Why and how islam?

The comparison between religion and humanity only arises when we consider religion as following a particular person or sect; whereas religion means nothing other than living based on a specific system of accountability, and essentially no one can be found who does not have religion. Even those who do not accept God or give importance to any religion still live according to a particular basis. Therefore, what matters is that we choose a better method for life and not be careless about the religion that determines our life’s orientation.
Of course, if the purpose of such a question is whether humanity and morality are more important than attachment to a particular doctrine and sect, certainly the answer is that we should consider morality and humanity more important; but we can be sure of our morality only if, in addition to things like kindness and affability, we also submit to important truths that we become aware of and do not ignore any truth. Therefore, even if we admit the possibility that the Creator of existence has considered a saving program for us and yet we are indifferent to it, we have committed the ugliest immorality and distanced ourselves from humanity.

Everyone considers their religion the best way of life; even those who believe that importance should be given to other things instead of these words have no doubt that their basis is better. In this context, if someone wants to consciously choose a religion by freeing themselves from the bonds of imitation, habit, and propaganda, they face thousands of schools, each offering dozens of arguments for their superiority.
In these conditions, no one has time to examine all these schools, and if they begin this path, they will find no end to the debates and arguments related to each reason; but in all these reasonings there is a common point that with attention can obtain the best basis for life:
The effort of all schools to show themselves in harmony with human reason and conscience certainly means that they do not have a better and more reliable basis than humanity. So why not choose humanity and rationality as the best religion instead of choosing different names?

The most important obstacle in the way of rational life and correct religiosity is the false perception that exists about the imperfection of reason and takes away from individuals the will and courage necessary to rely on human wisdom and disarms them against promoters of superstitions.
To escape from this trap, we must note that the only criterion that can be the foundation and basis for distinguishing right from wrong is human reason and conscience, and if we consider it imperfect and unreliable, nothing, including subjects like God and His messengers, will be examinable and believable.
Even those who speak of the imperfection of reason bring rational arguments to show the correctness of their claim and consider the abundance of errors in human thoughts as evidence of the unreliability of reason; unaware that the existence of these mistakes is evidence of the necessity to rely better and more on reason.
What is imperfect and limited is our knowledge, and the only solution for obtaining correct information is the use of human wisdom to listen to different words and choose the best ones and identify reliable sources of knowledge and follow what reason deems necessary to follow.
More explanations

Although accepting the value and credibility of reason is an essential condition for traversing the path of humanity, with this measure, the path of rationality does not become smooth. Because ambiguities and mistakes are usually more about defining and recognizing irrationality and superstition than about reason itself.
Some consider propositions incompatible with their religious beliefs as superstitions; some drive away with the stick of superstitions anything that is not within reach of sensory experience; another group calls supporters of any strange thing superstitious, and some consider superstition equivalent to accepting incorrect beliefs.
But none of these definitions is accurate. Because followers of the most exclusivist schools are forced to officially recognize different beliefs. Just as the most materialist people have also accepted realities that they once considered irrational, strange, and incorrect.
This point shows that being superstitious has no definition other than being content with perceptions and knowledge and ignoring criticisms and opposing arguments, and someone who has discovered this secret seeks rationality not in avoiding errors but in the effort to know more and live better.

The difficulty of correct and rational living is not only because our base and animal tendencies prevent us from submitting to the command of reason; but in addition to this, sometimes passionate tendencies and transcendent emotions force us to choose between reason and love.
This difficulty becomes greater when we know that only firm faith can take man out of wandering in the face of the multitude of different opinions, and without the attraction of fascination and love, the burden of doubt and hesitation always weighs on the human soul and spirit and slows his movement.
Although there is no doubt in the peace that faith brings and the passion that love stirs and all these goodnesses should not be ignored, but attention to the abundance of destructive faiths and the harm of blind loves leaves no solution other than making human wisdom priority and ruler over any feeling and tendency.
The way of salvation is to consider unconditional faith suitable only for the absolute truth that is currently not within our reach; therefore, to turn differences of opinion into an opportunity for truth-seeking and approaching that charming purpose and to rely on what we understand and remain silent in other matters.

The rapid progress and abundant services of experimental sciences have led many to the conclusion that they should only rely on tangible and measurable matters and consider anything that does not fit this definition as useless and lower than the level that can be called knowledge.
This happens while this statement itself does not contain the criteria it emphasizes. The ideas and methods that removed many false beliefs and brought progress and welfare to humans were also thoughts outside the framework of experimental knowledge.
Therefore, being material or immaterial of a subject is not a suitable criterion for evaluating it; rather, what matters is the argument that supports a viewpoint and makes it acceptable to collective wisdom. Therefore, ignoring metaphysical matters without examining their arguments has no basis other than superficiality.
Of course, not every problem has the value and importance necessary for examination and spending time; but subjects like the creator of existence, the meaning of life, and the eternal destiny of man are so decisive for destiny that sound reason does not allow ignoring the slightest possibility about them.

After accepting the credibility of human thought, the most important subject that should be examined is God as the creator and administrator of existence; and considering the abundant influence of this belief on the perspective and way of life of man, we should not be careless and credulous in accepting or denying it.
Although several arguments have been presented for explaining this idea and from philosophical arguments to invoking nature or the guidance of saints have been placed as the basis for belief in God, but attention to the criticisms of these arguments creates debates and ambiguities that do not end easily.
But if instead of searching for a human-like creator alongside or above other beings, we pay attention to the clearest truth we know, namely the concept of existence and its independence from external support, we will find God more evident than anything, everywhere and even within ourselves.
For this purpose, it is sufficient to pay attention to the obviousness of this point that the totality of all realities of existence does not take its existence and perfections from other than itself, and this self-sufficiency is not possible except with possessing infinite perfection. This point leaves no doubt in the existence of an independent reality.

Throughout the history full of ups and downs of humanity, thousands of gods with different definitions and characteristics have been worshipped as creator and administrator of all or part of existence, and many conflicts have taken place to prove each of these gods and negate other people’s deities.
Although the tendency toward God-worship is based on clear and common thinking among humans that relates every phenomenon to a superior agent, but because the human mind does not find a way to an unlimited reality superior to all phenomena, it puts its imaginations in its place.
A God who has been made by human hand or in his mind, even if described with the highest perfections, still remains a needy creature alongside other beings that resembles them and accepts superstitions like incarnation, immanence, getting tired, or having collaborators and children.
The logical arguments of belief in God more than emphasizing the proof of a being as creator of the world, invite thinkers to negate anything considered as an example for the support of existence and draw attention to the impossibility of describing this undeniable reality.

Based on what passed, we knew that in a more careful look at knowing God, the phenomena of the world instead of being proof of God’s existence are His sign; because when we pay attention to the independence of the whole existence, without any mediation we reach an infinite perfection that is more certain than any phenomenon.
From this angle, whatever we look at, we find it as a manifestation of the same infinite reality, but because of the limitation and need of all beings we know, we remain unsuccessful in finding a similarity or definition that opens a window for knowing the support of existence.
When we call such an impossible-to-know and at the same time impossible-to-deny reality God, although we have an unspecified creator, but above all we feel his presence and consider irrational the possibility of his absence or his resemblance to a craftsman who has separated from his creation.
Such a God possesses all perfections of existence; because all those characteristics are realized by relying on him; but the nature of his goodness and perfection differs from what we know. He is unique, because his unlimitedness leaves no room for another; but his oneness is not of the type of number and digit.
>

The existence of pain and suffering in the world is undeniable. What is said about the relative or privative nature of evils, even if it resolves knots and difficulties in the minds of philosophers and theologians, does not reduce anything from the hardship of victims of these bitter realities.
However, being painful of an action does not necessarily mean it is wrong and does not indicate the ignorance or inability of the one who performs it. Because no one doubts the correctness of a painful behavior when it is performed with the purpose of preventing greater suffering or to reach a more valuable good.
The objection raised against this argument is that necessary evil is good where there is no possibility of eliminating the basis of suffering; but a God who is wise and absolutely powerful should be able to create a world where its goodnesses do not require so much pain and evil.
But we must note that we have on one hand reached with logical arguments the perfection and wisdom and power of God and on the other hand we do not find an argument for negating this possibility that perhaps there are infinitely valuable goodnesses ahead that cannot be reached except through passing through a world mixed with pain and suffering.

Evidence shows that fear and ignorance have been among the effective motivations on ancestors’ belief in metaphysical matters. Because unfamiliarity with natural factors of events has led many to consider God or gods as source and refuge for these phenomena.
But with the clarification of the role of material processes, gradually the domain of theological discussions’ dominance has been reduced and the power of science has increased; to the point where today a significant part of the new generation considers abandoning metaphysical beliefs as a sign of thought and knowledge growth.
But we must be careful that opposition to an incorrect idea does not trap us in another error. Yes, the gap-filling god who only patches knowledge holes is an illusory god and we should consider its removal as a good omen; but the reality we have come to know with logical arguments is not such a god.
The God we have known as the support of existence and not as a being alongside other influential factors is the creator of the visible and hidden causes of the world; therefore, the revelation of nature’s mysteries not only does not narrow his arena but reveals corners of his endless greatness and knowledge.

Some say God is too great to be involved in details and believe that the creator of existence with his infinite knowledge and power created the world and left it on its own with specific laws; therefore, it is better to identify and use these same current laws instead of knowing God’s command.
Now with the clarification of the amazing dimensions of the universe, holders of this idea with greater self-confidence consider the insignificance of man and even the solar system in which man lives as evidence of the irrationality of God’s intervention in the affairs of a being that does not even count.
The problem with such thinking is that it considers God a specific person separate from creatures, placed in heaven or a position beyond the universe and from there sees some things small and others large and based on this, his attention to generalities is more than particulars.
But we have known God from being the support for the totality of existence and such an unlimited reality, for him small and large and general and particular are the same and his encompassing of the parts of the world is such that it is as if he created only that one creature and is present inside every particle in such a way that we must find a name beyond intervention for him.

We said that the support and creator of existence is not a specific being separate from creatures, but an unlimited reality that has presence and flow inside every particle of the world and all processes that occur in the small and large parts of existence are with his grace and life-giving.
This different perspective helps us to overcome the obstacles that made his intervention in creatures irrational in approaching the important question that arises about the possibility and how God speaks with man and to consider the program considered for each being as a message from God.
With attention to the laws of the world and what in the nature of minerals, the instinct of animals, and the structure of man causes their pathfinding, survival, and evolution we reach the conclusion that such characteristics are given to these beings based on a mysterious consciousness in existence and we call the same unknown factor God.
From this perspective, the transcendent tendencies of man and values like truth-seeking, fairness, and justice that everyone finds within themselves regardless of race and creed and respects without any argument are also God’s word and message and obtain their credibility and guarantee from this solid support.

The merciful Creator has spoken with us through reason and conscience and has placed in our nature the prerequisites of tendency toward truth and distinguishing good from evil; just as with innate characteristics in other beings, he has also given them a message to guide each one in a path suitable to their creation.
But among the many gifts of this amazing system for human survival and perfection, the unlimited desire for knowledge is one of the most important approaches that makes his path different from other creatures and in addition to improving human life, creates questions about the purpose of life in his mind.
Another characteristic that provides a different path for man is his free will in choice that can change his destiny and instead of a predefined purpose, choose for himself the noblest goals or the basest endings and write a different future.
The foresight of these two characteristics in man shows that the administrator of existence has placed our perfection in knowing the truth as much as possible and has asked us to be in search of knowledge relying on our choice and to strive for approaching the meaning of life.

One of the issues that has long occupied minds is the question about the meaning of life; a concern that is counted among the gifts of the creation system to mankind and attention to it can be considered a criterion for the humanity of individuals or their fall into animal life.
But has God who has placed this question in our thinking also put its answer at our disposal? The answer of different schools to this enigma is not the same and each has proposed a purpose like suffering or pleasure, future or present, liberation or servitude, and knowledge or wandering for life.
This difference of opinion shows that the creation system has not clearly placed this answer at everyone’s disposal and has made reaching it dependent on more awareness. This awareness must be obtained through searching in human knowledge and to benefit from any useful point for improving it.
In this examination, the first noteworthy point is reports about individuals who have introduced themselves as prophets and receivers of God’s answer to fundamental questions. This claim is so important that the slightest possibility of its correctness cannot be ignored and one cannot pass by it with indifference.

Throughout history, individuals have introduced themselves as God’s prophets and claimed to receive messages from him. Considering what we said about the possibility of God’s answer to man’s fundamental questions, these claims cannot be considered incorrect without examination nor can one be indifferent to them.
Since the possibility of deception in these matters is not ruled out, we should not easily accept such a great claim from anyone. Even being moral of the claimant to prophethood is not sufficient for trusting his words; because besides the possibility of pretension, there is also the possibility of delusion in this field.
The solution that is usually proposed is the ability to perform miracles and followers of every religion consider their prophet’s miracles as proof of his righteousness; but now there is no way for their impartial examination and no traces of independent and historically transmitted reports are found in this field.
If today someone claimed to be God’s prophet and presented something as a miracle, should we consider his words as God’s message? Even those who consider the proof of their prophet’s righteousness to be miracle give a negative answer to this question and in such a situation emphasize more important criteria.

The belief of followers of heavenly religions in the miracles of their prophets and leaders is understandable and worthy of respect. Because someone who believes in a God with infinite power and knowledge considers completely possible the performance of works beyond ordinary human capacity and known laws of nature for him or his representatives and does not see the existence of unknown and superior forces in contradiction with rationality and opposed to science and knowledge.
But someone who is still examining and has not previously accepted the accepted premises of believers, even if they observed something extraordinary from a person who claims to be a prophet, has the right not to rule out possibilities like magic, deception, involvement of diabolical forces and the like and not to consider miracle a suitable or necessary criterion for occupying such a position.
The history and teachings of great religions that have attributed themselves to messengers from God also confirm this point and show that almost none of the faithful companions of these prophets believed merely by observing miracles and most covenant-breaking and excuse-making in front of religious leaders were done by those who had closely witnessed the most amazing miracles.
By examining these religious texts we find that even schools that emphasize belief in miracles consider the purpose of presenting these extraordinary matters as reassuring believers and completing the argument with enemies who had already discovered the righteousness of God’s messenger with another criterion; therefore, it is necessary to identify that main criterion and evaluate its value and credibility with an impartial view.

On one hand, we understood that God might have sent an important message about the purpose of our lives through certain individuals, and on the other hand, we learned that miracles are not the main criterion for identifying true prophets, and even if they were valid signs, most people do not have access to them. In these circumstances, does a way remain to reach God’s possible message?
Our situation in this regard is like a position in an important mission where we encounter someone who introduces himself as the commander’s messenger and bearer of the answer to the most important ambiguity of this mission. Here, even if we don’t have certain proof to accept his claim, we don’t pass by him indifferently and certainly examine the content of his message and answer.
In this examination, if we understand from the totality of evidence and indications that he lies or errs, we deny him, and if we discover his sincerity and find the answer to our questions in his message, we seize this valuable opportunity, and if we don’t reach a clear conclusion, without acceptance or denial without reason, we act only according to what we know is correct.
This rational approach helps us in dealing with claimants to prophethood while respecting those for whom we have no evidence of error or lying, to make the content of the message we encounter the main criterion, and if we find it harmonious and reassuring with the messages we have previously received within ourselves from God, we believe in it.

Given the abundance of claimants to prophethood and the varieties of sayings attributed to God, it is practically impossible to examine all of them, and the wise God does not expect His servants to spend their entire lives identifying His possible messages. The most logical method is for each person to examine the religion they encounter.
We explained earlier that no one is without religion, and each person’s religion is exactly the foundation they choose for their life; but we must be careful that the method we have chosen under the influence of family, environment, or other factors is not in conflict with reason and morality. The approach and belief we have in the field of God’s message is no exception to this rule.
Therefore, whenever we are exposed to teachings and messages that claim to be from God, we must test them with the touchstone of reason, and if they conflict with clear and common human values, we deny their attribution to God. Because we are certain that God never says anything illogical and does not command evil things.
But if we find the content of that message harmonious with what we have previously received in our heart and soul from God, we accept the word of truth from anyone. Now if by examining his words and conduct we gain confidence that he is God’s messenger, we believe in him; otherwise, until we have sufficient evidence, we refrain from confirming or denying him.

In the third issue of this series of discussions, we explained that to distinguish right from wrong, we have no foundation other than reason, and if we rely on and trust something else, it is with the permission and judgment of reason. There we said that what is defective is our awareness and information, not the power that identifies and evaluates reliable sources of knowledge.
We don’t know many truths; but God has given us reason so that through it we extract valid information and through this path reach more science and knowledge. That we take seriously the possibility of sending a message from God is also because we know that if a word is truly from God, it contains the most reliable awareness.
Therefore, if the teachings of someone who claims prophethood were compatible with reason, we consider his claim examinable; and if his characteristics and the content of his message create this confidence in the heart that he is God’s messenger, we believe in him and learn from him the truths whose secrets and aspects we don’t know.
Logical arguments tell us that God knows all the secrets of existence and the ways of human perfection and happiness, and if He sends a message and command, even if we don’t know its wisdom, we must accept it with soul and heart and obey; but what’s important is that we have correctly identified God’s message so we don’t attribute irrational content to God.

So far we have reached this conclusion that the only reliable way to examine the claim of those who present themselves as God’s prophets is measuring the content of their message against clear and common rational principles. But the problem here is that practically there is no common point in the instances of reason and morality, and each person considers his opinion and method logical and moral.
We understand the seriousness of the problem more when we see that even great and common values like justice and truthfulness also face different interpretations, restrictions and justifications in various cultures, regions and periods, and perhaps one group considers an action just and honest while another group considers it immoral behavior.
In these circumstances, the only solution that remains is that while understanding the limitations of the human epistemological system, each person without considering his opinion as absolute truth and his opponents as enemies of truth, should take as the criterion for his evaluations what he identifies after dialogue and hearing various viewpoints.
Of course, in this context, evidences like the incorrectness of contradiction and acceptable values like the golden rule of morality help us not hesitate in denying those who have contradictory teachings or prescribe behavior they wouldn’t like for themselves, and to accept the claim of someone from whose teachings we get better results in practice.

Today we find no religion that doesn’t have irrational teachings. Of course, followers of each religion consider themselves free from this problem and others as examples of it; but their division into groups that accuse each other of irrationality and immorality shows that they too have not been immune from this affliction.
But is this point sufficient for certainty that God has not sent a message to us? And by observing differences and irrational materials in the religion we deal with, should we conclude that it’s certainly not from God? The history and characteristics of religions teach us not to rush in this matter and continue the examination.
Almost all creeds have undergone change over time and any text can be subject to different and even contradictory interpretations. Therefore, when facing a religion whose main teachings we have identified as clear and rational, but there are also differences and irrational matters in it, we must consider this possibility.
To discover the divinity of a religion, it’s necessary to dedicate ourselves to examining its authentic content without relying on common and popular interpretations and always assume that what is presented as religion is different from God’s possible message. This way, we neither accept materials contrary to reason nor have we ignored God’s message.