Pleased to join and share my book with you

[eclair]

eclair,

I appreciate your immediate response to my request and your feedback was very useful, though, it goes without saying, different people will certainly submit diffeernt summaries and reviews (which is my main want in principle). If possibe, would you kindly take time to comment on any points you may consider in the rest of the book.

Best,

Abdullah

Abdullah, I'm afraid I didn't pay too much attention to the science, I can go back and reread if it helps you.
Why the lack of information on the differences between Sunni and Shia? Unless I missed it, there is little to no mention of the Shias.

 

[Abdullah shehri]

No problem eclair and thank you for showing kind interest any way.

As for Shia, you're right, I did not write much about them but I did give a very brief account of thier historical evolution. I also believe that a clear exposition of Sunnah will show the reader - when he or she commences on a personal reading of Shiism - where Shiism is situated. Then it's his or her choice.

Awaiting your much-valued comments :flowers:.

 

[753C]

Abdulla, you make many good points and the material seems well written to me. I am not Islamic, but I believe in God and study religion quite a bit. I would recommend a couple of books to you that I think you would thoroughly enjoy, based on your beliefs and your writing. Both are by a man named Ravi Zacharias. The book titles are : "Can Man Live Without God", and "Deliver us from Evil". Zacharias is a Christian, but I think you will love his logic, humor and amazing intellect.
Monster: C'mon buddy, there are plenty of violent, hateful athiests in the world too. Almost everyone worships something whether they realize it or not, and there are violent extremists in every "sect".

 

[Zolipara]

Monster: C'mon buddy, there are plenty of violent, hateful athiests in the world too. Almost everyone worships something whether they realize it or not, and there are violent extremists in every "sect".

Atheists do not belong to a "sect".
Sure you can find atheists that are murderers, but they dont kill in the name if atheism. Atheism is not a belief system you fight or die for. Atheism is simply an absence of belief in god(s). There is no big book of atheism that tells an atheist what to think or believe. You can only compare atheism to religion as a whole, and I dont think many religious people consider muslims, christians, buddhists, hinduists etc as representatives of the same "sect".

 

[753C]

Yes Z, I realize that athiesm doesn't call for the execution of anybody. My response was to the cartoons. All I was saying was that just because you're an athiest doesn't mean that when you get angry you drink a beer while wearing an "A" t-shirt, while Christians and Muslims pick up guns and kill people. That was the insinuation and it seemed a little off kilter.
If someone wants to kill someone they can use any belief system that they want to justify it, whether it is rational or in line with that belief system or not.

 

[beer good]

athiesm (...) athiest

Sidebar, and please don't take this as an attack on you personally 753C... but I keep seeing people misspelling "atheism" and I'm honestly puzzled and curious as to why that is. I mean, you don't need to know the roots of the word (Gr. "a theos", "without god") to see that it's an "-ism." I've never seen people consistently write, say, "comminusm" or "conservitasm" or refer to Eric Clapton as a "guitirast", so whence "athiesm"? Is it that "I before E except after C" thing? If so, it's a good example of how one cannot always unquestioningly stick to old rules.

As I said, not intended as an attack, FSM knows I've misspelt more than a few words on this board myself. Just me thinking out loud.

 

[753C]

Just bad spelling on my part beer. No offense taken. It never was my strong suit and I guess I don't write that word very often, but now that I look at it I think it might be the old I before E thing. Force of habit.....

 

[Peder]

I think it would clarify discussions such as this if it were more clearly kept in mind that the opposite of "religious" is not the word "immoral." I would suggest that the antonym pairs are more like religious::atheist and moral::immoral (or ethical::unethical) and that they are not automatically related or opposed.

Further I would suggest that there are belief systems and moral systems, which are different concepts. A belief in God, and the religious practice which follows from it, is part of a belief system, while the values by which people live their lives are best described as part of a moral or ethical system. The religions I know of try to bring the moral systems of their believers into harmony with their religious belief system, even if not always successfully. And I assume that most people who do not believe in God probably still live their lives in accordance with personal values that are part of a personal moral or ethical system, even if some may not.

Why it is not possible to respect each other within that framework is beyond me. Especially since in many cases the respective moral systems have such considerable overlap -- beginning, for example, with the Golden Rule, just to make my point specific.

:flowers:

 

[Zolipara]

Why it is not possible to respect each other within that framework is beyond me. Especially since in many cases the respective moral systems have such considerable overlap -- beginning, for example, with the Golden Rule, just to make my point specific.

:flowers:

The Abrahamic religions have always kept a strong emphasis on us and them. There is the one true faith one one side and the infidels or heathens on the other. We go to heaven, the rest to hell. This does not translate into tolerance and respect for others.

Here is a good example of the respect shown to atheists:

"Some atheists may sound very kind, but kindness in its purity is the hallmark of faithful hearts."

 

[beer good]

And this time, I agree with Peder.

The golden rule is actually a fascinating example; variations of it have popped up at the centre of pretty much every lasting moral framework, religious or not, over the last 4,000 years - starting in ancient Egypt, and turning up in cultures that had no (or at least very little) contact with each other. Clearly, there's something to it that simply works, regardless of who said it.

 

[Peder]

Thank you, Beer Good,
Very much appreciated,
:flowers:

 

[753C]

Here is a good example of the respect shown to atheists:

"Some atheists may sound very kind, but kindness in its purity is the hallmark of faithful hearts."

Zolipara, surely you don't think that the disrespect issue is one sided do you? I think in many cases atheists are just as disrespectful in their degredation of people with a belief system that differs from theirs.
Peder : It is a touchy subject and many people are self centered enough to construe someone else's profession of a certain belief as an attack on their own belief system. That goes both ways. The belief systems and moral systems that people subscribe to are very close to their hearts because they have so much influence over our self image. I think that is the big stumbling block. If I openly denounce belief in your religion or world view, in a way I am denouncing you. Or at least I think some people would perceive that to be the case.

 

[Peder]

Peder . . . I think that is the big stumbling block. If I openly denounce belief in your religion or world view, in a way I am denouncing you. Or at least I think some people would perceive that to be the case.

753C, I agree. I suppose I just don't see the importance of denouncing someone else's views. Live-and-let-live sounds much more appealing to me.