@deols

My beliefs?

Well I try to abstain from satisfying any particular bracket so I don’t give my belief a name.

I believe there is an existence beyond my five senses and that the truth or truths we are all searching for can be arrived from not just only one corridor i.e. religion or science...although recognizing when an objective or subjective truth may occur.

I also believe it is important to discover truths for oneself instead of being complacent in what another has presented as the truth.
But in such course I’d rather not be part of a collective because I think it’s important not to be dependent on another in something that should be personal and I would not want another to determine what my conclusion hence my conviction should be.

Admittedly I’m still at the infancy stage where I’m just seeking for answers and truths albeit cautiously but often propelled by my curiosity and thirst for knowledge.
However I am currently still reconciling and becoming familiar with my beliefs as I had to and still have to unlearn some of the things I was indoctrinated with because I don’t believe at all such course is hereditary. But I believe there is something greater than all religion and that religion is not a necessary tool for me in order to connect to that.


My beliefs about religion?

Well I have so much to say deols so I have to ration my response but bear in mind that I mostly analyze religion from the exterior.

I regard religion to be socially engineered and a product of one’s culture. It is a social tool that has often been employed politically. From my experiences, observation and research I consider all religion as a pathway to a presented truth; the alleged truth. However I accept that there are elements of truth in all religion but not truth in totality. So that in which I don’t find totally true I abstain from investing total belief in.

However I think religion was perhaps one of if not the first medium that detected the insatiability of man and tried to fill that empty hole with rituals, faith, fellowship, a higher being. It instilled in man a greater sense of purpose and made an effort in trying to shift man from a shallow being into a wholesome one. So initially religion had the burden of assuming quite a lot of roles because it served to satisfy questions, probe an inner awareness in man, provide a template for life and a guide to the supposed truth which has all been interpreted and understood in the context of one’s own society in times past. Some religions have adapted and evolved for their own survival but even those that resist change are met with evolved opinions regarding it.

thank you for you response. I have to apologise for replying late. After reading it the first time, I decided I needed a second reading.

I think the failure of the religions of the world to speak in one voice and of the peoples of the same religion to have d same views is a factor in the opinion that d way towards God could be devoid of religion

I am baffled though that without religions which start wv d coming of a prophet or a claim to prophethood, we wldnt know what God wants, how He wants them, when and where.

I really would like to know what you think of the higher being, the one beyond your senses. Do you have a relationship with Him or what is ur opinion of that. Do you believe in the after life

Hi deols, now I think I owe you an apology for my delayed response.

There are many layers to humans and even though I believe religion appeals to our emotions it caters largely to our external self. Religion is an activity. It’s a repetition of rites supposedly set by a claimed divine authority yet unsurprisingly reflects the cultural society in which it was conceived. Repeating these particular rites at set times and set calendar dates doesn’t stimulate nor answer questions instead it blunts man’s exploratory nature leaving many complacent I find. And then there is the sheer arrogance of some belief systems whereby they biasedly crown their own religion as the supposedly legitimate one without even extensively understanding the systems of others in their full capacity.

Life is too abstract to find a fit for all. We are all different yet apparently made to conform under one partial rulership – it’s not even realistic without the employment of coercion.
Religion is not a sure and sole destination towards the “truth”. What if these were fractions of a whole truth? Religion is not the only discipline in which particular truths may be found.

I only said I believe there is an existence beyond my five senses (you may even call it a sixth sense if you like) but I never said that I regarded any higher being but I believe if there was a character similar to what this world would have as a supreme being I doubt such an entity will mirror any deity that has been portrayed thus far at least for it’s own sake. Do I believe in an afterlife? Well I believe there are extensions of reality.

^Hello, I would like to ask if you haven't noticed that religion (Islam) does most of the time challenge and contradict the prevailing culture in its environment? I mean this in the context of several prophets that are known to have challenged the status quo in their different environments. Probably, you are not aware of this.

maclatunji:

Now, this particular bolded comment proves that you have not yet fully embraced your femininity. It doesn't matter what you achieve as a woman, if you like become President/Queen of the world. You would not have fulfilled your full potential if you don't have a man you look up to for support and whom you would be willing to give-up virtually everything for. A good-enough example is the Queen of England, despite the hype that surrounds her, she has remained level-headed and respectful of her husband. Going by what you are subtly inferring, she probably would have had him kicked-out after some years and could easily have had her way- isn't she the British monarch? I am not married, but there are ladies whom if they told me to "do this" or "not to do that" on issues that have no contradictions to Islamic injunctions, I would find it difficult to say "No", some are much older, some are my mates- I hold their opinions and views in high esteem not because they seek to be "Amazons" but because they have truly embraced what it is to be a woman and my God! It does bring them much distinction in my view.



Femininity is being true to yourself as a woman- this means being a 'good' daughter, sister, wife and mother. 'Good' in that definition means being a source of joy, inspiration, support. In addition, it means being a care-giver, an adviser, a partner, a friend, a stabilizing influence and so much more.

Surely, emofine. You don't expect me to teach you how to be a woman.

Islam encounters a strange phenomenon in feminism, the prevalent Islamic ideal of a woman is a submissive, dependent and succumbed to its stereotypical gender roles. Whether or not God defined such roles.

I feel heaven is a materialist paradise, no offence because hedonism is seemingly the greatest goal. "Set your eyes on the reward: Heaven, via God's service.

I'm uncomfortable with predestination, however the Houris seem to have lesser choices than the men, so more or less mechanical beings.

deols:

even though late on this thread, and some of my thoughts already expressed, I see a need to make my position clear.

First, you cant term whatever happens to the houris objectification. If you do that then you may have to question why angels are the way they are, never with free will and always following the commands of Allah-would you term that objectification of angels?.how about animals, allowed to be killed, used for farm work, means of tranportation, etc. Next would be to question why some are born rich and others poor. It could even get as ridiculous as why a part of clay was used in creating Adam and the rest tramped on by Adam and his offspring. know please that Allah is God, the creator and the doer of whatever pleases him. Continuous questioning of his ways lead to knowwhere good. And thank God you are a religious person. To an atheist, the terms would av bn different.

Houris av roles and are not provided the kinds of thoughts that makes humans reject\accept the words of God. There's no jealousy in their hearts and are satisfied with their position with Allah.

In addition to that, women are not the only creations in paradise. The Qur'an describes the presence of young boys who serve as servants too. They are described as pearls.wouldnt you see that as a beautiful description too?

It is still objectifying the houris not because its questioning God's plans but the houris' purpose and existence is irretrivably subjected to the pleasures of another being.

maclatunji: ^Hello, I would like to ask if you haven't noticed that religion (Islam) does most of the time challenge and contradict the prevailing culture in its environment? I mean this in the context of several prophets that are known to have challenged the status quo in their different environments. Probably, you are not aware of this.

It’s not only religion that challenged the status quo in its immediate environment but no other discipline apart from religion had the convenience of justifying certain principles by according it to the supposed will of a divine power. However the fact remains religion is a reflection of the society it was conceived in.
A religion born in a patriarchal society for example is going to exert much masculine relevance from its laws to its deity – this is not divine it’s culturally influenced.

On the contrary, some rules are natural. To seek to reverse them would be disastrous. For example, herbivores feed on plants and carnivores feed on them. To seek to reverse the status quo because you feel cheated would mean disaster for the ecosystem. Omnivores help to maintain balance.

Since, we have been created in two genders, it is natural that one of the sexes must be dominant or lead if you like. Nature abhors vacuum. Any proper religion has to acknowledge this and establish a firm basis for the relationship to work and thrive. I know where you are coming from but inasmuch as religion must challenge some negative things, it cannot be completely alien to man.

maclatunji: On the contrary, some rules are natural. To seek to reverse them would be disastrous. For example, herbivores feed on plants and carnivores feed on them. To seek to reverse the status quo because you feel cheated would mean disaster for the ecosystem. Omnivores help to maintain balance.

Since, we have been created in two genders, it is natural that one of the sexes must be dominant or lead if you like. Nature abhors vacuum. Any proper religion has to acknowledge this and establish a firm basis for the relationship to work and thrive. I know where you are coming from but inasmuch as religion must challenge some negative things, it cannot be completely alien to man.

I wonder what your definition of natural is. Dogs are carnivorous in the wild. We made them omnivorous by taming them and giving them a variety of food. Nothing wrong with the ecosystem there.

What about hermaphrodites? Have you ever questioned their existence?

Cheers01:


I wonder what your definition of natural is. Dogs are carnivorous in the wild. We made them omnivorous by taming them and giving them a variety of food. Nothing wrong with the ecosystem there.

What about hermaphrodites? Have you ever questioned their existence?

And I can tell you of a lioness who never ate meat. Those are exceptions not the rules. Don't derail this thread, that was an analogy.

maclatunji:

And I can tell you of a lioness who never ate meat. Those are exceptions not the rules. Don't derail this thread, that was an analogy.

Every rule has an exception. That is a fact. Use a better analogy and dont bend biology/science.



What would I gain from derailing a thread that is a veiled attempt at criticizing Islam (about Jannah)?

Maclatunji, why the dislike for me?

Second time you have accused me of derailing. Wrongly, I might add

Maclatunji

But shouldn't something that's allegedly divine be neutral and not partial?

Cheers01: What would I gain from derailing a thread that is a veiled attempt at criticizing Islam (about Jannah)?

Logicboy abi?

It's not a veiled attempt at criticizing Islam I was overtly offering a critical opinion about a component of Islam.

emöfine2: Maclatunji

But shouldn't something that's allegedly divine be neutral and not partial?



Logicboy abi?

It's not a veiled attempt at criticizing Islam I was overtly offering a critical opinion about a component of Islam.

Whatever it is, abeg dont accuse me of derailing your thread because Maclatunji (AKA the MACdaddy) is ready to ban me again. The guy has already accused me on a thread in which I was peacefully discussing with another muslim.


Back to the topic, Maclatunji's point on something being natural is clearly wrong. Who says two women and two men can not live in harmony for the rest of their lives? Furthermore, a hermaphrodite is both man and woman- from this, male-female companionship is not the only natural order in companionship that exists.

emöfine2: Maclatunji

But shouldn't something that's allegedly divine be neutral and not partial?



Logicboy abi?

It's not a veiled attempt at criticizing Islam I was overtly offering a critical opinion about a component of Islam.

Haha! I always say this emofine, the quest for equality is what is turning the world upside down, the greatest ideal that is just is Equity. Divine rule and guidance is based on the principle of equity not equality, you need to understand that.Once you get this, you will see that there is no partiality just equity and justice.

Let me give you an example, We Muslims are taught according to Islam to love and cherish our mothers three times as much as our fathers. Would you say this is partiality in favour of women and in other cases like allowing polygyny, you would claim partiality in favour of men. None of these rules is a manifestation of partiality, they are all about equity. Equity breeds justice not necessarily equality. There are times when equity equals equality but it is not all the time to equality equals equity. Equity has to prevail in such cases.

^^^
On the contrary, its the lack/absence of fairness/equity that triggers off dissatisfaction, rebellion, violence, conflicts etc. We as humans see ourselves as the same with superficial differences like skin colour.

Its a fatal error of Islam to assign social roles on the basis of biological reproductive duties, its a sign of an outdated, ancient mode of thought. Its equal to the basis for racism: skin colour.

Women think, conceived goals and ideas as much as men do, its imperfect to place them below men.

Love is universal, but its love that makes us treat our neighbours as ourselves.

Kay 17: ^^^
On the contrary, its the lack/absence of fairness/equity that triggers off dissatisfaction, rebellion, violence, conflicts etc. We as humans see ourselves as the same with superficial differences like skin colour.

Its a fatal error of Islam to assign social roles on the basis of biological reproductive duties, its a sign of an outdated, ancient mode of thought. Its equal to the basis for racism: skin colour.

Women think, conceived goals and ideas as much as men do, its imperfect to place them below men.

Love is universal, but its love that makes us treat our neighbours as ourselves.

Epic rebuttal sir. Epic.

I might add that there are studies upon studies that women can be as decisive as men when barriers are removed

Kay 17: ^^^
On the contrary, its the lack/absence of fairness/equity that triggers off dissatisfaction, rebellion, violence, conflicts etc. We as humans see ourselves as the same with superficial differences like skin colour.

Its a fatal error of Islam to assign social roles on the basis of biological reproductive duties, its a sign of an outdated, ancient mode of thought. Its equal to the basis for racism: skin colour.

Women think, conceived goals and ideas as much as men do, its imperfect to place them below men.

Love is universal, but its love that makes us treat our neighbours as ourselves.

I laugh in Mandarin. 'Outdated', is the lame adjective of pseudo-libertarians. You don't even understand my post or better put, you do not know the difference between equity and equality. You say, "It is a fatal error to assign social roles on the basis of biological duties". You need to stop being brainwashed with the poor information you have been consuming. Our very existence as a species is tied to social roles based on biological duties. You can pretend that you have advanced beyond it, but you will still come back to it. Take the following thread as an example, Lagos Criminalises Neglect Of Pregnant Women! https://www.nairaland.com/975424/lagos-criminalises-neglect-pregnant-women. I imagine this new Lagos State law is based on Osmosis instead of Biological roles of men and women.

Gender is defined by humans, its not preprogrammed.

What are you trying to prove with the Lagos law??