Re: Truth in Religion

 

A Christian:-

It is obvious that Islam does not teach as high a regard for truth as Christianity does.

Comment:-

We obviously do not agree with your speculation. The opposite is true.

Jesus was looking to the future to the Religion of Truth. (John 16:12-13)

Islam is the "Religion of Truth" (Quran 9:29) by definition, as Christianity is the Religion of Love.

"He it is who sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to make it prevail over every other religion, however averse to this the disbelievers may be!" 9:33

"He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may make it overcome all religions, though the polytheists may be averse." 61:9

"And say: Truth has come, and falsehood has vanished! Verily, falsehood is ever bound to vanish. And We will send down of the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to the believers, though it only increases the wrong-doers in ruin." 17:81-82

The reason why Islam had to come was that Christians had falsified their religion and began to attribute good and loving motives to themselves while trying to hide their hostilities and doing evil even atrocities and torture - e.g. introducing pagan ideas into Christianity, indulging in persecution and establishing institutions such as the Inquisition.

The fact is that though you persist on criticising Islam you do so without adequate study and meditation. You lack the necessary depth of knowledge and confuse the behaviour of people with the teachings. That is a form of lying. I would not be surprised that you think of yourself as sincere and as doing a loving act in these hostile and naive attacks on Islam.

Truth in Islam refers to the creative and transforming force and the order of which entities, including human beings, consists, and not to verbal statements.

Critic:-

Muhammad told people that he believes he was the "Chosen One" of God, that he was seeing angels, and that he was having visions of being taken up to heavens on flying horses. What do you make of it? Was he lying or was he suffering from hallucinations and delusions?

Comment:-

Are these the only alternatives? I wonder why this critic is unable to perceive other alternatives. Why did people follow him?

He had visions.

We examine what he taught and did and we conclude that he was telling the truth. He had visions and he had insight and inspiration and heightened consciousness that enabled him to contact objective truth. What he said found resonance in the heart of those who accepted him.

Critic:-

People followed Muhammad because they were superstitious ignorant 6th century people. They had no idea of our modern theories on mental diseases. They assumed that Muhammad was either "possessed by demons" or that he was a "messenger of God".

Whoever has visions of angels, being taken up to "seventh heaven", or believes they are the "chosen one of god with a cosmic mission", that person is suffering from schizophrenia. Ask any psychiatrist.

Comment:-

That is your speculation. Obviously you do not have visions or suppress them and erroneously assume that others cannot. It is obviously convenient for you to believe this. But images in the mind are quite common, as are sounds and feelings and they do refer to something. It is only a question of whether they have meaning that refer to something real or not. The Quran also mentions these in several places.

Obviously those who followed him did not think that he was "possessed by demons". But those who followed him united Arabia and created the greatest civilisation of the times which later also brought Enlightenment and Renaissance to Europe.

And why do enlightened people follow him today? And why do ignorant people devoid of understanding reject him?

I have worked in Mental Hospitals and Clinics for 40 years. I have not come across Psychiatrists who would make such blanket statements as you made. They would want to assess the person as to his psychotic symptoms which show by his hallucinations and maladaptation. There is no sign of that in the history of the Prophet and in the Quran, which millions of us find useful and very enlightening.

Schizophrenia has many variations characterised by withdrawal from social contact, lack of initiative, apathy, shallow and distorted emotions, bizarre irrational behaviour, hallucinations, catatonia which consist of alternating states of stupor and frenzied excitement. There are also states of paranoia consisting of poorly systematized delusions of grandeur and/or persecution.

But yes as the Quran itself admits, it makes some people worse. Some interpret it selectively or in a distorted manner in order to promote their own ambitions and prejudices. Many simply have no discernment or interest and do not make the effort to understand but are merely mentally conditioned. Some are simply hypocrites who do not believe but use the religion for their own ends. Others feel guilty and the discomfort of this makes them want to retaliate and destroy the source of their discomfort instead of dealing with it in an objective manner. However, as Jesus said in a similar situation:-

"He that is of God hears God's words: you therefore understand not because you are not from God." John 8:47

It would do a great service to Islam that all such people left Islam instead of making mischief from within.

Critic:-

Discerning readers can see that some Muslims have found a new way of doing apologetics - they dismiss criticism of Islam as "Islamophobic propaganda".

Comment:-

Muslims believe Islam to be the Truth.

If someone genuinely wants to know about Islam then he will ask questions and accept the answers Muslim give because that is what they believe to be true.

The critic might disagree with that view for several reasons - insufficient knowledge or having a different set of facts or inadequate thought and data processing or a different set of interests, motives or goals. This happens all the time in all fields.

But if someone insists on criticising Islam from a point of view that is not Muslim, then they have misunderstood Islam i.e. they are not speaking about Islam at all but about something different which they mistakenly call Islam. If they continue to do this then the most probable likelihood is that they do not wish to know but have an obsession and a morbid hostility. The cause of this is something quite irrelevant but may be some traumatic event or what is also most likely they have an inkling of the truth but want to suppress it out of their mind. They may wish to convince themselves it is wrong because they find it too difficult to practice and wish to indulge their appetites instead. That is the main reason Prophets were persecuted - their teaching made them feel guilty.

Critic:-

Here is a case of Muslim lying: 25% of British Muslims believe the bombing of the London underground was staged by the Government. You implicitly suggest that this might very well be true. But where is the evidence that this was a Government conspiracy and how did the 25% of British Muslims obtain it and verify it? The answer, of course, is that there is no such evidence and no reason to believe in its existence. The Muslims do not believe this on the basis of evidence.

Comment:-

I did not say that it was true but that it might be true. This is based on knowledge about the kind of things government agents do and did in India and elsewhere. This idea is based on knowledge. The US and British governments mounted an invasion of Iraq killing many thousands of people and bringing much mutilation, destruction, terror, chaos and suffering on the basis of what they thought was likely and that with much less knowledge.

I doubt whether any Muslim think or say that it is true. They also might think that it is a possibility. The point here is that they are doubtful that Muslims did it which obviously shows that they do not approve of such actions by Muslims. Is that not also obvious to the critic? But unfortunately people of his kind wish to interpret everything against Muslims.

Critic:-

Ever religious document on earth was written by man. That applies to the Quran also. But human beings are fallible.

Comment:-

Certainly the Quran was written down by man and it came through man as do all things human beings do.

But we want to know the original source? Did it come from events in the immediate environment? Or from further afield? And from what level or depth? Or did it come from events in the physical body or within the mind? Did it come through the ordinary mundane mind full of prejudices and fantasies? Or was it the intellect that deals with worldly matters or the rational mind that applies itself to such things as science, technology, business or secular organisation? Or did it come through insight and inspiration into a higher consciousness that was more receptive to Reality and Truth? And does it provide guidance that can cause development and better life? And did the person receiving the inspiration believe it and have sufficient faith to devote his entire life on it? And did the message spread, bring enlightenment and transform lives? And did it produce an advanced civilisation?

Certainly there are people of many levels of intelligence, perception, motives, abilities who have various kinds and depths of knowledge and make various amounts of efforts to study, understand and apply knowledge. You must not suppose that because you cannot see or understand something that there are not others who can. Of course you will have the temptation to speculate and dismiss them as having hallucinations or delusions, and that will comfort you.

Critic:-

Shifting the Burden of Proof occurs when speakers do not prove their own claims while forcing others to prove them. A standard rule in argumentation is "he who asserts must prove," meaning that the writer bears full responsibility to prove that his or her claims are true. Muhammad claims that he is chosen by God as a prophet, and he preaches verses that he claims to be the Word of God. When challenged with the accusation that he produces those verses himself, that he is either a liar or a madman, he doesn't offer them a proof, but challenges them to disprove his case.

Comment:-

This has been answered several times before. We are dealing with Religion which has relevance to the life of the individual, not with arguments that people can accept or reject according to their perception, motive and efforts at understanding and have only curiosity value. If people will not look you cannot make them see. You can take a donkey to the water but cannot make it drink. Religion does not depend on spoon feeding but on individual efforts.

It is for you to try to understand and apply what is being said. If you cannot see or accept the truth or wish to deny that it is true then that only affects you not others who do see and accept.

Critic:-

Are you suggesting that we should suspend our doubts and questions when it comes to the question of Islam's truth because this is a question of religion, and that logic and rationality don't come to the questions of religion? You are asking us to stop evaluating the truth claims of Islam as we normally evaluate any other question.

Comment:-

As I suspected you would be rationalising things away. Nowhere did I suggest that you should not seek the truth. Let me quote the part of my reply to you which you wish desperately to ignore:-

"Religion does not depend on spoon feeding but on individual efforts. It is for you to try to understand and apply what is being said. If you cannot see or accept the truth or wish to deny that it is true then that only affects you not others who do see and accept."

I said it was up to you to prove things for yourself not for others to do it for you - it cannot be done - if you will not look or do not have the capacity or desire to understand. You can ignore it. Why persist in trying to disprove it. Obviously you are not satisfied with your disproof.

Question:-

What do you think God's (Allah's) view on rock music is? What is the general Islamic view on (rock/pop) music generally? Is God okay with me listening to music which rejects God, if I only listen to it for the musical part?

Comment:-

We are required to grow spiritually. This happens through the introduction of Truth. The good can be defined as that which fulfils this purpose and evil can be defined as that which flouts or reverses this purpose.

"And the soul and Who fashioned it, and enlightened it with what is wrong and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies it)! And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it!" 91:7-10

"We created not the heavens and the earth and all that is between them both, save with truth." 15:85

I would say that whatever has good or beneficial effects is good and whatever has bad or harmful effects is evil. And whatever has neither is a waste of time and energy that could be better employed. And whatever has both effects must be judged according to which is greater. And whether something else has greater benefits and is less harmful. Good and evil are judged ultimately by their spiritual effects, the degree to which they enable or obstruct "surrender" to the spirit within.

Apart from food and air we are also formed by the impressions we receive, though we can select and process these. What we take in can be nutritious, catalytic or poisonous. How we process it can also produce these three different results. But, we can also transform this or expel it. That depends on our perception, motive and abilities.

Critic:-

Religious notions such as soul and spirit make no sense. They are not based on any evidence. They are probably based on the fact that people have dreams about people that have died. Real things have to be material and objective which everyone can perceive through their senses.

Comment:-

That is speculation not fact.

Our senses have a range that is much smaller than the range of the real forces that exist and affect us. We know about these forces indirectly. But even the things we perceive “P” are perceived indirectly through the instruments of our senses “S”, and the media “M”, such as light. We infer rather than perceive. And you cannot see a great number of things that scientist only infer from observing the instruments or devices “D” they themselves construct. What we know is therefore, four times removed from the real object “R”. We do not have personal experience of all the things we know, but we rely on descriptions by others in a language “L” by which we communicate and in which we think. But people interpret things by association and understand “U” the words differently. So we have a series:-

R > M > S > D > P > L > U

The question is: Why do you assume that Matter is fundamental rather than God or Spirit or Mind?

What about energy, order, information, dimensions such as space and time, mind, behaviour, consciousness, qualities such as colours, quantities, relationships, sensations, feelings, pain and pleasure, love and hate, desires, thoughts, meanings, values, cultures, organisations, institutions and Ideologies? Are these unreal?

What exactly do you mean by matter? Is it a certain kind of experience? Or is it a characteristic or property of something experienced? Do you mean something having inertia or resistance to change? Or does it refer to some kind of structure. Or are you saying that it is a metaphysical notion which applies not to the experience but to something that lies beyond experience but causes your experiences?

What do you mean by real?

Critic:-

Yes, I mean something objective that produces our experiences. The other things you mention are characteristics of matter.

Comment:-

But you are telling me that you know something that lies outside experience. How do you know this?

Critic:-

I know it because I experience it as being outside me.

Comment:-

That might be a hallucination! But how are you able to experience it? Do you not interact with the world through its and your behaviour? Is the behaviour part of matter or is it a property of the medium of transmission? Is it not the case that light and other forces act between you and the world? Is your consciousness separate from matter or part of it? Are the characteristics you see bound together by the object or are they experiences? And if they are bound together by the object why is it that people notice only some of these and different people notice different sets? Is it not also the case that the same object can be described differently in different systems of thought? For instance, man is seen differently by a physiologist, a sociologist, an engineer, an economist, a politician, an architect and an artist.

Critic:-

I am a physical object and my consciousness is an epiphenomenon of my material being. This is like the flame of a candle. It is an area where the event of burning is taking place. But it has limits. The forces that connect me with the world are also material.

Comment:-

Are not all objects and the experiences of objects events? Is not mass or inertia also an epiphenomena? How do you distinguish between an event you call real and the epiphenomenon?

Matter is regarded as something inert and dead. This is why, in order to explain the things in the real world something else is required, namely enabling forces and all changes are attributed to them. Behaviour, motion and therefore, life, are a third factor, changes in which are attributed to these forces. Obviously these three are understood relative to each other. But your idea of matter it seems includes energy and consciousness. It is no longer simply something that refers to mass or inertia that offers resistance. You have combined three different ideas into one.

Is it not the case that most structures like your body are constantly changing from beginning to end and that during their existence matter and energy is simply passing through it and entering other things, circulating and connecting things together? What is it then that you call your physical body? Is it not an area where an event is taking place?

Critic:-

OK. So things are fundamentally events. But they are events in material things.

Comment:-

But you do not need to invoke the idea of material at all. Events have patterns. That is what makes them recognisable. Without order and regularity we could not distinguish one thing from another. That is what gives us information. Is it not the case that order, and therefore, information is a much more fundamental notion?

According to Einstein's Relativity Theory energy and mass are inter-convertible and mass is inertia. It is probable that energy and information (or order) are also inter-convertible. The question is: what is it that is moving and forms order? Is it merely a case of patterns in space-time? The question then is what is space-time? Is it just a Quantum or sub-quantum field? Is this something material?

Critic:-

One could think of it as material. If the Quantum Theory is correct then it is an objective field and that is all I mean.

Comment:-

According to physicists the events at the quantum level do not conform to the classical ideas of matter. We have bundles of probability that collapse into actual particles only when observed or measured. Things can occupy several positions at the same time and may not be distinct from one another. Particles can be entangled and affect each other instantly over great distances flouting all speed limits. Thus fundamentally reality is not at all as we think it is at the superficial level.

Critic:-

Yes, what we see depends on our actions. Things do react according to what we do.

Comment:-

What we do depends on our motives and assumptions. And the reactions to our actions are interpreted by our minds, which depends on our conceptual systems. The verbal interpretations are not the same thing as the experiences and these are not the same thing as the reality. The experiences we have are a small part of the total possibilities that exist in the world.

Is it not the case that all the other things I have mentioned are also experiences? Why do you not project these also and attribute them to Objective Reality? We have three faculties:- for perception, motivation and action. Correspondingly we have three types of experience:- sensations, feelings and thoughts.

Do we not define things which we recognise, and recognise things that we define?

The word "soul" refers to that which makes a difference between a dead or sleeping person and a dead body. The word "spirit" refers to the faculties for consciousness, conscience and will.

But what do you mean by Objectivity? How do you decide whether it is objective or not? Are not all experiences subjective?

Critic:-

We do not only have experiences but also reason. Experiences can be illusions or hallucinations and thoughts can be delusions. We decide that things are objective when the experience can be repeated and corroborated by others. The greater the number of times it is corroborated the greater the probability that it is objectively true and the greater the number of times it is contradicted the greater is the probability that it is a subjective event, something purely in the mind.

Comment:-

Are you saying that the political notion of Democracy is to enter into the assessment of what is true? That what the majority experience or think is true IS true?

But pain and pleasure and other experiences are also in the minds of people and cannot be directly experienced by others. Are these unreal? Why do you think that subjective experiences are unreal? Do not all people corroborate that certain things are painful or pleasurable and there is consensus about the existence of feelings such as love and hate?

In order to get corroboration from others we have to communicate with words. But words are also experiences and different people associate different experiences with words. They give them different meanings. Formal reasoning involves defining the terms used in a strict manner so that the set of persons who use them will understand them in the same way. This requires that the context be common to those people - that they undergo the same set of experiences. This means that they undergo the same training and do the same things in the same environment - e.g. a laboratory etc. The same applies to religions.

In fact, there are many events that happen only once and that have only a single witness. And there are many facts that are seen only by those who search for them or direct their attention to them or do the kind of actions or experiments that make those facts manifest. There are people who have a greater range of sensations or intelligence or insight and can discern and have a greater range of experiences. And there are training courses, educational systems and various disciplines that enhance human faculties.

In fact, it is also necessary to see whether a particular experience fits into a self-consistent system of interconnected experiences. This requires the ability and the effort to process the data of experience adequately. Different people do so to different degree and come to different kinds of understanding. We only know that something is an illusion, hallucination or delusion by contrast with something that we take as true because it fits a system. But we can also have several different systems of experiences or ideas which might overlap each other to various degrees or be mutually exclusive and they may even contradict each other. Different people will have different (i) sets and (ii) amounts of experiences, and will have (iii) integrated them to different degrees. There will be controversy between them unless there is sufficient humility to recognise that such differences exist and attempts are made to expand personal experiences, knowledge and understanding.

Reality is a unitary self-consistent system. Ultimately, the test of the truth of something is whether or not it enables adjustment of people to Reality, thereby promoting their welfare and development. 

Critic:-

How do you know Reality is a self-consistent system? This seems to be an assumption before the pursuit of knowledge and not a conclusion after the gathering of Knowledge.

Comment:-

Is that not also the case with the Materialist attitude? It is also the case with the Idealist and the Vitalist attitudes. In fact these three can only be understood with respect to each other. Matter can only be understood when there is conscious mind and interaction between the two. The Vitalist (which concerns itself with interactions that define life) relates the other two that constitute a pair of opposites, the objective and subjective. They are relative and therefore, point to a Unity beyond them from which they differentiate. An Absolute Original Unity is a fundamental state that must be assumed before anything else can exist even as an idea. Even science seeks it. It is that by which everything else is explained. Allah, Reality exists and that gives rise to everything else. We know it or have the capacity to know it because we have a spark of it within us. There can be no knowledge without the process of knowing, which is an interaction between the knower and that which is known. Objectivity, ultimately, means that the knower is adjusted to Reality and at-one with it.

The Universe, according to scientists, is said to arise from a homogenous singularity by progressive differentiation through stages. This is also the Islamic view (65:12). This implies that all things at each level form a single system in which all parts are inter-dependent. This includes human beings and their faculties. Apart from the fact that there is a distinction between the Reality, the Experience and Description, and science refers only to descriptions, there are, three ways of describing things:- (i) In a linear manner where we look at parts and link one thing with another in a series. This gives us partial knowledge and never shows us the whole picture. (ii) In a non-linear manner where we recognise that things are inter-dependent and there are feedback processes. (iii) In a unitary manner where we recognise that the whole is more than the sum of the parts and the parts are dependent on the whole. The notions by which the parts are described cannot be used to describe the whole as has been shown by mathematicians such as Godel.

From the scientific point of view the set of particles regarded as material have their opposites. There is matter and anti-matter. There are also neutral particles that are combination of the two and can split into the two opposites. There is a constant fluctuation in space-time such that a pair of positive and negative particles is constantly arising and annihilating. Something must be causing the split. They seem to be coming out of nothing and sinking back into it.  But it cannot be "Nothing" in Reality as it is the source, but only from the point of view of science that cannot describe it. It is more fundamental and cannot be matter.

Critic:-

Even so I do not see the point of Religion. What objective function can religion possibly have?

Comment:-

Religion is based on the realisation that human beings are a small part of total reality, depend on it and interact with it; and that our welfare and development depend on our adjustment to Reality. As consciousness develops it becomes inevitable that some people at least will realise this and that this realisation will have consequences in thought, feeling and action. Its purpose is to form a comprehensive self-consistent conscious way of life as opposed to an undirected accidental one. Religion can be regarded as the process of evolution becoming conscious in man.

Question:-

Can you tell me why believers in reason are disbelievers in faith?

Answer:-

Not all are. Those who reject faith have not thought things through. They have been rational superficially. Your question illustrates the contradiction in their position. The truth is that nothing can be accepted as true unless one believes it and has confidence in it. The rationalists must have faith in reason and in their senses and in their capacity for insights.

It is supposed that because faith is a feeling whereas reason is a process of thought, therefore they are mutually exclusive and it is falsely supposed that feelings provide no information but can be false. The fact, however, is that information is provided by the degree and direction of awareness, controlled by motives and the nature of our efforts. It comes through the senses, feelings and inter-actions with the world. Thought processes can also be erroneous to different degrees as can the senses, feelings and interactions with the world. Reason can most certainly mislead. It can and does create delusions. In fact all experiences have three aspects that affect the intellect, feelings and action. Even when action is not externally manifested it is nevertheless recorded as tensions in the various organs including muscles. All experiences are processed to various degrees.

There has been a tendency at the superficial conscious level to separate these faculties but they remain inter-dependent and affect each other at deeper sub-conscious and unconscious levels. Thought takes place in images, tokens, signs and symbols, but feelings relate to the person and action relates to the environment. Thought is, therefore, regarded as objective and feelings are regarded as subjective, and there is a bias towards objectivity because images and tokens can be manipulated in the mind and this gives us control and creativity. But it is not difficult to see that because thought deals with images etc. and not with objects it cannot really be objective at all. It is action that is objective as it brings us in contact with objects. It is also clear that if things do not affect us then they can have no significance for us. It is feelings that provide the motives both for thought and action. Reasoning, as all behaviour, takes the direction that motives provide. In fact, faith creates "the world we see" and it also modifies us psychologically and organically.

But it is necessary to distinguish between true and false beliefs and the various shades in between. It is perfectly possible, and it is usually the case, that a thought or idea is not completely true or completely false. Things may be true or false to various degrees. It all depends on how they are understood. We have to distinguish between information, understanding and consciousness. (a) A thought by itself, being an image or a verbal statement simply exists - it is a fact. (b) Understanding implies that it is processed and integrated into a system of ideas. (c) To become conscious of the reality to which the idea relates is to realise its truth. That is a revelation. In Islam, faith is not understood as "blind belief", but as belief in something true with confidence enough to base one's life on it. False beliefs are delusions or superstitions. Doubt is not a virtue as some people believe, but something that contradicts a true belief and which therefore acts as stimulus to the efforts to seek the knowledge that will dispel doubt. True faith is connected with Revelation and can be defined as the consciousness of Truth. Truth is, therefore, connected with Faith and vice versa.

In fact, faith, love and hope are fundamental psychological factors, aspects of the Spirit that are inter-related and refer to consciousness, conscience and will. These correspond to the intellectual, feeling and motor faculties that enable thought, motivation and action. There can be no life without these.

We have a complex interactions between:- (i) The real world and its processes, (ii) the nature of the person and his relationship with the Real World (iii) the immediate environment including the community and its culture, (iv) perception that requires receptivity, (v) motives (vi) thought (vii) action.  Perception is an interpretation of the data received and can be misinterpretation. Motives refer to inner states that we must also perceive and they can also be misinterpreted. Reasoning is also an activity that has been internalised. Action modifies the environment, produces experiences which we must perceive, and also modifies the person and his motives and his relationship with the Real World.  (viii) This whole complex system takes place within the constraints and possibilities of Absolute Reality.

Critic:-

From what you say it seems that you believe the Quran is the Word of God because when you read it you recognise that it is so. If I understanding you correctly then you must have some idea of what a  book revealed from God would be like so when you read the Quran or any  other, you can tell whether it is a revelation of God or not. So could you tell me how to recognise God's Word? What properties should a book possess to be rightfully called a revelation from God?

Comment:-

You are asking that others should provide you with perception and understanding. This is impossible. The Quran itself tells you how to recognise what comes from God.

The written book is not the revelation. If it is the Word of God then it contains ideas that have creative or transforming power for those who are receptive. It deals with fundamentals and provides a comprehensive self-consistent framework of reference. It is about Reality, life and adjustment to Reality, and produces understanding where values, meanings and facts of direct experience are co-ordinated. It appeals to the heart and Spirit (consciousness, conscience and will) and not to the intellect or physical senses. It cannot affect those in whom the spirit has fallen asleep, atrophied or died or is imprisoned within a crust of presuppositions, and conditioning and self-will.

It has to be read correctly 2:121, 39:23. It is a revelation to those who do. Quran 29:24   Also see 2:146, 81:27-29, 68:52 , 65:11, 41:42, 41:53 and 56:77-80, 75:16-20

It may make others worse (17:82) because they have prejudices or wish deliberately to counter the guilt feelings it may create by showing an ideal that they are far from or the efforts it demands which they do not wish to make.

However, the Quran recognises that many people might join the religion for reasons other than true faith. As in any training or educational system, it is the experiences that arise from following a discipline that produce the knowledge and faith.

"The dwellers of the desert (or desert Arabs) say, "We believe". Say, "You believe not, but rather say, 'We submit'; for faith has not yet entered into your heart; and if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not diminish aught of your deeds; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." 49:14

However, people will not undertake such a discipline and their opinions about it are futile.

Critic:-

Surah 112 is a text central to Islam. Muhammad repeatedly said that it was equal to one third of the Koran. It reads thus in Arberry's translation:-

"Say: He is God, One, God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, and has not been begotten, and equal to Him is not any one."

The questions are as follows:- (1) Why does God have to be defined in contradistinction to the Christian concept of God? Can't he be defined in terms of what He is in himself? (2) Why does God have to be defined in terms of negatives - and Why is Christianity falsified in this statement? It should also be pointed out that the term Arberry translates as "Everlasting Refuge" is obscure and differently translated and explained by the commentators. This points up the falsity of the Quran's claim that it is written in clear Arabic. It also poses the question why God should have left us so unclear about so important a matter.

Comment:-

Translations of the Quran into other languages are never accurate and are not the Quran. In fact, the Quran is a recitation that should affect people deeply in their heart and spirit.

The meaning of the Quran is much wider than modern literalist minds comprehend. To understand the significance of the Quran requires meditation and not superficial reading. As the purpose is spiritual development, there would be no point in such readings.

Among other things, Surah 112 is a statement of what Monotheism means. It is the fundamental Truth about existence, the source of facts, meanings and values and, therefore, about how we should think, desire and behave.

It is a summary of what is stated about Allah in the rest of the Quran. It tells us what Allah is and what He is not. Both are required to prevent misunderstandings as there certainly were and still are. It tells us that Allah (not to be confused with other ideas of god and gods) is Absolute, One, Unique and indivisible - unlike any created thing. He is Self-existing and Self-sufficient. He is Independent of all things, but all things are dependent on Him. All things come from him and return to Him - He is the origin and the goal - He is besought by all. Nothing has any existence, meaning or purpose except with respect to Allah.

----------<O>----------

Contents