Last nite I met with some friends for "Open House" and some really good discussion on religion and Islam. Of course our discussions are completely unfettered. There are no rules or conditions. Just good conversation, proofs, logic and common sense. And it is always referenced to the Quran.
To all you anti-Islam people, religious warriors of other religions, suicide bomber material, jihadi types, so called "liberals", progressive Muslims (ha ha ha) etc - it is about time that you realise that religion and Islam are not the same. The second point is that religion and the Quran are like chalk and cheese. They are not the same either.
Religion is the sectarian creation of sectarian people which is not universal and creates all the fighting around the world.
Islam is the universal value system that we find in the Quran. So if you dont read and understand the Quran, then you will be stuck in an abundance of religion. Then you become the laughing stock.
And you must read the Quran literally. Only if you read the Quran literally then it becomes clearer.
Lets take the words 'Heaven' and 'Hell'. These are English words. And they are biblical words.
Heaven and hell come from the Bible and they come with a huge historical baggage, including who controls the keys to heaven.
The Arabic Quran speaks about jannah or "garden" and naar or 'fire'.
Are the jannah and naar of the Quran the same as the 'heaven' and 'hell' of the Bible?
Reading the Quran literally, it describes the jannah or "garden" as an allegory, a parable or a similitude (mathalu al jannati).
Here is Surah 47:15 of the Quran by FOUR different translators :
1. Muhammad Pickthall 47:15 - A similitude of the Garden (mathalu al jannati) which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted, and rivers of milk whereof the flavour changeth not, and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers, and rivers of clear-run honey; therein for them is every kind of fruit, with pardon from their Lord. (Are those who enjoy all this) like those who are immortal in the Fire and are given boiling water to drink so that it teareth their bowels?
2. Yusuf Ali 47:15 - (Here is) a Parable of the Garden (mathalu al jannati) which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?
3. Shakir 47:15 - A parable of the garden (mathalu al jannati) which those guarding (against evil) are promised: Therein are rivers of water that does not alter, and rivers of milk the taste whereof does not change, and rivers of drink delicious to those who drink, and rivers of honey clarified and for them therein are all fruits and protection from their Lord. (Are these) like those who abide in the fire and who are made to drink boiling water so it rends their bowels asunder.
4. Khalifa 47:15 - The allegory of Paradise (mathalu al jannati) that is promised for the righteous is this: it has rivers of unpolluted water, and rivers of fresh milk, and rivers of wine - delicious for the drinkers - and rivers of strained honey. They have all kinds of fruits therein, and forgiveness from their Lord. (Are they better) or those who abide forever in the hellfire, and drink hellish water that tears up their intestines?
The Malay word 'misal' (or mithal) is from the same Arabic 'mathalu' which means an example or an allegory. It is a description.
And that is all I will say about this for now.
So last nite in our discussion one of our genuine Islamic scholars (a Mat Salleh Muslim) went on and on about a point. He quoted this, that, that, this and bla bla. At the end of his long dialogue I just said "No". I said 'No that never happened'. It just stopped the conversation.
When someone says 'No' to your points they are basically saying that what you are saying is not true.
So you can react in a variety of ways :
1. You can cry and run to mommy - not good
2. You can threaten to "report to the authorities" - no different from 1 and also not good.
3. You can blow yourself up (ISIS style) - hmmm...how much explosives will you use?
4. You can blow other people up - really not good.
5. You can try to rebut or explain intelligently, with proof, logic and common sense - this is the best option
In our discussions of course we adopt Option No. 5. So if someone says 'No' to what you are saying, it means you lack proof, logic and/or common sense. So you must bring proofs for what you say. Religion just cannot show any real proofs for what it says.
The other 'conversation stopper' is the word "Why?" Another person, also a Mat Salleh Muslim with a PhD in engineering spoke about entropies (stable states, unstable states etc). The Cause behind the entropy etc. A simple question was asked 'Why?' If there was a Cause, why was it so?
If there was an Uncaused Cause that made it so, why?
If you cant explain 'Why?' after 1000 years, 2000 years or 5000 years of religion, then what are your options ?
Please revisit 1. to 5. above.
Wouldnt it be easier to talk about cars? And more practical?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.