|
Mohammad Isa Mirsiam,
You wrote:
> Allah is not a body possessing form, nor a
> substance restricted and limited: He does not
> resemble other bodies either in limitation or
> in accepting division.
Who has the right to say God's name is Allah or Jehovah or Yahweh or Elohim or Brahma or Ra or Zeus or Satan or whatever? It seems like humans make up the names.
> He is not a substance and substances do not
> reside in Him; He is not a quality of
> substance, nor does a quality of substance
> occur in Him.
> [many more]
How do you know these are the attributes of God? Maybe Mohammed or someone after him made them up. Some religions say God has a body of flesh and bones (the Mormons) and that his influence is everywhere, but not his body or form since that can only be one place at a time. How can you know that your conception of God is more correct than theirs, for example? In science we can do experiments to test theories. Is there an experiment we can perform that will determine which of you is right (if either)?
Furthermore your statements about Allah do not seem to refer to something that can exist in our universe. It reminds me of the "God is one, God is three" mystery of Christianity. Some people prefer a god that can't be described or understood. They want god to be logically inconsistent and incomprehensible. Your religion seems to be such a one. Other religions prefer a god that is more understandable. How can we know which god is the correct one (if any)?
> He [Allah] perceives without a heart,
So does everyone else (except humnas need a heart to live). The heart is not the source of emotion or perception. This appears to be an example, like in Christianity, of outdated ideas being retained as modern religious dogma even when modern science has shown the real factors involved in perception.
>. . . children of Adam and jinn . . .
Do you people still believe in genies, like the ones that can give wishes? Do you consider the "1001 Nights" factual? Where are the children of these mythical beings? What is their genetic origin? This really sounds to me like someone's superstitious beliefs being retained as religious dogma.
Some religions believe Satan can have children with mortal women. Do you?
> He - the Mighty, the Glorified - rewards His
> believing worshipers for their acts of
> obedience according to generosity and
> encouragement rather than according to their
> merit and obligation.
Where is the evidence of this? It appears to me as if believers and nonbelievers in Allah are equally rewarded. The rain falls on both, for example. The most powerful and important nations in the world are not predominantly believers in Allah. It seems like Allah needs to get working so that his people are rewarded more.
Your statements can be written as a mathematical equation:
R proportional to G times E
R independent of M or O
Rewards proportional to Generosity and Encouragement but independent of Merit or Obligation.
If your statements were true then statistical studies of believers in Allah should confirm them. Persons who are rated high in generosity and encouragement should appear to be rewarded more (be better off), but how much someone has been rewarded should be independent of how much merit or obligation they have.
Although it's difficult to do such a study because we can't measure these factors like we can physical variables (like mass, distance, temperature, etc.), nevertheless, has this been confirmed even in your own experiences?
I suspect these ideas were invented by men such as Mohammed, not given to men by Allah. Do you have good evidence to the contrary?
|
