why do we have to believe?

[Jack]

7:147 is a very important verse and merits further study.  

Of the other verses you cited, I find 27:4 to be most illuminating: "Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, we adorn their works in their eyes. Thus, they continue to blunder."

This seems to imply an active process by God (or as I like to think of it, a universal law as prescribed by god) that works to distort the value of one's action contingent upon the intention behind that action.

'believe in the Hereafter,' as we have come to learn through the rest of the reading, isn't simply a belief in a garden beneath which rivers flow.  Rather, it is a belief in a system of requital in which intentions+actions yield consequences, negative or positive, for the intender/doer of said actions.

Each action is is actually a bifold occurrence: an Intention behind an event {I}, and the Event Itself {EI}.

27:4 and the other verses seem to imply that an 'I' colors the value of an 'EI.'  If one's I is misguided (i.e. if one 'disbelieves in the system of requital'), the effect of one's EI is similarly misguided and ultimately rendered useless ('nullified' to use 7:147's parlance).

33:5 sheds light on this I/EI idea: "...You do not commit a sin if you make a mistake in this respect; you are responsible for your purposeful intentions. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

The verse, while referring specifically to the protocol of adopting a child, indicates that mistakes do not count against us.  And of course this is common sense.  One's EI, though presently negative in consequence, does not actually impact one's soul negatively if the negative I is absent.

Anyway, coming back to the original topic of actual belief in the existence of a god and whether a failure to do so results in the nullification of works.  The best explanation I can come up with is that a belief in the Hereafter or a belief in an ultimate system of requital is impossible without an attached belief in 'the divine' who prescribed said system.  This is the ancient Moral Lawgiver theistic argument.

An atheist, then, who does not believe in a system of requital has a distorted 'I' component behind his or her actions, which would render the effect of his or her EI's meaningless.

But we still come back to the question: do atheists who continually do 'good works' (by which, I mean, works that on the outside appear good to us, e.g. giving to charity, honoring parents, etc., and not just works that they THINK are good a la Pharaoh's own self-deception) have their works nullified simply because their I is not rooted in a belief in a system of requital?  Seems 'unfair.'  I must be missing something here.  

If an atheist gives to charity because he wants to alleviate a child's suffering FOR THE SAKE OF ALLEVIATING THE CHILD'S SUFFERING, and not because of a deeper belief in a system of requital, is that work rendered nullified?  If so, why?  Because the EI as practiced by the atheist doesn't impact the universe positively (hard to believe that's true; after all, the child's suffering has been alleviated)?  Or is it because the atheist never intended to receive any reward/positive consequence for his action anyway because, by definition, he believes in no such thing and doesn't care, i.e. you get what you ask for?

Again, just thinking out loud.

Of the other verses you cited, I find 27:4 to be most illuminating: "Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, we adorn their works in their eyes. Thus, they continue to blunder."

This seems to imply an active process by God (or as I like to think of it, a universal law as prescribed by god) that works to distort the value of one's action contingent upon the intention behind that action.

'believe in the Hereafter,' as we have come to learn through the rest of the reading, isn't simply a belief in a garden beneath which rivers flow.  Rather, it is a belief in a system of requital in which intentions+actions yield consequences, negative or positive, for the intender/doer of said actions.

Each action is is actually a bifold occurrence: an Intention behind an event {I}, and the Event Itself {EI}.

27:4 and the other verses seem to imply that an 'I' colors the value of an 'EI.'  If one's I is misguided (i.e. if one 'disbelieves in the system of requital'), the effect of one's EI is similarly misguided and ultimately rendered useless ('nullified' to use 7:147's parlance).

33:5 sheds light on this I/EI idea: "...You do not commit a sin if you make a mistake in this respect; you are responsible for your purposeful intentions. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

The verse, while referring specifically to the protocol of adopting a child, indicates that mistakes do not count against us.  And of course this is common sense.  One's EI, though presently negative in consequence, does not actually impact one's soul negatively if the negative I is absent.

Good points, I agree.

Anyway, coming back to the original topic of actual belief in the existence of a god and whether a failure to do so results in the nullification of works.  The best explanation I can come up with is that a belief in the Hereafter or a belief in an ultimate system of requital is impossible without an attached belief in 'the divine' who prescribed said system.  This is the ancient Moral Lawgiver theistic argument.


An atheist, then, who does not believe in a system of requital has a distorted 'I' component behind his or her actions, which would render the effect of his or her EI's meaningless.

But we still come back to the question: do atheists who continually do 'good works' (by which, I mean, works that on the outside appear good to us, e.g. giving to charity, honoring parents, etc., and not just works that they THINK are good a la Pharaoh's own self-deception) have their works nullified simply because their I is not rooted in a belief in a system of requital?  Seems 'unfair.'  I must be missing something here. 

If an atheist gives to charity because he wants to alleviate a child's suffering FOR THE SAKE OF ALLEVIATING THE CHILD'S SUFFERING, and not because of a deeper belief in a system of requital, is that work rendered nullified?  If so, why?  Because the EI as practiced by the atheist doesn't impact the universe positively (hard to believe that's true; after all, the child's suffering has been alleviated)?  Or is it because the atheist never intended to receive any reward/positive consequence for his action anyway because, by definition, he believes in no such thing and doesn't care, i.e. you get what you ask for?

What if belief in 'the ultimate system of requital' is doing good works? I take the concepts of hell and heaven to be states we experience in this life and the next. Hell is the absence of God; God will not evolve 'them' (2:174). Hence, they don't 'experience' God.

Going back to Pharoah, 28:39: "And he and his troops were arrogant in the land without any right, and they thought that they would not be returned to Us." Wasn't this affirmed through their behavior? i.e. They did these things because they didn't believe in the ultimate requital.

Pharaoh and his people experienced punishment/torment (which is the fire ultimately), 3:11.

Maybe, an atheist does believe in the 'ultimate requital', because when they, let's say, give to someone in need they are saving them from 'hell'. Maybe, their 'reward' is evolving their own nafs/soul. 2:281 says that each soul will be paid for what it 'earned'.

Let's say, hypothetically, that they are 'disbelievers'. 9:11 says that they can be brothers in our system if they bring salat and zakat; simple as that. Why can't an atheist fit this mold?

10:84: Moses said, "O my people, if you have really believed in GOD, then put your trust in Him, if you are really submitters (muslimeen)."

Seems like the concept of 'muslimeen' and 'believe in God' and putting 'trust in Him' are inseparable.

If 'belief' in God was just believing in a deity, wouldn't this make satan 'muslim'? (5:28, 8:48, 59:16)

Again, just thinking out loud.

Please do so more often. 

[Wakas]

Perhaps an analogy, just to see what happens...

What if a person lived in a kingdom, which had a king ruling over the area, and the king's laws were effectively The Quran's laws, but not identified as such, i.e. they were the king's own and not tied to a scripture. If the person in the kingdom followed these laws and was asked why do you follow these laws? What's the possiblities?

1) I follow them because I feel they are the right thing to do, they are fair etc.
2) If i dont follow them i will be punished by the law/king

What if the king is the only one who undertakes all punishments for non-compliance, but the person has never seen or met the king, thus is not 100% sure the king exists or not, yet he still follows the laws. What does that mean?

3) He thinks it is more likely than unlikely the king exists, thus errs on the side of caution and follows the laws. Is this belief in the king's existence?
4) something else?


If we look at (1), if the law is indeed just/fair/etc, then its origin likely comes from a just/fair source. If a person follows this because they feel it is right, that means they are also just/fair/etc. Why would a person such as this not acknowledge the source in this case? I'm sure some would, but not all. So what is stopping them? What is the difference between those acknowledging the source and those who do not? Maybe pondering on this will help us understand it better.


Reminds me, conceptually, of 107:4-5.

4. So woe to the ones who go/turn towards,
5. But of their bond are unaware/heedless.

[CavemanDoctor]

Interesting analogy Wakas.

With regard to option 1, I believe there is a subset of possible residents.  It's a minor but meaningful distinction: 1A) I follow my own moral compass...which happens to coincide with the King's laws.

I bring this up because it is what agnostics/atheists often say.  Clearly, agnostics/atheists can be good people.  If you ask an atheist why he is, say, giving to charity, he'll say something like 'because it is ultimately beneficial to society' or 'it's the right thing to do.'  If you press him further and ask why it's the right thing to do or why he should be concerned with what benefits society, most atheists give a group-based argument on morality: as members of society, we come to natural agreements (the whole natural contract idea) on what we do or do not like happening to us.  I don't like it if you steal my property because that hurts me, so I won't do the same to you.  The so-called golden rule.  In other words, an atheist may have a similar moral code to the king's (or the quran's) but his use of such code has nothing to do with the authority of code-giver, in this case.  If the atheist were to be shipped out and dropped onto a random deserted island populated by some other society and away from the king's authority, the atheist would live by the same moral code.

So we come back to the same question: the atheist in our hypothetical, who acts exactly the same way the best believer would act, but for different reasons, is he still 'believing in god'?  Can his group-based morality argument --that it is best to live by the golden rule-- be tantamount to 'believing in god'?  I don't think the quran supports such a view, but maybe I'm wrong.

[ay]

If 'belief' in God was just believing in a deity, wouldn't this make satan 'muslim'? (5:28, 8:48, 59:16)

Well that leads back to the definition of muslim / mumin. Satan was a kafir - since he "concealed" the truth. And I take muslim to be "submitter" - Satan did not submit. But he did believe in God - so was he mumin (taking the superficial meaning of the word here) ?

So we come back to the same question: the atheist in our hypothetical, who acts exactly the same way the best believer would act, but for different reasons, is he still 'believing in god'?  Can his group-based morality argument --that it is best to live by the golden rule-- be tantamount to 'believing in god'?  I don't think the quran supports such a view, but maybe I'm wrong.

I agree with Caveman here... You are not "believing in God" just by doing good deeds.
What is the purpose of the Quran - is it not to send down a system for all to live by, with justice, safety etc?  So if you do those things, and promote that peaceful system without the intention of abiding by Gods laws/without a belief in God, why is it wasted? Which brings me back round to my original post of " why do we have to believe?"

[progressive1993]

Well that leads back to the definition of muslim / mumin. Satan was a kafir - since he "concealed" the truth. And I take muslim to be "submitter" - Satan did not submit. But he did believe in God - so was he mumin (taking the superficial meaning of the word here) ?

He was far, far... from it.

http://www.free-minds.org/node/10

2:34 We said to the angels, "make obeisance to Adam," so they made obeisance except for Iblis, he refused and became arrogant, and became of the rejecters/ingrates.

38:73 Thereupon the angels agreed to make obeisance to him, all of them together.
38:74 Except Satan; he turned arrogant, and became one of the rejecters/ingrates.

[Jack]

You are not "believing in God" just by doing good deeds.

I am suggesting that 'belief in God', is not a literal belief in God. For example: 2:8.

Anyone can say they believe in God, does this make it so? What about those who spread hate and violence in the name of God? What does their superficial belief prove?

I don't know for certain, whether atheists can be muslims or not. I am just considering this possibility.

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace to all,

Belief in the Qur'aan entails more than just knowing something; it involves acting upon the knowledge. The fundamental areas of belief, according to the scripture, are (1) Allah, (2) Angels, (3) Prophets and Messengers, (4) Books/Scriptures of Allah, and (5) the Afterlife, or day of judgement... Anybody can claim to believe in these things, but this form of "belief" doesn't mean anything unless we act upon this belief. We "believe" that Allah exists by conducting ourselves in the best manner, since He sees everything we do. We "believe" in the angels by following our good impulses and rejecting negative things, which is what the angelic beings represent and teach. We "believe" in the prophets and messengers by accepting their righteous messages and following their examples outlined in the scriptures. We "believe" in the scriptures of Allah by studying them and living according to their doctrines. And we "believe" in the life after death by applying all of the other forms of "belief", living as if we'll be accountable before Allah, even after this life has perished.

Peace,

Ahmad

[Jack]

I forgot to add 34:41 which illustrates what 'belief' really is. How is most of humanity believing in the jinn?

How many even know what a jinn is?


Peace

[Rev.John]

I am suggesting that 'belief in God', is not a literal belief in God. For example: 2:8.

Anyone can say they believe in God, does this make it so? What about those who spread hate and violence in the name of God? What does their superficial belief prove?

I don't know for certain, whether atheists can be muslims or not. I am just considering this possibility.

Those that spread hate and violence are not doing it for God, they are doing it for their own selfish reasons. No one can believe in an all forgiving, all loving God and feel hate.

[ay]

Those that spread hate and violence are not doing it for God, they are doing it for their own selfish reasons. No one can believe in an all forgiving, all loving God and feel hate.

True... they just use God as an excuse...