-
Do We Need The Quran To Believe In God?
Is this affirmative?
-
21 Replies
-
Do We Need The Quran To Believe In God?
updated 4 years, 1 month ago
7 Members
·
21
Replies
-
hame nahi pata aapko hindi ya urdu aati hai ya nahi lakin hame english zyaada nahi aati,aap ke sawaal ka jawaab hame ye samajh aata hai ke quraan ki zaroorat yaad dihaaani ke liye hai,aap aapne rab ko kaise pehchanenge uski qualities kya hai,khuda ko to sab he mante hai alag alag tarha se,aapne suna hoga marta hua insaan naastik nahi hota,atheists.
-
Lekin humein kya upni fitrat se yeh sirf ‘ehsaas’ milta hai ke Khuda hona ’chahiye’ hai, aur phir Quran is ehsaas ki eik qatai daleel ban jati hai- ke yeh fitrat bhi eik qatai daleel ban sak ti hai?
-
-
mere khayaal me fitrat baht badi daleel hai agar ham ghour kare to,aaj ke waqt me ham fitrat se door hate jarahe hai , kuch achcha kaam karne per khushi kyun milti hai, aap ne khayaal kiya,agar milti hai to ye vahi jazba hai jo khuda se rakha hai.
-
No you don’t you can belive, but to find out who He is and what is your relation to Him prophets are sent and since no prophet will come anymore you have substitute in form of Quran that will guide till the end of time as prophet would’ve from getting to know him to what is required.
-
Yes one can believe in one GOD without Quran , as Quran itself says that people when think about the creation of heavens and the earth they came to the conclusion that all of this is not without a purpose and has a creator
-
But those who do not , then GOD sends his book and messengers to explain them the truth , so that in the day of judgment they would not say that we were unaware and did not got any message from you.
-
We don’t need the Quran to believe in God. The concept of God is ancient. We need The Quran to believe in the real God.
-
I think we need Quran to know Allah better and to know what he wants from us. We have example of people of Kahf, they did not get any Devine knowledge but they follow their fitrah. And Quran is Also Hujjat for us.
-
We have a-priori knowledge in our fitrah about our Creator. Also through empirical evidence that everything in this universe seems to be created, we hypothesize that there must be a Creator.
Once we have established this much, then our investigation must begin in order to find out who that Creator is and what does He want from us. This inevitably leads us to prophets who claim to be sent to earth with divine communication for the inhabitants of the earth.
When we investigate this further and find evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that prophets are in fact representatives of the Creator then our attention naturally shifts to their message which we can find in the scripture.
The scripture then provides us with undeniable evidence that our hypothesis about a Creator was in fact accurate. It further explains the scheme of the Creator, why He sent us to this tiny planet, and tells us how to succeed in this scheme and achieve an ultimate kingdom that awaits us on the other side of this life.
Our conclusion about the Creator and His scheme is in turn validated by the a-priori knowledge within our fitrah, and this completes the entire loop with unquestionable knowledge that we call faith or belief.
-
But to come to tawheed through just our fitrah would take a lot longer- that’s why God sent scriptures right
-
No. There’s nothing in the fitrah or any empirical evidence that there could be multiple creators. The idea of multiple creators is purely intellectual, and all intellectual ideas without any evidence are referred to as fiction.
-
So this is kind of where I’m stuck in the whole fitrah conversation. Why is God (tawheed) not a purely intellectual endeavour too without scripture acting as evidence? I mean I understand it comes from within our psyche perfectly but how does that serve as an academic evidence?
-
I’m not sure what’s unclear. Not everything that we can imagine is true.
If we start peeling the onion – so to speak – about any definitive knowledge we have, we find that the innermost layer is always the a-prori knowledge inherent in every human being. This is true for any knowledge, including science and logic.
-
Why is God being one a fact simply because my nature accepts it perfectly? Why are things that my nature doesn’t accept per se, or that don’t find fundamental foundations in my nature different?
God is definitely a part of my nature. And there is no real need or argument in my psyche for any other concept than one God.
But how does this affect the reality. Isn’t it just me believing in something that my nature allows? How is it an academic proposition. To prove it don’t we have to bring scripture. Otherwise it is (academically) the same as shirk. It is an aqli imkaan until there is evidence.
-
One Creator is not what your nature “allows”. The a-priori knowledge in your nature tells you that there is only one Creator. Then you take this as a hypothesis and go through the steps I laid out above to conclude that your hypothesis is accurate. This is exactly the same process that you use to establish any other fact. Shirk or polytheism, on the other hand, is just a conjecture without any evidence.
-
‘Once we have established this much, then our investigation must begin in order to find out who that Creator is and what does He want from us. This inevitably leads us to prophets who claim to be sent to earth with divine communication for the inhabitants of the earth.
When we investigate this further and find evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that prophets are in fact representatives of the Creator then our attention naturally shifts to their message which we can find in the scripture.’
And this is a necessary step in proving the claim that comes from your a priori knowledge. Which means we do need scripture and prophets to come to God
-
These are all natural steps. If you want to know who God is or what He wants from us, you would naturally want to investigate the claim of those who tell you that they have been appointed by God.
Once established on the basis of evidence that the claim of prophets is true, then again the natural thing is to read the scripture that they gave us.
Of course we need the scripture and the prophets in order to conclusively establish God, but the evidence of God is a-priori as well as empirical.
-
If we consult the Farahi theory of knowledge (as far as I have)- wouldn’t the sequence be:
A-priori generated an aqli imkaan of God.
The evidence to support this is scriptures and prophets
Without this evidence God would also be a fiction
-
Yes, aqali imkan = hypothesis, as I stated above.
-
Any aqali imkan without evidence is fiction, also as stated above.
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
