Islam

[linz]

I started studying Islam a while back, it has made me very please and interested in history and justice. In the initial stages of the Religion, Muhammad was concerned with the injustice to the poor and that the tribes of Arabia were drifting from their original righteous doctrines. Muhammad was concerned that the Christian and the Hebrews had received a true revelation of an Almighty Creator, where the Arabian Tribes had not yet received an ultimate revelation. Muhammad would go to a mountain to pray and fast, and it is here, through great pains that the words of the Islamic Revelation occurred from the angel Gabriel. It is important to emphasize that Muhammad believed Allah was to the Islamic Quran as Christ to Christianity in the New Testament and The Lord to the Hebrews in the Torah. He believe that they were all revelations to each peoples of proper Monotheism. The foundation of Islam by Muhammad is more concerned with the injustice of civilization, and how Allah intended man to respect and care for each person, even the most weak and vulnerable. This is the proper frame of Islam; How Allah intended us to treat each other, and is the foundation of Islams civilization.

[Logos]

Is there a question for discussion here I'm not seeing?

[kilted exile]

I think some people may take issue with your comparison of Allah to Christ. Allah is the equivalent to God not Jesus.

[Turk]

I think some people may take issue with your comparison of Allah to Christ. Allah is the equivalent to God not Jesus.

Yes. As a Muslim i never understood Christ. I understand God, but can't understand "three is one, one is three".

[linz]

Are there different ways which become the same way? Was both Christ and Muhammad correct, as well as the Buddha? Does the path lead to an ultimate unifying forced similarly as Jung and his collective-conscience says. That is the question, I suppose?

[Turk]

Hz. Jesus, Hz. Muhammed, Hz. Moses, Hz. İbrahim are all same according to İslam. But not Christ, Jesus. As a man and a prophet of God.

[linz]

Christ is himself admittedly an enigma. "I have much more to tell you, but you couldn't bare it now." "I have spoken to you figuratively, but one day I shall speak to you plainly about the father." "You shall no the truth and the truth shall set you free." All these quotes come from after the last supper in The Gospel of John.

[Lote-Tree]

[SIZE="4"]Are there different ways which become the same way?


I think your question is this: How many paths to God?

Answer: As there are many stars in the Universe.



Was both Christ and Muhammad correct, as well as the Buddha?


Yes. Because God is a subjective Experience of the Individual.



Does the path lead to an ultimate unifying forced similarly as Jung and his collective-conscience says.

May be but you can't objectively verify a subjective experience.

So you are left with Belief.

[weepingforloman]

Yes. Because God is a subjective Experience of the Individual.

Wrong-- I have said this before and will say it again. God MUST HAVE some objective reality-- even if He is nonexistent. Someone must be at least a little bit closer to the truth. God must be real in some way-- just as I must be real in some way. Just as you must be real in some way. Just as EVERYTHING must have some fact about it-- including nonexistence.

[linz]

Wrong-- I have said this before and will say it again. God MUST HAVE some objective reality-- even if He is nonexistent. Someone must be at least a little bit closer to the truth. God must be real in some way-- just as I must be real in some way. Just as you must be real in some way. Just as EVERYTHING must have some fact about it-- including nonexistence.


I'm a little hesitant, but I agree with weepingforloman. After all, after Christ words to the seven churches, the imagery of The Almighty Lord and His Lamb, especially the imagery such as 'all nations and tongues', and 'washed their robes clean', are wholly universal in suggestion.

[Lote-Tree]

Wrong-- I have said this before and will say it again. God MUST HAVE some objective reality-- even if He is nonexistent. Someone must be at least a little bit closer to the truth. God must be real in some way-- just as I must be real in some way. Just as you must be real in some way. Just as EVERYTHING must have some fact about it-- including nonexistence.

If you trace the history of the Idea of God you will find that "God" as reality has never been experienced as Objective Reality. They have always been subjective experiences of the individual.

[Virgil]

If you trace the history of the Idea of God you will find that "God" as reality has never been experienced as Objective Reality. They have always been subjective experiences of the individual.

You mean like God giving Moses the Ten Commandments???? That doesn't sound subjective. Quite tangible. Or the Apostles meeting the ressurected Christ? How is that subjective? It sounds like it's what you choose to consider subjective.

[linz]

You mean like God giving Moses the Ten Commandments???? That doesn't sound subjective. Quite tangible. Or the Apostles meeting the ressurected Christ? How is that subjective? It sounds like it's what you choose to consider subjective.

Very Good! I would never have thought of that.

[Tuesday]

Maybe we should define what kind of God we are talking about first.

[Shield&Sword]

Mouhammed wasnt concerned why arabs didnt get massage, as Jews got one and christians one. If a person is Jews because they believe in Moses pbuh then muslims are jews, and if christians are christians because they follow Jesus pbuh then muslims are christians. islam is not religion for arabs its religion for all mankind thats why prophet Mouhammed pbuh sent massages to king of egypt who was christian and to Romans king and to persian king who was disbeliever, even at the begining of islam there were companions one was jews and one was christian and one was disbeliever.
Islam claim to be the right judasim and came to correct the ideas about Moses, same thing about jesus and his mother and about all other prophets that other books claim that they were drunk or made incest or adultery peace be upon them all, thats why a muslim is not muslim if he doesnt believe in Jesus or Moses or Noah even if he believe in Mouhammed. And most important of islam is to give the right idea and belief about God, one almighty nothing like him, he got no wife no son no father no man form no incarnation no one equal to him no stones equal to him, he always was and will be and every thing is lower than him and every thing else was created by him. If you got any one that claim these things nowadays then he is muslim.
Budha can be compared to pagans at time of Mouhammed pbub who believed in one God but they made stones and worshiped them to make them closer to God, i think same thing the far east countries believe, so no way to be compared with Mouhammed and jesus peace be upon them.
God is not subjected to man experience as Lote intend, i think in part yes, meaning that knowing God come after we look around and come to result that all this came from stupid quincedence. The idea of God doesnt not change but the way in believing change, some add the stones some add the cows and so on, but the main idea cant be canceled, for me there is one way only right and to be known we most experience and think here the claim of Lote will be right.

[Virgil]

You mean like God giving Moses the Ten Commandments???? That doesn't sound subjective. Quite tangible. Or the Apostles meeting the ressurected Christ? How is that subjective? It sounds like it's what you choose to consider subjective.

Let me add that I would have addded other examples of non-subjective experience from other religions, especially Islam, but my knowledge of Islam is poor I'm afraid and I felt uncomfortable doing so. I would prefer my post to suggest a universal answer rather than a parochial. But wasn't Mouhammed spoken to by Allah? If so, that is not subjective.

[linz]

Mouhammed wasnt concerned why arabs didnt get massage, as Jews got one and christians one. If a person is Jews because they believe in Moses pbuh then muslims are jews, and if christians are christians because they follow Jesus pbuh then muslims are christians. islam is not religion for arabs its religion for all mankind thats why prophet Mouhammed pbuh sent massages to king of egypt who was christian and to Romans king and to persian king who was disbeliever, even at the begining of islam there were companions one was jews and one was christian and one was disbeliever.
Islam claim to be the right judasim and came to correct the ideas about Moses, same thing about jesus and his mother and about all other prophets that other books claim that they were drunk or made incest or adultery peace be upon them all, thats why a muslim is not muslim if he doesnt believe in Jesus or Moses or Noah even if he believe in Mouhammed. And most important of islam is to give the right idea and belief about God, one almighty nothing like him, he got no wife no son no father no man form no incarnation no one equal to him no stones equal to him, he always was and will be and every thing is lower than him and every thing else was created by him. If you got any one that claim these things nowadays then he is muslim.
Budha can be compared to pagans at time of Mouhammed pbub who believed in one God but they made stones and worshiped them to make them closer to God, i think same thing the far east countries believe, so no way to be compared with Mouhammed and jesus peace be upon them.
God is not subjected to man experience as Lote intend, i think in part yes, meaning that knowing God come after we look around and come to result that all this came from stupid quincedence. The idea of God doesnt not change but the way in believing change, some add the stones some add the cows and so on, but the main idea cant be canceled, for me there is one way only right and to be known we most experience and think here the claim of Lote will be right.

I have a question. If I had sought righteousness during my life and thought much about the bad sides of 'Capitalism' and much also about the oppressed, would Allah eventually forgive me not having been a Muslim during 'The Reckoning'? (I stress, eventually forgive me, because I do think that God would attempt to correct men, especially just men.)

[Tuesday]

I would prefer my post to suggest a universal answer rather than a parochial. But wasn't Mouhammed spoken to by Allah? If so, that is not subjective.

I think it was the archangel Gabriel. Might have been a different occasion, though.

[Lote-Tree]

You mean like God giving Moses the Ten Commandments???? That doesn't sound subjective.
Quite tangible. Or the Apostles meeting the ressurected Christ? How is that subjective? It sounds like it's what you choose to consider subjective.

Burning Bush, Angels are not logical entities. They are subjective experiences of the individual. God speaking to Muhammad (though its the angel Gabriel according to Islamic sources) are subjective experiences.

[Virgil]

Burning Bush, Angels are not logical entities. They are subjective experiences of the individual. God speaking to Muhammad (though its the angel Gabriel according to Islamic sources) are subjective experiences.

How is that a subjective experience? In that case your existance is a subjective experience. And then everything reduces to nothing.

[Tuesday]

Burning Bush, Angels are not logical entities. They are subjective experiences of the individual. God speaking to Muhammad (though its the angel Gabriel according to Islamic sources) are subjective experiences.

But a voice inside your head is quite different from a burning bush, if only that the latter might be perceived by other people apart from yourself as well. My intuition tells me that the burning bush is objective while the message from God is subjective.

If you propose that there is no such thing as objectivity at all, this doesn't make sense, of course.

[Lote-Tree]

How is that a subjective experience? In that case your existance is a subjective experience. And then everything reduces to nothing.

No. Everything is not reduced to nothing. We have scientific method and deductive logic to asscertain objectivity.

God/Angel speaking to Muhammad is not an objective experience.

[linz]

You have both Tuesday and Lote-Tree come to a paradox; Best to quite then to reason at this stage.

[Lote-Tree]

If you propose that there is no such thing as objectivity at all, this doesn't make sense, of course.

On the contrary. Objective Reality Exists. We use the scientific method and deductive logic to ascertain objectivity.

[Tuesday]

On the contrary. Objective Reality Exists. We use the scientific method and deductive logic to ascertain objectivity.

Why do you regard a burning bush as a solely subjective experience then? I can't quite follow you here.

[Lote-Tree]

Why do you regard a burning bush as a solely subjective experience then? I can't quite follow you here.

Because angels and burning bushes, seas parting - these things are not logical things are events.

[Virgil]

No. Everything is not reduced to nothing. We have scientific method and deductive logic to asscertain objectivity.

God/Angel speaking to Muhammad is not an objective experience.

Oh don't tell me about scientific method. I'm an engineer. Much scientific method is based on observation, sensory perception such as listening to something or seeing something. It seems you would classify that as subjective. All observations in that case are subjective. People get hung based on eyewitness of a murder.


It sounds like it's what you [Lote] choose to consider subjective.

It sounds like this statement holds up more and more.

[Tuesday]

Because angels and burning bushes, seas parting - these things are not logical things are events.

So basically you're proposing that all those events -burning bushes as well as celestial voices- are not logical. Therefore, they are not likely to have happened in reality and were probably mere hallucinations by single persons?

[nomoredrama28]

Rene Descartes gives good reason to why the thought of god must be real.

[Lote-Tree]

Oh don't tell me about scientific method. I'm an engineer.


Then you should know Scientific Method and deductive logic removes subjectivity from the equation.



Much scientific method is based on observation, sensory perception such as listening to something or seeing something.


And these things has to be verifiable. That is the Scientific Method.


So basically you're proposing that all those events -burning bushes as well as celestial voices- are not logical. Therefore, they are not likely to have happened in reality and were probably mere hallucinations by single persons?

From logical point of view - yes correct. The encounter between man and divine have never been logical enounters. Angels and Burning bushes are not logical things or events. But I would not say these things are mere hallucinations. They are product of a "meditative-trance".

I would argue that "transcendence" is the key to human spirituality, and the reality that many have called "God", "Allah", "Nirvana", "Tao", "Brahman-Atman" are derived from the human experience of this "transcendence". Essence of all scripture is therefore is an interpretation in limited human language of a "transcendent" reality that lies beyond reason and language. This has also been the insight of the Great Seers, Sages, Prophets, Mystics and Meditators. And therefore "God" has never been an OBJECTIVE fact but has always been a SUBJECTIVE experience of the individual. Even Prophet Muhammad did not rise up to highest heavens for the revelations but rather he descended to the very core of his soul in a "meditative-trance" to meet his "maker". Therefore "Revelation" is an event that happens in each individual's soul and therefore every individual is capable of having an experience like the Great Seers, Sages, Prophets, Mystics and Meditators.

Can we objectively verify this Transcendental Reality? No.
Can we experience it within? Yes.

[DeathAngel]

you get off topic quick,
transcendence is the key to spirituality?
i can transcend any time i feel, and i don't think i'll reach it, it's more about your innerself and if you can maintain the spritual factor;

i think "god" is humans excuse for things to occur, miracles, all that ness ness,
for the earth's coming to life thing, and all,
it's not exactly logical, it's just one of those mysteries that we cannot prove nor disapprove,
i dunno who's expreienced god, i sure haven't lol
i disagree with the heaven and hell thing, but the good vs evil thing is in question,


(i hate the scientific method, gr)

alot of people criticize muslims jut bc of 9/11 and the war,
not fair, but what can one do...

[Lote-Tree]

you get off topic quick,
transcendence is the key to spirituality?
i can transcend any time i feel, and i don't think i'll reach it, it's more about your innerself and if you can maintain the spritual factor;

i think "god" is humans excuse for things to occur, miracles, all that ness ness,
for the earth's coming to life thing, and all,
it's not exactly logical, it's just one of those mysteries that we cannot prove nor disapprove,
i dunno who's expreienced god, i sure haven't lol
i disagree with the heaven and hell thing, but the good vs evil thing is in question,


(i hate the scientific method, gr)

alot of people criticize muslims jut bc of 9/11 and the war,
not fair, but what can one do...

Have we met before?

If not greetings and welcome.

Shalom Salaam Shantih and Peace.
Regards,
Lote

[Virgil]

Then you should know Scientific Method and deductive logic removes subjectivity from the equation.



And these things has to be verifiable. That is the Scientific Method.



You sound like someone who has learned of the scentific method in a liberal arts class. Nonetheless I understand what you are trying to say. Religious experience does not meet the scientific method (the scientific method believe it or not does not remove subjectivity as you seem to define it from the equation), but it is not subjective experience. But you are comparing apples and oranges. Science is a natural phenomena under certain rules. Who says God follows those rules and he is a being, not a law of nature. Napoleon is a being; whether Napoleon existed or not does not meet the scientic method. Like I said, whether you exist does not meet your criteria.

[Lote-Tree]

You sound like someone who has learned of the scentific method in a liberal arts class. Nonetheless I understand what you are trying to say. Religious experience does not meet the scientific method (the scientific method believe it or not does not remove subjectivity as you seem to define it from the equation), but it is not subjective experience. But you are comparing apples and oranges. Science is a natural phenomena under certain rules. Who says God follows those rules and he is a being, not a law of nature. Napoleon is a being; whether Napoleon existed or not does not meet the scientic method. Like I said, whether you exist does not meet your criteria.

Scientific Method and Deductive logic is good enough. With it we have achieved spectacular results in all branches of human knowledge.

[Nossa]

Can we objectively verify this Transcendental Reality?

I can't really understand WHY do we have to narrow faith, which is a primarily a spiritual process, into something to be proven by science?!! It's beyond me that many of the non-believers are trying to prove they're right, by suggesting that faith, whatever its religion, should be confirmed by something, that believers themselves aren't in need for. I'm a religious Muslim, do you think that I need ANY of your theories or methods to verify what I believe and feel? NO...I don't need someone, explaining to me with an equation or whatever, that God does or doesn't exsist, cuz I FEEL it. And isn't feeling one of the senses....then there you go...faith is confrimed. If someone doesn't believe in God, he doesn't need scientific methods in order to know it..and if someone believes in God..he also doesn't need a scientific method to believe it. The fact that everyone now is trying to find way to prove that other to be wrong, is the VERY reason why nobody in this world can live together.

[Lote-Tree]

I'm a religious Muslim, do you think that I need ANY of your theories or methods to verify what I believe and feel? NO...


Then what stops you from believing in the Great Elephant Tree Sky?



I don't need someone, explaining to me with an equation or whatever, that God does or doesn't exsist, cuz I FEEL it.


We feel a lot of things. Feeling does not make it True. Truth stands on it's own regardless of your feeling. Laws of gravity does not change because you hate gravity.

[Nossa]

Then what stops you from believing in the Great Elephant Tree Sky?



We feel a lot of things. Feeling does not make it True. Truth stands on it's own regardless of your feeling. Laws of gravity does not change because you hate gravity.

Define 'to feel'? If you say that feeling is love/hate thing, then this is not what I mean. I 'feel' God's exsistence cuz I can see him in many things in my life...many incidents and many happenings...the fact that you can't 'feel' it doesn't make it not true as well. It's hard for someone who doesn't believe in God to actually see what a believer sees...so if I feel it, that's good enough for me, to confirm that it's true...just like scientific methods and deduction is good enough for you...You'll never understand what I mean, cuz you don't look at it from where I stand..and I can't explain it actually...
I'm well aware that the fact that I don't like something doesn't make it unreal..but I don't think this goes for the issue of the exsistence of God..I know you'll argue that the very fact that I can't prove this feeling by science is the very reason why you don't believe...and so, I really don't know what to tell you. I'm only saying, like in the previous post, I wish people would just drop it...who believe and who don't...that's all!

[Shield&Sword]

Well i cant say that its enough to feel sorry for poor people or to know right from wrong about different theories. Feeling sorry is not the aim of life, you dont need mind to feel sorry for poor people we got mind to think and concluse, feeling sorry wont help you behaive in right way, wont make you understand life and the main idea of it, wont help you respond the answer of who and why. When we look arround we cant say that all this came by chance, the probability that one protein to come to existence is more less than the accepted value, citocrom c probability to come to existence is 0 as a biologist said. I study medicine and believe me i feel stupid to say that our body came by chance, look and neurological system, no one who respect his mind will say that quencidence created this, eventually events doesnt create a sofisticated and organized system, no scientist can affirm this or dare to say it, tahts why you will see always scientists who belive in evolution dare to talk only about macroscopic shape as evisence of evolution and they cant confirm it only theory (and i think it wont arrive to level of theory), but when it arrive to microscopy they dont use the terms of evolution they dont dare.
About being a muslim, well i cant say that its enough to behavaive good, because believing is the aim of life, when we study and discover we always ask how it came to existence, meccanism and so on, why you think our minds always ask these questions, why we always believe that there is someone who organized all this because its the aim of life, believing in God is the answer that you must arrive when you study because you will feel silly when you say casual, all casual. Then the well done system will make you have ideas about the one who made all this, he wont be like his creaters he cant be, he will be so unique as his creation is unique and well done.
I advice you to study science and believe me you wont be decieved by the advertisments that evolutionarry spread, you will see athiest scientists who admit that there are something behind matter, someone who got main hand in forming them, they must admit if they respect thier logic and thier mind.

[Bii]

I can't really understand WHY do we have to narrow faith, which is a primarily a spiritual process, into something to be proven by science?!! It's beyond me that many of the non-believers are trying to prove they're right, by suggesting that faith, whatever its religion, should be confirmed by something, that believers themselves aren't in need for. I'm a religious Muslim, do you think that I need ANY of your theories or methods to verify what I believe and feel? NO...I don't need someone, explaining to me with an equation or whatever, that God does or doesn't exsist, cuz I FEEL it. And isn't feeling one of the senses....then there you go...faith is confrimed. If someone doesn't believe in God, he doesn't need scientific methods in order to know it..and if someone believes in God..he also doesn't need a scientific method to believe it. The fact that everyone now is trying to find way to prove that other to be wrong, is the VERY reason why nobody in this world can live together.

You raise an interesting point Nossa, in that science and faith are opposing ends of the spectrum. Whilst I appreciate your comments about 'many non-believers are trying to prove they're right' you must appreciate that this is against a backdrop of hundreds of years of non-believers being persecuted. The tables seem to be turning here but that doesn't mean that it's right.

The very basis of religion is faith. Faith exists in the absence of proof - as per the dictionary definition :"belief that is not based on proof". If proof of God were to be found then it would no longer be 'faith' but rather 'knowledge' or 'understanding'. The very basis of faith is the absence of proof, and it is (as you have stated) nonsensical to demand it.

Science on the other hand is rooted in proof. Asking a scientifically minded person to believe (and scientists must have a degree of belief also - as has already been commented, even proof can be subjective) in the absence of viable proof is equally nonsensical. I say scientifically minded as opposed to scientist, as there are many scientists who hold strong religious beliefs. There are, however, a large proportion of people who believe in science and it is to these people I refer.

Is it any wonder then that these two groups can't see eye to eye? That being said wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all accept our differences and get along?

[Nossa]

You raise an interesting point Nossa, in that science and faith are opposing ends of the spectrum. Whilst I appreciate your comments about 'many non-believers are trying to prove they're right' you must appreciate that this is against a backdrop of hundreds of years of non-believers being persecuted. The tables seem to be turning here but that doesn't mean that it's right.

The very basis of religion is faith. Faith exists in the absence of proof - as per the dictionary definition :"belief that is not based on proof". If proof of God were to be found then it would no longer be 'faith' but rather 'knowledge' or 'understanding'. The very basis of faith is the absence of proof, and it is (as you have stated) nonsensical to demand it.

Science on the other hand is rooted in proof. Asking a scientifically minded person to believe (and scientists must have a degree of belief also - as has already been commented, even proof can be subjective) in the absence of viable proof is equally nonsensical. I say scientifically minded as opposed to scientist, as there are many scientists who hold strong religious beliefs. There are, however, a large proportion of people who believe in science and it is to these people I refer.

Is it any wonder then that these two groups can't see eye to eye? That being said wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all accept our differences and get along?

I do believe in science...I just refuse the fact that it should be the only way in attempting to prove faith. I do believe that proving God can be done through science...I'm not an expert on this, and so I can't really explain it...but to prove 'faith' is a whole different story. And I'm well aware that non-believers have been discriminated against in many soceities...and I'm against discrimination on any basis, even if it opposes me on something as essential as religion...but then again, non-believers along with believers are trying to prove each other wrong...and even believers themselves are trying to prove that this religion is right and that religion isn't and so on and so forth..call me passive, but I'd like to live in a soceity where everyone is respected for who they are...and not dealt with on the basis of what they believ in. I wish that someday people are gonna stop arguing whether faith is subjective or objective and whether believers are right ot wrong...it IS something personal...you can choose to either believ or not...and when you believe you can be either a Muslim, Christaian or Jew...or whatever other religion or cult...And THIS is one of the main basics of Islam..to respect other's beliefs. So my point is that we should not try to prove Faith by science, cuz I don't see that this is possible.

[Lote-Tree]

It's hard for someone who doesn't believe in God to actually see what a believer sees...


You have not answered my question. Whats stops you from not believing in the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky.



so if I feel it, that's good enough for me, to confirm that it's true...


See above.



just like scientific methods and deduction is good enough for you...


Mine is verifiable. Yours is not. That is the difference.



You'll never understand what I mean, cuz you don't look at it from where I stand..


I understand pefrectly what you mean. It's your subjective experience of the world. As I have my subjective experiences. You can go on saying the temperature outside is 40 degrees and someone else can go on saying it is only 30 degrees. But only thing we can agree on is the objectively verifiable.



and I can't explain it actually...


That's why Scientific Method and Deductive Logic has such power!



I'm well aware that the fact that I don't like something doesn't make it unreal...


Yes. Hence we require objectivity. And Scientific Method and Deductive Logic does that for us.



but I don't think this goes for the issue of the exsistence of God..


"God" is a reality that has been experienced within. "God" has never been objectively verfiable fact but always subjective experiences of the individual.

If you are Muslim then you will know that Muhammad went outside of the cities and sought refuge in caves to meditate and reflect. In fact Muhammad is a prime example how "God" is experienced within. Muhammad encountered "God" within himself. It was a subjective experience.



I know you'll argue that the very fact that I can't prove this feeling by science is the very reason why you don't believe...


I am not interested in beliefs but only verifiable truths that we can agree on. The rest is subjective experience of the individual and should be treated as such. Anything we can't verify must be treated as suspect until it becomes verifiable.



and so, I really don't know what to tell you. I'm only saying, like in the previous post, I wish people would just drop it...who believe and who don't...that's all!

I have no problem with people's beliefs. But when it presented as fact and verifiable then we must challenge that. That is all...



When we look arround we cant say that all this came by chance, the probability that one protein to come to existence is more less than the accepted value, citocrom c probability to come to existence is 0 as a biologist said.


Biological Evolution is NOT based on chance.



I study medicine and believe me i feel stupid to say that our body came by chance, look and neurological system, no one who respect his mind will say that quencidence created this, eventually events doesnt create a sofisticated and organized system


It can. All it needs is simple rules to follow.



, no scientist can affirm this or dare to say it, tahts why you will see always scientists who belive in evolution dare to talk only about macroscopic shape as evisence of evolution and they cant confirm it only theory (and i think it wont arrive to level of theory), but when it arrive to microscopy they dont use the terms of evolution they dont dare.


The great Intellectual Creationist Scientist Dr. Micheal Behe of the "Darwin's Blackbox" fame accepts macro evolution and the common ancestor to all life. So even creationist can accept evolution.



About being a muslim, well i cant say that its enough to behavaive good, because believing is the aim of life...


Really so why don't you believe in the Great Elephant Tree in the Sky?

Aim of life would be to seek verifiable truths...not mere beliefs.



I advice you to study science and believe me you wont be decieved by the advertisments that evolutionarry spread, you will see athiest scientists who admit that there are something behind matter, someone who got main hand in forming them, they must admit if they respect thier logic and thier mind.

Good advice but not Harun Yahya for his not a scientist for a start. And he has an agenda to push.

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread no longer addresses the issues addressed in its OP, it will now be closed.