Origin of religion

Society Religion & Philosophy
141

BkW ;

I know that you did not write this melodrama since it is circulating on internet for quite sometime.

Point presented in this drama was that there no such thing as evil, merely absence of good creates evil, therefore God did not create evil, it was absence of good which created evil.

Now question;

If someone is not doing any good act (on what standard?)
he is involved in evil acts??

By same token, Belief of most religions is that if men do good deeds they will go to heaven otherwise to hell.
Now suppose there is someone who did not do good deeds in his life but did not do any bad deeds either by human standards. Is this man considered to be doing evil deeds in his life by the analogy presented in above drama??

142

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Beatle_ki_wapsi: *
An anonymous dialogue, which I found brilliant and insightful:

[/QUOTE]

[Quote]
Originallyposted by Analyze_it:
I know that you did not write this melodrama since it is circulating on internet for quite sometime.

[/quote]

I thought you'd never guess!!

[Quote]
Originallyposted by Analyze_it:

Point presented in this drama was that there no such thing as evil, merely absence of good creates evil, therefore God did not create evil, it was absence of good which created evil.

Now question;

If someone is not doing any good act (on what standard?)
he is involved in evil acts??

By same token, Belief of most religions is that if men do good deeds they will go to heaven otherwise to hell.
Now suppose there is someone who did not do good deeds in his life but did not do any bad deeds either by human standards. Is this man considered to be doing evil deeds in his life by the analogy presented in above drama??

[/quote]

I didn't really want this to be analysed, just thought I'd share it with you because I thought it was quite witty and somewhat relevant to the discussion. It doesn't come up with any concrete arguments. Its just a 'melodrama' as you stated.

143

But..as I believe... Evil doings are mans choice. Not Gods. God may know the ultimate outcome of an act. (does)

Sinse God gave us humanity..we, ourselves chose our own paths..God does not interfer with our choices, (except in our consciense) EVEN though we may be wrong.

This is what differentiates us from animals.

So... no blaming God for wrong. And no excuses that its destined. When we behave badly, its because we chose to.

New Years Resolutions.

1.) Never use Gods name in vain purposes. Whether to convert others to your own thinking... or in vain. (kinda similar)

2.) Learn to show love and respect others as you would your own self and family.

3.) Listen to your own heart. Not what others tell you to believe.

BTW..your story, analogy.. good questions. Story of Faith mostly.

And the mystery of Life. And if we ourselves knew the answer to that mystery? Then.. I suppose there would be no more questions. Would just be a matter of faith.

144

Old Lahori, If a Christian father and nun commit adultery, it doesnot mean that Christianity asks its followers to commit adultery. If a jew kills his father, it doesn't mean that Jewism asks him to kill his father. If a hindu tells lies then it doesn't mean that Hinduism asks its followers to lie. So if a Muslim does terrorism, how can someone say that Islam asks its followers to be terrorists. A person can do anything he wants to. It is not necessary that whatever he does is ordered by his religion. So I say again, "A religion should not and cannot be judged by analyzing the actions of its followers but by analyzing the religion itself."

145

[QUOTE]
Now if we suppose that there is a God since there must be a creator of everything then somebody must have created God too in continuation of same analogy????
[/QUOTE]

analyzeit, this seems to be related to your question.

The UnMoved Mover:
Aristotle begins Book VIII of his Physics with the claim that motion in the universe is everlasting, that is, that it had no beginning and will have no cessation. He ends Book VIII with the claim that everlasting motion can only be explained by an immaterial first unmoved mover. This unmoved mover has always been identified with Aristotle's divine first principle in his Metaphysics, the god who moves the universe by being an object of desire. The bulk of the Book is largely an exceedingly complex set of arguments for the above two claims. The crucial premise that allows him to move from the first claim to the second is that everything that is in motion is caused to be in motion by something. The principle must be demonstrated inductively for the three main categories of motion: lifeless things in general, the elements which have their own special type of motion, namely, natural motion, and the self-motion of animals. The last two are most important for the purposes of this Book, because they are likely to be the categories wherein is found the motion that guarantees everlasting motion in the universe.
Aristotle argues for all three cases that the ultimate cause of any motion is motionless or immovable. Generally, if a putative B were taken to be the cause of a motion A, and if B were itself in motion, then the motion A is in fact identical with the motion AB, which itself needs to be explained. Even in the case of the so-called 'self-motion' of animals, the cause of this motion cannot itself be in motion, but must be a part of the animal that is in fact motionless or immovable. If the entire animal is in motion, the cause of this motion must be a part that is not itself directly or essentially in motion, but moves only accidentally when the whole moves. It follows, then, that if there needs to be a single everlasting motion to account for the necessity of there always being some motion in the universe, this motion too will need to be caused by something motionless, namely, an unmoved mover. This is the core of the Book's argument. Although the principle Aristotle defends is that everything that is moved is moved by something, his argument leads him to conclude that everything that is moved is moved by something else, namely, something that is unmoved or immovable. Hence, the Scholastic version of Aristotle's principle: omne quod movetur ab alio movetur.

What the guy is trying to say is that at a certain point you have to stop the cycle. That point is God.

146

Very strange arguments to defend Islam!

When a Christian nun is engaged in adultry with the church male, do they say that they do so for Christianity?
Does a Jew while killing his father says that he does so for Judaism?
Does a Hindu says that he is lying for Hindu religion?

But the terrorists inspired by Madrisa system say that they do so, that is killing, terror for Islam!

If any one needs example, pls open any of Today' newspaper and one or two examples are there.

147

..nice

Nice try guys but what fail to see is that rather going through all that rubbish you can end the argument by

1.Showing proof of creator if there is one?

2.Is the qruan the book that allah has his messeage with.{is it still in its original fourm] i mean the text.

148

r

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *

No...First monotheistic religion was started by Amenhotep in Egypt. He moved the capital from Alexandria to Amara. This was the begining of the monotheistic faiths. It was short lived as his successors moved the capital back and resumed worshipping the many gods

There is historical an d archaelogical proof on this...unlike adam where the only proof is in scriptures witten by "god" knows who.
[/QUOTE]

What a loud Rubishhhh...!! so what ur saying is that becuse some dumb guy named Amenhotep who thought the sun was a god and wrote all this down on a rock .this is archaelogical proof of monotheistic religion.
do u think there were no toher people on this earth b4 the phirows.
were is ur proof that no one ever spoke about one god b4 him.
and as for archaelogical proof wich keeps changing from one theory to another i seen archaelogist talking about the proof of noah,s ark.[so what do u have to say about that].
`

149

Anand, a person can say whatever he wants to say. I can say that I raped some one for the sake of some religion. Will it be logical to blindly accept what I say or to find out whether the religion really asks me to rape someone.

The terrorist who says that he is killing for Islam also says that the ones he is killing are evil. If you think he is true when he says that he is killing for Islam then, according to you, he should also be true when he says that the ones he is killing are evil. If you believe one of his statements, why not believe his other statement too. If you do agree with his other statement, then I don't think that he is a terrorist at all, because killing evil is not terrorism.

150

A useless talk may go for long......It is better if hardcore Islamic beleivers study Islam, because a mere learning Islam leads them into oblivion.

Study Islam and learn the difference!

151

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by anand: *
A useless talk may go for long......It is better if hardcore Islamic beleivers study Islam, because a mere learning Islam leads them into oblivion.

Study Islam and learn the difference!
[/QUOTE]

From what u say i think ur already in oblivion.....!!!!!!!

152

As salaamu alaikum

If you want hard scientific facts

see http://www.islam-guide.com/

Also

From: The Origin of Shirk
Author: Imaam Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaanee
Book: Tahdheerus-Saajid min Ittikhaadhil-Quboori Masaajid (pp.101-106) [1]

From that which has been established in the Sharee’ah (prescribed law) is that mankind was - in the beginning - a single nation upn true Tawheed, then Shirk (directing any part or form of worship, or anything else that is solely the right of Allaah, to other than Allaah) gradually overcame them.

The basis for this is the saying of Allaah - the Most Blessed, the Most High:

“Mankind was one Ummah, then Allaah sent prophets bringing good news and warnings.” (Soorah Baqarah 2:213)

Ibn 'Abbaas - radiallaahu 'anhu - said: “Between Nooh (Noah) and Adam were ten generations, all of them were upon Sharee’ah (law) of the truth, then they differed. So Allaah sent prophets as bringers of good news and as warners.” [2]

Ibn 'Urwah al-Hanbalee (d.837 H) said: “This saying refutes those historians from the People of the Book who claim that Qaabil (Cain) and his sons were fire-worshippers.” [3]

I say: In it is also a refutation of some of the philosophers and athists who claim that the (natural) basis of man is Shirk, and that Tawheed evolved in man! The preceeding aayah (verse) falsifies this claim, as do the two following authentic hadith:

Firstly: His (the prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) saying that he related from his Lord (Allaah) : “I created all my servants upon the true Religion (upon Tawheed, fre from Shirk). Then the devils came to them and led them astray from their true Religion. They made unlawful to people that which I had made lawful for them, and they commanded them to associate in worship with Me, that which I had sent down no authority.” [4]

Secondly: His (the prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) saying: “Every child is born upon the Fitrah [5] but his parents make him a jew or a christian or a magian. It is like the way an animal gives birth to a natural offspring. have you noticed any born mutilated, before you mutilate them.”

Abu Hurayrah said: Recite if you wish: “Allaah’s fitrah with which He created mankind. There is to be no change to the creation (Religion) of Allaah.” (Soorah ar-Rum 30:30) [6]

After this clear explanation, it is of the upmost importance for the Muslim to know how Shirk spread amongst the believers, after they were muwahhideen (people upon Tawheed). Concerning the saying of Allaah - the most perfect - about the people of Nooh:
“And they have said : You shall not forsake your gods, nor shall you forsake Wadd, nor Suwaa’, nor Yaghooth, nor Ya’ooq, nor Nasr.” (Soorah Nooh 71:23)

It has been related by a group from the Salaf (Pious Predecessors), in many narrations, that these five deities were righteous worshippers. However, when they died, Shaytaan (Satan) whispered into their people to retreat and sit at their graves. Then Shaytaan whispered to those who came after them that they should take them as idols, beautifying to them the idea that you will be reminded of them and thereby follow them in righteous conduct. Then Shaytaan suggested to the third generation that they should worship these idols besides Allaah - the most high - and he whispered to them that this is what their forefathers used to do!!!

So Allaah sent to them Nooh alayhis-salaam, commanding them to worship Allaah alone. However none responded to hiscall except a few. Allaah - the mighty and majestic - related this whole incident in Soorah Nooh Ibn 'Abbas relates: “Indeed these five names of righteous men from the people of Nooh. When they died Shataan whispered to their people to make statues of them and to place these statues in their places of gathering as a reminder of them, so they did this. However, none from amongst them worshipped these statues, until when they died and the purpose of the statues was forgotten. Then (the next generation) began to worship them.”[7]

The likes of this has also been related by Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree and others, from a number of the salaf (Pious Predecessors) - radiallaahu 'anhum.

In ad-Durral-Manthoor (6/269): 'Abdullaah ibn Humaid relates from Abu Muttahar, who said: Yazeed ibn al-Muhallab was mentioned to Abu Ja’far al-Baaqir (d.11H), so he said: He was killed at the place where another besides Allaah was first worshipped. Then he mentioned Wadd and said: “Wadd was a Muslim man who was loved by his people. When he died, the people began to gather around his grave in the land of Baabil (Babel), lamenting and mourning. So when Iblees (Satan) saw them mourning and lamenting over him, he took the form of a man and came to them, saying : I see that you are mourning and lamenting over him. So why don’t you make a picture of him (i.e. a statue) and place it in your places of gatherings so that you maybe reminded of him. So they said: Yes, and they made a picture of him and put in their place of gathering; which reminded them of him. When Iblees saw how they were (excessively) remembering him, he said : “Why doesn’t every man amongst you make a similar picture to keep in your own houses, so that you can be (constantly) reminded of him.” So they all said “yes”. So each household made a picture of him, which they adored and venerated and which constantly reminded them of him. Abu Ja’far said: “Those from the later generation saw what the (pevious generation) had done and considered that…to the extent that they took him as an ilah (diety) to be worshipped besides Allaah. He then said :” This was the first idol worshipped other than Allaah, and they called this idol Wadd”[8]

Thus the wisdom of Allaah - the Blessed, the Most High - was fufilled, when he sent Muhammed sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam as the final prophet and made his Sharee’ah the completion of all divinely Prescribed Laws, in that He prohibited all means and avenues by which people may fall into Shirk - which is the greatest of sins.

For this reason, building shrines over graves and intending to specifically travel to them, taking them as places of festivity and gathering and swearing an oath by the inmate of a grave; have all been prohibited. All of these lead to excessiveness and lead to the worship of other than Allaah - the Most High.

This being the case even more so in an age in which knowledge is diminishing, ignorance is increasing, thre are few sincere advisors ( to the truth) and shaytaan is co-operating with men and jinn to misguide mankind and to take them away from the worship of Allaah alone - the Blessed, the Most High.

Before talking about islam, please please understand tawheed.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/tawheed/abutaw/abutaw_1.html
http://www.islaam.com/Article.asp?id=323
http://www.islaam.com/Section.asp?id=4
http://www.islaam.net/display/display.php?category=3
www.islaam.com
www.islaam.net

wassalaamu alaikum