Looking for some insights from the muslim community in this platform.
My husband is planning to do his ihtida next year. He's not asking me to do it but I think it's weird to have different religions in the house. I asked him about our kids and he said the kids can follow whatever they want. My husband's family on his dad side is muslim while his mom is a christian. I do not wish to be a muslim but would it be better for me to also convert to Islam?
NO.
Do not convert to Islam!
That's just what you need - to become a second-class citizen subservient to men and, when they get pissed-off at you, beheaded, just like these people...
TITLE: Nagi had previous arrest for threatening his daughter
SUBTITLE: The man accused of promoting and trying to join ISIL was previously arrested for threatening to behead his daughter
www.wgrz.com/.../71-313674016
TITLE: Upstate Man Charged With Beheading His Estranged Wife
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/nyregion/18behead.html
Yep, really fine people. Ask those who died on 9/11 about them.
@Chayce this a person who obviously knows nothing about islam.
I don't need to. I've been living in a muslim country for a long time.
@Chayce
Your comment is called "Whataboutism". It's irrelevant to an argument.
In court, "whataboutism" is thrown out.
A lawyer would say "I object! Relevance."
The judge would then say "Sustained" and the comment from the other lawyer who used "whataboutism" is then not taken into evidence and/or stricken from the record.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whataboutism
www.csmonitor.com/.../When-politicians-resort-to-whataboutism
Well done Master!
Really? 😐
You can't blame Islam for individual actions, we have black ships in every community. Do you think it's fine to blame Christianity because Hitler insunerated 6 million jews or Cruseders killed millions! Can we blame Christianity for that? The answer is No.
@Chayce to be honest, even myself as an American, those people who stole the native Americans land murdered them, broke the 6th commandment. Christians don't do that. Ironically 2 things in Christianity, those same native Americans watched beavers rest on the 7th day of the week, so they did the same, but the quakers didn't. Murdered them on THANKS GIVING... yeah, you people reading this heard me right. Those people didn't worship a 7th day sabbath, murdered, coveted, and stole land, breaking at least 4 of God's 10 commandments.
if i were muslim i would encourage you to convert like him but if you don't want to then you are right about parents. which school will they attend? i recommended to separate live separately but as partners before divorce.
Opinion
9Opinion
Being a Muslim, I will be hsiif you accept Islam with your husband, but if you choose not to, it's up to you. I would ask you to read the Holy Quran with it's meaning and understanding and you can decide of your own, and who is better than the creator as best guide/advisor , if that is what you are looking for.
See I don't believe in hypocrisy, Two faiths can't be true at the same time. Because each other's fundamental principles CONTRADICTS. Either your one is better or your husband's. Why not you find out which one is the better and shift to that vice versa. If something is better or best for me than my current whatever it is, Being a sane person I want that for myself.
To know more about Islam, just you can visit local mosque or muslim community center. Don't just go to Mr. Google. If you want to know the insights sincearly, read the scriptures. And ask one True god to show you the truth. That's it.
If you don’t want to be a Muslim, then do not convert to Islam. I feel like at the very least, a requirement to changing your entire lifestyle and belief system requires you to have the desire to change your entire lifestyle and belief system.
Christianity is a lie. How many times has the Bible been re-written & edited? If even a period is in the wrong space in a Quran it’s deemed obsolete. Islam is actually a very peaceful religion. You just have extremists like every religion, but the west sees Islam as “the terrorist religion”
to chayce, content edited, to equate copies with existing texts, not to CHANGE content.
even quran said book of hesus is good and light. if assume muhamed prophet then prophecy bible wouldn't get corrupt just good light.
You mean he's reverting back to Islam. He was a Muslim, but lapsed in his faith.
As for you, support him, as you've clearly seen enough in him to marry and have kids. He'll keep you happier, if anything.
He never considered him a muslim nor a christian. As a kid he used to go to church with his mom, his kid also goes to church with his mom now.
How much have you researched religion?
Let him follow his path first. Then see where it goes.
Whether you want to convert is YOUR decision. But you need to think logically rather than emotionally.
If you have further questions or need any help with the situation, please feel free to DM me.
How can that even happen though? Islam contradicts the word of God, the end. Your church must never talk about the truth of things. 🤷🏻♂️
excuse my ignorance but what exactly changes in your life if he converts to muslim?
Nothing changes I just find it odd for the kids to have parents from different religions.
well if nothing changes, then it does not at all matter.
Get him a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins as soon as possible.
Thank you for the recommendation but that's not going to change anything. We believe in what we believe.
Whatever.
@imran_ I have read the English trandlstion of the Quran. Not convinced to put it lightly lol
To your question, it is a bit of a misguided question because you are implying that I believe or somehow know that there is no God or higher power. My position on that matter is important for context, so here it is: I do not believe there is one. Which is not the same as believing there isn't. This is not a belief but rather a disbelief. Hopefully that is clear because many people can't get their head around that. Why don't I believe? Because there is no adequate reason to, such as reliable and verifiable evidence.
Do I think I was created by nothing? No, I am the product of a long line of biological reproduction. That is an irrefutable fact. I did not create myself and similarly did not create the universe.
So you have your answer.
@imran_ Nothing less than an actual demonstration of magic which cannot be an illusion. Without that, nature is still all we know.
And this demonstration cannot be someone's personal testimony. It cannot be an apocryphal tale or alleged prophecy. It must be there for all to witness. Scientists have to be able to rule out that it could be a result of natural cause and the higher power itself must unambiguously make itself known to be doing it and show that it can repetitively do this.
@imran_ personal testimonial evidence isn't used to ascertain facts avout nature. No well known scientific theory involves that. The use of the words historical and circumstantial can be misleading.
Only verifiable and reliable evidence is used to reach scientific theories. And remember a theory in science doesn't mean the same as the word theory in common usage. It is closer to the common usage of the word fact. For example, the theory of evolution wasn't always a theory. It was originally a hypothesis but it held up to falsifiability time and again and worked to make discovered predictions and has led to many scientific breaks through. Therefore it is upheld as a scientific theory.
As far as magic goes, no such evidence has ever been discovered. Thats why we don't accept things like religious narrative to be accurate descriptions of occurrences in the natural world. And moreso because we have found that nature does not match the discriptions from scripture. We also know that humanity had not yet reached the academic heights of today when such ancient religious scripture was penned and there is nothing in the scriptures of any religion including Islam which demonstrated any later understanding of science than the time it was penned.
There are scientific theories that rely on a combination of testimonial, circumstantial, historic, and other forms of evidence to reach conclusive outcomes, for instance,
Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection:
- Testimonial Evidence: Charles Darwin's extensive observations and writings, as well as the work of other naturalists, provided testimonial evidence of species variation and adaptation.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Fossil records and the geographical distribution of species offered circumstantial evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
- Historic Evidence: Historical records and writings from scientists who contributed to the development of evolutionary theory, such as Alfred Russel Wallace, provide historic evidence of its formulation.
Plate Tectonics Theory:
- Testimonial Evidence: Observations and accounts of earthquakes, volcanic activity, and the movement of continents provided testimonial evidence for plate tectonics.
- Circumstantial Evidence: Geological features like mountain ranges, oceanic trenches, and the alignment of earthquake zones serve as circumstantial evidence supporting the movement of tectonic plates.
- Historic Evidence: Historic records of seismic events and early geological studies contribute to the historical evidence for plate tectonics.
You can see the same with germ theory of disease, Big bang theory and so on. These examples demonstrate how a combination of testimonial, circumstantial, historic, and other types of evidence can contribute to the development and acceptance of scientific theories.
Your stance on only accepting specific kinds of evidence, particularly evidence that is positively indicative of, and exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis, is a very stringent criterion. While it may sound rational, there are several criticisms and challenges associated with this approach: It excludes other forms of evidence, such as testimonial, historical, or circumstantial evidence. This limits the scope of what can be considered valid.
Many real-world problems and questions are complex and multifaceted. Insisting on evidence that exclusively supports one hypothesis can be impractical when dealing with issues that have multiple contributing factors or where complete certainty is difficult to achieve.
Relying solely on evidence that exclusively supports a single hypothesis can lead to false negatives. In other words, it may dismiss valid explanations or hypotheses simply because they don't meet the strict criteria, potentially causing missed opportunities for discovery.
There are many other many other challenges associated with such a stance, such as lack of consideration for probability, confirmation bias, inflexibility in scientific inquiry and so on.
So while seeking strong, exclusive evidence is essential in scientific inquiry, it's crucial to recognize the limitations of this approach, especially in complex and dynamic situations. Scientific inquiry often involves a combination of empirical, testimonial, and circumstantial evidence, along with probabilistic reasoning, to arrive at the most reasonable and well-supported conclusions.
Do you agree with me so far?
@imran_ do I agree with you so far? No because you have entirely missed the point that what you think was personal testimony was actually scientific observation and has since been backed up by large volumes of reliable evidence.
There is a reason why we don't accept personal testimony, purely circumstantial and historical accounts as evidence when attempting to ascertain facts about nature. That reason is it is unreliable.
@imran_ There is a big difference between having an idea and then setting out to see if it is true by observing nature and doing experiments and simply being told an apocryphal myth and just blindly accepting that to be reality.
And you're the one who is making accusations of confirmation bias. Unbelievable.
As per your criterion of evidence, do you think science is certain about the origin of life and the universe?
As a truth seeker, do you follow this stringent criterion of evidence only for scientific theories or you follow the same criterion in your day to day life as well?
If you don't believe in testimonial evidence or other types of evidence, why are you making exceptions while expressing your own self?
@imran_ Science has no opinions or certainties. It is a tool used by people. It is the people who have the opinions based on what they can learn with science.
We currently do not know the origins of life or the universe. We have a good idea about life as we now know how to generate organic protocells from inorganic material and we think it occurred that way in nature, we just don't know if it happened exactly the way we have discovered. The universe is a much harder problem. We seem to think the universe is expanding and thats why where we got the idea of there being a singularity in the past and then a period of inflation. But whether that really happened or not isn't an absolute certainty. The idea of science is we may always question everything. When new discoveries are made, it often conflicts with previously established theories. Not always ruling them out completely but often updating their accuracy.
When I go about day to day life, I don't apply the strict criterion of scientific scrutiny because that would be impracticable and I am not trying to establish facts about the fundamentals of nature. False equivalence fallacy.
@imran_ You are correct that I don't know the origin of life or the universe. Nobody knows that for sure. But you are wrong that I am not constant in my criterion in that I only accept the scientific method to ascertain facts about nature. I now need to reiterate because you have overlooked my previous point: it is simply a false equivalence fallacy to expect one to scrutinise day to day life the same way one should scrutinize claims of fact about nature. For example, nobody gets served their food at a restaurant and sets about testing every molecule to determine if it is really chicken. One doesn't get out a multimeter and start doing algebra to make sure the correct voltage and current is flowing in the household wiring before they flick a light switch. The chances that one might be given fake chicken or be running an anomalous value in electrical wiring are too low to be worth giving a second thought. It would be an impractical way to live. Things which are not claims about the facts of nature can be taken at face value.
Do I believe metaphysical things exist? No. I have no good reason to believe that.
That's the double standard, everything in the physical world is subject to doubt whether they are truth or false. As a truth seeker why do you take chance without being certain about the truth? And if you accept speculative concepts, that would be hypocrisy, because somehow you don't want to accept some concepts because they lack evidence, whereas you have your food without being certain in your day to day life, and all are happening in the physical world. I totally agree with you that it's impractical and non sense to look for stringent criterion of evidence for certainity for everything but I am adressing your double standard here. If everything is happening in the physical world why don't you apply the same stringent criterion for everything?
How do you reconcile, In criminal trials, relying solely on direct empirical evidence (e. g., DNA evidence, fingerprints), can result in a miscarriage of justice.
Or In healthcare, if a physician insists on accepting only empirical test results without considering the patient's medical history or subjective symptoms, they may miss crucial information that could lead to an incorrect diagnosis. This can result in misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatments.
Or
When formulating economic policies, relying solely on quantitative data (e. g., GDP growth, inflation rates) without considering qualitative data (e. g., socioeconomic factors, public sentiment) can lead to policies that are disconnected from the lived experiences of the population.
So all these are physical examples, involves natural things, how do you reach to the truth only with stringent criterion of evidence?
You are basically saying you don't believe, love, pain, happiness, lust, consciousness, justice and they don't exist?
@imran_ Ok so I have addressed most of this already by pointing out that you are committing a false equivalence fallacy. Accepting day to day things which are not blind faith claims about facts of nature at face value is not a double standard. Let's leave that subject there because you are beginning to look stupid by continuing to run with that point. Only an idiot would think that is a good argument or anyone taking this normal way of reasoning is a hypocrite. Ok? Good.
Next: what else do you have... criminal trials? Not relevant. Criminal trials are unrelated to fundamental facts about nature and personal testimony is allowed in many of these based on witness integrity by intense character assessment.
Medical history is not the same as ancient history. Another false equivalence fallacy, dismissed.
Economics is another separate topic, dismissed.
You: "You are basically saying you don't believe, love, pain, happiness, lust, consciousness, justice and they don't exist?"
No I am not "basically saying" any of that. Strawman argument.
Besides, it can't be confirmed that things like love and consciousness are metaphysical as these are best understood to be physical processes. Justice is more of an imaginary concept and only exists if one agrees it does. Again, imagination is a physical process.
You failed to understand that theology is yet another separate topic.
You can't use science to validate the existence of God the same way you would use to validate scientific phenomenon.
Just like you can't use science to validate economic theories.
Yet you are looking for scientific validation for the existence of God?
The existence of God is inferred. Everything we see is dependent on something. You are dependent, you were caused to exist through your parents, and then through their parents... Going further back, the earth was part of the sun, which was all from the singularity, which was caused by what?
At the beginning of the chain, there should be something the existence of which was independent. It can't go on and on back into the past infinitely. That's logically impossible, whereas accepting the existence of something independent at first is more acceptable of the two.
If that independent, absolute entity is God, and the idea of a divinity is all pervasive across all nations and tribes and races, this increases the odds of it (existence of a necessary and independent being) being true.
Now, suppose it is true, then it is acceptable to assume that such a being has infinite power and wisdom, and created all these complex life forms, including human beings - a creature with self awareness, and ability to almost rule over other creatures and even other human beings (humans have done wonderful things, despite not being the largest of creatures on the planet).
Then it is conceivable that such an independent being might have given instructions for humans, as that is the claim since ancient times by all the various tribes across the planet.
Then it is only expected of a truth seeker to explore this along these lines. If such a powerful creator has given instructions, probably those instructions are valuable and reasonably accessible to the audience.
So the main candidates for the instructions are the Bible and the Qur'an, having the largest of followings.
So, analyze in detail the claims of these books. Bible promotes the idea that the God is 3, and one of these 3 have imperfect knowledge, etc. So, Bible fails to meet the criteria for talking about the necessary being.
Then the Qur'an. It says God is one. It has verses to appeal to the understanding of the people of all times. Being the best Arabic literature, it appeals to the time period it was first revealed in, when Arabic literature was at its height.
Then it talks of various things which has been proven subsequently by modern science. Like, all living things from water; like the layers of oceans... Even saying God can reconstruct, not only just the people that died, but in perfect form THE VERY TIPS OF THEIR FINGERS.
It talks about embryologic development - those verses were presented to the Dr. Keith Moore, the then HOD of Anatomy in Toronto University. One of that is when the Qur'an says the word "alaqa" about a stage of embryologic development, which means "leech-like substance". Dr. Keith Moore did not know this. He then observed a developing embryo and found this to be the case - not only in the shape, but even in the way it functions, by sucking nutrients from the mother, similar to how leeches suck blood from us.
Dr. Keith Moore added this newly discovered fact into the 3rd edition of his book "The Developing Human" - and gave credit for it to the Qur'an, and the he received the award for the best medical book by a single author.
So on and so forth, there are multiple scientists from various fields who accepted the message because the Qur'an described something about their area of expertise accurately. These scientists give testimony.
The scholars of Arabic language give testimony that this is the best Arabic literature.
And the person who taught us the Qur'an - he was of noble character, and was never known to have lied even before he started teaching religion. So, his character testifies that this must be the truth.
Just like economics or other subjects have their own criteria for evidences, these are the criteria for theology; and it keeps on appealing to us based on references from various other subjects; including history.
For example, during the time of Prophet Joseph who was a Prophet in Egypt, while the Bible calls the ruler of Egypt at the time as "Pharaoh", the Qur'an calls the ruler of Egypt at the time as "king", and this we come to see now that the dynasty of the pharaohs had not started at the time. Bible calls all rulers of Egypt - be it at the time of Joseph or Moses as Pharaoh, but Qur'an makes the accurate term by saying Pharaoh at the time of Moses, and King at the time of Joseph, accurate as per history.
I can keep on giving such examples.
@imran_ How much time do you think I have?
I'm not reading through that. That is what is colloquially refered to as a Gish gallop. Too much shit to possibly respond to.
I did see at the end there that you think Muhammad of the Quran never lied and was some kind of perfect person. Have you been living under a rock? The guy was deplorable.
Intersubjective does not mean objective or universal. It is just commonly shared by some people. We do not share yours, definitely.
In his book Histoire de la Turquie (1854), Alphonse de Lamartine writes: "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad?"
@OfDeath
Theology is yet another separate topic.
As you can't use science to validate the existence of God the same way you would use to validate scientific phenomenon.
Just like you can't use science to validate economic theories.
Yet you are looking for scientific validation for the existence of God?
@imran_ If that's are the criteria, then Muhammad doesn't meet it. I'm not saying he wasn't smart, he had to be in order to learn all the crap he claimed to be revelation. All thought to be factual at that time and a lot of it turning out to be false with the advancement of the scientific method. But the guy came from the dominant tribe of his region and married a rich woman. He had all the money and influence he needed to do what he did. Smallest of means my arse.
So it is now clear that you actually know nothing about this guy you admire so much.
And by the way, I don't care much for theology. Theology is not science and it isn't even real history.
Besides, you can't use theology to validate god because that is a self authentication fallacy.
If god exists, the scientific method is the only valid means we have of discovering it and so far it has not been discovered so there is no reason to believe it.
You could try philosophy, but that has huge problems for god as it only ends up revealing that which is required for gods existence obviates god.
Please leave me out of whatever else detritus you wish to pile on. I am an atheist, I know enough about Islam to recognize it is a pernicious cult and I despise it as much as all other religions. I am a man of reason, rationality and truth derived by those means alone.
2 + 2 is 4.
Convert to a false blood cult and that treats your gender like 💩?
Good idea. 👌
Yeah the covering of women causes vitamin D deficiency and therefore hundreds of diseases including cancer.
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
