It's not Islam, is it?

But the problem is, no one's calling people like you Islamophobes. Apparently only Christians can be Islamophobes. I'm not saying you should be called one, I'm saying no one should be called one.
Innonimatu is anti-imperialist, so he should be fine.
People like late Hitchens the pro-interventionist, are, however, horrible Islamophobes, and his atheism doesn't matter :mad:
 
The Quran, OT, NT and just about every other "holy book" I know were composed for, and succeeded due to, the particular situations at the time they were written. They all have plenty of stuff which is idiotic when applied to the modern world or indeed any time and place removed from that of their creation.

I see someone applying that rules exactly as it is and they far from being idiot depending on what you define idiot. If you think women wearing hijab and man growing beard, using mishwak, paying dzakat 2,5 percent per year to the poor, performing hajj, pulling their pants above the ankle etc etc as idiot just because they indifferent with you and alienated from the modern pop culture, then that's your definition. I will not call you idiot, even you claim all of us that take Quran as idiot, you far from being idiot, but my perception about right and wrong and good and bad are different to you.

While you maybe think the design of this universe come out from incidence, while me, I think this universe are not exist out of incidences of a big explosion eons ago.

The organize system of universe reflect the Organizer. The design of this universe reflect the Designer. So as everything that exist in this universe come with a purpose, not without purpose, as life exist have it own measurement, so do us human have a meaning and function.

From this view I make a foundation of the meaning of my existence. Not just for sleep, and paying taxes, go to school and works so my son can go to school, then I dies and my son following my cycle. For me life are more then that. But that's mine point of view.

Does it make me an idiot for you?

Why do some people denounce the Bible or the most insane passages of the OT, but make excuses for the Quran? The Quran is by far the worst, because of that damnable claim about it containing the literal word of their god. The OT and the NT, being older and a mishmash of texts and authors, leave their modern followers comfortable in picking and choosing, rejecting or just ignoring the most insane bits inadequate to the modern world. Not so with the Quran.

vatican reconciliation and all that stuff is their own institutional choices to make and I'm not here to criticize that and make comparison between my religion and catholic I'm not going to do that right here.

While you see there lots of Jew that hold the Torah and Talmud like a Pharisee that's also their own choice, not because peoples not criticizing their Torah and Talmud so they think they must adapt. Infact one of the most scripture that been criticize by western is Al Quran, that is fact, and we not change our way and our religion just because someone disagree with it or they think its unfit, and choose part of Quran and reject another part, no.

If Quran as your opinion damnable because it is claim as the words of God, so do Torah been claim as the words of God, why don't you say Quran, OT, Vedha and Torah is by far the worst because it claim as the words of God, why you only state Quran? You must also go and damn another scripture, but you not.

I know that I am just rehashing an argument made notorious a few years ago by some pope, and which created some polemic before being conveniently forgotten for the sake of "religious peace". The thing is, he was right. Islam does have much more of a problem with allowing its followers to adapt to the modern world than any of the other old "universalist" great religions. Not much of a prophet, that Muhammad, as it turned out: the future will not, cannot, belong to the religion he founded except is some seriously changed way that dumps the claim to divine origin of their holy book.

Well so far Islam is so well and healthy, just look at us. Ideology already raise and fall, civilization rule and perish, but we still here. And look we don't have missionaries and stuff but it spread widely even the Pope say now Islam replace Christianity as the largest religion in the world, and it accumulate widely in europe and US especially after 911. So don't say if we need to survive we must adapt, let the test of time decide, and we will not change. And not everyone, even every non-muslim agree with you in this, many of them think it is Islam who gonna stand the test of time.

a Rabbi



Link to video.


even Glenn Beck can't hide his admiration on Islam


Link to video.

and many other

I'm not preaching on you here, God is the One who own guidance not me, I just invite you to see another point of view.
 
While you maybe think the design of this universe come out from incidence, while me, I think this universe are not exist out of incidences of a big explosion eons ago.

The organize system of universe reflect the Organizer. The design of this universe reflect the Designer. So as everything that exist in this universe come with a purpose, not without purpose, as life exist have it own measurement, so do us human have a meaning and function.

From this view I make a foundation of the meaning of my existence. Not just for sleep, and paying taxes, go to school and works so my son can go to school, then I dies and my son following my cycle. For me life are more then that. But that's mine point of view.

Does it make me an idiot for you?

Believing that an old book is more correct than modern physicists in the area of physics is quite idiotic in most people's opinion I think.
 
The question is, do you believe the universe is organized and designed because you believe in an organizer and designer, or is it the other way around?

Because there is really no factual basis to assume the former without positing an organizer/designer first.
 
Believing that an old book is more correct than modern physicists in the area of physics is quite idiotic in most people's opinion I think.

It is in your opinion you mean? not most peoples? Because if you count most peoples possibly most peoples still believe in what you consider to be their old books, but they consider as their scripture. So I think you can't bring most peoples here, because most Indian will believe to their Vedha and Uphanisad about creation than modern physicists. Most Jews also will believe to their Torah and Talmud about creation than modern physicists. Most Christian will believe to their NT and OT about creation than Darwin evolution. So do us Muslim with our Quran and Hadith.

Have you count their population which one is more than another one? so don't say most peoples see them idiotic, maybe you can stand here as agnostic or as yourselves but not as most of peoples. So do I stand for my own selves and for muslim not for most majority population of the world. Just to remind you, no offense. And no need to put the word idiotic, just discuss it.

And every theory is not there to believes, you don't put faith on theory, but theory is there to negate, theory is nothing but a thesis but will negate with anti thesis to collaborate as synthesis that being another thesis just to be negate.

Don't jump to conclusion I reject sciences and physic also the possibility of Big Bang theory. I never claim to reject it. I just said if this event happen as incidence without any "Prime cause that have no cause" to cause it, or it happen as a chaotic and lucky accident, I disagree with that.


The question is, do you believe the universe is organized and designed because you believe in an organizer and designer, or is it the other way around?

Because there is really no factual basis to assume the former without positing an organizer/designer first.

Well I give an analogy, if you enter a room and you see the bed is tidy and the bed cover, pillow and blanket put in the organize position. And you see there is carpet covering the ground put into position, and photograph been hang in the wall in such organize position. When you see this room, did you think no one organize these things? as it just been put there in the very start? you must think there someone who put it that way, or there a "organizer" that organize this room.

If you see the universe, you see planet goes in their own orbit they don't crash one and another. Moon and the sun come in a period of time, so we can sleep at dusk and wake up and work in the dawn. If you see each existence have it function and meaning and put in the right organization so we can live this earth. Do you think this organize universe is a merely incident? or there is The One who organize it?

How can design come without a desinger? organize come without the organizer?
 
Most Jews also will believe to their Torah and Talmud about creation than modern physicists. Most Christian will believe to their NT and OT about creation than Darwin evolution. So do us Muslim with our Quran and Hadith.

No they do not. And that is even before taking into consideration that quite a big proportion of the population in Europe is actually agnostic or atheist.

Have you count their population which one is more than another one? so don't say most peoples see them idiotic, maybe you can stand here as agnostic or as yourselves but not as most of peoples. So do I stand for my own selves and for muslim not for most majority population of the world. Just to remind you, no offense. And no need to put the word idiotic, just discuss it.

Well, yes, I can stand here as agnostic. And so can a large proportion of the population in european secular countries. The same cannot be said of any country dominated by a muslim majority. There people are not free to be agnostic. What kind of religion is yours that fears dissent so much that it must repress it with threats of death? Until I see people free to lead secular lives side by side with the religious people in those countries I will continue to regard Islam as the most intolerant and dangerous of all the big religions.

Don't jump to conclusion I reject sciences and physic also the possibility of Big Bang theory. I never claim to reject it. I just said if this event happen as incidence without any "Prime cause that have no cause" to cause it, or it happen as a chaotic and lucky accident, I disagree with that.

That's a philosophical point which is perfectly reasonable to argue as far as I'm concerned. But the source of the universe was never a big challenge posed by modern science to the worldviews of the ancient religions. It was the special place of men in that universe that got challenged. One species that can be explained as the result of long chain of accidents, in one planet orbiting a star among uncountable number of stars in the universe... and we are the ones the creator of the whole thing is giving a damn about?
It is such a preposterous claim that the people who accept the modern scientific view of the universe invariably become agnostics. It's not that some "god" would be absolutely inconceivable, it is that the "personal god" dreamt up by a mankind that though itself the center of the universe mas no sense in this expanded view of the universe. This was the main source or modern agnosticism and modern forms of theism dissociated from the religions of old. Most religions had, after centuries of fighting it, come to terms with this modernity, accept that their social hegemony was finished and they'd have to coexist with plenty of atheists and agnostics. This has yet to happen to any meaningful extend in many of the muslim countries, where becoming an atheist or an agnostic is a state-prosecuted crime! Islamists there are fighting war to maintain their absolute social hegemony that they cannot win, a war against reality. One they should have lost and come to terms with long ago. And their countries will remain weak, poor and backwards until they lose.

It's not the evil western imperialists abusing them that keep them back. Those are just taking advantage of the situation. It's their own lack of capacity, so far, to adapt to the modern world. Only the Turks did it to a large extent and collected the benefits. And we have yet to see if they won't be stupid enough to go backwards now.
 
How can design come without a desinger? organize come without the organizer?
Why do you think there is "design"? As implied above, I suspect because you believed in a designer first.
 
I just said if this event happen as incidence without any "Prime cause that have no cause" to cause it, or it happen as a chaotic and lucky accident, I disagree with that.
I can see that. I don't agree, though, that the Koran gives insight into such a being. Agreeing with "there is a prime cause" does not lead to "the Koran is God's word" very well.
Well I give an analogy, if you enter a room and you see the bed is tidy and the bed cover, pillow and blanket put in the organize position. And you see there is carpet covering the ground put into position, and photograph been hang in the wall in such organize position. When you see this room, did you think no one organize these things? as it just been put there in the very start? you must think there someone who put it that way, or there a "organizer" that organize this room.

I'll give another analogy. If you look at a frozen puddle in the road, you'll notice that every piece of the hole is perfectly shaped to contain ice of exactly that shape and size. The only way to so perfectly create such a hole would be to first have the ice and then delicately dig a hole to hold that piece of ice.

No, you know that's not true. You don't need to assume an organizer in order to figure out why the puddle is so perfectly shaped to the hole. Well, you don't need an intelligent organizer, anyway. IF someone insisted that this organizer existed, you would doubt their logic.
 
At the same time, Mughal problems were not totally military, either. Aurangzeb, who was, militarily, fairly successful, was already presiding over a central state whose control over territory was slipping. The traditional narrative claims that this was due to political failings of elite management - certainly in itself a plausible answer - brought on by Aurangzeb's religious intolerance. I'm not sure I buy the intolerance stuff, because Aurangzeb's efforts in that direction weren't that big a deal, but I freely admit that I'm not even close to a specialist in the area. At any rate, Aurangzeb's political failures are well known: his antagonization of the Rajputs, the Sikh and Jat rebellions, the decentralization of military and fiscal power. Bayly has argued instead that the Mughal state failed to adapt to the growing price of maintaining a standing military - a fiscal problem, not an economic one - which had also caused problems for many European states around the same time. Since the Mughals were already extracting nearly as much wealth as they feasibly could before these problems occurred, they had too little "give" in the budget. But the problem with that is that the Mughal military establishment wasn't developing in the same manner as the Europeans' were.

That was one reason. The other being that the Mughal economy was being drained by the extravagant building projects by Shah Jahan.
[According to the stuff I learnt in school]
 
That, I suggest, is more or less true of Christianity since the beginning of the C20th, but not before. Not really.

Obviously you haven't studied the History of Christianity, since you will see in the early days there was lots of persecution. Only once it became a state religion that did it start using state methods of crushing enemies.
 
I thought it would've been clear enough to say its not a problem with a whole religion but with the socio-economics, culture of the said area, education and so on... Most of Sub Saharan Africa is christian yet wars, human rights violations... are still present.
 
That was one reason. The other being that the Mughal economy was being drained by the extravagant building projects by Shah Jahan.
[According to the stuff I learnt in school]
I don't know about that. Shah Jahan's reign predates the Mughals' problems considerably, and Aurangzeb wasn't forced into any economies to make up for fiscal mismanagement inherited from his predecessors. It's unlikely that large building projects would have fiscal repercussions a generation down the line; if they generate problems for a regime, it's usually in the short term (exhibit A: the Sui of Chinese history).
 
I thought it would've been clear enough to say its not a problem with a whole religion but with the socio-economics, culture of the said area, education and so on... Most of Sub Saharan Africa is christian yet wars, human rights violations... are still present.

Who is carrying out the genocides?
 
fundementalists by the permission of US , as claimed by r16 who is allowed to be in the same forum with people who were actually in Iran watching Washington allowing the Iranian Fundementalists to rise by hobbling the Iranian Military after pushing the said military to bloodily suppress people (including the fundementalists) to a degree to make them angry . If you take this as sheer nonsense we have such tales of feeding solid human waste to Kurdish Leftists in prison in about 1984 -after CIA advice on techniques , so that every single one of them young enough went to the mountains .
 
is something ı found coincidentally while following a link in an avation site , regarding the numbers early in the thread . Can't say much myself .
 
is something ı found coincidentally while following a link in an avation site , regarding the numbers early in the thread . Can't say much myself .

People from countries which is predominantly Muslim, might be more accurate. Do all Muslims see themselves as one block? I'm pretty sure Christians don't(probably except the smaller, more tightly knitted sects).
 
Who is carrying out the genocides?

Well the biggest genocide in Europe after WW2 was committed by an "Orthodox christian" army. Rwandan genocide, Protestant and Catholic christians....Genocide is not exclusive to X faith, so its idiotic to blame a whole religion for all the worlds problems or at least most of them.
 
No they do not. And that is even before taking into consideration that quite a big proportion of the population in Europe is actually agnostic or atheist.

First europe country is not the world itself, so it mostly will be "yes they are". And second in a places like Spain, Italy, Bosnia, Albania, and some other europe country it might stand like 50:50 or even mostly the population are religious or lightly religious. I was have a friends from Spain, she is an atheist, a teacher, and her environment still can't accept her as an atheist and it break her relation even with her own mother. So it really hard to decide.

And sometime, unconsciously we group US population along with europe. While also that is not quite true. In America the agnostic maybe more stronger, but in Latin America and other country in America continent I don't think so.

But lets not busy ourselves with these matters I suggest. Both of us not stand here in this forum as representative of most population of the world or in some continent, it really a fallacy for me. Let just stand for our own selves or specific group of ism or ideology even for that also it's not quite right.

Well, yes, I can stand here as agnostic.

I think you can. But in a note, not all agnostic have a view like you also, take for example Neomega, and not all muslim have perspective like me, maybe for example someone like Karzai if he still muslim.

There people are not free to be agnostic. What kind of religion is yours that fears dissent so much that it must repress it with threats of death? Until I see people free to lead secular lives side by side with the religious people in those countries I will continue to regard Islam as the most intolerant and dangerous of all the big religions.

I encounter atheist or as you call agnostic, many of them. And in Islam we just simply call them disbeliever or kafir, just like christian, jew, hindust and other. In Quran and hadith I never encounter an exact ruling on what is the position of agnostic. But idol or thagut in Islam or ilah, that peoples take as another God except God, it can be many form. It can be an angel, it can be djinn, it can be statue, it can be bishop, it can be ulama or it can be ideology for example democracy can also be a thagut or idol to worship.

Take for example this surah :

Al-Quran 9:031
“Instead of Allah they accepted their scholars, their monks, and (above all) Jesus son of Mary, to be their gods. In fact, they were commanded to worship (none but) the One (true) God. There is no god but He. Exalted is He, far above the partners they associate with Him.”

Here it address scholars, monks also can be a form of idol or thagut. After this ayah reveal a christian come to the Messenger and argue with him says, we don't take our scholar and bishop as God we only take Jesus as our God. And the Messenger say "did your scholar and monks make forbidden what God allow you and you follow?" they say "yes". Then the Messenger continue "did your scholars and monks permit you what God forbid you and you follow?" then they say "yes". Then the Messenger say "then they already act as your God beside God"

If you follow something in taqlid or in full of obedience without questioning, without doubting, and you just listen and obey, and this something already act as your God to you in Islam definition of Theism. And it not work only for non-muslim also for muslim. If we take from our ulama or scholars any of their decision even it contradict with Al Quran and Hadith, then we already make them our God beside Allah. If we listen to what ever Obama say and follow it, and we don't listen to what God ordain us to do and reject it, then Obama already act as a God. Naudzubillah min zhalik

So practically even in your definition mostly peoples are agnostic, but in Islamic terms and definition they can be a very religious idolaters to their own idol. It can be their ideology, it can be their leader, it can be their father, it can be their wife or husband, it even can be their own selves the one that their worship. As it state in the Quran :

Hast thou seen him who chooses for his god his own lust? Would thou be guardian over him? Or deem thou that most of them hear or understand? They are but as the cattle---nay, but they are farther astray." (Al-Qur'an 25:43&44)

In this ayah, even peoples worshiping their own lust as their God beside God. It is because :

And who goes farther astray than he who follows his lust in the place of guidance from Allah. Lo! Allah guides not such oppressors." (Al-Qur'an 28:50)

So as long as I understand, we treat atheist like we treat another non muslim. But you must note this is my understanding and observation. Because also in Quran, there lots of disbeliever that been picture as atheist. As they mock that theism is nothing but an old stories, also they not believe peoples will gather in the day of judgement. While a common idol worshipers do believe these things but the different is they make a syirik or taking another companion beside God. Beside you maybe not fully an agnostic according to Islam definition. Maybe you can worship your own lust and desire, what ever please you and serve your interest than that is the truth. Maybe you can worship your government, what ever they told you, you believe and obey. Maybe you can worship money and status. Maybe you can worship some particular ideology or person. Those can be your God when you follow them without thinking, without verification, when you hear them, then you believe and obey.

Wa sami'na wa taotna : We hear and we obey. That is only the haq or the right of God. While God is one, there no God but God.


That's a philosophical point which is perfectly reasonable to argue as far as I'm concerned. But the source of the universe was never a big challenge posed by modern science to the worldviews of the ancient religions. It was the special place of men in that universe that got challenged. One species that can be explained as the result of long chain of accidents, in one planet orbiting a star among uncountable number of stars in the universe... and we are the ones the creator of the whole thing is giving a damn about?
It is such a preposterous claim that the people who accept the modern scientific view of the universe invariably become agnostics.

Well you say it yourselves, it is a fallacy to say someone who give appreciation to science vis a vis with agnostic. Take for example Fritjchof Capra, Maurices, Charles Eaton, Laing and many other scientist and philosopher that is a appreciator and well known to be theis. At this point I agree with you.

This was the main source or modern agnosticism and modern forms of theism dissociated from the religions of old. Most religions had, after centuries of fighting it, come to terms with this modernity, accept that their social hegemony was finished and they'd have to coexist with plenty of atheists and agnostics. This has yet to happen to any meaningful extend in many of the muslim countries, where becoming an atheist or an agnostic is a state-prosecuted crime! Islamists there are fighting war to maintain their absolute social hegemony that they cannot win, a war against reality. One they should have lost and come to terms with long ago. And their countries will remain weak, poor and backwards until they lose.

In which Islamic country that becoming Atheist is state persecuted crime? And let me correct also some of things that you maybe miss. As european or at least someone who grow in european culture you always see or generalize another religion with Christianity. As the European meet success as their common thinker claim because the separation of the state from religion also the spirit of protestant that been fought with peoples like Max Webber or Voltaire who try to minimize the hegemony of the old religion. You also make a same generalization with Islam, while Islam is entirely a different matters.

Historically the muslim raise because their holding Islam and they fall because they release it. Who is Arab before Islam? who is Turk before Islam? who is Berber before Islam? when the Abbassid caliphate drunk with this world and its wealth and away from the doctrine of Islam and the Caliphate been rule by someone like Musthasim who surround by peoples of the world and whisper things only pleasing his ear, unlike the Pious Harun Ar Rasyid, then the Caliphate fall. When the Ottoman been effected by a writer like Arthur Lumney and erase, changes Islamic law with early modern law, and make a differentiation of the law according to Turk and non Turk not muslim and non muslim then this was the falling of Ottoman.

While Christianity in more popular theory they fall to darkness when their ruling according to the law of the church and they goes to renaissance when they separate with the church. But this is Christianity not Islam. As you can't use Berlin map to travel in Baghdad so you also can't generalize this matters. That is what I believe.

It's not the evil western imperialists abusing them that keep them back. Those are just taking advantage of the situation. It's their own lack of capacity, so far, to adapt to the modern world. Only the Turks did it to a large extent and collected the benefits. And we have yet to see if they won't be stupid enough to go backwards now.

Who is them? us muslim? or our government? It is a fact that western imperial abusing muslim country. Yesterday they plant drugs in Gujarat and sell it to China today they plant it to Afghanistan and sell it to the world. Yesterday they form Hindia Belanda government that been lead by puppet government and puppet king and Sultan and rob Indonesian wealth. Now they installing the same puppet in Indonesia and all of their oil, gas, gold, every mine are belong not to Indonesian peoples but to western TNC (Trans National Company) and MNC (Multi National Company). So what is the difference? nothing. So far the western still the old imperial as it does before but today they have better PR and think thank to convince the crowd that they are free while they are enslave.
 
Why do you think there is "design"? As implied above, I suspect because you believed in a designer first.

It can be also work otherwise. While we see there is a system in this universe, also in this earth, as the earth according to Capra also possibly a living being not a death planet that sciences use to believe before. As it breath Etana and Oxygen and inhale and exhale it in constant manners (I read it long time ago). As we see a death land, and rain fall, then from the death soil appear living being, plants, grass and everything so we can live and take benefit. And we recognize this system appear as a design of life, so we and other can live inside it. From recognizing this design then we think about the designer.

Am I catch it right or wrong Leoreth?
 
Top Bottom