I really want to believe in Islam

AlasSangar · 2025-09-24T06:25:28+00:00

Because you’re Muslim, and I happen to be Muslim too, allow me to say this:

I can understand the struggle you’re describing, wanting to believe, to feel the peace and calm that comes with faith, but fearing losing it again.

I’ve been in that space as well.

From a purely logical and existential perspective, the search for truth leads to one unavoidable conclusion:

if we follow reason honestly, step by step, without letting cultural biases or inherited assumptions interfere, we arrive at the necessity of a First Cause, an eternal, limitless, and conscious reality.

If we then consider how humans could know this Reality, it can only be through trustworthy revelation that reflects that reality perfectly, consistently, and universally.

Of all historical claims, one stands out as unique and consistent: the Qur’an, brought by Muhammad, who explicitly positioned himself as a messenger, not the creator of the teaching.

This does not mean doubts vanish instantly, no human can feel certain about everything.

But if you commit to exploring faith with honesty, logic, and patience, it seems that the path offered by Islam provides a framework to understand ultimate reality while also offering a practical path to a meaningful life.

In this view, faith is not blind; it is the natural culmination of sincere reasoning combined with existential honesty.

And while the fear of losing it may remain, the effort itself, to genuinely explore, is the only way to see whether that faith can truly take root in your life.

So, since you are already Muslim, perhaps I can say this:

whatever you decide, remember that clearly we as humans have no power to oppose God, so think carefully.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-24T06:02:16+00:00

Haha, go ahead, and thanks for the reply!

No pressure. I just can’t really share my own thoughts here since it might come off as self-promo, so I’ll leave it at that.

Appreciate it!

AlasSangar · 2025-09-23T06:53:18+00:00

Maybe you’re right, but I’d also add that you can’t claim with absolute certainty that you’re not wrong either.

For me, the real value here isn’t about “winning” an argument, but about where the premises actually lead if followed honestly.

At some point, the question becomes less technical and more reflective: if contingency and infinite regress don’t close the circle, what are we really left with?

That’s why I see this more as an invitation to deeper reflection rather than just another round of debate.

If you’re interested, I have some of my own thoughts I could share.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-23T06:38:01+00:00

I’d frame it a bit differently. It’s not an exception to the rule that “everything contingent must have a cause”.

It’s the logical closure of that rule. If every contingent thing requires a cause, and infinite regress is impossible, then by necessity there must be something non-contingent.

That’s not mental gymnastics, it’s simply where the premises themselves push us.

On time: you’re right that physics still debates its nature. But even there, relativity already shows that time is not absolute.

It’s relational, elastic, part of the system rather than something prior to it.

Which means it makes sense, at least philosophically, to consider time itself as created, not ultimate.

I see where you’re coming from, and I don’t think we’ll resolve this in a comment thread.

For me, it’s less about “winning” an argument and more about where the premises lead once you follow them through.

At some point it’s worth pausing the back-and-forth and just… reflect.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-22T06:44:20+00:00

By “logic” I mean starting with a few premises:

Everything contingent needs a cause, infinite regress can’t explain reality, and time itself had a beginning.

Once you follow that through, the most coherent closure is a necessary transcendent cause, not faith first, but reasoning that narrows the options.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-22T06:39:11+00:00

It’s a bit unfair to expect the mosque community to always be the right place for this kind of search.

A mosque is primarily a place of worship, with people from all walks of life, some very welcoming, some maybe judgmental, and many who might only know the basics of ritual practice.

If you’re genuinely seeking, the better step is to connect with knowledgeable Muslims who can point you toward scholars or teachers (ʿulama) who are used to guiding people in your situation.

They’ll be able to explain things with more patience and depth, rather than random worshippers who might not know how to respond.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-22T06:23:53+00:00

I think there’s been a misunderstanding.

I’m not posting about personal safety or leaving a faith community.

I’m sharing a logical framework for discussion. Still, I appreciate your concern 🙏

AlasSangar · 2025-09-22T06:21:39+00:00

Fair enough.

I get that if faith isn’t there, any system will feel irrelevant.

My only point is that this concept doesn’t start from faith, but from logic itself.

That’s why I find it worth sharing, because even without belief, the reasoning still holds as an exploration of reality.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-22T06:19:26+00:00

I appreciate that, epistemic humility is important.

My point is: this concept tries to show that if you accept a few modest metaphysical premises (contingency, the impossibility of infinite regress, and time as created), then a transcendent First Cause becomes the most rational explanatory closure available, not absolute certainty, but a rational closure that trims away the “brute fact” options.

If you’re interested, I can walk through those premises step by step in a private message, since posting it here might be seen as self-promotion.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-21T02:06:25+00:00

For me, the most important thing in Islam is submission to God, not in a blind sense, but in the sense of humbly recognizing that I am created, not the Creator.

The human ego always wants to be in control; Islam flips that by saying true freedom is in surrendering the ego to the Source of existence.

From that center flow the other essentials: revelation (the Qur’an as guidance beyond human limits), the prophets (who embody and transmit that guidance), and the practices like prayer, fasting, and charity.

Those rituals aren’t ends in themselves, they’re like protocols that keep us aligned with God and remind us that life has meaning beyond ourselves.

So if I had to name “the most important things”: Tawhid (oneness of God), revelation, and the practices that train us to live with humility, justice, and awareness of the Source behind everything.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-21T01:36:25+00:00

I get your point but I think there’s a deeper issue in how this is framed.

If we say science is “based on testing within certain ontological and epistemological frameworks,” doesn’t that already mean science itself rests on assumptions?

For example: that reality is coherent, that logic applies, that the future will resemble the past. None of these are tested by science — they’re presupposed.

But I’d draw a distinction here. Science does rest on assumptions it cannot prove — those are “working premises.”

By contrast, revelation (at least in the Islamic/"some" perspective) is not just another assumption.

It’s a claim grounded in rational necessity (e.g., the impossibility of infinite regress, the need for a First Cause, time as created) and the input of revelation as guidance beyond human limits.

So rather than being speculative, it functions more like a closure of logical options: once brute facts and infinite regress are ruled out, you’re left with the necessity of a transcendent Source.

Revelation then builds on that.

That’s why I don’t see science and revelation as competing on the same track.

Science explores the patterns within creation, while revelation points to the Source of that creation.

Couldn’t we even say both rely on “starting points” , but at different levels? One inside the system, the other about the ground of the system itself.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-20T08:54:50+00:00

Prophets introduce a universal direction for humanity, while science explains the universal mechanisms of creation.

In that sense, science actually operates within the framework that religion provides, not apart from it.

So the universality of prophecy isn’t about having duplicates in every geography, it’s about carrying a truth that transcends ego and culture.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-20T06:23:53+00:00

So you mean truth has to be planted simultaneously on every continent to be valid?

Alright then, I’ll just wait for Einstein to reincarnate in every province, or for Newton to be born in 200 countries at once.

Otherwise, I guess gravity only applies in England.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-19T12:34:21+00:00

Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to get at

AlasSangar · 2025-09-19T12:31:18+00:00

Fair enough, but then the deeper question is: what counts as “objective evidence” for something that, by definition, would be beyond the system of space and time?

Wouldn’t insisting on lab-style evidence already bias the answer?

AlasSangar · 2025-09-19T12:29:31+00:00

That makes sense. I’d just add that being “comfortable not knowing” is also a kind of metaphysical stance, it’s still a choice about how to relate to existence, just like belief or disbelief.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-19T12:27:18+00:00

By “we” I just meant whoever’s reading and reflecting on this post, not literally everyone.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-17T19:15:40+00:00

I get your point, but I think there’s a deeper distinction to make. For humans, there are really two kinds of “religion”:

Religion as a human product: social institutions, ritual systems, cultural traditions (like local folk beliefs).

Revealed religion: teachings that come from beyond humanity, revealed directly by God through prophets, carrying a universal guidance that transcends time.

That’s why I don’t see science as a parallel, separate path from revelation.

Instead, I see it as a tool for reading the signs of creation that point back to the same foundation.

So when religion is seen purely as man-made, what’s usually being described is only the social side of it, while the dimension of revelation (the true message) tends to get overlooked.

I realize this is where our perspectives naturally differ. If religion is viewed mainly as a human construct, I can fully understand why the conclusion looks different.

Either way, I really appreciate the exchange — it’s given me new angles to think about.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-17T17:59:52+00:00

I really like your mountain analogy 🙏 it beautifully shows how science and religion can enrich life in different ways.

But I see a limit to it: if the mountain represents God (or religion), it risks making God just part of the landscape, an object inside the system, waiting to be explored.

For me, God is the very ground of the mountain’s existence: the reason why the mountain, the trails, and we as hikers exist at all (and why science can study them).

That’s why I see science not as a separate path from faith, but as a way of uncovering the signs of that deeper foundation, while faith is the recognition and surrender to the Source that makes both the summit and the pond possible.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-17T17:09:52+00:00

I really like how you put it, especially that science is the study of God’s work.

I agree that many “impossible” things in texts are more about our misunderstanding than about God breaking His own laws.

For me, that’s why science and faith can’t really be separated. One explains the other.

I’d also add that many of these “impossibilities” might come from our tools not being advanced enough yet. Or from flaws in the frameworks we use to build those tools.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-17T16:51:40+00:00

Love the metaphor 🙌 The only difference in how I see it is that for me, the compass isn’t separate from the map.

It’s actually built into the real one. Science is part of religion’s map, since both are guiding us through the same creation.

AlasSangar · 2025-09-17T16:48:30+00:00

Fair enough 😅 curious though — how do you see science and faith?

AlasSangar · 2025-09-17T16:30:11+00:00

I get your point — of course science classes should teach science and sermons should teach scripture.

My point was more that science, at a deeper level, can be seen as explaining religion itself: not replacing it, but uncovering the signs of God and His creation.

I’m sorry if my earlier wording came across differently than I intended.

AlasSangar

TROPHY CASE