I am from a Shia background and I just left Islam

[Ghadir Leb]

I don't think this will be approved by moderators. I also don't have any specific reason for posting this here, except maybe that I want to tell someone. I came across this forum today while reading some things relating to leaving Islam, I don't really know how the 'ambient' is over here.

I never thought I would leave Islam as I was very religious, and loved Islam dearly in the past, and wished to 'serve' it.

It just got to a point where the mental gymnastics no longer work, and I couldn't view the Quran as a word of a wise knowledgeable God, nor view the Imams as infallible people. I will keep wearing the hijab as it does not bother me (at least for now). I will keep some sort of 'Muslim appearance' because I still care about the people in my society, and if I stopped keeping appearances, they will view me as an outsider.

My family is religious but we live in Lebanon - I do think that things are 'easier' over here in terms of leaving Islam and so on. I am mean not that easy, but I will not be kicked out of home for example. I am also the 'main provider' of my family so I guess that helps quite a bit too.

They will notice at some point that I stopped praying. So I will eventually have to tell them that I left Islam. 

Life seems serene and hopeful. I still kind of think that there is a God that watches over me and wants good for people. I still also 'hope' that there is some form of judgment after life, thought I cannot prove to myself that any of that is true. It doesn't matter that much to me, I just hope it exists. 

[VoidVortex]

Quote

 I was very religious, and loved Islam dearly in the past, and wished to 'serve' it.

Did you overwork yourself? Maybe you burnt out, and therefore could not keep continuing with the religion. Maybe you put too much pressure on yourself?

Quote

I couldn't view the Quran as a word of a wise knowledgeable God, nor view the Imams as infallible people

was there any reason for this?

I hope we can help you.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

2 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

I don't think this will be approved by moderators. I also don't have any specific reason for posting this here, except maybe that I want to tell someone. I came across this forum today while reading some things relating to leaving Islam, I don't really know how the 'ambient' is over here.

I never thought I would leave Islam as I was very religious, and loved Islam dearly in the past, and wished to 'serve' it.

It just got to a point where the mental gymnastics no longer work, and I couldn't view the Quran as a word of a wise knowledgeable God, nor view the Imams as infallible people. I will keep wearing the hijab as it does not bother me (at least for now). I will keep some sort of 'Muslim appearance' because I still care about the people in my society, and if I stopped keeping appearances, they will view me as an outsider.

My family is religious but we live in Lebanon - I do think that things are 'easier' over here in terms of leaving Islam and so on. I am mean not that easy, but I will not be kicked out of home for example. I am also the 'main provider' of my family so I guess that helps quite a bit too.

They will notice at some point that I stopped praying. So I will eventually have to tell them that I left Islam. 

Life seems serene and hopeful. I still kind of think that there is a God that watches over me and wants good for people. I still also 'hope' that there is some form of judgment after life, thought I cannot prove to myself that any of that is true. It doesn't matter that much to me, I just hope it exists. 

I come across loads of wiswas on daily basis regarding Imams, Quran and God but I have established proofs against them. Life is lengthy and it won't happen that you be brought before God in a jiffy. This extra time which we have got before we die is time of trial where we only have two tools to pass such trial that are 1) Patience and 2) being thoughtful. 

There is no other way which teaches you how to be civilised and teaches you about minute details that no other system provides except Islam. 

I think you should reconsider your decision and rather ask question about matters which are doubtful to you. May be it will help.

[Guest Psychological Warfare]

Maybe you are influenced by the intense 'Psychological Warfare" conducted on the internet. Usually, its just rants or generic slogans. Nothing concrete. or some silo issue, where the person lacks vision to see it in a holistic manner. Mostly, misinformation is marketed. 

Unless you ask them to really pin point the real issue, they will just hope that people will read and it will misguide them. Most on the internet are used to this now, some young ones maybe vulnerable. If so, just go read, and ponder over the fact that your knowledge is very limited, so follow the the ones with knowledge / Wisdom / Insight and understanding of the realities of life. 

 https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons

Nahjul Balaghah

[Muslim2010]

4 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

It just got to a point where the mental gymnastics no longer work, and I couldn't view the Quran as a word of a wise knowledgeable God, nor view the Imams as infallible people. I will keep wearing the hijab as it does not bother me (at least for now). I will keep some sort of 'Muslim appearance' because I still care about the people in my society, and if I stopped keeping appearances, they will view me as an outsider.

Here you seem to just thinking without any verification and justification of your few thoughts. The matter becomes critical when without justification or verification of such thoughts in real sense an assumption or self unconscious is that Quran could not be the words of God or Imam are not infallible etc.

4 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

Life seems serene and hopeful. I still kind of think that there is a God that watches over me and wants good for people. I still also 'hope' that there is some form of judgment after life, thought I cannot prove to myself that any of that is true. It doesn't matter that much to me, I just hope it exists. 

If you think that there is God watching over you and thy wants good people and your also believe on the judgement after life. It means you are still a believer but only you have created some way leading  due to the assumptions that  are near the border of going out of religion. This may be the effect of media or some friends etc closer to yourself presenting the words to create doubts in your mind,

You simply need to enhance your knowledge about basic concepts of Islam and shia to come out of false state of mind of your supposed thoughts. 

https://www.al-islam.org/fifty-lessons-principles-belief-youth-naser-makarem-shirazi

https://www.al-islam.org/basic-teachings-islam-sayyid-muhammad-husayni-beheshti

https://www.al-islam.org/discovering-shii-islam-mohammad-ali-shomali

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Muslim2010

[Cool]

4 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

1) I couldn't view the Quran as a word of a wise knowledgeable God,

2) nor view the Imams as infallible people.

1) And what made you think like that? Please elaborate and refer to us verses. 

2) Can you obey fallible people with certainty that the person you are following will take you to heaven?

Can a fallible be called " على صراط المستقيم"? 

[Ghadir Leb]

I thought it didn't got approved and just came here finding all this replies.

I am not sure if you all will get notifications if I just posted a normal reply without quoting your specific text, but I will do that instead of quoting specific texts. I will probably not be saying anything that you haven't heard before, and this got really long so sorry for that:

1) Why I no longer see Quran as the true word of God?

Because of the usual 'challenges'. Why the Quran concerns itself with the intimate details of the life of prophet Muhammad? Why does it mention many trivial things [you can eat at so and so house], or why does it mention very complex 'laws' for very specific events that will never happen again in the future [Al-Ma'idah 106 - 107]? This is without mentioning all the uncomfortable ethical things, such as a man is allowed to beat his wife as a form of punishment, and if a slave kills a slave then he is to be killed, but if a free man kills a slave then he is not to be killed, and same goes for if a man kills a woman [the obvious and universally accepted meaning of Al-Bakara 178]. 

Also, challenges such as: "try to come up with an Ayah like ones from this Quran", which the Quran poses to the disbelievers, are very illogical. On what basis can something be considered "same as the Ayahs of the Quran"? Why is it so hard to come up with? When someone creates a text that sounds similar to the Quran [and many have, it's not hard to do], Muslims will start laughing at them and saying "look how dumb it sounds", when they can't in fact pinpoint why this newly created text didn't meet the requirements of the challenge. Because whatever you come up with, Muslims can say "it doesn't sound like the Quran" - the challenge is built to always succeed. 

Also, why does the Quran repeat the stories of the earlier 'prophets' and presents them as though they are real history, when we can today see how those stories were mainly derived from ancient mythology and were repurposed for the message of the 'one true God' (Judaism did this, Christianity followed, and Islam just copied the whole thing). Why did an all knowledgeable God put those stories there when those stories contain contradictions with science, when He knew that people in the future will notice those contradictions? (Why does He causes us doubts on purpose and then tells us that we should fight these doubts? That doesn't seem very wise to me).

Example of contradictions with science: Adam. We most probably now that humanity never started from one single man and woman, but rather from evolution [if you are going to tell me that evolution is just a theory I'd rather you not reply]. My previous mental gymnastics: that it was a story meant to deliver a message about the nature of the human beings, not a story intended to present a true account of events that happened at the start of humanity. However, never at one point in the history of Muslims, and never in one single Hadith, did any Imam say that this was simply a story told for a message - instead, all narrations speak of it as it really happened, and therefore religious Muslims today find it very hard to accept Evolution. And evolution is not only important in the field of Biology, but also to understanding humans in general (anthropology, psychology, politics, you name it). Now imagine how much the average Muslim is 'missing' in terms of knowledge when they deny such a theory. They miss insights in all those fields [this also relates to #4 below]. 

Another example: Nuh (Noah). My previous mental gymnastics: the Quran never did say that the flood happened all over the earth [which is scientifically disproven] - rather, it just mentioned a great flood [in contrast with Jewish/Christian texts that kind of say it happened all over the world]. And since there is archeological evidence of a huge flood happening in the Mesopotamia in early history, this is what the Quran must have meant. [Still in the mental gymnastics:] The early mythologies [Gilgamesh] must just be a retelling of a great story from a pagan point of view; meaning that even if Gilgamesh mentioned the story, it doesn't mean that the Abrahamic religions 'copied it' - it just means that the Abrahamic religions were retelling it as it truly happened. However, there are the additional details: It is understood that Noah took one pair of animals of each species - Quran never said it was all the species in the world, maybe it was just the species in the area - and it is widely accepted that he did that in order to 'preserve' them from the flood. This is where once again we are hit hard by evolution: it is extremely improbable that sexually reproducing species can repopulate with only two starting organisms of that species [rather, they will probably drive themselves into extinction]. See the video below if you're interested. This huge improbability for only one species will be almost impossible when we talk about multiple species. Now the God of the Abrahamic religions seems to not understand how His own 'creation' works [I say 'creation' here based on the assumption that God created all living beings through evolution]. He seems to think that people will find it wise that Noah took in one pair of each animal [and people living 2000 years ago will indeed find it wise]. However, future human beings [we] will find it absurd and unscientific, and God doesn't seem to be aware of how much humans will learn in the future.

 

2) Why are the Imams not Infallible? (+ The Issue with Hadiths and fatwas)

There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of Hadith Sahih concerning the Imams that is usually never told to the general Shia audiences. If you speak Arabic then maybe it would be useful for you to visit the Facebook profile of a guy with a weird name called ميثاق العسر. Following his page was the 'straw that broke the back of the camel' for me. I will not go into details but I for sure no longer see the Imams as infallible people with extremely high knowledge, they were just people that lived in accordance with their time, had limited knowledge, were perhaps trying to be good people since they belong to Prophet Muhammad line and had an image to keep. Everything else (about the fact that there are 12 Imams, etc, was constructed later). The whole Mazhab is a human construct [just like the whole of Islam is]. 

And some of the Hadith that is usually kept away from the public eye tends to be really ugly (example: the ones concerning women slaves). And then: what's up with women slaves not needing to wear hijab? Also (unrelated): what's up with Shia Islam allowing Mut'aa marriage, but then Shia Islam itself follows a social establishment that views those women as 'whores' if they did it? Meaning, if any woman in society today were to do it based on how the laws describe it, she will be viewed as a 'loose woman' by the rest of society. You might say that it's because the society doesn't apply Islam as it should. But this is laughable, because the rest of Islam mention very restrictive rules for women appearance and sexual behavior, and puts a lot of emphasis on modesty and not trying to 'seduce' men. So it already establishes these social norms about what a 'good woman' is, and then introduces a very contradictory law, expecting society to just accept it. You either build a society that will focus on women being very virtuous and modest, or you build a society where women have a certain level of sexual freedom without them having to be 'shamed' for that sexual freedom. But Shia Islam does this mumbo jumbo thing where it seems to say that a woman of virtue will only have sex within 'normal' marriage, while a woman that wants to go down the "Mut'aa" road can do that, but she will no longer be considered a woman of virtue. Which is so f**ed up on so many levels. It is one of many many examples of how the whole 'ethical' system of Islam is based on tribal values ("my women" are to be closeted and hidden, or else I will feel shame, and I am free to do with the "women of others" as I please if the others weren't successful in hiding and closeting their own women, and they are to feel shame because now their women are whores).

I am sure some of you will tell me: the Hadiths are not to always be trusted and many narrations can be false. I used to love this excuse back when I believed. But the Mithak al Ossur (ميثاق العسر) guy I mentioned above tend to always mention how strong/accepted/etc. a Hadith is, and how many Hadiths that he mentions have long been accepted during all of Shia history. Also, if we were to start accepting and rejecting Hadith based on what we currently think makes sense or not, isn't that a clear indication that we are building a religion based on what our minds accept/reject? How are we then different from any secular society, except that secular societies use their mind freely in creating their laws and are not weighed down by 1400 year old texts and narrations - ?

Imam Sadek says, "whatever you get from our Hadith, then put it in the face of the Quran, whatever falls in line with the Quran is to be accepted, and whatever does not fall in line with the Quran is rejected" [loosely translated]. Alright. Now lets go back to all the Hadith about slave women: there is nothing in them that contradicts the Quran. The Quran spoke normally about slavery and sleeping with slave women.

Here is another example: When I used to attend religious lessons in my adolescence, we were learning about the Ghusl (washings), and there was this particular law that I found a bit bizarre at the time (not so bizarre because I was a religious soul that accepted anything): if we killed a certain type of lizard thingy (أبو بريص), then we have to do the washing (Ghusl) after killing it because there is some sort of Jinn living inside it. This was a normal fatwa in a normal book issued by Khomeini (actually by Khamenei but he just issued the same fatwas of Khomeini so they are the same). Now I am pretty sure this is based off some Hadith by some Imam. Fast forward to a year or two ago, I saw a Sheikh posting on social media that the 'Ghusl' after killing the lizard is no longer required (the fatwa changed). Alright nice.

Now look at it: why would such a Hadith (that mentions a need for a Ghusl after killing the lizard) - why would it contradict the Quran? Where does the Quran even mention such a detailed thing? The Quran talks about the existence of Jinns, but that's about it. There is nothing in the Quran to disprove (or even: to approve) such Hadith. So when the Marje' decided to no longer follow this Hadith (that is probably Sahih because they issued a fatwa based on it in the first place) - on what basis did the Marje' decide it is no longer to be followed?

If I am being too ambiguous, what I mean is: there was a Sahih Hadith that stated something, and it was Sahih enough that the Marje' thought it should be followed and be a basis for a fatwa. Then, after some time, the Marje' decided to no longer abide by the Hadith even though the Hadith 1) Was Sahih (in terms of the line of people who narrated it, etc), and 2) The content didn't have anything that contradicts with the Quran. On what basis did the Marje' no longer accept this Hadith? Is it on the basis of - God forbid - their BRAIN? So the Marje' thought the Hadith was illogical? The whole thing comes crumbling down if this is the case. This means that I am building my religion based on what some Marje' thought was logical or not. It also means that the Marje' can now start to accept or reject Hadith based on what they think will make sense or not. Why does the brain of the Marje' have more authority than my brain? [This is a Marje' that, in other areas, issued a 'letter' to the youth of western societies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Youth_in_Europe_and_North_America, a letter that I myself found to be embarrassing back when I believed, a letter that lacks understanding of the people of those societies and how to talk to them]. But I am expected to consider this Marje' to be someone very knowledgeable, and accept his judgment of the Hadith when I have good reason to think I know a thing or two more than he does? 

So if the Marje' doesn't find much fault with a Hadith that says, for example, that stoning someone to death as a punishment is okay - and I find fault with it, I should still follow the Marje' brain or my brain? Because it seems we ended up following the brains of people. Which again, I don't see how different it is from secular societies, except that we have this huge body of text and narrations that we can pick from as we please and then say that it is the 'real religion'. If it is my brain against the Marje', I honestly prefer my brain (which eventually led me to disbelief). If I remember correctly, a very known Sunni Scholar once said, من تمنطق فقد تزندق - That who follows logic will end up Kafir - and I think these are the truest words ever spoken.

3) Okay, this already got so long, but one of my main pitfalls with Islam is this: Islam definitely doesn't work for all times and places. It only worked for the type of people that lived back then [and maybe was even good for them. In many ways, one can see Muhammad as a good influence on the society back then. But that good influence has long outstayed its need, and is now halting our ability to move forward in a tremendously horrible manner]. There are stories/narrations talking about that era that go something like this: "When these [new people] heard about Islam and its rules, they found it so logical that they became Muslims immediately". These are told to make Muslims feel the importance and "logicality" of Islam. But in fact, if one were to think about it, it is a huge red flag. It is a red flag that I am following an ideology that people at that time found to be extremely logical. These people lived 1400 years ago, they lacked all of the accumulated human knowledge that I have now, they lacked all of the advancements that happened in thought, philosophy, study of ethics, psychology, sociology... It is a huge red flag that I am relying on their logic and what they think is "extremely logical and marvelous" to abide by in my modern era.

4) My last major pitfall with Islam: Muslim societies are very ignorant because of Islam. Muslims societies will ignore all of the vast knowledge that is being built in the 'west' in the fields of humanities and social sciences, because a lot of that knowledge cannot be accepted if one if following the ideology of Islam. Many Muslims think that the "important knowledge" is that in the fields of the science (math, chemistry, medical, etc), and that if they succeed in those they are being part of the "Modern Knowledge Force". They will say, "those who hate Islam say that Muslims are ignorant, but look at our religious children! They get PhDs in Math and Sciences! Who is the ignorant now!". They think that History, comparative religion, sociology, etc., are fields for the illogical mind that only knows how memorize stuff and talk a lot. (This might also have to do with colonialism and is not just an Islam issue). I can expand on this but I've written so much.

I don't think that if I somewhat became able to 'share' this thoughts with everyone else, and tomorrow everyone woke up non-Muslim - I don't think this will be a positive thing (on the contrast, I think it will be very negative). I am not very knowledgeable about these topics, but as far as I understand, the 'social contract' under which I live has 'religion' as its main component, and if 'religion' were to suddenly be taken out of the equation, it will crumble in an ugly manner. I do think that it is better that religion be taken out of the equation, but this should happen gradually. Maybe 400 years from now people will look back and see how bizarre it was that their ancestors relied on religion so much. At least I hope so. For the time being I myself will not be religious, and it is not a choice, it is just something so clear to me. I cannot choose to believe again after I've learned so much.

Talking with someone 'more knowledgeable than me' in Islam will not help, as I am not planning to go back, and I don't think that any extra knowledge in Islam will make me believe again. Also, based on my life experience, religious people and Sheikhs are people who have very limited knowledge about the "world", and I will have to explain a lot of things to them before I can even start to tell them why those things make me disbelieve in Islam. I don't think Sheikhs who I deem to be less knowledgeable than me [and who grew up in a vastly different environment where internet and ease of access to information was not available] - I don't think that such Sheikhs/"wise persons"/etc. will offer a lot of help when it comes to "solving all the illogical and unethical things of Islam".

[Panzerwaffe]

On 2/28/2022 at 6:17 AM, Ghadir Leb said:

I don't think this will be approved by moderators. I also don't have any specific reason for posting this here, except maybe that I want to tell someone. I came across this forum today while reading some things relating to leaving Islam, I don't really know how the 'ambient' is over here.

I never thought I would leave Islam as I was very religious, and loved Islam dearly in the past, and wished to 'serve' it.

It just got to a point where the mental gymnastics no longer work, and I couldn't view the Quran as a word of a wise knowledgeable God, nor view the Imams as infallible people. I will keep wearing the hijab as it does not bother me (at least for now). I will keep some sort of 'Muslim appearance' because I still care about the people in my society, and if I stopped keeping appearances, they will view me as an outsider.

My family is religious but we live in Lebanon - I do think that things are 'easier' over here in terms of leaving Islam and so on. I am mean not that easy, but I will not be kicked out of home for example. I am also the 'main provider' of my family so I guess that helps quite a bit too.

They will notice at some point that I stopped praying. So I will eventually have to tell them that I left Islam. 

Life seems serene and hopeful. I still kind of think that there is a God that watches over me and wants good for people. I still also 'hope' that there is some form of judgment after life, thought I cannot prove to myself that any of that is true. It doesn't matter that much to me, I just hope it exists. 

Good luck

to each their own 

not sure why we need to know this

Marry a non Muslim guy/girl then and divorce your Muslim husband/wife then 

[Ghadir Leb]

59 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Good luck

to each their own 

not sure why we need to know this

Marry a non Muslim guy/girl then and divorce your Muslim husband/wife then 

Not married

[Cool]

Thank you for sharing your views in detail. I am summarizing your statement so that I can respond to it point by point. 

You raised the following concerns:

1. Why Quran concern itself with the intimate details of the life of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

2. Why does it mention many trivial things [you can eat at so and so house], or why does it mention very complex 'laws' for very specific events that will never happen again in the future [Al-Ma'idah 106 - 107]?

3. Does Quran allows man to beat his wife? 

4.  If a slave kills a slave then he is to be killed, but if a free man kills a slave then he is not to be killed, and same goes for if a man kills a woman [the obvious and universally accepted meaning of Al-Bakara 178]

5. Quran contradicts with science and you have presented the examples of Prophet Adam (عليه السلام) & Prophet Nuh (عليه السلام)

6. Why does the Quran repeat the stories of the earlier 'prophets' and presents them as though they are real history?

About your concerns of infallibility, we can discuss the issue later after addressing all of above selected points In-sha Allah. 

I will give my brief response in my next post as I have to do some work now. 

Peace!

[Qa'im]

I am sorry that you have lost your faith. This happens to many people, and most of the people I have met have been able to bounce back from this. I came to Shi'a Islam as an adult, and so I have a different experience than you. Perhaps you coming here and listing your reasons is an attempt to understand these issues in more depth. I will try to answer a few points, at least to provide food for thought.

19 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

Because of the usual 'challenges'. Why the Quran concerns itself with the intimate details of the life of prophet Muhammad? Why does it mention many trivial things [you can eat at so and so house], or why does it mention very complex 'laws' for very specific events that will never happen again in the future [Al-Ma'idah 106 - 107]? This is without mentioning all the uncomfortable ethical things, such as a man is allowed to beat his wife as a form of punishment, and if a slave kills a slave then he is to be killed, but if a free man kills a slave then he is not to be killed, and same goes for if a man kills a woman [the obvious and universally accepted meaning of Al-Bakara 178]. 

1. Most of the intimate details that pertain to the life of the Prophet Muhammad (s) have embedded lessons for our daily lives. The Quran acted as a guide for those in his lifetime, but it also mostly deals with realities that are relatable to the average believer.

2. "Trivial things" is subjective. Some may say, "The universe is 93 billion light-years in size, why would a God care about my private life?" By this logic, your public life shouldn't matter either. Murder is an insignificant event in a trillion-star universe with an endless amount of planets. And yet, we all agree that it is morally reprehensible. The size of an offense is also no measurement of its rightness or its wrongness. There are many big permissible things and small impermissible things, and vice versa. God is not someone on a far-away planet looking at us through a telescope. He created and sustains every atom of existence, and has concern over the lives of the smallest of creatures. Any system of morality that He puts in place is for our own benefit and not His. To Him, the dunya has the significance of the wing of a mosquito. And yet, He gave balance to both.

3. Why do you suppose that 5:106-107 would never happen?

4. The question of ethics (wife-beating, free man killing a slave) is very pertinent. What is the yardstick by which we measure good and evil? How are we to derive just laws? We live in a time that is dominated by utilitarian and liberal ethics, and yet there is much disagreement in liberalism on issues related to freedom and harm. For example: can you say with certainty that incest, if practiced safely, is morally wrong? Many secularist philosophers have a hard time answering this question. You believe in a God - that is good - so do you think this God cares about what happens in the universe, or no (Deism)? If the latter, then there would be no such thing as objective morality, because morality would just be a social construct coming out of culture. Murder would just be one group of molecules hitting another. We object to that. Liberalism also has constantly shifting definitions of morality - when I was born, liberal societies had very different views on issues like drugs, gay marriage, marital rape, and even the basic rights of the individual (COVID has changed that significantly). Many of these views are driven by states, markets, and mass media. So, when we analyze Islam through the lens of liberalism, we are really just using a stretchy ruler that constantly differs in size. For example: we have no record of anyone ever leaving or doubting Islam as a whole due to the famous "wife beating" verse until the 20th century. That is because the standard of morality in the 20th century has shifted, enshrining the rights and freedoms of the individual. This isn't always necessarily wrong, but it is, again, subjective and requires justification. What are our first principles and how did we come up with them? In our school, this "beating" is the last step (in a list of steps) in dealing with nushuz. It cannot be injurious, it cannot leave any marks, and it cannot be against the face - if it is, then the wife can go to the judge and hold her husband accountable. One tradition (I believe from Ibn Abbas) even used a miswak (tooth stick) to demonstrate that it is a gentle physical reminder rather than something designed to inflict pain. This today would be the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, shaking someone, pulling someone by the collar, or stepping on their foot, which few of us today would consider to be morally abhorrent. On the contrary, in liberal society, if you break the law, then strange policemen can subject you to any form of violence to contain you. The state has a full monopoly on violence, which comes at a cost.

19 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

Also, challenges such as: "try to come up with an Ayah like ones from this Quran", which the Quran poses to the disbelievers, are very illogical. On what basis can something be considered "same as the Ayahs of the Quran"? Why is it so hard to come up with? When someone creates a text that sounds similar to the Quran [and many have, it's not hard to do], Muslims will start laughing at them and saying "look how dumb it sounds", when they can't in fact pinpoint why this newly created text didn't meet the requirements of the challenge. Because whatever you come up with, Muslims can say "it doesn't sound like the Quran" - the challenge is built to always succeed. 

I am not a literary scholar in Arabic, so I cannot comment on specific literary i`jaz that are unique to the Quran alone. However, we can agree that there is no book like it, in that it produced a movement of bedouins that quickly became the largest civilization that the world had ever seen in less than a decade after its completion. It has been memorized word-for-word by millions of people, and it can be preserved and reproduced in a way that no other book can. 1400 years later, we don't know of a book or document that can be compared to that.

If you'd like to see what non-Muslim experts of the Arabic language have said about the literary style of the Quran, then you can find the words of scholars like Sir Hamilton AR Gibb, Tor Andrae, or Edward Henry Palmer (Navid Kermani's book "God is Beautiful" compiles many of these).

19 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

Also, why does the Quran repeat the stories of the earlier 'prophets' and presents them as though they are real history, when we can today see how those stories were mainly derived from ancient mythology and were repurposed for the message of the 'one true God' (Judaism did this, Christianity followed, and Islam just copied the whole thing). Why did an all knowledgeable God put those stories there when those stories contain contradictions with science, when He knew that people in the future will notice those contradictions? (Why does He causes us doubts on purpose and then tells us that we should fight these doubts? That doesn't seem very wise to me).

If Islam simply plagiarized the stories of previous religions, then why do the stories differ in key ways? For example, the Quranic Jesus is free from the pagan elements that were attributed to the story of the Christian Jesus. You gave an example about the Flood as well, which the Quran never says is global.

It is important to note that Muhammad (s) never claimed to be bringing a new religion altogether. The Quran is mostly reminding people of familiar stories so that they may draw lessons from them. The Quranic stories are full of lessons on human frailty (Adam), economic justice (Shu`ayb), jealousy (Yusuf), standing up to oppressors (Musa), etc,

Did the Quran copy the Flood narrative from other texts? The Flood narrative is universal. It is found in ancient Mesopotamian, Indic, Chinese, Greek, Norse, and even Aboriginal (American and Australian) cultures. Some of these cultures have been isolated for thousands of years, and probably didn't just copy the myth from one place to the other. What is likely is that they were all describing a massive event; one worth teaching and documenting on an intergenerational level for thousands of years. Perhaps the most pertinent archeological debate right now is on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. It is a debate that could change our understanding of history as we know it. If true, then there would have been a mass flood and extinction roughly 12,800 years ago, wiping out a prior civilization.

-

This is a lot, so let's start here, unless you think the other issues you mentioned are bigger or more serious.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

On 3/1/2022 at 5:52 AM, Ghadir Leb said:

Because of the usual 'challenges'. Why the Quran concerns itself with the intimate details of the life of prophet Muhammad? Why does it mention many trivial things [you can eat at so and so house], or why does it mention very complex 'laws' for very specific events that will never happen again in the future [Al-Ma'idah 106 - 107]? This is without mentioning all the uncomfortable ethical things, such as a man is allowed to beat his wife as a form of punishment, and if a slave kills a slave then he is to be killed, but if a free man kills a slave then he is not to be killed, and same goes for if a man kills a woman [the obvious and universally accepted meaning of Al-Bakara 178]. 

It is the duty of Islam to explain every trivial and every complex problem. I do not know why does it seem problematic to you. Secondly, Where have you read that if a free man kills a slave, he is not to be killed? Have you read this:

[Shakir 5:45] And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust.

life for life is the rule for anyone who kills anybody. However, there is one other rule that is called compensation for damage which can be paid in money too. So, your first point is resolved. 

On 3/1/2022 at 5:52 AM, Ghadir Leb said:

Also, challenges such as: "try to come up with an Ayah like ones from this Quran", which the Quran poses to the disbelievers, are very illogical. On what basis can something be considered "same as the Ayahs of the Quran"? Why is it so hard to come up with? When someone creates a text that sounds similar to the Quran [and many have, it's not hard to do], Muslims will start laughing at them and saying "look how dumb it sounds", when they can't in fact pinpoint why this newly created text didn't meet the requirements of the challenge. Because whatever you come up with, Muslims can say "it doesn't sound like the Quran" - the challenge is built to always succeed. 

It is hard because the characteristics of Quranic verses are such that no one can reproduce the like of it and for that you need to consult one who has the deep knowledge of literature and Philosophy. One point which I can mention is that when anyone claims that he has made an ayah like Quran, he has to prove two things: 1) It has to have its own peculiar construction like Verse of Quran 2) It has to be a clear meaning and it should not be meaningless which often happens with those who make such poetry.

 

On 3/1/2022 at 5:52 AM, Ghadir Leb said:

Also, why does the Quran repeat the stories of the earlier 'prophets' and presents them as though they are real history, when we can today see how those stories were mainly derived from ancient mythology and were repurposed for the message of the 'one true God' (Judaism did this, Christianity followed, and Islam just copied the whole thing). Why did an all knowledgeable God put those stories there when those stories contain contradictions with science, when He knew that people in the future will notice those contradictions? (Why does He causes us doubts on purpose and then tells us that we should fight these doubts? That doesn't seem very wise to me).

If you have read both the Torah and Bible, you will not find details of what happened to those prophets and noble men afterwards rather you will find that in Quran which proves that Islam is the continuation of previously sent divine message which is affirmed by the earlier sent divine books. 

Other questions will be answered in episodes. thanks

[Cool]

11 hours ago, Cool said:

Why Quran concern itself with the intimate details of the life of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

Brother Qaim has already addressed most of the points, I just want to say in addition that one of its verse saying:

لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ لِّمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو اللَّهَ وَالْيَوْمَ

33:21) Verily, in the Apostle of God you have a good example for everyone who looks forward [with hope and awe] to God and the Last Day....

And in his "uswatun hasanah" we are unable to find a report where he  had beat or hit any of his wife. We obviously need to look at his personal life how he dealt with the issues which originated within his house like one is mentioned in Sura e Tehrim (Ch66). As well as marrying the divorced wife of his adopted son Zayd bin Harithah. It was considered an immoral act in Arabs that a man marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. So we have lessons to learn everywhere. I don't know why this matter becomes an issue for you. 

And now I will move to the unanswered questions:

11 hours ago, Cool said:

Quran contradicts with science and you have presented the examples of Prophet Adam (عليه السلام) & Prophet Nuh (عليه السلام)

Have you studied all the verses mentioning the creation of Adam (عليه السلام)? Please let me know what was the beginning state as mentioned in Quran? 

Let me help you, here is the beginning state:

وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلاَئِكَةِ إِنِّي خَالِقٌ بَشَرًا مِّن صَلْصَالٍ مِّنْ حَمَإٍ مَّسْنُونٍ

15:28) And when your Lord said to the angels: Surely I am going to create a mortal of the essence of black mud fashioned in shape.

Now about clay or sounding black mud or whatever you name it, do you know what science says about it? 

Clay -- a seemingly infertile blend of minerals -- might have been the birthplace of life on Earth. Or at least of the complex biochemicals that make life possible, biological engineers report. 

Kindly go through the following article as well:

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/12/2/259/htm

And have you gone through the verses of Quran what they say and how they mention evolution?

نَحْنُ خَلَقْنَاهُمْ وَشَدَدْنَا أَسْرَهُمْ ۖ وَإِذَا شِئْنَا بَدَّلْنَا أَمْثَالَهُمْ تَبْدِيلًا

76:28) We created them and made firm their make, and when We please We will bring in their place the likes of them by a change.

Interestingly, the word تبديلا (change) is what you describe as evolution lol. But that's not enough, allow me to give you more food, this time from Chapter Nuh:

وَقَدْ خَلَقَكُمْ أَطْوَارًا

71:14) And indeed He has created you through various grades

And Quran itself has mentioned some of اطوارا as نطفة امشاج ، علقة ، مضغة etc. 

More interestingly Quran questions as as to why we don't testify Him as Creator:

نَحْنُ خَلَقْنَاكُمْ فَلَوْلَا تُصَدِّقُونَ

أَفَرَأَيْتُمْ مَا تُمْنُونَ

أَأَنْتُمْ تَخْلُقُونَهُ أَمْ نَحْنُ الْخَالِقُونَ

نَحْنُ قَدَّرْنَا بَيْنَكُمُ الْمَوْتَ وَمَا نَحْنُ بِمَسْبُوقِينَ عَلَىٰ أَنْ نُبَدِّلَ أَمْثَالَكُمْ وَنُنْشِئَكُمْ فِي مَا لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

56:57-61) We have created you, why do you not then assent? Have ye seen that which ye emit? Is it you that create it or are We the creators? We have ordained death among you and We are not to be overcome In order that We may bring in your place the likes of you and make you grow into what you know not.

And then Quran mentions this:

وَلَقَدْ عَلِمْتُمُ النَّشْأَةَ الْأُولَىٰ فَلَوْلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ

56:62) And verily ye know the first creation. Why, then, do ye not reflect?

[Cool]

4 hours ago, Cool said:

If a slave kills a slave then he is to be killed, but if a free man kills a slave then he is not to be killed, and same goes for if a man kills a woman [the obvious and universally accepted meaning of Al-Bakara 178]

The verse you are referring is related to qisas, an Islamic law mentioned as "life giving" in Quran in the very next verse:

2:179) And there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.

Coming to the point you raised, it seems either a misunderstanding or ignorance to me. 

Before the advent of Islam, more often than not, the scenario after a murder was a chain of brutal and bloodthirsty reactions. The families and the tribes of both the slayer and the slain used to engage themselves into a war of attrition, generation after generation, involving innocent men, women and children. Islam, through the Holy Prophet, put a stop to this barbaric collective human behaviour and gave a just and kind system of justice to the human race, which for the first time, without ignorance and superstition, applied compassion and understanding in order to live in peace and harmony. "Payment should be made according to recognized usage in a good manner" is called diyat (blood-money). In the end this verse says that moderation in punishment is an alleviation from the Lord. Verse 92 of al Nisa prescribes moderation when the murder is not premeditated and intentional. Verse 93 of al Nisa clearly declares that a great punishment awaits the murderer who kills a believer intentionally. In addition to the legal penalty, in the hereafter, he will abide in hell for ever.

Verse 9 of al Hujurat says that if two groups of believers fight one another, promote peace between them. Then if one of them turns aggressive against the other, fight against the aggressive party till it returns to Allah's authority. If it does so, make peace among them equitably and be impartial.

I hope this will help you to understand the context of your referred verse.

[Meedy]

My answer is not related to the question but my understanding is that some muslims, have got questions in their mind which they seek answers for but still end up unsure because of some topic may not be simple to explain or to understand. Shaytan whispers may add further confusions and questions which may result in some leaving islam or not following it properly.

[Abu Hadi]

23 hours ago, Ghadir Leb said:

Another example: Nuh (Noah). My previous mental gymnastics: the Quran never did say that the flood happened all over the earth [which is scientifically disproven] - rather, it just mentioned a great flood [in contrast with Jewish/Christian texts that kind of say it happened all over the world]. And since there is archeological evidence of a huge flood happening in the Mesopotamia in early history, this is what the Quran must have meant. [Still in the mental gymnastics:] The early mythologies [Gilgamesh] must just be a retelling of a great story from a pagan point of view; meaning that even if Gilgamesh mentioned the story, it doesn't mean that the Abrahamic religions 'copied it' - it just means that the Abrahamic religions were retelling it as it truly happened. However, there are the additional details: It is understood that Noah took one pair of animals of each species - Quran never said it was all the species in the world, maybe it was just the species in the area - and it is widely accepted that he did that in order to 'preserve' them from the flood. This is where once again we are hit hard by evolution: it is extremely improbable that sexually reproducing species can repopulate with only two starting organisms of that species [rather, they will probably drive themselves into extinction]. See the video below if you're interested. This huge improbability for only one species will be almost impossible when we talk about multiple species. Now the God of the Abrahamic religions seems to not understand how His own 'creation' works [I say 'creation' here based on the assumption that God created all living beings through evolution]. He seems to think that people will find it wise that Noah took in one pair of each animal [and people living 2000 years ago will indeed find it wise]. However, future human beings [we] will find it absurd and unscientific, and God doesn't seem to be aware of how much humans will learn in the future.

 

You used the term 'mental gymnastics' to refer to a fact which you stated yourself was plausible, (a 'great flood' rather than a world wide flood). So I don't see how this is mental gymnastics. You have to use 'mental gymnastics' to believe in a fact which is a logical contradiction or is impossible. Not something that is plausible and which there is some evidence for. Anyway, 

Now your second objection is also strange. You said 

'it is extremely improbable that sexually reproducing species can repopulate with only two starting organisms of that species [rather, they will probably drive themselves into extinction]. See the video below if you're interested. This huge improbability for only one species will be almost impossible when we talk about multiple species.'

I think you are confusing the story in the Bible and in the Quran. 

The Bible says in Genesis 8:15-17

“Go out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. Bring out every kind of living creature that, is with you, the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground, so they can ‘multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number

This means every living creature and it is a worldwide event. So, yes, your theory seems plausible in this case. Most of them would not have reproduced and there would have been an evolutionary bottleneck, which, btw, has happened in previous points in the past. It doesn't mean cessation of all life, though. 

The Quran says, 

فَأَوْحَيْنَآ إِلَيْهِ أَنِ ٱصْنَعِ ٱلْفُلْكَ بِأَعْيُنِنَا وَوَحْيِنَا فَإِذَا جَآءَ أَمْرُنَا وَفَارَ ٱلتَّنُّورُ فَٱسْلُكْ فِيهَا مِن كُلٍّ زَوْجَيْنِ ٱثْنَيْنِ وَأَهْلَكَ إِلَّا مَن سَبَقَ عَلَيْهِ ٱلْقَوْلُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَا تُخَـٰطِبْنِى فِى ٱلَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوٓا۟ إِنَّهُم مُّغْرَقُونَ

Thereupon We inspired him thus: “Build, un­der Our eyes  and according to Our inspiration, the ark. And when Our judgment comes to pass, and waters gush forth in torrents over the face of the earth, place on board of this [ark] one pair of each kind, as well as thy family - excepting those on whom sentence has already been passed; and do not appeal to Me [any more] in behalf of those who are bent on evildoing - for, behold, they are destined to be drowned Quran 23:27

The term  زَوْجَيْنِ ٱثْنَيْنِ (two mates) is preceeded by the term كُلٍّ (every). So the literal translation is 'every two mates'. The term كُلٍّ (all or every) is ambiguous in this case. Possible meaning are 'Two mates (pairs) of everything we have specified to you previously', 'Two of every mates in this area', 'Two of every creature on earth'. The last one is the last likely since we know roughly how big the arc was and it couldn't have fit that many animals. .Plus Noah didn't have the means to get all those animals to him. So the two most likely meanings are 'Two of everything we have specified', in other words God gave him a list of things he should bring with him on the ark. These might have been valuable plants (the term doesn't mention animals specifically), animals, or other resources which were native to that area and would have gone extinct if he had not brought them but they were valuable to humanity for various reasons (medical, scientific, etc). The other possibility is everything in a certain area. 

So you are taking the least likely explanation of an ambiguous term and then basis your analysis of the Quran on that one. Why ? BTW, since the flood was not a global flood (as you yourself said), and the animals he took with him did not reproduce, this wouldn't necessarily mean they would go extinct, since they could be repopulated from other areas. Also, the animals might have gone onboard for another reason entirely (to slaughter them for food, to bring them to another area for them to populate that area, etc). 

The description in the Bible of the contents of the ark is more problematic from a scientific / logical point of view. The description in the Quran is not, and it is a much different description. 

 I don't have time to answer all your points right now, and I'm not sure if you want an answer, since it seems you have already made up your mind to leave the religion. Just in case. I am willing to answer more if you want. 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[Berber-Shia]

@Ghadir Leb If you have an academic background read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn. It's gonna help you analyze things (religious/historical/scietific) independent from the (mainstream) paradigm that you (and all of us, really) have adopted in this day and age.

[313_Waiter]

On 3/1/2022 at 10:52 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

Why the Quran concerns itself with the intimate details of the life of prophet Muhammad?

As for whether Quran copied Bible, here is one example of the Quran knowing something the Bible didn’t:

 

 

[Cool]

On 3/1/2022 at 4:52 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

it is extremely improbable that sexually reproducing species can repopulate with only two starting organisms of that species

Let me give you a picture of scientific probabilities. A female komodo dragon which normally reproduce sexually, can also reproduce a-sexually by the process known as parthenogenesis.

What else? At cellular level, we all have the capacity to reproduce asexually. 

Interestingly, Scientists now a days, are formulating different hypothesis to show asexual reproduction even in humans. 

Here is a Hypotheses:

Here we hypothesize that rare cases of human parthenogenesis resulting in viable, clinically normal individuals occur and pass unnoticed due to the absence of any abnormalities. These individuals would emerge as a result of three sequential events: (i) circumvention of the imprinting barrier, (ii) maintenance of diploidy and heterozygosity, (iii) mitotic progression of this “zygote-like” diploid oocyte (i.e., parthenogenetic activation) (Fig. 1). Diverse mechanisms, not necessarily mutually excluding, could be responsible for such events.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694

Edited March 2, 2022 by Cool

[Cool]

Human mind is limited to the space-time. That's why we see in the age of ignorance, while human mind was ready to accept the fact that they must have a creator, but they have made their concept of God in accordance to what they see & sense. That's why when we look at their concept of god (s), we find that they have many gods. God of rain, god of power etc. And then their gods have sons & daughters. Gods with whole families lol.

In that time there came a divine message stating that "Say! He Allah is One. Allah is He on whom all depends. He begets not nor is He begotten. And none is like Him." 

This surah alone is an irrefutable evidence that these are the words of The One who is not captured into the space & time and we know Him as العليم القدير (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

Human mind cannot bring a surah like this. 

Edited March 3, 2022 by Cool

[Qa'im]

I figured I may as well address a few more points:

On 3/1/2022 at 6:52 AM, Ghadir Leb said:

Example of contradictions with science: Adam. We most probably now that humanity never started from one single man and woman, but rather from evolution [if you are going to tell me that evolution is just a theory I'd rather you not reply]. My previous mental gymnastics: that it was a story meant to deliver a message about the nature of the human beings, not a story intended to present a true account of events that happened at the start of humanity. However, never at one point in the history of Muslims, and never in one single Hadith, did any Imam say that this was simply a story told for a message - instead, all narrations speak of it as it really happened, and therefore religious Muslims today find it very hard to accept Evolution. And evolution is not only important in the field of Biology, but also to understanding humans in general (anthropology, psychology, politics, you name it). Now imagine how much the average Muslim is 'missing' in terms of knowledge when they deny such a theory. They miss insights in all those fields [this also relates to #4 below]. 

 

My position is that (1) Adam existed, (2) he was a prophet, (3) he was the forefather of all modern humans, (4) his creation was de-novo.

If someone wants to reconcile that with a process of adaptation and speciation, that is fine and very well possible. Undoubtedly, there are vast similarities between anything living on Earth. A banana shares 60% of our DNA. We would not survive had it not been for our ability to interact with our surroundings. There wouldn't be a medical establishment had it not been for testing on mice. 6:38 confirms the similarity we have with animals as a sign for us. But our differences are also self-evident in the very reading and writing that we are doing now.

 

“The example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.” (3:59)

 

None of us have an issue with Jesus being born without a father, even though this is arguably a greater impossibility than the creation of Adam. As others have said before, we have literally billions of case studies around us of people being born only with a father and mother. We also have millions of examples of people born out of wedlock. Inference to the best explanation may bring us to the wrong conclusion — an accusation against Mary. So if God can create Jesus without a father, then He can surely create Adam de novo, without ancestors. This would be far from the only supernatural miracle in the Quran.

 

Take for example this verse: “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah.” (3:49)

 

Jesus formed a bird from clay, de novo, much like the creation of Adam. There is no indication that this bird was completely different from other birds; it may have been very similar to (or exactly the same as) other species of birds that evolved in the natural process.

 

Scientific sobriety however should not lead us to finding naturalistic explanations to all spiritual phenomena. Someone may say that Mary was a hermaphrodite who impregnated herself, but that’s not supported anywhere, despite the well known existence of hermaphrodites throughout human existence. Some may point to a natural land bridge that exists on the Red Sea. But that’s not the point — Allah could have made Moses cross the Atlantic Ocean if He wanted to. A miracle by definition is God bending the rules to intervene in our lives. They are not just benevolent, well-timed coincidences, they are the result of the mashi’a, irada, qadr, and qada of Allah.

 

The greatest “impossibility” is existence itself, and Allah already created the universe from nothing. Everything else is small potatoes in comparison.

 

Even if there was an intelligent, humanoid, pre-human specie on Earth, that does not contradict the Quran. In a sense, it may even confirm the pre-Adamic nasnās references, which is one of the traditional interpretations of 2:30 (see Tafsir al-Qummi). The nasnās were pre-Adamic humanoids mentioned in some reports; or the multiple “Adams” mentioned in others — both coming from imperfect sources nonetheless.

 

What is undisputed is that humans do indeed have common ancestry, and there are even persons in recent human ancestral history (3,000-15,000 years ago) that all modern humans go back to. This is still subject to more research (see Mitochondrial Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, MRCA/IAP/ACA in genetics).

 

Whether or not an unguided process of random variation and natural selection could account for all these complex changes in relatively short periods of time is a question that I'm not qualified to answer. I've only taken two courses on the subject, and there are people here that are better equipped to answer these questions. But much has changed in the last 12 years of research, and there are valid questions that need to be answered before we can understand where religion fits into all this (continuity/discontinuity theories for example). There are serious, unanswered questions on origin of life on Earth, the existence of information in DNA, the "Darwin-of-the-gaps", and the evolution of language. So, science must continue its work, and interesting questions must continue to be posed, without fear of alienation. That is the only way science can progress. Once we have some more definite answers, we can come to more definite scriptural conclusions.

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 3/2/2022 at 5:53 PM, Berber-Shia said:

@Ghadir Leb If you have an academic background read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn. It's gonna help you analyze things (religious/historical/scietific) independent from the (mainstream) paradigm that you (and all of us, really) have adopted in this day and age.

Excellent recommendation, brother @Berber-Shia! This one work, more than anything else, does enough to overthrow the much-touted infallibility of the 'scientific method', and the certainties posited by it! I recommend that all the brothers and sisters to go through it! 

[AbdusSibtayn]

That being said, I hope all of us do realise with time that the most indisputable 'anti-religion' truths, drilled systemically into all our heads by modernity, the epistemology of naturalism and the resultant ideology of secular-liberalism, are frailer than the frailest of superstitions, hard-pressed to hold their own against the slightest of scrutiny. 

It has become second nature to us, intentionally or otherwise, to hold religious beliefs and practices in general, and Islam in particular, to these ideological moorings in comparison. Islam, supposedly, must be rejected because it is not 'scientific' (the belief in the supernatural), is not 'modern' (being at variance with the core secular liberal ideals of religious freedom, gender-justice, freedom of the individual etc). The point of departure should be to ask ourselves- why do these ideologies get to be the parameter; by whom have they been set up to be so, how, and why? 

[Ghadir Leb]

I came back late to this thread. I will try to reply to your responses one by one, however many responses didn't even tackle the issue at hand, or just assumed (or acted as if) I had a different "problem" and went on to tackle that imagined problem, instead of properly understanding what I said. I will mention that when I reply to responses that did this. Also you are free to quote me and reply but I want to keep it clear that I don't feel like I will ever come back to Islam again - and I don't want to waste anyone's time. I will reply to each response out of courtesy but I understand if you wished to stop replying or engaging in the conversation.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/1/2022 at 3:22 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

1) Why I no longer see Quran as the true word of God?

Because of the usual 'challenges'. Why the Quran concerns itself with the intimate details of the life of prophet Muhammad? Why does it mention many trivial things [you can eat at so and so house], or why does it mention very complex 'laws' for very specific events that will never happen again in the future [Al-Ma'idah 106 - 107]? This is without mentioning all the uncomfortable ethical things, such as a man is allowed to beat his wife as a form of punishment, and if a slave kills a slave then he is to be killed, but if a free man kills a slave then he is not to be killed, and same goes for if a man kills a woman [the obvious and universally accepted meaning of Al-Bakara 178]. 

Salam Quran doesn't  mention intimacy  with details  which only has mentioned it in shortests words which it rarely has been mentioned  in Quran which only in few short Suras it has been  mentioned very generally in opposition  of your claim  also give an example which a complex law has been  mentioned  in Quran also all events in Quran has repeated many times until now which will repeat until end of world also you have totally  wrong interpretation  about slave & women which all of your interoretations has came from Wahabism/Salafism & propaganda  of Islamophobics likewise  evangelists  which your intrpretations is in opposition  of Shia interpretation .

On 3/1/2022 at 3:22 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

Also, challenges such as: "try to come up with an Ayah like ones from this Quran", which the Quran poses to the disbelievers, are very illogical. On what basis can something be considered "same as the Ayahs of the Quran"? Why is it so hard to come up with? When someone creates a text that sounds similar to the Quran [and many have, it's not hard to do], Muslims will start laughing at them and saying "look how dumb it sounds", when they can't in fact pinpoint why this newly created text didn't meet the requirements of the challenge. Because whatever you come up with, Muslims can say "it doesn't sound like the Quran" - the challenge is built to always succeed. 

This is just propaganda  of Islamophobics likewise  evangelists  which they refer  to wrong interpretation  of Wahabists/Salafists.

On 3/1/2022 at 3:22 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

Also, why does the Quran repeat the stories of the earlier 'prophets' and presents them as though they are real history, when we can today see how those stories were mainly derived from ancient mythology and were repurposed for the message of the 'one true God' (Judaism did this, Christianity followed, and Islam just copied the whole thing). Why did an all knowledgeable God put those stories there when those stories contain contradictions with science, when He knew that people in the future will notice those contradictions? (Why does He causes us doubts on purpose and then tells us that we should fight these doubts? That doesn't seem very wise to me).

Because  all of it are examples  for anyone  which all of stories have repeated between  all nations so we can learn everything  from it to follow good ways & don't  repeat mistakes  of previous  nations  also root of any ancient mythology  is a real story which has been  misunderstood  by people  or deviated from right pass which in Quran it has mentioned  by original  & uncorrupted source which rest of your story about copying  & being unscientific  is just a propaganda of Islamophobics likewise  evangelists.

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/1/2022 at 3:22 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

Here is another example: When I used to attend religious lessons in my adolescence, we were learning about the Ghusl (washings), and there was this particular law that I found a bit bizarre at the time (not so bizarre because I was a religious soul that accepted anything): if we killed a certain type of lizard thingy (أبو بريص), then we have to do the washing (Ghusl) after killing it because there is some sort of Jinn living inside it. This was a normal fatwa in a normal book issued by Khomeini (actually by Khamenei but he just issued the same fatwas of Khomeini so they are the same). Now I am pretty sure this is based off some Hadith by some Imam. Fast forward to a year or two ago, I saw a Sheikh posting on social media that the 'Ghusl' after killing the lizard is no longer required (the fatwa changed). Alright nice.

This is a real insult to Imam  Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) & Imam Khameni which killing lizard thingy (أبو بريص) only has mentioned in wahbi/Salafi sources about killing it due to some sort of Jinn living inside it. 

Only in wahabists /Salafist sources killing of lizard thingy (أبو بريص)  has been ordered which in Shia sources we don't  have any narration about killing it nevetheless it has been mentioned in Fatwas of Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) & Imam  Khamenei  & grand Ayatollah  Sistani & Ayatollah  Khoei (رضي الله عنه) which if you have killed a toad then it's recommended/Mustahab   that you do Mustahab/recommended  Ghusl which Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) has stated because  from both sides ( ie from Sunni & Shia sources it's mentioned ) that it's a filthy animal  which it's possible due to it's killing you will be affected by disease  so there it's  recommended  that if you have  killed toad then do ghusl for cleaning from it's filth which will prevents you from poisoning or etc which nowadays  we know that amphibians  likewise toads & frogs have some kind of deadly poison in their body which killing them will be caused poisoning  us anyway all narrations  about killing toad have not valid narrators .

Quote

The current recommended ghusls are of two types, first: ghusl for what he wants to do and for what he likes to be: ghusl ihram, circumambulation/Tawaf, pilgrimage, staying in Arafat

Second: Ghusl for what he has done and there are several ghusls: including: for killing toads (a type of frog). Including: to see a person who has been crucified if he has deliberately gone to see him. And including: due to failing to perform the Ayat prayer (taking the lunar or the sun eclipse) if all the moon and sun tablets

Has taken that it is mustahab to take a bath at the time of their eclipse , but he does not deserve to be left in that caution. And among them: for the sake of touching the corpse, after he has been bathed.

Translation of Tahrir al-Wasila by Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) v. 1 p.111 in site

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c78_31391/ترجمه_تحریر_الوسیله_امام_خمینی_س_/ج_1/غسل‏_های_مستحب

Quote

صل:فی الأغسال المندوبة
‏‏ ‏ ‏‏فصل:فی الأغسال ا ‎‏والأظهر أنّه لسرعة قبول التوبة أو لکمالها.الثانی:الغسل لقتل الوزغ،ویحتمل ‏‎ ‎‏أن یکون للشکر علی توفیقه لقتله،حیث ... لقتل الوزغ،ویحتمل ‏‎ ‎‏أن یکون للشکر علی توفیقه لقتله،حیث إنّه حیوان خبیث و الأخبار فی ذمّه من ‏‎ ‎‏الطرفین ... خبیث و الأخبار فی ذمّه من ‏‎ ‎‏الطرفین کثیرة،ففی النبوی:«اقتلوا الوزغ ولو فی جوف الکعبة»وفی آخر:«من ‏‎ ‎‏قتله فکأ نّما ... النبوی:«اقتلوا الوزغ ولو فی جوف الکعبة»وفی آخر:«من ‏‎ ‎‏قتله فکأ نّما قتل شیطاناً»ویحتمل أن یکون لأجل حدوث قذارة من ... الوزغ ولو فی جوف الکعبة»وفی آخر:«من ‏‎ ‎‏قتله فکأ نّما قتل شیطاناً»ویحتمل أن یکون لأجل حدوث قذارة من المباشرة ‏‎ ...

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/key/قتل&kind=14286

Quote

‎‏آخر الخبر:«قم فاغتسل فصلّ ما بدا لک»یمکن توجیهه بکلّ من الوجهین، ‏‎ ‎‏والأظهر أنّه لسرعة قبول التوبة أو لکمالها.الثانی:الغسل لقتل الوزغ،ویحتمل ‏‎ ‎‏أن یکون للشکر علی توفیقه لقتله،حیث إنّه حیوان خبیث و الأخبار فی ذمّه من ‏‎ ‎‏الطرفین کثیرة،ففی النبوی:«اقتلوا الوزغ ولو فی جوف الکعبة»وفی آخر:«من ‏‎ ‎‏قتله فکأ نّما قتل شیطاناً»ویحتمل أن یکون لأجل حدوث قذارة من المباشرة ‏‎ ‎‏لقتله.الثالث:غسل المولود،وعن الصدوق وابن حمزة وجوبه،لکنّه ضعیف، ‏‎ ‎‏ووقته من حین الولادة حیناً عرفیاً،فالتأخیر إلی یومین أو ثلاثة لا یضرّ،و قد ‏‎ ‎‏یقال:إلی سبعة أیّام،وربما قیل ببقائه إلی آخر العمر.والأولی علی تقدیر ‏‎ ‎‏التأخیر عن الحین العرفی الإتیان به برجاء المطلوبیة.الرابع:الغسل لرؤیة ‏‎ ‎‏المصلوب،و قد ذکروا أنّ استحبابه مشروط بأمرین:أحدهما:أن یمشی لینظر ‏‎ ‎‏إلیه متعمّداً،فلو اتّفق نظره أو کان مجبوراً لا یستحبّ،الثانی:أن یکون بعد ثلاثة ‏‎ ‎‏أیّام إذا کان مصلوباً بحقّ،لا قبلها بخلاف ما إذا کان مصلوباً بظلم،فإنّه یستحبّ ‏‎ ‎‏معه مطلقاً ولو کان فی الیومین الأوّلین،لکنّ الدلیل علی الشرط الثانی غیر ‏‎ ‎‏معلوم إلّادعوی الانصراف و هی محلّ منع،نعم الشرط الأوّل ظاهر الخبر،و هو ‏‎ ‎‏من قصد إلی مصلوب فنظر إلیه وجب علیه الغسل عقوبة،وظاهره أنّ من مشی ‏‎ ‎‏إلیه لغرض صحیح کأداء الشهادة أو تحمّلها لا یثبت فی حقّه الغسل.الخامس: ‏

http://www.imam-khomeini.ir/fa/c78_130061/کتاب/العروة_الوثقی_مع_تعالیق_الامام_الخمینی_س_ج_۱_/فصل_فی_مکروهات_الدفن

‏‏غسل من فرّط فی صلاة الکسوفین مع احتراق القرص؛أی‌ترکها عمداً،فإنّه ‏‎ ‎‏یستحبّ أن یغتسل ویقضیها،وحکم بعضهم بوجوبه،والأقوی عدم الوجوب، ‏‎ ‎‏و إن کان الأحوط عدم ترکه،والظاهر أنّه مستحبّ نفسی بعد التفریط المذکور، ‏‎ ‎‏ولکن یحتمل أن یکون لأجل القضاء،کما هو مذهب جماعة،فالأولی الإتیان به ‏‎ ‎‏بقصد القربة،لا بملاحظة غایة أو سبب،و إذا لم یکن الترک عن تفریط أو لم یکن ‏
‏‎

کتابالعروة الوثقی مع تعالیق الامام الخمینی (س) (ج. ۱)

صفحه 337
‎‏القرص محترقاً لا یکون مستحبّاً و إن قیل باستحبابه مع التعمّد مطلقاً،وقیل ‏‎ ‎‏باستحبابه مع احتراق القرص مطلقاً.السادس:غسل المرأة إذا تطیّبت لغیر ‏‎ ‎‏زوجها،ففی الخبر:«أیّما امرأة تطیّبت لغیر زوجها لم تقبل منها صلاة حتّی ‏‎ ‎‏تغتسل من طیبها کغسلها من جنابتها»واحتمال کون المراد:غسل الطیب من ‏‎ ‎‏بدنها-کما عن صاحب الحدائق-بعید ولا داعی إلیه.السابع:غسل من شرب ‏‎ ‎‏مسکراً فنام،ففی الحدیث عن النبی صلی الله علیه و آله و سلم ما مضمونه:«ما من أحد نام علی ‏‎ ‎‏سکر إلّاوصار عروساً للشیطان إلی الفجر،فعلیه أن یغتسل غسل الجنابة». ‏

Quote

We did not find a narration in which the lizard was ordered to be killed. It can be stated in this narration that some people who were hostile to the past prophets and insulted them so they have been metamorphosized in the form of a toad (Wasa'il al-Shi'ah, vol. 24, p. 111). Take a bath and it is mentioned in the continuation that the toad says that if someone swears at Uthman, he swears at the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام) (Basair al-Darjat fi Faza'il al-Muhammad, vol.1 p355 The jurists have also recommended ghusl after killing it. Jawahar al-Kalam fi Sharh Sharia al-Islam, vol. 5, p58 but we don't  find any order about killing toad.

also Prophet  Muhammad (pbu) has called cursed Marwan ibn hakam who his father & himself  have been enemies of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) as "Toad son of toad" which there is a story which a toad has blown into fire which has been made for burning of prophet  Ibrahim (عليه السلام) but on the other hand a frog bring water for extinguishing the fire.

https://www.porseman.com/article/كشتن-مارمولك/24610

https://shiavoice.com/play-JnSos (Fatwa of grand ayatollah  Sistan & grand  Ayatollah  Khoei(رضي الله عنه) which has been mentioned  in audio  file) 

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa98247

https://www.makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=21&lid=0&catid=45191&mid=257002

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/1/2022 at 5:52 AM, Ghadir Leb said:

4) My last major pitfall with Islam: Muslim societies are very ignorant because of Islam. Muslims societies will ignore all of the vast knowledge that is being built in the 'west' in the fields of humanities and social sciences, because a lot of that knowledge cannot be accepted if one if following the ideology of Islam. Many Muslims think that the "important knowledge" is that in the fields of the science (math, chemistry, medical, etc), and that if they succeed in those they are being part of the "Modern Knowledge Force". They will say, "those who hate Islam say that Muslims are ignorant, but look at our religious children! They get PhDs in Math and Sciences! Who is the ignorant now!". They think that History, comparative religion, sociology, etc., are fields for the illogical mind that only knows how memorize stuff and talk a lot. (This might also have to do with colonialism and is not just an Islam issue). I can expand on this but I've written so much.

This is totally  wrong because as an clear example  , Iran as a shia country has many scientists  from both of shias & Sunnis in all kind of sciences which Iran has had many achievement  in applying & using western or eastern science  which only ignorant  people  likewise Wahabists  are against  learning knowledge  which your mentioned  sunni man has been a wahabi/Salafi or he has been affected  by wrong ideas of wahabists .

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/1/2022 at 3:22 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

I am sure some of you will tell me: the Hadiths are not to always be trusted and many narrations can be false. I used to love this excuse back when I believed. But the Mithak al Ossur (ميثاق العسر) guy I mentioned above tend to always mention how strong/accepted/etc. a Hadith is, and how many Hadiths that he mentions have long been accepted during all of Shia history. Also, if we were to start accepting and rejecting Hadith based on what we currently think makes sense or not, isn't that a clear indication that we are building a religion based on what our minds accept/reject? How are we then different from any secular society, except that secular societies use their mind freely in creating their laws and are not weighed down by 1400 year old texts and narrations - ?

This is not first time which an unknown  person or a group of wahabists or atheists who  have tried to refute Shia Hadiths by these dirty tactics likewise misinterpretation  of Hadiths or saying that all of hadiths are belong to too long  history so therefore they are not applicable  in our era which until now you have a gulible person that thinks  he knows  everything .

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/1/2022 at 3:22 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

I am sure some of you will tell me: the Hadiths are not to always be trusted and many narrations can be false. I used to love this excuse back when I believed. But the Mithak al Ossur (ميثاق العسر) guy I mentioned above tend to always mention how strong/accepted/etc. a Hadith is, and how many Hadiths that he mentions have long been accepted during all of Shia history. Also, if we were to start accepting and rejecting Hadith based on what we currently think makes sense or not, isn't that a clear indication that we are building a religion based on what our minds accept/reject? How are we then different from any secular society, except that secular societies use their mind freely in creating their laws and are not weighed down by 1400 year old texts and narrations - ?

This is not first time which an unknown  person or a group of wahabists or atheists who  have tried to refute Shia Hadiths by these dirty tactics likewise misinterpretation  of Hadiths or saying that all of hadiths are belong to too long  history so therefore they are not applicable  in our era which until now you have a gulible person that thinks  he knows  everything .

[Reza]

Maybe it’s semantics, but I think “leaving the faith” is not always the best way to put it. People can be at a very low point, have serious doubts, have a very confusing or distant relationship with faith, but saying you have unequivocally left it altogether sounds very drastic.

[Ayuoobi]

On 3/1/2022 at 6:52 AM, Ghadir Leb said:

See the video below if you're interested.

@Ghadir LebI watched the video you mentioned, and tbh, I think you would benefit greatly from this blog post: 

 

To answer the video specifically though, it's just wrong and he didn't cite any hard data for us to take him seriously. What the gentleman fails to realize is that for every generation, the chance of birth defects decreases unless siblings continue to marry. The first in-bred pair might have 10 kids, 5 of whom are not healthy and eliminated from the gene pool. But the point is, that the survivors are not also going to marry their siblings - they will marry their cousins. They might lose 2/10 of their children to defects. But many of the surviving children will marry their second cousins, and so forth. Eventually the genetic diversity is great enough that the defects will rarely show up, especially because those with 2 recessive genes don't pass on their genes (and hence the allele is not selected for and becomes more rare over time relative to other alleles). Basic math and a knowledge of grade 11 biology can show this to be the case. Furthermore, when it comes to animals, there are literally cases that have been found of 20 generations of sibling inbreeding amongst some species, which makes them almost like clones because of how genetically similar they become. So the entire presumption is entirely unfounded, unscientific and mathematically incorrect. 

 

If you had bothered to even read the first comment in the comments section, you would see someone already refuting the video:

Quote

If their children, instead of paring off, mated in a matrix, with each male reproducing with every female (and vise versa), after a few generations there would be huge matrix of combinations. There would, of course, be a lot of genetic problems, but there would also be a large number of viable offspring. If the problematic people didn't reproduce, there would eventually be large, genetically diverse and stable population.

But even this is unnecessary. Even if you don't have a matrix, eventually things will sort themselves out. Basically if you can get past 2 or 3 generations, you're in the clear. And the way to get past those early generations is just to make sure that enough viable offspring survive, which isn't difficult because even in the anecdotal evidence cited in the video, around half of the children from severe inbreeding cases were still born healthy. In fact, it would be highly unlikely for 2 people who have, say, 10+ kids in the first generation to *not* be able to repopulate the earth just strictly by genetics.

Also, something your theory doesn't take into account vis a vis Noah's flood is that if Nabi Nuh (عليه السلام) saved animals only local to Mesopotamia, that doesn't mean they were the only animals of that kind on the planet. Once the flood subsided, invasive species that are similar would have come in. For example, there is a difference between Arabian and Mongolian camels, but the two can still interbreed, diversifying the gene pool.

[BowTie]

On 2/28/2022 at 2:17 PM, Ghadir Leb said:

I don't think this will be approved by moderators. I also don't have any specific reason for posting this here, except maybe that I want to tell someone. I came across this forum today while reading some things relating to leaving Islam, I don't really know how the 'ambient' is over here.

I never thought I would leave Islam as I was very religious, and loved Islam dearly in the past, and wished to 'serve' it.

It just got to a point where the mental gymnastics no longer work, and I couldn't view the Quran as a word of a wise knowledgeable God, nor view the Imams as infallible people. I will keep wearing the hijab as it does not bother me (at least for now). I will keep some sort of 'Muslim appearance' because I still care about the people in my society, and if I stopped keeping appearances, they will view me as an outsider.

My family is religious but we live in Lebanon - I do think that things are 'easier' over here in terms of leaving Islam and so on. I am mean not that easy, but I will not be kicked out of home for example. I am also the 'main provider' of my family so I guess that helps quite a bit too.

They will notice at some point that I stopped praying. So I will eventually have to tell them that I left Islam. 

Life seems serene and hopeful. I still kind of think that there is a God that watches over me and wants good for people. I still also 'hope' that there is some form of judgment after life, thought I cannot prove to myself that any of that is true. It doesn't matter that much to me, I just hope it exists. 

Hi Ghadir. May you state the reasons? And what is it you believe in now? Or you reached atheism? Or is that personal?