A follower of God and A follower of Religion; Will there be unity among mankind if one is a follower of God? It is said that a follower of God are those who beliefs in a reward system of the Afterlife. A place in Heaven is for those followers of God and a place of Hell for those against or oppose to God.
Basically the belief is made in such that followers of God are to do Good on Earth so as to be rewarded a place known as heaven in the hereafter or the Afterlife. In other words the fate or destiny of a moral being is base on his/her actions or deeds. Do good so as for good things to happen and vise versa. (whatever you do comes back to you).
To follow a God is to follow a particular faith or religion. To have faith is to belief in the teachings of a religion. As such religion is based on belief.You believe in a certain religious doctrine. So you follow that belief. However, if that belief contradicts my belief, does that mean that a person has the legal rights and moral right to hate an unbeliever?
Let not believers take disbelievers (Kafir) as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination. 3:28
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. 9:29
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah”, and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 9:30
Indeed, Allah has cursed the disbelievers and prepared for them a blaze. 33:64
Our Lord, give them double the punishment and curse them with a great curse. 33:68
So today those who believed are laughing at the disbelievers (kafir). 83:34
So when you meet those who disbelieve (Kafir) [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favour afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds. 47.4
Indeed, they are planning a plan. But I am planning a plan. So allow time for the disbelievers (Kafir). Leave them awhile. 86:15-17
When your Lord inspired to the angels, “I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved (Kafir), so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.” That is because they opposed Allah and His Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger – indeed, Allah is severe in penalty. 8:13-14
O you who have believed, when you meet those who disbelieve (Kafir) advancing [for battle], do not turn to them your backs [in flight]. And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah, and his refuge is Hell – and wretched is the destination. 8:16-17
And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing. That [is so], and [also] that Allah will weaken the plot of the disbelievers (Kafir). 8:17-18
The Abrahamic God is a violent and jealous God who does not tolerate you believing in any other God. You break His commandments and he not only punishes you but will punish the entire community and your whole family as well. And He tells you to fight those rejecters of the truth and to show no mercy until they submit and have been humbled and pay tax or ransom (or are all killed).
Allah also tells you not to side with the Kafir to fight Muslims. And if the Kafir rejects Allah and Allah’s commands and you support them to fight Muslims then you are condemned. So, PAN working with DAP to oppose PAS who only want to uphold Allah’s commands are condemned in Islam. And that is not what I say. That is what the Qur’an says.
Christians say they are going to heaven and the rest are going to hell. Muslims also say they are going to heaven and the rest are going to hell? How can both black and white be the same colour? One definitely must be right and the other wrong. And what makes you so sure that you are right and all the rest are wrong?
What if I believe otherwise? And why can’t I believe otherwise? You Christians are so sure that you are right and everyone else (especially gays) is a sinner bound for hell. Yeah, sure, it says so in the Bible.
But which Bible? What makes you think I believe in your Bible? To start off with, what makes you think I even consider you a follower of Christ?
What if I consider you a deviant? What if I consider the Nestorian (Persian) or Coptic (Egyptian) as the true Christian? What if I consider you Paulists who are practicing Paulism, which later changed its name to Christianity?
Just because the Catholics are the majority does not mean I must regard them as true Christians. It is up to me which sect I want to consider true Christians. That is my right. That is not for you to tell me.
If the Catholics had not killed so many non-Catholics over almost 1,000 years then probably the Nestorian or Coptic would be the majority today. If people had not been forced to become Catholics at the point of a sword, would there be so many Catholics around today?
The Persian Empire existed around 550 BCE in the area that is now Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Palestine, etc. Invariably, most of the area was dry and arid desert and most of the population lived in squalid huts and tents. Many were nomadic and did not settle in one place or in towns and cities.
The rulers, however, lived in huge and lavish palaces within walled gardens. These walled gardens had streams, grass, flowers, trees, fruits, vines overflowing with grapes, and whatnot. Basically, the life of the rulers and their immediate family was way above the level of the subjects. And only the rulers and their family enjoyed the luxury of these walled gardens.
These walled gardens, in the Persian language, were called pairi, which means ‘around’, and daeza, which means ‘walled’. Those two words combined would be pairidaeza, which means ‘a walled-in compound or garden’. In the Greek language it is called paradeisos while in English it is called paradise.
Hence, pairidaeza, paradeisos or paradise was the ultimate in luxury and comfort — a walled compound or garden with streams, grass, flowers, trees, fruits, vines overflowing with grapes, etc. And the Persians believed that this would be what you would be rewarded with in the next life if you were good in this life — pairidaeza.
Hence good people get to enter pairidaeza while bad people will be sent to the opposite of pairidaeza when they die.
That was the old belief more than 2,500 years ago, long before Christianity and Islam emerged.
The concept of paradise is a 2,500-year old concept in the days when the ultimate in comfort and luxury was very different from today’s concept. People had a very narrow and shallow concept of luxury and comfort 2,500 years ago. Paradise was a walled garden of streams, grass, trees, fruits, vines and so on.
Hence, some people may think that this is a stupid belief — and, therefore, people who believe in this are also stupid. But do we question those who believe in this and demand that they declare what they believe in? If you believe in paradise and the concept of what paradise is, well and fine. That is your choice. No one is questioning that belief. For a belief is just a personal matter and it is up to an individual of whether to belief or not to belief.
Religion & God
Many religionists do not understand their own religion let alone the religion of others. It is even worse for Muslims because they have been taught not to become too familiar with non-Islamic religions lest they get influenced or become ‘misled’ by ‘false teachings’, which may result in them becoming apostates, or at the very least ‘confused’.
Hence Muslims will insulate and isolate themselves from the other religions and will, for sure, not want to research into the non-Islamic religions even for academic purposes. They would rather remain ignorant than become enlightened and maybe violate Islam in any way, unwittingly or otherwise.
I try to make Muslims understand that knowledge is power and this would include knowledge about the other religions, and there are certainly many indeed. However, most Muslims would be of the opinion that by reading up on the other religions this may expose you to the danger of allowing Satan to mislead you. In fact, the Muslims believe you should not even be reading up on your own religion and if you want to learn then go seek out a guru or ustaz and learn from him.
Books must never be your teacher, they will argue. If you depend on books for knowledge, then Satan will become your teacher. Hence you must learn from a human teacher to avoid Satan becoming your teacher when you attempt to learn from books minus a human teacher.
Muslims are also of the opinion that everything comes under theology. Even the history about religions is considered theology. But theology is about dogma while history is about events. And while dogma deals with faith, history deals with events. So why can’t theology and history be separated?
The danger with lumping history under theology would be that history might be tailored or doctored to fit into the dogma. Hence history may need to be ‘adjusted’ so that it does not contradict dogma. In other words, whenever dogma and history disagree, dogma would override history. History would have to be ‘rewritten’ to support dogma.
This is not a problem just with Muslims but with all religionists. They fear looking at history independently of dogma lest that raises questions as to the accuracy of certain dogmatic teachings. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, so they rather remain in ignorance than open up a can of worms that may shake their faith. Better we not know than we know and start doubting.
Religion did not fall from the sky. Religion evolved and transformed. And this is a point that many religionists find hard to accept. If religion fell from the sky then it clearly came from God. If religion evolved and transformed then there has to be a history and this would mean there also has to be roots or origins.
The largest religious grouping in the world would be the Abrahamic faiths. Islam calls them the People of the Book (Ahl al-Kitāb in Arabic), a term used to designate non-Muslims to whom the scriptures have been revealed. The three types of adherents to faiths that the Qur’an mentions as People of the Book are the Jews, Sabians and Christians and Islam recognises all three of these religions. There are many references in the Qur’an regarding the People of the Book.
Let us, however, rewind to earlier religions, which some scholars consider the roots or origins of the Abrahamic faiths.
Mithraism was a religion popular with the Roman military and was the religion that was brought to Britain before the birth of Christ. Eventually, the Britons and Saxons embraced Mithraism although there was a tug-of-war later between paganism and Christianity after the Romans left and Christianity began to take root in Britain.
It was mainly a contest between the druids and the priests and of course Christianity won when the kings embraced Christianity because the king had the power to impose the death sentence on pagans who refused to convert to Christianity. Hence it was not dogma but the sword that won the day.
However, Mithraism itself was not originally a Roman religion. It was a Persian religion that was later adopted by the Greeks and even later by the Romans. We must remember that Persia was already an empire much earlier but was later replaced by the Greek Empire and after that by the Roman Empire.
One interesting point to note, though, is that Mitra is a Sanskrit word, which is found in the Rig Veda and means friend or friendship and is inscribed in the peace treaty between the Hittites and the kingdom of Mitanni at about 1400 BC.
One very important ritual in Mithraism is the sacrifice of the bull, which was also a ritual of the old pre-Islamic Arabic religion. The slaying of the bull is celebrated as the Mithraic New Year on 25th December, which was also the birthday of Mithras, the offspring of the sun. December 25th is also considered the birthday of Christ and the birth of Christ is also beginning of the Christian year.
Some scholars have identified the ancient Aryan deity, who appears in Persian literature as Mithras, as the Hindu god Mitra of the Vedic hymns. Others say that the Graeco-Roman representation of the slaying of the bull is also an event in Zoroastrian cosmogony described in the Zoroastrian text.
Hence there appears to be many overlaps between these various pre-Christianity and pre-Islamic religions. Some studies even suggest that Mithras was of a virgin birth, although there is no text to support this argument, plus Mithraism also has the communion, the taking of the consecrated bread and wine.
Zoroastrianism emerged out of a common prehistoric Indo-Iranian religious system dating back to early 2,000 BC. Most scholars believe that the key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology influenced the Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, Zoroastrianism itself inherited ideas from other belief systems. Hence Zoroastrianism, which is the root of the Arabic religious belief, is itself not original.
That, in a nutshell, is what some scholars view as the origins of the various modern-day religions. And they hold the view that none of today’s religions are original but evolved, transformed or mutated from earlier religions. But this would be true only if your take into consideration their history minus the dogma. Religionists, however, would disagree with this view and will insist that their religion is unique and came directly from God and that nothing was borrowed from earlier religions.
BullShit, Holy Shit!!!
TOLERANCE OR INTOLERANCE? OUR CHOICE
About fifty years ago, a woman named Phyllis McGinley wrote “The Angry Man” – a poem that address the issue of intolerance. She was far ahead of her times as can be seen in the poem. Born on March 21, 1905, she wrote children’s books and poetry about aspects of suburban life.
The Angry Man - by Phyllis McGinley
The other day I chanced to meet An angry man upon the street — A man of wrath, a man of war, A man who truculently bore Over his shoulder, like a lance, A banner labeled “Tolerance.”
And when I asked him why he strode Thus scowling down the human road, Scowling, he answered, “I am he Who champions total liberty — Intolerance being, ma’am, a state No tolerant man can tolerate.
“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose To cherish oppositional views, Lady, like this, and in this manner, I lay about me with my banner Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows Rained proudly on prospective foes.
Fearful, I turned and left him there Still muttering, as he thrashed the air, “Let the Intolerant beware!”
“Intolerant people” seems to be the mantra of our times. After over five decades of independence, our collective consciousness has been programed outwardly that tolerance is the existential pillar on which our national identity rests. We are Malaysians; therefore, we are tolerant because we have many races living together in harmony and unity. However, it is easier said than done because of many reasons.
Sometimes, there are citizens who are honest in the way they express their opinions because they have a heart that cares. In such a situation, if they are sincere in their opinions which show sensitivity for the collective good of the nation, such honesty is not bigotry or racism. When a Malaysian is concerned about his own way of living, this concern is not racism.
In reality, tension is inherent in all societies. But this tension has increased dramatically in our country because of dissatisfaction arising from political and social problems confronting the citizens, some of whose views conflict with those of the majority of the society. What we need is toleration and tolerance.
The First Islamic Civil War, also called The First Fitna, was fought from 656 to 661 soon after the assassination of Usman, the Third Caliph after the death of Prophet Muhammad. A few battles were fought during this civil war that included the Battle of the Camel, the Battle of Siffin, the Battle of Nahrwan, etc.
The ‘Mother of all Battles’ was probably the Battle of Karbala on 10th October 680 that sealed the split between the Muslims for good when Hussein, Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, (plus his entire family), was massacre. Until today the followers of Ali and the opponents of Ali have remained split and the tragedy of Karbala is celebrated every year in Iran with bloodletting on the streets.
What is religion? Religion is a system of domination and control. Theology does not make sense. History does.
What was Jesus Christ’s mission? Did Jesus introduce a new religion? Did Jesus tell his disciples, “God sent me to you so that I can introduce a new religion to humankind called Christianity”?
Jesus Christ’s mission was to break down the system of priests and temples, the religious hierarchy, which was a political system. Jesus wanted to end the domination and control that the system had over the people. The religious system was created to control the people. And Jesus wanted to end this control and give power back to the people. Before that power was in the hands of the system.
Hence Jesus Christ was merely a leader of a reform movement, a political movement of that time. And that was why they turned on him. Jesus was a threat to the political system of priests and temples.
Then, 325 years later, the system took back this power and what by then was identified as Christianity again dominated and controlled the people through the creation of a doctrine. And those who resisted were put to death so that eventually only those who embraced the doctrine remained.
BLIND FAITH: Seeing the Unseen
Say, you tell me what I should believe and, say, I follow what you tell me and, say, you are wrong and hence I end up believing in the wrong thing. Would I then be free of blame and would I escape punishment or would I still face punishment anyway?
According to the Quran, if we follow the wrong teachings of our ancestors we cannot later claim that we were taught the wrong things and hence this is not our fault and therefore we should not be punished. The Quran says we will still be punished in spite of the fact that someone taught us these wrong teachings and it is not our fault since we were misguided.
In short, even if it is not our fault that we followed the wrong teachings and the fault lies with the person who taught us the wrong teachings, we are still going to face punishment because we should not have blindly followed what people tell us. Hence we must be very careful about what others teach us because they may be wrong and we will end up being punished for this.
Those who have a religion always think that they are right and all others are wrong. And they will force us to comply with their beliefs and would condemn us if our beliefs happen to be opposite to theirs. And if we refuse to follow what they think is right they will say we are challenging Islam, insulting Islam, and whatnot.
If I am gay, will I be assured of going to hell? If I am straight as an arrow, will I be guaranteed of going to heaven? If I am not gay but am straight as an arrow but I screw around with many women will I be going to heaven? If I am not gay but am straight as an arrow but I take bribes will I be going to heaven? If I am not gay but am straight as an arrow but I cheat in the general elections will I be going to heaven? If I am not gay but am straight as an arrow but I murder people and beat up detainees in the police station will I be going to heaven? If I am not gay but am straight as an arrow but I rig trials and fabricate evidence will I be going to heaven?