Wahabism in Centers of Learning
Osama Shahid November 2, 2006
#243 Posted by PM on November 8, 2006 4:24:54 pm
Urstruly miaN, further to my last post, let me clue you in further...
You write
``... in modern world atheists have successfully brainwashed Christians and other loser religions like hinduism, polytheism and animism that ``real tolerance`` is not practicing what the core teachings of these religions is but the ``real tolerance`` is not practicisng your religion at all - ``
That depends on how you view and interpret ``core teachings``. Just FYI, and since you seem fond of the Gospel of Matthew, here is something that will at once bring out what IMHO is the essential difference between the spirits of Christianity and that of Islam (and also Judiasm) -- not that one is necessarily better than the other:
(From Matthew 22)
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
And here is what the real founder of Christianity says about none other than God:
1 Corinthians 13:1-8a and 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
So you see, my dear Urstruly, its all about the spirit... the spirit of Islam is chiefly legalistic, though there is also definite appeal to love and compassion. In Christianity, it`s really the other way around, though they probably both striive for the same type of society.
You write
``... in modern world atheists have successfully brainwashed Christians and other loser religions like hinduism, polytheism and animism that ``real tolerance`` is not practicing what the core teachings of these religions is but the ``real tolerance`` is not practicisng your religion at all - ``
That depends on how you view and interpret ``core teachings``. Just FYI, and since you seem fond of the Gospel of Matthew, here is something that will at once bring out what IMHO is the essential difference between the spirits of Christianity and that of Islam (and also Judiasm) -- not that one is necessarily better than the other:
(From Matthew 22)
35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
And here is what the real founder of Christianity says about none other than God:
1 Corinthians 13:1-8a and 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
So you see, my dear Urstruly, its all about the spirit... the spirit of Islam is chiefly legalistic, though there is also definite appeal to love and compassion. In Christianity, it`s really the other way around, though they probably both striive for the same type of society.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#246 Posted by teshah on November 8, 2006 8:09:59 pm
Re: # 243
PM
Wonderful dear PM; your write-up on religion is masterly.
You say Islam is based on fath, Christinity on love, what about Gita? Is it not based on reason (Qaaimul-aql) wihout any supernatural intervention?
PM
Wonderful dear PM; your write-up on religion is masterly.
You say Islam is based on fath, Christinity on love, what about Gita? Is it not based on reason (Qaaimul-aql) wihout any supernatural intervention?
#242 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2006 3:55:26 pm
… furthermore, are you suggesting that a believer, chasing an apostate while waving his knife at him on a Friday afternoon … is better than an adulterous couple quietly holding hands at a nearby Starbucks???
… puhleeez, try to maintain a dignified silence instead of saying something stupid …
#241 Posted by PM on November 8, 2006 3:36:43 pm
re. Urstruly:
re. ``I did not say that ``Christians do not know shite about their religion``; these are your words.``
Indeed they are. But it is also what you implied. And you are not wrong there.
re.``What I said was that Christians have turned their religion into a buffet religion. They pick what suits their lifestyle and openly reject what doesn`t.``
Yes. And No. Surely there are the buffet-type followers of any religion, perhaps more so in Christianity than in Islamia. But then there are also those Christians, who, not being literalists, accept the fundamental message of Christ (and Paul) and reject the minutiaie. What you, like most followers of literalist traditions including some Christians (usually referred to as the bible thumpers, but also others less evangelical) fail to realize is that a non-literalist following of a religious tradition, which usually follows from a recognition of internal inconsistencies of scripture, places no mandate on taking it all or nothing at all. For these Christians, the bible-- even the New Testament-- is not considered divine in the sense that Muslims consider the Qur`an or Pat Robertson and co. consider the Bible.
You`re also right that atheism (actually rationalism) has had a lot to do with such rejection of divine ascription to scripture (usually in favour of `divinely inspired`.)
I understand that such free-thinking leading to the rejection of the idea of divine scripture in the traditonal sense is scary to some people, who cannot possibly conceive of a world without divine revelation.
But for such Christians as these, their position merely is, to them, a more honest approach to spirituality, which they`d really rather base on that thing called conscience, informed by reason too. So, really, you`re wasting your time trying to convince them that they have strayed from their striclty scriptural grounding -- that`s exactly what they`ve diligently done.
re. ``I did not say that ``Christians do not know shite about their religion``; these are your words.``
Indeed they are. But it is also what you implied. And you are not wrong there.
re.``What I said was that Christians have turned their religion into a buffet religion. They pick what suits their lifestyle and openly reject what doesn`t.``
Yes. And No. Surely there are the buffet-type followers of any religion, perhaps more so in Christianity than in Islamia. But then there are also those Christians, who, not being literalists, accept the fundamental message of Christ (and Paul) and reject the minutiaie. What you, like most followers of literalist traditions including some Christians (usually referred to as the bible thumpers, but also others less evangelical) fail to realize is that a non-literalist following of a religious tradition, which usually follows from a recognition of internal inconsistencies of scripture, places no mandate on taking it all or nothing at all. For these Christians, the bible-- even the New Testament-- is not considered divine in the sense that Muslims consider the Qur`an or Pat Robertson and co. consider the Bible.
You`re also right that atheism (actually rationalism) has had a lot to do with such rejection of divine ascription to scripture (usually in favour of `divinely inspired`.)
I understand that such free-thinking leading to the rejection of the idea of divine scripture in the traditonal sense is scary to some people, who cannot possibly conceive of a world without divine revelation.
But for such Christians as these, their position merely is, to them, a more honest approach to spirituality, which they`d really rather base on that thing called conscience, informed by reason too. So, really, you`re wasting your time trying to convince them that they have strayed from their striclty scriptural grounding -- that`s exactly what they`ve diligently done.
#240 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2006 3:36:10 pm
Urstruly …
Granted, Torah and New Testament have the same source as Quran. But what you conveniently ignore is that … earlier scriptures have undergone severe changes at the hands of people. You are aware of this, but for some insane reason continue to play dumb.
[If you read Bible a bit more, you’ll run into accounts of Lot’s wife turning into pillar of salt, incest between Lot and his daughters, Noah getting drunk and naked, etc. Bible will also tell you it’s alright for one to beat his slave to death, that a deceased man’s brothers have rights over his widow, and more.
... I hope such items are not on your agenda next … ]
Quran corrects errors that found their way into earlier scriptures. It also changes some of the teachings of earlier religions. It therefore claims to have completed the Divine Law.
While I’d encourage every Muslim to study Bible for better understanding, it is absurd for a Muslim to override Quran with Bible. There is a word for such people. They are called CHRISTIANS!!!
Why do you keep running away from Quran ... remains a mystery ...
#239 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2006 1:07:05 pm
PM (#236),
Thanks for your comments. Here are a few follow up thoughts …
Authenticity of hadith (“whoever changes his religion, kill him”) depends upon the definition of “authenticity”.
A hadith which accurately captures words of the dear Prophet (pbuh), but fails to capture the context, is unauthentic in my view. It is for this reason that I cited “missing context” as one of the possible errors in this hadith (#230).
Such hadith captures only a part of the message, which can lead one to erroneous conclusions. Truth, if not presented in its fullness, may potentially border on falsehood. Perhaps this explains the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” part of the oath I see in Hollywood movies.
[Furthermore, web-link provided by “khurram” (#229) discusses this particular hadith. It states that this particular hadith does not have a continuous chain of narrators, which further undermines its authenticity.]
I’d even venture to say that Quran hardly makes any absolute statements at all. For every commandment Quran gives, it provides room to negotiate around it if circumstances so demand. It is perhaps for this reason that every issue Quran discusses, it does so over and over again, in varying contexts, under different set of circumstances. And (yet) it encourages a person to use his good judgment with sincerity, compassion, and truthfulness - bearing in mind that he remains accountable to Allah Almighty.
Life is too complex a thing to be governed by hard and fast rules. Each situation demands a new view of things, a fresh approach. Absolutely limiting a person to few, unconditional options leads to an unworkable situation. Such a gridlock would reflect poorly on the Law itself and would serve to highlight its weaknesses …
#238 Posted by Urstruly on November 8, 2006 12:30:29 pm
Look at the beauty of this prose. No doubt that Bible, Torah, Psalm, and Qura`n are like four springs (of water) that have emerged from one common source.
````Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you...?
therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God`s.``
...........Corinthians 6:18-20
#236 Posted by PM on November 8, 2006 11:44:41 am
#230 sattar2:
Thanks for the time, Sattar sahib.
re. ``That is, one is free to accept Islam as he wills, but will be killed if he leaves it. Go figure!!! ``
This would not be so unreasonable in the context I mentioned earlier... taht is, when Islam was a fledgling cult and in constant danger of falling prey to the machinations of munafiqeen. In this context, it is even plausible that the alledged hadith you quote is authentic, though extremely situational.
What I personally find even more obnoxious is the position that those BORN into Muslim families are to be punished with the harshest of penalties (death?) while those who acutally CHOSE it are to be given some leeway to think about their actions. Go fig THAT!
It`s also exasperating how those taking the slightly justifiable ``make your choice and stick to it`` argument conveniently include those in the group who never really made the choice to begin with-- those merely born into that group!
So much for there being no compulsion, eh?!
Thanks for the time, Sattar sahib.
re. ``That is, one is free to accept Islam as he wills, but will be killed if he leaves it. Go figure!!! ``
This would not be so unreasonable in the context I mentioned earlier... taht is, when Islam was a fledgling cult and in constant danger of falling prey to the machinations of munafiqeen. In this context, it is even plausible that the alledged hadith you quote is authentic, though extremely situational.
What I personally find even more obnoxious is the position that those BORN into Muslim families are to be punished with the harshest of penalties (death?) while those who acutally CHOSE it are to be given some leeway to think about their actions. Go fig THAT!
It`s also exasperating how those taking the slightly justifiable ``make your choice and stick to it`` argument conveniently include those in the group who never really made the choice to begin with-- those merely born into that group!
So much for there being no compulsion, eh?!
#235 Posted by PM on November 8, 2006 11:31:12 am
krishna miaN:
re ``Why don`t you just try and answer the question...?``
Here are your questions: (from #223)
Why don`t YOU recheck the facts yourself? And let us know more about the ``reasonable`` nature of Islam, which the extraordinarily bright Islamist (again, a tautology) echoboom has helped you ``see``?
Now, I`ll get to answering them as soon as you can give me one good reason why I should bother. ``Because I said so`` won`t cut it, btw.
re ``Why don`t you just try and answer the question...?``
Here are your questions: (from #223)
Why don`t YOU recheck the facts yourself? And let us know more about the ``reasonable`` nature of Islam, which the extraordinarily bright Islamist (again, a tautology) echoboom has helped you ``see``?
Now, I`ll get to answering them as soon as you can give me one good reason why I should bother. ``Because I said so`` won`t cut it, btw.
#234 Posted by PM on November 8, 2006 11:28:19 am
#228:
Urstruly:
Okay, so Christians obviously don`t know shite about their religion. And obviously Christ himself was terribly conflicted, coz, if you REALLY know the New Testament, as opposed to having a googled out idea of it, you`d know how he dealt with laws such as `keeping holy the Sabbath`, for instance. Mian, you need not dabble in esoteric matters about which you know little or nothing, but if you`re really interested in disabusing yourself of your ignorance, please take the time to read this
And which part of ``I am not a Christian`` did you have difficulty with anyway? Please let me know, and I`ll rephrase if necessary.
But in any case, the next time you find some Christian, or Jew, or anyone else who prescribes the death penalty for apostasy, please do let me know. Until then, you know what you can do with both Deuteronomy and your hypocrisy.
Urstruly:
Okay, so Christians obviously don`t know shite about their religion. And obviously Christ himself was terribly conflicted, coz, if you REALLY know the New Testament, as opposed to having a googled out idea of it, you`d know how he dealt with laws such as `keeping holy the Sabbath`, for instance. Mian, you need not dabble in esoteric matters about which you know little or nothing, but if you`re really interested in disabusing yourself of your ignorance, please take the time to read this
And which part of ``I am not a Christian`` did you have difficulty with anyway? Please let me know, and I`ll rephrase if necessary.
But in any case, the next time you find some Christian, or Jew, or anyone else who prescribes the death penalty for apostasy, please do let me know. Until then, you know what you can do with both Deuteronomy and your hypocrisy.
#237 Posted by Urstruly on November 8, 2006 12:20:04 pm
Re: # 234 PM
I did not say that ``Christians do not know shite about their religion``; these are your words. What I said was that Christians have turned their religion into a buffet religion. They pick what suits their lifestyle and openly reject what doesn`t. I gave you an example from the subject of Apostasy. The examples are so numerous but I will give you one more.
The subject of adultry, fornication, and rape is discussed more than 347+ times in both Old and New Testament, including Gospels and Psalms. (Compare this to Qura`n where the number of times this subject is discussed hardly treads into double digits.) At these places (in Bible) Divinity has shed light on this social evil in almost every possible way. The impact of this crime on social and familial life has been elaborated in detail; the punishments for these crimes, both worldly and otherworldly have also been discussed at length. And yet we see that today Christians are the most permissive of fornication and adultry. As a matter of fact in West fornication is encouraged from the very early age. Even in most conservative of Christian countries like Philipine and some south american countries fornication thrive as trade with government sanctions. For example in Chile there is no concept of divorce according to Catholic law but fornication and adultry not even raise the eyebrows.
And horror of horror, the perversions like homosexuality is openly being practiced in various Chritian denominations and promoted by clergy, but that is a different subject.
Anyway, the point that I am trying to make here is not to count the social evils that have seeped into Christianity but it is that abomination which is called by the name ``tolerance`` that has seeped into human vocabulary. The reason that I am calling `tolerance`` an abomination is not that it is a bad thing but in fact it is a the greatest human attribute, but in modern world atheists have successfully brainwashed Christians and other looser religions like hinduism, polytheism and animism that ``real tolerance`` is not practicing what the core teachings of these religions is but the ``real tolerance`` is not practicisng your religion at all - especially those aspects that contrdict the religion of atheism. It is quite understable in Christianity why they have become so brainwashed; it is because atheism has successfully defeated Christianity in West 3-4 centuries ago at all levels - moral, political, and judicial. It had to happen because they refused to accept the updated version of their religion i.e. Islam which has been the religion of all apostles of Allah from Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus and others up to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon them all)
I did not say that ``Christians do not know shite about their religion``; these are your words. What I said was that Christians have turned their religion into a buffet religion. They pick what suits their lifestyle and openly reject what doesn`t. I gave you an example from the subject of Apostasy. The examples are so numerous but I will give you one more.
The subject of adultry, fornication, and rape is discussed more than 347+ times in both Old and New Testament, including Gospels and Psalms. (Compare this to Qura`n where the number of times this subject is discussed hardly treads into double digits.) At these places (in Bible) Divinity has shed light on this social evil in almost every possible way. The impact of this crime on social and familial life has been elaborated in detail; the punishments for these crimes, both worldly and otherworldly have also been discussed at length. And yet we see that today Christians are the most permissive of fornication and adultry. As a matter of fact in West fornication is encouraged from the very early age. Even in most conservative of Christian countries like Philipine and some south american countries fornication thrive as trade with government sanctions. For example in Chile there is no concept of divorce according to Catholic law but fornication and adultry not even raise the eyebrows.
And horror of horror, the perversions like homosexuality is openly being practiced in various Chritian denominations and promoted by clergy, but that is a different subject.
Anyway, the point that I am trying to make here is not to count the social evils that have seeped into Christianity but it is that abomination which is called by the name ``tolerance`` that has seeped into human vocabulary. The reason that I am calling `tolerance`` an abomination is not that it is a bad thing but in fact it is a the greatest human attribute, but in modern world atheists have successfully brainwashed Christians and other looser religions like hinduism, polytheism and animism that ``real tolerance`` is not practicing what the core teachings of these religions is but the ``real tolerance`` is not practicisng your religion at all - especially those aspects that contrdict the religion of atheism. It is quite understable in Christianity why they have become so brainwashed; it is because atheism has successfully defeated Christianity in West 3-4 centuries ago at all levels - moral, political, and judicial. It had to happen because they refused to accept the updated version of their religion i.e. Islam which has been the religion of all apostles of Allah from Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus and others up to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon them all)
#233 Posted by krishna_abcd on November 8, 2006 10:21:09 am
#224 by PM
[abay teri chaDDi ko kiss ne aag laga rakhee hai, beh? ]
Try and answer the question. Instead of trying to avoid it.
[abay teri chaDDi ko kiss ne aag laga rakhee hai, beh? ]
Try and answer the question. Instead of trying to avoid it.
#232 Posted by krishna_abcd on November 8, 2006 10:18:04 am
[If this is your internal matter, you shit head then why do you keep spaming this article, even this is our internal problem. This is the difference between [piss-drinker]HINDOOS and us. we are ready to explain every single point because we can but you can`t simply explain why you drink cow-piss. ]
No, numbnuts.
It is NOT your internal problem. The name of the article is ``Wahabism in Centers of Learning``. Because there are so many of these animals in India, unfortunately it is OUR problem as well. UNTIL you Pakis take ALL Muslims out of India to Pakiland, it will continue to be our problem.
Get it, shithead?
[Are you nut, It seems you drank a lot of piss before posting. According to you, we believe our Prophet, you moron. We believe in GOD, we FOLLOW Muhammad`s teaching. There were prophets before him like Jesus, we Follow his teaching as well but we don`t BELIEVE in him. ]
No, you are wrong. You DO believe your prophet. You believe him when he tells you that the koran was transmitted to him by the Al-lah dude. If you did not belive him on that point, you would not belive that the koran came from Al-lah. And therefore there would be no Islam.
I know you are a dumb Paki. Read the above line many times. Get a dictionary. See if you understand what it means, fcukhead.
[HAHA... I knew you were drinking piss. But this time you drank your own piss. NONE of the upper point are true. Simply.. I think this is the teaching of KRISHNA BAGWAN or some other BAGWAN you had whom you detest and finally you brought Muhammad in it. I can Challenge you, shit face to bring me any link which proof this story of yours.... ]
ALL of those are true. I have quoted chapter and verse on all of those a thousand times here on Chowk. None of the pedophile followers had any answers. Go back and read the posts by Ajeya, Ramanujan and my current nick.
IF YOU STILL DOUBT IT, let me know. I`ll quote chapter and verse again. One at a time. Otherwise it may be too much for a shitbrain like yourself.
[This is what happen when you drink piss a lot, YOU HALLUCINATE. and fabricate stories.
I hope this will make you shit properly,
Fuçk you later
bye ]
Don`t worry about me shitting properly. You Muslas eat so much meat - that you guys are the most constipated people in the world. Go buy a suppository.
On second thoughts, don`t worry. Go visit your favorite mullah. That`ll do the job.
:)
#231 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2006 9:04:30 am
Urstruly (#228):
“ … I think Christians would be better of saying that they only believe that part of their religion that fits their life style and reject all of the rest …”
MiaN,
Ironically, this is very similar to your faith in Quran. You follow it when it supports your views, twist it when it does not, and abandon it completely when it negates your agenda. You then revert to passages from bible, alleged hadith, verdict of your ullema etc. … all of which is squarely negated by Quran.
+++++
Khurram (#229):
That was a good read; thanks for the link. It pretty much sums up my take on the issue.
To contrast it, read post #59 from Urstruly here. It is a shocker and an eye-opener … and sheds light on the nefarious views of the ”custodians of faith”.
#230 Posted by sattar2 on November 8, 2006 8:42:29 am
PM (#221),
Fair questions …
Quran leaves the matter between the individual and Allah Almighty. This position makes full sense to me personally at an intellectual level. Furthermore, it completely squares with Quranic view of “no compulsion in matters of faith”. Here’s are some Quranic references on apostasy:
Apostasy forgiven through repentance: 3:86-91
Apostasy harmless to cause of Islam: 3:144, 5:54
Punishment for apostasy from Allah alone: 2:217, 3:86-89, 4:137, 16:106
I am yet to come across any Quranic reference that supports death for apostasy (or blasphemy or adultery, for that matter).
”No compulsion in matters of faith”
Ullema take a twisted view of the “no compulsion in matters of faith” clause of Quran. Since they cannot deny what is written in Quran, they add to it. They insist that … true, a person should not be forced to accept Islam, since there can be no compulsion in matters of faith. However, once a person has accepted Islam, he cannot leave it. Killing him for leaving Islam does not violate the “no compulsion in matters of faith” clause.
That is, one is free to accept Islam as he wills, but will be killed if he leaves it. Go figure!!!
Relevant hadith
From what I know, death for apostasy is based upon a recorded hadith … where the Prophet (pbuh) allegedly stated something like “whoever changes his religion, kill him”.
My view is that such ahadith are erroneous (either incorrectly cited/recorded, or missing the context, or at least partly fabricated). Accepting such ahadith as valid leads one to conclude that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself violated Quran. This in turn casts doubts on his prophethood, his mission, and the content of Quran itself.
Mainstream Islamic schools of thought
I am not sure when “death for apostasy” got integrated into the mainstream Muslim thought. But it seems that most (perhaps all) mainstream schools of this day concur on killing apostates.
#229 Posted by khurram on November 8, 2006 8:33:12 am
PM:
Since you are curious, here is an excellent article on the topic.
http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/apostasy_dawah.doc
Since you are curious, here is an excellent article on the topic.
http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/islamic/apostasy_dawah.doc
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- jayp: Re: # 19 tahmed, Paki civil... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- nb: I never knew until... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- _arjun30: heh... ‘Pakistan loses $1.5bn due... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: #64 Posted by... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- laddu: The more Islamist thinking... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- _arjun30: #48 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: #51 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- Urstruly: It came as a... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
