I love intelligent discussions about anything and everything, be it religion, philosophy, psychology, basically everything that brings people closer together.
To truly grasp religion, whether it be any type of religious belief or historical text, one requires a profound comprehension of language and history. This necessity arises from the fact that religion has its roots in the past, i.e., history. Initially, it's imperative to comprehend how people communicated and perceived the world around them.
This understanding is intertwined with historical context, historical linguistics, linguistic determinism, and numerous other fields of knowledge. Equally important is mastering one's own language. One has to understand contrastive linguistics, cultural translation, narrative theory, language barriers, or the crucial concept of untranslatability.
Without a grasp of these concepts, one will inevitably struggle to comprehend religion. It is essential to employ logic, reason, and draw upon social and psychological insights into human behavior in this pursuit.
----------------------------------
I advocate unequivocally for the liberty of personal religious experience. I endorse endeavors that foster a closer relationship with the Divine, provided they do not encroach upon the rights or beliefs of others. Anything that casts faith in a positive illumination garners my support.
I'm against polygyny (i.e. polygamy)
I firmly disbelieve the notion that Aisha was a child bride (at the age of 9).
I don't understand why people write 'A man who FEARS God.' I think it should be 'a man who LOVES God.
For, 'fears' instead of 'loves' suggests a relationship with God based on fear and reverence, while 'loves' indicates a relationship based on love and devotion. The difference in impact is that 'fears' emphasizes obedience out of fear of God's power, whereas 'loves' underscores that the relationship with God is based on affection and trust.
