial lawyer, and the man is someone who is illiterate when it comes to the law. The verse was sent down in the 7th when women did not have much experience when it came to commercial transactions, that's why the Quranic solution gave the most just result. However, in this day and age taking the witness of a man who has no idea abt the law to be equal to that of two women, when these women could be commercial lawyers - is silly and produces arbitrary results. When interpreting the Quran, the basic principle is sought and isn't changed, which is to make sure that the transaction is safe and its contents are not forgotten leading to a fair result, while the literal reading is changed.


Sheikh Ahmed Al-Khalili will be the guest in Al-Jazeera program on Tuesday 19/2 (14:30 GMT), topic will be the relation between the scholar and the sultan. How to close the gap between the fixed laws/rulings and today requirements in addition to how to get rid of sectarian conflicts.


أحمد الخليلي.. العلاقة بين العالم والسلطان

تستضيف الحلقة مفتي سلطنة عمان الشيخ أحمد بن حمد الخليلي ليتحدث عن كيفية ردم الهوة بين النص الثابت والواقع المتجدد، وإمكانية التخلص من النزاعات الطائفية.


http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4D4C3A6D-69A4-46C5-9CB3-D19AFBF46408.htm


Will be interesting to watch.

For me all religion is so obviously 100% man-made, and that includes Cloud's miraculous book as well.

It's a natural response to our search for answers, our fear of death and and of being alone. It helps people feel secure, and answers questions. It is also a very powerful means of social and political control. It enables leaders to use against people the usual response to children's 'why' question - 'Because I [=god] said so!' It is also useful for helping poorly educated people behave in a way that benefits leaders and society (and in the words of Marx 'the opiate of the masses'). Helps stops illegitimate children, straying spouses, establishes paternity, creates order, justifies wars, helps your fighters to be brave in battle, encourages work and self sacrifice, etc etc etc. There is also a strong evolutionary selection between religions - really badly constructed ones don't last long. The well constructed ones survive better. Even better still when one applies the usual techniques used (more recognisably) in 'cults' - don't let people leave the cult, make sure the 'leader' is seen as perfect and beyond question, discourage any questions, build in circular arguments, associate the cult with things that supposedly 'prove' divine presence or influence, have special rituals to make people feel special, strongly link the religion to the control of sex and access to young women, try to gain total control of the education of children as early as possible, encourage the belivers to provide access to their cash and resources, divide the world into just 2 types of people - those inside the cult and the rest denounce as evil non-belivers. Ensure all aspects of life are controlled by the cult. Try to cut off communication between those within and outside the cult. The list goes on.

Religion therefore is a complex and very interesting phenomena.

Sam Harris has it right that it's now a fundamental problem in the modern world (although he gets a bit preachy and falls down later in the book when he tries to be a philospher.) I think there are many netter books on the topic. Sam's main point is that 'religion light' (or so called moderate believers) and those who support the existance of any supernatural being (be it Christian, Hindu or whatever) indirectly provide the environment and support for the extreme and violent believers. Thus, Harris would say that when GW Bush (or anyone) claims to believe in God, he is a part of the support network of OBL and all the other idiots who commit violence in the name of religion.

But of course its impossible to convince someone so totally convinced (brainwashed?) as Clouds. Which I don't mind, as long as people like that stop insisting that they have supernatural authrority to mess with the life of others.

A problem for any reformation of Islam however is the claim that the original recitation is 'perfect', when it so clearly is not. In this respect it's like butterfly wings - one touch and the whole house of cards collapses. Thus there are the twists and turns of logic to get around the problems while maintaining the perfection myth, or even a tendency to just not acknowledge that there are any problems at all by definition. It would be much easier when the requirement for interpretation is accepted. But Clouds will, I predict, do nothing at all to question this fundamental tenent and will argue black is white for ever.

Such can be the power of religion.

What a post undercover, what a post.

It is also a very powerful means of social and political control. It enables leaders to use against people the usual response to children's 'why' question - 'Because I [=god] said so!' It is also useful for helping poorly educated people behave in a way that benefits leaders and society (and in the words of Marx 'the opiate of the masses').

That is totally true.

The way religion is used to control & limit people is just amazing.

Religion therefore is a complex and very interesting phenomena

It will always be.


It amazes me how people think that greek myths are just some stories & thoughts.

thanks Spirit. It was a bit of a rant. But a good thread - made me think.

lol religion