Then the Protestant faith counters with the mysterious “age of accountability”, which nobody can quite put a number on.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Thanks for asking. The Quran and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has clearly told us Islam has always been the religion revealed to mankind from Prophet Adam (pbuh), i.e. the very first human. There have been over 114,000 messengers (which includes prophets - we can leave the semantics of this for another time) of Allah sent to different peoples throughout the history of human kind. Allah has never let humans be without right and wrong to choose from. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the final messenger and he brought the final message to the whole of mankind (not just a group) which would forever be available and unchangeable.
Allah's message to different people has eventually always been corrupted by man's ego massaged by the devil. All except the final message of course, which the devil is working hard on changing interpretations but obviously the original source will always remain unchanged/pure.
To conclude, Allah has never left mankind on their own. It's always been man's choice to abandon Allah. Those that choose to follow Him always had/have the opportunity to do so and always will.
Comical shit (that Allah nonsense above).
It is what a billion people believe. Your words may be deemed offensive by the mods on here, or not. I just answered a question the best I could.
Edit: my answer does not include the article regarding 'banning atheism'. That's just daft and another 'interpretation' that certain so-called Muslims want to implement somewhere, some how.
Last edited:
What's Islam's stance on evolution?
I suspect the presence of the molecule of DMT in many plants is responsible for the hallucinations that lead to the creation of religions.
I'd like one of the other Muslims to answer in more detail but to not completely ignore the question Islam is fully in line with evolution. Just not from monkey to man.
Can't wait to hear the answer as well.
It's been discussed at length before I'm sure. Can't do a search myself at the moment.
I am curious about that as well. It's interesting here in the US that we have such a wide ranging set of beliefs between practicing Christians. Some cling to the literal translation of the bible that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old and that Adam and Eve were the first humans and others (like the Catholic church) have adjusted their stance based on the preponderance of scientific evidence for evolution.
I don't know a single American evangelical or Christian that accepts the theory of evolution. Perhaps there are some but they would be an extremely small minority and likely mum on the subject.
So the other way saying this is that it is not fully in line with evolution when it comes to the crux of the matter.
Aren't we all still looking for the missing link to finally prove Darwin's theory?
To be fair, man didn't evolve from monkey. We diverged from a common ancestor, etc etc.
it was rich dudes in a tower
No. It's beyond doubt. The so called missing link is just fossils that give better details into the history of various species evolutions. Darwin's theory had all the proof it needed when he published On the Origins of Species.
No and it isn't even a meaningful term.
Do they accept Newton's law of universal gravitation? I bet they do despite it being wrong.
Islam has a position on that. Anyone who the message of God didn't reach cannot be considered to be a sinner.
Well first and foremost we don't have a central authority who answers such questions, the answer depends on the individual scholars and their understanding of science and religion.
From what i've read, the process of evolution is scientifically sound, so it is accepted in Islam as something God has created, ie just another mechanism created by God which mankind has found.
The idea of us being monkeys - I don't think they're too hot on that.
But isn't God omnipotent? So how can he have any trouble sending messages to those people?
Presumably that makes it different from the Darwinian theory of evolution. Didn't Darwin postulate random changes which proved beneficial to the species rather than changes programmed by God ?
Last edited:
If you believed in a higher power creating all animals/humans but are then presented with all this evidence of evolutions. It's not that much of a stretch for them to say "well ok I believe in evolution now, my god created it and it was all part of the plan"
Please see my answer further above too.
Yes, I saw that. But then it also contradicts what your fellow Muslim assume, since he admits that there are people who God's message does not reach.
See the problem here? Each of you invents and/or follows an interpretation to the issue at hand, which can be easily answered if we just cast our wishy washy fairy tales aside and acknowledge that our existence isn't predetermined by a man in the sky.
You're using the words of two laymen football forum posters as, er, gospel. This is fulfilling your own argument and agenda.
The sensible approach would be to use the info you get here to follow up with more reliable sources closer to you. If there are none then to go find them.
As I do in all matters I discuss on t'internet. There is some contradiction between me my fellow Muslim because one or even both of us of us is uninformed. Personally I will go and find out more on this and get back to you.
Logic doesn't work in these situations. Basically God moves in mysterious ways or something.
At lunch yesterday I was told that the Catholic belief in transubstantiation was ridiculously silly by a Protestant who believes in a man walking on water and rising from the dead.
(Transubstatiation = communion wafer and wine turning into the body and blood of Christ)
(Transubstatiation = communion wafer and wine turning into the body and blood of Christ)
To be fair, it is ridiculously silly. And I was raised Catholic. Believing their God performed miracles is central to nearly all religion. Believing the priest turns a wafer into flesh and wine into blood at the altar, when they are quite clearly still a wafer and wine is a bit mental. On top of that, what kind of maniac eats human flesh and drinks human blood on a Sunday morning in front of the whole town?
It's clearly an evolvement from pagan animal and human sacrifice. "Christ died for mankind" = the subtext "so you don't have to kill your kids as human sacrifices anymore"
My point is that compared to rising from the dead, it’s the least of my concerns about “silliness” in that faith.
Are we talking about the religion as in the following of something profound or the actual teachings?
Oh I understand that. I'm just saying, if you go to Mass and believe that the priest has just changed the wafer into part of a body, despite it still looking and tasting like a wafer, then it's a bit mental.
Like if you're a believer, you can say that rising from the dead was a miracle and while yeah, it's still fairytale, I can't technically disprove that. If you give me the blessed wafer, I can prove that it's not human flesh. Even if you don't want to accept the taste and the fact that it's still a wafer as evidence, we could go to a lab and test it and prove that it is not part of a human. Believing that is a very strange one.
Was human sacrifice a big deal in the pre-Christian Middle East/Mediterranean?