Yet More News from Our Friends and Allies... - Page 3

Fair enough. Thank you for the clarity. I was just trying to ascertain which sources you'd like: academic or religious.

Of course we have already the primary religious source, the Qur'an, which strangely is not good enough to quote in support of Islamic doctrine but, nevertheless, I will give both of the above types. And of course they will then be rejected or ignored haha - but them's the rules!

First some more Qur'anic quotes with my commentary so you can grasp the full import. And surely if someone does not believe these Qur'anic quotes or acts against them their status as a Muslim is in question no?


Remember, 'Allah' is the word for God and is used in Arabic by any faith speaking of God. Here God is saying:

I am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.

That is, followers of Jesus are set up those who disbelieve until the final day. It really cannot be clearer.

You might argue about what 'believe' means or 'belief in what' is meant but again:


I repeat: We believe in what has been revealed to us (Qur'an) and to you (Bible).

I repeat the earlier Qur'anic verse also as you have ignored it and it is unequivocal:


There is no doubt about this verse whatsoever. No religious scholar or cleric has argued against it and every Muslim - except extremists who choose to ignore it - accepts it.

Also, look at the marriage laws. It is illegal to marry an unbeliever:


But wait..... there is another law:


This is where the famous 'logic' we hear so much about (but rarely se in action) comes in. I shall leave you to play with it a while.

On to other sources...from the Catholic Church:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official doctrine document released by the Roman Catholic church, has this to say regarding Muslims:


So we have two sources: the Qur'an and Catholic dogma.

But there's more:

I am a Christian and a Muslim


And that's how it is: Islam doesn't lay it out like that.

One last word to my favourite 'homo-erotic' poet - the one you ignored before, I guess you're not so into poetry - the 13th century Persian poet, Islamic jurist, and Hanafi theologian Mawlānā Jalāl-ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī (Persian: مولانا جلال الدین محمد رومی).


Link

Yes...I asked you what you were looking for and you refused to answer.

This was my only way of finding out.

Jesus, this is tiring...... I'm starting to feel like a wanker for just talking to you

Actually it's not funny - scrub the smiley.

Being in an academic environment I have access to all the established scholarly books and articles and I could quite easily find numerous quotes to support my argument (which after all is merely established academic knowledge). But there's a problem: any academic wishing to support his argument would have to cite Islamic sources. The very ones I just have quoted.

I can offer you NO academic that would proffer this argument without citing the same sources because any such academic wouldn't be one for long.

It's like saying you want an example of a Scientist with accredited credentials who proves a theorem WITHOUT referencing ANY experiments or peer material or any other sources.

What you are saying essentially is: "I want to hear this ONLY from someone who cites the source material and I REFUSE to consider the source material without someone citing it and even then...."

I'm very afraid for your mental health and feel I am not qualified to deal with your issues. It might even be catching.

I think I'll stop.

So you want a source that cites the same Qur'anic verses as I do (and that must be because there is no other origin of this element of Islamic belief) but you refuse to accept me quoting them but someone else is fine.

Yes?

Well, if you are a Wahabi or a Salafist - and as I say, I strongly suspect that you might be - then you should have no problem what to think.

If you believe in a God that would approve of this 19 year old being flogged half to death, affair or not, then you should know EXACTLY what to think.

If you support the Saudis because they are 'upholding God's law' then ditto.

As for me, I know what to think too:

That a God who needs to see 19 year old's whipped for sitting in cars with men or deciding to sleep with 500 men a year outside of marriage is not worthy of the name of 'God' and certainly should not be worshipped.

I for one cannot believe that a being capable of creating the universe in all its beauty and wonder would actually have the mindset of a Wahabi.

And if such turns out to be the case then I will sign up for Satanism.

But there is no danger. The Saudis and their supporters are sick perverted fascist bigots. These are not characteristics of God in Islam or any other tradition.

Btw, I loved this from the link....


Well, I won't decline to judge them: more sick fuckers from exactly the same mould.....

Yep.

I'll side with the civilized world on this one.

Islam is a great religion. A beautiful religion. A civilized religion.

But I'm afraid there are people in it who are the polar opposite of these things. Just as there are people outside the religion helping them portray Islam falsely as actually consisting of these things.

When the two meet head-on I think I'll side with beauty and civilization.

Yeah...I'm pretty good on banning music and art and blowing up antiquities too...

@Nightcrawler: would appreciate your take on this - 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested - if you (or anyone else) would care to venture an opinion.

The background:


Wahabis again.

OMG...you may have something......

Yes...and why aren't the kids in the dock eh? They were the ones that voted....I say string 'em up....

Meanwhile back with the Sauds: Bush Approves Twenty-Billion Dollar Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

Looks like they'll be able to torture a few more 'terrorists' with that hardware....

I would say that there are no Islamic countries full stop. I can't think of one anyway.

Having said that, I would say that of countries where there are large or majority Muslim populations then there are many where women are 'treated well'.

Syria: equal rights. No dress code.
Jordan: ditto
Turkey: the same re hijab etc and of course many women choose to wear it though there is no law but here the human rights in general is a bit dodgy men or women.

Same in Egypt & (to a lesser extent) Morocco. Both very western. ANd of course Iraq before 'freedom' was a classic example of an Arab State with great women's rights believe it or not.

Re the Iran question. It is more a question of being anti-Saudi than pro-Iran though my theological orientation does incline somewhat to the Shi'ia.

I suppose I am also 'pro' to the extent they are being lied about and prepped for slaughter. When Iraq was in this phase I was 'pro Iraq' and when it's Syria's turn I guess I'll be 'pro Syria'.

We've done the bears - see posts above.

Waiting for Nightcrawler to weigh in with how many witness are needed to have seen the bear being named and whether it should have the stuffing pulled out of it with a hot pair of pliers or merely have it's button nose hacked off.

Please try to keep up. I know you are ten years behind the curve in academic trends but there's really no excuse for it in an ongoing thread.

I'm still on tenterhooks to hear Nightcrawler's take on BearGate.

I'm really hoping for the ostensible rationale behind this and a considered opinion....

I agree.

Religion - imo - should be evolutionary. You might get away with the odd stoning or witch-burning 1500 years ago but time moves on.

If the guardians of any religion do not move on and instead want to remain living in a world of 1500 years ago then they have no place in the modern world. Clearly.

That is not a criticism of religion as such; it is a sign that the practitioners and leaders of it cannot adapt.

Or maybe they are just bigots.

And there you have it. The awe-inspiring Fundie mindset, red in tooth and claw and naked in its hideous majesty.

If 'they' found mosques. Do not support 'them'.

But all it really boils down to is; who is the heretic? Who is 'us' and who is 'them'?

Of course for the Fundie, such questions are simple: anyone but us is the heretic.

Others - particularly those with the unfortunate habit of introspection and non-reductionist objective consideration of other points of view - may not find it so simplistic.

You should check him out....well, if you want. Artaud is good too.


Well, just because you don't see it doesn't mean that much. Many people don't see many things. It does not mean those things do not exist; it may just mean someone is disinclined to look. Or perhaps they cannot see green because they are colour blind. Many possibilities.

I would tend to judge a thing by its highest manifestation rather than its lowest and by that token one could find that Islam has contributed to the highest elements of world civilization; its literature is ranked amongst the world's masterpieces, its art is among the most beautiful of human creations and of course the scientific achievements, as we know, are the foundation of Western culture.

Of course there are those who would also see these 'good' things but would remove them and deny they have anything to do with Islam which must, by definition, only contain the bad.

And there are also - of course - those who would look at those things and see them as ugly and worthless.

But that's how the world is. I believe that Chavs also view Shakespeare as 'crap'.


Strange thing to say.

I am not sure they are beautiful at all. Are you perhaps envisaging them going off over specific geographical locations?

I also believe that - as 'ugly' as they are - should a rogue State be threatening an innocent community with one it might be better for the threatened State to possess one.


Well, depends on your view of religion I suppose. If you are a Fundie I rather think it might, But that's a good thing.

In Islam (as I have mentioned to you on the odd occasion), before the Fundies took hold there was a tradition of free thinking that led to the great Scientific discoveries that were later 'discovered' by the West and which you probably wish to deny were made by Muslim thinkers.

Strangely, evolution was one of these - and that by one of the most orthodox Muslim teachers.

But I rather think that you refer not to Darwinian evolution but to the developmental aspect of religion which you have trouble accepting because you see religion as a stasis fixed and mired in the time of its inception.

That's the difference between your view and mine. I see the Fundies as being stuck in stasis, fixed and mired in the cultural view of 1500 years ago.

They have managed to convince everyone that their view is correct. Even you, who oppose their views nominally, agree in a sense that their overview is TRUE because you accept their contention that they really represent what religion is.

Of course you are both wrong and it can easily be proved by reference to Islamic sources themselves that Islam is developmental.

I believe the Islamic end-time prophecies specifically state that there will be another Revelation that supersedes the Qur'an and which Muslims will find very difficult to accept. This is merely a continuation of the belief that most religions are from the same source and are refinements of each other.

Can't get more evolutionary than that.


Except that he didn't but let's not let that get in the way of anything...

It is very difficult to postulate evil in an Islamic sense surely. Is not God the sole reality in existence? How can two things. 'evil' and 'God' coexist? And surely God cannot contain 'evil'? So does it really exist?

I would say that laws are just that: laws. And as such are subject to change.

I would argue that evil does not exist and that this is a perfectly acceptable Islamic view.

Well, there you are wrong.

If you think that the desert Arabs of the Hijaz could have gone on to found one of the world's greatest civilizations without Islam then.....well, of course you do think this....


Wrong again.

Islam means 'submission' and a Muslim is a 'submitter' - to be a Muslim is to practice Islam. The two are - or should be - synonymous.


Of course. That is a possibility and I am open to it. Are you open to the possibility that you yourself may also be of that kind?

I suppose the answers to that are actually the answers to the larger question too.


Yep. Fraid so.


It's an interesting question.

I once gave a lecture at a class at SOAS that was on this very issue: was Muhammad's Revelation a Symptom of Mental Illness.

This was in the mid-90s and fundie-ism was just taking hold. Some literalist students walked-out and complained and there was quite a bit of trouble but actually such questions are not only acceptable in an Islamic sense - it are mandatory,

For example, it is a command in Islam (hadith of Muhammad) to seek knowledge everywhere and whatever the cost. In practice this means to search relentlessly for the truth.

Islamically, in theological terms, the theory is that if a sincere person uses his reason ('aql) then if he sincerely wants to find the truth then, as reason is given by God, then by definition he must find it.

Therefore a question like 'was Muhammad mad' is not only allowed but it is mandatory for a truth-seeker as - providing they ware sincerely searching - they must by definition arrive at the truth of the matter if the seek it.

This is the basis of Islamic thought and - much as you will hate it - this is exactly the doctrine that enabled Muslims to make the discoveries even you accept they did. Without this doctrine they would not have done so. And it was unknown in the Hejaz prior to Islam.

So I would say that the issue is one of 'truth'. All religion should be a search for truth regarding certain metaphysical issues. When it ceases to be this then it ceases to be religion. Imo.

So, if you really want the truth of whether Muhammad was a madman then - as long as you are not a fundie or an Islamopobe for example but really want the truth - then you will find the truth.

Of course it may not be easy and there's always the option of blind faith in a doctrine (religious or atheistic) as an alternative for the incapable and the intellectually lazy.


Well, how about you give us an example of such an absolute? How can I destroy your argument if you don't posit one?

In Islam I know of only one absolute - the shahada which is to say "There is no God but God and Muhammad is His Prophet". Accept this and one is a Muslim regardless of any other belief.

And of course, Arabic being a root language, there are many, many interpretations of the words "Prophet" and "God" so basically anyone virtually is home free.

But of course there is also the fact that Islam itself claims to be a supercession of other religions. Each Revelation is for the time it is revealed.

The only people I know who believe that a religion is carved in stone and frozen in the time it arose are the Fundies and literalists. Oh, and you.


I think you'll find the TTs are Marxist.

If you want to construct an argument for religious Marxism I'd be more than happy to hear it.

Meanwhile I think that far better minds than either yours or mine have found the gentleman in question's findings compelling.

Which is why, if you think about it, neither you nor I are a respected Professor in that field compiling data on this issue.

My argument is not that it is Islam or even religion in general that motivates such people but more that something must serve as a unifying factor and that it was Islam in this case in this area.

Later in other regions it is other things; the British Empire, Communism, whatever.


I disagree on several points here. Much - if not all - institutionalized religion is 'manmade' as you say but in such a case no-one following it ever really does so 'of their own accord'. Their is in such cases, always an element of force and control.

The second point where I would demur is that although religions may well be man-made, the experience of the numinous is something else.


Not sure what this has to do with the issue. There have always been wars and fighting. It's what humanity does and was doing aeons before the first religion arose.

Of course one can point to religious violence. If one wanted one could make a case that violence is perpetrated by people with black hair. What such a view ignores of course is that everyone else is at it too.

But I guess it is also a human proclivity to single out specific groups to isolate and blame whilst exonerating the group to which one oneself owes allegiance.


Not baselessly. It's just that you and they share an interest in promoting them as genuine so you will not look.

And no, their claim to truth is not as valid. Seems strange you would say that. Are you really trying to argue that a believer that God created Man in 7 days has as much a claim to truth as someone arguing from a basis of Scientific fact?

Seems odd......


Of course. You really do not know much about Islam do you?

I know you are using the meme 'madman' to discredit Muhammad - perhaps because you are not capable of dismissing him by reasoned debate or maybe you just rely on such tactics across the board - but it is quite amusing because, for once, you are right!!!!

I won't bother explaining as that would of course be a sane response (ie to attempt to reason, albeit in a situation where it is pointless) and as I myself am utterly mad I'll instead be true to myself as ever and merely provide links which can be ignored and tossed away by all and sundry with all the disdain accorded to a discarded condom.

Holy Madness

Madness and Liberation

In short, Union with God is in Islam regarded as Madness.


Except that as you yourself say, that freedom leads to many different versions of Islam. Given that you agree that one can take any road they choose - who is it that you envisages wants this result?

Who is the 'I' in the 'just be sure to go exactly where I want you to!'? Whoever it is they are not doing a very good job are they? No-one knows who they are and there is no unanimous doctrine....no doctrine or dogma at all in fact. Odd.


'Faith' is a belief in something that has not yet been proved one way or another. The non-existence or existence of God for example.

'Blind' is the condition of people who act in relation to this faith as if it had been proved and refuses to consider other options because of it. The condition of an atheist who is convinced they are correct when they are only possibly correct for example.


Can one be a vegetarian and eat meat?


I don't do mocking. I occasionally do 'labeling' or even, on a good day, 'describing'.


Hehe, you always fire the 'dishonesty; shot at a certain part of the argument. they call it a 'tell' in poker. I'd play you anytime.

Well, we;ve established that nothing means what it's supposed to mean, black can be white and and blah, blah. Let;s go with that remarkably Neocon-esque thought process; so you can have atheist HIndus then.

How do we know it is not the atheist part doing the suicide bombing?


Not at all. I don't necessarily agree with the Professor. You'd know this if you paid attention as I intimated as much earlier. I am just dealing with the gargantuan errors you keep serving up before I deal with him. Which I may not do anyway because it's more fun watching you struggling for ways to dismiss him which are patently obvious and should take minutes not days.


Keep saying it. It won't make it any more accurate but I do so love it when you run out of other ammo!


He structured an argument. Unlike you. I posted his argument in response to your claim there was no argument. You have not yet convincingly addressed it let alone disproved it, which to be honest is slightly shocking, it is not so difficult.....