| Author | Message | ||
     Dr. Pepper |
This thread will hopefully be a place where myself and another poster will have a dialogue with a Muslim ("Mohideen") who has posted frequently at Jihad Watch. We will begin with a discussion of ground rules before the dialogue commences. I will wait until I see confirmation that Mohideen and the other poster are on board. Please respond to this so I know we can begin. You may also offer your thoughts on what ground rules you'd like to have. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Dear Dr. Pepper, Yes, let us start our voyage of discovery. I just now visited the help menu and found that creating an account gives my email on my posts. Even though I would like to be notified when an action is expected of me, I do not desire to openly declare my email. So, I would use my full name without any password. | ||
| Dr. Pepper |
Thanks Mohideen, I am now waiting for another poster from Jihad Watch whom I have invited ("Archimedes"). Please give me a little time to see if he accepts the invitation. | ||
| Humancafe |
Dear Dr. Pepper, Mohideen, and all, Welcome! I have my own ideas on the universality of religion, which is all religions, including Islam. But they can wait for another time. The rules of Humancafe forums are simple. We respect all individuals and never attack them as persons, though attacks on ideas are fair game. So no personal abuse tolerated, but abuse of ideas is well encouraged.  Ivan & Humancafe editors (to remain anonymous) | ||
| Dr. Pepper |
Thanks Ivan, I'm not sure how long this will last or whether it will get off the ground. We'll see. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Ideas could be torn to shreds. However, even when shredding ideas, we could use decent language and profanities might be avoided. I hope it is agreeable. | ||
| Ed Chesky |
I agree that to debate ideas is fine and that during such a debate the use profanities is not something that should be tolerated. While I hold strong Christian beliefs I respect all religions including Islam and have many Islamic friends despite having been the target of assassination by Islamic Terrorists. I have seen the fear and revulsion my Islamic friends experienced at the terrorists and oppressive regimes and thier desire to be free first hand. I hope that we can have a meaningful dialog on these issues. Ed Chesky | ||
| Ed Chesky |
In order to kick off the dialog I offer the following observations of recent history and current world events with regards to how religion impacts society and the way it organizes itself and deals with situations. The world, despite denial by entrenched interests and current American governmental administration, is entering a period of Global Climate Change. These changes have and will continue to place great stress upon our environment, will disrupt agriculture, cause increased famine and disease. Because of these factors tempertures will rise and water will become a hard to find item in many areas. What Ivan and I have done is begin to examine how different religions and societes when faced with such dangers and stressors react. We have looked at the riots in Paris, terrorist attacks, the hurricanes that have stuck the United States, The tidal waves that killed hundreds of thousands and the great earthquakes. What we have seen is that of all the religious/social/political systems that exist only those in the developed democracies of the West, Asia (Japan), the Middle East, (by which I mean Isreal), which embrace the concept of seperation of Church and state, (with Isreal being a special case), personal and religous freedom, equal rights are able to deal with these events in a rational organized manner at the societal level, with private and religous institutions stepping in to provide coordianted needed support when the government is slow or inable to act. Thes institution, Religous and Private, have helped to maintain peace, order and provide support to the victims in a humane rational way in almost all cases. Islamic Society on the other hand, from our observations, which include the Paris riots, appears to tend to react at the societal level to change and stress, in most cases, with violence. Ivan and I have begun to explore this observation in an effort to determine its cause and if it is related to a structural defect in the fundamental religious and philosophical concepts embraced by Islam. I hope this helps to frame the dialog and further our discussion of topics such as this. Respectfully Ed Chesky | ||
| Anonymous |
"Islamic Society on the other hand, from our observations, which include the Paris riots, appears to tend to react at the societal level to change and stress.." Actually, I don't think the Paris riot had anything to do with religion. The only "Islamic" factor is that many of the rioting youths had parents who emmigrated from Muslim countries. But there is no indication that Islam plays any significant role in their lives. In fact most can't even speak their parent's language. What we witnessed in Paris was the manifestation of social exclusion, very much like the inner city strifes in the U.S.A. As many observers noted, the rioters were not motivated by a hatred of France due to fanaticism, but rather, these are second generation immigrants who wanted to join the French society but were denied access. The riot was a desperate expression of bottled up anger and frustration. It is possible to critique Islam as a belief system but you miss the mark by viewing everything through the lense of religion.Religion actually plays a relatively small part in most people's lives in the West, including many people who identify themselves as "muslims" as a cultural label. "What we have seen is that of all the religious/social/political systems that exist only those in the developed democracies of the West, Asia (Japan), the Middle East, (by which I mean Isreal), which embrace the concept of seperation of Church and state, (with Isreal being a special case), personal and religous freedom, equal rights are able to deal with these events in a rational organized manner .." Since you brought up climate change, I am not sure how the "Christian" West has demostrated a more rational approach. Bush is still in denial.It is not "rational" to continue to persue enviromentally destructive policies in the name of the mighty buck. Finally, violence does not happen only in the street with slogan chanting mobs. Systematic violence, persued through government and corporate policies in the air conditioned broad rooms often have broader impacts and is more destructive, even though they are less visible because of our myopia. | ||
| Anonymous |
"But there is no indication that Islam plays any significant role in their lives. In fact most can't even speak their parent's language." I should clarify. There are Islamic fundamentalists in France who are also immigrants from North Africa but they are not the same group of people who rioted in Paris. The rioters were basically French(they don't speak any other language). Their frustration and alienation are caused by mundane factors like racism, lack of opportunities, economical exclusion, on going harassment by the police and so on. The riot was sparked by two youths accidentally electricuted while being chased by the police. The only reason they were persued by the cops was because they were seen in a white neighbourhood! The Paris riot was just a more dramatic replay of the LA riot years ago following the savage beating of Rodney King. No matter how you slice it, there was no connection with religion and Islam. It is the result of social decay and neglect. Meanwhile the Islamic fundamnetalists have a completely different modus operendus.They are not alieanated because they never consider themselves French to begin with. They mainly keep to themselves and have minimal contact with either the main stream French society or the kind of disenchanted second generation immigrant youth who were torching Paris. It is this group who believe in violence as a matter of religious doctrine. Instead of rioting in the open they plot in secrecy. It is this second group we should be worried about. It is very tempting to make broad brush labeling of people based on superficial characteristics(like national origin and official religious affiliation), but it does not help in understanding or solving real problems. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The world, despite denial by entrenched interests and current American governmental administration, is entering a period of Global Climate Change. Ed Chesky Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 02:57 am: Is the climate that the US experiences now natural? Or is it a camouflaged attack on US using “Weather Engineering” as claimed by Retired Col. Tom Bearden in http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/082705.htm I quote: === I suspect most of our storms from now on will have appreciable weather engineering added, to cause more damage. === I had copied the weather forecast for Silver Spring, Maryland, USA for the period beginning March 1, 2006 and ending March 20, 2006. It was accidental that I extracted the weather forecasts every day after 5.00 am but before 5.59 am. Thus, all the data captured by me begins at 6.00 am. I have noticed that the weather descriptor like “sunny” etc is the same for 3 hours at a stretch there being 8 blocks of 3 hours each starting 6.00 am. Is this natural? Is this an artifact of the software? Does the software to forecast the weather use 3 hours as the minimal block? Or is it the level of refinement reached by our enemies using their weather engineering devices? Put in other words, is the power of the weather engineering devices powerful enough to alter weather in 3 hour blocks, but not hourly? The clarification sought is important as our solutions would be drastically different depending on the weather changes being the result of global warming or hostile action by an enemy with a far superior technology? Consider the US with its atom bomb and Japan at the end of WWII. | ||
| Ed Chesky |
Mohideen Ibramsha The changes in our weather paterns are not being caused as a result of enemy action. They are being caused as a result of man made changes to our atmosphere that have resulted in Global Warming. As a former nuclear weapons expert I can assure you that the energy needed to manipulate the weather or even one hurricane as part of a weapons system is beyound our technology. The human race has faced Global CLimate change in the past. Civilizations has risen and fallen as a result of it. All we have to do is look at the Anasazi culture of ancient America that was subjected to environmental stress as one example of a civilization that fell as a result of climate change. As we move further into climate change peoples will migrate causing additional stress on societies and cultures. What Ivan and I have been exploring is how such cultures will likely react to such changes and whether of not Islamic culture can peacefully adapt to such changes as the world becomes more complex and integrated. We all exist on this planet as one part of a system of systems and I feel that this type of discussion is very relvent as we all will have to deal with the effects of Global Climate change. Already the great powers and interests of this world have studied the likely effectsof Global Climate change and are engaged in a race to control the resources necessary to survive it in terms of technology, energy and food. Russian has consolidated its hold on its energy supplies, China is moving to expand its influence in Africa and South America where control of energy supplies are stake. The United States is trying to re-engineer the Middle East to make it part of its sphere of influence. Despite all denials we are engaged in a battle for control of the resources need to survive global climate change. During such a period of transition history has shown that leaders religous, political economic and military rise. Ivan and I have looked at the issue of Global Climate Change and Islam and are worried about the effect that the concept of Jihad will have on the rest of the world as we move into climate change. Respectfully Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Ivan and I have looked at the issue of Global Climate Change and Islam and are worried about the effect that the concept of Jihad will have on the rest of the world as we move into climate change. Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:08 am: I believe ‘energy’ is the critical resource. Given unlimited energy, we could get all the water we need by desalination. We could produce all the food we need by hydroponics. With respect to energy, may I suggest we look up patent US 6,362,718 B1 dated March 26, 2002. The device patented is called MEG Motionless Electromagnetic Generator. This device is claimed to get energy from the vacuum EFTV. It is under engineering development. The status of this development could be seen in http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030206.htm We find: === Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 We have a very hard year to a year and a half of work on the MEG, before it is out of engineering development and ready for production engineering. === The MEG is expected to be on the market latest by September 2007. This patented device gives unlimited energy. All I am trying to indicate is that there is no need for scarcity; mankind can and should get unlimited quantities of basic items. Once there is no scarcity, there is no wars and there would be no jihad. In my opinion, the jihad that takes place in Afghanistan, and Iraq are defensive; the population is trying to drive the occupier away. I believe such wars would be there irrespective of religion. So, we need to eliminate scarcity. God Almighty willing, we can eliminate scarcity. | ||
| Ed Chesky |
Mohideen Ibramsha, I have looked at the website you posted and the works by LTC Tom Bearden. I note that his work is not accepted by the scientific community and that the concept he is proposing with the Aharonov-Bohm effect is still just conjecture at this point with much basic research to be done before it can even be fully understood. If LTC Bearden's work was accepted it would be published in a variety of scientific journals subject to peer review. Of which it is not. To pin your hopes on this work is something I would caution against. During Global climate change, traditional technologies will have to carry us through until such time as more advanced technologies are developed such as sustainable fusion power, fuel cells and modern advanced safe fission based nuclear reactors. Oil and hydrocarbons will continue for the forseeable future to be the primary source of our energy supplies. As to Russian weapons systems development and covert programs, I have to say that LTC Bearden is completely wrong and is spinning fiction with regards to them. Having been a technical intelligence officer with access to all information regarding Soviet Weapons programs throughout the Cold War, I can assure you that the Soviets had no programs as described by LTC Bearden. Telepathy, Mind Control and Remote viewing were explored by both the United States and Soviet Union and found to be unrealiable, un-reproducable and were abandoned. In the widely varified and accepted history of the KGB published by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin the issue of AIDS being the result of a biological weapons programs is well documented as being a Soviet disinformation operation planned and executed by the KGB. Documentation on this subject can be found on pages 244 and 245 of the text. This book has been on the New York Times Bestseller list for a number of years and has received outstanding reviews by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, New Republic and Washington Post. If you have not read it I would recommend it to you. As to our dialog I too wish that the problem of energy would be solved in the near term but harbor no hopes of that. The French/European fusion project is our likely best hope for developing a clean safe reliable sustainable source of energy at this juncture. Until a breakthrough in fusion occures we are stuck with our traditional technologies and the problems associated with them. This brings me back to your posting on Jihad. I too wish it would fade away, however your comment that it is acceptable in Afghanistan and Iraq as being defenseive begs the question of what you are defending against and trying to preserve with such tactics as suicide bombers, car bombs and killing of civilians, women and children. If you accept that the concept of Jihad is acceptable in those two countries then by logic you are saying that sucicide bombers, killing of innocent civilians, children and women is acceptable as well. Perhaps you could clarifiy you posting on those points. Respectfully Ed Chesky | ||
| Ivan |
Global warming and free energy. Free energy and perpetual motion had been a kind of 'holy grail' for some time in physics. But unfortunately it has also been polluted by scam artists who find ways to part the gullible from their money. In fact there may be essentially 'free' energy in the universe, such as exhibited by gravity, but we still have no clue on how to tap into it. Global warming, which may be a natural solar phenomenon (Mars polar ice caps are melting faster than before) as much as due to the foolish greed of man, and man's still early attempts to harness power other than animal or human muscles, is threatening to be serious. If it happens as now predicted, the world's capacity to produce and consume will be stressed beyond what we now think. Poor farmers in Africa are already feeling its burden, along with man made disasters due to wars and oppressive regimes who steal from their people, and coastal communities everywhere from Bangladesh to Boston will feel the pressure of rising seas. Once humanity is stressed, to whom will it turn? To God, to Allah? Or to finding solutions to their oblivious behaviors through reason and understanding? If this was 1400 years ago, I could guess the answer right off without question. But we now have a legacy of science and technology, and of burden of proof of any idea, so that today it a very different world. Religious answers may address our personal concerns, test our faith in some higher spiritual value of who it is that is this small human creatures that would think itself the master of the planet, and someday the universe. But in real terms, the answers, 1400 years after the birth of Islam, the answers will come from a different realm. Mohammed did not know of electricity, nor the atom, nor televisions and cell phones, nor computers and the internet. He never mentioned any of this in his dialogues with Allah. Nor did he mention saving the planet from our follies, saving the whales from dying oceans, nor saving humanity from forest and ocean degradation so that in the end we are left gasping for air like fish in a dying pond. He did not know any of this, or God kept him from knowing it, or else he would have mentioned it. In his visions he only saw what he knew locally, not even of heathen tribes living in the Amazonas like children of nature, friends and loving one moment, murderous the next. Why did he not look in on these children of nature when talking to Allah, and give examples from which we could learn? If Jesus knew modern physics, he might have used a different metaphor from the 'camel through the eye of a needle' to get to heaven, and might have mentioned that it is as difficult as extracting free energy from space. But he didn't say that, did he? In effect, what we see in the learned writings of the ancients 1400, or 2000, or 3000 years ago is no more than what they understood then, period. And judging from what they knew, they had no clue what the world would be like thousands of years hence, same as we have no clue what the world will be like in 5000 AD. We could only guess. (But I never guessed there would be someday something like this internet, featuring the Humancafe forums, either. ) If they really were talking from God, they should have known better. If we are faced with a global crisis of glacier melting proportions, would turning back to learned scriptures thousands of years old really be the answer to our problems? Even something as simple as the human awareness that free human beings are far more productive than an army of slaves, a very modern idea, never entered his dialogues with Allah. Why was God silent on this? Human freedom is one of the greatest inventions of the mind of man, and yet God never bothered to tell Mohammed. How can that be? Or did Mohammed simply not understand what it means to be a free human being free of coercions, empowered by agreements with others, and protected by laws from trespass. Now, this is powerful magic! If there will be a solution for global warming, it will more likely come from such free human beings, who first built up civilization and then risked losing it, to resolve with freedom of ideas and energy their current dilemma. That is if we don't choke on our dead oceans first. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2006/3313private_armies.html has the following: === The intention is to create a world system, in which large financier syndicates, which exert greater power than any national government, actually rule the world instead of governments. The intention is to break the power of governments by degrees, and then use the first general financial collapse brought about by the current policies of the financier oligarchy itself, to establish a financial creditors' imperial rule over technically bankrupt nations and their governments. This imperial system is called "globalization." === We all would hopefully agree that once the governments are subject to a small group, that group has become the dictators of mankind. Such a group would formulate rules that increase their power and their happiness. My question is: Compared to a tyranny with unknown rules, is not Judaism (5000+), Christianity (2000+), or Islam (1400+) better, where we at least know what we are up against? Personally, I believe in avoiding problems. So, before we plunge into jihad, can we look at the recent future and trace out scenarios of avoiding scarcity? | ||
| Ed Chesky |
Mohideen Ibramsha, What you say has merit and forms the core of our American democratic process and system. I think that we can agree that when governments are controled or influenced by a small group of people representing control of vast financial resources that freedom and the power of the people to govern themselves and decide their own fate become endangered. In this country we also call it tranny. Whether this is tranny as a result of a small group controlling the finacial resources of the world or a nation or a single tyrant deciding the fate of a nation the result is the same. Loss of freedom, the loss of the right to challange the system in a public forum without sanction, and the loss of the right of self determination. In our system we have created a sytem by which the people through peaceful means, elections, lawsuits, freedom of speach and the press and the right to peacefully protest can act as a check on the power of tyanny. In our society what we have also done is seperate church and state and over time made the church, and private non-profit organizations, the advocate for morality, ethics, charity and civil rights. In doing this what we have done is recoginze that left unchecked that business interests in a capitalistic system will only seek to expand their profits and control of markets by any and all means possible. This includes both legal and illegal, ethical and unethical means. In a capitalistic system, as promoted by the current United States Administration, the welfare of the people is relegated to second class status when it comes to pursuit of profit. If you see people as being a means to expand your profit and control of the market then those who are not capable helping you achieve this are seen as hinderences and relegated to poverty. In the NAZI system this concept was taken to the extreme and those people deemed as being parasites on the system were eliminated. In the United States we are far from that point, although under the current adminstration and its philosophy of Globalization we have erroded much of the social safety net we built over the last hundred years to care for the weakest members of our society. In many ways we too embrace the concept of Jihad, but in our system we have made it a battle that is fought using the peaceful weapons lawsuits, the Freedom of Information Act, the media, protests and the power of organized religion to move and mobilize and focus the attention of tens of millions on a particular issue. What we have seen during this War in the United States and Europe is that concept of peaceful Jihad being played out in the media, on the streets and in the court rooms. As the corrupt interests that conspired to dragged us into the war in Iraq for economic reasons are exposed and challanged. For a long time, in our system, private non-profit organizations and the churches have recognized the danger of globalization, unrestrained capitalism and the abuse of labor forces as being a danger to our continued peaceful existance on this planet. Under the current model of Globalization, corporation race around the globe seeking cheap sources of labor, and materials in order to win domination of the market place. They establish production plants in countries with few environmental protections exhausting resources and the land, poisoning millions with toxic runnoff while providing the work force with few basic rights and minimal wages. To sustain their operations in these low wage and resource cost nations they enter into devil's bargins with corrupt government/economic elites in these nations. Once entrenched in these countries these corporation seek to sustain these governments in power by any and all means possible. To a degree we have seen this form of corrupt unethical behavior in Iraq in the various scandles surrounding the oil for food program and contracts awarded to United States firms for work in Iraq that bennefits, for the most part a small wealthy elite in this country. Unless the actions by these corporate entities are checked we are likely to see contiued exhaustion of resources and increased scarcity as we move into Global Climate change. Already we see in Africa the effects of Climate Change with increased droughts and starvation. These problems are made worse by the actions of corrupt warlords and governments that fail to address the needs of the people. As you point out, Judaism, Christianity, Islam and and the rest of the major religons of the world have long established ethical rules relating to the ordering of a society, charity, caring for the planet and respect for individuals. This puts them in conflict with the principles of capitalism and globalization at many levels. I note that many religous leaders in our society have spoken out against the forces of consummerism and globalization. The difference, however in our system, verse that we currently see in Islam, is that we talk about Jihad we talk about peaceful campaigned using the tools of law, and human rights to wage it verses a campaign of terror. In the United States African American's were relegated to poverty because of a devil's marriage between corrupt interests and a evil political/religous philosophy. Terrorism was emplyed to keep the African American's mired in poverty and scarcity. The KKK lynched blacks, hung them from lamp poles, and burned them alive. For years a battle in the shaddows agains the power of the evil elite groups that perpetrated this horror was waged. My family was part of that struggle since our great civil war. In the end a great religous leader rose by the Name of Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King, and he, with the help of the supporters who fough in the shadows for the right of the blacks to share in the wealth of this country, challanged the system peacefully in a great Jihad with his great civil rights movement. In the end he brought down the system that kept his people enslaved in poverty and scarcity. A similar event happened in India under the leaderhsip of Ghandi. At present the people of Islam are trapped in a world of scarcity and poverty. This has happened for a variety of reasons. To include corruption, globalization and the effects of environmental degredation. We in the west, Europe the United States, are waiting for that great leader to emerge in Islam like Ghandi or Martin Luther King. A leader that will rise to peacfully challange the forces of corruption, intolerance, and tyranny in the World of Islam and promote a spirit of cooperation where we can all work to equally share the wealth of the this planet. To date we are still waiting for this to happen. I have read the prophecy of the Mahdi, and hope that one day such a man will arrise in the world of Islam, like Ghandi and Martin Luther King and that he will dream the dream of Ghandi and Martin Luther King, a dream so vast and powerful that it shakes the world we spoken by a man of God. Respectfully Ed Chesky | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, In your referenced "Private Armies, Captive People", Executive Intelligence Review, it says: Note that 'conspiracy' theories have existed for a very long time, but chasing after them is not a productive intellectual pursuit. Certain commercial operations, like 'hedge funds', fall outside the domain of national laws if they operate offshore from the US, for example. I agree commercial interests's greed in globalization needs brakes, same as in the early days of industrial revolution there were needs for brakes to stop exploitation of workers, and to give social institutions time to adjust to rapid change. We are facing this same kind of rapid change today, with outsourcing of manufacturing and services. But what is loss on one end is a gain on the other: jobs for people in developing countries, cheaper goods in developed countries. Is this a totally fair and just, or even moral, system? Hardly, but this is where vigilance and awareness of how these rapid economic changes impact humanity that must be addressed, as you and Ed pointed out. Thanks for bringing it up. Ivan | ||
| Ed Chesky |
Thanks for the insight Ivan, I just had a lecture on the effects of the economics of Globalism on the United States. It is dangerous in that has created an envirnoment of unrestrained capitalism where cheap disposable goods are being churned out on a global scale for consumption in the United States and other developed nations. This practice encourages consumption and depletion of resources as these cheap goods do not last and are replaced or disposed of with increased frequency. This economic model as you point out is similiar to that of the early industrial revolution where overproduction of goods lead to the establishment of our current consummer based society. Trade imbalances during that period that wwere generated becasue of overproduction then resulted in the great economic depression. Environmental degredation also became widespread druing that period as resources necessary to sustain mass production were exploited on a grand scale. As we move into gloabl climate change these models of production will have to shift as we move into economies of scarcity where products will have to be built for durability and longevity vice planned obsolence. At present we are in a period of transition where the forces of Globalization are coming to the forefront as the Climate Shifts. Society is gradually coming to accept that gloabl climate change is real and that we are starting to see its effects in terms of the development of economies of scarcity in many places on the planet. Detroit, the insurance industry and finacial industry have recognized this and begun supporting the transition to hybrid cars. Unfortunately we have seen nothing yet from our government to support an effort to reform our economy or society to meet the challanges of global climate change. The Old Guard with their outdated worldview, that includes most of the current leadership of the present adminsitration, sees the world in terms of the need to control strategic resources and denies that climate change is real. Hence our move into Iraq. We have reached the point where oil production is streached to the brink and must be maximized, in their view to, sustain economic growth. Rather than move to reform the economy through a system of tax penalties and credits, reducing the construction of 3-4,000 sq foot houses that we can't afford to maintain, heat or cool and other measures, such as moving to alternative energy systems we have stayed within the same old thought box dominated by the need to sustain oil production and production that has charactized our society since the end of WWII. To be fair I, completely understand the need to sustain oil production in the near term because of how finely balanced the supply and demand for oil is. ANy disruption of it at this point will likely have significant economic effects. This does not include disruptions of supply by weather events such as Huricanes in the Gulf that we are still recovering from. I also understand that the terrorist and militants Islamics understand this as well and will likely attempt to exploit it to further their agenda. In todays news Chad has threatend to cut off oil production unless it is paid 100 million dollars. Given the situation as it exists today even the limited production of 250,000 barrels a day of oil production from its wells is seen as significant at the Global level and Chad is trying to use this threat in order to extort money from the international finacial system. As I read this I know the terrorist intelligence analysts supporting Al Qaeda are reading it as well and planning their next series of attacks. What I had hoped to point out to Mohideen Ibramsha is that as we move into Global climate change we have to conserve and share resources equitably in order to sustain our economies. Jihad as practiced by the Islamics now in Iraq is counter productive and does nothing to help us in managing our transition during this period of Gloabal Climate Change. One day I hope that a man on the stature of ML King or Ghandi rises in Islam. However, I don't see that as coming and day soon. Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I for one would support a world government formed on the basis of one adult one vote. This would result in a single leader, a single currency, and same wage for same job elsewhere. I know the current leaders would loathe such an idea. I read that the current financial system is expected to collapse any day. How about a barter system? How about "I owe you" notes? Even today, we live on trust: trust that the greenback we have has the power to compensate for our labor of today to get our needs of tomorrow. Can the "I owe you" notes be considered to survive when the financial system collapses? For example, when the rouble crashed, the import/ export trade of the communist countries suffered. However, with respect to internal trade, did it suffer? May be the collapse of the financial system would be the death knell of globalization. Is there any work done regarding the minimal resources required for a community to be self-supporting? If so, can we have a reference to such a work. As regards Iraq, I see the concept of "nation state" as the culprit. If there was no separate nation of Iraq, and a separate nation of USA, the war on Iraq is a crime punishable by the world. The perpetrators of this war would not be protected under "sovereign immunity." One world one government might be years away in the physical world. Can we attempt such a world on the Internet? | ||
| Ed Chesky |
You raise a good point Mohideen Ibramsha, As I sit here I have three computer monitors linked in a display on my desk. I am working projects for my univeristy studies dealing with drug abuse and history. I use the monitors to view multiple items of information at the same time. Hence while I am working on my univeristy projects I can view this website and others at the same time and drop a post here from time to time. As to your question regarding the establishment of a world government in cyberspace, that would be hard to do for a number of reasons. Al Qadea on the other hand has, with its websites and personnel organization, established the framework for its version of the Caliphate across the Globe with Osama as its head. It also uses its global organization to commit horrible acts of terrorism on the world, raise funds and control its assets in the physical world. Many other organizations and corporations have done the same to establish global governmental/organizaation structures. The Catholic Church is one example of this. In the ancient days the Caliphate provided spiritual and temporal guidence to the World of Islam. It often came into conflict with the rulers of the Islamic nations. In time it was abolished. I see no reason why people of good will in Islam can not re-establish a Caliphate in Cyberspace in preparation for a day when a true leader of Islam arrises. This Caliphate could have leaders and an organization structure in both cyberspace and the real world that could provide support to the people of Islam seeking to establish a better life for themselves and help them peacefully overthrow the corrupt regimes that repress them and have squandered their resources. It is clear the people of Islam want change and guidance. Al Qaeda has offered the people of Islam one path to change. We are waiting to see if the Islamic people can find another one that leads to peace. While serving as an intelligence officer I watched as the Iranian students who wanted freedom organized a network of contacts in cyberspace that included the Widdow of the last Shah, the MEK terrorist organization and the students in Iran in an effort in overthrow the government through peaceful elections. This movement was crushed because it did not have a wide enough base of support. It is one model of how such organizations in cyberspace a can be used to promote change in the real world. But for change to come and be successful it must include a clear message/vision that the people can accept as coming from the one god that we all worship, a message that speaks of peace, love, freedom, fairness and the right to co-exist peacefully in this world. Sharing our planet and its resources equitably for the betterment of all mankind. As to your question as to whether we can attempt such a thing on the internet. I see no reason why we can not try it. The caliphate is a dream the people of Islam have dreamed for a long time. The internet has plenty of room and crosses the globe. The Christian world has long looked for a great king to lead it, pending the return of Jesus Christ. But the days of priest kings leading christianity in the real world are long over. The beauty of the internet, however, is that in it we can establish an alternative unified world that linkes all the peoples of the world, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslem, and Buddist into houses in a great kindom of god where the descendents of the ancient prophets, kings and perhaps, according to some people ont he internet an angel or two drop in from time to time to give guidence during moments of crisis to help the people deal with the challanges that we face and make sense of the world and will of God. For myself and my family, members of my direct family belong to all the different Churches that make of the House of Christ. Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Celtic Christian and all the rest. We have along history of serving the both the churches and State. We have long ago come to accept and embrace the seperation of Church and state. Over the course of hundreds of years of a recorded history, that dates back before the time of the prophet, may God bless him and his house, we have seen many strange things during our service to church and state. Our ancestors fought with Joan of Arc, William the Conquror, and Alfred the Great. We evne stood with the Knights Templar on the fields of Eastern Europe under Jaque De Moley facing the forces of the Great Kahn, during the dark night when civilization itself almost ended. We fought against Hitler, and in the Great American Civil War, and through out the Cold War and we even fought before the city of JERUSALEM during the crusades. I have served in Saudi Arabia with descendents of the Prophet as brothers in Arms and found them to be honorable men. At night in a Christian Chruch sometimes I pray for the people of Islam that they will one day find the way to free themselves from the corruption they are trapped in. I wish you the best Mohideen Ibramsha in your journey to enlightenment. Respectfully Ed Chesky | ||
| Anonymous |
Mongol Invasion of Europe in 1241, In this year of our Lord Jesus Christ a mixed force of Poles, Knights Templar and others went out to face the forces of the Great Khan. But for the grace of God and the death of the Khan Europe would have fallen to the Mongols. Jaque Demoly was born after this battle and rose in the ranks after this battle to command the Knight's Templar. He was the last Grand Master. Strange things indeed has Edward Chesky's family been associated with throughout the ages. In ancient days rumors of associations with demons, angels, magic and science were rife. Such is the history and legacy of the house of Christ and its members. From the burning of Jaque Demoly, to Joan De Arc, and with Nepoleon himself has this family walked down the ages. Strange things indeed. | ||
| Anonymous |
"I have looked at the website you posted and the works by LTC Tom Bearden. I note that his work is not accepted by the scientific community and that the concept he is proposing with the Aharonov-Bohm effect is still just conjecture at this point with much basic research to be done before it can even be fully understood." Aharonov-Bohm effect is not "just a conjecture". It is a fairly standard fact.Check out any newer text book in quantum mechanics or any book in quantum field theory. The problem with the invention cited by Mohideen Ibramsha is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics. Energy conserves so technically there is no such thing as energy shortage. But there may be a scarcity of "useful" form of energy. According to the second law, in a closed system, useful,--organized,--forms of energy are constantly downgrade to less useful,--less organized,-- forms of energy(indicated by an one way increase in entropy) To recover useful forms of energy, anti-entropy in the form of work must be injected into the system. This requires the input of "useful" form of energy from somewhere else. In short, the is no free lunch as far as the budget of useful energy is concerned. Work must be done(inject ordered, useful, form of energy)to overcome the increase of entropy. It is a bit like rewinding a running down clock. The free lunch machine cited by Mohideen Ibramsha belongs to a large class of such designs known as "perpetual machines of the second kind".Throughout the history of technology crackpots of all stripes come up with blue prints of such machines. Some are quite ingenious but none of them succeeds in beating the second law. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.assistedsuicide.org/suicide_laws.html has the following: === The only four places that today openly and legally, authorize active assistance in dying of patients, are: Oregon (since l997, physician-assisted suicide only); Switzerland (1941, physician and non-physician assisted suicide only); Belgium (2002, permits 'euthanasia' but does not define the method; Netherlands (voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide lawful since April 2002 but permitted by the courts since l984). Two doctors must be involved in Oregon, Belgium, and the Netherlands, plus a psychologist if there are doubts about the patient's competency. But that is not stipulated in Switzerland, although at least one doctor usually is because the right-to-die societies insist on medical certification of a hopeless or terminal condition before handing out the lethal drugs. The Netherlands permits voluntary euthanasia as well as physician-assisted suicide, while both Oregon and Switzerland bar death by injection. === Is assisted suicide science or religion? What is the rationale behind ‘assisted suicide?’ To me this is an important topic which I hope to connect to the formation of “one world, one government” in the cyber sphere. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I note that his work is not accepted by the scientific community Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 11:57 am: by Anonymous The scientific community – is unfortunately submissive to vested interests. I have personal experience. In one of my works - http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/pdcs/pdcs2002.html#Ibramsha02 – I have proposed a multicast tree generation algorithm which gave about 40% improvement over the one proposed by Prof. Dijkstra. Are there any references over the past three years to my work? None! Do we understand improving – even in one randomly hand generated example – the result by about 40% does not attract the attention of any other researcher? As regards Col. Tom Bearden’s claim instead of relying on the so called MSR – Main Stream Research – why not we evaluate it and show him wrong? I am asking this question because if Col. Tom Bearden is right, we do not have scarcity and we do not need to fight for resources. Can we look into his claim? In http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20MEG%20-%20How% 20it%20works1.doc Col. Bearden states as follows: === • A system far from equilibrium in its energy exchange with its environment can steadily and freely receive environmental energy and dissipate it in external loads, exhibiting COP > 1.0 (as does a heat pump) or COP = infinity; (as do the solar cell, windmill, waterwheel, sailboat, etc.). … DISCUSSION 5: OPERATION OF A HOME HEAT PUMP . • Efficiency (yeta); of an energy or power unit is defined as the total useful energy or external work output of the system, divided by its total energy input from all sources. It is commonly expressed as a percentage. • The home heat pump {19} may have a nominal efficiency of 50%, which means it wastes half of the total energy input to it from all sources. • In addition to the operator’s electrical input (which he pays for), the heat pump also utilizes some extra heat energy received from the environment {20}. Thus there are two energy inputs: (i) the electrical energy input paid for by the operator, and (ii) the free environmental energy input furnished by the external atmosphere and processed a bit by compressing, etc. at very low cost. • The home heat pump thus has two “energy reservoirs”: (i) the electrical energy reservoir furnished by the operator and paid for by him, and (ii) the atmospheric heat energy reservoir furnished freely by the atmosphere. • Coefficient of performance (COP) is defined as the total useful energy or work output of the system, divided by the operator’s energy input only. It is stated as a decimal, and measures how much “bang for his buck” the system gives the operator. • Operating in good conditions, a home heat pump of efficiency 50% will exhibit a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. The maximum theoretical COP = 8.0 or so. Note that energy is conserved, and all energy output as work is indeed input to the system. No energy is “created out of nothing”. However, the operator only inputs a fraction of the total input required, and the environment freely inputs the rest. The system permissibly outputs 3 to 4 times the useful energy and work as the energy furnished by the operator alone. The excess energy is freely input by the external environment. • By “overunity power system” we refer to a COP > 1.0, which is permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics for NESS systems such as the heat pump. We do not refer to efficiency > 100%, which would require creation of energy from nothing at all. === Anything wrong with the above? His invention does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Or does it? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We have long ago come to accept and embrace the seperation of Church and state. Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 01:48 pm: By Ed Chesky Can the Pope formulate new policies or he is permitted to interpret the Holy Bible alone? Extending the formulation, can the leader of the local church formulate rules governing his flock on his own? Does he have authority? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Islamic Society on the other hand, from our observations, which include the Paris riots, appears to tend to react at the societal level to change and stress, in most cases, with violence. Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 02:57 am: By Ed Chesky From http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2006/04/18/34948/French+employment+law+re volution+cut+to+ribbons.htm we have: === After two months of strikes, sit-ins and violent street protests, the French government has caved in to social pressure and scrapped the First Employment Contract (CPE). The law was a controversial element of its equal opportunities Bill, designed to give underprivileged young people access to the jobs market. … The sticking point in the proposed contract was the clause that would have allowed French employers to dismiss workers under the age of 26 without the need for explanation within a two-year probation period. === I believe the violent street protesters were not Muslim. In a society where most Muslims are underprivileged, the youth is bound to react, as the French youth reacted recently. Is it not possible that a statistic is misunderstood? A youth becoming violent might have nothing to do with her / his faith but to do with the built-up frustration over a period of time. Do you still stick to your observation quoted above? | ||
| Ed Chesky |
Until such time as the people of Islam reject the teaching of armed Jihad and all accept that it is a spiritual battle and not a physical one I stand by my observation quoted above. Western Christian/Judeau society has eveloved much since its early days and has for the most part replaced physical confrontation with a move to rule of law, equal rights and the right of free speach and protest. It is by no means a perfect society, but is much further along the way to universal societal, political and spiritual development than Islam. What we have tried to show the people of Islam is a different path. One that steps away from repression, terrorism and corruption and renounces the coercive behavior that is armed Jihad and terrorism. Once when the west was in its dark ages the World of Islam preserved the light of science, mathmatics and learning for all mankind. Now that task has fallen to the West. For the most part the World of Islam has fallen far from the heights of its previous civilization. When a leader arrises in Islam that can repeat what Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King did, or Ghandi did, then I will reconsider my observation. Until then I stand by it and ask the people of Islam to prove to the rest of the world that they truly embrace peace and lay down the tools of terrorism and false Jihad. Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Until such time as the people of Islam reject the teaching of armed Jihad and all accept that it is a spiritual battle and not a physical one I stand by my observation quoted above. Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 06:59 pm: Ed Chesky Jihad is to fight the oppressor. Please see “8. Jihad” in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/. And if the oppressor could be fought by armed means only, Muslims are bound to engage in armed Jihad. So, until the Day of Judgment, Muslims shall not abandon armed Jihad. Yes, an oppressor who happens to be a leader of a democracy could be fought by peaceful means also by appealing to the population that is led by the oppressor to dethrone him. Use of peaceful means with the populations does not lead to abandon the armed Jihad. There are some who believe that the 2004 elections were rigged and the verdict of the public was ignored in USA. Under such circumstances, when the appeal to the public fails, there is no option but to fight the oppressor through arms. Just for the record, I must state that out of two youth uprisings in France, it is not logical to look at one and ignore the other; such selective data collection is not unbiased research and it is bound to lead to wrong conclusions. What is secularism? Is it Muslims to live as per the desires of non-Muslims or is it for the people of different faiths to live according to their faiths as long as such following of faith does not lead to harm to the people of other faiths? I would like to look at Islam and see whether following Islam per se affects the living of other people as per their own faiths. Is that acceptable? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
A special request to viewers of this page: I hope Humancafe would kindly permit this. I opened an email from “Campaign for America’s Future,” and was shocked to learn that the new and confusing drug plan the Bush administration has legislated would cost the seniors of USA some $80 billion more in an year. The detailed report could be found in http://ourfuture.org/issues_and_campaigns/medicare/partd_reports.cfm From the email received by me: === Help us find out where your Representative and Senators stand. Ask your lawmakers a straightforward question: http://ga3.org/campaign/Take_Back_Medicare Will you fight to fix President Bush's Part D disaster by... 1. creating a simple and effective prescription drug plan run by Medicare, 2. committing that plan, by law, to negotiate for the lowest possible drug prices, and 3. guaranteeing coverage for the prescriptions your constituents need regardless of how their health changes? Your lawmakers' responses will let you know who they're working for -- you and the rest of their constituents, or the drug industry and insurance special interests. Let us know what they say, and we'll publish their responses for the media and their voters. === Please step in and save the health of the seniors of America. I am 61 years old. Thanks. | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, you wrote:
Armed resistance to oppression had been a historical fact for all cultures. No people accept having their freedoms taken away. The American Revolution was an armed struggle, which in a large part launched the world towards democratic freedoms and secularism, i.e., separation of Church (and Mosque) and state. People have a right to resist trespass, whether from violent attack or insidious attacks on their personal liberties. What makes Islam different, unfortunately, is that it fails to recognize any belief system but its own, and thus sees everyone else who is not adhering to Islam as the enemy. The disastrous effect of this, for Islam, is that it then becomes the oppressor in all societies with which it comes in contact. So when you say: "So, until the Day of Judgment, Muslims shall not abandon armed Jihad," though it looks legitimate on the surface, the subterfuge is that this armed Jihad is directed at the rest of humanity because it does not believe as you do. Thus, Islam remains in a constant state of war with other beliefs and with secularism in general. So the problem is not Islam defending itself from oppression, but that in its stance of intolerance for all others, it becomes the oppression. And when it flexes its Jihadic muscle, such as happens when Muslims feel strong enough in numbers, then this oppression manifests by pushing on the liberties of others. This pushing results in resistance, and now the Jihadists feel self justified in fighting back to the resistance they themselves created in the first place. This is called "setting up" or "baiting" all others who are not Islamic into confrontation, and then through rather confused logic, they feel they must now "defend" their faith against oppressors. But who oppressed whom in this scenario? Unfortunately, this had been the historic modus operandi of Islam as they went raiding all other cultures with which they came in contact to subdue them. This was pure coerciion. You sound an intelligent and mature man. How would you reverse this trend for Islam, so that it stops playing the "victim", and thus join in the more progressive ideology of human freedom, of the right of the individual to be free from trespass and coercions? How can Islam stop its violence against all who do not agree with it? Regards, Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
What makes Islam different, unfortunately, is that it fails to recognize any belief system but its own, and thus sees everyone else who is not adhering to Islam as the enemy. Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 07:02 am: By Ivan Nothing could be farther from the truth. Islam does not see other faiths as its enemy. It only sees its enemies as its enemies. As regards the Quraish tribe it is they who sought to kill Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him; it is they who marched with a large army to annihilate the nascent Muslim community in the Battle of Badr; it is they who refused permission for the Muslims to visit the Holy Kabaa forcing a humiliating one-sided treaty on the Muslims at Hudaibiyyah and so on. May be we should look at the so called offensive wars conducted by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and analyze them one by one. Each and every expedition undertook by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was defensive only. At this juncture I must add that Islam is defined by the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. For an explanation of authenticity, please see -- 7. Consistency: The ever present test of authenticity -- in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/. Further I must add that among the collections of Traditions, most of the Muslims accept only the following as good collections: Hadith Qudsi, Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood, Al-Muwatta, Al-Tirmidhi, and Fiqh-us-Sunnah It is worth repeating that every Tradition found in the above collections is not automatically authentic; each and every authentic Tradition must pass the test of consistency. I have mentioned the above so that we do not waste our time looking at other sources. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
How would you reverse this trend for Islam, so that it stops playing the "victim", and thus join in the more progressive ideology of human freedom, of the right of the individual to be free from trespass and coercions? Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 07:02 am: By Ivan Islam is not at fault; it is some of those who call themselves Muslims at fault. In Washington, DC there are a few localities that are crime-infested. In one such locality, the authorities are attempting to remove the tendency to crime by encouraging home builders to buy property cheap, raze the old buildings and erect new colonies where upscale individuals move-in. In a locality I have in mind, 20% of the locality is reclaimed from drug related activity already. We hope that slowly, but surely, the rest of the locality also rids itself of crime. My proposal to bring Islam to its original state – of purity and peace for all – is to rely on the new members of the community. Possibly because of the separation of church and state, Muslim schools teaching Islam were denied assistance; they were supported by charities, mainly Zakat; they were renamed as Madrassa and ended up producing students without any productive skill. Such a sorry state of affairs would not have come, if schools teaching religion along with secular education also get funded. This would be one way of increasing the number of peace loving Muslims so that eventually the hot heads are subdued. How about permitting the teaching of: 1. Atheism 2. Buddhism 3. Christianity 4. Evolution 5. Hinduism 6. Islam 7. Jainism 8. Judaism and so on in schools with the proviso that every student studies at least 2 and at most three of the religious studies offered. I have on purpose listed Evolution as a religion as there is no proof to show that mankind indeed evolved from the animal kind. Once every child knows multiplicity of societal concepts, tolerance becomes the norm than the exception it is today. | ||
| Ivan |
Nobel idea, Mohideen, to teach comparative religion to inner city youth. Perhaps we could add 9. "Bahaism" to the list? I have seen 'gentrification' in action, in New York, Boston, LA, so know what you're refering to. However, that is mainly economic and not educational, except where wealthier parents send their children to better schools. Indeed moral education is sadly lacking in mainstream public schools, so children grow up without a sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately, in a secular based society, it is not the function of government to endorse any religion. The other problem is logistical, in that some parents would object to little Johnny or Jane being taught religious ideas, if they don't believe in such at home. So freedom of choice should be recognized at some level, where this kind of education, if not taken at home, will be relegated to private schools, or classes associated with the religious institution. When I was a boy, I attended such classes associated with my church. However, since I think of religion as so many interesting but ancient tales, in effect modern mythology, I am not a good proponent of such an education, other than for cultural purposes. The problem I see is a further division of "us and them", which has led to misunderstanding, religious elitism, and ultimately conflicts and wars. I think the founding fathers of the American Constitution had the right idea to separate religon and state, and let moral education remain a private matter. Then there can be no theocracy to dictate how are to live and believe, since this is a personal choice. The net result is that in some parts of our society, there is complete social breakdown of family, criminal activity, drugs, and gang warfare. We are back to the beginning, and revert back to barbarism. As you say, it is some Muslims who do the damage, which affects all society, but it may not be the faith in God that is at fault. Still, the record for Islam, at this point in time, is rather poor. By all accounts, violence seems to be their stock in trade. The question, a big question, is how do we stop it in the future? How can we make Islam more like other religions that do not advocate war on the other, whether from perceived "insults" or perhaps misperceived "aggressions"? How can Islam live in peace with democratic ideals of secularism? Is Reform the answer? Or is there an answer; meaning an answer for current times, and not in the "end of days"? For example, how can Islam purge itself of all the violent scriptures, which in their present state far outnumber their unifying and peaceful teachings? That said, I should point out that this is an internal affair for the practitioners of Islam, so will not quote chapter and verse. I say this in all respect for the faith. But something like 'honor killings' or death for apostasy, would be a good place to start. Perhaps Dr. Pepper may also have some ideas here? Or Ed? Regards, Ivan | ||
| Ed Chesky |
Ivan, Many attempts have been made to teach religion in the public schools. All have run into the problems you mention. As a suggestion I would submitt that to offer the classes as part of either a required or elective course in comparative religon could be an approach. Such a class could offer a course that does not endorse a specific religion but rather teaches the students about the tenants of each major religon and allows them to make an informed judgment about the religion. In my university days when I first went to university we had to take a comparative religion course that covered Islam, Judism, Budhism, Christianity and Hinduism. We were also required to take a philosophy course. In my class the tennants of the religion and its belief system and moral code were taught. Again like you point out during the course, it also pointed out the violent dictates of Islam, verses the other religions and the doctrine of Christianity. In a class I currently took in social inequality, we also discussed the concepts of the great religions as they pertained to the formation of social structures and whether and how they address the issue of inequality within a society, with each scored based upon its root teachings. Christianity was defined as being one of the most radical philosophies at its core when it came to reducing inequality. By radical I mean the one when studied that promoted a concept of equality that far surpassed other philosophies. Just some thoughts. Ed Chesky | ||
| Ed Chesky |
Just by way of offering some data on comparing the teaching's of Christianity with that of other religions I have attached the following link. http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/genuine-christianity.htm It discusses the teachings of Christ from the earliest known texts. I think it would be relevent to compare them to the teachings of Islam and see where the divergence in views comes from. Jihad or a War is clearly against the teachings of Christ and was never part of his philosophy. Some of the information on the site is very provocative including the following quote from St. Paul relating to the role of women in the early church, a idea that the Celtic Christian's embraced in the early days of Christianity and likely got from Joseph of Aramethia. I offer its view on the role of women as opposed to that of Islam and ask were are the equivelent female figures in Islam. Rom 16:1-2 (BibleTexts.com translation) - Paul's letter of introduction for Phoebe. (See also http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/rom16.htm.) I commend to you our sister Phoebe, being also a minister [a deacon, not even just a deaconess!] in the church at Cenchreae that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the holy ones, and help her in whatever she may need from you; for she herself has been a helper to many people and also to me. Just some more food for thought. Romans 16:1 tells us of Phoebe. Her name means "Pure" or "Radiant as the moon." Paul addressed her as a servant and helper of the church. In some Bible translations she is called a deaconess and other translations consider her to be a minister. According to many Bible scholars, Phoebe was the one who carried the written book of Romans to the congregation, probably from Corinth to Rome. This would declare a place for women in the sharing of the word of God to the world. I would submitt that this is a very advanced concept that has taken us much time to come to grips with. It is still not totally embraced within Christianity, however it is coming to be more accepted. Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
May we await some input from Dr. Pepper on this latest item of teaching multiple religions to young students? | ||
| Ivan |
Interesting choice of words, Mohideen, in yours above: Could you perhaps clarify what you mean in your: "It only sees its enemies as its enemies"? Would a secular law, for example, that prohibits loud proclamations five times daily of Islamic prayers be considered action by the "enemy"? Or would legal restrictions on wife beating, something your faith allows, be perceived as an attack on Islam by the "enemy"? We already know what happened after the Mohammed cartoons were published, the riotous rampage that followed, including death fatwahs agains the publishers and cartoons (who were not Muslims)*. In short, can anyone criticize Islam without retribution from those who feel offended? Does such criticism make them the "enemy"? Does it not seem that when Islamic laws and traditions rub against the freedoms of the West there is a violent reaction, not from the western cultures but from Islam? So does this automatically cast the social laws and cultural criticisms that challenge Islam into branding them the "enemy"? How about if our society does not allow for forced female circumcision, and stops the practice? Does this make us the "enemy"? I ask these out of genuine curiosity. One of the traditions of the West's freedom of speech and freedom of thought is that we may question anything. This may run the spectrum from intellectual questions, such as I ask here, to humorous cynicism, which is acceptable to our secular culture. Is this forbidden in Islam, so no such cricism is allowed? Does that make us an "enemy" if we exercise that right within our own? Mind, the cartoons were a reaction not to Islam but to terrorism. But the response to these, and they were only cartoons, was a universal violence from every corner of pan-Islam. So were they reacting in "self defense" to the "enemy" in their rioting? I'd be curious to your views on this, not to put you on the spot, but because I am genuinely curious to how Islam can coexist with non-Islamic society without imposing its values on societies which don't share its values. Tolerancde goes both ways, but if this tolerance is demanded only for Muslim sentiments, but not for western sentiments, then "tolerance" becomes an empty word. How much freedom, where human beings are protected from trespass as long as they do not trespass on others, can be tolerated within Islam? In effect, how can the strict demands of Islam live within the walls of a society that does not recognize them, without becoming the "enemy", where death fatwahs are imposed even on those who are not of the faith? This is a genuine concern from someone outside the faith, if I am allowed to ask these questions. Because you are Muslim, I would value your response, as I believe would other readers also. I ask these in the spirit of dialogue, and not criticism. Ivan *(more Mohammed images through the ages: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ ) | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Would a secular law, for example, that prohibits loud proclamations five times daily of Islamic prayers be considered action by the "enemy"? Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 07:55 pm: By Ivan May I seek a clarification? Natural language is subject to multiple interpretations. Let us consider some numbers. From http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hearing-protection/WL00032 we have: === Sound levels of common noises Safe range Normal conversation, bird song 60 db (decibels – a measure of loudness) Heavy traffic, ringing telephone 80 db Risk range Motor cycle, snowmobile 85 to 90 db Hair dryer, power lawn mower 90 db Hand drill, spray painter, bulldozer 95 to 105 db Chain saw 110 db Injury range Ambulance siren 120 db Jet engine at takeoff 140 db Shotgun blast 165 db … Maximum job noise exposure allowed by law 90 db 8 hours daily 92 db 6 hours daily 95 db 4 hours daily 97 db 3 hours daily 100 db 2 hours daily 102 db 1.5 hours daily 110 db 30 minutes daily 115 db 15 minutes daily === The Muslim call to prayer is made at 5 times daily: About 75 minutes before sunrise, about 10 minutes after the sun crosses the maximum heat at noon, once between the time when the shadow equals the height of the person to possibly the shadow being about 2 times the height of the person, at sunset, and about 75 minutes after the sunset. The web site http://www.islamicfinder.org/ offers a free download of software that makes the call to prayer on the personal computer. The call from Makkah, Madina, Al-Aqsa, and Egypt are standard options available. The five prayer times are automatically calculated for the place in which the computer is situated. The duration of the call to prayer is as follows: Makkah recording 3 min 25 sec Madina recording 1 min 35 sec Al-Aqsa recording 3 min 45 sec Egypt recording 3 min 03 sec Thus, a time of 4 minutes per call to prayer would accommodate variations between different individuals. Wealthy communities appoint a person to give the call to prayer. Thus, issuing a call to prayer is a work. As work, this person could be asked to give a call to prayer at 110 db level. Am I right in assuming that this level is permissible for the loud speakers fitted in the Masjids for the call to prayer? How far should the call be heard? What is the Tradition? From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Bilal+bell&translator=3&sear ch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === Narrated AbuUmayr ibn Anas: AbuUmayr reported on the authority of his uncle who was from the Ansar (the helpers of the Prophet): The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was anxious as to how to gather the people for prayer. The people told him: Hoist a flag at the time of prayer; when they see it, they will inform one another. But he (the Prophet) did not like it. Then someone mentioned to him the horn. Ziyad said: A horn of the Jews. He (the Prophet) did not like it. He said: This is the matter of the Jews. Then they mentioned to him the bell of the Christians. He said: This is the matter of the Christians. Abdullah ibn Zayd returned anxiously from there because of the anxiety of the Apostle (peace_be_upon_him). He was then taught the call to prayer in his dream. Next day he came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and informed him about it. He said: Apostle of Allah, I was between sleep and wakefulness; all of a sudden a newcomer came (to me) and taught me the call to prayer. Umar ibn al-Khattab had also seen it in his dream before, but he kept it hidden for twenty days. The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said to me (Umar): What did prevent you from saying it to me? He said: Abdullah ibn Zayd had already told you about it before me: hence I was ashamed. Then the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Bilal, stand up, see what Abdullah ibn Zayd tells you (to do), then do it. Bilal then called them to prayer. AbuBishr reported on the authority of AbuUmayr: The Ansar thought that if Abdullah ibn Zayd had not been ill on that day, the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) would have made him mu'adhdhin. (Book #2, Hadith #0498) (Sunan Abudawud) === So, it is a Tradition to issue the call by a person without any equipment to aid him. How far could one hear the call of person without any amplifier support? From http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=48437 the following is found: === Farthest Distance Traveled By A Human Voice The normal intelligible outdoor range of the male human voice in still air is 180 meters (200 yd). Silbo, the whistled language of the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Canary Island of La Gomera, is intelligible under ideal conditions at 8 km (5 miles). There is one recorded case of the human voice being detectable at a distance of 17 km (10.5 miles) across still water at night. === Can we say that a person using equipment could adjust the level of amplification such that the call to prayer in the early morning is heard at a distance of 17 Km (10.5 miles)? In conclusion, can we suggest that the speakers used in the Masjid could have loudness up to 110 db or up to a level such that the morning call to prayer could be heard at a distance of 17 Km (10.5 miles)? Would it be right to say that any law that restricts the above limits further is not a secular law? | ||
| Ivan |
PROHIBITED COERCIONS VS. DEMANDED COERCIONS Interesting response, Mohideen, to my inquiry on what constitutes in Islam the "enemy", and thank you. Your information on comparatively acceptable decibels of public loudness, of prayers and otherwise, birds and bells and such, in response to social laws that may prohibit their loud proclamations if against the law, is revealing. There are civil laws of social respectability that prohibit loud public music, for example, so if a neighbor's party gets too loud, the police can come and tell them to turn it down. No one is offended, though perhaps annoyed or embarrassed, and the usual result is the music gets turned down. But if this loud broadcast of public prayer is demanded by the faith, would it constitute a cause for considering such laws in violation of Islamic demands? And if such, do they become a restrictive irritant, which may perhaps mean those who passed such laws, democratically or otherwise, can be considered the enemy? This was the point I was making above, same as other restrictions on Islamic practices, not least of which is death fatwahs for criticizing Islam, as illustrated by the cartoon row. Perhaps my question was not clear, as you did not answer it, that is if you wish to answer it. Who or what exactly are the "enemy" (of Islam) in your earlier: "It only sees its enemies as its enemies"? Perhaps I can clarify my question better with this illustration: Let us take for example two imaginary worlds. In one, which is secular by design, social laws prohibit persons from coercing one another, and thus are in turn safeguarded from coercions. In such a society, though individuals have the freedom to believe in religion and worship as they wish, it is not the social focuss, and instead all legal intent is focussed towards this prohibition of coercions, and enforced as such. Though not perfect, and often flawed, even self critical, nevertheless the constitutionality and laws of this world work towards better perfecting this ideal of social freedoms, where each person is free to be as they wish to be, provided they do not trespass on the rights of others to be who they are. This imaginary world works well because the tremendous energy and intellect of such free people, who are only allowed to interact through legal agreements rather than trespass and coercing each other, so they enjoy the benefits of a rich and successful society. Religion is by choice, by freedom of choice, and a highly personal pursuit. Freedom of ideas, and belief, is not only part of the public psyche but is encouraged for everyone equally. Each person in this imaginary world is considered equal before the law. The people consider themselves largely, though not always, free of coercion. This world calls itself a free society. Now, Mohideen, these are two imaginary societies, and if any part of it should resemble something we know in the real world, it should be disregarded to protect identity of the innocent. However, I hope it serves to illustrate a point, as to "who or what" is the "enemy"? Does anyone who fails to coerce as demanded by the law of God the enemy? So I ask again, in my above anectodal societies, which is considered a free society, and which is considered unfree? This is not to point an accusing finger at any religion, though all religions, including Communism, share in some of these attributes of restrictions on human freedom, where to coerce is valued higher than to stop coercions; but to point at the question: Who or what constitutes the "enemy" in Islam? Is freedom itself the enemy? Are free moral values the enemy? Are social laws that prohibit coercions the enemy? Are we the enemy because we do not believe as we are supposed to believe? Who is the enemy? Other than a direct attack on the Caliphate, what constitutes the enemy? All the best, Ivan Ps: RE "Would it be right to say that any law that restricts the above limits further is not a secular law?" The answer is no, as these apply to events of cause of sounds, and do not apply to how society structured its laws to let its citizens live in peace and free of coercions. | ||
| Anonymous |
"if a neighbor's party gets too loud, the police can come and tell them to turn it down. No one is offended, though perhaps annoyed or embarrassed, and the usual result is the music gets turned down. But if this loud broadcast of public prayer is demanded by the faith, would it constitute a cause for considering such laws in violation of Islamic demands?" Ivan I used to live next to a Church with a big bell tower here in North America. Several times a day the Church bell would go off and drove me up the wall. I complained to the city and they told me it is their right to ring the bell, I would have to put up or move. I was told you can make as much noise as you like before 11 pm. So, for example, constructions that involve a lot of drilling and loud banging are permitted before 11pm.It is unlikely that Muslims make any prayer call after 11pm since most of them would be in bed. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Other than a direct attack on the Caliphate, what constitutes the enemy? Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 07:36 pm: By Ivan Thanks to God Almighty. Until I read the above question of yours, I felt I must give a long-winded reply. God Almighty made my life easy. Yes anyone who attacks the Caliphate or induces someone else to attack the Caliphate is the enemy. One is free to indulge in expression, argument, persuasion etc. One who raises an army and sends the army to attack a group of Muslims is an enemy of Islam. In an earlier post, I queried about “assisted suicide.” Could you or some one else respond to my query? | ||
| Ivan |
Thank you for your response, Mohideen, and glad God came to aid. Arnold, I too once lived near a church that rang it's (electronic) bell every quarter hour, even after 11 pm. The town councilled on it and came up with a solution: ring the bell on the hour, but stop between 11 pm and dawn. This was acceptable, and a relief to me since I lived next door! I also have a residence in Rome, where the church bell tolls every quarter hour, but it is a natural bell and unintrusive, so don't mind. Actually I like it, since it reminds me of my early childhood in France. On the "assisted suicide", I don't have a response on this for now. Will have to think on it. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Its clear from Mohideen Ibramsha statements that he holds to the position of Jihad being acceptable. It is also clear that in his world view that Jihad, raising an army to attack a Islamic State or peoples is sufficient grounds to make Jihad acceptable. This begs the question as to the right of peace loving nations to defend themselves against aggression launched by Islamic Militants. In his view Mohideen Ibramsha effectively says that by attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 that we made ourselves a legitimate target for Jihad. By his logic, or I should say world view, all he has done by his statments and failing to directly address issues raised by other posters including Ed Chesky, is confirm that Islam harbors a dangerous violent tendency within it teachings. This tendency makes it, as a social/cultural/reglious system, a threat to civilized societies. One that should be, in this writer's opionion contained, like we did the Soviet Union, until either it reforms itself or it collapses as a result of its inability to adapt to the modern world. | ||
| Ivan |
On the 'Right to Die', or assisted suicide question: Dear Mohideen, you asked about assisted suicide in your above post (April 17, 2006), where you asked: Admittedly, not being in the medical field, nor having come against this question in my personal life, I only have ancillary information on it. Suicides happen worldwide for many reasons, including child suicides such as happen in Japan over exam failures, or due to clinical depression. (Nor are we considering the extreme case of 'suicide to kill others', such as done by suicide bombers.) But I think your question is not to do with suicide per se, but with the 'right to die' question, where a person who is so ill and in pain, and incurable, may opt to leave this world rather than prolong unwanted suffering. If this is the question, I may offer some thoughts on it. First, I should list what comes to mind: 1. We do not live forever, we all have to die. So much of what we think about death is colored by some of these deeply felt beliefs, rightly or wrongly, so each person will approach the end of their lives differently. In the prime of life, before the eyes grow old and need glasses, we are full of everlasting life; once we reach that apex and begin to descend towards inevitable death, we may either become more serene in life, or more fearful. Aside from personal traumas that may lead to suicide, most people love their lives and will do all they can to preserve it. So why is a chosen death for a dying patient, such as in an assisted suicide, so different from loving life? I think the answer lies in that once the body has begun to break down so severely that to remain in it, something we cannot do forever, a person suffering may come to the question of whether or not it would be better to die. If such a person deeply suffering is living alone in the wilderness, the question of whether or not he or she has the 'right to die' becomes a meaningless question, as there is no one around to stop them if they choose this route. The question is of necessity a social one, where others who are close to that person may not wish to see them die, for their own reasons. And society as a whole, as a collective extension of such persons, therefore may also have restrictions on this kind of self-induced death. It may be against the social agreements that are embodied in society's laws to allow for either suicide or assisted-suicide, so it becomes a legal issue. This is the same as to whether or not a person may legally have a life support disconnected. So these are social issues, and how society deals with them will reflect the general psychology and orientation towards death of the population involved. But if a person is so ill and so deeply suffering that he or she wants to die, are they then breaking the law if such assisted-suicide is forbidden? If a person is seen as a free agent who has the right to choose their own destiny in life, and by extension their destiny towards death, then the issue of assisted-suicide becomes an intensely personal one. Those around, usually family and friends, who are affected by that person's decision to die will mostly likely try to have them resist. But if the suffering is so intense, and their life is near end anyway, they may have more compassion in understanding why the person wants to die. However, if the community has disallowed such personal choice of death, then for the person suffering, who choose to die regardless, it becomes an issue of illegal action. If they succeed, then perhaps some will see this act as a form of martyrdom, while others may think it a horrible thing. (We are not considering here people who kill themselves for martyrdom by killing others, which is a crime against those killed.) On the other hand, to suffer patiently until one's body naturally dies of its illness and suffering, by some, would itself be seen as martyrdom. I suspect this was the high respect commanded by Pope John Paul II for having the courage to continue in his work and ministry though his body was visibly failing, and he was suffering. Christ suffered on the cross, so this perhaps gave him strength, and the world loved him for it. But most of us ordinary mortals, if seriously ill, are not in such high visibility where our suffering becomes a public act, so we must suffer silently without the benefit of a larger audience. In the end, same as we came into the world alone (unless there were twins) when born, so must we leave it alone when we die. Dying is an intensely personal act, which no one else can do for us. No matter how rich or famous, we die alone, alone inside our body. So why would ending one's life, if near the end of life already and in great pain, be such a mystery? Why should it be a social event, as society cannot bring us alive, nor can it stop us from dying? That is a mystery of life, that though we are born alive, we will at some point in time die from this life, ever no more than a heart beat away. So, given these thoughts above, I would lean towards allowing a person the 'right to die', same as they had the right to choose their life's destiny while alive. That is freedom, in the ultimate. There are times when such freedom is impractical, where perhaps estate issues would be better resolved if the person ready to die could manage to live a little longer. Or perhaps there are religious restrictions, which the person believes in, that would keep them from taking their own lives, though in great pain and suffering. The Pope did that, and carried on, as an example to all humanity that there is no shame in pain and infirmity. Or perhaps the reason a person would then choose not to die is from some personal conviction that prevents them form taking that step. Maybe they were sinners, and fear hell. Or maybe they just do not believe in suicide of any kind. But that is not the main issue for someone who does not have these restrictions on dying, is not afraid of death, and would welcome it to the suffering they have. Such a person is free to choose this. The risk is always in that perhaps the next day after they die, a cure is found for them. But life is risk, at every moment of time, with every heart beat, and that is something the person choosing death must be aware of. It is their choice, if that is what they have come to accept as the end of there personal existence in this world. Regrettable that the conditions of such death are not better, for it is better to die quietly in one's sleep. Nevertheless, no one escapes from life without dying. And with all that said, there is one extreme paramount condition here: that no one is forced to die. Odd, how concerned we as society are with a person's personal choice to die, and may even prohibit it, while at the same time we send others to their death, such as in war. With deep respect for all living things, I hope I offered something of an answer that is meaningful here. I for one am not afraid to die, though I would rather live, given the chance. But if my body's ailments were terminal and of great suffering, I believe I would choose to die. It is not as much a religious or scientific question, since we die alone, but a personal one. Because we love life so much, we should feel an infinite compassion for life in ourselves, even unto death. We all die in the end. I also think having a physician and witness present is the right thing. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
"Its clear from Mohideen Ibramsha statements that he holds to the position of Jihad being acceptable. It is also clear that in his world view that Jihad, raising an army to attack a Islamic State or peoples is sufficient grounds to make Jihad acceptable.'anoynmous From Mohideen Ibramsha's statement he was obviously talking about "jihad" as SELF DEFENCE. Why shouldn't Muslim have the right to self defence, like everyone else? The doctrine of preventitive war, an absurd idea according to international law and common sense, is invented by G W Bush. According to this doctrine, the U.S has a right to invade if it percieves a POTENTIAL threat somewhere down the road. Saddam might have WMD and he might use it against us sometimes in the future. This was good enough a reason to attack. I doubt that Bush got his idea from the Quran and Jihad. "This begs the question as to the right of peace loving nations to defend themselves against aggression launched by Islamic Militants. In his view Mohideen Ibramsha effectively says that by attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 that we made ourselves a legitimate target for Jihad." I will let Mr. Ibramsha to answer this question. But judging from his criteria he obviously does not agree that 9/11 was a legitimate jihad. But once you attack a country, whether you think it is just or not, those who are attacked will fight back. That is called war, jihad or no Jihad. respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
In answer to Anon's response to Mohideen's response:
Dear Anon, I think adaptation is what the human species does best, given we occupy every part of the globe from the frigid poles to torrid equator. For Islam to adapt to the modern world, it will have to address its primary tenets of coercions, which are many. Reform would entail acknowledging that in today's world such coercions are no longer acceptable. It really boils down to coercions. All else is peripheral, what is socially acceptable and what is not, if agreements between free human beings are constantly threatened by these coercions. Violent Jihad against others is no longer acceptable. A personal Jihad to conquer those coercions we feel in ourselves against others, against all human beings, all life, is the right path, the real Jihad. Same as slavery ended, so must the coercions dictated by any kind of violence by any faith be ended. If we are to progress as a species into a higher evolved consciousness on the planet, we must curb that human tendency to want to control others for our own benefit, or beliefs, and to do violence when we feel threatened in any way. The correct response to threats of violence is consultation, dialogue, and the enlistment of a third party judgment. Then we apply force to stop the attack, if no other option works. Coercions can stop when legal agreements force it to stop. That is what demarcates a civilization from a primitive barbaric state, when such demanded coercions are stopped. I do not know if Mohideen understands this or not, as he did not address it. One hopes that as an intelligent human being, he does. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Check these out.They are not from the Quran, though "When you march up to attack a city, first offer it terms of peace. If it agrees to your terms of peace and opens its gates to you, all the people to be found in it shall serve you in forced labor. But if it refuses to make peace with you and instead offers you battle ... put every male in it to the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; (Deuteronomy 20:10-17). "The Lord said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the Lord's vengeance on them. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man....(Read the rest in Old Testament Numbers ..) The "muslim world view" is probably no worse than the Jewish and Christian world view. The key is not "reform" as such, but stopping to take religion so seriously! Welcome to the 21st centry. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
Why is it that those that would bash religion fail to accept that the teachings of Jesus Christ came as the culmination of prophecy and supercede all previous teachings. When attacking a religion I would have to say that you need to understand it first. I would like to see Arnold quote Jesus and point out to me were in his teachings he advocates killing, war or enslavement. | ||
| Ivan |
Arnold, I would have to agree. We cannot take old tales written by men (women are conspicuous by their absence) too seriously. Those ancient scribes did not have the benefits of modern knowledge, nor world travels, nor modern communications, nor any model other than the master-slave paradigm to theorize teachings that essentially were philosophical questions on a Deity and our human role in this existence. So their ideology was at many levels inappropriate for today's world, as it harks back to a darker age. I think all religions have this in common, that they strived to find some connection for right living that would be acceptable to God. If this God was a supreme dictator, like their local king, then that is the role God was given. Nothing surprising there. Today's ideas of God, for those who need that label for all Creation and the universe, the idea is different. What was surprising then was that those early attempts to somehow make sense of it all gave those early societies a sense of order, and of submitting to something more elevated than our petty fears and desires. So religion, in a historic context, served a useful purpose in that it was the earliest efforts of human kind to become somewhat civilized in a world that was plagued by brutality, banditry, slavery, and superstitions. If nothing else, by calling on a unified religion, the then current superstitions were consolidated into a kind of monopoly power, their One God, so it simplified what the common folk could believe. This probably was a powerful enough draw to make it work, and thus the mega-superpower-religions were born. A funny way to look at it, to be sure, but that's probably as simple as it gets. Religion lives with us today, for most of us, because it still answers to a deep seated need to find answers to life's big questions, questions that try to fill our void of personal insignificance in a miraculous wonder of life, of a universe, and our place in it. There is something in the human soul that needs to know, and either a personal spirituality or organized religion fills that void. Anon, in yours: It is not so much the teachings of Jesus that came to represent fault, as much as what its followers made of them. Remember Christianity had to survive first the official emperor worship of the Romans, and later the incursions by Islam which sought to convert the world by force. That required a response from Christianity, a kind of survival response, where the Church was politicized from early on. For example, in Medieval times, the cross and Christ's suffering on the cross became a big hit. But in early Christianity, the cross was an embarrassment, and instead they portrayed Jesus not in the crucifixion but rather as a shepherd leading his flock of lambs. So the early Christians were essentially a non-violent group, but after the Crusades (trying to recapture the Holy Land from the conquests of the 'infidel' Muslims), they became more aggressive and violently dogmatic. Also, the early Church allowed for priest matrimony, but the later trend, patterned more after ascetic militaristic (Spartan-like) tendencies, priest were to be celibate. These things had nothing to do with Christ, but were political actions taken for the survival of Christianity as a religion. I personally think that of all that ancient 'babble' there is not much there worth the bother, except that we love one another. A really tough thing to do. How do you love people who are out to do you wrong? Tough. But think of them as each one a human being born into this world, probably a beautiful baby, growing up within the prejudices and conflicts of their time, and then becoming rather unattractive adults. But that human being is still something special, with a mind and heart, and capable of being so much more. I believe this to my core. And in each life there is an 'awakening' of sorts, for some it comes early on, and for others it may not happen until their death bed; but that awakening says that life is beautiful and all our silly concerns and mostly foolish fears are nonsense. Don't give into the fears. Sure, life is trouble; but if you really do your very best, then all humanity begins to look pretty good. We've done a lot, with a lot more to be done, but we are not yet all on the same page. That will happen in time, even if they are dragged there kicking and screaming. We will evolve as a conscious species on this planet. Just, there is still much work to be done. Each one of us has the capacity to understand and to see with a new vision, where we stop coercing one another to satisfy some ancient babble, or our own personal fears, and truly find peace. To do that, our universal common cause on this planet, for all religions, is that we stop the coercions. We will have to learn to love one another. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
"A funny way to look at it, to be sure, but that's probably as simple as it gets." Ivan I don't find it funny at all. I actually agree even though I have no way of articulating it so beautifully and eloquently as you did. Thanks for the insight. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| IVAN |
Addendum: Islam is not at fault. I should add a commentary here, to clarify something. Islam is not at fault. I would not fault any religion for its beliefs. The teachings of those religious teachings are what they are, a historic fact. I am a historic realist, and accept the facts as they are. I think most religions in ancient times suffered the terrible flaw of demanded coercions. That was the world that was. The point I wanted to make is that the world had changed, and with this change we need to change our understanding of what religion was all about. I think that the overriding seminal idea that we must always keep in focus is that human beings need to believe, in something. Some believe in science, so think religion is irrelevant. But where science can answer the how of things, it cannot answer the whys. That defaults to something else, something beyond our reason and understanding, so it falls into the domain of belief. But this belief does not have to run counter to all the good things humanity had achieved, and we do not have to roll back the clock to some antiquity, thinking they knew better or were better off. They did not know better, and they were not better off. The future belongs to us, and to future generations. My point, and I hope I made this clear, is that we can do better. The path to our success is when we recognize the sanctity of every human being, and all life, and act accordingly. I think this comes naturally when we respect the individual, allow for freedoms of thought and belief, safeguard against coercions, and validate that human beings can and know how to interact through agreements. Truth is a powerful tool, and we should focus on that to dispel all the accumulated fears of the centuries. Islam is not at fault, as neither are any of the other religions. We are all in a process of evolution towards a greater human awareness. I think we can all get there, and when we do, it will be peace. Humanity is loved more than we know, because we live in a living universe. That is where our life comes from. There is a future for Islam, and all religions, in a higher human awareness of love, and it will be beautiful. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
By his logic, or I should say world view, all he has done … is confirm that Islam harbors a dangerous violent tendency within it teachings. Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:27 pm: By Anonymous Wrong. Islam harbors no hidden agenda. The Holy Quran is available along with four of the respected collections of Traditions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him in – among others – http://www.searchtruth.com/ Let me assure each and every one that Islam is a open book; it has no hidden agenda. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
One that should be, in this writer's opionion contained, like we did the Soviet Union … Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 06:27 pm: By Anonymous Contained? From http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Yakuza%20threat%20including%20tsunamis%20-%20fi nal%20w%20edits%201%20website%20a.doc we have: === According to the present Yakuza/KGB/FSB and international terrorist plans, their actions are expected to reduce the U.S. to lying prostrate and helpless two years from now. With a U.S. nation in utter chaos and ruin, and economically already collapsing catastrophically, a touch-up with the FSB/KGB quantum potential weapons (the most powerful weapons on earth, but possessed by at least five nations) will quickly dud every nuclear weapon, ICBM, nuclear bomber, nuclear power plant, nuclear submarine propulsion system, etc. on the planet {x }. The dudding will take about 10 minutes, although an hour or so seems to be allotted for it. x. See (a) T. E. Bearden, Fer-de-Lance, Cheniere Press, 2003 (updated) for some details on quantum potential weapons and their usage. Also see (b) T. E. Bearden, Gravitobiology, Cheniere Press, 2003 (updated) for additional details. Some five nations of the world now possess QP weapons, and a sixth nation is obtaining them. China, Russia, Brazil, Israel, and one other friendly nation are the five present nations. === Let us not delude ourselves. We are living in borrowed time at the mercy of our vanquished enemies. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
… judging from his criteria he obviously does not agree that 9/11 was a legitimate jihad. Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 09:13 pm: Arnold (Anonymous) An action to be considered ‘jihad’ must be performed by Muslims specially to please God Almighty. It is my understanding that the hijacking of the four planes by Muslims never took place. A few cell phone calls have become part of 9/11 history. We give indications to raise reasonable doubt about the place of origin of some of these historic cell phone calls. http://physics911.ca/org/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=65 has the following: === I am a senior R.F. design engineer, and have built out systems for Sprint Verizon and other companies. … Personally, i think some of the calls (or people) were faked, and others may have been real, but from a different craft than flight 93. … a cell phone call was recived by state troopers in Illinios !! Why would the call be routed 3 states away ? HINT: IT wasnt !!! the call had to be made in Illinios ! call 911 on your cell phone, the LOCAL COPPERS will pick up. cell phone calls are routed to the LOCAL swtich in emergencies... === http://gatorpress.com/badsam/page5.html gives the information recorded below: === September 2004: Last month, Qualcomm Corporation issued a press release stating that they had developed a new technology that would finally make it possible to make cellular phone calls from commercial airliners. Using a technology called "Pico Cells", the system will work as a link between the airliner and ground towers. According to the press release, it is currently impossible to connect by cell phone in a plane that is above 4,000 feet. During the Republican National Convention in New York City last month, Deena Burnett, widow of Flight 93 victim Tom Burnett, spoke of the four telephone calls she received from her husband aboard the doomed airliner on September 11th, all of which were received from his cell phone, one of which lasted 13 minutes. With the FAA statement that Flight 93 never went below 29,000 feet until its' sudden fatal plunge, these two stories seem to be mutually exclusive. Either it is possible to make cell phone calls from a commercial jetliner in flight at cruising altitude - or it isn't. … Independent researcher A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments in February and March of 2003, over Toronto, Ontario. Chartering planes from a local airport, Dewdney's team went aloft with different cell phones licensed by all major providers. The pilots were instructed to fly in a grid that covered the overlapping cellular communication towers of five major carriers in metropolitan Toronto. Team members kept records of calls and results from varying altitudes. At 2000 feet, calls could be made about half the time. At 4,000 feet only an average of one in 4 calls was completed. At 6,000 feet, the average was 1 in 12 calls connected. At 8,000 feet and above there was no connection by any of the phones. Dewdney's report concluded "It may be noted in passing that these experiments were conducted in a radio-transparent aircraft with carbon-fibre construction. Failure to make a call from such an aircraft with any particular brand of cellphone spells automatic failure for the same phone from a metal-clad aircraft flying at the same altitude. A metal skin attenuates all cell phone signals to a significant degree. It may safely be concluded that the operational ceiling for cellular phones in aluminum skin aircraft (passenger liners, for example) would be significantly lower than the ones reported here. It may therefore safely be concluded that cell phone calls from passenger aircraft are physically impossible above 8000 feet, and statistically unlikely below that altitude." === We hope the above should be enough to at least create some doubt about the MSM claim that the Muslim terrorists attacked USA on 9/11. As the Muslims were framed by MSM on 9/11, the subsequent attack on Afghanistan by US and her allies makes all of them aggressors. Since aggression was and is committed against Afghanistan, Muslims of Afghanistan have a right to rebut and hence they can engage in ‘jihad’ against the countries that have sent their armies there. Having said that, we would like to add that any Muslim who suffered in Afghanistan is encouraged to forgive the oppressors and receive immense rewards from God Almighty in the Hereafter. | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen, your are reaching into the insane. You're killing your credibility here. Regrets. | ||
| Anonymous |
I think Ed hit the nail right on the head with regards to his talk about Jihad. This last statement from Mohideen Ibramsha is clearly fiction. Unfortunately it is what plays well in the Muslem St. Ed is clearly trying to counter this using every thing at his disposal and running, with few exceptions into a stone wall. I survived the Ryadh bombing Ed talks about. I was off compound at the time. I do note this. I watched Ed take a major war game simulations game board with thousands of pieces and run the entire thing using nothing but a clock and his mind. Completely controling and monitoring the flow of information from the board out to the training audience via communications circuits. I also watched him plan and war game a battle for training exercise involving real vehicles in the desert that resulted in the complete simulated destruction of a entire Saudi National Guard Battalion. He used nothing but his mind a few symbols and a map. The Saudi Officers thought he was one of the greatest tactical genius's they ever saw and cleared him to enter and brief the Senior National Guard Commanders. He never told us what drove him to leave contract. But he was right on the head when it came to us being penetrated by Al Qaeda supporters. I and many are furious at the DSS officer that failed to take action on Ed's information about a network in the compound. People died because of that lack of action. | ||
| Anonymous |
One more note, besides being able to control the game board and manage the flow of information from the board to the military communications circuits, Ed was able to monitor the conversations the Saudi Officers had on their cell phones and reconstruct what they were talking about as the official communications circuits became jammed with information. traking in his mind the flow of information and interaction of all personnel and command posts involved in the Exercise. I have never seen anything like it before. He used no notes, just his memmory, a clock and a translator. After the exercise he walked out without saying much. One unstable employee that was a habitual drunk verbally assualted him over an issue once in front of a Senior Saudi Officer. The Saudi Officer looked at Ed and asked if he wanted him arrested. Ed said no. Latter that a call was made to the mayor of Ryadh and that man who verbally assaulted Ed was deported from the Kingdom at the request of the highest ranking Saudi National Guard Officer. Ed has friends in many places. Including amoung the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia. He was even invited to Mecca to pray on a site overlooking the city. This even though he was a Christian. A exception was granted by the royal family. Unlike private industry and the federal government the King of Saudi Arabia paid his debt to Ed for his service to the crown | ||
| Anonymous |
Ok I think I am scared now. This guy can do this stuff, has been trained in nuclear, biological, chemical and directed energy weapons. Trained in artificial intelligence and now I know how he can manage a agent network using cut-outs, dead drops and stuff. I am glad he is a Christian, I think I would be affraid to have him mad at me. I also think that if he can do this, it is likely he actually did coordinate the release of information on the secret CIA prisons, abuse of prisoners and is running a global christian intelligence network from a home computer. I would feel much better if he were back in Federal service or a productive private sector job. Where he could be monitored because I think he is capble of bringing down the current United States Administration from a home computer using only his mind and no notes. | ||
| Ivan |
Question back on the table (April 19, 2006):
Anybody have any ideas on this? Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
That’s the point Ivan; Everyone has been trying that for years. The problem is the Moslem birth rate, lack of access to rational education, lack of access to reliable unbiased media, lack of women’s rights and stagnant or regressive economies for most of the Moslem Nations. In the West most Moslems that get a decent secular education start to blend in over time, losing most of their cultural bias. Until the hold of the religious cast is broken over education reform of Islam is going to be on hold. The communists saw early on to control a population you had to control the education of the children. This is standard practice in dictatorial regimes. In Iraq and Afghanistan reports indicate the Islamic terrorists have recognized this and are killing and/or beheading teachers in front of students. They recognize that a secular state run education system is a threat to their continued control of the population. We saw this in ancient days in the West when the Church controlled education and we saw it in Nazi Germany. From a Teacher | ||
| Anonymous |
I agree with the teacher. | ||
| Anonymous |
"In the West most Moslems that get a decent secular education start to blend in over time, losing most of their cultural bias." the teacher I 'd like to think that. But then how do you explain this: Well educated, middle class and non religious Muslim young men in the West suddenly experience an identity crisis, they get religious, start reading the Quran seriously and turn into terrorists. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
What do I think? I think if we focus less on the teachings of Islam, even those that are overtly coercive in what they say, and rather focus on how modern humans interpret those teachings, I think we will get closer to the mark. The holy text teachings are old, and as far as I am concerned, they are sacred because they had been recited and loved for so many centuries. But the interpretations are of the present, the now, and I think there lies the problem. As Arnold points out, how can it be that educated middle class youth suddenly abandon all their accumulated knowledge to turn to coercive interpretations of the Quran? That is a mystery. After all, don't sociologist and psychologists think we are the product of our conditioning? But something suddenly shifts, and the conditioning is no longer meaningful. I suspect it is a culture of violence and repression that is really responsible here, and at some point some will turn away from the liberal views of the society in which they live and turn to violent intent. If they had known subliminal violence all along, though it was buried beneath the niceties of civilized and polite society, then it makes sense that somewhere there will be a tripper that kicks off the violence again. So coercion, hidden away for years, will suddenly surface. And it is this surfacing that then colors the interpretations of the writings of Islam. So, if they look hard enough, they will find in the holy script exactly what they are looking for. But it is not the script that is at fault, but the pre-qualified need to look for violent interpretations. The disaffections that lead to this violent intent may be many: prejudice encountered, a feeling of low self esteem, resentments towards another's culture, even failure in affections from the opposite sex, one's parents, teachers, etc. There may be many underlying reasons why intelligent and fairly mature people suddenly dive into the dregs of violence, or intent on violence. This could be as simple as that. Then, turning to the holy texts, of any religion, and finding cause to support those asocial tendencies merely reinforces that they were right all along, and everyone else is to be despised. So, not really a mystery at all, is it? So like I said earlier, we cannot blame the religion, since it is only the interpretation of religion, with an already made predisposition towards finding violence to suit one's ego, that is really the cause of social dysfunction. In the case of Islam, the dysfunction takes on extra political dimensions because of the many perceived ills in the world, perceived as threats to Islam: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and a variety of old conspiracy theories mostly revolving around world banking and Judaism. These are not real threats*, but they are perceived as real, so they become a warped justification for violent actions against innocent human beings. The killing of civilians through suicide bombings, terrorism in whatever form, is never justified, since they are vile and low acts of coercion. If someone has a fight, fight the real enemy, but not civlians, especially since such low actions are even against the teachings of all religions, including Islam. So Islam is not a fault, though I know many think it is. I disagree. I think what is at fault is a subconscious behavior seeking gratification in violence, because the psychological dysfunction that runs deep in the perpetrators of violence got there from some other source. Then, though psychologically ill, the person feels powerful and enjoys the self gratification of being somebody important. Well, they're not, they're fakes and failures. But they think they are in now doing 'God's will', which is untrue, with a warped sense of reality. So how does one stop such a pathological path to coercions? Is it even possible? Education may be one way, but as shown here, it still may fail if the social-psychological dysfunction runs deep from other causes, and surfaces suddenly. A suicide bomber's neighbors often say that he was a quiet and very fine person, polite and gracious, and that it is such a surprise. Even parents and relatives say that. There's the conundrum. What trips an otherwise fine person into sudden violence, even self destructive violence? I personally do not have an answer, I wish I did. How do you heal lost souls? What happens to the love? When I visited mosques, both in the US and abroad, I felt the love. But where's the love, when someone falls into such horrible sin? Ivan *(I say 'not real threats' because the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are temporary, until the violence is low enough for the local government to command, and then everybody else gets out, in my opinion.) | ||
| Anonymous |
"This could be as simple as that. Then, turning to the holy texts, of any religion, and finding cause to support those asocial tendencies merely reinforces that they were right all along, and everyone else is to be despised. So, not really a mystery at all, is it? So like I said earlier, we cannot blame the religion, since it is only the interpretation of religion, with an already made predisposition towards finding violence to suit one's ego, that is really the cause of social dysfunction." Ivan, Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I am not sure if I can agree that everything is in the mind of the interpreter and that the religion itself is entirely blameless. It is a very astute observation that people often approach religions with pre existing agendas and only seek validations from religions. But this is not to say that religions are just blank screens upon which one freely projects his own ego. The religious texts and teaching themselves do have meanings. While there are usually a range of possibilities in interpretations, the range is not infinite. There are some inherent limit to what messages one can read into texts. Religious texts can still reinforce or retard whatever tendencies that the believer brings to the religion. Suppose our alienated, resentful young man gets religious and finds the Dala Lama instead of Mohamad, I don't think the outcome would be quite the same. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Point well taken. There are influences that can turn one towards God, or compassion, while others will turn towards evil deeds. It is still our choice. Thanks Arnold, for bringing it up. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Where's the love? It's here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4940634.stm Look at what the people write in, both Egyptians and foreigners, in response to this tragic event at Dahab. | ||
| Anonymous |
Thats the point Ivan, They are monsters, the men who did this. I lived in the same compound with their agents for almost a year. I broke bread with them, trained with them and learned their tactics, techniques, procedures and communication methods. When they bombed the compound in Ryahd the plan was to sweep through it after the bombs killing the wives, Philipino workers and Bangeldeshi mantanence people with AK-47 fire. The first target they hit was my office. Killing the weak is what they do best. I faced the KGB and broke bread with Al Qaeda. I told their operatives via my translator that we had capabilites they could not match. It was a multi-dimentional message. Then I went on to break their command and control code Ed Chesky | ||
| Anonymous |
"When they bombed the compound in Ryahd the plan was to sweep through it after the bombs killing the wives, Philipino workers and Bangeldeshi mantanence people with AK-47 fire. The first target they hit was my office." Mr. Chesky, What "compound" are you talking about? Was it a military installation? You may not like to hear this but there is a big difference between attacking civilians(like tourists) and bombing U.S troops.Whatever your take on it, it is not "terrorism" in the commonly accepted definition of the word and attacking miltary personel is not "killing the weak". Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
The compound in question was a military contractor compound and as such was an unarmed facility. To acknowledge your point it is a grey area. However, the compound included large numbers of women, and purely civilian workers. As to me being a target of AL Qaeda I accepted the risk. I also know that I remain high on Al Qaeda's hit list. It took me a while to break the current Al Qaeda code, its a variation of the one they were using just prior to the Madrid bombing. To do that I needed support, and was given it from Israel and the Mossad via a arrainged series of coded transmission. I set it up when I met the head of Israel's military intelligence service. While in the UK. From time to time the Mossad shows up and watches my back. My family and my wifes have a long history of working with Israel that dates back a long time. Like the Arabs, they remember their friends. They also remember a tall Irishman that killed an SS officer at Dauchua and wept over the dead during its liberation in WWII. One of those men he saved went on to become a major leader in Israel's intelligence service. Some debts transcend national boundries and a Mossad agent with plastic explosive and a silenced weapon watching your back as you travel when yout ake on Al Qaeda is very welcome. Ed Chesky | ||
| Anonymous |
Dov Shilanski, the 1993 spokesman of the Israeli Knesset and survivor of ghetto Shiauliai, Lithuania and Dachau. Israel remmebers its friends. When Ed faced AL Qaeda he had friends in high places. The Six million will not be forgot. Even though the United States Government and private industry failed to recognize him. There is a star in Israel that will shine in memory of him forever. | ||
| Le Chef |
Le Chef signing off, but remember when the steaks are high, I'll be there.  The love, man, its in the love. The reward 's in the love. Fuck the other shit. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Mohideen, your are reaching into the insane. Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 10:12 am: Anonymous Sane or insane that is the Muslim mind. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
a Mossad agent with plastic explosive and a silenced weapon watching your back as you travel when yout ake on Al Qaeda is very welcome. Ed Chesky Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 02:18 pm: Anonymous Ed, May God Almighty protect you. Why does a Mossad agent carry a plastic explosive? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
This is a first of a series of postings leading to the death sentence on an apostate in Islam. Kindly correct me if I am wrong. One of the issues misunderstood in Islam is the rule of inheritance. A male inherits the equal of the inheritance of two females. In other words, if a deceased had just one son and one daughter and left say $3 million after all duties and debts are paid, the son gets $2 million while the daughter gets just $1 million only. For a non-Muslim this smacks of injustice against the female, who should have got $1.5 million if only the sexes were treated on par. Islam is a total package. It could be considered a necklace made of many different precious stones. If that necklace is cut into pieces and looked at, it would lose its beauty. Likewise, Islam should be considered by looking at all relevant rules and not some rule in isolation. In Islam a female has a guardian all through her life. She is never without a guardian. It is the duty of the guardian to give her shelter, clothing, and food. She need not earn anything. She is allowed to earn, but such earnings are at her full disposal and her guardian has no control on her wealth and income. Now let us revisit the son and the daughter heirs. The son has the responsibility to provide shelter, clothing, and food for his sister. Let us say that it costs him $10,000 an year. If they are given the same amount, the son is handicapped by an amount of $10,000 every year. In Islam, the son gets $2 million, out of which he keeps $1 million for exclusive use, and the remaining $1 million is used for shelter, clothing, and food for both. Now, the son and daughter share the $1 million for shelter, clothing, and food. Each has received $1 million to spend as he / she pleases. I might add that this explanation is one possibility; it is not necessarily the only explanation. What are the son and daughter expected to spend their exclusive share on? Islam recommends that they spend it in the path of God Almighty. This spending helps them get a better position in Heaven. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=shoulder+traveler&translator =1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === Narrated Mujahid: 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "Allah's Apostle took hold of my shoulder and said, 'Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveler." The sub-narrator added: Ibn 'Umar used to say, "If you survive till the evening, do not expect to be alive in the morning, and if you survive till the morning, do not expect to be alive in the evening, and take from your health for your sickness, and (take) from your life for your death." (Book #76, Hadith #425) (Sahih Bukhari) === The house or the place of permanent residence is the Hereafter and the life on this earth is a travel to the permanent residence. Which is more important: the permanent house or the way to the house? Where would you like to hoard your valuables: in the permanent house or the way to the house? Of course in the house! That is why the son and the daughter is given $1 million each for their respective permanent houses whereas they share in $1 million for this life. Is there any flaw in such a policy that gives more importance to the Hereafter? I hope to continue after getting some response to this post. | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen Ibramsha, The Mossad carry plastic for a simple reason. I was detained against my will for speaking out on the war. Thrown into a medical ward by neo-Nazi white supremists, while recoving from posioning. The ward was filled with violent killers, that raped, murdered and were insane. I was left there to be killed by them for speaking out against the war, denied appropriate medical treatment in hopes my brain would be destroyed or I would be dead. I recovered. By the grace of god I walked out and regained my mind once the poison cleared my system. I vowed while their never to be detained again. Hence why the Mossad carries plastic explosive. If I am ever locked up again agasint my will and denied appropriate medical treatment that I request or be threatened with torture, it is likely the building I am will be assualted and breached. My nervous sytem has been probed with electricity, needles, and drugs. The pain was beyound imagination. They even stuck needles in my tounge and ran electricity thru it. Thru it all I endured it. I vowed that should I ever again be treated like a lab rat or a piece of meat that I would ruduce the building it occured in to rubble. The Mossad watched and remembered the Six million and the Nazi horrors. That is why they carry plastic explosive. The Celtic Christians also remember and why a truck filled with liquid natural gas showed up outside an office filled with men that planned the abuses of Abu Graib prison in Iraq. While I despise terrorists, I treat all people even my enemies with respect according to the rules of civilized behavior and law. Even the Prophet did so. What Osama does and the neo-Nazis I faced that called themselves christians did does not. Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The following web page collects strings across statements of the Torah(?) and relates to everyday developments. http://www.exodus2006.com/fab/september11.htm says: === September 11 - Comes from a conspiracy. === Can someone explain this? | ||
| Anonymous |
Here is the sadness and the hurt. The suicidal mind finds easy targets, tourists: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12483156/site/newsweek/ The Global War on Tourists Thoughts of Mortality Turn Pacifists into Killers http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060424_extreme_action.html So sad, pointless, and so cowardly. | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen Ibramsha, Osama conspired to bring about 9/11. In our texts we Celtic Christians see him as an anti-christ type figure. In Islam they have the story of Dajjal. For others he is terrorist criminal. For others he is mentally ill. Regardless, he is a monster that is to be opposed, however he is also a master of making those that oppose him violate their own laws and morality. In my case I used every tool to expose the violation of the law that those in hate committed in their effort to fight him. The difference in my war for the truth was that we shed no blood, but demonstrated a capability to reveal all secrets, while backed by a threat of force majore that is very real. Was their a conspiracy to invade Iraq, yes. Does it matter now. No. Can we leave Iraq now without fixing it. No Are those that conspired to get us into the war being punnished. Yes Are those that violated the rights of prisoners being found out. Yes. So in the end does it matter if their was a conspiracy. For me it was all the will of God. Inshalla Ed Chesky | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, it is always good to get your knowledge. In your part 1 of "death sentence of an apostate" you quoted the Hadith in yours:
I believe in the same, that we are but travelers here, only passing through. I also believe in the tradition that good works in this life marks us, perhaps in the hereafter but surely in this life, so if we do good works, we are doing the work of God; but if we do evil works, then we fail God. God's presence is evident in every thing we do, even if only breathing, but it surely is present in how we make this world a better place. To put off judgment until after death to me is a failed way to deal with the value we present in this life, since we get no reports from the hereafter on those who had died, as to how they were received. Could it be possible that in the hereafter it is totally neutral, so there is no reward nor punishment? But in this life we know the consequences of our actions, as to whether we are doing good works or bad. It is always evident in all things around us, whether they are beautiful or ugly, and in the people around us, whether they are joyful or suffering. How do we alleviate the suffering? How do we bring joy? God's works are evident in all the beautiful and wondrous things of our world. But if we fail God, then what is around us is miserable and destroyed. Look at how people live, where they live, how happy they are, and you will see either God's works, or the lack of God, in their misery. So, I agree. We are only passing through this world, and when here, it is far better to do God's work, His will, then to turn away from God and wallow in misery. And then we die. What did we do while we were alive? What legacy have we left behind in this world? What good things have we left for future generations? Those are the questions that answer to whether or not we had lived God's will. The 'permanent residence' is in that legacy for future generations, and not in some hereafter. Though we only pass through this world, this is the world given to us by God. And if we make a mess of it, there will be no redemption in the hereafter after we die. The burden of proof on us, in how well we do God's will, is in how we live now. So, should the woman be given equal treatment to men? In my world, yes, because as an equal, her joy will be far greater than as a ward of a male. But that is my world, one which I happen to love, and if Islam loves its world better, then that's their world. But their world does not have to apply to all human beings, because some of us do not want to be wards of another. Why? Because in my world, we are free human beings, both men and women. We are not slaves. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the path of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever." In his twenties he walked into Lucifer's house and broke break with the KGB. He held true and watched as an Empire fell. In his thirties walked into Baals house and supped with the Iraqi's. He came back ill but wiser. In his forties, he walked back into the House of Baal and broke bread with the forces of darkness. He warned them of what was to come but was not headed and they fell from grace. Tired, ill and weary he stood his ground and made the demons speak of their plans. When none would listen he walked away to pursue another path. Scared and crippled from the battle he returned from the war. Older,wiser and having spent his life in service to his nation he returned home to dwell in service to the lord. In capitals ancient and modern he is both cursed and honored. In honor of his service a Star of David and Cresent of Islam is placed next to the Cross by his name in the great book of life. It will be many years before one rises to match his skills with compass, ruler, and weapons of war. Till that day he tends his flowers, and waits for judgement to be brought on the demons he forced to speak. | ||
| Ivan |
Having a Mind, We Have a Right, Chapter 7, Habeas Mentem. Though this was written more than two decades ago, it is as timely now as it was then, when much of this was addressing the then Communist world. That world fell, but now a new challenge to human consciousness and freedom is rising up. The first book deals with the mechanics of human freedom; the second book deals with the spirituality of free human beings; the third book deals with the love of God. We must always be conscious of who we are as free human beings. That is our future, and the future of the planet. Slavery is not what our future will be all about, if we are to mature as a planet of conscious human beings. Then it will be peace. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
While I despise terrorists, I treat all people even my enemies with respect according to the rules of civilized behavior and law. Even the Prophet did so. What Osama does and the neo-Nazis I faced that called themselves christians did does not. Ed Chesky Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 01:48 pm: Anonymous Recently threats were issued against the American population. It was alleged that as the population has voted the current US administration in, the population shares the sin and thus it is a legitimate target. It is wrong. This administration was not voted in by the public. In the 2000 election, the presidency was decided by 9 judges; subsequently it was established that Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote. Still the court did not intervene and dismiss the wrongly appointed administration. As regards 2004 election, there is a widespread suspicion that it was rigged. Thus, in our opinion, the US population did not vote in this administration. For this reason, there could be no Jihad against the American population. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=10&translator=2&mac= we have: === 10:98 Why was there not a single township (among those We warned), which believed,- so its faith should have profited it,- except the people of Jonah? When they believed, We removed from them the penalty of ignominy in the life of the present, and permitted them to enjoy (their life) for a while. === The above Verse from the Holy Quran is copied here just to show that calamities could be averted. From http://www.exodus2006.com/cometfrags/Eric-Julien-25-MAY.htm the following quote is made: === What will occur on May 25, 2006? Perhaps a planetary catastrophe originating from the Atlantic Ocean due to a medium size impact event. On this assumption, a series of giant waves, including one méga tsunami almost two hundred meters in height, will be born from a succession of underwater eruptions. These watery giants, decreasing with distance, will touch the majority of the Atlantic coasts; in particular, those most at risk lie between the equator and the tropic of Cancer. The victims of May 25 2006 will be tens of millions. The devastated survivors will be more numerous still. The economic losses will be enormous, well beyond the scales of destruction hitherto tested by our civilization. North America and Europe will not be saved, but will be affected in less dramatic proportions. By extension, other remote countries will be also affected. === In connection with this, there is a possible communication from the ET (Extra Terrestrial) who in the opinion of the People of the Book are the Jinns. Please visit -- 11. Should the ET appear? -- in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ and respond. We really do not know whether the impact is destined to happen or not. No harm in praying that God Almighty saves us and bestow His mercy on us. So pray. To whomever you like, PRAY! | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Thoughts of Mortality Turn Pacifists into Killers http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060424_extreme_action.html Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 03:06 pm: Anonymous The URL above has the following: === Young adults in Iran tend to support martyrdom more when they are thinking about their own mortality. Likewise, Americans are more in favor of extreme military intervention when they are contemplating their own deaths. === The experiment was not conducted with the correct understanding of Islam. Are we really mortals or quasi-immortals? From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=time+death+livelihood&transl ator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we find: === Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Apostle, the true and truly inspired said, "(as regards your creation), every one of you is collected in the womb of his mother for the first forty days, and then he becomes a clot for an other forty days, and then a piece of flesh for an other forty days. Then Allah sends an angel to write four words: He writes his deeds, time of his death, means of his livelihood, and whether he will be wretched or blessed (in religion). Then the soul is breathed into his body. So a man may do deeds characteristic of the people of the (Hell) Fire, so much so that there is only the distance of a cubit between him and it, and then what has been written (by the angel) surpasses, and so he starts doing deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise and enters Paradise. Similarly, a person may do deeds characteristic of the people of Paradise, so much so that there is only the distance of a cubit between him and it, and then what has been written (by the angel) surpasses, and he starts doing deeds of the people of the (Hell) Fire and enters the (Hell) Fire." (Book #55, Hadith #549) (Sahih Bukhari) === Since the time of death is written for each of us on the 120th day of conception, we cannot be killed before our time and we would not live beyond our time. So we are limited time immortals or in short quasi-immortals. Since we do not influence the time of death, it is immaterial whether we commit suicide or murder someone else. Death occurs only at the specified time. We do kill a murderer – if the heir to the victim so decides – just to avoid chaos in society and to obey God Almighty. May we hope that the researchers would redo the experiment with a fresh batch and ask them to think about quasi-immortality rather than death? Is it possible that thoughts of ‘quasi-immortality’ turn killers into pacifists? | ||
| Ivan |
Mohideen, thank your for your insights into the Muslim mind (as you understand it), most interesting. For example in yours:
Are we to understand that, since death is pre-ordained, there is no accountability for human action? Then, does this mean it is okay to kill anyone we want whenever we want because their time to die is already pre-ordained? Is this not a dangerous philosophy, one which allows for indiscriminate coercion? I could see a real problem with this. Do you? I am genuinely curious, if I may ask you to better clarify this. What is to keep a Muslim from bringing death to anyone whenever he wishes? Not to mention, it's against normal, intelligent, and decent human laws of society. In your earlier:
So is a 'warning' of attack, of coercive violence impending, sufficient to make a township, or nation, to make them give up and accept your (often irrational) point of view? If death is already pre-ordained, then why bother? Why make any sense of any human actions, or have any desires for the right to be free, when coercion itself is already pre-ordained? Killing is thus justified, because someone said they disagree with you? I asked earlier "who is the enemy"? And your (evasive) responses all indicate that anyone who disagrees with your 'warnings' are the enemy. Is this what God ordained for humanity? Not my God. We don't worship coercions. Do you have any idea what I mean by "human consciousness"? Do you understand anything of the West's mindset in our ideas of human freedom? Do you value the sanctity of the individual? Or do you instead value more the right to coerce others, any one you think is the 'enemy'? Which is it? Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Osama conspired to bring about 9/11. Ed Chesky Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 04:07 pm: Anonymous Osama was manipulated by his handlers to believe that he was conspiring to teach a lesson to America. The 9/11 attack was carried out using weapons that are strictly under the control of the US administration. A lot of confusing statements, phone recordings, photographs etc had been released by the administration to confuse the investigators. Still, God Almighty shows the truth to some. Who knows – Bush and Osama might have a secret agreement. After all with all that technology under his belt, Bush cannot capture or kill Osama. It is possible that both want the other to live well and help each other’s plans. God Almighty knows best. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Are we to understand that, since death is pre-ordained, there is no accountability for human action? Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 07:04 am: Ivan Time and place of death are pre-ordained, but not the kind of death. Only now mankind has unraveled a bit of its make up in DNA. Even now, we do not understand the entire DNA. We reject quite a bit of the DNA as junk and look at that small part that we have decoded. Is it not possible that there is an internal clock in every cell of a human which triggers the death of the cells on the expiry of the allotted time? Can we rule it out? At least, I would not rule out that possibility. I might have already commented on this event. My senior in IIT Kanpur who had the same guide as I for Ph.D. was a professor in the Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi. He was conducting a short term course. There was a tea break. He served the tea, walked a few steps, collapsed and died. To me that is demonstration of the pre-ordainment of death. May God Almighty forgive me for the following few sentences. What if when my friend just reached the spot he was to die, a participant fired at him and caused blood to ooze from my friend’s heart? Won’t the people say that my friend was shot and killed? The one who shot interfered in God Almighty’s plan – my friend would have died a natural death – but for the interference. So, the one who shot my friend would be tried and punished. God Almighty rewards His creation when we interfere and do good deeds; HE punishes His creation when we interfere and commit evil deeds. Pre-ordainment is on just the four items mentioned. Quoting we have: === . his deeds, time of his death, means of his livelihood, and whether he will be wretched or blessed (in religion). === The Tradition quoted above first and foremost attests to the complete knowledge of God Almighty. It does not imply God Almighty forces the person to perform the actions. It is up to us to interpret the information and hope that we do receive rewards from God Almighty. My interpretation of the above are: 1. his deeds: From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=reward+intentions+marry+bene fits+emigration+upon&translator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&sear ch_word=all we get: === Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for." (Book #1, Hadith #1) (Sahih Bukhari) === So I pray that each and every one of my actions is with good intentions. 2. time of his death Since my time of death is already written, since I cannot live beyond my time, and since I cannot die before my time, I pray that I do not commit any sin at the time of my death. 3. means of his livelihood As the means of my livelihood are pre-ordained, I pray that I do not earn even one cent of evil money; that each and every penny that I get is wages for honest work. To a Muslim, interest is forbidden; Intellectual Property Right is forbidden; unaccounted money is forbidden; gambling is forbidden, and so on. I pray that God Almighty guides me so that I avoid all evil and earn only that which is good. 4. whether he will be wretched or blessed (in religion) Please see topic – 3. Is Allah unjust? – in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ If we live a life of good – without harming any and helping others as far as possible – obeying God Almighty, irrespective of the kind of death, God Almighty rewards. If the death was a good one, the soul gets admitted to Heaven through the intervention of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. If the death was bad while the whole life was meritorious, the soul gets admitted by the intervention of God Almighty Himself. The sum and substance of the above is: God Almighty knows each and every happening. God Almighty does not coerce. God Almighty has given mankind freedom. All that God Almighty says is that if that freedom is used well, there is reward; if that freedom is misused, there is punishment. To check irresponsible criminals, God Almighty has given rules to follow. The violators of the rules are punished in this world – if caught – and are punished in the Hereafter, by God Almighty, if He chooses to punish. We quote from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=18&translator=2&mac= === 18:83 They ask thee concerning Zul-qarnain. Say, "I will rehearse to you something of his story." 18:84 Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends. 18:85 One (such) way he followed, 18:86 Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness." 18:87 He said: "Whoever doth wrong, him shall we punish; then shall he be sent back to his Lord; and He will punish him with a punishment unheard-of (before). 18:88 "But whoever believes, and works righteousness,- he shall have a goodly reward, and easy will be his task as We order it by our Command." We punish the criminals in this life as vicegerents of God Almighty. To believe in a religion other than Islam is not a crime. That is exercise of the freedom of faith. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
This is the second part of the discussion on apostasy. We hope to show that a sin for which a legal punishment is prescribed would be erased from the records on the Day of Judgment if the legal punishment was inflicted for that sin in this life. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=+inflicted+forgive&translato r=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we find: === Narrated Ubada bin As-Samit: I gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet with a group of people, and he said, "I take your pledge that you will not worship anything besides Allah, will not steal, will not commit infanticide, will not slander others by forging false statements and spreading it, and will not disobey me in anything good. And whoever among you fulfill all these (obligations of the pledge), his reward is with Allah. And whoever commits any of the above crimes and receives his legal punishment in this world, that will be his expiation and purification. But if Allah screens his sin, it will be up to Allah, Who will either punish or forgive him according to His wish." Abu Abdullah said: "If a thief repents after his hand has been cut off, then his witness well be accepted. Similarly, if any person upon whom any legal punishment has been inflicted, repents, his witness will be accepted." (Book #81, Hadith #793) (Sahih Bukhari) === We have already shown that Islam gives paramount importance to the Hereafter compared to this life. The above Tradition lists – worship anything besides Allah – as one of the sins with a legal punishment. For whom does this benefit of expiation apply? It is only for those who pledge to follow all the conditions and thus become Muslims. If one had become a Muslim, and afterwards worships anything besides Allah, that is, commits apostasy for that person inflicting the legal punishment in this life is expiation. It does not apply to a person who had never become a Muslim. If anyone claims so, that person clearly violates Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran quoted below from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=2&translator=2&mac= === 2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. === From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=apostate+confesses&translato r=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all the following is quoted: === Narrated 'Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Book #83, Hadith #17) (Sahih Bukhari) === Let us consider illegal sexual intercourse. Do we have evidence to show that the legal punishment in this life indeed avoids punishment in the Hereafter? Consider the contents of http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=intercourse+rivers&translato r=3&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all quoted here: === Narrated AbuHurayrah: A man of the tribe of Aslam came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and testified four times against himself that he had had illicit intercourse with a woman, while all the time the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was turning away from him. Then when he confessed a fifth time, he turned round and asked: Did you have intercourse with her? He replied: Yes. He asked: Have you done it so that your sexual organ penetrated hers? He replied: Yes. He asked: Have you done it like a collyrium stick when enclosed in its case and a rope in a well? He replied: Yes. He asked: Do you know what fornication is? He replied: Yes. I have done with her unlawfully what a man may lawfully do with his wife. He then asked: What do you want from what you have said? He said: I want you to purify me. So he gave orders regarding him and he was stoned to death. Then the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) heard one of his companions saying to another: Look at this man whose fault was concealed by Allah but who would not leave the matter alone, so that he was stoned like a dog. He said nothing to them but walked on for a time till he came to the corpse of an ass with its legs in the air. He asked: Where are so and so? They said: Here we are, Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him)! He said: Go down and eat some of this ass's corpse. They replied: Apostle of Allah! Who can eat any of this? He said: The dishonor you have just shown to your brother is more serious than eating some of it. By Him in Whose hand my soul is, he is now among the rivers of Paradise and plunging into them. (Book #38, Hadith #4414) (Sunan Abudawud) === Please observe the persistence of the sinner in his attempts to receive the legal punishment so that pain in this life – even pain of death in this life – is worth escaping Hell Fire in the Hereafter. So, Muslims indeed help their erstwhile brother / sister in Islam who had become an apostate by inflicting the legal punishment of death on the apostate. God Almighty willing, we hope to conclude our presentation on this topic with the third installment. As with the first part, please let me have your opinion on this second part. | ||
| Ivan |
LET'S REVIEW Dear Mohideen, I believe you are an honest man, and intelligent, and that you truly believe all you say in your dialogues above. Truly, I wish there were more Muslims participating in this discussion, with your knowledge and insights. But I am stumped somewhat because I do not see any responses to my posts on human freedom, and perhaps this is unintentional, since this may be a foreign idea to you. Let me recap what I understand of yours thus far, before we go into the 'apostasy' question, just to make sure we're all on the same page. Perhaps others may have something to add here, if I fail in representing it fairly. Here is what I hear: 1. ambiguity in arguments, perhaps unintended evasiveness, some flaws of logic Did I pretty much capture what I am reading? What I don't see is a sense of responsibility, of reason, of a meaningful way for people to relate to one another in constructive ways that validates who they are as free and equal human beings; nor do I see any sense of love for humankind. Is this not strange? So we have a philosophy of coercions, obedience, submission, something close to slavery; with a total blindness for human kindness to others who may not agree with us, i.e. tolerance, nor love for humanity, nor love of beauty and truth, nor any recognition that our human freedoms are sacred. Are we on the same page here? I do not wish to malign your ideas, since they are yours and you are welcome to them. But to then turn around and insist that such ideas are universal, or that all humanity should follow them, when they are essentially irrational and irreverent of our humanity as conscious human beings, becomes coercion at its best. Such coercions would be better suited to those who wish humanity ill than good. Could it be that the jinns are here successful, especially their top dog jinn, the devil, in leading humanity away from reason and into confusion, because that is the only way to achieve humanity's blind faith? I said early that look around you and what do you see? Are other human beings happy, or are they suffering? Which would you choose? Which would the top jinn prefer for us? I mean no disrespect, but to try and follow your reasoning with any kind of logic is beyond me. Can someone else shed light here, to explain better what Mohideen is trying to say, in some semblance of order and reason? Perhaps Dr. Pepper, the OP of this thread, can shed light here. To me, we are wallowing in darkness, as there really is no dialogue to speak of. We might as well be speaking totally foreign tongues, or barking at each other without any idea of understanding. How does one understand blind faith without reason, without being coercive to others? Has this thread played out, since I see no "dialogue" as such? I think it fair to say that ideas can have a lot of play, and I do not mind entertaining the absurd, but I think we have here reached an impass where we do not hear each other, and what results is babble. Dr. Pepper, where are you? Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Ah, now I understand how Iran's president, in his virulant diatribe, can say Iran is the "most free nation on Earth!" But that is not freedom at all, merely another form of slavery. You have to obey, or you will be punished, so your freedom is to obey. That is not, I repeat, that is not freedom. Such is merely an insipid disguise for intitutionalized coercions. Not my God. Ivan | ||
| IVAN |
DOING GOD'S WILL How do we know we are doing God's will? Only as free and pure human beings can we do God's will, which is how God made us. Once we are polluted, once we are unfree, once we are coerced or coerce another, we fail to do God's will. It is that infinitely simple, so anyone can understand. So I will say it again: It is that simple: You may use coercion ONLY to stop coercions. Write it down on piece of paper, put it in your pocket, and occasionally pull it out and read it, so you will someday understand. It took me decades to get this, and it may take you decades to get it too, but that is as simple as it gets. Anything else, all other excuses for coercions, except to stop coercion, are confusion and failure in doing God's will. We do God's will with every breath we take when we are free human beings, as God created us. Freedom is our unalienable right to be who we are. This is a law of the universe. Fail to believe in it at your own risk, and then look around you. What do you see? Ivan ps: I now leave this 'dialogue' to others, I am finished here. | ||
| Anonymous |
"Is it not possible that there is an internal clock in every cell of a human which triggers the death of the cells on the expiry of the allotted time? Can we rule it out? At least, I would not rule out that possibility."Mohideen Ibramsha So how is death by accidents or death by murder be the result of DNA? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
6. death wish, life and death are pre-ordained Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 03:44 pm: Ivan Muslims do not wish for death; they wish for martyrdom and avoiding death. A believer would naturally quote his scripture. Hence, kindly permit me to quote. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=2&translator=2&mac= we find: === 2:154 And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah. "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not. === Also http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=3&translator=2&mac= has === 169 Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; === This URL http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=throne+green&translator=2&se arch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has the explanation. === It has been narrated on the authority of Masruq who said: We asked 'Abdullah about the Qur'anic verse:" Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they are alive, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.." (iii. 169). He said: We asked the meaning of the verse (from the Holy Prophet) who said: The souls, of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds who have their nests in chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty. They eat the fruits of Paradise from wherever they like and then nestle in these chandeliers. Once their Lord cast a glance at them and said: Do ye want anything? They said: What more shall we desire? We eat the fruit of Paradise from wherever we like. Their Lord asked them the same question thrice. When they saw that they will continue to be asked and not left (without answering the question). they said: O Lord, we wish that Thou mayest return our souls to our bodies so that we may be slain in Thy way once again. When He (Allah) saw that they had no need, they were left (to their joy in heaven). (Book #020, Hadith #4651) (Sahih Muslim) === With respect to this life on earth and the Hereafter, the Muslims believe the following: 1. The Prophets, peace be upon them, when they die on the earth simply change their place of residence to Heaven. They retain their shapes. 2. The martyrs become birds of Paradise as indicated by the Tradition above. 3. The rest of mankind has their souls punished or rewarded in the graves in which their dead bodies are buried. 4. As regards the souls of other human beings whose dead bodies are disposed of in some other way, at least this writer has no knowledge. Muslims bury their dead and thus this lack of knowledge does not affect them. So, when a Muslim aspires to become a martyr he / she are indeed aspiring to overcome death and thus maintain continuity of life between earth and Heaven. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
ambiguity in arguments, perhaps unintended evasiveness, some flaws of logic Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 03:44 pm: Ivan How ironic? The first paper in a journal out of my Ph.D. thesis could be read in http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=359657.359663&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&idx=J79& part=periodical&WantType=periodical&title=Communications%20of%20the%20ACM My Ph.D. thesis was “On the detection of logical errors in Decision Table Programs.” The two logical errors considered by me were: ambiguity and incompleteness. And here I am told that there are ambiguities in my argument! I would be very much obliged if the ambiguities are pointed out instead of being alluded to. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Once we coerce we are failing to do God’s will. Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 06:00 pm: Ivan A number of religions talk about life after death. They talk about Heaven and Hell. Are we to understand that the followers of all such religions are under coercion? I know that Hinduism talks about Heaven and Hell. I believe being sister religions both Judaism and Christianity do talk about Heaven and Hell. So are we to understand that ‘freedom’ is only for those who claim that there is no life after death? | ||
| Anonymous |
"A number of religions talk about life after death. They talk about Heaven and Hell. Are we to understand that the followers of all such religions are under coercion? I know that Hinduism talks about Heaven and Hell. I believe being sister religions both Judaism and Christianity do talk about Heaven and Hell." April 28, 2006 - 04:56 am- Mohideen Ibramsha Sorry M. Your idea is not testable in real terms, not falsifiable. Therefore, your argument is illogical. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I now leave this 'dialogue' to others, I am finished here. Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 06:00 pm: Ivan I was invited to this dialogue. It looks as though I am not behaving as expected. Is that not one aspect of freedom? I do hope that this dialogue would be kept open at least until I have an opportunity to respond to the questions raised. I am going out of station. I hope to get back on Monday, May 1, 2006. | ||
| Anonymous |
"My Ph.D. thesis was “On the detection of logical errors in Decision Table Programs.” The two logical errors considered by me were: ambiguity and incompleteness. And here I am told that there are ambiguities in my argument!" Now this is SCARY!!! But he is right that there is no ambiguity and logical error in his argument, it is clear and consistent madness which follows logically from an irrational premise. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
"A number of religions talk about life after death. They talk about Heaven and Hell. Are we to understand that the followers of all such religions are under coercion? "Mohideen Ibramsha In short, yes. But the difference is most religions other than Islam are content to leave the judgements to their Gods, while Islam seeks to judge in this life as well. Scriptures of major religions usually don't describe the tortures of hell in grusome detail as in the Quran. The Church and earthly Preisthoods did embellish and add details in later times in order to scare-coerce people into believing. But obscene torture scenes are not parts of the holy texts in most respectible religions. It is like Mohamad was reading the Marquis de Sade when he had his "revelation".The only comparable grusome descriptions of hell can only be found in local cults scattered around the world. That reveals a very twisted and pathological mindset in Mohamad,--no, Allah is just Mohamad's alter-ego. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Anonymous |
Regarding Fallacies of Islam: I. "A number of religions talk about life after death. They talk about Heaven and Hell. Are we to understand that the followers of all such religions are under coercion? I know that Hinduism talks about Heaven and Hell. I believe being sister religions both Judaism and Christianity do talk about Heaven and Hell." April 28, 2006 - 04:56 am- Mohideen Ibramsha A) Mythological beliefs posing as reality, fiction. B) May apply to behavioral ethics in the afterlife but has no bearing on behaviors in real life. C) May not be enforced on people in this life, as it is fiction. D) Pure rubbish. II. "With respect to this life on earth and the Hereafter, the Muslims believe the following: 1. The Prophets, peace be upon them, when they die on the earth simply change their place of residence to Heaven. They retain their shapes. 2. The martyrs become birds of Paradise as indicated by the Tradition above. 3. The rest of mankind has their souls punished or rewarded in the graves in which their dead bodies are buried. 4. As regards the souls of other human beings whose dead bodies are disposed of in some other way, at least this writer has no knowledge. Muslims bury their dead and thus this lack of knowledge does not affect them." M.I. A) Muslims may believe any fiction they wish, does not apply to universal principles. B) Birds of paradise are flowers and birds, not humans. C) Punishment is unfounded, mythology has no power to punish in this world. D) Pure rubbish. III. "Muslims do not wish for death; they wish for martyrdom and avoiding death. 2:154 And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah. "They are dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not." M.I. A) Non sequitur, either your dead or not. B) Illogical, irrational conclusion as martyrdom is death. C) Fictitious appeal to irrational belief. D) Pure rubbish. IV. "Please observe the persistence of the sinner in his attempts to receive the legal punishment so that pain in this life – even pain of death in this life – is worth escaping Hell Fire in the Hereafter. So, Muslims indeed help their erstwhile brother / sister in Islam who had become an apostate by inflicting the legal punishment of death on the apostate." M.I. A) Appeals to fear based fictions. B) False theology to apply hell fire punishment to this world, irrational conclusion. C) Illegal to punish for what may happen in afterlife in this life. D) Pure rubbish. V. "We punish the criminals in this life as vicegerents of God Almighty. To believe in a religion other than Islam is not a crime. That is exercise of the freedom of faith." M.I. A) We punish criminals in this life if they break social laws and hurt others. B) Viceregents of God is overreaching temporal powers, false authority. C) To believe in ANYTHING is not a crime, maybe stupidity, and cannot be punishable unless causes actions to hurt others, then a crime. D) Freedom of faith constrained within the punishments dictated is not freedom of belief, more rubbish. VI. "If we live a life of good – without harming any and helping others as far as possible – obeying God Almighty, irrespective of the kind of death, God Almighty rewards. If the death was a good one, the soul gets admitted to Heaven through the intervention of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. If the death was bad while the whole life was meritorious, the soul gets admitted by the intervention of God Almighty Himself." M.I. A) You can drop the "obeying God Almighty" part, and it reads the same, unnecessary baggage. B) "Good death" is meaningless nonsense, either you are a good person or bad person while alive. C) Fictions posing as truths, irrational beliefs. D) More rubbish. VII. "God Almighty rewards His creation when we interfere and do good deeds; HE punishes His creation when we interfere and commit evil deeds. The Tradition quoted above first and foremost attests to the complete knowledge of God Almighty. It does not imply God Almighty forces the person to perform the actions. It is up to us to interpret the information and hope that we do receive rewards from God Almighty." M.I. A) Reward and punishment totally hypothetical, arbitrary. B) Evasive use of words "interfere" and "evil deeds." C) God, per this reasoning DOES force a person to perform actions, because of punishment reward dictates. D) Rubbish. (I skip the political nonsense about 911, same as skipped the part on DNA, which is totally illogical as others had pointed out, stupidity and rubbish.) VIII. "Since the time of death is written for each of us on the 120th day of conception, we cannot be killed before our time and we would not live beyond our time. So we are limited time immortals or in short quasi-immortals. Since we do not influence the time of death, it is immaterial whether we commit suicide or murder someone else." M.I. A) Fiction posing as real. B) A suicide bomber imposes death on himself and others by his chosen actions. C) Murder is murder. D) Non sequitur rubbish. (Skipping the ET part, totally unsubstantiated, and political opinion, they're nonsense.) XIX. "The house or the place of permanent residence is the Hereafter and the life on this earth is a travel to the permanent residence. Which is more important: the permanent house or the way to the house? Where would you like to hoard your valuables: in the permanent house or the way to the house? Of course in the house! That is why the son and the daughter is given $1 million each for their respective permanent houses whereas they share in $1 million for this life. Is there any flaw in such a policy that gives more importance to the Hereafter?" M.I. A) Flawed reasoning based on transposing "hereafter" fiction into reality. B) You cannot "hoard your valuables" when you are dead, cannot take it with you. C) Irrational fantasy. D) Pure rubbish. X. "Yes anyone who attacks the Caliphate or induces someone else to attack the Caliphate is the enemy. One is free to indulge in expression, argument, persuasion etc. One who raises an army and sends the army to attack a group of Muslims is an enemy of Islam." M.I. A) Evasive answer, does not address if Muslims attacked first. B) Evasiveness also in "one is free to indulge in expression", Islam punishes those who question it. C) Evasive in defining what is the "caliphate" under attack, whether some Muslims or all Muslims. D) Evasive as to what is meant by "attack", rubbish. XI. "Thus, a time of 4 minutes per call to prayer would accommodate variations between different individuals. Wealthy communities appoint a person to give the call to prayer. Thus, issuing a call to prayer is a work. As work, this person could be asked to give a call to prayer at 110 db level." M.I. A) Highly invasive noise level, noise pollution. B) Invasive of right to not have to hear this noisy 110 db. C) Pseudo-scientific definition of "work" and db levels. D) Non sequitur rubbish. XII. "Islam does not see other faiths as its enemy. It only sees its enemies as its enemies. etc. May be we should look at the so called offensive wars conducted by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and analyze them one by one. Each and every expedition undertook by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was defensive only." M.I. A) Self contradictory responses that "offensive" wars are "defensive" only. B) Evasive answer, Islam recognizes no other religions except itself. C) False analysis predetermined by its self contradicting outcome. D) Meaningless rubbish. XIII. "What is secularism? Is it Muslims to live as per the desires of non-Muslims or is it for the people of different faiths to live according to their faiths as long as such following of faith does not lead to harm to the people of other faiths? I would like to look at Islam and see whether following Islam per se affects the living of other people as per their own faiths. Is that acceptable?" M.I. A) Confused argument, wants non-Muslims to respect Muslims, no indication of reciprocal respect. B) Secularism allows for Muslims to NOT push their religion on others, no matter what they believe. C) Muslims push their religion on others, by the sword, or by evasive fallacious reasoning. D) Meaningless drivel. XIV. "Jihad is to fight the oppressor. Please see “8. Jihad” in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/. And if the oppressor could be fought by armed means only, Muslims are bound to engage in armed Jihad. So, until the Day of Judgment, Muslims shall not abandon armed Jihad. Yes, an oppressor who happens to be a leader of a democracy could be fought by peaceful means also by appealing to the population that is led by the oppressor to dethrone him. Use of peaceful means with the populations does not lead to abandon the armed Jihad. There are some who believe that the 2004 elections were rigged and the verdict of the public was ignored in USA. Under such circumstances, when the appeal to the public fails, there is no option but to fight the oppressor through arms." M.I. A) Islam creates an enemy and then finds cause to attack, a malicious set up. B) Conditions set by Islam only, all others are disregarded, deceitful set up. C) Armed Jihad is set up as a precondition for attack, intolerant of others right to run their own nation, another set up. D) Pure rubbish. XV. "I believe the violent street protesters were not Muslim. In a society where most Muslims are underprivileged, the youth is bound to react, as the French youth reacted recently. Is it not possible that a statistic is misunderstood? A youth becoming violent might have nothing to do with her / his faith but to do with the built-up frustration over a period of time. Do you still stick to your observation quoted above?" M.I. A) Pure fantasy, denial that youths who rioted in France were Muslims, of Muslim origin, who stated clearly they support terrorism and hate their adopted country. B) Evasive statement, to confuse French youth with the Muslim rioters. C) Rioting is antisocial behavior, not to be excused on the grounds of any religion. D) Confused reasoning, rubbish. XVI. "Ideas could be torn to shreds. However, even when shredding ideas, we could use decent language and profanities might be avoided. I hope it is agreeable." M.I. A) Yes, ideas may be criticized, particularly if they are rubbish. B) "Agreeable?" Wolf in sheep's clothing, see all of the above. C) M.I.'s confused ideas based on irrational belief, where the "hereafter" dictates policy in the real world, his primitive reasoning. D) Unscientific, unrealistic, irrational nonsense. ============================================================ Who invited this speaker to this forum? Freedom of speech is lauded, but spouting off nonsense is rubbish. He gets "D" for his rubbish. What about equal rights for women? As a woman, I am deeply offended! | ||
| Anonymous |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazanin Nazanin sentenced to death for fighting off rape in Iran. Islam religion of peace? | ||
| Anonymous |
Exterminating the Monster: A) this Monster has many heads to bite you, fighting the many heads will tire you, the zombie army is tireless and suicidal. B) worse, the Monster is deaf, so will not hear what you say, reason is meaningless. C) the only way to kill the Monster is to get at its heart, where it is vulnerable beyond reason. D) you have to kill the heart of the Monster, it is only way to exterminate it. This is why the Monster has kept women enslaved, calling them unclean, only half a man, they beat them at will, they kill them for the men's honor. The Monster knows and fears them, and this: E) the way to the Monster's heart is through the women, when they are free, the Monster dies. Then it is the Last Days, through a woman, Love lives eternal. End of this message. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Your idea is not testable in real terms, not falsifiable. Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 07:41 am: Anonymous Is ‘love’ testable in real terms? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I skip the political nonsense about 911 Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 08:02 pm: Anonymous Please read http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm from which we quote: === Rodriguez is the lead plaintiff in a federal RICO lawsuit filed against President Bush and others, alleging conspiracy to commit murder and other crimes in the deaths of more than 3,000 at the WTC. The case, filed last November in a Philadelphia federal district court, recently was moved to New York in a change of venue after a government’s motion to dismiss was overruled, allowing legal discovery to continue. "Even if the case goes no farther, I feel we have scored a victory by winning this first battle," said Rodriguez. "At least the judge seems willing to listen which is a victory of sorts. However, I sincerely hope we can eventually take the case all the way to trial and reveal the truth to the American people about 9/11." === We sincerely hope the legal discovery reveals the real culprits – the 2000 and 2004 US administration and punishes them. At this juncture, I would like to repeat that Jihad is permissible against this administration but not against the US population. This is because the US population chose Vice President Al-Gore in 2000 and the 2004 elections were rigged. So, no Jihad is permissible against the US population. In our opinion, the US population is an oppressed one and thus Jihad in their favor is welcome. | ||
| Anonymous |
Except there is no "love" in the Islam that Mohideen describes. Even though Mohideen does not preach violence, he's a rigid fundamentalist.Islam in the way he describes is a system of coercions, blind submission and fear, mixed in a fair dose of superstitions, ignorance and paranoia. It is compulsive and obsessive on rituals, forms and false piety. As Ivan puts it, it is based on a paradigm of slavery.Allah is a tyrant and a cosmic slave master in this model of Islam. No moral person should worship such a "God". But Islam is not monolithic. It is unfair to tar all Muslims with the same brush based on Mohideen's opinions here. He does not represent "the muslim mind",-- whatever that is,--any more than Jerry Falwell personifies the Christian mind. There are folks who called themselves progressive Muslims who practise Islam is a more spiritual way. They see the Quran as contextual and reject a large part of the "Islamic canon" which are based on scholar proclamations and traditions.They believe in equal rights for women and non believers; they also support the seperation of state and mosque. Some liberal muslims go further. They agree Mohamad was a flawed human being and a product of his savage time. He was only a "prophet" in that he conveyed Allah's message in the form of the Quran,but Mohamad should not be held up as a role model for all time. Mohideen must consider these people heretics. Anyone interested can try to google up their web sites. respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
A very good assessment Arnold, While I am a christian, I believe in strict seperation of Church and State. The history of what happens when the two are merged is painted in blood. Two historical examples of this are the Tiaping Rebellion which was supressed at the cost of 20 million lives http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/TAIPING.HTM and the Mahdi in Sudan who lead a rebellion against the Brittish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ahmad Both men were able to tap the forces of discontent in the population and direct them using a mix of politics and religion. Osama is the latest in a long line of such religious/political/military leaders to try such a gambit. Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Assisted suicide aims to remove the pain in this life; legal punishments in Islam aim to remove the pain in the Hereafter. A topic of discussion is that of punishment for illegal sex. The Holy Quran says as follows, from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=24&translator=2&mac= we get: === 1 A sura which We have sent down and which We have ordained in it have We sent down Clear Signs, in order that ye may receive admonition. 2 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. 3 Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry any but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden. 4 And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;- 5 Unless they repent thereafter and mend (their conduct); for Allah is Oft- Forgiving, Most Merciful. 6 And for those who launch a charge against their spouses, and have (in support) no evidence but their own,- their solitary evidence (can be received) if they bear witness four times (with an oath) by Allah that they are solemnly telling the truth; 7 And the fifth (oath) (should be) that they solemnly invoke the curse of Allah on themselves if they tell a lie. 8 But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) by Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie; 9 And the fifth (oath) should be that she solemnly invokes the wrath of Allah on herself if (her accuser) is telling the truth. 10 If it were not for Allah’s grace and mercy on you, and that Allah is Oft- Returning, full of Wisdom,- (Ye would be ruined indeed). The rules on illegal sex with evidence from a spouse alone were revealed in connection with Hilal bin Umaiya as described in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=illegal+fifth+oath&translato r=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all . === Narrated Ibn Abbas: Hilal bin Umaiya accused his wife of committing illegal sexual intercourse with Sharik bin Sahma' and filed the case before the Prophet. The Prophet said (to Hilal), "Either you bring forth a proof (four witnesses) or you will receive the legal punishment (lashes) on your back." Hilal said, "O Allah's Apostle! If anyone of us saw a man over his wife, would he go to seek after witnesses?" The Prophet kept on saying, "Either you bring forth the witnesses or you will receive the legal punishment (lashes) on your back." Hilal then said, "By Him Who sent you with the Truth, I am telling the truth and Allah will reveal to you what will save my back from legal punishment." Then Gabriel came down and revealed to him:-- 'As for those who accuse their wives...' (24.6-9) The Prophet recited it till he reached: '... (her accuser) is telling the truth.' Then the Prophet left and sent for the woman, and Hilal went (and brought) her and then took the oaths (confirming the claim). The Prophet was saying, "Allah knows that one of you is a liar, so will any of you repent?" Then the woman got up and took the oaths and when she was going to take the fifth one, the people stopped her and said, "It (the fifth oath) will definitely bring Allah's curse on you (if you are guilty)." So she hesitated and recoiled (from taking the oath) so much that we thought that she would withdraw her denial. But then she said, "I will not dishonor my family all through these days," and carried on (the process of taking oaths). The Prophet then said, "Watch her; if she delivers a black-eyed child with big hips and fat shins then it is Sharik bin Sahma's child." Later she delivered a child of that description. So the Prophet said, "If the case was not settled by Allah's Law, I would punish her severely." (Book #60, Hadith #271) (Sahih Bukhari) === The wife chose tribal honor to her own punishment in the Hereafter. So, in Islam when a legal punishment is given on the basis of the desire of the accused, it is understood that the accused has preferred the punishment in this life to that of being punished in the Hereafter. The following Traditions include apostasy as one of the crimes whose legal punishment in this life saves the accused from Hell Fire. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=+innocent+pledge&translator= 1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we find: === (1) Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit: who took part in the battle of Badr and was a Naqib (a person heading a group of six persons), on the night of Al-'Aqaba pledge: Allah's Apostle said while a group of his companions were around him, "Swear allegiance to me for: 1. Not to join anything in worship along with Allah. 2. Not to steal. 3. Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse. 4. Not to kill your children. 5. Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people). 6. Not to be disobedient (when ordered) to do good deed." The Prophet added: "Whoever among you fulfills his pledge will be rewarded by Allah. And whoever indulges in any one of them (except the ascription of partners to Allah) and gets the punishment in this world, that punishment will be an expiation for that sin. And if one indulges in any of them, and Allah conceals his sin, it is up to Him to forgive or punish him (in the Hereafter)." 'Ubada bin As-Samit added: "So we swore allegiance for these." (points to Allah's Apostle) (Book #2, Hadith #17) (Sahih Bukhari) (2) Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit: Allah's Apostle said to us while we were in a gathering, "Give me the oath (pledge of allegiance for: (1) Not to join anything in worship along with Allah, (2) Not to steal, (3) Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse, (4) Not to kill your children, (5) Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people), (6) Not to be disobedient (when ordered) to do good deeds. The Prophet added: Whoever amongst you fulfill his pledge, his reward will be with Allah, and whoever commits any of those sins and receives the legal punishment in this world for that sin, then that punishment will be an expiation for that sin, and whoever commits any of those sins and Allah does not expose him, then it is up to Allah if He wishes He will punish him or if He wishes, He will forgive him." So we gave the pledge for that. (See Hadith No. 17, Vol. 1 – given above) (Book #89, Hadith #320) (Sahih Bukhari) === Is there is a contradiction between the above two Traditions with respect to ascription of partners to Allah? Does the first Tradition above imply that the legal punishment for ascription of partners to Allah does not save the sinner in the Hereafter? The – except ascription of partners to Allah – applies to the case when such a sin is hidden in this life as exemplified in Verse 48 of Chapter 4 of the Holy Quran, quoted from http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=4&translator=2&mac= . === 4:48 Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. === Accordingly, even ascription of partners to Allah, that is, apostasy does remove the punishment in the Hereafter if the sinner is given the legal punishment in this life itself. What is the procedure for punishing the apostate? Quoting from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=loaf+head&translator=4&searc h=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === (1) Malik related to me from Abd ar-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al-Qari that his father said, "A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab from Abu Musa al-Ashari. Umar asked after various people, and he informed him. Then Umar inquired, 'Do you have any recent news?' He said, 'Yes. A man has become a kafir after his Islam.' Umar asked, 'What have you done with him?' He said, 'We let him approach and struck off his head.' Umar said, 'Didn't you imprison him for three days and feed him a loaf of bread every day and call on him to tawba that he might turn in tawba and return to the command of Allah?' Then Umar said, 'O Allah! I was not present and I did not order it and I am not pleased since it has come to me!' " (Book #36, Hadith #36.18.16) (Malik’s Muwatta) === The apostate must be imprisoned for three days; he / she must be fed every day and requested to revise his / her stand. If the apostate is like the wife who preferred the honor of her tribe to her own punishment in the Hereafter, that is, if the apostate preferred this life, she / he could simply say that he /she repents; the Muslims would release the person. The person could then migrate to a non-Muslim land and live as an apostate to his / her heart’s content as Salman Rushdie in UK and Abdul Rahman, the Christian in Italy live. However, if the apostate having known that refusal to repent even after three requests would result in death, refuses to repent, it simply indicates that she / he is desirous of receiving the legal punishment in this life and avoid Hell Fire in the Hereafter. Then the Muslims carry out the legal punishment and indeed help the accused enter Heaven. The modern society has formulated assisted suicide to relieve a patient of pain in this life. What is wrong if God Almighty has sanctioned a way to avoid Hell Fire in the Hereafter, even for those who have committed very serious crimes? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Mohideen must consider these people heretics. Arnold Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 09:04 am: Anonymous Mohideen has no business considering others and classifying them. All that he is permitted is to attempt to clarify when such clarification might be of help. That is all. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I believe in strict seperation of Church and State. Ed Chesky Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 09:39 am: Anonymous Islam is a state religion only for the Arabian Peninsula. Outside of the Arabian Peninsula there is no state religion. Muslims are to live with non-Muslims. In my mind, the following is a workable arrangement: 1. Dispute among people of same faith would be settled as per their faith. 2. Disputes among the people of different faith would be settled as per the state law. This is where the democracy could contribute. I believe the democracy I have in mind is that which accepts the majority opinion after permitting the thorough discussion of pros and cons of any issue. Whatever one desires to achieve by the separation of Church and State is already built-in in Islam by virtue of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. Incidentally, both Arnold and you have not answered – whether ‘love’ is testable? | ||
| Anonymous |
"Incidentally, both Arnold and you have not answered – whether ‘love’ is testable?" Mohideen "Love" is a subjective experience.The presence of "love", properly defined, can certainly be tested based on change in neural chemistry.There is an "explanation" and a testable theory even though it doesn't reproduce the experience of love. This is a non sequiter. The claims that "God" exists and that such an entity has certain attributes and has laid down certain rules for mankind are meant to describe the objective state of the world. As such they are meaningless unless you can actually test them. Unless you admit that your God is also subjective and only exists in your mind, the parallel doesn't hold. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Anonymous |
"In my mind, the following is a workable arrangement: 1. Dispute among people of same faith would be settled as per their faith." Mohideen No, in a society that truly upholds seperation of Church and state the same laws apply to all citizens. Citizenship is the glue that binds all of us. Individuals must not be ghettoized because of their enthnic and religious affliation Religions should have no special status in a secular democracy. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
There is an "explanation" and a testable theory even though it doesn't reproduce the experience of love. Arnold. Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 10:38 am: Anonymous Could you give reference to this theory and the test you speak of? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Individuals must not be ghettoized Arnold Posted on Monday, May 01, 2006 - 10:45 am: Anonymous I do not visualize walls of separation. Outside the Arabian Peninsula, a Muslim could have a neighbor of any religious persuasion. I visualize an integrated society. A Muslim has no permission to eat the flesh of swine. If a neighbor insists that he should eat the flesh of swine in his (neighbor’s) house insisting that etiquette demands that the food he serves must be eaten, it could lead to trouble. Let us take a specific example. In old India, before the British rule, the widow – possibly because of the torture she might undergo as a widow – committed ‘Sati’ – burnt herself along with the body of her husband. Is it secular to ban that practice in UK? And is it secular to insist that every widow be burnt along with the body of the husband, say, in a future India? We know that people of various faiths do not hesitate to sacrifice their lives to uphold their faith. I believe, my formulation is a practicable one, though might not be a pure one theoretically. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Ivan and I have begun to explore this observation in an effort to determine its cause and if it is related to a structural defect in the fundamental religious and philosophical concepts embraced by Islam. Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 02:57 am: Ed Chesky As requested by me in my post on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 07:41 am, God Almighty willing, I plan to offer my opinions on some of the points raised but not responded by me. The above observation by Ed is the first I would like to respond. Response: Kindly see topic – 6. A test of our understanding of Islam – in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ For immediate reference, I quote: === A point to make now is that if any feels there is inconsistency do not blame self or others, but attempt further study. Doubts when cleared lead to knowledge. There is no harm in getting doubts. === Accordingly, Ed and Ivan looking for a structural defect in Islam are welcome. However as and when we do uncover such a defect, to me, it simply indicates my lack of understanding. I hope God Almighty guides me to explain the apparent defect so that the defect is no more. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Meanwhile the Islamic fundamnetalists have a completely different modus operendus. … It is this group who believe in violence as a matter of religious doctrine. Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 07:43 am: Anonymous True. There is a very small minority that uses Islam for their ends. If such plotters do not get support from the population, they would eventually fade away. Permit me to comment on a social aberration that seems prevalent. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=imam+lead+three&translator=2 &search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When there are three persons, one of them should lead them. The one among them most worthy to act as imam is one who is best versed in the Qur'an. (Book #004, Hadith #1417) (Sahih Muslim) === Imam also is a leader of a community; that is, every community of Muslims should have a leader. That leader should lead the prayer in the community Masjid. Unfortunately, now-a-days, the rich and powerful of a community form ‘Masjid Committee’ and they know very little of the Holy Quran. They appoint a person who has studied the Holy Quran and the Traditions just to lead the prayers and to recite the Holy Quran at different times. This prayer-leader is paid a salary! Thus, a position of authority has been reduced to a job opportunity. In my opinion, this is the main reason for some vested interests exploiting Islam. The ignorance of Islam is just astounding among the Muslims. I do not know Arabic. When my father took me to the Masjid in Sivakasi, Tamilnadu, India when I was five years old, I asked the teacher what he would teach me. He offered to teach me to read, and write Arabic, and to recite the Holy Quran. I asked him whether he would teach me to understand Arabic, to which he expressed his inability. I declined to join the ‘Madhrassa’ and thanks to God Almighty, my father who had studied Islam in a Madhrassa for more than twelve years and who was qualified to become a paid Imam of a Masjid, did not force me. The fact that I had not studied Arabic induced me to read the Translations of the Holy Quran from 1963 on. I do not know Arabic. However, I believe, I understand Islam. Why have I written the above? If the Muslim community has to get free of the violence-mongers, Muslim children should be taught survival skills and Arabic language along with the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. Once every Muslim understands Islam, there would be no violence from the Muslim community. Islam is indeed a religion of peace. The violence is due to ignorance. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The changes in our weather paterns are not being caused as a result of enemy action. They are being caused as a result of man made changes to our atmosphere that have resulted in Global Warming. As a former nuclear weapons expert I can assure you that the energy needed to manipulate the weather or even one hurricane as part of a weapons system is beyound our technology. Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:08 am: Ed Chesky Global Warming does not undergo changes in time scale of hours; the effect is over years. The energy incident on the earth from the sun is a function of the inclination of the axis of rotation of the earth to the plane of revolution around the sun, the average latitude of the sun under different seasons, and the angle of incidence due to the time of the day under consideration. The sunspots do affect the incident energy. However, the pattern of sunspots is not expected to vary drastically within a few days. So, I assume that it is good environmental physics to expect the heating / cooling of a local area during just one hour would be the same under the same conditions. By the grace of God Almighty, I collected the predictions for Silver Spring, Maryland, USA from March 1, 2006 to March 20, 2006. The prediction gives two values: a temperature under the condition column, and another temperature under the feels like column. The feels like column reflects the effect of the wind, and thus the condition is independent of the wind status. We compare the differences in temperature induced by the indicated conditions below: ==== Table 1: Duration: 1 hour; Time: 11.00 am to 12.00 pm; Condition: Sunny Number Date Change in temperature 1 03/01/06 2 2 03/04/06 2 3 03/05/06 3 4 03/07/06 2 5 03/15/06 2 6 03/18/06 2 7 03/19/06 2 8 03/20/06 2 There is a difference of 1 degree F extra heating on March 5, 2006. This could be natural variation. Table 2: Duration: 1 hour; Time 11.00 am to 12.00 pm; Condition: Showers Number Date Change in temperature 1 03/02/06 4 2 03/17/06 1 How it is that one hour during March 2, 2006 heats the atmosphere by 4 degrees, whereas on March 17, 2006, the same time under the same conditions heats up by just 1 degree only? Table 3: Duration: 1 hour; Time 11.00 am to 12.00 pm; Condition: Mostly Sunny Number Date Change in temperature 1 03/03/06 1 No comparison possible. Table 4: Duration: 1 hour; Time: 11.00 am to 12.00 pm; Condition: Cloudy Number Date Change in temperature 1 03/06/06 1 2 03/12/06 5 Notice the difference! Just 1 degree change on March 6, whereas the same conditions result in 5 degrees change on March 12, 2006. Table 5: Duration: 1 hour; Time: 11.00 am to 12.00 pm; Condition: Mostly Cloudy Number Date Change in temperature 1 03/08/06 3 2 03/09/06 3 3 03/13/06 4 The change of just 1 degree could be natural variation. Table 6: Duration: 1 hour; Time: 11.00 am to 12.00 pm; Condition: Partially Cloudy Number Date Change in temperature 1 03/10/06 2 2 03/11/06 2 3 03/14/06 0 4 03/16/06 2 How come similar conditions on three days produce 2 degree F change, while on March 14, 06 it produces no change at all? Could this be accommodated due to variations in the definition of ‘partially cloudy?’ ==== Any number of observations would not prove a theory. However, a single counter example could knock out a theory. How do we explain the data of Tables 2 and 4 above? Yes, I agree that we, the Western World, do not have the technology to carry out weather engineering. Col. Tom Bearden’s contention is that the USSR developed that technology while the West slept. I agree with him. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
This brings me back to your posting on Jihad. I too wish it would fade away, however your comment that it is acceptable in Afghanistan and Iraq as being defenseive begs the question of what you are defending against and trying to preserve with such tactics as suicide bombers, car bombs and killing of civilians, women and children. If you accept that the concept of Jihad is acceptable in those two countries then by logic you are saying that sucicide bombers, killing of innocent civilians, children and women is acceptable as well. Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 04:10 pm: Ed Chesky Every combatant dreams of ‘level playing field.’ The West has the ‘Global Hawk’ beyond the reach of SAMs. These computer-controlled Global Hawks could be used as observation platforms or as attack aircraft. These advanced technologies make it impossible for freedom fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq to fight the West – that in all probability – desires to lock-in cheap long term supply contracts – (an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, and oil itself from Iraq) on a ‘level playing field.’ At this point in time, a human is necessary to negotiate and sign the documents. Since the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq do not love to surrender their freedom, they fight. The West has no answer to the ‘suicide bomber’ whom I would call WBDS – Walking Bomb Delivery System. Islam is very clear: civilians are not to be attacked; women, children, and the old are not to be harmed. If all the above rules are to be obeyed, the only place the enemy could be attacked by a WBDS is the barracks. Any one approaching the barracks is shot to pieces. So, if you are a member of the Resistance in Afghanistan or Iraq, what would you do? Won’t you like to attack the enemy where the enemy is accessible? The enemy is accessible in hotels and clubs. Thus a desperate population – faced with extermination at the hands of an enemy with far superior firepower – resorts to WBDS. Are these actions justified? Not directly, but indirectly through the ‘Law of Equality’ the WBDS are indeed justified. From http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=equality&chapter=2&translator=2&se arch=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === (1) O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. ( ÓæÑÉ ÇáÈÞÑÉ , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #178) (2) In the Law of equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves. ( ÓæÑÉ ÇáÈÞÑÉ , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #179) (3) The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves. ( ÓæÑÉ ÇáÈÞÑÉ , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #194) (All from Yusuf Ali Translation) === Let us look at ‘collateral damage.’ With all our sophisticated laser-guided bombs, we do end up killing civilians, women, and children when we bomb from the sky. Quite often weak human intelligence results in such killing. Under the ‘Law of Equality’ that population which has suffered the loss of civilians, women, and children naturally gains the right of attack in which the enemy loses likewise. If we really want to rid the world of WBDS, let us send the boots in and attack – sword with sword, gun with gun, and hand with hand. As long as we plan to use our superior technology and exploit a skewed playing field, the desperate populations have no option but to deploy WBDS. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Or did Mohammed simply not understand what it means to be a free human being free of coercions, empowered by agreements with others, and protected by laws from trespass. Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 07:37 pm: Ivan Every coin has two sides. Every agreement has at least two parties. As the law protects us from trespass, it also constrains us so that we do not commit trespass. For a Muslim, the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions are the agreement between God Almighty and His creations. When it comes to religion some of us look upon it as pure restriction. Is not religion stopping us from committing trespass? If each one of us wants to be free to do whatever fancy appeals to her / him there would be utter chaos. Any order by its very nature includes constraints and some loss of freedom. There is no absolute freedom. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Even something as simple as the human awareness that free human beings are far more productive than an army of slaves, a very modern idea, never entered his dialogues with Allah. Why was God silent on this? Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 07:37 pm: Ivan First and foremost, ‘free human beings are far more productive than an army of slaves,’ is at best a conjecture. We have not conducted any experiment to really claim either way. (Have we not abolished slavery already?) As a Computer Scientist, the very fact that the field of Computer Science is moving into ‘Artificial Intelligence’ with emphasis on genetic programming is an indication that an army of intelligent programs would be far more productive than the human programmers. Given any book, we can always find a fact that is not mentioned in that book. In any case, the claim of the Holy Quran is consistency and not completeness. So, what is wrong if God Almighty has kept certain things that His creation would uncover to Himself? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
What I had hoped to point out to Mohideen Ibramsha is that as we move into Global climate change we have to conserve and share resources equitably in order to sustain our economies. Jihad as practiced by the Islamics now in Iraq is counter productive and does nothing to help us in managing our transition during this period of Gloabal Climate Change. Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 11:00 am: Ed Chesky The current perception of the Resistance in Iraq (as I understand from the available information in different media) is that the US has invaded to lock-up their oil resources in USD terms so that the US has assured oil supply. In view of the ever present threat of the Euro becoming the petrocurrency, the possibility of non-US controlled oil producers demanding payment in Euro, as soon as the US secures enough oil wells under USD contract, the nations holding about 8 or 9 trillion USD might dump the USD. If that happens, the Middle East population having signed long term USD based contracts would be reduced to relative objective poverty. So, the Resistance is sabotaging the oil industry so that their oil is left secure for them to extract in the future. As long as we have nation states with control over their resources, maneuvers to maximize the national gain would continue. The only hope is to have a single government for the whole earth. We need to create a single currency for the whole earth, say EC – Earth Currency – and freeze the ratio at some time in future. Then, all the resources are common for all mankind and thus there would be equitable distribution. Globalization leading to the tyranny of a few is one possibility. Khilafath with predefined rules in the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions is another possibility. The sum and substance of it is that the time of the nation state is up. May I again suggest that we divert our energies to developing a world government on the Internet? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The beauty of the internet, however, is that in it we can establish an alternative unified world that linkes all the peoples of the world, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Muslem, and Buddist into houses in a great kindom of god where the descendents of the ancient prophets, kings and perhaps, according to some people ont he internet an angel or two drop in from time to time to give guidence during moments of crisis to help the people deal with the challanges that we face and make sense of the world and will of God. Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 01:48 pm: Ed Chesky Please visit http://www.ETReferendum.com/ and choose your language to read the referendum. As I understand it, the Extra-Terrestrials want our approval to help us. Go ahead and seek help. | ||
| Anonymous |
How do you falsifiably test for these? 1. love 2. happiness 3. caring 4. hope 5. desire 6. beauty These are subjective things we witness within ourselves as alive human beings, which no other may witness for us. It is the same with these: a. trespass felt b. coercion felt c. insult felt d. pain felt e. enslavement felt f. rejection felt These are all subjective for live human beings as they feel it inside themselves, there is no external test for these feelings, for they are witnessed only within ourselves. It is the same with freedom. There is no falisfiable test for it. We are either feeling free or we are not free. A slave does not feel free, though his master may say he is free to do exactly as he is told. A woman oppressed by men as demanded by the Quran is not free, though she is being told she is the most free human being on earth. But in her breast they are not free, because they witness it within themselves. So when Mohideen Ibramsha says: "For a Muslim, the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions are the agreement between God Almighty and His creations. When it comes to religion some of us look upon it as pure restriction. Is not religion stopping us from committing trespass? He is right. In Islam "there is no absolute freedom." But he fails to mention that in Islam "there is no freedom whatsoever," to anyone. Freedom, like beauty is felt within, and none may dictate it from outside. For God through his messenger dictating conditions of life that leaves people unfree is assinine to the utmost. God would not have given humans the mental ability to witness freedom, as the subjective on one hand, while taking away that freedom on the other. These two become mutually exclusive, and absurd. GOD IS NOT STUPID, unlike his idiotic messenger. So there are no falsifiable tests for subjective feelings witnessed. There are only falsifiable tests with what we do with these feelings. As long as they remain locked in our breast, they threaten no one. Once they trespass on another, WHERE THE OTHER IN HIS OR HER SUBJECTIVE SELF SAYS THEY ARE BEING TRESPASSED, then the burden of withdrawing from such coercive trespass is NOT on the person feeling wronged, but on the trespasser. THAT is FREEDOM. No, to your ridiculous notion that with freedom comes utter chaos, because in your idea of freedom, the only freedom allowed is that of obedience, and that is an imbecile notion. Freedom is to feel anything you wish in your self, but you are restricted from transferring this feeling onto another against their will. So in yours: "Is not religion stopping us from committing trespass?" Per your religion, you are not stopping us from committing trespass, as any female "slave" of Islam will testify as a witness. But by a clever deceitful devilish lie, a clever construct of your so called "God," you are forcing us to be trespassed. Ask any Islamic woman who lives under your heavy yoke of slavery in your religion. Really ask her, not under the threat of a good beating if she answers wrong, but what she really feels in her breast. The Monster will turn you into a zombie if you answer wrong, and take your soul. Then you become a pure "slave of Allah." | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen Ibramsha sounds more like a scientologist than a Muslim.At least he has a wicked sense of humour as far as Muslim goes. I want to invite him to my party. | ||
| Anonymous |
Aliens use a "chain letter"???? http://www.etreferendum.com/ How cute! | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Unfortunately, in a secular based society, it is not the function of government to endorse any religion. Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 04:30 pm: Ivan http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html has the following: === Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. === Let us play act that we are a state. How about the following law? Students shall learn two courses in religion. The first course is about a religion of their choice. The second course would be another religion. The questions on these courses shall not query the student’s belief but the material taught in the course. To provide access to all religions, a course on each religion would be available under ‘video on demand’ policy. The examinations would be conducted at the state level as the MCAS examination. For the purposes of this law, atheism and infidel’s philosophy would be treated as religions. Does the above law violate the US Constitution? If not, why not the states adapt the above as a law and re-introduce moral education in schools? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Aliens use a "chain letter"???? Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 09:02 pm: Anonymous Notice that the decision to invite is to think within you only. There is no database collecting the decisions. The chain letter is for us to canvass for our positions; nothing more. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/genuine-christianity.htm It discusses the teachings of Christ from the earliest known texts. I think it would be relevent to compare them to the teachings of Islam and see where the divergence in views comes from. Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 07:29 pm: Ed Chesky The link above has the following table: What earliest Christians did & encouraged ====== Active non-violence* Almsgiving* Benevolence to strangers & enemies* Christian healing* Christian perfection* Compassion* Correction of others, supportively* Financial and/or other support of church -- but not tithing Forgiveness to all, including enemies* Generosity to all, including enemies* Honesty* Humaneness* Humililty* Inclusiveness & equality* Justice* Marriage sanctity* Mercy* Modesty* Morality and ethics* Overcoming evil with good* Peace-making* Prayer for all, including enemies* Purity* Repentance* Unconditional love for all, including enemies* Wisdom* Women & men: both in leadership roles* ====== It lists 27 encouraged items and 28 discouraged items (not displayed here due to formatting difficulties. One discouraged item is 'intoxication.') Before considering the differences between Christianity and Islam, let us consider similarities. Differences amplify conflict between communities, whereas similarities encourage love and cooperation. So we consider the similarities. 1. Women & men: both in leadership roles: From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=three+worthy&translator=2&se arch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When there are three persons, one of them should lead them. The one among them most worthy to act as Imam is one who is best versed in the Qur'an. (Book #004, Hadith #1417) (Sahih Muslim) === In a mixed congregation, the females stand in rows starting at the farthest end of the Masjid with ladies who come late forming the nearest row to the front of the Masjid. In contrast, the males stand starting closest to the front of the Masjid with the late comers forming a row behind the earlier persons. This positioning of worshippers allows the maximum number of worshippers to be accommodated in a Masjid irrespective of the distribution between men and women. (Incidentally, this is the strategy used by computer operating systems to fill the program code from one end, and fill the data areas from the other end.) By virtue of this practice, in a mixed congregation even if there is just one male, the Imam is the male. What about the congregation made up of females only? Then of course, one of the females becomes the Imam. Thus, Islam encourages leadership role to females also. 2. Wisdom After the Holy Quran, the Traditions convey the Principles of Islam. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=learned+Tawaf&translator=1&s earch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all the following Tradition is quoted: === Narrated 'Urwa: I asked 'Aisha : "How do you interpret the statement of Allah,. : Verily! (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah, and whoever performs the Hajj to the Ka'ba or performs 'Umra, it is not harmful for him to perform Tawaf between them (Safa and Marwa.) (2.158). By Allah! (it is evident from this revelation) there is no harm if one does not perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa." 'Aisha said, "O, my nephew! Your interpretation is not true. Had this interpretation of yours been correct, the statement of Allah should have been, 'It is not harmful for him if he does not perform Tawaf between them.' But in fact, this divine inspiration was revealed concerning the Ansar who used to assume lhram for worshipping an idol called "Manat" which they used to worship at a place called Al-Mushallal before they embraced Islam, and whoever assumed Ihram (for the idol), would consider it not right to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa. When they embraced Islam, they asked Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) regarding it, saying, "O Allah's Apostle! We used to refrain from Tawaf between Safa and Marwa." So Allah revealed: 'Verily; (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah.' " Aisha added, "Surely, Allah's Apostle set the tradition of Tawaf between Safa and Marwa, so nobody is allowed to omit the Tawaf between them." Later on I ('Urwa) told Abu Bakr bin 'Abdur-Rahman (of 'Aisha's narration) and he said, 'i have not heard of such information, but I heard learned men saying that all the people, except those whom 'Aisha mentioned and who used to assume lhram for the sake of Manat, used to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa. When Allah referred to the Tawaf of the Ka'ba and did not mention Safa and Marwa in the Quran, the people asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! We used to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa and Allah has revealed (the verses concerning) Tawaf of the Ka'ba and has not mentioned Safa and Marwa. Is there any harm if we perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa?' So Allah revealed: "Verily As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah." Abu Bakr said, "It seems that this verse was revealed concerning the two groups, those who used to refrain from Tawaf between Safa and Marwa in the Pre-lslamic Period of ignorance and those who used to perform the Tawaf then, and after embracing Islam they refrained from the Tawaf between them as Allah had enjoined Tawaf of the Ka'ba and did not mention Tawaf (of Safa and Marwa) till later after mentioning the Tawaf of the Ka'ba.' (Book #26, Hadith #706) (Sahih Bukhari) === http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Aisha&translator=1&search=1& book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all claims that the word ‘Aisha’ appears 1,373 times in 952 Sahih Bukhari Traditions alone. Some of them – like the one from http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=Aisha+Angel+cold&translator= 1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all were narrated by mother Aisha, Allah be pleased with her. === Narrated 'Aisha: (the mother of the faithful believers) Al-Harith bin Hisham asked Allah's Apostle "O Allah's Apostle! How is the Divine Inspiration revealed to you?" Allah's Apostle replied, "Sometimes it is (revealed) like the ringing of a bell, this form of Inspiration is the hardest of all and then this state passes ' off after I have grasped what is inspired. Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says." 'Aisha added: Verily I saw the Prophet being inspired Divinely on a very cold day and noticed the Sweat dropping from his forehead (as the Inspiration was over). (Book #1, Hadith #2) (Sahih Bukhari) === There is plenty of wisdom in Islam, and women do convey wisdom in Islam. 3. Unconditional love for all, including enemies http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=41&translator=2&mac= has the following: === 41:34 Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate! 41:35 And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint,- none but persons of the greatest good fortune. As per the Holy Quran, it is not turning the other cheek, but doing something positively helping to the enemy. 4. Repentance Chapter 9 of the Holy Quran does not begin with – In the name of Allah, Most Beneficent, Most Merciful. This Chapter is considered to be one of very stern warnings. Still, from http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=repent&chapter=9&translator=2&sear ch=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we find 8 Verses talking about the act of repentance or the verb to repent. These are Verses 3, 5, 11, 74, 104, 112, 118, and 126. We consider Verses 3, 5, and 11 in their context below: 9:3 And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith. 0:4 (But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. 9:5 But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. 9:6 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge. 9:7 How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous. 9:8 How (can there be such a league), seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they entice you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked. 9:9 The Signs of Allah have they sold for a miserable price, and (many) have they hindered from His way: evil indeed are the deeds they have done. 9:10 In a Believer they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds. 9:11 But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity,- they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. In Verse 3 the Pagans are invited to repent indicating that it is best for them. What does repentance give the Pagans? As stated in Verse 11, they become brothers to the Muslims. What a change: from mortal enemy to bosom brother! A reading of the 9 Verses together gives their intent. Let us consider one of the actions discouraged by the Christians. 5. Intoxication The intoxicants were banned in stages as found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=wine+gambling&translator=3&s earch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: When the prohibition of wine (was yet to be) declared, Umar said: O Allah, give us a satisfactory explanation about wine. So the following verse of Surat al-Baqarah revealed; "They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: In them is great sin...." Umar was then called and it was recited to him. He said: O Allah, give us a satisfactory explanation about wine. Then the following verse of Surat an-Nisa' was revealed: "O ye who believe! approach not prayers with a mind befogged...." Thereafter the herald of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) would call when the (congregational) prayer was performed: Beware, one who is drunk should not come to prayer. Umar was again called and it was recited to him. He said: O Allah, give us a satisfactory explanation about wine. This verse was revealed: "Will ye not then abstain?" Umar said: We abstained. (Book #26, Hadith #3662) (Sunan Abudawud) === For the sake of completeness, we quote the corresponding Verses in full. 1. http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=2&translator=2&mac= === 2:219 They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider- === 2. http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=4&translator=2&mac= === 4:43 O ye who believe! Approach not prayers with a mind befogged, until ye can understand all that ye say,- nor in a state of ceremonial impurity (Except when travelling on the road), until after washing your whole body. If ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands. For Allah doth blot out sins and forgive again and again. === and 3. http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=5&translator=2&mac= === 5:91 Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain? === As full justification to this topic of comparison between Christianity and Islam might take a few books, we stop the discussion on this topic now, having indicated that there are indeed similarities to start cooperation between the Christians and Muslims. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Freedom is to feel anything you wish in your self, but you are restricted from transferring this feeling onto another against their will. Posted on Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 06:30 pm: Anonymous Exactly. Not only that one gets rewarded even for feeling bad things as long as they are not transferred out. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=bondsman+entry&translator=2& search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === Abu Huraira reported that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: When it occurs to my bondsman that he should do a good deed but he actually does not do it, record one good to him, but if he puts it into practice, I make an entry of ten good acts in his favour. When it occurs to him to do evil, but he does not commit it, I forgive that. But if he commits it, I record one evil against his name. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed. The angels said: That bondsman of Yours intends to commit evil. though His Lord is more Vigilant than he. Upon this He (the Lord) said: Watch him; if he commits (evil), write it against his name but if he refrains from doing it, write one good deed or him, for he desisted from doing it for My sake. The Messenger of Allah said: He who amongst you is good of faith, all his good acts are multiplied from ten to seven hundred times (and are recorded in his name) and all the evils that he commits are recorded as such (i, e. without increase) till he meets Allah. (Book #001, Hadith #0235) (Sahih Muslim) === So the above aspect of freedom is within Islam for centuries. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Jihad or a War is clearly against the teachings of Christ and was never part of his philosophy. Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 07:29 pm: Ed Chesky What do Mat 24:50 and 24:51 convey? Quoting from http://www.blueletterbible.org/Mat/Mat024.html we have: === Mat 24:50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for [him], and in an hour that he is not aware of, Mat 24:51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. === Does not – cut him asunder – refer to war? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The correct response to threats of violence is consultation, dialogue, and the enlistment of a third party judgment. Then we apply force to stop the attack, if no other option works. Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 08:18 am: Ivan Jihad is defensive and defensive alone. When the Muslim state is attacked, the leader of the Muslim state calls for Jihad. That Jihad is a duty on every able bodied Muslim. Today, in the absence of the Muslim State, any attack on a Muslim population is tantamount to attack on the Muslim State. That is why; I state that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are justified in their attacking the invaders. Before the US started bombing Afghanistan, didn’t Mullah Omar plead for the evidence against Osama so that Osama could be punished? US did not indulge in any consultation, dialogue, or third party judgment. Why did not the US and her Western allies refer the case to the World Court? The absence of the correct response as suggested by Ivan and the fact that 9/11 is an internal US operation as the Reichstag Fire of Hitler justify the Jihad by the Afghans and the Iraqis. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We've done a lot, with a lot more to be done, but we are not yet all on the same page. That will happen in time, even if they are dragged there kicking and screaming. Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 07:33 pm: Ivan If dragging someone kicking and screaming is not coercion, what is? From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=poured+medicine+little&trans lator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we find: === Narrated 'Aisha: We poured medicine in one side of the Prophet's mouth during his illness and he started pointing to us, meaning to say, "Don't pour medicine in my mouth." We said, "(He says so) because a patient dislikes medicines." When he improved and felt a little better, he said, "Didn't I forbid you to pour medicine in my mouth ?" We said, " ( We thought it was because of) the dislike, patients have for medicines. He said, "Let everyone present in the house be given medicine by pouring it in his mouth while I am looking at him, except 'Abbas as he has not witnessed you (doing the same to me)." (Book #59, Hadith #735) (Sahih Bukhari) === The above is one application of the ‘Law of Equality.’ There could be absolutely no coercion. That is Islam. | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen Ibramsha is absolutely correct about the existence of high IQ extra terrestrials who would like to communicate with us. But they have already done so and have been doing that for quite some times.I bet even a learned Ph.D. in Islamic logic like Mr. Ibramsha will be amazed by the revealations below. You see, we are pets for advanced alein children! That's right, we are created by cute, cuddly little alien children with big eyes and big heads for wholesome entertainment and education purpopse. In the high IQ alien home world you can buy pre packaged planet kits in hobby stores. You may think of the shameless rip off known as "sea monkeys" as a particularly retarded, low IQ version of this. After opening the package you mix all the ingredients in a high IQ alien soup bowl according to instructions on the package and leave it in the right temperature and then wait. In a while complete planets and neighboring srars and galaxies arise.The right amount of necessary ingredients are included in the package to ensure the development of ecology hospitable to life forms and evolution takes care of the rest. These complicated processes take billions of years to accomplish. Billions of years is an enormous time span for us but in the high IQ alien world this is equivalent to just a few hours. The aliens live forever from our low IQ perspective. The quality of planet kits vary according to price. We apparantly sprang from a no name product assembled in the high IQ alien version of China. In the delux models you'll find much more comfy living conditions and lifestyles.To give you an idea, in one of the pricier model the "people" don't have to perform unpleasant bodily functions like going to the bathroom. In the delux models one also find more bizzare looking animals and plants like talking bunnies with three noses. The expensive models also experience less technical screw ups known to us as "natural disasters. They have more elaborate laws of physics with better built in safegurads. The fascinating aspect of this is that the high IQ children of alien races can interact with their creations. In this process high IQ alien children learn important lessons in life. It serves roughly the same educational purpose as keeping family pets for our low IQ children. The alien children communicate with us through different high IQ means. Carefully encrypted messages may be coded in nature or artifacts for us to discover, or subliminal messages may be beamed to us through undetectable EM wave.The least ingenious way, often adopted by the low IQ among the high IQ children, is through direct revealation. It is done through planting some "prophets" in our mist. These "prophets" can be mental patients who are more liable to be taken over by aliens and become their mouthpiece.Or, the alien child with the message can go to a high IQ toy store and buy a prefab prophet recorder, which is a kind of robot, to be placed among us to broadcast his message. "Allah" actually means "trouble maker" in high IQ alien language. As it turns out Allah is one of the children in the house where we are pets. He is, as the name suggests, particularly naughty. He thought it fun to send some of us with ridulous messages, makeing them act crazy. He is laughing his ass off seeing some of these creatures wearing ridiculous cloth and performing ridiculous rituals just because of his "commands".He brought the Mohamad robot recorder from the local toy strore at discount price. But you won't hear from Allah anymore. He's grounded for fighting with his brothers and not cleaning up his room. No toy for a week in highIQ alien time. That means forever in our low IQ world. A prophet at discount price. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I bet even a learned Ph.D. in Islamic logic like Mr. Ibramsha will be amazed by the revealations below. Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 12:01 pm: Anonymous First and foremost, I enjoyed reading your post. Alas time cannot be reversed. How I wish that I had indeed secured a Ph.D. in Islamic Logic from IIT Kanpur, India set up by MIT and other top universities during the 1960s. What a pity: my PhD is in ‘Computer Science.’ I look forward to more pun. The unbeliever could make any amount of fun and pun at Muslims. On the Day of Judgment we hope that they realize their folly and loss. | ||
| Anonymous |
Muhideen Ibransha, While I disagree with you on many points you are clearly a pious Muslim. For me I have attempted to explain to the best of my knowledge how I can trisect angles and solve geometry problems not being a mathmetician I have attempted to describe as best I can what I see using the words I have, as imperfect as they are. I to share belief in God. I call my ability a gift from God, which I attempt to use to help mankind, for my pains I have been ridiculed drugged, exaimined, poisoned with a neurotoxin, which was confirmed by Dr. Abu Donia at Duke university. I can see paterns in forces and relationships from them I can project activity to include earthquakes with a high degree of accuracy. Through it all I have maintained my Christian faith and belief in God. In Saudi Arabia, I was verbally assualted by non-believer and drunk. The Suadi I was with was a descendent of the Bedouin and was going to have him dragged off and beaten until he was a bloody mess. I said no based on my Christian principles. For this and other reasons a number of highly religous people have sworn to defend me to the death. Apostates are many, as are non-believers. As I sit here cripled as the result of poison, the student body of a university surrounds me and protects me. The aopstates that hide behind anonymous posting live in fear of holy warriors of old like the Christian Knight that held a bridge even after being shot thru the nose with a crossbow bolt and having it lodge in his brain. That spirit lives on in the young men and women that fill this campus who revere and respect god. At judgment day many will stand beside us looking at the apostates. I disagree with Jihad, killing and war and your belief in COL Bearden. I feel that we will never agree on these matters. However, we do share a belief in god and trust that in the end when the day of Judgment comes we will both be there to recieve the answers to our questions. Ed Chesky | ||
| Ivan |
I must admit I am enjoying this civil, if at times serious and at times humorous, discussion. When you say:
We of the non-fundamentalist religious spirituality camp see it a little different: rather than accepting that our faulty understanding is some defect, and asking for God Almighty to explain this defect (in ourselves), we would rather call on God to help us understand why it is such a defect. The structural result is that one accepts his defect in lack of understanding, while the other challenges this lack of understanding into a better understanding. Big difference! Surely the aliens must be amused, from their high IQ world, at our Earthly antics, which only proves we are clowns as we go around beating each other up in the name of our low IQ version of what is God. BTW, I agree with the 'subjective' observation that only 'objective data' can be falsifiable, as it does not apply to our human values of love or happiness, or self worth. Those are felt only in ourselves, for none other to judge upon. That alone is the great value of freedom. Carry on. Ivan | ||
| Le Chef |
I hope and pray this one doesn't start a Christian worldwide cartoon riot!  | ||
| Anonymous |
'The unbeliever could make any amount of fun and pun at Muslims. On the Day of Judgment we hope that they realize their folly and loss.' Is this a threat for the non believers? LOL. The monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam rooted in tribal superstitions of the Jews and Arabs.There were hundreds of faiths before. The Abrahamic religions managed to set up their spiritual monopolies simply because of the accident of good timing backed latter by the worldy power of the sword and the gun. It is supreme arrogance to assume that if there is a God he must be the God of the Christians or the God of Islam. There are much older civilizations which flourished even as Abrabham and the Jews were mere desert drifters.Muhamad and his drug induced 'revealations' is a bad con job except for the nomadic primitives who bought it hook and sinker. If he tried to pull that in the 17th centry instead of the 7th he would have been dismissed as just another cult leader like the Reverend Moon. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
However, we do share a belief in god and trust that in the end when the day of Judgment comes we will both be there to recieve the answers to our questions. Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 03:40 pm: Ed Chesky And both of us - God Almighty willing - could be rewarded with our respective seats in Paradise. See – 3. Is Allah unjust? – in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Surely the aliens must be amused, from their high IQ world Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 03:58 pm: Ivan Assuming higher IQ means a better creation, I am not sure whether the aliens have higher IQ. Mankind is supposed to be the best of creation. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=114&translator=2&mac= we get: === 1 Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind, 2 The King (or Ruler) of Mankind, 3 The Allah (for judge) of Mankind,- 4 From the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil), who withdraws (after his whisper),- 5 (The same) who whispers into the hearts of Mankind,- 6 Among Jinns and among men. === It is our belief that the ET are the Jinns. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
There were hundreds of faiths before. Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 08:14 pm: Anonymous Starting from Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, and ending with Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the Prophets, peace be upon them, cover all the faiths. Muslims accept all Prophets, peace be upon them. Thus all faiths based on revelation are included in Islam. Accordingly, all those hundreds of faiths before Prophet Abraham, peace be upon him, - if they are revealed religions – are part and parcel of Islam. | ||
| Anonymous |
"Starting from Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, and ending with Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, the Prophets, peace be upon them, cover all the faiths. Muslims accept all Prophets, peace be upon them. Thus all faiths based on revelation are included in Islam. Accordingly, all those hundreds of faiths before Prophet Abraham, peace be upon him, - if they are revealed religions – are part and parcel of Islam." "The prophet Adam" is a figment of the Jews' imagination. Why not start with the Prophet ameoba? that way you won't miss anything. Just because Muhamad professed to accept all the "prophets" that came before him doesn't mean other religions accept him as a legitimate prophet. Rather, this apparant inclusiveness should be seen as opportunism of an undisciplined cult. Obviously Muhamad tried to enhance his credibility by hanging on to the coat tails of more established faiths.All cult leaders claim to be the heirs to some older, more respectible traditions.Nothing surprising here. This alleged inclusiveness of Islam exists only on paper, it does not reflect its true practice as Islamic history amply illustrates. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
it does not reflect its true practice as Islamic history amply illustrates. Posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 09:10 pm: Anonymous I parse the word ‘history’ as his + story, that is the story of the victor. Invariably, the victor is full of virtue while the vanquished is wrong in every aspect. We do not like to place the future of mankind on the basis of stories. | ||
| Anonymous |
"Adam" means "man" in Hebrew. The story of creation in the Torah is clearly a parable. It is therefore nonsense to speak of a certain "Prophet Adam". If Mohamad was really a Prophet how could he misunderstood the Torah in such an elementary way? "I parse the word ‘history’ as his + story, that is the story of the victor. Invariably, the victor is full of virtue while the vanquished is wrong in every aspect. We do not like to place the future of mankind on the basis of stories."Mohideen Ibramsha Many accounts of Islam intolerance come from his-tory written by Muslims themselves, related with great pride and triumphanism. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
But where science can answer the how of things, it cannot answer the whys. Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 10:27 pm: Ivan May be science could answer most of the whys. Let us try and make science answer the whys. From http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=primal+origin&chapter=2&translator =2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. ( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #117) (Yusuf Ali Translation) === We understand the above to mean that God Almighty set the conditions at 0- of the big bang. Since God Almighty does not claim that He is nitpicking the universe, evolution is part of His design. Given enough computing power, we could model the evolution. Let us agree to the theory of evolution that it supports the survival of the fittest. In the absence of intervention by God Almighty the fittest could be identified say at time t by looking at the properties of the survivors of time t’ where t’>t. In other words, we let the simulation of evolution run freely, look back in time and define the fittest conditions leading to survival. Now let us look at the why after considering the building of the first boat. From http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=11&translator=2&mac= we quote Verses 36 – 43 both inclusive: === 11:36 It was revealed to Noah: "None of thy people will believe except those who have believed already! So grieve no longer over their (evil) deeds. 11:37 "But construct an Ark under Our eyes and Our inspiration, and address Me no (further) on behalf of those who are in sin: for they are about to be overwhelmed (in the Flood)." 11:38 Forthwith he (starts) constructing the Ark: Every time that the chiefs of his people passed by him, they threw ridicule on him. He said: "If ye ridicule us now, we (in our turn) can look down on you with ridicule likewise! 11:39 "But soon will ye know who it is on whom will descend a penalty that will cover them with shame,- on whom will be unloosed a penalty lasting:" 11:40 At length, behold! there came Our command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family - except those against whom the word has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but only a few believed with him. 11:41 So he said: "Embark ye on the Ark, In the name of Allah, whether it move or be at rest! For my Lord is, be sure, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful!" 11:42 So the Ark floated with them on the waves (towering) like mountains, and Noah called out to his son, who had separated himself (from the rest): "O my son! embark with us, and be not with the unbelievers!" 11:43 The son replied: "I will betake myself to some mountain: it will save me from the water." Noah said: "This day nothing can save, from the command of Allah, any but those on whom He hath mercy! "And the waves came between them, and the son was among those overwhelmed in the Flood. === Prophet Noah, peace be upon him, had constructed – shall we say invented – the first boat. To a population that has not encountered water in sufficient quantities in the desert, anyone building a boat is insane. God Almighty knows the future and thus guides Prophet Noah, peace be upon him, to build the boat. If we know the future, possibly we could answer the why, as the why is expected to lead to the ‘fittest.’ So, given a really accurate and powerful simulation of the universe that runs faster than real time, we could run the simulator and answer the why of today as to the fittest for tomorrow. This scheme breaks down when there is intervention by God Almighty. So we could possibly in a future date run our evolution machine from the big bang until the evolution of the ape. We believe as God Almighty claims He created Adam, the evolution machine would never produce Adam. Such a claim might be verifiable in future. Given a more sophisticated structure, we could derive a simpler structure easily. However to arrive at the complicated structure from the simple structure might prove taunting. Suppose the human genome has a pattern that could not be derived from the genome of the ape, but which under reduction could lead to the genome of the ape, we could conclude that evolution stopped at the ape and man was a product of intelligent design. In summary, given a powerful and faster than real time simulator of evolution, science might answer the whys as long as there is no intervention by God Almighty. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We are interested in mitigating the effects of Global Warming. One strategy to mitigate Global Warming is to plant trees. http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=birds+eaten&translator=2&sea rch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has: === Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Never a Muslim plants a tree, but he has the reward of charity for him, for what is eaten out of that is charity; what is stolen out of that, what the beasts eat out of that, what the birds eat out of that is charity for him. (In short) none incurs a loss to him but it becomes a charity on his part. (Book #010, Hadith #3764) (Sahih Muslim) === We do hope that a Muslim Caliphate would encourage planting as many trees as possible in the territory under the control of the Caliphate. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The path to our success is when we recognize the sanctity of every human being, and all life, and act accordingly. Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 10:27 pm: Ivan The URL http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=blood+shedding+cases&transla tor=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has the following contents: === Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "The cases which will be decided first (on the Day of Resurrection) will be the cases of blood-shedding. " (Book #76, Hadith #540) (Sahih Bukhari) === Another URL of interest is http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=blood+shed+ignorance&transla tor=1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all with: === Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "The most hated persons to Allah are three: (1) A person who deviates from the right conduct, i.e., an evil doer, in the Haram (sanctuaries of Mecca and Medina); (2) a person who seeks that the traditions of the Pre-lslamic Period of ignorance, should remain in Islam (3) and a person who seeks to shed somebody's blood without any right." (Book #83, Hadith #21) (Sahih Bukhari) === Please note that the ‘somebody’ in the second Tradition attracts no qualification. That is shedding the blood of a Muslim or a non-Muslim without right incurs the wrath of God Almighty. Islam is indeed demanding that the sanctity of every human being be recognized. | ||
| Anonymous |
"Prophet Noah, peace be upon him, had constructed – shall we say invented – the first boat. To a population that has not encountered water in sufficient quantities in the desert, anyone building a boat is insane. God Almighty knows the future and thus guides Prophet Noah, peace be upon him, to build the boat." The Story of Noah was a direct rip off from Babylonian mythology, almost word for word. While the Jews did live in the desert, the Babylonian civilization originated along rivers as were all ancient craddles of civilizations. Rivers flood from time to time. To the ancients who only saw a very small patch of the earth no doubt a major flood would seem the end of the world.So not surprisingly all old civilizations have flood myths. The Babylonians, the Chinese, the Native Indians all have their versions. A little common sense and logical thinking go a long way in eliminating superstitions. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Anonymous |
I agree with the anoynimous poster who said that there were Old Civilizations long before Yaweh appeared on the scene. They all attempted to provide answers to the perennial questions of who we are and where we came from through parables, mythologies and religions. As far as mythologies go the Jews were neither particularly original nor sophisticated.The jewish stories are rather inferior and lack lusture comparing with the beautiful stories of the Babynonians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Chinese, the Norse, the Egyptians and the Natives. Islam was a "low IQ" concotion of an even lower calibre. Mohamad plagerised wholesale from the Jews.It is no wonder that Islam honors all "prophets" before Mohamad starting from "the prophet Adam"(a travesty invented by Mo, which indicates a poor understanding of the Jewish source, as noted).The Jewish stories were well known at the time, Mohamad wouldn't have been able to get away without acknowledging the source, so to speak. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
How would you reverse this trend for Islam, so that it stops playing the "victim", and thus join in the more progressive ideology of human freedom, of the right of the individual to be free from trespass and coercions? Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 12:34 pm: Ivan Please see my post in this dialogue posted on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 10:02 am. Islam abhors coercions. I start with that as a fact. Let us go along at least until I develop a suggestion. I believe the real worry is – how do we ensure a quasi assimilated Muslim in the West does not listen to a talk somewhere and turn into a suicide bomber? I do not know the parameters I plan to use now. Let us say ATTT is ‘Average Time To Transformation.’ If we hear incitement to violence – explicit or implicit – we could assume that no event would take place until ATTT hours after the inciting talk. What could we do to counter the incitement in that available ATTT hours? If we could identify the potential victims – those quasi assimilated Muslims under transformation – we could concentrate our energies on dissuading them. Let us look at the worst case scene. In a Masjid, there are 35 prayers in a week. Only during the Friday noon prayer there is a talk by the Imam. Most of the impressionable youth in the West do not know Arabic. Thus, the non-Arabic content of the speech is important to us. These Friday sermons are amplified so that these are heard very clearly outside the Masjids. There should be no objection to what the general public does with a loud vocal sermon that is heard on the street. Thus recording these sermons on portable tape recorders for physical transport to the analysis centers or through cell phone connected instant transmission to the analysis center as the sermon is given for immediate analysis does not violate any person’s privacy. For the present let us assume that we have developed the necessary tools to flag incitement in the sermon. What could we do? Remember that in a Masjid there could be around 1,000 worshippers for the Friday Prayer. Out of these may be 3 to 5 might become bombers. How do we identify them? Should we identify them? Would it be possible to counter the incitement through a correction speech showing the fallacy of carrying out the suggested attack to the target population? To those 1,000 worshippers who attended the Masjid that carried the incitement talk? The best would be another equally respected Muslim authority – like the Imam – should give the correction speech. How would this correction speech delivered? This is a problem to be tackled as the worshippers disperse to their respective work places immediately after the prayers. The prayer per se might take just 10 minutes or so. We should not broadcast the correction speech to the congregation while they are offering their prayer. Such stupidity would lead to further trouble. So, the correction speech could at best be started while the worshippers are dispersing. How do we reach them? Most travel by their own vehicles; some travel by public transport. Those using their own cars might tune to a local news / music station. We do not assume that every returning worshipper would tune the local radio. But the local radio does reach a reasonable proportion of the returning worshippers. Short advertisements giving the time and channels of the correction speech by the respected Muslim of the locality should be made just after the prayer is over for about a maximum of 60 minutes or so. Such announcements should be made on all channels in the locality served by the Masjid. As regards the worshippers using the public transport, the announcements could be made in the audio system of the public vehicles. Once the respected Muslim leader of the locality takes to the air waves, it is expected that he / she would be listened to and hopefully acted upon. Initially there would be some transformations in spite of the above effort. However, as we persist, we would dissuade the youngsters from falling into the trap of the war mongers. Instead of giving the announcements regarding the correction speech as and when necessary, we might have a parallel series of speeches by the respected Muslim authority every Friday. On the days of incitement, the Muslim expert gives the correction speech, and on other days the expert continues with his own analysis of a problem of interest to the youth. May I have your response? I look forward to hearing from Ed Chesky in particular. Why am I doing this? I believe it is a duty of every Muslim to ensure that his religion is not hijacked by the war mongers. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Religious texts can still reinforce or retard whatever tendencies that the believer brings to the religion. Suppose our alienated, resentful young man gets religious and finds the Dala Lama instead of Mohamad, I don't think the outcome would be quite the same. Arnold Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 05:39 pm: Anonymous There are some clamoring for reforming Islam. Such an approach is a non-starter. No person likes to have his / her religion reformed by an outsider. The project on – Al Furqan – is indeed a setback. The Al Furqan does not meet the challenge of the Holy Quran. The challenge of the Holy Quran is to make a single chapter modification and still satisfy all the invariance identified recently using computers. If only the challenge was to develop a consistent book, it could be done by any graduate student in logic. I think Ivan has the better approach. | ||
| Anonymous |
"There are some clamoring for reforming Islam. Such an approach is a non-starter. No person likes to have his / her religion reformed by an outsider." Ah, but you do acknowledge the need for reform, even though you insist such reform must come from within. Not a problem for me.But"reformers" within Islam are probably killed as apostates even before they have a chance to broadcast their message.Dr. Mamoud Taha being a better known example. This again illustrates how tolerent Islam is in practise.Under this climate of violence and intimidation what is the propsect of reform within Islam itself? It is not a choice for Muslims, reform has to come somehow, either from within or as a result of external challenges. Failing that Islam risks being cosigned to the garbage bin of history. A religion ceases to be relevant if it is holding back the people at every turn. You have a hard time selling Islam here Mohideen. Take a look at the Muslim world. It is far behind not only in terms of science and technology. It is backward even in the realm of human development, values and ethics. Other than those who has the misfortune to be born into Islam and be indoctrinated into the faith what sane individual with a broad view of history and culture would subscribe to Islam, which is almost a trademark of backwardness, ignorance and barbarity? Islam had its glorious day but that was long gone. But even then the Muslim world was not unique in its achievements among ancient civilizations. For one thing, the golden age of Islam lasted for only a few centries, roughly the same as the duration of one or two dynasties in really old civilizations such as the Chinese.Scholars have noted that even in its golden age, Islamic civilization was of a derived nature with a handful of notable exceptions.In terms of bold originality it never compared with the ancient Greeks, the Hindus or the Chinese, all of whom were pagans and would have laughed at the crude fabrication of Mohamad claimming to be the message from the almighty. That being the case what does Islam, as a belief system has to offer mankind? Why would any sane person look at the Quran in any other way than just a relic of history? Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
"The challenge of the Holy Quran is to make a single chapter modification and still satisfy all the invariance identified recently using computers." It is indeed ironic and sad that modern technology, the progeny of the enlightenment is used to promote supersition in such a vulgar way. It is like people using super computers for astronogy and fortune telling, or teaching cannibals the "civilized" way of eating with fork and knives. Using sophisticated computer programs, some Rabbi demonstrated that one can identify passages in the Torahs which predicted world events ranging from the two world wars, vietnam, the assasination of the Kennedys and much more.This "miracle" was known as the bible code or the Torah code. Some skeptical mathematicans used the same methodology on Tolstoy's war and peace and discovered all the bible predictions and more. I suggest you try identifying invariants from the Chinese I-ching using computers, or if that's too much trouble you may study the patterns of tea leafs or cracks on animal bones. I am sure you can find miraculous patterns with the help of super computers. This is surreal. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
So in the end does it matter if their was a conspiracy. Ed Chesky Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 04:07 pm: Anonymous Yes, it matters. In my model, Osama was – and possibly continues to be – a patsy; a tool; who was led to believe that he was the master planner of 9/11. I state this because I had informed very highly placed sources inside USA the weapons used to carry out the 9/11 attack. It was unfortunate that the source I sent my analysis did not act. It is even possible that my analysis was blocked by an intermediate hand. Osama or any other Muslim has no access to the weapons used on 9/11. If the conspiracy is not exposed and neutralized, we are rushing to WW III. As a Muslim I am not afraid of war; I would like to avoid it as far as possible. It is unfortunate that some religionists believe they know the end time. Muslims know that the end time is known to God Almighty alone. I read recently in the Holy Bible that Jesus stated that the end time is known to the Father alone. I think both Muslims and Christians are saying the same thing. You believe Mossad is supporting you. I sincerely hope so. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Ah, but you do acknowledge the need for reform, even though you insist such reform must come from within. Arnold Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 09:38 am: Anonymous No way. Islam is perfect. It needs no reform. It simply needs to be followed correctly. In the absence of the Caliph, there is a cacophony of voices on the Muslim horizon. Please read the articles posted in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ Islam is fine as it is. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
This "miracle" was known as the bible code Arnold Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 10:12 am: Anonymous Please visit http://www.exodus2006.com/ | ||
| Anonymous |
"Islam is perfect. It needs no reform. It simply needs to be followed correctly." When was Islam, or any religion for that matter, ever "followed correctly"? In the absence of any empirical evidence, on what ground do you assert that Islam is a "perfect religion"? Perhaps this irrational belief that there is ever a "perfect" belief system is the source of the stagnacy of the Muslim world? "In the absence of the Caliph, there is a cacophony of voices on the Muslim horizon." How is that relevant? If there is ever a Caliph there would be even less tolerande towards dissents and more heavy handed oppression. It is not difficult to see which faction of Muslims would dominate the Caliph and establish a monopoly of interpretation if you look at the reality of the Muslim world today. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
Mohideen Ibramsha, Osama was never a patsy but a master of game theory and strategist. He was trained and given support by our CIA in Afghanistan during the War against the Soviets. He learned the tactics, techniques and procedures of our intelligence services, their capabilities and weaknesses during that war. We ussed him and he used us. After the war when we moved against him he turned on us. As a genius of game theory he played the system from the outside, leaking information, using misdirection and strategy to fight us. He was soley behind 9-11. He was aided in this fight by others, I suspect the KGB disinformation experts saw an oportunity for pay back and assisted this by putting out dissinformation and assisting with the fueling of conspiricy theories. This is a standard Soviet KGB tactic. Saddam in Iraq did the same thing, during the Iran and Iraq war we provided him with intelligence support and from it he learned our capabilities, which he manipulated to make us look like fools with the United Nations inspectors. The conspiricy to drag us into Iraq is becoming clearer and with more and more releases of information it is clear that the Bush Admin cherry picked intelligence that supported its agenda to get us into the war for a number of reasons. The reasons are many and range from noble ones of freeing the people, to less noble ones of gaining access to oil, to irrational ones of fulfilling a religious mandate. As I stated the reasons we went in are no longer of any concern. We have to stay until Iraq is stable. Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Chapter 7, Habeas Mentem. Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 06:54 pm: Ivan Dear Ivan, I hope you know wherefrom I have taken the following sentence. … Everything we have flows from the One, and that is where I face. … It took me more than 2 hours to read Chapter 7. I believe me semi-understand that chapter. God Almighty willing, I hope to read your book and get back to you. From Chapter 7, I felt ‘the mind at infinity’ is the soul. I have to read your third book to know whether my guess is right. I hope to send an email to you if by the time I am ready this page has become archived. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We have to stay until Iraq is stable. Ed Chesky Posted on Thursday, May 04, 2006 - 11:45 am: Anonymous The day Iraq stabilizes, the Iraqis lose their national wealth. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I believe I had answered the queries. In case I have not answered any query please remind me. If I don’t need to start answering anymore, let me partially sign off now. If for three more days there is no need for me to get back to this page, this sign off becomes the final sign off. | ||
| Ivan |
Thanks Mohideen, for acknowledging my summus laboro, Ch. 7 of Habeas Mentem. My instructions were to write it down and make it available solely, and then walk away. It is okay for me to clarify if questioned, but I am not allowed to defend it. It has to stand on its own, or perish on its own, for then it is God's will. I think you will find the prior six chapters explanatory to better understand the idea in toto, which you already correctly surmised, that 'infinite mind' is the soul. There is a mechanism why this is so, which is what Habeas Mentem is about. I also suspect the last book on God is a much easier read, written more from the soul than the mind. All the best, and thanks for all your fine thoughts. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I had signed off partially. So whether the decision about that partial sign-off is final or not should really rest with other members of this page. However, a news item today has induced me to initiate a related discussion. The question is: If non-Muslims allow no option but a violent path to the Muslims, can the Muslims be blamed if they take the last straw? From http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1191348,00.html we have: === Indeed, many fear that if the decision by the Islamists to enter democratic politics is thwarted by the West, the real beneficiaries will not be Fatah, but al-Qaeda — which has long told Hamas that entering democratic politics is a dead-end road for an Islamist movement. The U.S. may yet prove it right. === May I make a suggestion to Israel, US & Co.? Restore the funding to Hamas; yes Hamas. With the following condition: If they move along the path of peace as defined by Israel, US & Co. the aid would be treated as aid. If they do not make sufficient progress after one year, the aid would be loan at 0% interest; after 2 years it would be at 1% interest; and after m years it would be at (m-1)% interest. Since they have nothing other than their land, after a grace period to be decided by the lender-donors, the Palestinians should start selling their land to pay for the loan and interest. Any takers? | ||
| Ivan |
In your question on Hamas, Mohideen, your bring up a very difficult complex question, one better suited to a political blog than a forum such as this, where we discuss primarily fundamental principles: how to make a better world. We can look at this question in the broader context of principles involved, and then how people choose to respond with these principles becomes how they react politically. Democratic actions do not necessarily bring about non-coercive results in how the people voted. Example of this was the election of Hitler to be Chancellor of Germany, freely elected by the people, with disastrously coercive results. So democracy does not insure against the people electing, of their own free will, a greater violence than they had known before. Without proper foresight and an educated populace, this tendency towards greater coercion can result, as it seems happened in Palestine with the election of a political party dedicated to the eradication of its perceived enemy, Israel. Now, as part of this result, funding that had been supporting the Palestinian state, such as it is, is being cut off, since it would finance the coercive policies of those elected to power. This is the difficulty of the situation, that the people had voted to box themselves in from the world, in that they elected coercion above peace. And peace can happen, if they so choose it. Now that it is done, what can be done in response by the world? If a man is starving, it is a good thing to bring him food. However, if one gives him money instead, that may go to waste in his buying what supports some addiction, booz or drugs, and the aid is counterproductive. In the case of Hamas, by their own admission, they are addicted to violence towards a neighbor state. So to give money to feed this addiction, and the weapons such money would procure, would be counter productive to helping that state on the road to peace. And that must be the final objective, for any civilized state, that peace with its neighbors is the ultimate goal. In the case of Hamas, perhaps that is not yet on their agenda, so they are in a difficulty here, and funding may be cut off. This should not stop humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicines, but cold hard cash may not serve anyone's interest here. The solution is simple: have Hamas renounce its policy of violence. Then, if the 'loans' as you suggest are presented to them, they can be forgivable over a period of time, provided no such violence occurs. However, to give them money now, in addition to humanitarian food and medicines, before they had renounced the use of violence against a neighbor, would not serve the purpose of peace. So the broader principle in question here is: it is not peace at any cost, where money is given in advance before they disarm and renounce violence, but a condition of peace that they first disarm and renounce violence, for the money. Whether your 'interest formula' is good or not is more a political question, so cannot address it here, but it seems to me that charging interest is against Islamic principles, so this idea would have to be rethought better. A forgivable loan, without expectations of it being paid back even if they fail in this peace, may be a good idea in exchange for something. But exchange for what? What can Palestinians offer in exchange for such funds? Would they build up an infrastructure of a functioning economy? Would they trade their skills and knowledge? What can they offer the world in exchange for anything offered, other than purely humanitarian aid, to make such an exchange equitable? Perhaps you have some ideas on this? I hope peace comes to the Middle East, since the good people there on all sides would welcome it. But peace also comes at a price, that of wanting to have peace, the will to see it through, the personal sacrifices to see it through, to give up violence, and the good faith and trust of the people who are after it. Otherwise, if the peace comes under the guise of deceit, it has no chance of success. What will the people of Palestine choose? How will they vote on this? That is the real Hamas question. All the best, Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
I actually agree with Mohideen on Hamas. The election of Hamas has to been seen in context. The reality of occupation, the impotence and corruption of the PLO, the unwillingless of Israel to negotiate peace in good faith were the factors that contribute to Hamas' rise to power. Jihad ideology and Islam had little to do with it. As a political entity Hamas is vehicle of local, nationalistic struggle of the Palestinians.Regardless of how you see them, they are not the same phenonmenon as Osama Bin Laden and Al-Queda.Indeed Hamas has openly rebuffed Bin Laden's invitation to global jihad recently. Since elected, Hamas has indicated its willingness to work with Israel, abeit akwardly.It is not surprsing given the reality of history. It is not realistic to expect Hamas to make a 180 degree change in its rhetorics overnight. For those who are genuinely interested in a just peace these small and significant gestures should be welcome and encouraged. The heavy handed treatment of EU and the U.S.A only succeeds in driving the Palestinians into deeper desperation and adds fuel to the cycle of violence. It is interesting to note the different treatments for the IRA. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
"..So the broader principle in question here is: it is not peace at any cost, where money is given in advance before they disarm and renounce violence, but a condition of peace that they first disarm and renounce violence, for the money.." Ivan, I respectfully disagree. The Palestinians have a legitimate right to self defence. Why should they be disarmed while no such demand is made of Israel? Objectively the Palestinians have little arms left to be disarmed. They even have to smuggle rifles and light arms in through secret tunnels. On the other hand Israel doesn't need any permission to arm itself to the teeth. It should also be noted that suicide bombings only became a trend around the second intifada in the late 1990's. Before that violence was overwhelmingly carried out by Israel. Historical record does not support the spin that Palestinian terrorism is the sole obstacle to peace.There is ample evidence that Israel does not want peace, but complete capitulation from the Palestinians. Fair minded people who are interested a just and equitable peace in the ME should hold BOTH sides accountable. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Well, Arnold, I see your point, that to the Palestinians, their struggle is self defense. So now what? In yours: But how do we establish a free standing Palestinian state? Do we have to give into Israeli deemands only? How about giving into 'stopping the violence' instead, as I suggested above? I too agree this has little to do with Islamic extremism, and never said it was. But I see the problem as the violence itself (as Anon posted above, on stopping the 'Monster'). How do we stop it? If the IRA can stop it, without going hat in hand begging for money, why cannot the Hamas leadership do the same? How would you stop the violence? Isn't that the first step towards peace? Truly, Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Ivan, My beef is that you seemingly put all the onus on Hamas to cease violence while in fact violence is carried out on both sides. I apologize if I misunderstood. It is Orwellian newspeak to call violence perpetrated by Israel "self defence" and "anti-terrorism" while Palestanian violence is characterized as "terrorism". I am not accusing you of seeing things this way, but I think it is a widespread perception that need to be examined. As to the Hamas coming cap in hand for money, one has to ask why the Palestinians don't have a viable economy. Granted that the PA has been incompetent and corrupt, but it would be quite absurd to ignore the more fundamental fact that the Palestinians are under occupation, they have no control over their roads, their trasportation system, their land and their resources(The Jewish settlers in the West banks have swimming pools while the Palestinians have to be rationed for water, a valuable resource). the Palestinians have no control over their economy. The Palestinian Authority doesn't even have access to a large part of its own tax revenue. It has to rely on Israel to collect them. As a "punishment" for electing Hamas, Israel is witholding tax money that rightfully belong to the Palestinians,how is that justified? But the Palestinians are not the only one asking for "charity". Israel is getting a lot of American aid money as well. At least the Palestinians have some legitimate excuses, what are the Israeli's? The IRA doesn't run a government so your comparison is inappropiate. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Arnold, with all due respect, do you think the two are somehow equitable? When was the last suicide Israeli detonated? Yes, the grievances are great, for both the Palestinians and for Israelis, both sides had to endure a great deal of hardship. How do you stop it? That's where I'm at, not as you suspect that I wish to take sides. I said this is an apolitical forum, and I meant it. If there to be redress towards peace, the laying down of arms, not the financing of more arms, is the solution, in my opinion, as a first step. Then comes dialogue, usually best if arbitrated by a third party acceptable to both sides. Then we can talk peace. How would you do it? I mean this sincerely, as I would cherish a Middle East peace, a lasting and just peace. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Ps: in your support of Hamas, per yours: Remember that the Palestinian government is now represented by Hamas, which means as a national government, elected to office, it is held to higher standards than what we expect from garden variety terrorists. This part of the discussion, regrettably, leans too much into the politics of sides, so a neutrality in observations and resolutions of the problem gets swept up in political passions. I wish to avoid this. Perhaps this was Mohideen's intent, to take this "Dialogue with a Muslim" in that direction, to politicize it, but that is not what this discussion is about. As I said above, twice now, it is a discussion of principles, not politics. And the principle at risk is that of human beings interacting peaceably through agreements rather than perpetuating coercions and violence. That's how we get to peace. Arnold, if you would be so kind, let us know how you envision a path to the Middle East peace, and to the Palestine-Israel problem in particular. Is it possible? And if so, how? Sincerely, Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
it would finance the coercive policies of those elected to power. Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 05:10 pm: Ivan I was thinking about paying the salaries to the employees of the PA. It never occurred to me that the Hamas could siphon off some of those funds to procure arms to attack Israel. If that be so, let us supply the Hamas PA all that they need to support the population: everything but arms and money. Let us put the price tag on the supplies and it is a loan which might be written off if Hamas changes its statute. I did say that if Hamas does not change and runs up non-payable loan, then it surrenders chunks of land to Israel to get the loans written off. Israel needs land; Hamas needs wealth to keep the Palestinian public alive. So all that I am suggesting is drawing the PA in by giving them loan and eventually either there is a change of heart and the two populations live side by side, or the Palestinians keep surrendering chunks of land and box themselves into smaller and smaller land. In Islam the forbidden becomes permissible if that is the only way to save lives. Yes, usury is forbidden. Given the prevalence of interest based financial transactions all over the world, Hamas would accept such interest bearing loans as saving lives is more important than avoiding interest. Having said the above, I must say that the window of opportunity to induce Hamas to accept loan-to-become-aid is rather a narrow one. God Almighty is the sustainer. So, if the West denies the funds to Hamas to such an extent that the population might starve to death, who knows God Almighty might give the Palestinians food direct and once it happens, there would be no way to persuade them to accept Israel. http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=whence+sustenance&chapter=3&transl ator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has: === Right graciously did her Lord accept her: He made her grow in purity and beauty: To the care of Zakariya was she assigned. Every time that he entered (Her) chamber to see her, He found her supplied with sustenance. He said: "O Mary! whence (comes) this to you?" She said: "From Allah. for Allah Provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure." ( Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #37) (Yusuf Ali – English Translation) === If mother Mary, Allah be pleased with her, could be supplied with food by God Almighty when she was to be fed by Prophet Zakariya, peace be upon him, alone why not God Almighty supply food to a starving nation? Incidentally, I had no hidden agenda when I started the discussion. I was trying to avoid the Hamas joining the Al-Qaeda. Nothing more. | ||
| Ivan |
Thanks for clarifying this, Mohideen, I take you for an honorable man. I don't know if what you suggest would work or not, something that would have to be on the table for both sides to discuss. I think humanitarian aid should be given regardless of the outcome, just my own sentiment on this issue. God had been a notoriously bad provider to those in need and suffering, as history will attest. My own family had some members perish during the Stalin reign of famine, while others were killed off by the Nazis, so I know what lasting pain injustice and needless suffering brings to people. The Palestinians and Israelis are people too, able to suffer at injustice and killings as anyone else. But I do think that for dialogue to begin, as it had started to in the past, both sides must stop attacking the other. How can that be done? Thanks, Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
"Arnold, with all due respect, do you think the two are somehow equitable? When was the last suicide Israeli detonated?" But think about it Ivan, why would the Israeli use themselves as bomb delivery systems if they can achieve the same end by pushing a button at safe distance? I do see an equivalence between suicide attacks on Israeli civilians and indiscriminately shooting missiles at Palestinian civilian homes. It seems to be a matter of weapon technology rather than morality. But the issue of suicide bombing is a red herring. As the historical record shows, this kind of attacks only became widespread around the second intifada, in the late 1990's or so. What was Israel's excuse for the previous 30 years? It was responsible for most of the violence during that whole peroid. Arafat might have been a corrupt sleazebag but his position has been cleared all along: a peace settlement along UN resolution 262. This has always been the international consensus with Israel and the U.S being the only holdouts. The pattern of sabatoging any meaningful peace talk on the part of Israel was clear. I can run down the history but you're right that this is not the place to do it. Just a particularly dramatic example suffices. When Arafat extended the olive branch to Israel in 1980, the latter called that a "peace offensive" and responded by invading Lebanon, killing 200,000, mostly civilians. "Yes, the grievances are great, for both the Palestinians and for Israelis, both sides had to endure a great deal of hardship. How do you stop it? " I would suggest that at least we shouldn't aggrevate the situation. Hamas has indicated a willingness to dialogue.This should be seen as an encouraging sign. I believe the international community is making a big mistake by trying to marginalize Hamas, who is the legitimate representative of the Palestinians whether we like it or not. Just to mention a point which is relevant to this thread. Hamas is in fact an Israeli blow back. In the 80's Israel was funding the Islamic fundamentalists(later became Hamas) as a way to undermine the secular PLO. On a global scale, the U.S was feeding Islamic fundamentalism all over the ME for the cold war and as a way to destroy secular nationalist movements. Money was funneled through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to fund various Islamists groups. Thus the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is not just the manifestation of Islamic theology, it also has a political dimension closely linked to U.S foreign policy.This political dimension is often overlooked by people who focus too closely on cultural and religious issues,--even though these are also legitimate concerns. I apologize if I have ventured too far from the topic on this thread. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Understood, Arnold, not a problem. But the question I posed earlier still stands: "...let us know how you envision a path to the Middle East peace, and to the Palestine-Israel problem in particular. Is it possible? And if so, how?" I think this is more on topic. Any ideas? Think of what it would mean if there really was a genuine path to peace in this very disturbed part of the world. The wrongs of the past are a given. But what do we do now? And if not our generation, what will future generations need to do to bring peace? A serious question, and maybe a simple answer now is not the right way. But it is something I think about. This is an open question for anyone. Thanks, Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Ivan, Unfortunately I don't really have any armchair idea.To be honest the situation doesn't look that hopeful. I don't believe the U.S is an honest broker given the track record. Israel seems determined to uliterally redraw the border.This will only create more anger in the Palestinians.Coupled with the marginalization of Hamas it looks like a recipe for disaster. Like I said, perhaps as a fisrt step we shouldn't make the situation worse. The international community should hold out a carrot to Hamas instead of always hitting the Palestinians with a big stick. The Palestinians do have a legitimate grievence that needs to be addressed. As a student of history I am interested in understanding the world. I find covering of the ME conflict has a very pro Israeli slant. This has a bearing on what the public expect of U.S policies. I am not a "supporter" of Hamas as you insinuated in your previous post. In fact I am not even Arab or Palestinian. I am an American Jew. But I am also for fairness and justice. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Arnold, if you would be so kind, let us know how you envision a path to the Middle East peace, and to the Palestine-Israel problem in particular. Is it possible? And if so, how? Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 08:00 pm: Ivan Unfortunately I don't really have any armchair idea.To be honest the situation doesn't look that hopeful. Arnold Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 11:18 pm: Anonymous Fools tread that left by the Wise. Both Ivan and Arnold have posed the problem; both feel the problem is too complicated. Well, a fool continues may be until he gets his fingers burnt. Let me try. The basic objective of all of us – if I could say so – is to live free of coercion. When I suggested that disputes among people of same religion should be decided as per their religious law, the response was that a population bound by a common border should have common law. May be I used the wrong word – religion. How would it sound if we say that people of same persuasion should be treated by their common law? When there is dispute between people of different persuasions, the common law of the nation applies. I believe the UK has this concept of common law. Let me give a mundane example strictly outside my life, as I do not drive. Say there is an accident between two automobiles. The law of most of the lands is that the police are informed, record of the accident be made, the insurance claims be settled based on the police report. When such a course of action is taken, one or both the drivers run the risk of escalation in their automobile insurance premium. What if, both the drivers agree to report the accident involving two drivers as two separate accidents and claim the insurance separately? Even though they run the risk of escalation in the insurance premium, their mistake does not get recorded and thus their driving record remains unblemished. Another example is domestic violence. The aggrieved party in a domestic violence could call the police and get legal protection. However, quite often for the sake of the children, the aggrieved party suffers in silence. It should be possible for people sharing the common border to have separate laws based on their persuasion. I know I am asking for ‘thinking out of the box.’ For a moment let us agree and now let us consider the Israel – Palestine Issue (the parties are arranged alphabetically). Let us look at a nation-state. What does it do? There are two aspects: internal and external. Internally the government collects tax and other revenues and allocates the expenditure of the collected revenue. Externally it protects the population from threats arising outside the borders. Now what does the ‘out-of-the-box’ solution imply? Instead of the population being monolith, now there are many different groups. For example, a Muslim must pay the zakat at predetermined rates ranging from 2.5% of residual wealth if beyond a threshold to 20% of any bounty received. Let us say that all the Muslims in a nation pay their zakat to their leader. This leader also gets their income tax returns submitted to him. The leader computes the total income tax due from the Muslim community and pays that to the government of the nation. By extension, every community has a leader who arranges to pay the total income tax due from his / her community to the government. The leader takes care of the spending of the excess collected from the community or raises additional levies if required to look after the community interests. Could this work? As regards the external threats, for the present let us agree that there is a common understanding between all the communities. If we look at the USA, the Federal Government is the national government, whereas each state is a community. The above suggestion is very easily implemented in USA by simply creating the office of Federal Tax Commissioner in every state who receives the Federal Income Tax forms from all the residents of the state and deposits the Federal Tax to the US Treasury. What is the difference between my suggestion and the current US situation? The current states are based on borders – physical borders. My suggestion simply replaces the physical borders with psychological borders. Is that too much? Let us not overlook the problem caused by Internet based marketing. Now let us look at the Israel – Palestinian problem. The current land the land of Israel, Gaza Strip, and West Bank are amalgamated. This space is common to Jews, Muslims and others. All of them live there. All of them use a common currency – let us say USD. There is a government elected on the basis of one adult one vote. This government is like the Federal government of USA. Every community has its own ‘community government’ that interfaces with the Federal government. Any issue that could be tackled by the community government gets treated at that level. This like any problem that could be resolved by the State Courts gets resolved inside the State in USA now. Only issues involving members of two or more communities gets to the Federal level. What am I asking: replace the physical border inside a nation with psychological border? Is that too much? | ||
| Ivan |
As a history student, Arnold, and your above, I think your ideas are then even more valid, in that you bring a balance into the mix. Hard choices will need to be made to diffuse the volatile history of the region. Perhaps Mohideen's suggestion may have some application, or at least something to think of: I'm not sure I understand this well enough to comment on it intelligently. I think something of the sort would lead to one world government, where all nations within it are member states, including all sub-groups as 'psychological entities': The Amish, the Mormons, Hassidic Jews, Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Bahais, Native American Pueblo, Plains Indians, Cherokee Nation, Free Masons, Coptics, Russian Orthodox, Jains, Hindus, Shintoists, Buddhists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Rites Catholics, Atheists, Agnostics, Marxists, Reform Jews, Sufis, Celtic Rites Christians, neo-Pagans, Animists, and all denominations of Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Ecology Environmentalists, and whatever other groups claims to being a 'psychological' entity. So would all these be nations within a nation, in a manner of speaking, still subject to the laws of the nation, but also answering to their own needs within their own internal adherence laws? Why not? But the hierarchy of organized society, organized such to restrict coercions and enforce agreements, would still default to some order where the rules of a higher organization dominate over the lessers. Without the benefit of a world body that can dictate laws to nation states, we pretty much already have such a system in place. Each group can present their members to run for office, for example, and represent their interests, at least in the US and other Western styled democracies. Separation of church and state limits to how much influence these groups can exert on the whole body politic, and the constitutionality of laws again limits where this can go. But to recognize all groups as a community of equals who cannot coerce each other on the basis of their beliefs, but who can find agreements amongst themselves as they wish, that is pretty much the goal of what modern society tries to accomplish, however imperfectly. It would be fine to have a world body government built on trust and high ethics, but this has not happened yet, same as the world has not yet merged into either a common language or a common sense of right and wrong. It seems that there is still too much disagreement between peoples and groups to bring this about for now, so borders, and fences, exist. So, if there were no coercions, then 'psychological borders' could replace physical borders, no problem. But think of physical borders as an extension of the castle walls, or the wall around a city in ancient times, to keep out the aggressors. Sadly, we're going back to mega-wall building, where a wall may stretch from the Pacific to Gulf of Mexico, or the Israeli Wall as a new kind of Berlin Wall. So we're not yet ready to drop our borders, because they are still representative of 'invasions', maybe not military invasions, but unauthorized mass movements of human beings, mass movements of hard working laborers, some fleeing oppression, and even some terrorists. Sad state for humanity, but that's where we are now. And the problem is without borders, the 'coercive' effect of invasions cannot be addressed at all, so fences get built. (I had to build a fence to keep in my wolf-dogs from eating local children; and to keep the children out from inside my yard, of necessity. Not that my dogs are 'terrorists' but merely as an expedience of dealing with a real situation.) So there are no easy answers, except where human beings come to an agreement, trust in that agreement and are faithful to it, and then there is hope. For now, I think that's where we are going, historically, but not there yet. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
"Mid-East quartet faces changed times" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4971936.stm Here's how the BBC article sees the four powers debating Hamas and funding. The main issue is whether to support foreign donations for basic PA functions, same as we examined above, after 40 years of Israeli military occupation. Will isolating Hamas, by turning off funding, be the right strategy? This will remain the large unknown, but perhaps easily solved with six words: "Israel has the right to exist." After that, the bazaar haggling starts, where history will witness whether or not peace happens in the Middle East. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
So would all these be nations within a nation, in a manner of speaking, still subject to the laws of the nation, but also answering to their own needs within their own internal adherence laws? Why not? Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 08:45 am: Ivan Yes and no. Let me get back to ‘Sati’ once more. The British indeed coerced the Hindus when they banned ‘Sati.’ To me, the following would be a more acceptable proposition: No widow or any relation of a deceased shall be compelled to be burnt along with the body of the deceased; Each and every one of them planning to commit ‘Sati’ would be counseled by a representative of the Government offering a new ID to live in peace; the Government would offer initial help in such persons starting their new lives. However, the Government would not stop them from committing ‘Sati’ if they choose. In the above formulation, the law of the nation does not dominate; it is an alternative to the law of the respective communities. The community law has equal merit as the national law. It would also be in order to permit an individual to move from one community to another, provided the community to which the individual desires to move accepts the individual. In such an event, the relatives of the individual have the full freedom to remain in their old communities, and severe the relation with the shifting individual if they choose and the laws of the old community requires such severance. The community has the right to ex-communicate the relatives of such a shifting person if the relatives desire to maintain relations with the shifting individual but desire to remain members of their old communities. For example, a community might like to ex-communicate sexual offenders, when the law of the community insists only sex with a spouse is allowed. | ||
| Ivan |
Hmmm... I think I see what you're getting at, Mohideen. In principle, we should be free to live as we choose. This breaks down when the community insists on a person living within certain stricfures, and then punishes that person for violating these. But the idea of government, if it is to be just and equitavble, is that it is the only one, only one, allowed to punish. Sure, communities can punish in subtle ways, such as 'banning' someone from their social millieu, but they do not have the right to punish them physically, such as arrest, imprisonment, executions, etc. That function is only allowed for the government to perform. Does this fit in with yours? Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
"Israel has the right to exist." Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 05:19 pm: Ivan Did G_d give the Holy Land to Israel to live with other gentiles or exclusively for them? I might be in a position to give a good answer once I get the above clarification. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Sure, communities can punish in subtle ways, such as 'banning' someone from their social millieu, but they do not have the right to punish them physically, such as arrest, imprisonment, executions, etc. Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 07:18 pm: Ivan Once we agree that the national government does not dominate a community, the community also has similar powers. However, when any member of the community refuses to be punished by the community, that member gets banished. However, if a member chooses to accept the punishment and remain a member of the community, the nation has no right to question the behavior of the community. If a community’s laws include the community’s right to inflict punishment – capital included – and the members have agreed to abide by the laws, the nation cannot intervene. To me that is freedom. | ||
| Anonymous |
I don't think it makes any sense to allow people to "choose" which law they want to live by. Even if you are willing to sell yourself into slavery because of religious or other reasons society still cannot and should not allow it. Same goes with burning women in funeral pyre or female genital multilation. In a functional society there is a civic standard that anyone must adhere to. Every citizen should have the same right under the law. It is unacceptible that some people should have less rights simply because of their religious affliations,--such as women in Islam. Also, the bible has nothing to do with the reality of the middle east.Political zionism was a 19th centry nationalist movement developed chiefly by European secular Jews, the promised land bit was thrown in later to gain support from the more religious segment of the Jewish community. Founders of Israel, like David Ben Gurion were more closely tied to some variants of socialism than religious Judaism. We need an equitable political settlement which respects the legitimate interests of both Israel and the Palestinians based on the realities of the 21st centry.I agree with Ivan that the right of Israel to exist is non negotiable, but so is the right of the Palestinians to a viable state. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
"However, if a member chooses to accept the punishment and remain a member of the community.." "Communities" that prescribe unusual punishments are called cults and they should be banned if they contravene the law. In secular democracies religions are not above the the society.They are part of it and must be subjected to its regulations. People who want to live in a federation of mini theocracies should move somewhere. But such places are hard to find because Islamic theocracies,--practically the only theocracies still exist,--typically allow little freedom for other religions, not even other versions of Islam. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
No, Mohideen, this does not work. That kind of freedom you advocate is coercive, where sub-groups have the power to physically punish and coerce its members. Such punishment is only allowed to the law of the land. Sure, you can fine them in some way, or let them resign from the group if they so choose, but the physical punishment by any other authority than that of a socially agreed upon government is to fragment society into fiefdoms, not becoming of a modern society. Why do you think violent gangs are illegal? Your world is regressive, and it would not be allowed to function, since it takes away our human freedoms by allowing sub-groups to punish. Specifically in yours: Here you are angling to impose some sub-group's idea of right justice nestled within the greater organized society. But by doing this, you are usurping the power of that society by imposing your own laws on certain of its members. That kind of society is undermined, its equal justice for all is degraded, and it then falters in its ability to protect individuals from coercions. In effect, your recommendation for this kind of society is destructive, counter freedom, and cultish. It should be stopped at any first indications such cultism is trying to gain power. I hope you understand that this means also any religious group, especially of a religion that, unlike most social clubs, does not allow its members to resign. More specifically in the first line above: This is false, because no such agreement is implied, there is no parity between a national government and its internal communities, so they do not share in power. In fact, the communities, religious or otherwise you imply, are subject themselves to the laws of the land. Constitutional law always has priority over all its subject, equally. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
To you, perhaps, but not to the women who are treated in your world as second class citizens, without equal rights of men. Are they not human beings too, except for the fact they were born to their sex? The "freedom" you advocate is the right to obey, which is what a slave must do. In fact, what you advocate is dangerious, since it would take away human freedoms. The slavemaster would agree with you, since for him to punish his slaves, or abuse and rape his women at will, is the freedom he desires. So your imaginings of this being freedom is truly odious to civilized and free human beings. It will be fought at every turn, by all freedom loving human beings, forever. Only in a nation of slaves who are unconscious of their freedom could this exist at all, and even then it will be defeated by successive generations. Freedom is real, but not what you propose. This "freedom" you advocate is not even an intelligent proposition, but one self serving. Uncategorically rejected. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Devious of you, Mohideen, since in the first part you were talking about funding the Hamas government; now you're switching over to G*d given dictates. Sorry, but this kind of 'bait and switch' does not work here. It is insulting to our intelligence. Take it elsewhere. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Yes, it is a good thing to stop coercions, especially the deep coercions of forcing women to kill themselves upon their husband's death, such as "Sati". So to use coercion to stop coercion is mandatory, if there is no other way. To think of this in any other way is to betray a deep prejudicial ignorance. As I see more of your posts, Mohideen, I have to reconsider where you are really coming from. What's your agenda? Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
now you're switching over to G*d given dictates. Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 11:50 pm: Ivan I criticize some non-Muslims who invoke the ‘Principle of Abrogation’ and claim that the Verses of the Holy Quran revealed in Medina overrule those revealed in Makkah. Using that device, they say Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran, quoted from http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=compulsion+religion&chapter=&trans lator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. ( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #256) (Yusuf Ali – English Translation) === Please notice that Verse 256 of Chapter 2 is the only Verse granting ‘Freedom of Faith’ and by knocking out that very Verse through the ‘Principle of Abrogation’ some non-Muslims twist Islam beyond recognition. I have countered this ‘Principle of Abrogation’ in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ in topic – 4. Is there abrogation? – posted on February 16, 2006. I do not desire to assume the details of Judaism (as I am not a Jew) and suggest a solution to the pestering Israel – Palestine problem. I asked the question to hear from a practicing Jew about the nature of the grant of the Holy Land so that I could act on acceptable facts. Nothing more. | ||
| Anonymous |
criticize some non-Muslims who invoke the ‘Principle of Abrogation’ and claim that the Verses of the Holy Quran revealed in Medina overrule those revealed in Makkah. Using that device, they say Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran, quoted from http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=compulsion+religion&chapter=&trans lator=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. ( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #256) (Yusuf Ali – English Translation)..." Mohideen Ibramsha This kind of theological debates are internal to Islam.It is neither binding nor relevant to society at large. Regardless of the theological status of the principle of abrogation it has no bearing on how secular democracies should treat religions. In a secular society,proposed laws are adopted and rejected through rational debates based on their impacts on real human beings, not by guessing what some imaginary Gods or Prophets said in their psychobables. "Let me get back to ‘Sati’ once more. The British indeed coerced the Hindus when they banned ‘Sati.’" Mohideen Ibramsha I applaud Ivan for actually responding to this. I found it so ridiculous that I didn't dignify it with a response. One has to ask which planet is Mohideen from. I hope most Muslims in the West don't think the way he does. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
In Canada, about a year ago some conservative Muslim groups were lobbying the government to allow Sharia as an option for family arbitration. Just when the PR conscious advocates for Sharia were trying to convince the government and a skeptical public that the proposed system was non coercive in that women could choose between Canadian law or Sharia tribinal, some Imams already told their "flocks" that Muslims who chose Canadian law while a Sharia option was availiable should be declared apostates,--a "crime" punishable by death in many Islamic countries where Muslims immigrants came from. Thankfully the suggestion was overwhelmingly rejected as a result of massive protests.It should be noted that Muslim women and progressive muslims were in the fore front of the no to Sharia compaign. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
I think it important to support Arnold and Ivan on this point. Seperation of Chruch and State, in secular democracies, exists to protect the rights of all people to live free from coercions. Religous based laws have a moral componet in them and have over time been incorporated into the laws that guide the secular democracy we live in. Secular law has suplanted the laws of religion in our society for the simple reason that for centuries in the name of religion we have killed maimed and fought wars based on visions, voices and, "dictates from god". The state exists to reign in the excesses of the Church in the event such things get out of control. I look at the current Mormon sect leader that the FBI is looking for as one example of that. He claims he is following god's law, but denies the result of his action and trauma that he inflicts on young women to satisfy his god dictated command. FBI Puts Polygamist on Its 10 Most-Wanted List From Times Wire Reports May 7, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs7.2may07,1,3004573.st ory?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true While I am a Christian and do believe that god does provide insight and guidence to us from time to time, I believe that such a insight is intended to be a personal one taylored for that individual, a personnal relevation or gestalt moment where all the pieces come together and you are able to glimpse a portion of the whole, or discern a pattern to events, or derive an insight into mathmatics like Einstin did. This is far different than what the Mormon Polygamist is doing. As by way of illustration of the amount of damage a qausi religous leader can do during a period of social tension and trasition I offer the following information regarding John Brown, whose actions assisted in plunging this nation into civil war as a result a God inspired crusade. Backed by the Churches of the day, authors and political leaders he helped move a nation into civil war. John Brown The Avenging Angel http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050523/duberman John Brown - Angel from Hell http://www.theatermania.com/content/show.cfm?int_show_id=18145 Partly as a result of his actions this nation was plunged into the most costly war we ever fought in. As I sit here I look upon my great grandfather's war record from the 16th Maine Infantry. He fought the war from Gettysburg to Appomattox were he watched Lee surrender. Surving head trauma, (shot in the head), the lice, disease poor food and watching men die in their thousands marching onto the field of battle in line into a hail of bullets. Osama Bin Ladden is a modern day version of John Brown within the Islamic world. He and his allies and like thinkers use suicide bombers, car bombs and the rest in an attempt to force a people to thier knees in order to pray to a vision of God they hold and interpretation of the law that hold. Would I as a christian force my beliefs on someone else no. Do I bleive there will be a final judgment yes. Do I think that non-belivers wil burn in hell for all enternity, no because God is larger than that. I believe that if you live a rightous life, regardless of belief system, that God will judge you fairly in the end. Hence why I think there are many paths to achieving and understanding of god and his will and the structure of creation. I think hell, as it exists is like a ward where you keep the violently insane, in hopes that one day they will be cured in order to rejoin society and that in in hell there is a promise of hope in terms of the resurection that will occur at some distant time in the future, and that time is known only to God. I also believe that there is nothing that men, like a well known certain southern preacher who maintains that if we do this then Jesus will come, can do to influence that. Ed Chesky | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
One has to ask which planet is Mohideen from. Arnold Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 06:18 am: Anonymous Mohideen Ibramsha believes – he cannot prove it though – he is from planet earth! | ||
| Anonymous |
Bush says he had glimpse into Merkel's soul http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060507/pl_nm/bush_merkel_soul_dc Now I know why we have seperation of Church and State. Leaders that can glimpse the soul scare me | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
This kind of theological debates are internal to Islam. Arnold Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 06:18 am: Anonymous They become external when non-Muslims quote selectively. For example, Dr. Robert Spencer of http://www.jihadwatch.org/ | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
To you, perhaps, but not to the women who are treated in your world as second class citizens, without equal rights of men. Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 11:39 pm: Ivan The right of the divorced wife to bring up her child and during the process by implication to be supported by the ex-husband is derived from the Tradition found in http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=+lap+right&translator=3&sear ch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all === Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As: A woman said: Apostle of Allah, my womb is a vessel to this son of mine, my breasts, a water-skin for him, and my lap a guard for him, yet his father has divorced me, and wants to take him away from me. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: You have more right to him as long as you do not marry. (Book #12, Hadith #2269) (Sunan Abudawud) === Here we say the women in Islam are second class. Is women second class in USA? They do get child support as the Muslim woman referred to above. I agree that Islam is misunderstood. However what baffles me is that even after evidences are shown to the contrary, why should rational thinkers think that women are treated as second class in Islam? | ||
| Anonymous |
"They become external when non-Muslims quote selectively. For example, Dr. Robert Spencer .." Actually the dude is no doctor, he only has a master degree according to the bio I looked up on the internet. I have visited Jihadwatch a few weeks ago, seeing that this thread is a spin off of a dialogue you have with "Dr. Pepper" there. But I could find neither Pepper's postings nor yours, so I assumed you either posted under other names or have stopped your correspondence. I don't know anything about Spencer's scholarship but the articles I saw on Jihadwatch are mostly polemics.Their comment sections seem to be primarily inhabited by a few very violent and hateful Christian fundamentalists. I would stay away from there if I were you. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Anonymous |
"I agree that Islam is misunderstood. However what baffles me is that even after evidences are shown to the contrary, why should rational thinkers think that women are treated as second class in Islam?" Mohideen Ibramsha Three points. 1) Why is Islam so universially and horrendously "misunderstood" by Muslims whenever and wherever it is implemented, historically as it is now? Since you have a Ph.D in computer science you must know a thing or two about the importance of robustness.What is the use of a system which is completely non robust against the slightist human error in understanding? 2)As a non Muslim I don't really care what "true" or "pristine" Islam is or the fine points of your theology. I only care about Islam in practice, and it ain't pretty. 3)Assumming you're correct that Islam does not discriminate against women. But how reassuring is that? I doubt even the most extreme Muslim fanatics would atually say Islam treats women as second class citizens, only they have very peculiar definitions of equality. Your comments on freedom and coercion don't inspire a lot of confidence even in "true Islam", free from misunderstanding. You seem to have very different understanding of freedom and equality than do most of us. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
Some gems from a Islamic website dedicated to "educate" non muslims. http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm On polygamy: "In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not practical Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband. Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first. In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life. Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second. There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women." On ployandry "The following points enumerate the reasons why polyandry is prohibited in Islam: ".. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a wife. A woman undergoes several psychological and behavioral changes due to different phases of the menstrual cycle. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is not the case in a man having more than one wife, and none of them having extra-marital sex..." On the prohibition of pork "...The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. In America, most people consume pork. Many times after dance parties, they have swapping of wives; i.e. many say "you sleep with my wife and I will sleep with your wife." If you eat pigs then you behave like pigs. We Indians look upon America to be very advanced and sophisticated. Whatever they do, we follow after a few years. According to an article in Island magazine, this practice of swapping wives has become common in the affluent circles of Bombay..." Check out the rest. I didn't make this up to mock Mohideen. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
Arnold, are we getting a picture here that perhaps Islam as presented by fundamentalist ideology is not worthy of dialogue and no matter who argues for it, it does humanity injustice? Is Mohideen a valid spokesperson for Muslims, as he may be doing more harm than good for his cause, God willing? All others, can we really think that a philosophy written 1400 years ago, when it was acceptable for a male to kill a woman's husband and while she is still in shock rape her as is her due? Not only barbaric and insensitive, but horriby cruel. This is not acceptable behavior today. Would a religion based on such horrible monstrosity be valid today? This thread is a mockery to reason. | ||
| Ivan |
In Mohideen Ibramsha's defense, I should say that his reasonings are valid for him, possibly legitimate in the eyes of his peers, but mostly not acceptable to those of us who hail from a greater global society at large. I respect his opinions, but at the same time, I should point out that I am not in agreement with many of them, as I stated above. Regardless, he is allowed his say, and as he had not been coercive to others in this discussion, and an accomplished person in his field, I think he should be given respect. Let us not think of each other as the 'enemy' but rather as participants in teaching and learning from one another. Everything changes in the world, all the time, even religious reforms. Let's give peace a chance. In peace, Ivan PS: I had been busy with other things today, working on a long delayed project which took me most of the day, but I am glad to see writers and readers managed fine on their own. | ||
| Anonymous |
"All others, can we really think that a philosophy written 1400 years ago, when it was acceptable for a male to kill a woman's husband and while she is still in shock rape her as is her due? Not only barbaric and insensitive, but horriby cruel. This is not acceptable behavior today. Would a religion based on such horrible monstrosity be valid today? " Anonymous It is not so much that Islam was developed 1400 year ago. All major religions are old, but their interpretations evolve with time. The problem of Islam, as I see it, is that too many Muslims apparantly are perpetually stuck in a 1400 year old mindset and that many Muslims take perverted pride in it. It is shocking that even a highly educated man like Mohideen is so firmly in the grip of such irrationality. I hope Mohideen is not a valid spoke person for Islam, at least not in the West. But among Muslims worldwide Mohideen is probably a "moderate" even though some of his ideas are offensive to the modern minds(not to mention some bizzare conspiracy theories and his fascinations with pesudoscience)He seems like a gentle person. He does denounce war mongering and suggests that Imams who incite violence in the mosques should be reported to the authority.On his blog he states that he is interested in promoting understanding among religions(which he includes atheism) I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. You find much more exclusive and militant attitude in many other Muslim sites. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Some gems from a Islamic website dedicated to "educate" non muslims. http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm … I didn't make this up to mock Mohideen. Arnold Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 05:22 pm: Anonymous Thanks for giving the link. If desired, we could look into the statements referred by Arnold. The three topics touched by Arnold in his post are dealt with in the following URLs: http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/mcqnm1.htm (This URL deals with polygamy: more wives.) http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/mcqnm2.htm (Polyandry is discussed in this URL.) http://www.irf.net/irf/dtp/dawah_tech/mcqnm11.htm (Pig is discussed here.) Please read the complete post. In ‘Automatic Generation of Computer Programs’ one technique starts with the properties of the data in a second order predicate calculus statement. The properties of the result are given by another second order predicate calculus statement. Then an automatic theorem prover is started. If the prover extracts a proof, the desired program is constructed from the proof. Can we get the program if intermediate steps are omitted? Even if we could, it would be extremely difficult when compared to the situation when all the intermediate steps are known. I believe we should look at the whole article and then decide. As I commented earlier, if desired, we could look into the statements made in the three URLs given. The web site referred to by Arnold is maintained by my 1965 born younger brother – in – Islam, Dr. Zakir Naik. His details are found in http://www.irf.net/irf/drzakirnaik/index.htm I do not see any reason to contradict him. However, I have no reservation in looking at his opinions and analyzing them if desired. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I hope Mohideen is not a valid spoke person for Islam, at least not in the West. … he is interested in promoting understanding among religions(which he includes atheism) Arnold Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 09:41 pm: Anonymous Thanks Arnold. For me any theory that does not follow from experiments is religion. The theory of evolution in as much as it states ‘man evolved from monkey’ is religion. The atheist claims there is no god, but he has not proven it. Hence, atheism is also a religion. Given the expanded definition of religion, I see the Amendment 1 to the US Constitution as a recommendation to be inclusive – treat all unproven statements as religion and do not establish a state religion – rather than the current exclusive definition which somehow seems to give superiority to the atheist. I seek a level playing field – all unproven statements are at the same level of government support. I have explained my position as a person attempting to explain Islam in - 1. My authorship - posted on February 12, 2006 in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ Until a Caliph is identified, any Muslim who considers himself qualified to represent Islam can do so. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The problem of Islam, as I see it, is that too many Muslims apparantly are perpetually stuck in a 1400 year old mindset and that many Muslims take perverted pride in it. Arnold Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 09:41 pm: Anonymous I am afraid that to call many Muslims are stuck in a 1400 year old mindset is not correct. Peano’s Axioms are the basis of all our mathematics and technology. We do not change these axioms when we find something new. For Muslims, the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions are axioms. We do not go about changing axioms. That does not mean, we are stuck at 1400 old mindset. Elsewhere I had posited that during the existence of Dajjal a day could be as long as a current month. That by analogy with the moon implies surface temperatures high enough to boil water. All of us know that we would possibly die of dehydration at such elevated temperatures. What are we to do? Are we to sit idle praying to God Almighty? We do pray to God Almighty. But, we also need to develop climate models and study the effect of elongated day and night times. May be such models would give us insight into our climate during the End Times. It is possible that being the only planet with water and with water found in every longitude, there could be excessive clouds reflecting the sun’s heat and keeping the temperature to a low value sustaining human life. We don’t know. But, we could extend our climate models. Is this paragraph a symbol of stuck at 1400 old mind? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Let us not think of each other as the 'enemy' but rather as participants in teaching and learning from one another. Posted on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 09:10 pm: Ivan Many and many thanks, Ivan. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We are concerned about fights over scarce resources. In that context, we look at Jihad. I had been suggesting that EFTV (Energy From The Vacuum) gives us unlimited free energy (no fuel needed) and using EFTV we should be in a position to eliminate other shortages as well. I had been told that there are no publications in refereed journals regarding the EFTV. In a personal communication Col. Tom Bearden has sent more than 25 publications in refereed journals. I report just one of them below: === M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Foundations of Physics Letters, 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94. Abstract: Recently, Bearden el al. developed a device which is known as a motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG) and which produces a coefficient of performance (COP) far in excess of unity. The device has been independently replicated by Naudin. In this communication, the fundamental operational principle of the MEG is explained using a version of higher symmetry electrodynamics known as O(3) electrodynamics, which is based on the empirical existence of two circular polarization states of electromagnetic radiation, and which has been developed extensively in the literature. The theoretical explanation of the MEG with O(3) electrodynamics is straightforward: Magnetic energy is taken directly ex vacua and used to replenish the permanent magnets of the MEG device, which therefore produces a source of energy that, in theory, can be replenished indefinitely from the vacuum. Such a result is incomprehensible in U(1) Maxwell-Heaviside electrodynamics. Keywords: motionless electromagnetic generator, O(3) electrodynamics, energy from the vacuum. === Can we have critic of the above article? | ||
| Ivan |
????? I have to laugh at this, because no one I know of ever got roped into this religion by being sworn in with baptism or signatures. Nor have I ever met a grand mufti or pope of atheism. Nor had I ever been to an atheist temple. Well, maybe I have, since the whole sky of the world is a temple to everyone. But, no, "atheism" does not deserve the label of religion, since it is more like animism, except in reverse. Religions have a teacher, some grand master who starts the whole thing going, and then makes demands of its members, sometimes terrible demands; and punishes those who stray, sometimes terrible punishmnets with death. What atheism ever did this? Only those who claim no religion, such as Marxists, would come close to this idea of religion, but they never claimed to be a religion of atheism. Quite to the contrary, they claimed religion is the opium of the people. So, M, I must reject that line in terms of reason, since it makes an irrational jump from relition to negation of religion as being same. They are not. Maybe "opium of the people" is not really correct, as Marxists thought, but surely "irrationality of the people" is well documented throughout history in the name of religion, or in the name of their "God" and messenger, etc. | ||
| Anonymous |
"Maybe "opium of the people" is not really correct.." Ivan I think Marx was wrong. At least opium has a mellowing effect but most religions, especially Islam of late, are more like crack cocain of the people. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
"Peano’s Axioms are the basis of all our mathematics and technology. We do not change these .." This is a dumb comparison. Life is not a deductive system. The Quran is no "axiom".It was a mere product of its time. But I will indulge you a bit. The Peano axioms are useful because they summarize basic facts of arithmetics and yeild interesting results. You can sit in your armchair and come up with any set of consistent propositions and use them as axioms for some deductive system, but it doesn't mean that anyone other than you would be interested enough to bother. Even mathematics is not just a deductive system. As an evolving body of knowledge there is a selection process at work in mathematics that relies on criteria outside formal logic."Usefulness" is one such criterion, for example. I put it in quotation because it is a loaded word that doesn't just mean having application in science and technology, but I won't expand on it here. So even in your largely inappropiate analogy one can still argue that Islam is not a particularly useful and interesting set of "axioms" as the results amply show. Hence it should be modified or discarded. Moreovever, Godel proved that even in mathematics no single set of axioms can fully capture all its richness and glory.It is ridiculous to imagine that life inself admits a set of axioms. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Life is not a deductive system. Arnold Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 08:33 am: Anonymous Can we observe all the properties of a system while being a part of a system? A system could be observed only by an observer outside the system. Can we prove that the earth is a spherical body from observations based on experiments conducted on earth itself? One might deduce the spherical nature, but cannot prove it. Such a proof had to wait space flight when we received the beautiful round image of the earth. The fact that earth is spherical is proven by an observer outside the earth. Do we give life? Do we give death? Muslims believe that life and death are given by God Almighty only. So, God Almighty alone could observe life and decide whether it is a deductive system or not. I believe God Almighty indicates that life is indeed a deductive system by giving the rules and regulations and indicating the resultant reward and punishment. Of course we call that coercion. If a designer gives the rules and regulations about a design indicating the possible results of potential actions those rules and regulations have to be understood as part of the specification of the design rather than as coercion. To a Muslim, the Holy Quran is not to be modified; it is to be obeyed. I beg to submit that my analogy with Peano’s axiom is correct. Life might as well be a deductive system from the perspective of God Almighty. Allah knows best. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Godel proved that even in mathematics no single set of axioms can fully capture all its richness and glory. Arnold Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 08:33 am: Anonymous Godel established that a labeling mechanism of a consistent system is outside that system. I understood the diagonal argument to be so. However, Godel’s result does not indicate that the union of more than one consistent system could not be complete. There is a group of Muslims who claim that they do not need the Traditions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and that for them the Holy Quran is enough. By the grace of God Almighty I know of one fact that cannot be deduced from the Holy Quran alone, but could be deduced when combined with the Traditions. To me Godel’s result establishes the necessity of the Traditions. | ||
| Ivan |
This is self serving reasoning, proving your postulates with your postulates. Coercion is not defined by your 'God' but by the person being coerced, being forced against their agreement. So your axioms of, allegegedly 'God given' rules, coercion are invalid to an outside observer. You may only apply them to yourself, not anyone else. The other will tell you when they are being forced against their agreement, when they are coerced. You may not define that for them. Otherwise, if you define coercion for someone else, you are imposing your rules on them, which in itself is potentially coercive. Why only 'potentially'? Because if the other accepts your conditions, then it is agreement; but if rejected, it is coercion. Unless that other person surrenders their right to agreement, such as asking to become a slave, or by coercing another, you may not coerce them legally. That's how the 'designer' set up the rules, and this is a universal principle of all just laws. Follow your own self serving version of justice for yourself if you wish, but do not impose them on another. The other will tell you when they are being a victim of coercion. Then if coerced, he or she has the right to appeal for help, of fight back. Youre 'God' will do nothing to help you, as it is merely a construct of your own creation. You are trying to prove your axioms by using those same axioms, which is not only self serving but circular. And that leads to what becomes 'mythology', though this seems to be lost on you at this point. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I have to laugh at this, because no one I know of ever got roped into this religion by being sworn in with baptism or signatures. Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 07:11 am: Ivan Honest, I searched the web just now and found the following: http://blog.case.edu/conservativemovement/social_issues/index has: === Atheism Declared Primary Religion in America === Read the details there. While on this topic, how about filling up a membership form? http://www.godlessprolifers.org/join.html Part quoted below: === To be eligible for AAPL membership, you must meet these three requirements: 1) be an avowed atheist, agnostic, or other nontheist Atheism is the absence of theism (belief in gods) and implies no other beliefs. An atheist is simply one who lacks belief in theism. Because any lack of theism is technically atheism, common usage necessitates the following definitions for the purposes of AAPL membership. A weak atheist lacks belief in theism but is simply skeptical of and doesn't necessarily deny the existence of gods. A weak atheist would say, "I don't believe in gods." A strong atheist not only lacks belief in theism but asserts that theistic claims are false or that gods do not exist. A strong atheist would say, "I don't believe in the existence of gods." An agnostic claims neither belief nor disbelief in theism and asserts that such knowledge is outside human understanding. A nontheist lacks belief in theism but doesn't apply a specific label to this lack of belief. Note well: If you subscribe to any religion or to any concept of deity, you are ineligible for AAPL membership. === See the rest of the form at the URL. So how is Atheism different from Judaism or Islam or Hinduism? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Why only 'potentially'? Because if the other accepts your conditions, then it is agreement; but if rejected, it is coercion. Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 04:12 pm: Ivan We do not compel any non-Muslim to accept the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. Muslims accept them. Reverts to Islam accept them of their free choice. Why are non-Muslims lecturing the Muslims that they do not have freedom? Imposing freedom is also coercion. Is not Bush doing that in Iraq? | ||
| Ivan |
So how do you reconcile this self canceling effect? "I must reject that line in terms of reason, since it makes an irrational jump from relition to negation of religion as being same."? You're an intelligent man well versed in logic, such as computer science, so you should not have problem with this. How does a self canceling idea become itself? | ||
| Ivan |
I have a question for Mohideen: If in your holy teachings every verse of the Quran starts with God being the "merciful and compassionate", then how come all his teachings are so coercive to others? Is this not a monumental paradox? Do you have a different definition of mercy and compassion from the rest of us? I am keeping in mind something written above about 1400 years ago ethics: "can we really think that a philosophy written 1400 years ago, when it was acceptable for a male to kill a woman's husband and while she is still in shock rape her as is her due? Not only barbaric and insensitive, but horriby cruel." Is this not according to your teachings by the "merciful and compassionate" one's scriptures? | ||
| Ivan |
I don't know about Bush, a political question, outside the scope of discussion here. But your "Reverts to Islam accept them of their free choice," is something of a loaded statement. Is that person really "free" to make a choice, if the failure to choose rightly lead to their being branded "apostate" and punishable by death? Not to lecture Muslims on what ever they wish to believe; that is their business. It becomes our business when Muslims then take the liberty to think their beliefs are universal and that they should now apply to others. Then it is offensive behavior (not defensive, so you understand) and if imposed on anyone else, a coercive behavior. Let me give you a fanciful (fiction) example: As a sub-group of society exists a community of cannibals. Now, in their eyes they are totally legitimate in what they believe, eating human flesh, as dictated by their holy scriptures and their god. In fact, they are so sure of how right is their belief that they are willing to confer this cannibalism on anyone else who will accept it. In their teachings is the condition that you may not eat anyone over 12 years of age (before menstruation, or body hair for boys), as their god told them, and that only the weak and ugly of society must be chosen for this meal. (This secures good health and good looks, genetically.) However, they also are running out of children, so their self confident, and self serving, belief allows them to eat children of other members of society, not only their own. Their holy scriptures say this is not 'coercion' because they only eat the young who are unfit, or ugly. Now, is this just? Is their action not violently, and repulsively, coercive? They say no. This is their god's will. But you argue that it is a shame to go and eat other people's children, not to mention the horror of eating your own. But they are convinced that they are right, and if anyone tries to leave their community (becoming vegetarian, for example), they have to be punished with death. How, Mohideen, I have created here a very nice circular self serving reasoning for why these cannibals are merely a sub-group within society, have equal rights to their beliefs, and even at times consider their self enforced rules on par with that of the society's government. Anything wrong with this (fictitious) example? Aren't these cannibals right in their freedom of pursuit of happiness, and a good meal? Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
I think this one needs special attention, because it sounds an awful lot like a complaint. In Mohideen's:
First of all, non-Muslims are people, so they are not in some sort of separate category from Muslims, who are also people. There is no reason here to make this special distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims when discussing central issues of freedom and coercions. They apply to all people universally, and not as if some people are exempt, from their right to be free of coercions. Second of all, no one is lecturing here. What is being discussed is how correct or legitimate are certain arguments, so that they do not become circular and absurd. No one has any intent of lecturing Muslims on what they wish to believe. That is entirely within the frameworks of their internal belief systems, as based upon what they consider to be justifiable cause to believe. No one is lecturing Muslims here, and if that is how some see it, then address the actual point of where you think there is lecturing. Exploring ideas, and challenging ideas, is not the same as lecturing. Muslims are as free as other human beings to be who they are, provided they do not trespass on others, who are also free human beings. Humanity does not have distinctions of those who are free and those who are not free, certainly not since slavery had been abolished. Thirdly, no one is imposing "freedom" on any one else. The very idea that something like human freedom can be imposed on another, by coercion, is self negating and absurd. You cannot force freedom. We are free voluntarily, by nature, and are sensitive to coercions from others of our own free will. Why do you think we are judged "innocent until proven guilty?" Because until we commit some crime against another free human being, we are innocent and cannot be coerced; but once we do coerce another, then we are subject to laws, arrest, trial, and possible punishment, if so proven. That is how it works, but that is not the same as if forcing someone to be free. It's impossible! No one can force another to be free. We are free by definition. Nobody can change that. That is how we are, the reality, and to argue for or against it is pointless: that's how humanity is. Since the abandonment of slavery, are all are equally free. Fourthly, why is this a complaint, if it is a complaint? If I understand your reasoning correctly, you believe that God gave you commandments on how to behave. Okay, you can believe that, no problem. How do you know God gave these commandments? Because he sent a special messenger, your Prophet, who said so. Okay, we can live with that. So all Muslims must obey these commandments. Right? No one would ever question this. But then comes the point where what Muslims believe to be their commandments from God becomes what all humanity is to believe as commanded. Why? Why should humanity believe something that some members of the people accept as God's word as told by their Prophet? Is this not an internal affair of Islam? But now comes the hard part: God told them that all are supposed to believe this. There's the problem, and where coercion sets in. Why should all humanity believe this? Because God said so? How do we know? Because his messenger said so? How do we know? Because he said so. So!!! There's the complaint! Understand that this is entirely an internal story, self concealed within its own framework, and not necessarily a story that has to be bought by all humanity. Some may choose, but others may not, as they are free to believe. However, once those who choose to believe this are then motivated to force others to believe the same, because God told them to force others, then the otherwise internal affair becomes externalized. Why should they believe what others had chosen to believe, on the word of someone who said that God told him so? There is no justification, as belief cannot be imposed on another, forced against their will, anymore than freedom can be imposed on another, forced against their will. Both notions are absurd. The only way for a belief in God to be valid is if God himself moves that person to believe. Anything else is a human construct to push their own agenda on someone else. Does this make sense? You cannot force belief, nor can you force freedom; because if you do, that is coercive. Lastly, it does not matter to the rest of the world what Muslims had chosen to believe. But once their actions, based on their beliefs, get externalized into the lives of others, then they are called on it. It then becomes coercion. But you might object, saying that you are only obeying commands from God. Maybe, but who gave these commands? God? No. A man. And then if you object that this man is a holy messenger from God, one must ask the question: how do you know? Did God ever whisper in your ear to tell you this is so? No. It is a matter of internal belief, that you had chosen and accepted this explanation of what is God's will. But once you have done that, it does not translate into the same belief to be accepted by another because you say so. If the other is to accept such belief in God, and his messenger, then it must come entirely from within. You cannot impose your belief into someone else, no matter what the messenger said about it. Such an imposition is a coercion, which is totally against God's law. Remember what I said in big letters above: "Once you coerce, you are failing to do God's will." I hope this is now more understandable to you, since it seemed to evoke no response earlier. Once you believe, as you are free to believe, it is an entirely internal affair, to which you have full right and freedom to believe. But you do not have the right to force this belief on another. That belief is always between the person and God. Sorry if I rambled on some here, but this seems to not be an easy thing to explain, and I do not wish to lecture. But I do wish to open eyes to reason. And reason demands more than a response of "because I said so," or because somebody else said that God said so. Reason demands reason. I hope to God I did it justice, to help you understand. ivan PS: Please do not take this as a criticism of Islam. I have the greatest respect for all religions, which includes Islam. Yeah, I think they're all a little quirky, somewhat dated, including Catholicism into which I was born, but that's only my personal belief on the matter. Nor am I an atheist. I firmly believe in God, though I may not be as religious as some, and see God, and the Universe, somewhat differently from today's world religions. But I am most respectful of other people's beliefs, as it is right for them. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
You cannot impose your belief into someone else, no matter what the messenger said about it. Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 07:32 pm: Ivan We are on the same boat. Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran makes it very clear that there can be no compulsion in religion. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, has clearly said so; Islam cannot be imposed on anyone. Unfortunately for us working for peace, sometimes a good strategy eludes us. There are war mongers in every community. That means there are war mongers in the Muslim community as well. Because some of those war mongers (I don’t care what the names of these war mongers are; how high they might be held by some.) claim that Verse 256 of Chapter 2 is not effective now, I had labored to write in my blog – 4. Is there abrogation? – posted on February 16, 2006 – and establish that Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran is effective even this minute. The effectiveness of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran could be modified, if ever, by Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, after his descent. However, it is my belief that he also would not change the effectiveness of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. At the start of our dialog, it was hoped that Imam Mehdi to appear would be a man of peace. Until Imam Mehdi appears we do not know in which part of earth he is hiding. I try to show that Islam is a religion of peace. I hope that my explanation regarding the apostate that such a person is killed only when he chooses to die is accepted. Please support those who claim that Islam is a religion of peace; give them MSM support; drown out the war mongers in Islam. I really don’t know what else I could say. | ||
| Ivan |
You've said a lot, Mohideen, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I pray God's will in time will manifest as peace for us mortal humans. We deserve as much. Salam Aleikom, Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Salam Aleikom, Ivan Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 10:09 pm: Ivan Wa Alaikum. (Same to you.) From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/Comet_73P.html we get: === Ground-based observers have noted dramatic brightening events associated with some of the fragments (as seen in the image below) indicating that they are continuing to break-up and that some may disappear altogether. … Sequential Hubble images of the B fragment, taken a few days apart, suggest that the chunks are pushed down the tail by outgassing from the icy, sunward-facing surfaces of the chunks, much like space-walking astronauts are propelled by their jetpacks. === Let us decode the doubletalk in the above scientific news report from NASA. The comet is icy chunk. The sun-facing surface has out-gassing. This out-gassing is possibly due to the evaporation of the surface icy material due to heating by the sun. That means, the energy radiated by the sun (and other stars) are absorbed at the surface of the fragments. The question is what causes the fragment to break-up further? To me, it is the mercy from God Almighty. If indeed the comet is in a collision path with earth, by the time it is to collide, the fragment would have become gas. Alternately the fragment would have become so small so that even if there is collission, the damage would not wipe out all life on earth. The above is conjecture. Allah knows best. | ||
| IVAN |
In the film Kingdom of Heaven there is a line. It says: "Their Prophet gives them submission. Jesus gives us choice." That was the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin, nearly a millennium ago, during the Crusades. There will now be a new Crusade, not a religious war of Christians and Muslims, not over Jerusalem, but over the rights of free men and women. In this Crusade of this Millennium, it will be "coercion" that will fall. And when coercion of man against man is no more, when human beings of all races and all religions learn to live together by agreement, then we do God's will. And then we have the Kingdom of Jerusalem, of Heaven on Earth. Submission to God's will gives us that choice. Peace be with you. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
There will now be a new Crusade, not a religious war of Christians and Muslims, not over Jerusalem, but over the rights of free men and women. Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 10:55 pm: Ivan Peace be with you too. I would like to have my recent post – 12. On female witnesses in Islam – in my blog http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ evaluated by my peers. I offer it for self-improvement and not for contest. | ||
| Anonymous |
"No one can force another to be free." Ivan Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 07:32 pm You can only break the chains, to set a person free, to break the coercion holding them back from freedom. If that person puts the chains back on, physically or mentally, there is nothing you can do. A free person must first be free in their minds to accept physical freedoms. To do this, they must have the mental capacity and intellect to understand what is freedom as opposed to being slave. Some people are slaves because their minds are not free. To break their chains will not stop them from putting those chains on others, and revert back on themselvers, because they are not free. Some people in Islam are like that, unfree. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Some people in Islam are like that, unfree. Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 08:01 pm: Anonymous The URL http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=bow+Cherisher&chapter=&translator= 2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all has === Behold! his Lord said to him: "bow (thy will to Me):" He said: "I bow (my will) to the Lord and Cherisher of the Universe." ( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #131) (Yusuf Ali – English translation) === The person who bowed his will to that of God Almighty in the above is Prophet Abraham, peace be upon him, who is revered by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Thus, not only the pious Muslims, the pious Christians, and the pious Jews also are not free. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
The pious Christians, the pious Muslims and the pious Jews are not free only in their relationship with God Almighty. None else can even disturb them in the least: they are perfectly free towards the rest of the universe. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/0403-avtb.html has the following: === Among Dr. Mazar’s find was a tiny clay disc within the palace ruins. Called a “bulla,” the disc is inscribed in ancient Hebrew script with the impressions of the sender’s name. It served as a “return address” used to seal papyrus scroll “mail.” This bulla bears the name of Jehuchal Ben Shelemiah, who is mentioned in Jeremiah 37:3 as one of two emissaries sent by King Zedekiah to implore the prophet Jeremiah to pray for Jerusalem, which was under siege by the Babylonians. ... Dr. Mazar stressed, “For me, finding the bulla was tremendous. Jehucal was no longer just some name in a biblical account…He was a real person. We now have his business card. The account is a real account. It is very rare to find such precise evidence for a narrative in the Bible” (ibid.). === Please read the whole article. We would like to state that Prophets David, and Solomon, peace be upon them are mentioned in the Holy Quran too. Can we say these finds indirectly support the Holy Quran too? | ||
| Anonymous |
"Please read the whole article. We would like to state that Prophets David, and Solomon, peace be upon them are mentioned in the Holy Quran too. Can we say these finds indirectly support the Holy Quran too?" "Support" in what way? So since Agamanon was apparantly a real person(they found his mask), it follows that Greek mythologies are historically accurate and that Zeus exists? All lores and legends contain some kernel of truth, embellished with a lot of artistic liscence.It is unlikely that the stories in the bible and the Quran were completely invented out of thin air. | ||
| la poetesse |
Not now, the brightness His eyes are glazed over with ignorance, Reason makes no difference A light flickers briefly, almost But lost again As he falls back into depths of darkness The moment passed, eyes glaze over, Not now, not now. la poetesse | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
My purpose is to show similarities among Christianity, Islam, and Judaism so that the chances for peaceful coexistence improves. | ||
| Anonymous |
Hello, Mohideen, Long time no talk, I am surprised this thread is still alive. I thought all needed to be said has been said. Now, you wrote: "My purpose is to show similarities among Christianity, Islam, and Judaism so that the chances for peaceful coexistence improves." What about Hindus, Buddhists, Confusians,Pagans, Freelance spiritualists, agnostics and atheists? The world is not made up only of followers of the Abrahamic faiths, all of which have horrible records as far as peaceful coexistence with others who didn't share their narrow ideas of "God".Islam and Christianity were two most murderous religions in human history. Glad you guys can get along. But pardon me for my lack of enthusiasm. Respectfully, Arnold | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
What about Hindus, Buddhists, Confusians,Pagans, Freelance spiritualists, agnostics and atheists? Arnold Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:54 am: Anonymous I suspect the next WW would be over the possession of ‘Temple Mount.’ The claimants are Christians, Muslims, and Jews. So, I hope to work for avoiding the next WW and then we could expand our circle of peaceful existence. As in any risk management, trying to eliminate the most severe risk first. | ||
| Anonymous |
Notes from other side of the world, the land of Oz. There is a forum discussing what is being discussed above, not too different, maybe same people, or just the same because these are universal conflicts of religion-civlisation-freedom globally. Bin Laden still relevant issue? Were cartoon riots mass idiocy? Read what they said in Oz, from the ON LINE opinion: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4110 You will find links to article and other forums as well, scroll down and read. Some samples: "To a Muslim there appears no separation between the pragmatic and "religious or ideological considerations". Defensive? Has Osama ever acknowledged the commencement of hostilities by Mohammad from 624AD which resulted in about 124 wars led by the Mohammedans until 720AD. Those wars only predicated the centuries of atrocities since. Islam sees not separation between "the west" in secular format & that of the religious beliefs of Christianity & Judaism. Moreover, anything that isn't Islamic is "their enemy"." (this was asked above also, who is the "enemy?") "Please leave out the Old Testament and Christian fundamentalists. Christian fundamentalist ratbags don’t terrorise; they form political parties. I am not a Christian, but I don’t have any reason to fear them. Average Christians have worked out was is relevant to modern times and what is not." (argument for why Islam is so different) "Thankyou. You have just proven my point about ordinary, decent Muslims. You have turned aside the questions, and concerned yourself with what I think about Jews." (same as evasiveness posted in this string) "When an 'authorised' version of the Qur'an says, as a footnote to Surah 2:190, & I quote: "Al-jihad (holy fighting) in Allah's Cause (with full force of numbers & weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam (& is one of the pillars on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established. Allah's word is made superior. .... By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed & the Muslims fall into an inferior position; ... Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam of every Muslim, & he who tries to escape ... dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite." (similar to arguments here?) "The single biggest issue is violence." (mentioned here as coercion) "Lying is considered a very serious sin in Islam. However there are situations where lying is permissible. Eg A Sunni Muslim with the goal of achieving an Islamic State must lie - this would be a righteous act for Allah, not an immoral one. There is an extremely negative attitude in Islam toward ridiculing Islam or Muslims, leaving Islam, or exerting any influence on Muslims which might influence them to leave Islam. Under Sharia these could all be punished by death. A key verse in this context is Sura 2:217 which states that 'fitna' (testing/trial) is worse than killing. We have to understand that we 'test' Muslims, with the truth admittedly. But culturally they cannot handle it." (sound familiar?) WW III will be avoided when Jihad is cancelled out by those whose agenda is to promote it. Never mind Christians and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. They do not do Jihad. The problem is with Islam exclusively. Stop the violence, the deceit, the punishments, and maybe there will be hope for peace. Is Bin Larden dead? It appears that he died in mountains of Afghanistan. Do not blame this conflict on "Yahweh (Hebrew), Elahi (Aramaic), Allah (Arabic)" because all the fighters are men, not some god. Men make wars, not god. To stop WW III you must appeal to reasonable men, because the fanatics who claim to know the mind of their god no matter of what religion are useless. For Islam they are useless killers. If you want to avoid war and have peace, Muslims must kill the Jihad. I think Bin Linen is dead, literally dead.. Does it matter? Why such a big secret? Jihad continues same as if he were still living. There is the problem, no matter what side of the world you are on. Anomymous | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We are interested in peace; a peace that is possible only when war mongers are eliminated from the face of the earth. The URL http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1959461&page=2 has the following quote: === The Army's top mental health expert, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, acknowledged that some deployment practices, such as sending service members diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome back into combat, have been driven in part by a troop shortage. === Does the above news indicate that some war mongers are making decisions about the deployment of US troops? If so, how in this democratic nation such war mongers could be removed from office? Is it not standard military practice to lose a battle if such a loss would help win the war? Is not Iraq a small front in the ‘War on Terrorism?’ Would the withdrawal of troops from Iraq help strengthen the ‘war of ideas’ winning the young population inclined to ‘suicide bombing’? | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
There is a clamor that ‘End Times’ are approaching and that the nation of Israel must be established soon based on the Holy Bible and the Holy Torah. Is the nation of Israel referred to in Deuteronomy the current Israel or a nation established by Prophet Moses, peace be upon him, and had decayed away. From http://king-james-bible.classic-literature.co.uk/deuteronomy/ebook-page-07.asp we have: === 7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. === Since the above is part of the Holy Bible and the Holy Torah, if the Israel is the nation to be formed in the near future, the above blessing must be valid even today. So, there should be no barren male or female among the current population of Israel. From http://www.israelfm.org/academic/default.htm we have: === ANAT ZURIA – Filmmaker Director of documentaries 'Purity' and 'Sentenced to Marriage' SENTENCED TO MARRIAGE Three young married women trapped in religious courts. They can't get a divorce because the court needs their husband's consent in order to grant one. Dependent on their husbands' whim, they know not when release will finally come. They are denied other relationships and are condemned to be barren, because a married woman is forbidden to another man. In Israel, a democratic country of the 21st century, their pain and suffering is embedded in the law. Being young and anonymous, their voices are silenced. For two years the film follows the Kafkaesque struggle of Tamara, Michelle and Rachel - three young women doing all that is humanly possible to obtain a divorce, with the help of a group of female orthodox rabbinical advocates === The film is a documentary. The three women – Tamara, Michelle, and Rachel – are real. They are condemned to be barren and they want divorce. By implication, these women are fertile, but their husbands are not. There are three men in the current Israel who are barren. We believe the Holy Bible and the Holy Torah to be true. So, we are compelled to conclude that the ‘nation of Israel’ promised by God Almighty is a nation which had existed and is no more. May we appeal to all that the Holy Land be shared among all faith and not be considered exclusive to the followers of Judaism alone? This appeal is issued in the interest of avoiding strife among the inhabitants of the current land area called Israel. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
From http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=male+female+both&chapter=&translat or=2&search=1&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === Or He bestows both males and females, and He leaves barren whom He will: for He is full of Knowledge and Power. ( Ash-Shura, Chapter #42, Verse #50) (Yusuf Ali – English Translation) === We have seen that as per the Holy Bible and the Holy Torah, there would be no barren male or female among the children of Israel. In contrast, the Holy Quran, as given above states clearly that God Almighty leaves some barren. To us, this is a demonstration that the Holy Quran supersedes both the Holy Torah and the Holy Bible. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
From http://king-james-bible.classic-literature.co.uk/deuteronomy/ebook-page-08.asp we have: === 8:19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. 8:20 As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God. === In the light of the above, how could the current citizens of Israel adopt democracy and freedom as their path? How could they erect the ‘Security Wall’ and surrender part of the land? | ||
| Ivan |
We don't know, Mohideen, how this will happen. That we must leave to God's will, since we mortals have only limited access to where the future is going. I would not be too paranoid, however, that Israel is such a danger to the world. They have a workable democratic government, rule by law, do not support terrorist activities, and have a fairly well functioning economy. Who are we to doubt that they should exist, since at present they are the shining light of freedom and human rights in that darkly blighted part of the world, smeared with infighting and corruption. So let God do his work, and we tend to ours. But in order to do God's work on Earth, we must achieve it all without coercing others, or else we negate the good deeds. The only justifiable use of coercion is to stop it. God does the rest. Trust in God. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
PS: On the Palestinian - Israeli Problem. I am old enough to remember a time when Palestinians and Israelis lived together in peace. Palestinians worked, had an economy combined with that of Israel, and there was some sort of uncomfortable coexistence. I also vaguely remember the 6 days war, where Israel was attacked by Arab states and won against them, taking territory. I was in school then, more concerned with my social life, parties and girls, than world events. That was a war against which Israel defended itself, not harb, and God granted victory to the Israelis. A period of peace followed, though Palestinian refugees were not happy. I know something of their plight, historically, in that they were offered citizenship in the newly created (by the United Nations) state of Israel, and many Palestinians rejected it. They fled to neighboring Jordan, I believe, though some went elsewhere. I even met Palestinians in Santa Fe, New Mexico, when I lived there, who were shop keepers and decent folk. Same as I met Israelis living on Indian reservations promoting the local turquoise jewelry and native crafts of the Indian artists. We can all learn to live by agreement, to trade rather than coercing each other, if we have the will to do so. At the market, you bring vegetables to sell, and I need vegetables to buy, and we agree on a price, and transact as normal human beings. Can this simple human interaction be extended to our other needs? Why not? Why not find agreements instead of a constant stream of coercions, especially violent coercions? Once the intifada was launched by Palestinian refugees against Israel, everything changed. Palestinians attacked Israelis, and Israelis gave it back, but good. Not harb, if you are fighting against attackers in self defense. Would anyone disagree? As attacks against innocent civilians intensified, withy horrific suicide bombings, Israeli response toughened, where finally they judged it right to build a huge wall to keep out the attackers. Anyone disagree with this? Does Israel have the right to defend its citizens, some of whom are Palestinian, from such attacks? And when the homemade rockets go flying over the wall to attack Israeli territory, is it right for Israel to defend itself by launching attacks against those who build these rockets? Anyone disagree with this? Is it harb to fight in self defense? Now there is a condition where these two worlds, made poisonous to each other by their actions, to live side by side in their respective territories. Anything wrong with that idea? Attacks will continue, as long as there is no will to want to live in peace. That is how the world is. People will defend themselves against attacks. Since 911, there has been a heightened awareness of these potential attacks, worldwide, and Israel's problems were overshadowed by this new worldwide threat against humanity. The Palestinians labored under a regime that stole, hid money in safe bank accounts, and was reputed to be terribly corrupt. The Palestinian lived in misery, so they voted for a change. But what did they choose? An organization that will prolong their agony, poverty, and likely further social dysfunctions, all ripe material for further discontent. Such socio-economic privation will also yield a fertile field for new suicide bomber recruits. This is a tragedy, a pure travesty of human failings. How can any one expect peace under such conditions? Never mind what ancient scriptures said, that old world babble of ancient scribes who had no clue of what we are in the modern world. Look at the reality. What do you see? It's awful! Either we all come to our senses and do something reasonable that we can find agreement on, or the pain continues. Which should we choose? More hatred? More suicide bombings? More animosities with ever taller walls? Never ending retaliations, counter-retaliations, ad infinitum? Are not human beings capable of more than this? Look around you. Why would you so much resist peace? It is achievable, only a matter of will. If two parties can come together half way each, and agree on a price for peace, then this is the path to peace. Not some ancient biblical stuff, but genuine human agreements that will peace. Then we can have peace. Anyone disagree with this? If nothing else, since the poison runs so deep in your veins, think of the children. At least, if you can't see if for yourself, do peace for the children, and their children. Do it for the future, for their hopes and aspirations, your own children. Then there will be also hope for all humanity. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Either we all come to our senses and do something reasonable that we can find agreement on, or the pain continues. Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 09:52 pm: Ivan Let us forget the past. What is the reason behind the ‘security wall?’ Why are the Israelis looking for ways to maintain majority of Jews in their territory? Is it possible that the concept of majority rule has a severe flaw and that the Jews in Israel are working around the same? Are they not afraid of including all the Palestinians inside one common nation and going to the polls? Are they not worried that power might shift to non-Jews in such a united nation? Are we wrong in concluding that ‘the winner take all’ policy of democracy is the root cause of the struggle between the Jews and the Palestinians living and sharing the Holy Land? We might say that democracy offers minority rights? If so, why not the Jews in the Holy Land accept the minority rights? As an Indian I have tasted the bitter pill. The Babri Masjid was demolished by members of the majority community; the minority community – the losers: the Muslims – are hoping to get justice through the court of law. It is already more than 15 years and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. To me the so called ‘minority rights’ are only in paper. It is the right of the rich; that is the right supported by the legal system. I believe the Jews know it well and thus they like to be in majority in a part of the Holy Land rather than be a minority in all of the Holy Land. We have come a long way from being the lands of kings and queens. It was indeed a giant step that we proceeded to form language based territories and called them nations. Is it too much to ask to go to the next step and give the freedom to live as per their beliefs – of course without hurting others – inside the language-based nations? If in the Holy Land, the Jews collect taxes from the Jews, the Christians collect from the Christians, the Muslims collect from the Muslims and the national government collects from all and the Jews spend from their collection for their exclusive welfare, the Christians from their collections for their exclusive welfare, and the Muslims from their collections for their exclusive welfare, and the national government spends on common welfare, cannot that work? In USA some believe in having a very weak federal government. I advocate that for every national government. Let the communities exercise real power; let the national government exercise the residual power. What is wrong with the above? Can we move from language-based nations to belief-based communities co-existing with each other? | ||
| Ivan |
You failed to notice, Mohideen, how in mine above I was careful to not call the Israelis "Jews" and the Palestinians "Muslims" unlike you who immediately jumped to that distinction of religious separation. Think about it. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I was careful to not call the Israelis "Jews" and the Palestinians "Muslims" unlike you who immediately jumped to that distinction of religious separation. Think about it. Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 06:30 am: Ivan Yes, I did jump. I see that every day the Jews inside USA are persuaded to move to Israel. Thus, in my mind, the Israel of the future is predominantly Jewish. And as the winner takes all in a democracy, Israel tries to maintain its Jewish ness. Please correct me. Having a minority of Muslims who do not matter inside its borders does not change the nature of Israel, which is designed to be a nation of Jews. Further I amplify the religious distinction as I advocate freedom of faith for all. As a start, let us give freedom of faith to established religions. Among the religions, three are locked in hidden combat now. That is why I talk about Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to the exclusion of other religions. | ||
| Ivan |
Not good enough, Mohideen, since you are working on the presumption that majority rule equates minority oppression. That's not how it works, why we have constitutional laws to prevent this, and why human rights are important.
This "combat" is imaginary, mostly in your mind and perhaps some others who are religious fanatics, but not real. The "war" is between a society of civilized behaviors under rule of law validating human agreements versus one of savage violence and coercions. Same as no society can long endure when predators are loose, whether wild animals or wild humans, so nor can society long endure if it is built up on coercions. Unlike the other two religions you grouped here, only Islam makes a cult of violent coercions (per some interpretations, with which I do not agree), while the others had already dropped this from their nomenclature long ago. So, what's wrong with Islam today? Is it still fit for the modern world, given you take it verbatim, quoting excessively from it, or is it able to adjust to our modern freedoms (where slavery is outlawed) built on trust, and social agreements? Religion, all religion, is between man and God, as it should be, and not between man oppressing man. Reform. You have to go there, like the rest of the world did, even Communism, or else the predators win. You want peace? Then do it this way: stop the coercive interpretations, the violent "jihads", of your holy scriptures. Time to modernize Islam, I would think, for peace. Wouldn't you agree? | ||
| IVAN |
ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. RELIGIOUS FANATICISM Anyone can believe whatever they wish to believe. That is religious freedom. No one can believe for another, same as what another believes cannot be believed for us. That is simply fact. What we believe is entirely an internal thing, a wholly personal thing, between ourselves and our reality, our God; our connection with both the inner and outer divine in us. That is all religious freedom. Where it ceases being religious freedom is when what we believe, something entirely our own, is then believed that it must be believed by another. That is religious trespass. Even if you believe that your religion is from God, from his special messenger, that it is totally true; you must nevertheless realize that your belief is entirely inside you. It is not outside of you for you to impose on antoher, but entirely inside you: You believe this, internally. But once you impose your internal belief on another, either through actions or demands of actions, then you are trespassing into the reality of the other. This belief, when imposed on another, becomes religious fanaticism, which is a trespass. When we believe in something, and act on that belief, then reality will manifest for us what it is we believe. All our choices, whether or not we understand them intimately, are products of our internal beliefs; and all our actions are products of our choices. Reality will oblige us with manifesting for us reality in response to our choices and actions, with either success or failure. If I truly sincerely believe that I can walk off my roof and walk on air, reality will very quickly correct me in my error, as I fall to the ground. There is penalty for failing to believe correctly, not from another's belief, not from our religipn, but from reality itself. That's how God works through us in our human reality. So we are always free to believe, internally sanctified, but by what we believe we either reap reward or pay a penalty, not from our belief, nor the holy scriptures, since they are silent; the reward or penalty comes directly from reality, from God. So in our inner belief, we can rail against reality, against the universe, we can blaspheme against all beliefs, we can call everyone else in the world wrong, and truly believe this; and it means nothing. Except in how reality manifest for us our belief in response with the reality of our being, it means nothing. But once we think we can believe with such certitude that everyone else is wrong, or some group is wrong, or even one person is wrong; and then act to force them, to coerce them, into believing what we believe internally: that is trespass. Such belief imposed on another is coercion. And once you impose this coercion on another, though you truly believe in yourself it is right, you have damaged their reality with God. You commit evil, because you are separating a person from God. Religious fanatics are obsessed with the devil. They see evil everywhere. But they do not see that their trespass, their coercion on another, is the evil that makes others suffer. Once you force another from their belief, once you force them from their inner interaction with the outer reality of their personal being, once you force them from God; then you are committing evil. They suffer. Their reality is damaged, and they fail to manifest in God what they belief. So their religious freedom is damaged. And in the process, their personal freedom is damaged, because now a paramount rule is violated: You cannot believe for another, since belief is entirely an internal affair. Religious fanatics fail here, because they do not understand this. Thus they suffer from an intellectual lack, because they do not understand that their belief is entirely inside themselves. To use the nomenclature of religious fanatics, it looks like this: Evil is from the devil; coercion is evil; therefore, coercion is from the devil. This is how evil comes into the world, through our coercions, and through forcing our belief, which is entirely a personal thing of necessity, onto another. This is also how works slavery. The master forces his slave to be other than how he internally believes, forces him against his will, or her, and imposes his belief on the slave to submit to his will. But that is not God's will, only another human being's will. And in that coercive behavior, God's will gets lost, as the slave's reality is impacted by the master. Religious fanatics act like this, like the master over the slave, by forcing their belief on another. But this is contrary to the reality that belief is entirely inside himself; there is no way to externalize that belief onto another without committing evil. To force another is to separate that human being from God. Belief is always between a man and his or her God, because anything else is evil. To force another human being, to coerce them, is to commit an evil, a trespass, against God's will. So this is great battle between religious freedom and religious fanaticism: Coercion is evil because it negates God. Once you coerce, you are failing to do God's will. The only way coercion can be used within God's will is to stop evil, and that means to stop coercion. Anything else is to force one's belief on another, which is evil and coercive. This is why this is true: Once you coerce, you are failing to do God's will. Once you coerce, you are doing the work of the devil. The world has seen much of that, the work of the devil, and it suffers for it. Is it not time to stop? Only with religious freedom are you truly submitting to God's will, because then you are as you believe. Fanaticism is against God's will, because then you are as another one believes for you, a negation of God's will. We cannot do good, no matter to what religion we belong, if we fail to do God's will through coercion of others. Either we obey God's will with freedom, free of coercions, or we do the devil's work with coercion. One way, the world is beautiful and Godlike, it prospers and humanity shines; the other way, the way of evil and the devil, humanity is mean and small, and it suffers. Which would you choose? You want to bring God's Kingdom to Earth? Fine. Stop the violence, stop the coercions. God protect us from coercions. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
twinks for cash, twinks sex. About gay twinks ... (pain in the behind stuff) ... etc.... DELETED DELETED DELETED ETC... | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
You want to bring God's Kingdom to Earth? Fine. Stop the violence Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 08:11 pm: Ivan Looks like the anonymous poster with the post Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 07:31 am: has a very effective (?) suggestion. Unfortunately that suggestion is not applicable to a Muslim! | ||
| Anonymous |
Ivan wrote: "I also vaguely remember the 6 days war, where Israel was attacked by Arab states and won against them, taking territory...That was a war against which Israel defended itself, not harb, and God granted victory to the Israelis." Sorry Ivan, this is revisionism at its worse. The six day war was started by Israel attacking Egypt first under the doctrine of preemption. The war primarily involved massive air strikes in Egypt, Jordon and Syria but few large scale battles were fought in Israeli soil,so I can't see how it was a defensive war. Granted that the hostile rhetorics of Nasser, the subsequent blockade and troop mobilization contributed to the outbreak, but it was nevertheless Israel who struck first. It is also important to remember history to understand the animosity. In 1959, Israel, along with France and Britain invaded Egypt.They withdrew only when Eisenhower made it clear that U.S would not take kindly to this blatant aggression. While Egypt did make a lot of aggressive posturing, both the U.S and the Israeli governments knew that the Egyptians were not a real threat. When the rhetorics esculated and the whole world, including the Israeli public was nervous about a possible Arab invasion, it is interesting that the Israeli Junta, led by Moshe Dayan, were rubing their hands with glee.Just before the war broke out, Dayan told his cabinet colleagues that finally there was an opportunity to finish off the 1959 business. In contrast to the doom and gloom scenario permeated in Israel before the war, the generals were in an euphoric mold. They knew from intelligence that Arab threats were mostly for show and there were many logistic difficulties for a true invasion. I find your formulation of Palestinians rejecting peace problematic. Peace is good but in whose terms? The fact of the matter was that the state of Israel was created by ethnic cleansing.This is a fact that serious historians, including Israeli ones, no longer contest. That being the case it is unreasonable to expect the Palestinians to accept "the right of Israel to exist" ON PRINCIPLE. That would be like asking the Natives to celebrate Columbus day and agree that the White man has a right to kick them out of their land. Israel's existence is a fact, which needs to be respected. But as someone pointed out, there is no such principle as "the right to exist" in International law. States just exist, there is no moral justifications for their existence as they are all found on blood and the sword. It is therefore very disturbing to hear otherwise decent and fair minded people such as yourself to lay the blame so one sidedly on the Palestinians. At least since after Camp David in 1978,the Palestinians were consistent about the desire of a peace settlement based on UN resolution 262 and international law. It was the Israeli who constantly trying to derail peace with military aggression and sham "peace plans" that demand complete capitulation on the part of the Palestinians.How about that for "coercion"? The Oslo peace process evisioned an Palestinian state consisting disconnected cantons in Gaza and the West bank with the Israeli controlling all key transportion points. The best land and resources are annexed into Israel.The Jews themselves would not have accepted such a Jewish state if it were offered to them in 1947. I also disagree that everything was rosy before the intifada, as if the Palestinians bought it upon themselves. Collective punishment, bulldozing of homes and torture were standard fare long before the Intifada. The first Intifada were by and large peaceful protests, but it was brutally crushed by the IDF. I saw TV footages where IDF soldiers used rocks to crush a Palestinian captive limb by limb. The second intifada eventually turned into wave of suicide bombings that we witness in the last while. But what you don't mention was that it all started after the IDF massacred close to a hundred rock throwing protestors with attack helicopters and machine gun fire. What do you expect if you drive a desperate people to the brink. Finally, you claim that Palestinians could have taken out Israeli citizenship. It is such an outlandish claim that must say I was astonished as reading Mohideen's conspiracy theories and UFO whenI read it. Demographic purity has been the obsession of Israel since the founding days. There is a constant fear that the Jewish character of Israel would be eroded by a large number of Arabs. That was the reason that Israel did not annex the West bank outright. They want the land but not the people on it. Respectifully Arnold | ||
| Anonymous |
"Looks like the anonymous poster with the post Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 07:31 am: has a very effective (?) suggestion. Unfortunately that suggestion is not applicable to a Muslim!" Mohideen The guy is a spammer obviously. Arnold | ||
| Ivan |
Yeah, this "twinks for cash" creep shows up from time to time, could be a 'robot spammer'. I'll delete it, just a pain in the butt, literally. Get a life! | ||
| Ivan |
Yeah, "make love not war." But that's not what I think they had in mind. Just stupidity, unconscious behavior, wild humans still stuck at the 'pee pee boom boom' stage, and laughing hysterically like a bunch of four year olds. | ||
| Ivan |
Well, Arnold, I did say I had a "vague memory" and am not a serious student of that event. You are no doubt correct in your historical account of what drove Palestinians to desperation, in that the "coercions" were already there. The right of statehood, as you pointed out, has no necessary justification to exist. An old Russian proverb says "the victors are not judged", and this may be how most states came into being. Now that we're here, where do we take it forward? We've seen the end of colonialism in Africa and Asia move large populations out. Populations suffer crisis due to change of powers, even if the original natives were there for millennia, as happened to Native American Indians, and other aboriginal peoples elsewhere. Something like this is happening in Darfur now. How does this stop? How do we make a better future with peace? I must admit that I do not have easy answers to this. But I also do not think converting the whole world to one religion or another is the answer either. Ivan | ||
| Anonymous |
Ivan, I don't have an easy answer either. I was only clearing up some historical misunderstanding.My apologies if I was rude in some of my remarks. Any real peace has to be achieved through negotiation conducted in good faith. The security of Israel is non negotiable, as is the Palestinians' right to a viable state. I am not sure where the statement of converting the whole world to one religion fit in. I am not inclined to see every conflict through the filter of religion. With due respect, I think Mohideen is barking up the wrong tree. Most people on both sides are not religious fanatics. Respectfully, Arnold. | ||
| Ivan |
Exactly right. I threw in that little nonsense because some people think that if the whole world converted to Islam, it would be world peace. Of course, I don't believe that for one second. Infighting within religions are legend. But I do agree both Israel and Palestinian state have a right to exist, and is non negotiable. The negotiations should start from that ploatform for both. What kind of men are they? We will know if they are giants of history and secure peace, or historical midgets who cannot find agreement under any circumstances. History will judge. No offense taken. Thanks. Ivan | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
I threw in that little nonsense because some people think that if the whole world converted to Islam, it would be world peace. Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 09:59 pm: Ivan I am not one of those advocating the conversion of the whole world to Islam. We know that during end times, Islam would be in a very small region. From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=snake+Medina&translator=1&se arch=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we have: === Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "Verily, Belief returns and goes back to Medina as a snake returns and goes back to its hole (when in danger)." (Book #30, Hadith #100) (Sahih Bukhari) === So no pious Muslim would even think of global domination by Islam. It is unfortunate that there are war mongers among Muslims too. These war mongers twist Islam and make such outlandish claims. I am not one among them. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
In USA some believe in having a very weak federal government. I advocate that for every national government. Let the communities exercise real power; let the national government exercise the residual power. Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 04:15 am: Mohideen Ibramsha Is there any response to the above suggestion from me? Kindly note that a community need not be a religious community. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
Time to modernize Islam, I would think, for peace. Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 - 03:35 pm: Ivan I could join hands with you depending on the kind of modernization contemplated. If it involves changing the Holy Quran or the authentic Traditions, not only I, no Muslim would help you. If by modernization we undertake to look at some of the decisions made by some Muslims earlier and correcting the misconceptions introduced by some recent day experts in Islam, as on date I am with you. Hopefully more Muslims would join in that effort in future. Could you look at article 15 – Co-wife as surrogate mother – in http://spaces.msn.com/deentech/ and give me your opinion? Would such revisions one by one add to the reform you have in mind? | ||
| Eagleheart (Unregistered Guest) |
I apologize for interrupting, but I have been watching this conversation for some time and I felt that I need to say something. Just to let you know, I grew up with my father, who was descendent of a Prussian immigrant. He taught me well about being a Catholic, but in my teenage years, I got lost, as most teenagers do. We are busy trying to discover who we are and what role we have to play in this ever changing society. I believe this is the most unstable part of a person’s life when they try to grab a hold of what they believe, or even find something else to believe in. I had my share of a few religions and cults, until I questioned my identity. I learned that I was part Native American from my great grandmother. I guess that gave me a place in life. Going to my great grandmother’s tribe was an eye opener and I felt I truly belonged. I completed my soul searching, as a lot people eventually do, and stayed. I was accepted even though I wasn’t full blood. The fact that I was part of them was enough. A lot of the Native American tribes are pretty much Christian in faith, but some people still hold true to the belief of my ancestors. It was the belief of the Great Spirit which truly called me. I see religion like this (meaning no offence to anyone of any faith)… The Bible is a history book following the chronicles of the Jewish people and there faith. The New Testament is also a history book, following the chronicles of the Christian faith. My apologies to Mohideen for I never read the Quran, however, I have learned a little making me believe that it too is a history book. I believe that it doesn’t matter the religion you follow. What matters is that you believe in God, regardless of the name. My people believe in God. We believe in the Circle of Life. We believe that our hearts and deeds judge us, and that if we allow evil into our hearts, it will be costly. All life if linked and balanced, and to destroy one is to destroy the other. As children, we were given the laws by word of mouth and by watching these laws come about (whether we liked them or not). The simplest of laws are more common sense than written in a book. These laws are simple. Obey the Great Spirit and respect all of His creations. Never take a life unless it is to protect your own or your family. Respect your elders. Never take anything from anyone. We don’t need to follow each line of a paragraph to make sure we do exactly what it says. When I was young, I followed a few cults. Every young person looking for himself will attach himself to a leader, an idol, a big brother, a prophet, a God. And there always seem to be something bad in most people you look up to these days. At first, you can be blinded by what appears to be good in them, but some figure it out eventually. I heard stories about David Koresh, the cult leader in Waco. Though his words seemed peaceful, he did things that were very wrong. I was blinded by someone simular once. But then I did something I wasn’t suppose to… I questioned. Why would someone who preaches love carry a gun? I believed that weapons were unnecessary with faith of love, and still do. I believe finding “good” leaders, heroes, brothers for children is very important. We have seen what bad leaders and heroes can do. Having faith in God is important. Having faith in what someone tells you from a book isn’t always right. Cause you are taking the person’s point of view on what the paragraph says. For instance, in the New Testament all the Gospels conflict on what Jesus said. Is that wrong? No. It isn’t the written word that we must go by. It is the fact that he said it. It may have been taken out of context by the person who wrote it down, but as long as the meaning is clear enough to understand. I do not know if the Quran is written in this way. I do know that in my eyes, unless God himself writes it in a book saying to do this or that, then it has to be written by man, and man can get things wrong. How can someone born so long ago describe lights in the sky? A comet at just the right time can very well be a messenger of God. They describe it as best they can, and everyone centuries from then believe that is the sign of a messenger. Maybe it is… maybe it isn’t. Believe in your heart… and take what is written with a grain of salt. Faith is in the heart. I apologize should I have upset anyone. That was not my intention. Respectfully, Eagleheart | ||
| Ivan |
Dear Mohideen, you misunderstand. It is not for anyone to "help" you, but an internal affair for the Muslim world. We outside this world will see whether or not any new interpretations of your scriptures passes the test of coercion restraints, equal respect for all human beings, freedom of belief, tolerance for others beliefs, etc. But the work is entirely yours, not anyone elses. Your interpretations of the faith are your own only, not for us to "help" you redefine it for modern times. We do not wish to intrude on Islam, as it is your faith, your belief system, entirely on your shoulders. Good luck, and God's peace be with you. Ivan | ||
| Ivan |
Dear Eagleheart, thank you for writing, and Welcome! I think you hit it exactly, that "unless God himself writes it" all else is the manufacture of men, or in very rare instances women. To then blindly follow and worship words of men is no longer acceptable in an age of reason, especially if those words dictate actions so contrary to the natural laws of decend behavior between human beings. The changes that occurred over the centuries is that odious practices were dropped, such as child sacrifice, and even in some instance cannibalism as dictated by ancient scriptures. Isaac sacrificing his son for God, for example, is not followed to the letter anymore, not even animal sacrifice to the temple altar of the Hebrews. If religion, or any belief, is a mirror of the times, and of its people, then when humans are evolved enough to understand their errors, it is okay to change their beliefs. I am quite sure God, or the great Circle of Life, or any name we give to something so infinitely greater than our little mortal minds, will grant us that privilege, to mature as human beings. Ivan (Ps: sorry about the "unregistered guest" label, but it will not show up again. I was fixing filters at the time of your post to stop someone's spamming this site, hope it works. Cheers.) | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
We do not wish to intrude on Islam, as it is your faith, your belief system, entirely on your shoulders. Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 07:01 pm: Ivan What is intrusion? When a Muslim says that his religion is a religion of peace, what is it to be told that his religion is one of violence? When such statements are made notwithstanding evidences to the contrary, one of two things happens: 1. The Muslim decides not to interact. This is very bad because being the creation of one God Almighty we are expected to help each other live happily. When interaction stops, division sets in. 2. The Muslim feels oppressed. All his attempts to get integrated with others get nullified when the others do not wish to evaluate him or his religion on his statements. Correct me if I am wrong. Islam gives paramount importance to freedom of faith by virtue of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. When the Muslims give the freedom to others to live as they choose – as long as their faith does not call for harm to Muslims – why should others insist that Islam is not up to modernity: that too when Islam clearly states that no life is to be taken without just cause? Please do not cite history. To me history is the twisted version of facts written by the victor apportioning virtually all blame on the loser. The Holy Quran has some stories as parables. The most important aspects of the Holy Quran are the principles taught rather than the parables. To a Muslim his religion is a living one as my justification – indeed recommendation – of surrogate motherhood for a section of Muslim women demonstrates. | ||
| Mohideen Ibramsha |
How can someone born so long ago describe lights in the sky? Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 06:43 pm: Eagleheart To my understanding the Holy Quran and its demonstration by the life of Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, are not timed statements to be verified on a future date. They are rules to follow for eternity: until the end of the world as regards mankind is concerned. Any set of timed statements lose their value of guidance once the last timed statement gets verified or falsified. There is an end to life on earth. However, God Almighty has not revealed the time when the end would occur. Thus, in contrast to all earlier Revelations the Holy Quran does not make timed statements. As regards accepting the written word of God Almighty and rejecting every other form of communication, are we not constraining God Almighty? If God Almighty is our superior how can we decide which form of communication is acceptable? From http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=dreams++come+iron&translator =1&search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all we get: === Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "When the Day of Resurrection approaches, the dreams of a believer will hardly fail to come true, and a dream of a believer is one of forty-six parts of prophetism, and whatever belongs to prothetism can never be false." Muhammad bin Sirin said, "But I say this." He said, "It used to be said, 'There are three types of dreams: The reflection of one's thoughts and experiences one has during wakefulness, what is suggested by Satan to frighten the dreamer, or glad tidings from Allah. So, if someone has a dream which he dislikes, he should not tell it to others, but get up and offer a prayer." He added, "He (Abu Huraira) hated to see a Ghul (i.e., iron collar around his neck in a dream) and people liked to see fetters (on their feet in a dream). The fetters on the feet symbolizes one's constant and firm adherence to religion." And Abu 'Abdullah said, "Ghuls (iron collars) are used only for necks." (Book #87, Hadith #144) (Sahih Bukhari) === Muslims believe that God Almighty guides the chosen even now through their dreams that come true. Let us not arbitrarily accept or reject a particular form of communication and constrain God Almighty. | ||
| Ivan |
The world wants Islam to be a religion of peace, the same as what you say. What the world sees in reality, instead, is a religion of war, violence, coercions, all committed in the name of God. How do you account for that? Are your words more important that deeds? Or are what is done in the name of Allah to make people suffer more important (to man and God) than the words? This is how future Islam will be judged, whether a religion of peace, or a religion of war. The past had been ornerous, so let us hope for a better future. Future interpretations of the holy texts, some of which are parables, can lead to a reformed modern Islam, without any intrusions from people outside the faith. For the sake of all humanity, I sincerely hope it will be peace. Ivan Also see: Golden Rule revisited |