Is Islam an Organized Religion or a System of God?

[Danish]

As for me, Islam (Submission) is a system of GOD, as all the Manifestations (great rasul) have taught, but the West (as it usually does) confined it to "religion."

Religion has nothing to do with East or West. It simply means a set of beliefs, practices and observances of faith, especially servile, dominant, restricted and emanating from unprecedented, inevident and unscientific orthodoxical claims pertaining to supernatural deity or deities.

In reality, there is only one religion: the Religion of GOD.

In reality, and the truth is, that there are numerous religions, all of which are nothing more than human affairs. There is no such thing as Religion of GOD but System of Nature within which life is dictated, dedicated and dependent and that is Reality; the crux of which is ?what you see is what you get?.

It is humans who add superficial rituals and superstitions instead of purifying the Words of GOD.

?Words of GOD? itself is superstition connected with superficial rituals; the ambiguousness and incredibility of religiosity palpitated by wishfully malicious humans.

But I'm sure GOD will forgive them... perhaps.

That is a contradictory statement and a desperate one at best.

In the name of GOD, the Most Pure, the Most Pure,

In the name of which GOD and Most Pure of What?

[kevynbello]

Allah'u'Abha! (GOD is Glorious!)

Religion has nothing to do with East or West. It simply means a set of beliefs, practices and observances of faith, especially servile, dominant, restricted and emanating from unprecedented, inevident and unscientific orthodoxical claims pertaining to supernatural deity or deities.

Oh? I'm referring to Eastern concept of religion, which had a tendency to be all-encompassing of daily life and values, whilst the Western concept of religion, which separates it from state and from other areas of life. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is what I have always learned, because of the rigidness of Western monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Baha'i Faith) and Eastern religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism) which allow fluidity.

In reality, and the truth is, that there are numerous religions, all of which are nothing more than human affairs. There is no such thing as Religion of GOD but System of Nature within which life is dictated, dedicated and dependent and that is Reality; the crux of which is ?what you see is what you get?.

I personally believe that Nature itself abide by the Laws of GOD evidently, and that which does not abide usually does not progress. There are numerous religions, but the main ones have always spoken (well, moreso the Prophets/Manifestations of GOD: Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) of one essence (monism) or a single personal being (monotheism). They all agree of One Source that brought everything into being, and that is why all religions are merely variations. But if you believe otherwise, go ahead! ^__^

?Words of GOD? itself is superstition connected with superficial rituals; the ambiguousness and incredibility of religiosity palpitated by wishfully malicious humans.

I doubt that the writers of these Sacred Words are anything malicious. Guru Nanak's Guru Granth Sahib is filled with nothing but praises of GOD and descriptions (of what humans can attempt to describe) of HIS nature. The "Seven Valleys" and the "Four Valleys" of the Baha'i Faith is nothing but explications on how to reach GOD within. The Bhagavad Gita is a great poem filled with philosophical expressions of Reality and the description of True Reality. When I say "Words of GOD," I mean mainly the Scriptures of the Manifestations: Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. There were other wonderfully inspired people whom I believed did have Divine Inspiration.

Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, I believe is divine, as well as the Guru Granth Sahib, the Dao De Jing, and others.

That is a contradictory statement and a desperate one at best.

I withdraw the statement, sorry! But the "perhaps" was to outline the unsurity of any human judgement, as GOD alone can be the true Judge.

In the name of which GOD and Most Pure of What?

There is only one GOD to me, and He is the Most Pure of all. That is what the statement comes, and it comes from the Writings of the Manifestation of God (Prophet of God), Baha'u'llah.


What I was trying to say though, is that religion in Western thinking has always seen it as a separate institutionalised "organism," and that religions should not be viewed that way, but rather as a Dharmic concept. ^__^


Peace!
Kevyn.

[Danish]

Allah'u'Abha! (GOD is Glorious!)

An understatement and illogical!

Oh? I'm referring to Eastern concept of religion, which had a tendency to be all-encompassing of daily life and values, whilst the Western concept of religion, which separates it from state and from other areas of life. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is what I have always learned, because of the rigidness of Western monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Baha'i Faith) and Eastern religions (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism) which allow fluidity.

Religion is a universal dogmatic concept. Daily life and values are, once again, constantly and consistently dictated, dedicated and dependent upon Nature/Reality. The separation of church and state is aptly justified in the West rather than in the East because the western society is becoming more prone to practical approaches.

I personally believe that Nature itself abide by the Laws of GOD evidently, and that which does not abide usually does not progress. There are numerous religions, but the main ones have always spoken (well, moreso the Prophets/Manifestations of GOD: Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) of one essence (monism) or a single personal being (monotheism). They all agree of One Source that brought everything into being, and that is why all religions are merely variations. But if you believe otherwise, go ahead! ^__^

Your personal belief that Laws of Nature are evidently that of Laws of GOD is unsubstantiated and paranoiac. In order to prove this superimposed assertion, you must first prove who or what GOD is, else it becomes a superstition. One cannot make a comparative study by knowing one thing and not the other. Besides, Laws of Nature carries dual phenomenon; constructive (good) and destructive (bad), which is not inherent in an alleged GOD as claimed. GOD, its attributes and all connected practices combined is only an outlandish concept conjured up by Man himself. It?s an innovation of heathenism, from being polytheistic to monotheistic, that?s all.

I doubt that the writers of these Sacred Words are anything malicious. Guru Nanak's Guru Granth Sahib is filled with nothing but praises of GOD and descriptions (of what humans can attempt to describe) of HIS nature. The "Seven Valleys" and the "Four Valleys" of the Baha'i Faith is nothing but explications on how to reach GOD within. The Bhagavad Gita is a great poem filled with philosophical expressions of Reality and the description of True Reality. When I say "Words of GOD," I mean mainly the Scriptures of the Manifestations: Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. There were other wonderfully inspired people whom I believed did have Divine Inspiration.

Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, I believe is divine, as well as the Guru Granth Sahib, the Dao De Jing, and others.

You keep mentioning some Guru?s and scriptures of the ancient; don?t you have a mind of your own? I believe in Truths and Facts as given, not whimsical tales, myths and notions by the so-called he-said/she-said ?prophets? of the bygone days and the once-upon-a-time stories written in books. You are living at present, not in past nor in future, so think accordingly and wisely. Men of Today are much more intelligent and knowledgeable than ?Gurus? of the past, yet most lack integrity and common sense in justifying religious doctrines.

There is only one GOD to me, and He is the Most Pure of all. That is what the statement comes, and it comes from the Writings of the Manifestation of God (Prophet of God), Baha'u'llah.

You didn?t answer my question. Whether there is One god or Many, no one knows anything about this alleged "hidden" GOD. Writings are man-made and ?most pure? doesn?t mean pure, henceforth the god becomes technically and logically impure. Godly and Devilish idols were created by man eons ago and all sorts of attributes (both good and evil) and statuses thumped upon them and this is how Man has understood them and constantly maneuvering in all haphazard directions and discomforts and being challenged in their very superstitious core beliefs.

[Tay]

Peace Danish,

You stated:

Men of Today are much more intelligent and knowledgeable than ?Gurus? of the past

That's a bit arbitrary. Intelligence indicates potential while knowledge is simply quantity of information, neither of which you can patently prove to be more abundant today than in days past.

But anyway, to your question...

I'd say islam as described in the qur'an is neither a religion nor a system, as all religions are systematic by definition. And all systems, when you get down to the nitty gritty, can be seen as being followed religiously. It's my understanding that islam is simply a word that describes, in arabic, the persona of those who are in harmony with the flow of life - best translated as peacefulness or tranquility. The very basic tenets of islam denote a verifiable path to achieving this state of harmony: understanding that there is one unifying force behind the universe, that our actions have consequences (both local and long-term), and that positive contribution to the social and physical environment is fundamental in nurturing this outcome.

Peace,
Tay

[Danish]

Hello Tay,

You stated:
That's a bit arbitrary. Intelligence indicates potential while knowledge is simply quantity of information, neither of which you can patently prove to be more abundant today than in days past.

It is rather circumspect than arbitrary. Intelligence is the faculty of comprehension and knowledge is comprehension of information. Intelligence and knowledge are inbuilt via information. Information is gathered from factual realistic Nature. Today, humans have gained, advanced and surpassed the information that was ancient. Intelligence and Knowledge are neither patented nor proved, information is. Thanks to Nature and welcome to Reality.

I'd say islam as described in the qur'an is neither a religion nor a system, as all religions are systematic by definition.

Now that?s a newbie; a fascinated attempt. You point is well taken.

And all systems, when you get down to the nitty gritty, can be seen as being followed religiously.

The essential constituent of any religion is a man-made superstitious supernatural unknown deity (or deities) along with all its delusional adherents and rituals passed down over generations. Anything is possible when a human takes an oath in the name of such specie. You, as a Muslim, can conveniently extrapolate that Allah said this while another Muslim or even a non-Muslim can easily swear by this very Allah to mean that, both adamant in their views without knowing who or what exactly Allah is to begin with and suddenly each thumping the verses 2:18 and 2:171 upon each other. Such religious systems are dishonest, fictional and dangerous to mankind and must be totally eradicated. I believe in honesty, facts and a current just way of living a life, not by people bereft of such qualities. 

It's my understanding that islam is simply a word that describes, in arabic, the persona of those who are in harmony with the flow of life - best translated as peacefulness or tranquility. The very basic tenets of islam denote a verifiable path to achieving this state of harmony: understanding that there is one unifying force behind the universe, that our actions have consequences (both local and long-term), and that positive contribution to the social and physical environment is fundamental in nurturing this outcome.

Yours and a few others' understanding of Islam as per Quran is misrepresented, distorted and dislodged from historical standpoint. Fundamental principals of living a ?good?, ?peaceful? and ?just? life are common traits inherent in ALL humans, including Atheists and ?wrongdoers?. How these traits are encountered, administered and diversified are purely environmental and have nothing to do with a superstitious insidious demanding commanding fearful unknown Deity written in a man-made book. All life-forms live, survive and adjust their environments as a direct consequence of what Nature dictates.

Edit: On a sidenote, when Islam is criticized or challenged, unlike other religions, one of two things happen: on a forum, a warning is given and ultimately the individual is disbanded from participation, whilst on confrontration, one is either subjected to extreme externalities or slaughtered. This is exactly the way of the Quran.....believe or else???

[Lobster]

Yours and a few others' understanding of Islam as per Quran is misrepresented, distorted and dislodged from historical standpoint. Fundamental principals of living a ?good?, ?peaceful? and ?just? life are common traits inherent in ALL humans, including Atheists and ?wrongdoers?. How these traits are encountered, administered and diversified are purely environmental and have nothing to do with a superstitious insidious demanding commanding fearful unknown Deity written in a man-made book. All life-forms live, survive and adjust their environments as a direct consequence of what Nature dictates.

peace Danish, an "athiest" can be a "muslim." And can you explain the part in bold letters? We make choices based on our situation/environment, and whether we prosper or fail depends on the choices we make. And to make the right choices, we have to be in a state of peacefulness. That's islam.
You have to stop looking at the word and at the quran like everyother religion filled with superstition. It's much simpler than most people make it out to be.

.....believe or else

exactly. Your actions have consequences, don't they?
You can either believe in the truth, and live a good, happy life, or you can believe in falsehood and be miserable.

Don't look at this as Muslim vs Non Muslim. I think taking it this way ruins the whole message.
If you think about it, all the rituals and superstitions we have today come from literal interpretation of people's words or "holy" texts.

[Tay]

Peace Danish,

Information is gathered from factual realistic Nature. Today, humans have gained, advanced and surpassed the information that was ancient. Intelligence and Knowledge are neither patented nor proved, information is. Thanks to Nature and welcome to Reality.

Danish, if intelligence is the faculty of comprehension, then there is nothing in your words to indicate someone alive today is more intelligent than someone alive 1000 years ago. The abundance of data is completely irrelevant because it is the potential to analyze/comprehend that data that you've called into question. Nevertheless, this is far off-topic.

Now that?s a newbie; a fascinated attempt. You point is well taken.

Attempt at what, bro? Religions are systematic. Do you agree or disagree?

You, as a Muslim, can conveniently extrapolate that Allah said this while another Muslim or even a non-Muslim can easily swear by this very Allah to mean that, both adamant in their views without knowing who or what exactly Allah is to begin with and suddenly each thumping the verses 2:18 and 2:171 upon each other.

And you conveniently say that Allah does not exist. So who's right? Is that what this thread is about? In the past, I've enjoyed debating with you because your approach seemed fair in the realm of logic. This reply of yours seems to me, however, as simply a way to steer the conversation into your arena of islam-bashing.

The fact is, my view is what I'm sharing. I don't represent the masses nor even a few. I represent me and my understanding of the book called the qur'an, and my understanding of what islam equates to. It has nothing to do with convenience nor backpedalling nor apologia. These are simply my views based on my capacity to understand the text. If it's ok with you, in our future dialogue, I would appreciate keeping the points between me and you and leave the rest of the muslim world out of it.

Peace,
Tay

[Danish]

Information is gathered from factual realistic Nature. Today, humans have gained, advanced and surpassed the information that was ancient. Intelligence and Knowledge are neither patented nor proved, information is. Thanks to Nature and welcome to Reality.

Danish, if intelligence is the faculty of comprehension, then there is nothing in your words to indicate someone alive today is more intelligent than someone alive 1000 years ago. The abundance of data is completely irrelevant because it is the potential to analyze/comprehend that data that you've called into question.

Tay, intelligence and knowledge gained and advanced over a span of 1000 years is by metes and bounds truely relevant and important and has nothing to do with my words. It is a very basic continuous life?s upward trend (called advancing stages) having combined past and present information gathered along that you can?t seem to grasp. It?s an evolution process. One can clearly see this from an education standpoint. Do you think that the level of education taught today at universities would match that of 1000 years ago? Don?t we have the tools to live a much sophisticated and comforted life today than 1000 years ago? Aren?t we not traveling, communicating and commuting in speeds rivaled 1000 years ago? If the ?Gurus? of the past were to suddenly appear today, they?d be in shock-n-awe and in total dismay. If not, why not and what made today what was not yesterday? And please don?t give me this potential stuff to steer away from what I am expressing because according to the holy-shmolies an alleged deity taught Adam everything and bestowed some of his "favorites" with unimaginable powers of knowledge, intelligence and strength long before Muhammad was born. 

Now that?s a newbie; a fascinated attempt. You point is well taken.

Attempt at what, bro? Religions are systematic. Do you agree or disagree?

Attempt to fascinate your own convoluted statement as to ?Islam being neither a religion nor a system?. Religions are systematic in what way? By comparison, they are world apart, carry some truth and mostly capricious.

You, as a Muslim, can conveniently extrapolate that Allah said this while another Muslim or even a non-Muslim can easily swear by this very Allah to mean that, both adamant in their views without knowing who or what exactly Allah is to begin with and suddenly each thumping the verses 2:18 and 2:171 upon each other.

And you conveniently say that Allah does not exist. So who's right?

While your reply is off-tangent, I will respond by saying, ?Not conveniently but honestly and factually?. Honesty and facts are always right.

The fact is, my view is what I'm sharing. I don't represent the masses nor even a few. I represent me and my understanding of the book called the qur'an, and my understanding of what islam equates to. It has nothing to do with convenience nor backpedalling nor apologia. These are simply my views based on my capacity to understand the text. If it's ok with you, in our future dialogue, I would appreciate keeping the points between me and you and leave the rest of the muslim world out of it.

I?m afraid Your views of the Quran, and rightly so of any other, are only fitting by convenience and extrapolation of words/verses without historical backup just to shape up the look-good feel-good faith. This seems to be an ongoing genetic problem among all Muslims and more recently in Quran Aloners, especially the hilarious scientific ones. It is no wonder Muslims themselves can?t seem to comprehend their own holy book and live in peace together. Virtually all denominations of Islam are segregated and confrontational. The most peaceful sect of Islam that I've come across thus far are the Ismailies (Aga Khanies), unlike the hard-core faithheads who cannot think outside their sealed patented super-duper boxes.

In the past, I've enjoyed debating with you because your approach seemed fair in the realm of logic. This reply of yours seems to me, however, as simply a way to steer the conversation into your arena of islam-bashing.

Please stick to the discussion at hand. I have deliberated several criticisms against the Quran and towards a religious personal supreme idol, so this mustn?t be a surprise. Islam-bashing, if you must put it that way, is a common trait among Muslims as well, which ofcourse they will never realize nor admit.

[Tay]

Peace Danish,

Tay, intelligence and knowledge gained and advanced over a span of 1000 years is by metes and bounds truely relevant and important and has nothing to do with my words. It is a very basic continuous life?s upward trend (called advancing stages) having combined past and present information gathered along that you can?t seem to grasp. It?s an evolution process. One can clearly see this from an education standpoint. Do you think that the level of education taught today at universities would match that of 1000 years ago?

You're stretching to prove your point, which was refuted in my first reply. Potential is not affected by the available data. Rather than take a guru from the past and present him/her with todays technology (which is intellectually dishonest in regards to the definition of intelligence), you would have to take a guru baby and raise him/her in today's society to see that your ridiculous original comment is arbitrary. Hawking is not more intelligent than Galilieo, and Galileo is not more intelligent than Aristotle. More factual based on more data, yes. But not more intelligence. You cannot measure the intelligence of dead people.

Attempt to fascinate your own convoluted statement as to ?Islam being neither a religion nor a system?. Religions are systematic in what way? By comparison, they are world apart, carry some truth and mostly capricious.

Let's ask merriam webster:

Main Entry: re?li?gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

Don't believe Webster? Let's ask Oxford:

religion
  ? noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

While your reply is off-tangent, I will respond by saying, ?Not conveniently but honestly and factually?. Honesty and facts are always right.

And subjective, apparently 

I?m afraid Your views of the Quran, and rightly so of any other, are only fitting by convenience and extrapolation of words/verses without historical backup just to shape up the look-good feel-good faith.

So the same can be said of your anti-islamic views (minus the look-good feel-good part).

Please stick to the discussion at hand.

I tried, but you seem to be dead-set on staging another venting session. I said islam is neither a religion nor a system. Rather than address what I stated, you chose to describe my view as "misrepresented, distorted and dislodged ". Now if I did the same to you from the get-go, then there would be no discussion. What's the point of starting a thread if you don't want to discuss anything that differs from your own viewpoint?

Like I said, in the future, please address me and what I've stated as dialogue between me and you. If you're incapable of that, then I leave you in peace.

-Tay

[Danish]

Tay, intelligence and knowledge gained and advanced over a span of 1000 years is by metes and bounds truely relevant and important and has nothing to do with my words. It is a very basic continuous life?s upward trend (called advancing stages) having combined past and present information gathered along that you can?t seem to grasp. It?s an evolution process. One can clearly see this from an education standpoint. Do you think that the level of education taught today at universities would match that of 1000 years ago?

You're stretching to prove your point, which was refuted in my first reply. Potential is not affected by the available data. Rather than take a guru from the past and present him/her with todays technology (which is intellectually dishonest in regards to the definition of intelligence), you would have to take a guru baby and raise him/her in today's society to see that your ridiculous original comment is arbitrary. Hawking is not more intelligent than Galilieo, and Galileo is not more intelligent than Aristotle. More factual based on more data, yes. But not more intelligence. You cannot measure the intelligence of dead people.

My stretching is an extension to get to your head (if you don?t mind me being discreet) as to what I am talking about while you deliberately bend and twist it to talk about intelligence ONLY and claim a misconstrued refutation/victory and then acknowledge more data. Without data, there?s no potential and the more the data/information (knowledge), the more the potential (intelligence).

Pick out any today?s guru and he will teach wonders to his ancient predecessors. As far as those scientists you mentioned, the ?data? (information/knowledge) Aristotle had centuries ago is no where close to today's Hawking?s and since Hawking already knows Aristotle?s, Galileo?s and as well as his own all latest data, Hawking is a lot more informed and knowledgeable and hence vastly intelligent. Besides, unlike gurus of God, scientists have their own fields of studies and can be totally unrelated. Another bend and twist, LOL! Was that a joke, Tay! Never seen you like this before. This is getting nowhere and becoming absurd.

Attempt to fascinate your own convoluted statement as to ?Islam being neither a religion nor a system?. Religions are systematic in what way? By comparison, they are world apart, carry some truth and mostly capricious.

Let's ask merriam webster:

Quote
Main Entry: re?li?gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

Don't believe Webster? Let's ask Oxford:

Quote
religion
  ? noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Earlier you mentioned ?as per Quran? and now you are mentioning ?as per English dictionaries? and that too with a pick-n-choose verbiage. What happened to those good old fashioned classical Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew language. Yet another bend and twist to suit your need.

While your reply is off-tangent, I will respond by saying, ?Not conveniently but honestly and factually?. Honesty and facts are always right.

And subjective, apparently

Certainly not, since I?m not the one making superstitious wishful claims and twisting and bending words/verses of an ancient alleged Allah?s book fallen out of thin air to fit today?s agenda by hook or by crook.

I?m afraid Your views of the Quran, and rightly so of any other, are only fitting by convenience and extrapolation of words/verses without historical backup just to shape up the look-good feel-good faith.

So the same can be said of your anti-islamic views (minus the look-good feel-good part).

Certainly not, because I take historical information, other sources, current views and world views as legitimate accounts (as per the Quran by any stretch of means) that are extremely important to understand Quran and not just pick, choose and fit dictionary or personal meanings as whatever pleases you to budget your wishful latest agendas just because that meaning fits, and viola. Without historical support, Quran will never be properly understood, no matter how hard you try and this is exactly what is being witnessed by Quran Aloners and even by 19ers. I will guarantee you that much and you will spend all your life trying to figure it out by venting upon Allah said this and Allah said that whilst having no clue whatsoever, which has become rather a nuisance. 

Like I said, in the future, please address me and what I've stated as dialogue between me and you. If you're incapable of that, then I leave you in peace.

I?m not sure what you are trying to achieve here, but my responses are addressed directly to your replies and none other. Perhaps you need some fresh air, bro.

What I am truly concerned with as of this very moment, is that, you and five other moderators, may take my criticisms to Martian levels of profanity and disband me from further participation by unjust means without a trial. Can you guarantee my save haven on this forum, if I were to stay within justified means of ?free speech?? If I am not supposed to bring about criticisms and discussions against religious belief systems on this section of forum, then please let me in advance and I shall refrain from doing so without getting ?slaughtered? out of forum.