Why is disbelief condemned in a central way in Quran.

[Link]

Salam

Great post @BrightShadow

Another aspect of condemnation is when we see the feature of Abu Lahab.

Abu Lahab is not one particular person although during that time, it was an uncle of Mohammad (S).

It refers to Gog who is particularly possessed and has the close companion to be Iblis himself.

Magog are followers of Gog and are mostly if not all, sorcerers.

The wife of Abu Lahab is the lady in red alluded to but I don't want to go too much into conspiracy, demonology, Valkyries, and the role the wife of Abu Lahab plays.

Suffice to say, Surah Abu Lahab is saying he is the father of the flame, and Satan is controlling him. His wife is the carrier of the wood. What does this mean?

It means Satan rules disbelievers, whether they realize it or not, but this is not just through hidden magic, though this plays a huge part.

There is a whole hidden army, in which Abu Lahab and his wife, control.

To be ruled by Gog and Magog and not recognize your foes, and to fight the truthful and deem them as evil.

This is another feature of disbelief. Disbelievers are taking side of the mischief havoc oppressing murdering leaders all the time per Quran.

So aside from shirk (associating with God) and disbelief, being injustice to God, the harms is such that oppressed and believers suffer greatly from disbelievers.

This is true today as well.

The paradigm is that without recognizing God's proof for the truthful, a person is overwhelmed and follows evil leaders that oppress and cause havoc in the land.

And all this all controlled all by two people who are close to Satan and are sorcerers.

So the chapter Abu Lahab is an expression of the fight between disbelief and belief.

The name of God (Samuel means that) vs the father of flame and his wife.

We pray that God cuts off the hands of Abu Lahab through the name of God and put's eventually an end to all Pharaohs.

 

[Ella S.]

If we assume that the Quran is right, of course we will conclude that the Quran is right.

 

[Link]

If we assume that the Quran is right, of course we will conclude that the Quran is right.

This contention was predicted in first post:

Of course someone can say if you assume disbelief in the paradigm of Quran, then there is no argument to be made. So, the exception is disbelief and how it's condemned. This is not to be assumed to be true, but debated.

 

[Ella S.]

This contention was predicted in first post:

Of course someone can say if you assume disbelief in the paradigm of Quran, then there is no argument to be made. So, the exception is disbelief and how it's condemned. This is not to be assumed to be true, but debated.

I am not sure how one can "assume disbelief." You can assume belief in a negative claim, such as "the Quran is wrong," but you can't assume disbelief in a claim like "the Quran is right."

Disbelief in a claim is not an assumption. Beliefs themselves have to be justified before adopting them, so disbelief is the default. Again, disbelief is different from believing in the opposite of a statement.

I would also say that one need not assume that the Quran is accurate. This is a claim that can be argued for using logic. All of those arguments that I have heard are ones that I think operate off of false or incomplete information, though, and so they have not convinced me.

I do have a positive belief that the Quran is wrong on top of my disbelief that the Quran is right, but I haven't arrived at that conclusion through assumption. I arrived at it through the same logical methodology that many people come to a belief in the Quran.

 

[Valjean]

I don't like mixing topics.

Proof for God is it's own topic.
Proof for Prophets and Messengers it's own topic.
Proof for Mohammad (s) and Quran it's own topic.
Proof for hell it's own topic.
Proof for why Quran centralizes on condemning disbelief it's own topic.

The OP cannot be adequately addressed without reference to these topics. The whole Muslim religion presupposes the truth of these assertions.

As for the last, you have to assume somethings to be true for sake of argument either way, and then see if it's reasonable.

Not quite. The logical approach would be to withhold belief, until evidence is seen, and then assess the evidence.

It's a specific premise in a particular paradigm. You have to understand that paradigm to understand why it centralizes on disbelief condemnation. Sure you can dispute that paradigm or any feature of it, but that requires it's topic and own set of arguments for and against.

It's a universal problem with lots of state religions -- political enforcement of a unifying and controlling cultural narrative.

This is sort of like math. You don't try to understand addition all over again, when dealing with multiplication and division. It has to be understood to be true. Then you can understand multiplication after.

And then later more math, and more math, building on top.

Exactly. The whole topic hinges on evidence supporting the five not-so-independent topics you mentioned above.

The issue of why disbelief is so centralized is built on a lot. Of course, some people might read the Quran and be put off by how it addresses disbelief. But to understand why it does, I'm not asking you to believe in it's paradigm, just understand why with that paradigm, disbelief is so condemned.

The more fantastical and unevidenced the myth, the more vigorously it must be enforced. A house built on sand will not withstand an assault.

This is a simple concept - you deal with each subject where it is at. Not go back to the things it's built upon.

But you just said you "have to understand the paradigm."
You can't ignore the foundations. A religion built on an imaginary foundation will not withstand scrutiny, so unquestioning faith must be rigorously enforced for it to stand.

This is why disbelief is condemned in a central way in Quran -- or the Torah or Bible, for that matter.

 

[Valjean]

I am not sure how one can "assume disbelief." You can assume belief in a negative claim, such as "the Quran is wrong," but you can't assume disbelief in a claim like "the Quran is right."

Disbelief in a claim is not an assumption. Beliefs themselves have to be justified before adopting them, so disbelief is the default. Again, disbelief is different from believing in the opposite of a statement.

I would also say that one need not assume that the Quran is accurate. This is a claim that can be argued for using logic. All of those arguments that I have heard are ones that I think operate off of false or incomplete information, though, and so they have not convinced me.

I do have a positive belief that the Quran is wrong on top of my disbelief that the Quran is right, but I haven't arrived at that conclusion through assumption. I arrived at it through the same logical methodology that many people come to a belief in the Quran.

Disbelief is the logical, epistemic default. You don't assume all things true till contrary evidence is adduced.
Reasonably, you assume nothing -- until you see actual evidence.

 

[Ella S.]

Disbelief is the logical, epistemic default. You don't assume all things true till contrary evidence is adduced.
Reasonably, you assume nothing -- until you see actual evidence.

I thought "assumption" was a colloquial term for "proof by assertion," which is an informal fallacy.

By that understanding, assumptions are always unreasonable, but you don't have to make them to affirm the truth of a claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However a notable verse is disbelievers don't want God to perfect his light towards humanity. They hate the idea of God's light being manifested to humanity in a perfect manner. They rather try to advance the falsehood against it out of intention that the truth does not manifest.

I'm a disbeliever and I have no clue what you are on about here.
I can't identify with that statement at all.

Now no one in the world including Iblis himself, is going to tell themselves they hate the truth and light of God and are envying God's grace on his chosen and hate goodness and it's beauty.

So the Quran often is talking about the hidden intentions of disbelievers, intentions hidden to themselves, but also, if truthful, they will see it to be true.

Now if there is no light of God and there is no battle between good and evil regarding it, this feature of condemnation does not make sense. But again, I'm asking for the purpose of this thread, to suspend disbelief and assume the paradigm of the Quran is correct.

"suspend disbelief"?

I don't know how to do that.
Can you "suspend disbelief" in santa claus?

That is look at all features of the paradigm of Quran, and then, if they are true, is it rational to condemn disbelieve from the many angles.

Of course someone can say if you assume disbelief in the paradigm of Quran, then there is no argument to be made. So, the exception is disbelief and how it's condemned. This is not to be assumed to be true, but debated.

Assume all realities talked about in Quran make sense and are real (just like you do in a movie), then after collecting this paradigm, see if disbelief should be condemned and in a central way.

Obviously if Mohammad (s) is not a Prophet, then disbelieving in Quran for example can't be condemned.

I will be collecting features of reality per Quran. Then from these features, I will try to make the case why disbelief should be condemned and in a central way.

I can't follow this at all.
Yes, if you assume the quran is correct about everything, then it will be as if it is correct about everything.
Sounds like quite a useless circular tautology.

 

[Link]

The OP cannot be adequately addressed without reference to these topics. The whole Muslim religion presupposes the truth of these assertions.

This is true, which is why I'm talking about if disbelief should be condemned or not in a central way, in this paradigm.

I've made threads about each of these paradigms, and so we can assess the evidence of each in their own topic.

But this topic is particular a response to a person saying the way Quran condemns disbelief is backwards.

To assess that, we have to see why it condemns it per it's own paradigm. Of course, if there is no light, path of light, and proof for God, then disbelief condemnation does not make sense. But we can argue those things in a different topic.

 

[stevecanuck]

However a notable verse is disbelievers don't want God to perfect his light towards humanity.

Please reread the highlighted until you see the contradiction.

You're saying that disbelievers know there's a god, but that they don't want it to ....... whatever.

NO. Disbelievers don't believe there IS a god to ........ whatever. Do you really not see the difference?

 

[Link]

Please reread the highlighted until you see the contradiction.

You're saying that disbelievers know there's a god, but that they don't want it to ....... whatever.

NO. Disbelievers don't believe there IS a god to ........ whatever. Do you really not see the difference?

I know there is a difference from what disbelievers tells themselves and what their hearts conceal.

As I already explained in the post, no one including Iblis himself, will tell themselves they hate God and his light and envy his chosen and don't want to accept his favor out of arrogance and envy and pride.

No one tells themselves this. In fact, realizing that you wish to extinguish God's light means you probably repenting and accept Islam at that point.

Also most disbelievers trick themselves they acknowledge God's existence but create God per their passions and not acknowledge his identity and they do their best to extinguish God's light.

 

[stevecanuck]

I know there is a difference from what disbelievers tells themselves and what their hearts conceal.

As I already explained in the post, no one including Iblis himself, will tell themselves they hate God and his light and envy his chosen and don't want to accept his favor out of arrogance and envy and pride.

No one tells themselves this. In fact, realizing that you wish to extinguish God's light means you probably repenting and accept Islam at that point.

Also most disbelievers trick themselves they acknowledge God's existence but create God per their passions and not acknowledge his identity and they do their best to extinguish God's light.

You really don't get it. You keep mentioning 'god' as though such a thing exists. I don't think you're capable of understanding that people such as me simply don't think he/she/it exists.

 

[Link]

You really don't get it. You keep mentioning 'god' as though such a thing exists. I don't think you're capable of understanding that people such as me simply don't think he/she/it exists.

This would be true if God and his proof is not a reality. However, as I said in the OP, we are not disputing whether or not God exists, but from the paradigm that he and his proof exists.

 

[Valjean]

This would be true if God and his proof is not a reality. However, as I said in the OP, we are not disputing whether or not God exists, but from the paradigm that he and his proof exists.

Your whole 'paradigm' rests on the axiomatic existence of God.
Until you provide some evidence for this premise, you can't even begin to argue in favor of this paradigm, or for any system of beliefs or values based on it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd rather have God dictate the discourse and rely on his guidance, then, on a bunch of ignorant humans, trying to control how we think.

Trouble is, there are people with better discernment than the Allah found in the Qur'an. Many, many people.