"Democracy" in Fallujah [Archive]

Deathpasser

23-11-2004, 04:08

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu ya Muslimeen
Greetings everyone else

Before I begin a response, I have to ask you (Wildlifer) why you use an avater with it saying " Stop War " and almost every thing you post says "Kill Muslims"????

Who knows what your pictures represent? There's no context.
Obviously they represent democracy. But to people like you, pictures of innocent Muslim men, women and children martyred(inshaallah) by the Crusader forces represents "fascists are crushed like the vermin they are".
And if they don't represent democracy then they represent what AmeriKKKans are willing to do to bring democracy. On behalf of every sane Iraqi/Muslim/Arab I must say we would rather not have democracy. We've seen what democracy is like and as it turns out the masses of the Muslim people oppose a government "by the people, for the people" because we are Muslims, "By Allah, for Allah".

And what of the blood-soaked torture/murder chambers of the Islamofascists in Fallujah?

The torture/murder chambers belong to Crusaders, in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and countless other areas.

In a perfect world all would be free to live, worship, prosper as they wished in peace

That's what a perfect world is according to you. It's an opinion. There is no such thing as a "perfect world" because Allah(swt) didn't want it that way.
Of course, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of your imagination so continue dreaming for this imperfect world (which is perfect according to you)....of course you'll be doing so in vain.

You Americans sure aren't helping in bringing about a perfect world. You people seem to have forgotten the peace part.

there seems to always be a group with an ideology which wishes to enslave the human spirit and impose their peculiar worldview on the populace.

EXACTLY. You basiclly summarized what your coalition is. Western imperialist who wish to enslave the human spirit and impose their peculiar worldveiw (democracy) on the populace.

Conspiracy theories aside, with liberation comes the chance for the Iraqi people to choose their own destiny.
There is only one way to get liberation, by kicking out the imperialists. "The suitcase or the coffin" was a slogan for Algerian fighters when they attempted to liberate Algeria, but unfortunatly, the democratic deisease took advantage of their fight to rid themselves of French colonialism. Here we have a different case, where the democratic disease has to fight the cure head-on.

What price is too high for freedom?

The price too high for the "freedom" you mention...hmmm...maybe the above pictures posted by sis Sadika are a good example of prices being too high.

wildlifer

23-11-2004, 09:04

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu ya Muslimeen
Greetings everyone else

Before I begin a response, I have to ask you (Wildlifer) why you use an avater with it saying " Stop War " and almost every thing you post says "Kill Muslims"????

I never said I supported America entering the war, I did not. But since we are there, I support the rights of the Iraqi people to finally govern themselves. The only way to stop this war is by crushing the Islamofascists, whom I don't view as true Muslims.
You don't seem to care your Islamofascist buddies are killing, purposely and indiscriminately, Iraqi Muslims, though do you?
I for one would prefer all the killing to stop and let the Iraqis vote, how about you?

Obviously they represent democracy.

LOL, I understand English may not be your first language, but those causualties of war do not equal Democracy anymore than a suicide bomber is Islam.

But to people like you, pictures of innocent Muslim men, women and children martyred(inshaallah) by the Crusader forces represents "fascists are crushed like the vermin they are".

There were what? Three or four pictures of unquestionable innocence? We don't know if the men were combatants or not.

And if they don't represent democracy then they represent what AmeriKKKans are willing to do to bring democracy. On behalf of every sane Iraqi/Muslim/Arab I must say we would rather not have democracy. We've seen what democracy is like and as it turns out the masses of the Muslim people oppose a government "by the people, for the people" because we are Muslims, "By Allah, for Allah".

It ain't about the "masses." It's about the minorities. The masses were behind Hitler as well.

The torture/murder chambers belong to Crusaders, in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and countless other areas.

One alleged death in Abu Ghraib compared to? We'll probably never know: Sweeps of rubble-strewn neighbourhoods in Fallujah have uncovered a grisly underworld of hostage slaughterhouses, prisons and torture chambers as well as the corpses of Iraqis who had been executed, marines say.

Later in the day, a unit of marines found the eight men, all fairly burly and aged between about 20 and 45, in central Fallujah, said the reporter.

The bodies had no uniforms or distinguishing features to identify them, but two were simply dressed in their underwear, he said.

Surviving hostages have also been found, but only one has been a foreigner - a Syrian driver who was abducted with two French journalists in August.

That's what a perfect world is according to you. It's an opinion.

So what's a "perfect" world in your opinion? One in which man is enslaved by the majority's ideology?

There is no such thing as a "perfect world" because Allah(swt) didn't want it that way.

I am prevented by the rules of this forum from giving this a proper response. However, I invite you here (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=001471;p=1#000 010) for a democratic discussion of these issues.

Of course, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of your imagination so continue dreaming for this imperfect world (which is perfect according to you)....of course you'll be doing so in vain.

Again, your poor comprehension of English is getting in the way. That's not what I said.

You Americans sure aren't helping in bringing about a perfect world. You people seem to have forgotten the peace part.

I'll agree with you here, peace is forgotten, and will remain so until tyranny is defeated.

EXACTLY. You basiclly summarized what your coalition is. Western imperialist who wish to enslave the human spirit and impose their peculiar worldveiw (democracy) on the populace.

No, Democracy means that even though one may be born in a household with a repressive ideology or religion, they may choose to reject it, and not be murdered for rejecting that belief, or forced to practice that belief just because of an accident of birth.

There is only one way to get liberation, by kicking out the imperialists. "The suitcase or the coffin" was a slogan for Algerian fighters when they attempted to liberate Algeria, but unfortunatly, the democratic deisease took advantage of their fight to rid themselves of French colonialism. Here we have a different case, where the democratic disease has to fight the cure head-on.

It'll never happen. Perhaps had 911 not ocurred there would be a chance Americans collectively would see tens of thousands of American casualties as too great, but no more. As even here, lubna has stated the Islamofascist agenda is global domination. So what price freedom, indeed.

What price is too high for freedom?

The price too high for the "freedom" you mention...hmmm...maybe the above pictures posted by sis Sadika are a good example of prices being too high.

Had the American colonists that mentality, we'd still be under the yoke of the crown.
I guess that's why Muslims have always huddled like cowards under the oppressive regimes of the Middle East, rather than revolt. They would rather blame other's for their plight than look inward at fellow Muslims. By the way, where was your great Mujahideen when Saddam was slaughtering thousands of innocent Muslims? Oh, but that was a (lapsed) Sunni slaughtering Shia's wasn't it?
Your propaganda is irrational and childish. The Mujahideen fight for Sunni's, killing innocent Iraqis in their wake. It's not about the Iraqi people or what the Iraqi people want. It's about groups of Islamofascists trying to control Iraq. But Sadr appears to have seen the light and silenced his Iranian handlers.

lubna

23-11-2004, 11:30

The Mujahideen fight for Sunni's, killing innocent Iraqis in their wake. It's not about the Iraqi people or what the Iraqi people want. It's about groups of Islamofascists trying to control Iraq.But Sadr appears to have seen the light and silenced his Iranian handlers.

what about him seen the light of fighting the guerilla warfare , just like taliban are, a very effective method for muslims i.e slow and steady wins the race.that way he will save the holy shrines from being bombarded by US as well...
talk about wissdom and ingenuity.... we muslims are blessed with it alhumdulillah, and our enemy is just a brute stupid force.

so i dont have to buy your above claim until it is verified, i believe in mind over matter too and in islam it is forbidden to get despair no matter how dark the situation is, so am full of positive thoughts about my fellow muslim brethern and mujahidine, and my faith will not waver by any doubts caused by media and my enemy inshaAllah.
your efforts of instigating hatered among shia sunni muslims are getting too obvious, better come up with a new trick.

I never said I supported America entering the war, I did not. But since we are there,.

its like saying, i never supported cannibalism but since you have killed a human i might as well eat his leg!!
if you dont support war then why dont you tell US to get out of Iraq? oh yes when iraqi mujahidine will kick the US/Uk out , then you will say i never wanted US to stay there.... ;) . what lies in your heart only you and Allah knows but what you utter with your tongue, we can all testify to that.

wildlifer

23-11-2004, 14:36

what about him seen the light of fighting the guerilla warfare , just like taliban are, a very effective method for muslims i.e slow and steady wins the race.that way he will save the holy shrines from being bombarded by US as well...
talk about wissdom and ingenuity.... we muslims are blessed with it alhumdulillah, and our enemy is just a brute stupid force.

so i dont have to buy your above claim until it is verified, i believe in mind over matter too and in islam it is forbidden to get despair no matter how dark the situation is, so am full of positive thoughts about my fellow muslim brethern and mujahidine, and my faith will not waver by any doubts caused by media and my enemy inshaAllah.

Sadr has withdrawn his advocacy for "insurgency" and has entered the Democratic process. Look it up. Nevermind, here, I'll do it, as you'll just sit around and wait for Al-Jazeera to feed you from the slop bucket of ignorance.
Muqtada al-Sadr, the outlawed Shiite leader who on Wednesday ordered his private militia to go home and end six weeks of confrontations with U.S. troops in Najaf and Kufa, has indicated through his spokesmen that he plans to form a political party with the intention of contesting Iraq's first democratic elections, scheduled for January.

The party doesn't yet have a name or a platform but is sure to win widespread support, predicted Sheik Hassan Adhari, who runs al-Sadr's office in Sadr City, the vast Shiite slum in northeastern Baghdad that is home to many of al-Sadr's core constituency of impoverished urban Shiites.

"His Eminence already has millions of supporters, and this party will extend his popularity to those who have criticized his methods in the past," Adhari said, referring to al-Sadr. "They will see for themselves that his policies are good."

your efforts of instigating hatered among shia sunni muslims are getting too obvious, better come up with a new trick.

Instigating? You need to go to Merriam-Webster dot.com and look up the meaning of the word. I am just stating the blatently obvious - well, to thinking people anyway - facts.

its like saying, i never supported cannibalism but since you have killed a human i might as well eat his leg!!
if you dont support war then why dont you tell US to get out of Iraq? oh yes when iraqi mujahidine will kick the US/Uk out , then you will say i never wanted US to stay there.... ;) . what lies in your heart only you and Allah knows but what you utter with your tongue, we can all testify to that.

You're smoking rope. First, your analogy misses the mark by a mile. Second, I said I did not support the US entering into war, not that I supported Saddam and his regime. When the Islamofascists have put down their arms and a lawfully elected government is in place, I will support the military's withdrawal.
And finally, just keep calling me a liar without backing it up with anything more than your ignorance. You only make yourself look more (if that's possible) rediculous.

Tayeb

23-11-2004, 21:29

Hello wildlifer:

Islam and fascism are antagonic as the latter entails ethnical superiority, racism and even racial superiority. So your usage of the word fascist or fascism in classifying the Islamic resistance fighters in Iraq is completely out of any semblance of reality.

wildlifer

24-11-2004, 01:43

Deathpasser

24-11-2004, 05:38

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu ya Muslimeen
Greetings everyone else

Welcome all, to another segment of combating arrogance, not ignorance...

The only way to stop this war is by crushing the Islamofascists, whom I don't view as true Muslims.

I'm sure you'd know what a true Muslim is, being an infidel and all, you should have a better insight as to what a Muslim really is...
Please explain to us Muslims (who aren't "true" Muslims) what YOUR definition of a "true" Muslim is.

You don't seem to care your Islamofascist buddies are killing, purposely and indiscriminately, Iraqi Muslims, though do you?

They don't kill purposely and indiscriminately, that position has been taken by the imperialist coalition of Crusaders. Get your facts straight.

I for one would prefer all the killing to stop and let the Iraqis vote, how about you?

That's not how you bring back the Chalipha so obviously you know I don't want a "vote". You know quite well my stance on democracy which is contradictary to Islam. Allow me to site Algeria again, where an "Islamic" party was about to win and the government decided to ban the elections. It was backed by all the democratic nations. It turns out that you can't vote for disestablishment of democracy through democracy therefore democracy will never and can never be incorporated into Islamic values and beliefs.

I understand English may not be your first language

You make too many assumptions, when did I ever say English was not my first language. I was unfortunatly born in your country and taught your cursed culture and your cursed ideals. I broke free from the Devil's grasp after I witnessed for myself who I really was, and what I was doing. I had lost my culture and my ideals and replaced them with yours, and today I am proud to say that I have reclaimed my culture and my true ideals. A while ago you may have seen me at dances, enjoying myself and commiting haram (astagfirullah). And today, when you see me, I will be praying, I will be studying and researching for the benefit of the Ummah and I will be preaching (inshaallah).

There were what? Three or four pictures of unquestionable innocence?
Take a look at my signiture, at the qoute purportedly from Sheikh Osama.
I wonder too, what religon considers our martyrs rubbish and their own dead as innocents.

It ain't about the "masses." It's about the minorities. The masses were behind Hitler as well.

It seems you misunderstood the meaning of your own democracy. In which everything is about the masses and the minorities don't exist.

The masses were behind Hitler as well.
The masses are behind Bush as well. The similarities between the two can't be missed even by the blind people...

Sweeps of rubble-strewn neighbourhoods in Fallujah have uncovered a grisly underworld of hostage slaughterhouses, prisons and torture chambers as well as the corpses of Iraqis who had been executed, marines say.

Notice how the marines said this, also notice how your marines are lieing creatures not even qualifing to be considered part of the human race who invade other nations for their own worldly benefits.

However, I invite you here for a democratic discussion of these issues

I don't accept democracy therefore there is no reason for a democratic discussion.

No, Democracy means that even though one may be born in a household with a repressive ideology or religion, they may choose to reject it, and not be murdered for rejecting that belief, or forced to practice that belief

I was born in a household with the repressive ideology of democracy, this household happens to be the USA. I can't reject it, it's there, it's a fact, it's a living beast. But I must agree, this democracy of yours doesn't murder me for rejecting it, rather it is more sinister as I am persecuted. And persecution is worse then death.

Perhaps had 911 not ocurred there would be a chance Americans collectively would see tens of thousands of American casualties as too great, but no more.

Straight from an American mouth, why does 9/11 fit in completely with Bush's agenda. Of course if Americans don't see tens of thousands of casulties as to much then it's their own loss, because it would leave the Mujahideen with no choice, but to kill every last one.

Had the American colonists that mentality, we'd still be under the yoke of the crown.
Isn't it nice how American colonists don't have our mentallity. That's why your colonists are no longer under the yolk of the crown but rather on the Red man's land. Which, might I add, your colonisers colonized.

I guess that's why Muslims have always huddled like cowards under the oppressive regimes of the Middle East, rather than revolt.

Once, again you need your facts straightened out again. The Mujahideen WERE fighting Saddam Hussein a.k.a. Americas puppet in Iraq (this position is now filled by Allawi). Your American news agencys failed to report the weapons caches that didn't belong to Saddam, the wepon's caches that Mujahideen had. They had been building up and I'm sure the US noticed that, it was the same reason they came to "help" Muslims in Bosnia.

But Sadr appears to have seen the light and silenced his Iranian handlers

Straighten out your facts American. Sadr, never wanted to fight, even though some may believe he did. But if you look at what he's always said...
He always just wanted power, for him, religon is just a guise. Even before he "began his fight" he was calling Shi'ites to vote for him in democratic election. He fought when Americans said he had to disband his milita. Then he stopped, but he fought again when Americans said he couldn't participate until he disbanded his militia. The Americans are just pushing for a civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis.

You need to go to Merriam-Webster dot.com and look up the meaning of the word.

Is that all you Americans are good at. Ridiculing people because they supposedly don't know YOUR LANGUAGE as well as YOU do.

When the Islamofascists have put down their arms and a lawfully elected government is in place, I will support the military's withdrawal.

These "Islamofascists" do put down their wepons, every Friday for prayer. When Americans invaded our Musjid in Baghdad and murdered in cold-blood, 3 innocent worshippers, arrested dozens and wounded many more, how the Hell do you expect these "Islamofascists" to put down their wepons. After we see the barbarity and evil of the US, you should expect the Muslims to in fact bring their AK47s to the Musjid with them, as many have begun doing after this incident. The Americans will seize on this opportunity and say they were insurgents (because they carry guns to protect themselves from drunken trigger-happy Americans).

Or as lubna has nicely illustrated, visions of religious superiority.

That's not what fascism means, learn your language!

wildlifer

24-11-2004, 08:01

Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatu ya Muslimeen
Greetings everyone else

Welcome all, to another segment of combating arrogance, not ignorance...

LOL, yours.

I'm sure you'd know what a true Muslim is, being an infidel and all, you should have a better insight as to what a Muslim really is...
Please explain to us Muslims (who aren't "true" Muslims) what YOUR definition of a "true" Muslim is.

Trying to get me banned are you? Nice try.

They don't kill purposely and indiscriminately, that position has been taken by the imperialist coalition of Crusaders. Get your facts straight.

They care not whom their IEDs kill, only that they kill, for as long as security is an issue in Iraq the people are prevented from looking to the future and elections.

That's not how you bring back the Chalipha so obviously you know I don't want a "vote". You know quite well my stance on democracy which is contradictary to Islam. Allow me to site Algeria again, where an "Islamic" party was about to win and the government decided to ban the elections. It was backed by all the democratic nations. It turns out that you can't vote for disestablishment of democracy through democracy therefore democracy will never and can never be incorporated into Islamic values and beliefs.

Negative. Democracy and FUNDAMENTALIST Wahabbi/Sunni Islam are incompatible. But as the evidence shows there are millions of Muslims living peacefully within Democracies all over the world. Funny too, why did millions of Muslims in Afghanistan even bother voting, if voting is not compatible with their beliefs?

You make too many assumptions, when did I ever say English was not my first language. I was unfortunatly born in your country and taught your cursed culture and your cursed ideals. I broke free from the Devil's grasp after I witnessed for myself who I really was, and what I was doing. I had lost my culture and my ideals and replaced them with yours, and today I am proud to say that I have reclaimed my culture and my true ideals. A while ago you may have seen me at dances, enjoying myself and commiting haram (astagfirullah). And today, when you see me, I will be praying, I will be studying and researching for the benefit of the Ummah and I will be preaching (inshaallah).

My condolences you found you were not enough within yourself.

Take a look at my signiture, at the qoute purportedly from Sheikh Osama.
I wonder too, what religon considers our martyrs rubbish and their own dead as innocents.

For one thing I'm an atheist so I have no religion. For another, I never said the children in those pictures were "rubbish," and indeed wrote they were of unquestionable innocence. And lastly, since "martyr" has become synonymous with deluded fools strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up children, do you really believe the rational-rest of the world would view "martyr" as anything else other than "rubbish?"

It seems you misunderstood the meaning of your own democracy. In which everything is about the masses and the minorities don't exist.

The masses are behind Bush as well. The similarities between the two can't be missed even by the blind people...

You know nothing of the workings of a representative Democracy. Ever hear the term Checks and Balances? Sure the President can be elected by the majority, but he must answer to the Congress, and both are kept in check by the Supreme Court. So yes, it's all about protecting minority rights and minorities.

Notice how the marines said this, also notice how your marines are lieing creatures not even qualifing to be considered part of the human race who invade other nations for their own worldly benefits.

That's okay, just keep sticking those fingers in your ears and chanting "it is not true, it is not true, it is not true."

I don't accept democracy therefore there is no reason for a democratic discussion.

I figured you'd hide.

I was born in a household with the repressive ideology of democracy, this household happens to be the USA. I can't reject it, it's there, it's a fact, it's a living beast. But I must agree, this democracy of yours doesn't murder me for rejecting it, rather it is more sinister as I am persecuted. And persecution is worse then death.

Oh, lets hear how the poor child is "persecuted" by democracy.

Straight from an American mouth, why does 9/11 fit in completely with Bush's agenda. Of course if Americans don't see tens of thousands of casulties as to much then it's their own loss, because it would leave the Mujahideen with no choice, but to kill every last one.

As they will have to do. It's becoming quite appearant this one's for all the marbles, so to speak. The Japanese at Pearl Harbor killed fewer than Al Queda did in New York, would you expect less of a response? Less resolve?

Isn't it nice how American colonists don't have our mentallity. That's why your colonists are no longer under the yolk of the crown but rather on the Red man's land. Which, might I add, your colonisers colonized.

Yes, some of my ancestors gave way to the Europeans. Too late to cry over spilled milk.

Once, again you need your facts straightened out again. The Mujahideen WERE fighting Saddam Hussein a.k.a. Americas puppet in Iraq (this position is now filled by Allawi). Your American news agencys failed to report the weapons caches that didn't belong to Saddam, the wepon's caches that Mujahideen had. They had been building up and I'm sure the US noticed that, it was the same reason they came to "help" Muslims in Bosnia.

No they weren't. Saddam was like a rich uncle, disliked by the family, but useful to the cause when need be.

Straighten out your facts American. Sadr, never wanted to fight, even though some may believe he did. But if you look at what he's always said...
He always just wanted power, for him, religon is just a guise. Even before he "began his fight" he was calling Shi'ites to vote for him in democratic election. He fought when Americans said he had to disband his milita. Then he stopped, but he fought again when Americans said he couldn't participate until he disbanded his militia. The Americans are just pushing for a civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis.

No, civil war is trying to be avoided.

These "Islamofascists" do put down their wepons, every Friday for prayer. When Americans invaded our Musjid in Baghdad and murdered in cold-blood, 3 innocent worshippers, arrested dozens and wounded many more, how the Hell do you expect these "Islamofascists" to put down their wepons. After we see the barbarity and evil of the US, you should expect the Muslims to in fact bring their AK47s to the Musjid with them, as many have begun doing after this incident. The Americans will seize on this opportunity and say they were insurgents (because they carry guns to protect themselves from drunken trigger-happy Americans).

You're too funny. You really believe this dribble? Want to buy a bridge?

That's not what fascism means, learn your language!

In the context of their purpose - a theistic autocratic government - yes, that's fascism.

Asif

24-11-2004, 15:30

Negative. Democracy and FUNDAMENTALIST Wahabbi/Sunni Islam are incompatible. But as the evidence shows there are millions of Muslims living peacefully within Democracies all over the world. Funny too, why did millions of Muslims in Afghanistan even bother voting, if voting is not compatible with their beliefs?

I wish to raise a few points here:

1. Are you, wildlifer, saying that Sunni Muslims (who account for approximately 90% of all the Muslims in the world) are (in your opinion) "misguided"? Funny, how you believe that the majority of Muslims are not on the right track. Funnier even is the fact that a non-Muslim is passing comments on which Muslims are and aren't rightly guided.

Remember, all (or at least the majority of) Muslims are fundamentalists, in that they believe in and follow the fundamentals (and the totality) of their Deen (religion).

Perhaps you need to brush-up on some of your terminology. It can be quite misleading and can lead to misunderstandings.

Also, I am still not quite clear about what you mean when you use the term "Wahhabi". I had asked you this question once in the past, to which you gave a response, followed by a response by me (and some others), after which you failed to reply to us. I am under the impression that you're not quite sure who/what a "Wahhabi" is.

If, however, you were referring to the "extremist Muslims", then once again, one wonders how you define an "extremist" and what criteria you use to do so. For us Muslims, there is a Shari'i definition of an extremist which, if I am correct, is a person who exceeds the boundaries laid down by the religion. Allah Knows Best.

2. On the issue of democracy, I will be the first to admit that I may not be knowledgeable on this subject, but I thought that democracy is not entirely contradictory to Islam. If one were to say that secularism is contradictory to Islam, I'd agree whole-heartedly, for this is the truth. But, I do remember reading a piece written by Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi on this subject, and if I remember correctly, he did say that one could have an "Islamic democracy", where the Qur'an and the Sunnah would be the basis for the constitution of the Muslim state. Anyway, I am an ignorant slave of Allah. Perhaps we could hold a discussion on this subject (elsewhere) so that one is clear about what is and isn't the truth of the matter, and Allah Knows Best.

3. I would not recommend a person to decide what is and isn't allowed in Islam and what is and isn't compatible with Islam, based on the actions/practices of Muslims. Just becase Muslims may or may not be doing a certain thing does not necessarily make that particular thing right or wrong. The criteria for deciding what is and isn't wrong is the Shariah. Allah Knows Best.

4. This whole game of "learn this or that language" needs to stop. It is one thing to correct another individual's mistakes and quite another to laugh at their mistakes. Knowing and speaking English perfectly is not a prerequisite to participating at this website. Therefore I ask all of you to quit behaving like children and to grow up. Pardon my strong language (well, it's alot politer than the way in which some of you have been holding discussions) but such behaviour is simply not helping in discussing important matters.

Wassalam,
Asif.

wildlifer

24-11-2004, 17:03

I wish to raise a few points here:

1. Are you, wildlifer, saying that Sunni Muslims (who account for approximately 90% of all the Muslims in the world) are (in your opinion) "misguided"? Funny, how you believe that the majority of Muslims are not on the right track. Funnier even is the fact that a non-Muslim is passing comments on which Muslims are and aren't rightly guided.

Remember, all (or at least the majority of) Muslims are fundamentalists, in that they believe in and follow the fundamentals (and the totality) of their Deen (religion).

Perhaps you need to brush-up on some of your terminology. It can be quite misleading and can lead to misunderstandings.

Also, I am still not quite clear about what you mean when you use the term "Wahhabi". I had asked you this question once in the past, to which you gave a response, followed by a response by me (and some others), after which you failed to reply to us. I am under the impression that you're not quite sure who/what a "Wahhabi" is.

If, however, you were referring to the "extremist Muslims", then once again, one wonders how you define an "extremist" and what criteria you use to do so. For us Muslims, there is a Shari'i definition of an extremist which, if I am correct, is a person who exceeds the boundaries laid down by the religion. Allah Knows Best.

Perhaps you would care to start another thread in which we can examine the sects of Islam - the "defining" tenets of each - including the 21st Century version of 18th Century Wahhabism and global conversion.

2. On the issue of democracy, I will be the first to admit that I may not be knowledgeable on this subject, but I thought that democracy is not entirely contradictory to Islam. If one were to say that secularism is contradictory to Islam, I'd agree whole-heartedly, for this is the truth. But, I do remember reading a piece written by Dr. Yusuf Al Qaradawi on this subject, and if I remember correctly, he did say that one could have an "Islamic democracy", where the Qur'an and the Sunnah would be the basis for the constitution of the Muslim state. Anyway, I am an ignorant slave of Allah. Perhaps we could hold a discussion on this subject (elsewhere) so that one is clear about what is and isn't the truth of the matter, and Allah Knows Best.

But of course my position is that the only rational democracy is one that is secular. Democratic theocracies such as Israel and Iran - where there is even a more limited electorate - still impose their interpretations of religious superstition on 100 percent of the populace. By accident of birth, anyone born into such a system is automatically a second-class citizen if their discoveries lead them to different beliefs.

3. I would not recommend a person to decide what is and isn't allowed in Islam and what is and isn't compatible with Islam, based on the actions/practices of Muslims. Just becase Muslims may or may not be doing a certain thing does not necessarily make that particular thing right or wrong. The criteria for deciding what is and isn't wrong is the Shariah. Allah Knows Best.

While I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment here, it seems some believe they know the mind of your Allah and are determined to enforce it.
There is also within Islam disagreements as to the applicability of "traditional" interpretations of Shariah. So, if Allah knows best, isn't it heretical to declare to know Allah's mind and try to enforce one's interpretation over someone else's? After all we are talking interpretations here, and such interpretations can result from a priori conclusions.

4. This whole game of "learn this or that language" needs to stop. It is one thing to correct another individual's mistakes and quite another to laugh at their mistakes. Knowing and speaking English perfectly is not a prerequisite to participating at this website. Therefore I ask all of you to quit behaving like children and to grow up. Pardon my strong language (well, it's alot politer than the way in which some of you have been holding discussions) but such behaviour is simply not helping in discussing important matters.

Wassalam,
Asif.

Understood. Thank you.

Asif

24-11-2004, 19:04

Perhaps you would care to start another thread in which we can examine the sects of Islam - the "defining" tenets of each - including the 21st Century version of 18th Century Wahhabism and global conversion.

You are free to start any such thread if you so choose to. The problem, however, is that this website does not really support sectarian discussions and you'd be walking a very thin, fine line when holding any such discussions.

If you asked me for my personal opinion, I'd say go ahead and start a thread. This way, we'll all get to learn what you do and don't know about the various sects of Islam and from where you get your information. However, I am not the only moderator working on this website and we work based on consensus and consultation. If Brother Tayeb allows it, go ahead. Otherwise, email me.

But of course my position is that the only rational democracy is one that is secular. Democratic theocracies such as Israel and Iran - where there is even a more limited electorate - still impose their interpretations of religious superstition on 100 percent of the populace. By accident of birth, anyone born into such a system is automatically a second-class citizen if their discoveries lead them to different beliefs.

Secularism contradicts the tenets of our faith and religion. Therefore, any attempt to impose secularism on Muslims is a war against Islam and is unacceptable to Muslims.

While I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment here, it seems some believe they know the mind of your Allah and are determined to enforce it.
There is also within Islam disagreements as to the applicability of "traditional" interpretations of Shariah. So, if Allah knows best, isn't it heretical to declare to know Allah's mind and try to enforce one's interpretation over someone else's? After all we are talking interpretations here, and such interpretations can result from a priori conclusions.

1. The religion of Islam is absolutely clear.

2. You are probably referring to the existence of different schools of thought (madhabs) that deal with jurisprudence (fiqh), in Islam (and it should be known that only 4 of them are on the right path and the Shariah exists only within these four madhabs). If this is the case, then you ought to know that the four schools of thought consider each other to be rightly guided (since their disagreements are in fiqh, i.e. jurisprudence, and not aqeedah, i.e. beliefs) and "tolerate" each other.

3. If you're referring to the existence of different sects, then that's another story, since disagreements between sects is on the most basic of issues, that of Aqeedah (beliefs). Only one sect is the saved sect, as is clearly mentioned in the Ahadith.

4. When one says "Allah Knows Best", one is referring to the fact that Allah is All-Knowing and Omniscient and that we are truly ignorant slaves of Allah.

5. There is a source of the Shariah known as "Ijmaa" (Consensus). Once the Muslim community arrives at a consensus about something, then that thing is the truth. This is, if I am not mistaken, based on a Prophetic saying. I would ask my brothers and sisters to help me out here since I do not remember the hadith or whatever other proof there was for the validity of Ijmaa. I think it was a hadith which stated that my community (i.e. the Prophet's community) would never agree on something wrong. If I have recalled the hadith correctly, then this means that the Muslim Ummah would never agree (arrive at a consensus) on something that is wrong. Therefore, on all the things over which there is ijmaa (consensus), we are most certain that they are truthful decisions. For example, there is Ijmaa (consensus) that there are 5 obligatory prayers, etc.

6. There is, I think, another hadith (and again I would ask my brothers and sisters to help this ignorant and forgetful slave of Allah out) which states that if a jurist passes a fatwa which was rightly guided and correct, he gets two rewards from Allah. If, however, he passes the wrong fatwa, he gets one reward from Allah. The Faqih (jurist) tries his best to arrive at the truth and he seeks the pleasure of Allah and fears Allah. He tried his best, to arrive at the truth, seeking Allah's good pleasure.

7. When you say "Knowing Allah's mind", I'm afraid I don't quite get you. For example, are we guessing that there are 5 obligatory prayers? No. This is clear from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. No doubt about it.

Are we playing guess work when we say that intoxicants are not allowed. No. This is clear from the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

We're not indulging in guess work. The Deen of Allah is absolutely clear.

Yes, there are interpretations that are made, but those interpretations are based on the Qur'an, the Sunnah, Ijmaa and Qiyas (analogy). All these are sources of the Shariah.

No one is guessing what Allah approves of and disapproves of, what He Has allowed and disallowed, for Allah Has made all this abundantly clear to humanity through revelation and by sending prophets and messengers. What humanity needed to know and needs to know was and has been made clear, alhamdulilah.

Do we find differences of opinion? Yes, we do. But the differences of opinion amongst the Ulema (scholars) are a mercy for this Ummah. Allah Knows Best.

If, for example, someone came and said that secularism does not contradict the teachings of Islam, then such a person is surely misguided. Such an opinion is surely in contradiction with the teachings of Islam

If, however, someone came and said that "suicide bombings"/ martyrdom operations are not allowed in Islam, then let it be known that there are scholars who have passed such a fatwa. Let it also be known that there are scholars who have passed fatwas stating that such operations are definitely allowed.

What do people who hold two such opposing views do? Simple. There is an etiquette and a proper manner in which one debates/discusses matters with one's brothers and sisters, in Islam. There is an etiquette and a way of disagreeing with one another (in a proper and Islamic fashion). There are guidelines.

Both parties hold different opinions/views and both present their proofs. Obviously, each party believes they are right. That does not, however, mean that they cut each other's throats off or hate each other. We're brothers and sisters in Islam. We love and respect each other, alhamdulilah.

If one genuinely believes that on a particular issue their brother/sister is wrong, then one tries to explain one's position to them and asks Allah to guide and forgive them. That's all one can do. Allah Knows Best.

That does not mean we're at each other's throats. Nor does that mean we hate/dislike each other. It simply means we have different opinions on matters of fiqh (jurisprudence). What matters is that the Aqida should be right and the same.

As for fiqh, there is consensus that the Shariah lies within the four schools of thought: Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maaliki and Hanbali madhabs. They have their differences (in fiqh) and they're all rightly guided.

And Allah Knows Best.

Bye,
Asif.

wildlifer

24-11-2004, 19:43

You are free to start any such thread if you so choose to. The problem, however, is that this website does not really support sectarian discussions and you'd be walking a very thin, fine line when holding any such discussions.

If you asked me for my personal opinion, I'd say go ahead and start a thread. This way, we'll all get to learn what you do and don't know about the various sects of Islam and from where you get your information. However, I am not the only moderator working on this website and we work based on consensus and consultation. If Brother Tayeb allows it, go ahead. Otherwise, email me.

Alas, such is the reason I suggested you start the thread and establish allowable guidelines, as I don't want to fall into the trap of ignorance and make a statement (again) I see as totally innocuous and be banned (again) for "trashing" Islam.

Secularism contradicts the tenets of our faith and religion. Therefore, any attempt to impose secularism on Muslims is a war against Islam and is unacceptable to Muslims.

Secularism is not an imposition. And while I see how living in a secular society would prevent one from imposing their belief system on others, it in no way would prevent a Muslim from worshiping Allah. Five million Muslims living in the USA seem to find it very acceptable.

Asif

25-11-2004, 03:13

Alas, such is the reason I suggested you start the thread and establish allowable guidelines, as I don't want to fall into the trap of ignorance and make a statement (again) I see as totally innocuous and be banned (again) for "trashing" Islam.

The rules that you have to follow are binding upon me too. I can not establish any guidelines on the matter if it contradicts the rules of the website :) That is why, Brother Tayeb's permission is needed.

Secularism is not an imposition. And while I see how living in a secular society would prevent one from imposing their belief system on others, it in no way would prevent a Muslim from worshiping Allah. Five million Muslims living in the USA seem to find it very acceptable.

Well, the reason secularism does contradict the teachings of Islam should be quite clear, in my humble opinion. In a secular society, things that have been forbidden by Allah can be made legal and things allowed by Allah can be made illegal.

This is unacceptable. Allah is the Law-Giver. We are to follow His Laws and not our whims and desires. This world is simply a test.....a battleground, where we combat our Nafs (our self, our ego, our desires) until our last breath (and this was termed as the greatest Jihad).

It is for this reason that secularism contradicts the teachings of Islam. Allah Knows Best.

Bye,
Asif.

wildlifer

25-11-2004, 03:33

Well, the reason secularism does contradict the teachings of Islam should be quite clear, in my humble opinion. In a secular society, things that have been forbidden by Allah can be made legal and things allowed by Allah can be made illegal.

This is unacceptable. Allah is the Law-Giver. We are to follow His Laws and not our whims and desires. This world is simply a test.....a battleground, where we combat our Nafs (our self, our ego, our desires) until our last breath (and this was termed as the greatest Jihad).

It is for this reason that secularism contradicts the teachings of Islam. Allah Knows Best.

Bye,
Asif.

Again, this makes no sense. As a muslim, what do you care what is legal and allowed in a society as long as you follow the "righteous" path?

Asif

25-11-2004, 03:56

Again, this makes no sense. As a muslim, what do you care what is legal and allowed in a society as long as you follow the "righteous" path?

The Qur'anic injunction: "Command the good and forbid the evil."

There is a story of a man (who I think was from the Bani Isra'eel), who was very pious but lived in a community of impious people. He used to mind his own business and never commanded the good or forbade the evil. When Allah sent His punishment on that community, no one was spared, including that pious man.

When he inquired as to why he too was not spared, he was told that this was because of his failure to command the good and forbid the evil, and he too had to face the wrath of Allah.

Islam is not a "personal matter" like some religions of the world like to stress (case in point: Christianity). Islam is a way of life and governs every aspect of an individual's life, whether it be in the social arena, the political arena, the economic arena, etc. so that he/she may succeed in the Hereafter.

There is a hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) where (and I am naturally going to paraphrase here, and may Allah protect and forgive this slave for making any mistakes) he said that if you see evil taking place, then stop it with your hands, and if you are unable to do that, then stop it with your tongue, and if you are still unable to do that, then at least hate that evil act in your heart, and this would be the lowest state of Imaan (faith).

A Muslim state simply cannot have a constitution that contravenes the teachings of Islam. Such a state cannot choose man-made laws over Allah's Laws for this would imply their accepting that man-made laws are superior to Allah's Laws, Wa Auzo-billah. Surely, Allah's Laws are superior to man-made laws. And we submit.

Bye,
Asif.

lubna

25-11-2004, 11:17

Assalamoalykum and hello
here is an american with the similar thinking as to our wildlifer i.e english,fascism and pro bush......looks like they get their instructions from the same place or belong to same school of thought.....i.e follow the same madhhab.... :D so a man can follow a madhhab even though he is an athiest.... ;)

wildlifer, may i ask what religion are your parents... if they do have one , if not then what was your grand parents religion?

p.s i might have given you a good contact to make friends with , if you already dont know him.

may Allah guide us all to the truth Ameen
wassalam, bye
lubna
-----

bajamark <bajamark@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Yamin,

I see where you have your columns of propaganda posted all over the internet. I must say that Barbara Stock pretty much kicked your "Osama loving ass" publicly though. She is ten times the writer you are ..... and she can spell. She really showed you for what you are, all you could do in return is call her fat.... how pathetic.

Here is a group ''freemuslims'' you could learn something from...... the Muslims that are getting it, are distancing themselves from Islamofascists such as yourself.

Now kindly take your dreams of Khilafah and ******************
Say it with me loud and proud! "4 more years!" "4 more years!"

Mark

Hi Mark,

If Barabra kicked my ass (In Hollywood style ofcourse!!) then you have nothing to worry about. Why do you send me such emails! As for the arguements I have presented they are elaborated well with evidecnes and you can see them on www.cdlr.net. You can also see what many of your fellow AMERICANS thought. Your response will also be posted!

As for spelling, Barbara seems to think that you can only spell in the american way (e.g. 'z' instead of 's') but needless to say - such childish response is evident of her inability to address the arguments. As for me calling her 'fat' and 'greedy' it was a metaphor since I do not know what she looks like in the first place. If you dont know what the word 'metaphor' means, then go and look it up in the dictonery. Anyway, I see you managed to pick this point out of a subsequent response in a separate conversation as opposed to the entire rebuttal that I presented.

Islamofascist is a ZIONIST coined OXymoron. FASCISM is much closer to you folks, remember birthplace of FASCISM was Europe and so was its implementation.

Regards

Yamin

Tayeb

25-11-2004, 11:17

Hello wildlifer:

I just want to correct you on one point of your recent posts: regarding Israel and Iran. Israel has a racist attitude towards what's democracy. You can be Israeli citizen even if you or any of your family has never been born in Israel, if you can prove that your mother is Jewish.

Only Jews exercise democratic rights and have equality among themselves vis-a-vis the treatment that the laws give them.

On other hand even if by accident you aren't born a Muslim you can become Muslim, it isn't a religion that's transmitted from inheritance or through some parental link.

On fascism and Islam I have already explained to you they are incompatible. Now if you persist using the term I'll have no option but to start saying that you are stubborn and don't want to hear to reason. I have explained already that fascism entails racial superiority. Isalm is against racism. For us as Muslims no race is superior to any other race, no Arab is superior to non-Arab, no white is superior to a black, and vice-versa is applicable.

I'd like to add to Sr lubna's contribution on freemuslims (as far as I know they are freemasons and hence aren't within the bounds of Sunni or even Shiah Muslims ) and want to use the word like "Islamofascists" it shows they are ignorant and don't even know the faith they are supposed to belong to.

lubna

25-11-2004, 11:55

I'd like to add to Sr lubna's contribution on freemuslims (as far as I know they are freemasons and hence aren't within the bounds of Sunni or even Shiah Muslims ) and want to use the word like "Islamofascists" it shows they are ignorant and don't even know the faith they are supposed to belong to.
Assalamoalykum brother

yes i absolutely agree with you. that site is a non muslim invention. why else would Mark qoute it !!.i took the link away as it wasnt necessary. bro yamin always gets the reference of this site from his non muslims readers and every muslim with a little brain and little knowledge knows which one is a muslim site and which one isnt.....but these non muslims dont have the brains to see that we have brains! how can a blind man see your eyes! impossible!!

i get invitations from 'muslim' sites to become a member of them and if you go and check them the 1st thing you see is ''homosexuals''forums.... you just feel disgusted and run out.... or things like islam wants secular state!!
when will these non muslims/freemasons/zionists/hindus stop fooling themsleves, cos they arent fooling us Alhumdulillah.

sorry for any disgust that site might have given you.....

may Allah guide us all to the truth and keep us safe from all fitnahs Ameen
wassalam
lubna

Om_Mohammed

25-11-2004, 12:30

Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Greetings to all.

Would like to raise just one point on the claim that wildlifer made in regards to the purported great democratic state of Israel.

For those of Palestinian or muslim heredity who are sadly citizens of the state of Israel, they are prevented (according to Israeli laws and legal system)...from voting and/or participating in governing affairs.

Such a great democratic state, eh??

Om Mohammed.

wildlifer

25-11-2004, 18:30

wildlifer

25-11-2004, 18:53

lubna

25-11-2004, 20:17

lubna, you really need to quit making so many assumptions. I am as far away from pro-Bush as one can get. I see him as the messianic wannabe leader of the American Taliban..
ok... sorry for calling you pro bush but have to say this..'' American Taliban'' is an oxymoron ( just learnt that word today.... ;) ) where the two are completely opposite. you defend americans and I talibans .
parents - nondenominational
maternal grandparents - Baptists
paternal grandparents - Baptist/Methodist
maternal great grandparents - Baptists and American Indian
Paternal great grandparents - Mennonite.

thanks for the info, just as well i asked you the question rather than letting my ''assumption'' out on this one...... :)

You can keep your friend.

you dont like him...ok ,he cant be my friend but surely is my foe.

may Allah guide us all to the truth Ameen

wildlifer

25-11-2004, 20:45

ok... sorry for calling you pro bush but have to say this..'' American Taliban'' is an oxymoron ( just learnt that word today.... ;) ) where the two are completely opposite. you defend americans and I talibans .

I see no difference as both wish(ed) to banish the Enlightenment into darkness.

"In all things, therefore, where we have clear evidence from our ideas, and those principles of knowledge I have above mentioned, reason is the proper judge; and revelation, though it may, in consenting with it, confirm its dictates, yet cannot in such cases invalidate its decrees: nor can we be obliged, where we have the clear and evident sentience of reason, to quit it for the contrary opinion, under a pretence that it is matter of faith: which can have no authority against the plain and clear dictates of reason." - John Locke, from AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING

wildlifer

25-11-2004, 22:30

Hello wildlifer:

I just want to correct you on one point of your recent posts: regarding Israel and Iran. Israel has a racist attitude towards what's democracy. You can be Israeli citizen even if you or any of your family has never been born in Israel, if you can prove that your mother is Jewish.

Only Jews exercise democratic rights and have equality among themselves vis-a-vis the treatment that the laws give them.

Sorry if what I wrote somehow lead you to believe I thought Israel was a "fair" Democracy, it isn't. Talmadic Law prevails in most of its constitution and hence it is a conservative theocracy, like that of Iran and perpetuates Zionist fascism.

On fascism and Islam I have already explained to you they are incompatible. Now if you persist using the term I'll have no option but to start saying that you are stubborn and don't want to hear to reason. I have explained already that fascism entails racial superiority. Isalm is against racism. For us as Muslims no race is superior to any other race, no Arab is superior to non-Arab, no white is superior to a black, and vice-versa is applicable.

And as I have repeatedly informed you, "racial superiority," while maybe descriptive of Nazi Fascism, is not the sole definition of fascism, but that "fascism" can include any group which seeks an autocratic government, killing, discriminating against or otherwise enslaving others to that ideology through fear, or any political or social ideology which relies on a combination of religious attitudes and the brutal use of force (see the implemetation of Shariah Law in Nigeria and Afghanistan) for getting and keeping power.
And as a side-note, Hitler's anti-semitism stemmed from Lutheran doctrine.

lubna

25-11-2004, 23:45

"In all things, therefore, where we have clear evidence from our ideas, and those principles of knowledge I have above mentioned, reason is the proper judge; and revelation, though it may, in consenting with it, confirm its dictates, yet cannot in such cases invalidate its decrees: nor can we be obliged, where we have the clear and evident sentience of reason, to quit it for the contrary opinion, under a pretence that it is matter of faith: which can have no authority against the plain and clear dictates of reason."
- John Locke, from AN ESSAY CONCERNING HUMAN UNDERSTANDING

but my dear wildlifer islam is the faith supported by reasoning alone

following is the excerpt taken from ''life after death'' by abul ala maududi

i hope inshaAllah you will find it enlightning
may Allah guide us all to the truth Ameen
lubna

......From this I should be clear that the question of life after death is not merely a fruitless intellectual or philosophical exercise but a question that intimately concerns and vitally affects our everyday life. There is, therefore no justification for any skepticism in this matter. Any attitude that is determined by skepticism in regard to the Hereafter could not in effect be any different from the one based on a definite rejection of the idea of a life after death. We are, therefore, obliged to make up our minds whether there is a life after death or not. If science can not help us here, we must seek the aid of rational thinking and logical reasoning.

Where Reason Leads to?

But what is the material upon which we could base this logical reasoning?

There is, first, man himself, and then the system of the Universe. We shall, therefore, try to study man against the background of the Universe and see whether all his requirements are fulfilled within this system or whether some of them remain unsatisfied and need some other kind of system for their satisfaction.

Now man has various aspects. First of all, he has a body, which is composed of various minerals, salt, gases and water. The Universe is a vast system containing, from tiny specks of dust to the large planets moving in their orbits. We find ourselves dazzled with the spectacle of a plethora of things: the earth, stones, metals, salts, gases, rivers, oceans, and an unending array of things of the kind. These things need a set of laws to govern their existence and operation, and all these laws are at work within the Universe. They provide a free opportunity for the various elements and forces of nature to play their part in the Universe; similarly the human body has a full and free opportunity to live and work under these laws. Secondly, man is a being who has grown through nourishment derive from the things around himself. Similarly, there are various kinds of trees, plants and herbs in the Universe which are governed by the laws that are essential for growing bodies.

Moreover, man is a living being who moves and acts of his own free will; he procures food for himself, protects himself and ensures the preservation of the species. Again, there are various other beings of this kind in the Universe: on land, in water and in the air, there are myriads of animals whose lives and functions are governed completely by the laws what are sufficient to cover the whole gamut of their activities.

Above all, there is the moral aspect of man’s being, which is endowed with the consciousness of good and evil, the faculty to discriminate between the two, and the power to do good as well as evil. Man’s nature demands that good deeds should have good results and evil deeds should lead to evil consequences. He can discriminate justice from tyranny, truth from falsehood, right from wrong mercy from cruelty, kindness from arrogance, generosity from meanness, trustworthiness from breach of trust and so on and so forth. These qualities are not abstract ideas but are actually experienced in human life and have a deep and far- reaching effect on human culture. Therefore, the nature with which man is endowed strongly demands that his acts should lead inexorably to their moral consequences; in the same way as they lead to their physical effects.

But let us look around and reflect a little deeply upon the system of the Universe. Can the moral consequences of human actions fully unfold themselves in the system? On the basis of the body of knowledge that we possess we can confidently assert that this is not possible, because, for all that we know, there is no other creature in the Universe which is endowed with moral consciousness. The whole system is governed by the physical laws of the Universe, and the moral laws of the human realm are not at work anywhere in their full measure. For instance, money carries both value and weight in human affairs but truth often lacks both. The mango seed always ultimately yields mangoes; the devotee of truth, on the other hand, sometimes receives bouquets but sometimes, rather often, brickbats. The material objects in the world are governed by laws which always lead to certain pre-determined results, but within the dynamics of the working of these laws the operation of the moral forces in the human world is not so manifest. The laws of nature often fail to ensure; and even where we find such consequences they occur only to the extent the law of nature permit. It is a physical world that we live in. And it often happens that the actual consequences of an act under the laws of nature are simply contrary to what the law of ethics demands. Through cultured and civilized life and political organization, man has no doubt striven to some extent to ensure that the acts of man lead to set and pre-ordained moral consequences according to a code of ethics. But these efforts have been on to a code of ethics. But these efforts have been on a very limited scale and extremely deficient. They have been vitiated, on the one hand, by the operation of natural laws, and on the other by man’s own weaknesses and shortcomings.

Let us try to understand this with the help of a few examples. If a person sets fire to the house of an enemy, the house will be gutted; this will be the natural result of the act. The moral consequence of the act should be the punishment of the criminal commensurate with the damage that he has caused to the family whose home he has burnt. But this consequence can come about only if the culprit can be traced and apprehended by the police, the charge against him is proved, the court can estimate fully the loss that his offence has caused to the affected family and its future generations, and then awards to the offender a punishment commensurate with his crime. If any of these conditions is not duly fulfilled, the moral consequence will either not manifest itself at all or will unfold itself only partially; nay, it is quite possible that the culprit may go scot-free and even remain happy and become prosperous after having ruined his enemy.

Let us take another example. We often find that a few people manage, by hook or by crook, to acquire a strong hold over a whole community, which begins to follow him. Taking advantage of this position these leaders bamboozle their people into following their jingoism and militant imperialism. They lead their people into war with their neighbours. Several countries are ruined in these wars, millions of men are killed, and many more are forced to live in misery and degradation. Their misdeeds have far-reaching effects on human history for countless generations, even many long centuries. Now is it possible for such criminal manages to be punished sufficiently for their crimes and follies in this life?{ seems like the author is talking about BUSH/SHARON but he wrote this article in 1940} Indeed, they would not be adequately punished even if they were all literally thrown to the wolves, or burnt alive, or subjected to any other torture of which man is capable. No conceivable punishment could possibly be measured against the grave harm caused by them to millions of men for countless generations. Under the natural laws that govern the system of the Universe they could not possibly be awarded punishment, commensurate with their crimes and follies. Even if a Chenghiz or a Hitler is torn to pieces, this punishment stands with no comparison to the wrongs they penetrated on humanity.
Or, on the other hand take the example of the great prophets, the sages and the pious and virtuous men who called mankind to the truth and the right path and guided them out of darkness into light, and whose ideas and teachings and practical examples have benefited millions and men for centuries. And they did all this good to mankind, bracing all the tempests of adversity that came in their way and suffering miserably at the hands of the vested interests. It is possible to reward such men adequately in this short span of life within the limits of the physical laws that govern the world?.....

continued.... a bit more :)

lubna

25-11-2004, 23:47

As we have urged above, the laws that govern the present system of the Universe do not allow an opportunity for the full unfolding of the moral consequences of human actions. Secondly, the actions of men during their short span of life on earth often have reactions and effects so widespread and lasting that their full consequences must take thousands of years to unfold and manifest themselves fully; and it is obviously impossible for any person, under the present laws of nature, to attain such a long career on earth. From this it logically follows that while the present physical world and its natural laws are enough for the material and animal constituents of man, they are utterly inadequate for the moral element of his being. This component calls for another world where the law of ethics is the governing law and the laws of nature are subservient, to it; where life is unlimited; where all the moral consequences of human actions in the material world that could not manifest themselves there, should manifest themselves fully and in the proper form. It demands a world where truth and righteousness, and not gold and silver, carry weight; where fire burns only such things as deserve to be burned according to the moral law; where happiness and the lot of the virtuous and plain and misery the plight of the wicked. Both nature and reason demand such an order.

The light of the Qur’an

So far as logical reasoning is concerned, it only indicates that such a world ‘ought to be’. But as to the question whether such a world does in fact exist, neither reason nor knowledge can give us a categorical answer. And it is here that the qur’an helps us. It assures us that the world that our nature as well as our reason demand shall be a reality one day. The present system of the Universe, which was created in accordance with physical laws, will be demolished at one stroke; and it will be replaced by another world where the earth, the heavens and all other things will be essentially different from what they are here. God Almighty will then resurrect all the men who were born from the beginning of creation down to its end, and will make all of them appear before Himself at one time. The records of all the deeds of individuals, communities, and mankind at large, will be there without the slightest error or omission. Also there will be complete reports of the effects and consequences of all human actions in the material world; and all the generations of men affected by them will be present in the witness box. Every particle affected in any way by the deeds or words of men will tell its own story. And the limbs, the ears, the eyes and all other parts of the human body will stand witness how they were used or abused in life. On the basis of this unimpeachable evidence and those complete records. Allah, the Supreme Sovereign of the Universe, will decided each case with perfect justice and pronounce the reward or penalty as the case may be. The reward as well as the punishment will be of a magnitude that cannot even be estimated by the limited standards of the material world. The standards of times and space, and weights and measurements, and the natural laws, will be essentially different from those prevailing in the present world. The virtues whose beneficent effect extend over several centuries in this world will be fully rewarded there, and neither death nor illness nor old age will be able to cut short the enjoyments of the reward. On the other hand, the evil deeds whose effects and consequences blight the lives of millions in this world for hundreds of years will be punished fully, and neither death nor coma will be able to relieve the pain and distress of the sufferer.

If the existing system of the Universe with its present natural laws is a possibility and a reality,why should another world with a different set of natural laws be regarded as an impossibility

wildlifer

26-11-2004, 00:22

No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience. - John Locke

lubna

26-11-2004, 19:55

No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience. - John Locke
but remember wise people learn from other peoples experiences too, and hence can acquire greater knowledge!

wildlifer

26-11-2004, 20:12

but remember wise people learn from other peoples experiences too, and hence can acquire greater knowledge!

No, when one accepts "knowledge" based on the experience of others it is called having faith. Faith in that they have accurately portrayed the "truth" of the experience to you. Which is rarely the case in subjective experiences.

lubna

26-11-2004, 20:44

wildlifer

26-11-2004, 21:17

here is an example ,
if i see a person drinking a glass of water , which is being poisened by some one secretly, and see that person dying straight after it with all the symptoms of being poisened..... and i dont drink that water after that and stay alive..... whats so bad about that ? that i learnt from his experience?and not only that i also wittness some more people having the zest of getting 'personal experience' and drinking it and then dying straight away.....

Wrong. You were there, hence you experience the situation, and learn from your experience. It is an objective fact you saw the person drank the water and died. Now, had you not been there, and someone informed you that the water was poison and not to drink it, you could take it on faith, or drink the water. But not being there, without tests, you have no objective knowledge the water was indeed poisoned. But there is still an assumption on your part, that the person, after drinking the water, did not die of another cause, which may have mimicked poisoning. Before making an absolute declaration of "the water is poisoned," one should inquire further.

what good is that 'knowledge' to them when they were dying!, that came after having 'personal experience'.only that they were fools.

Some leave lessons for others to learn.

so that is why i said only 'wise ' people learn from others experiences.
so long as you get the knowledge through 'faith' after 'reasoning'....you are ok
But in your example, it is a first-hand experience. Not a second-hand relayed story. In the case of the later, until one tests the veracity of the claim, it can only be taken on faith as true.

lubna

26-11-2004, 23:56

this is a very strange thinking indeed! you are telling me that you deny every thing that you dont wittness or goes in the past....how do we know that there was once a man named benjamin frankling, or a hitler. i havnt met them .i only hear stories about them, how do i know people are telling the truth? and how do i know that a country named USA really exist! i havnt been there, only have met people from there who told me it looks such and such....how do i know if they are telling the truth or not? until i go there....but in the case of dead men how do you get the veracity of the claim?

how do i know i was a baby once , i dont have any memory of it....only my parents tell me but can they prove it, by giving me 1st hand experience?i only believe it cos i have faith in my parents and also my logic and reasoning agrees with them too.
so according to you , you only belive in things that are in your immediate surroundings and you can see , feel, touch,smell and hear them....but are not willing to use your higher sense of intellect and reasoning cos then you have to have faith.

you said,

Not a second-hand relayed story. In the case of the later, until one tests the veracity of the claim, it can only be taken on faith as true.

what if you are unable to verify a story, but is infact a truth? will you just simply reject it eventhough your logic and reasoning tells you that it is true? are you not turning yourself into a lesser of an intelligent creature?

but we muslims use our logic and reasoing to accept or reject a story e.g your lattest news of boy lashed for breaking fast. i rejected it straight away using my logic and reasoning and brother tayeb verified it beyond doubt. plus we aslo look at who is bringing this news to us with what purposes.
this is the case of religion, we have faith and trust in prophets cos they brought clear signs from Allah and were the men of great morals and values and they never lied, so when they told us what they saw with thier eyes and what they knew about the world unseen we believed them . and not only that, they even brought miracles for us to see . what more of a personal experience one can ask!

and you cant say that they didnt exist , just as you cant say benjamin franklin didnt exist .

i hope some one is learning a lesson from this all......:) inshaAllah

may Allah guide us all to the truth Ameen

tbahrain

27-11-2004, 02:42

Assalamualaikum all & greetings.

Interesting exchanges between sis lubna & wildlifer. Reminds me of the following exchanges (edited to fit). You may substitute 'muslim' with 'christian' etc.

tbahrain

The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Muslim, aren't you, son?"

"Yes, sir."

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment.

"Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that."

"Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could... in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't.

[No answer.]

"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Muslim who died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

[No answer]

The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?"

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones.

"Let's start again, young fella." "Is God good?"

"Er... Yes."

"Is Satan good?"

"No."

"Where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From... God..."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience.

"I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen."

He turns back to the Muslim. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?"

"Yes."

"Who created evil?

[No answer]

"Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things – do they exist in this world? "

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"Who created them? "

[No answer]

The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!"

The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Muslim's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?"

[No answer]

The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther.

The class is mesmerised.

"Tell me," he continues, "How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time?" The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world.

"All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?"

[No answer]

"Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?"

Pause.

"Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers,

"Is God good?"

[No answer]

"Do you believe in God, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do."

The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen your God? Have you? "

"No, sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your God?"

"No, sir. I have not."

"Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God or smelt your God... in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?"

[No answer]

"Answer me, please."

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"You're AFRAID... you haven't?"

"No, sir."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes..."

"That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling.

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?"

[The student doesn't answer]

"Sit down, please."

The Muslim sits... Defeated.

Another Muslim raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?"

The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Muslim in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering."

The Muslim looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"Is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No, sir, there isn't."

The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold.The second Muslim continues.

"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than minus 458. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom.

"Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?"

"That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?"

"So you say there is such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes..."

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you... give me a jar of darker darkness, professor?"

Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. This will indeed be a good semester. "Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error..."

The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...!"

"Sir, may I explain what I mean?"

"Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue.

"You are working on the premise of duality", the Muslim explains.

"That, for example, there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it."

The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it.

"Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor. Is there such a thing as immorality?"

"Of course there is, now look..."

"Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?"

The Muslim pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?"

The Muslim continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing some work through the agency of evil. What is that work God is accomplishing? Islam tells us it is to see if each one of us will choose good over evil."

The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable."

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Muslim replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week!"

"Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

"Professor. Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavour, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.

"So you don't accept God's moral code to do with what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is – that's science!"

"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin.

"Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?"

The Muslim looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?"

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?"

"It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

wildlifer

27-11-2004, 07:53

We were doing so well and then you jumped back into the mode of assuming to know what I think .......

this is a very strange thinking indeed! you are telling me that you deny every thing that you dont wittness or goes in the past....how do we know that there was once a man named benjamin frankling, or a hitler. i havnt met them .i only hear stories about them, how do i know people are telling the truth? and how do i know that a country named USA really exist! i havnt been there, only have met people from there who told me it looks such and such....how do i know if they are telling the truth or not? until i go there....but in the case of dead men how do you get the veracity of the claim?

I never said I denied anything. The point of this exercise is that knowledge can only be objective fact, all else rests on some level of faith.
Main Entry: knowl·edge
Pronunciation: 'nä-lij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen
1 obsolete : COGNIZANCE
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a man of unusual knowledge>

I know Hitler and Franklin existed from multiple researchable lines of evidence

how do i know i was a baby once , i dont have any memory of it....only my parents tell me but can they prove it, by giving me 1st hand experience?i only believe it cos i have faith in my parents and also my logic and reasoning agrees with them too.
so according to you , you only belive in things that are in your immediate surroundings and you can see , feel, touch,smell and hear them....but are not willing to use your higher sense of intellect and reasoning cos then you have to have faith.

LOL, what is your experiece with others? Ever seen or heard of anyone born full-grown? Experience includes all the research you would do to answer any question to whatever degree of certainty. And again, I never said I rejected all that required faith. If I did that, I wouldn't drive my pickup to work because I have no knowledge I will not be killed on the way, only faith in my abilities to get me there unharmed.

you said,

Not a second-hand relayed story. In the case of the later, until one tests the veracity of the claim, it can only be taken on faith as true.

what if you are unable to verify a story, but is infact a truth? will you just simply reject it eventhough your logic and reasoning tells you that it is true? are you not turning yourself into a lesser of an intelligent creature?

Nowhere did I state one rejects a "truth" one is unable to verify, but indeed stated it may, or may not be, accepted as true on faith.

but we muslims use our logic and reasoing to accept or reject a story e.g your lattest news of boy lashed for breaking fast. i rejected it straight away using my logic and reasoning and brother tayeb verified it beyond doubt. plus we aslo look at who is bringing this news to us with what purposes.
this is the case of religion, we have faith and trust in prophets cos they brought clear signs from Allah and were the men of great morals and values and they never lied, so when they told us what they saw with thier eyes and what they knew about the world unseen we believed them . and not only that, they even brought miracles for us to see . what more of a personal experience one can ask!

I never stated whether the story was true or not. I haven't a clue, but with the bias of this board, I won't take it on faith that it is false. Especially since, regardless of whether on not Quadafi is a good Muslim, Shariah in Libya calls for lashing. Do any of us know the laws of Iran that well? If I was to address the rest of this paragraph I may border on rule violations so I shall just state that in my 45 years I have never experienced anything which would lead me to accept such a premise on faith.

Lulua

27-11-2004, 08:37

wildlifer

27-11-2004, 09:57

Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Greetings and good day to all.

Wildlifer said: 'I know Hitler and Franklin existed from multiple researchable lines of evidence'

Interesting indeed.

Yet, wildlifer...you did not personally experience either of those...unless you are quite old.

What part of research and investigation equals personal experience, did you not understand? .

What is to prove that one of those links was not fabricated somehow? What is to prove to you or others that all of those links are in fact true?? Is it only because this is what you have been told all ur life, and so you believe it??

Simple, with the lack of refuting sources one can place greater faith in the link(s).

I witnessed the US space missions back from the Appolo days. Both the space missions as well as television were new things then. And we only had black & white at that time as well.

I (as well as millions of other folks around the globe) believe that those space missions did in fact take place. SubhanAllah...we witnessed it live. Or did we??

I even witnessed the landing & walking of man on the moon!!

But...what is to prove that it was actually what it appeared to be, and not some hollywood concoction???

I mean...billions of dollars of US taxpayers money went to those missions and more...and so they surely needed to prove to the public that their money was going for a worthy cause. Right???

Funny you should mention it, as there actually exists a conspiracy theory that declares it was all a "Hollywood" production.

I have also seen with my own bare eyes samples of rock and other things they claim to have brought back from the moon...at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.

But are they really what they claim to be?? Or perhaps they come from the deserts of the west, or Indiana or the Carolinas. SubhanAllah.

'Lines of evidence' indeed. You were told this, or that, by someone who claims to have experienced it. Same thing, buddy. That is not proof...it is faith. Faith in the trustworthiness of the story teller.

Lulua.

I repeat, just because a particular "fact" is not personal knowledge, it does not mean one automatically rejects that "fact." But the only things one can consider as knowledge, by the definition of the word (the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association or the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning from the above definition), are those things which are experienced.
And yes, the trustworthiness of the source does indeed matter and the greater the trustworthiness, the greater the faith in the "truthfullness" of that information. And to go a step farther, the greater number of trustworthy sources increases that value. The opposite is true as well, less trustworthy and fewer sources, the less "faith" one will have in the information.

wildlifer

27-11-2004, 10:28

..."It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, I DECLARE that the professor has no brain."

And the story continues:
(I left the student as a Christian)
The class is in chaos. The Christian sits... Because that is what a chair is for.

The professor, amused at the student's antics, asks the student whether he's ever read anything about science.

"No," says the student. "I only know what I've heard in church."

"That explains your ignorance about what science is, young man," says the professor. "Empirical knowledge of something does not always entail direct observation. We can observe the effects of something and know that it must exist. Electrons have not been observed, but they can create an observable trail that can be observed, so we can know they exist."

"Oh," said the Christian.

"No one has observed my heart, but we can hear it beating. We also know from empirical knowledge of people that no one can live without a heart, real or manufactured, or at least not without being also hooked up to some medical equipment. So we can know that I have a heart even though we have not seen it."

"Oh, I see. That makes sense," said the Christian student.

"Similarly, we can know that I have a brain. I wouldn't be able to talk, walk, and so on unless I had one, would I?" said the professor.

"I guess not."

"In fact, if I had no brain I couldn't do anything at all. Except maybe become a televangelist!"

The class broke up with laughter. Even the Christian laughed.

"Evolution is known to be true because of evidence," continued the professor. "A creationist debate panel, including Michael Behe and Philip Johnson, conceded this on a televised debate on PBS. It was on Buckley's "Firing Line" show. Did you see it?"

The Christian student cleared his throat and said in a low voice, "My mom won't let me watch educational TV. She thinks it will weaken my faith."

The professor shook his head sadly. "Knowledge does have a way of doing that," he said. "But in any case, evolution is also the best explanation for phenomena that have been observed."

The Christian student sputters, "You--you mean we HAVE seen it?"

"Of course. Evolution has occured within recent times, and it continues to occur. Birds and insects not native to Hawaii were introduced just a couple of centuries ago and have evolved to take better advantage of the different flora. So this evolution has taken place within recorded history. Recent history. Did you know that?"

"Uh, no."

"Viruses other diseases evolve to become resistant to medicine. This is not only observed but it is a major problem that science must confront every day. Mosquitos in the tunnels of London's underground have evolved to become separate species because of their isolation from other groups of mosquitos. But enough about evolution. That doesn't have anything to do with our issue, evil, does it?"

"Well..."

"What does it have to do with our issue?" asked the professor.

"Well, if you don't believe in god, then you must believe we came from apes."

The professor laughed. "Evolutionists don't believe that people came from apes or even monkeys. They believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor."

"Wow!" said the Christian. "That's not what they told me at church."

"I'm sure. They can't refute evolution so they have to spread misinformation about it. But don't you know that many Christians believe that god made humans by evolution?"

"Really?"

"Really. Many denominations of Christianity embrace evolution. Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity, is compatible with evolution. So evolution is not relevant here, is it?"

"I guess not."

"Even if it were true that you have to be an atheist to believe evolution, which is not the case, and even if it were the case that evolution was unsupported by evidence, which is also not the case, this would not explain evil at all, would it. It is irrelevant."

"I see that now," said the Christian. "I don't even know why I brought it up. I guess I thought it was an example of how you believe something without evidence."

"Well," said the professor. "As you can see, it is not. There is plenty of evidence for evolution. And even if there were no evidence, this has no bearing on the issue of evil. As we proceed through the philosophy course, you will see how to use your reasoning ability to separate important issues from irrelevant ones."

"I'm guess learning already," said the student.

"But back to the problem of evil," said the professor. "You stated that evil is the absence of good. How does that solve the problem of evil?"

The student said, "If evil is the absence of good, then god did not create evil."

The professor shrugged his shoulders. "Okay, let's suppose for the moment that this is true. This still does not explain evil. If a tidal wave wipes out a whole town, and 100,000 people die, is that evil?"

"There is the absence of good," said the student.

"But so what? The problem is why god did not prevent the disaster. If god is all-powerful he can prevent it, and if he is all-knowing he knows that it is about to happen. So whether he created the tidal wave is not relevant. What we want to know is why he did not do anything to stop it."

The student looked confused. "But why should he prevent it? It's not his fault."

"If a human being had the power to prevent a tidal wave wiping out a town, and this person intentionally failed to stop it, we would not say that the person is good. Even if the person said, 'It's not my fault,' we would be appalled that someone could stand by and do nothing as thousands die. So if god does not prevent natural disasters, and he is able to do so, we should not say that god is good by the same reasoning. In fact, we would probably say that god is evil."

The Christian student thought for a moment. "I guess I'd have to agree."

"So redefining evil as the absence of good does nothing to solve the problem of evil," said the professor. "At best it shows that god did not create it, but this does not explain why god does not prevent it."

The Christian student shook a finger at the professor. "But that's according to our human standards. What if god has a higher morality? We can't judge him by our standards."

The professor laughed. "Then you just lost your case. If you admit that god does not fit our definition of good, then we should not call him good. Case closed."

"I don't understand," said the student, wrinkling his brow.

"If I go outside and see a vehicle with four tires, a metal body, a steering wheel, a motor and so on, and it fits the definition of a car, is it a car?" "Of course it is," said the Christian student. "That's what a car is."

"But what if someone says that on some other definition it could be considered an airplane. Does that mean it's not a car?"

"No," said the student. "It still fits the definition of a car. That's what we mean by saying that it's a car. It doesn't fit the definition of an airplane, so we shouldn't call it that."

"Exactly," said the professor. "If it fits the definition, then that's what it is. If god fits the definition of good, then he is good. If he does not, then he is not. If you admit that he does not fit our definition of good, then he is not good. It does no good to say that he could be 'good' in some other definition. If we want to know whether he is good by our definition, you have answered that question. God is not good."

"I don't believe it!" said the Christian student. "A few minutes ago I would have laughed at the suggestion that god is not good, but now I actually agree. God doesn't fit the definition of good, so he's not good."

"There you go," said the professor.

"But wait a minute," said the student. "God could still be good in some other definition even if we don't call him good. Despite what we think, god could still have his own morality that says he's good. Even if we couldn't call him good, that doesn't mean that he isn't good on some definition. He could have his own definition anyway."

"Oh, you would not want to push the view that god might be good in some other definition," said the professor.

"Why not?" "Well, if he has definitions of things that are radically different from our own, he might have a different definition of lots of other things. He might have his own definitions of such things as eternal reward, or eternal life. Your supposed eternal life in heaven might just be a year, or it could be a thousand years of torture. God could just say he has a definition of reward that includes excruciating torture as part of the definition."

"That's right!" said the Christian, jumping up. His eyes were wide open. "If god can redefine any word, then anything goes. God could send all believers to what we call hell and say that it is heaven. He could give us ten days in heaven and say that that's his definition of eternity!"

"Now you're thinking!" said the professor, pointing a finger at the student. "This is what a philosophy class is supposed to do for students."

The Christian student continued. "God could promise us eternal life and then not give it to us and say that's his definition of keeping a promise!"

"Yes, yes," said the professor.

"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."

"So it would seem," said the professor.

The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for.
:D

tbahrain

27-11-2004, 12:36

"I can't believe I used to fall for this Christianity stuff. It's so indefensible," said the student, shaking his head. "Just a few moment's thought and all the arguments that my church gave me in Sunday school just collapse."

Should have attended a madrasah instead. :D :D :D

lubna

27-11-2004, 23:30

And the story continues:
(I left the student as a Christian)

:D
just as well you left him as christian, as the very last remark made by the student shows clearly that he is a christain, cos you will never find a muslim becoming an athiest......

and when you read his concluding remarks,
The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for.

how come his athiest* brain tells him that the very chair he is sitting on can never come into existence on its own ,and has the hands of a carpneter behind it but when it comes to the whole universe with all its complexities and harmony,and his very own wondorous creation , his brain tells him the most absurd thing i.e it came into existence on its own without a creator!!

so has he started using his brain really!! or has he stoped using it!!

*i am taking athiest as one not beleiving in God.....just in case wildlifer comes up with some other definition and accuse me yet again of assuming things...

wildlifer

28-11-2004, 07:29

just as well you left him as christian, as the very last remark made by the student shows clearly that he is a christain, cos you will never find a muslim becoming an athiest......

No, I left him as a Christian so as not to insult anyone - especially the mods. :D
And I personally know of four former Muslims who claim they are atheists.

and when you read his concluding remarks,
The student, who stood up as a Christian, now sat down as an atheist. And he started using his brain--because that's what it's for.

how come his athiest* brain tells him that the very chair he is sitting on can never come into existence on its own ,and has the hands of a carpneter behind it but when it comes to the whole universe with all its complexities and harmony,and his very own wondorous creation , his brain tells him the most absurd thing i.e it came into existence on its own without a creator!!

I don't know if it is proper for this forum, but what created the creator that created the creator, that created the creator .........?

so has he started using his brain really!! or has he stoped using it!!

*i am taking athiest as one not beleiving in God.....just in case wildlifer comes up with some other definition and accuse me yet again of assuming things...

Only for assuming that I wrote the completion to tbahrain's Nutty Professor post. But that's my bad for not giving the proper attribution: Steven Carr (http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/brain.htm)

Om_Mohammed

28-11-2004, 12:43

Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Greetings and good day to all.

The truth and proofs are all there for anyone who reaches out-in the Quran. As to the existence of God the Creator and Sustainer, and our relationship in regards to Him and His creation.

There are proofs to back up the claims, but in the long run, it amounts eventually upon the person's inclination to faith in those claims. It is not a blind faith as is with Christianity, for the scientific and other worldly examples prove the existence and state of all things. But faith all the same.

A person can have much knowledge about Islam and Islamic writings, yet without faith, he/she is lost. But a person can have faith, even with a limited knowledge, and yet still remain rightfully guided. And that is a great point for all to grasp.

It helps a person greatly to attain more and more knowledge, for that will only reinforce the faith more.

But we are also warned about asking too many questions, and in particular questions that can and many times do, sadly lead towards disbelief. And that is the question presented here by wildlifer, that of who created the creator? As we are given this very sample in the sayings of our beloved prophet(SAAW), in dire warning against that.

I would wager, wildlifer, that those persons who you claim have gone to atheism after islam, were to begin with quite weak in their own basis of faith, and that it is higly possible and perhaps even probable that they eventually resorted to such a question (i.e. who created the creator?).

Satan is ever present, and trying to lead astray those who are on the right track. That is why we should take heed as our beloved prophet(SAAW) directed us, to seek refuge with Allah from him at all times. For one never knows when such thoughts and questions and whisperings may creep in and perhaps dangerously take hold. Aoudhubillah.

Om Mohammed.

lubna

28-11-2004, 13:32

I don't know if it is proper for this forum, but what created the creator that created the creator, that created the creator .........?

by asking this question am i right in assuming that you accept the fact that God created everything? you must do , cos only then you ask the 2nd question who created God, right?
so when i accpet the claim of God that He created everything then i also accept His 2nd claim that no body created Him. cos i am convinced of His vast powers, wisdom and capabilities and have no problem in accepting any claim from Him after accepting the 1st one. and there is no proof of any other power above Him cos if there was ,it would have come forward by now. He is the one and only God! another reason and logic for unity of God!

tbahrain

28-11-2004, 14:31

Asif

28-11-2004, 15:24

I don't know if it is proper for this forum, but what created the creator that created the creator, that created the creator .........?

A question of this nature is better suited for the Comparitive Religion Forum.

As for the question itself, although I do not have time this week to indulge in lengthy discussions on this subject, I will try to give a brief response here:

If you assume that each creator is temporal (which is what one understands from your question wherein you ask us who the creator of the creator is, and so on and so forth), then you end up with an infinite regress, which is unacceptable, since you will never arrive at the cause of the universe, but will merely have a never-ending/unceasing chain of temporal causes.

However, since the universe has to have a cause (I have not really followed these discussions carefully lately, so I don't really know if I'm repeating what has already been covered), as it has a beginning, then we must terminate the chain of causes at a certain point, which would mean the chain cannot be infinitely long, i.e. an infintie regress is not possible.

This would mean that the cause of the universe has to be eternal (as opposed to temporal), i.e. uncreated ---> The First Cause.

One might ask why the universe itself can't be "uncaused". Such a position would contradict the fact that the universe is not eternal, but had a beginning.

Our position is that everything that has a beginning has a cause. What has no beginning, has no cause.

Of'course, questions of such a nature are better answered by theologians than by ignoramuses like myself.

Allah Knows Best.

Bye,
Asif.

Asif

28-11-2004, 15:34

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

[1] Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

[2] Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

[3] He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

[4] And there is none like unto Him.

Ameen

Indeed this is the truth. Successful is he who accepts the truth. May Allah forgive us for our crimes and sins, Ameen.

wildlifer

28-11-2004, 20:39

Thanks all.
As First Cause and Cosmology is indeed the topic for another thread, I'll leave it with a quote from Quentin Smith and a couple of links.

If the arguments in this paper are sound, then God does not exist if big bang cosmology, or some relevantly similar theory, is true. If this cosmology is true, our universe exists without cause and without explanation. There are numerous possible universes, and there is possibly no universe at all, and there is no reason why this one is actual rather than some other one or none at all. Now the theistically inclined person might think this grounds for despair, in that the alleged human need for a reason for existence, and other alleged needs, are unsatisfied. But I suggest that humans do or can possess a deeper level of experience than such anthropocentric despairs. We can forget about ourselves for a moment and open ourselves up to the startling impingement of reality itself. We can let ourselves become profoundly astonished by the fact that this universe exists at all. It is arguably a truth of the 'metaphysics of feeling' that this fact is indeed 'stupefying' and is most fully appreciated in such experiences as the one evoked in the following passage:

[This world] exists nonnecessarily, improbably, and causelessly. It exists for absolutely no reason at all. It is inexplicably and stunningly actual . . . The impact of this captivated realisation upon me is overwhelming. I am completely stunned. I take a few dazed steps in the dark meadow, and fall among the flowers. I lie stupefied, whirling without comprehension in this world through numberless worlds other than this one.

Atheism, Theism and Big Bang Cosmology (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/cosmology.html)

Alan Guth, originator of Inflation Theory (http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html)

And in an attempt to return to knowledge, from Mohammad Gill, Pitfalls of Metaphysics and Chimera of Divine Revelation (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mohammad_gill/pitfalls.shtml)

Any knowledge that is trustworthy is empirical and scientific. Science deals with material problems only and has nothing to offer on metaphysical issues. However, metaphysical problems have always remained important, spiritually, for human beings. So man has either to be content with partial but reliable knowledge, or he can also use metaphysical and divine "knowledge," knowledge which is not certain, being fully aware that his metaphysical knowledge is as good or as defective as that of any other person.