Which Islam?

#120 by pedophile personality cult follower


Here`s a secret I`ll share with you. In reality, there are no ghilmans. That beard is not going to get you squat.

Trust me. It`s true. No anal sex with prepubescent boys in the afterlife.

That`s just how it is.

#109 by Salim_Chauhan

[Of all the interesting points raised by the author and the ensuing dialogue by other interactors, you saw fit to expend 50% of your nonsensical posts on my simple and sincere comment about the eventual universal acceptance of Islam. ]

It is an objective fact that my English reading comprehension is at least as good as yours.

Here`s post #74:

[....Another excellent article and one with which I find so much agreement. Your concluding sentences are so logical and so timely that if we all stopped using Islam for our selfish causes, this wonderful faith would naturally and easily become universal....]

Your faith ``becoming universal`` is not the same as ``universal acceptance``, idiot.

Either you know this, and are trying to fudge your way out.

Or, you need to take some lessons in English.

Therefore you are a liar at best and an idiot at worst.

Take your pick.



[The only wet dream seems to be your own hallucination about appearing as a modern libertarian atheist. The truth is that you come across as a right-wing Islamophobic Hindutva extremist. That big bulge in your stylish jeans is nothing more than the dhoti you always wear underneath.]

I think you ghilman-obsessed pedophile worshippers need to stop obsessing about parts of the male anatomy. Starting with dedicating your penis foreskin to Al-lah.

It`s pretty disgusting.

Dr. Sahib,

I totally agree with you about the ``My father was a king`` thinking muslims apply to themselves currently. This ``collective narcisist disorder`` (so beautifully put by Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy) is what brings about a ``collective downfall`` of a society. It didn`t really occur to me this way untill i saw Dr. Zakir Naik on TV (I gag evertime he is refer to as Doctor) and he was indirectly telling his ``brethren`` that they were the ``chosen people`` of God and it was up to them to bring on board those who did not have the ``opportunity`` to be exposed to Islam. Any rationale thinker would realize that Muslims are by no means the chosen people anymore. There must be something going on. Here`s my 4 point success route for the Muslim brethren:

1. Apply a Gandhi-istic humble approach to life and think of all humanity as brethren not just those who have been exposed to Islam.
2. Admit the fact that the evil ``West`` has cultivated modern science to the point of admiration and that adaptation to it and spreading of knowledge is the only way to accumulating new knowledge and advancing humanity (surely God will approve of the advancement of his chosen species).
3. Stop thinking that Islam and the Quran is the ultimate source of knowledge because it really isn`t. Great literature, but really not the answer to all of mankinds problems (please brothers... refrain from sending me quotes from the book as most probably I already know them).
4. Life itself should be intrinsic enough to be meaningful. Do good because doing ``good`` would benefit humanity as a whole and in turn benefit you. Do not do good simply because of fear of a supreme being.

#90 NTSyed

NTSyed sahib,

I hesitate to jump and interpose myself between you, Dr. Gill, and that love letter writing festival! (I am also a bit handicapped because my knowledge of ANY variety of Islam stays exactly where it was the last time we interacted – i.e., at zilch!)

But what the heck!

The Gill makes some legitimate points. You disagree. The Gill says that the Islamic world sits on its fanny when it comes to making scientific progress. You laugh in his face.

My question – if there is such a love of science in the Islamic world, why aren’t the smart souls in that world actually practicing a few things indicated by science? For example:

(a) Why accept ANYTHING based on faith alone? (What kind of scientific thinking is that?)

(b) Why not treat your women as equal to men (they have the same number of chromosomes as the men, after all)?

(c) Can you name three significant scientific discoveries made by Islamic scholars in the past century? (Were the “neocons” preventing all those Islamic scientific scholars from winning Nobel prizes for the whole century? Or are those scholars determined to collect all their Nobels en masse – when they reach the afterworld?)

(d) Why does Pakistan lack good scientific research institutions or even basic science education but is bursting at its seams with those madrassas?!!

(e) Why aren’t Pakistani masses out in the street asking for blood over the lack of good educational institutions – the way they seem to be doing when somebody publishes cartoons which they dislike!

Why is all of that?

Can your ilk get out of your crab shell to think about it? Have you ever dug deep into how the world at large views the country of Pakistan today and perhaps even expatriate Pakistanis? I hope you`re not pressed on time to face the truth.

Today in Pakistan and most of the Muslim countries, almost everyone who can somehow afford to go the Europe or US for higher education is dying to do so, but have you ever wondered that perhaps the climate at home is not conducive to the freedom of thought which is a prerequisite for ANY kind of scientific thinking?! Various countries in the West couldn`t afford to have so many students, since they have no way to separate the potential terrorists from the legitimate students. Besides, nobody owes anything to Pakistanis – so why should they?

You claim that Muslims do not hate science and scientific progress, whether it is achieved by the East or The West. Well, not hating is not enough – you have to actually practice the scientific thought process yourself – and for that one needs to be open to question absolutely anything – even your Book!

Do you have guts enough to do that?

Are you sure that Pakistani Muslims are ready for that?!!

Or would you be the first individual to jump up and protest that that would be a “flawed system” of education being forced upon those innocent creatures – counter to “Islamic” values.

What the Gill is offering for your ilk is a face saving formula. Are you smart enough to grab it? Or are you simply satisfied with the status quo – with the built-in excuse to keep bad-mouthing the West for all your present troubles?!!

Your statement about “respect” to Hindus visiting Pakistan is downright dishonest – isn’t Pakistan the country that practiced massive “ethnic cleansing” of its Hindus?! God save the world from such “respect”! Do you have the guts to accept responsibility for that act even today?!!

I did not think so!

In my humble opinion, the true and primary embarrassment for Pakistani Muslims has been, and still is in your case Sir, is that you have no guts to face your own hypocrisy.

I could go on forever, but I need to get to bed soon! So I will cut it short.

The problem with your ilk is that in spite of your own perceived “sincerity”, you are simply unable look at simple facts of life without bringing in the hereafter. Even then, you look at only one side of the picture. As a result you submit to the dominant thought of the day in your country - propagated through your mullahcracy and the khakis and other means, and eventually claim it to be THE truth.

No offence taken, I hope.

(B-e-e-zzzzzzzzzz…..)

Re: # 109

Salim_Chauhan to Krishna_xyz:
{That big bulge in your stylish jeans is nothing more than the dhoti you always wear underneath.}

Hahahaha....

Salim, have you been hanging out with a Hindu version of Begum Nawazish Ali or what?

:-)~~

Correction to post # 116

The following statement should be read as:

I was under the impression that Quran was Allah`s final word to humanity. Pray inform me when did it become the word of Muhammad (PBUH), who was a mortal. Since when did Islam became known as Muhammad (PBUH)`s authority?

Ciao

Re: Raw_Dust # 102

Islamic politics in the 21st century are the politics of the nation-states based on the Westphalian model of 1648. Islam does not exist in a political vacuum, but in a political environment, which is influenced and shaped by the realities of the day. However, it is a different debate whether the believers of Islam are willing to accept the reality of their environment or not. Even before the onset of colonization into Muslim lands, the fabled Ummah was divided geo-politically and it is also worth mentioning that the political unity of the Ummah ceased after the death of Muhammad (PBUH). Islamic politics in the 21st century have to exist in the 21st century. Period. Islamic politics cannot exist in the past.

Hence, Islamic politics in the 21st century are marked by the dynamics, whereby Islam is struggling to reconcile its ideology with the secular world, within which it exists. The present and the future of Islamic politics will be influeced by the events in the 21st century not by any past centuries. Parenthetically speaking, a revivial of the Islamic political power in the international arena, will be made possible by not harking to a past world that does not exist anymore, but by learning how to adapt Islamic political-religious thought to the limitations of the politics of 21st century and beyond. Presently, Islamic political thought is confused because it seems intent on re-creating the 7th century in the 21st century and instead of learning from the failure of its idealism; it further reinforces its own institutional failures by persisting with a bad idea.

The question is: what happened to the state or the ideal of the state created by Muhammad (PBUH) and why it did not survive Muhammad (PBUH)`s death?

As to Islam and secularism; granted that Islam was borne on the idea of religious militancy, it should also be pointed out that once Islam had physically secured itself within geographic political bounderies, Islam did favor a balance between politics and religion. Hence, to suggest that Islam did not have a balance between politics and religion is a misleading statement. Incidently, Islamic political thought and experience is not a monolithic example, and Islamic political thought and religious influences varied regionally and were unique to their governace style. In other words, no two Muslim kingdoms dispalyed the same style of government or the same manner of politics. In a religious sense, the Muslims might have had one common belief structure, but politically they differed from one another on the issue of politics and were not averse to fight wars against one another from time to time.

As to the destruction of the idols, it would be instructive to remember that once they had been destoryed, Islamic code did not allow the persecution of non-Muslims on religious grounds and that example is more telling of the nature of tolerance within Islamic politics than the act of destorying the idols itself.

There is no mythical clergy in Islam; it exists and its influence can be felt in a tangible sense around the world and its teachings expouse a very militant version of Islam, which politically supports the religious politics of these politically opportunistic clergy.

You said and I quote: ``At that time there was only one thing with which people would abide by and that was Mohammad`s word (Quran) and his authority and that`s what is referred to as Islam``.

I was under the impression that Quran was Allah`s final word to humanity. Pray inform me when did it come the word of Muhammad (PBUH), who was a mortal. Since when did Islam became known as Muhammad (PBUH)`s authority?

Ciao

Romair,

I personally don`t agree with your assessment that secular states are unstable becuase they don`t have a philosophical basis. As I see it, secular states are based on a practical compromise with reality that no states have a homogenous composition (based on either religion or ethnicity). Ideology based states OTOH haven`t had a great track record in terms of longevity- USSR, Islamic Caliphate to name a few. The ones who did survive for a longer period of time- PRC for eg have had to compromise on their principles.

(and as i stated, th secular world is getting more and more athiest, not less (other than in usa).........)

Not only in USA. But in other countries with secular constitutions/states- India, Russia, China for eg. religion is probably more popular than was a generation back, without necessarily calling for a religion based state.

(i think eventually the world will be divided into two types of people and states........those which are religion-centric, and those which are athiestically-centric)

Again I don`t agree with your vision but if it does happen it is more likely to swing towards atheist states rather than religion-based states for the simple reason that there are hardly any countries left which have a homogenous people who share exactly the same religion and even if the religion is the same, sectarian differences would render creation of a religion based state very problematic.

Regards

sattar #115: .......i am not arguing the pros and cons of secularism or religionism........i am simply looking at their philosophical basis.........

..........those who believe in religionism have a pretty straightforward concept, i.e. religion in public and personal life.......i neither agree nor disagree with them........this idea maybe the holy grail or utter nonsense........

........those who believe in secularism are at a half-way point.........religion in personal life but not in public life..........this is a transitionary stage, because it does not have a consistent philosophical basis.......hence my comment that what kind of God is half correct....either He is all correct or all incorrect.......

........hence secularism is an in-between stage........it cannot philosophically survive......people will keep challenging the personal side of religion that is present in secularism.......till the point reaches where the state will have to accept that religion cannot have a place in personal or public life........i.e. athiesm..........and as i stated, th secular world is getting more and more athiest, not less (other than in usa).........

........i think eventually the world will be divided into two types of people and states........those which are religion-centric, and those which are athiestically-centric, i.e. states that move fully towards science and logic with some concept of a force that created mankind, but no form of organized religion in either personal or public life...........as oppposed to today, where the world is divide into religionists and secularists........

bulleya (#96),

If you argue that secularism necessarily evolves into atheism, then you should also accept that a government based on religion necessarily evolves into a brutal ideological rule.

Now, we can argue which is worse: marrying them faggots or killing an apostate. Take your pick, but I hope you get the point.

Re: # 84

All this prosletysing to Islam goes on to turn Muslims perhaps into majority in the global counting so that `muslims` could brag about the numbers all the more, oblivious of the fact that Allah says that the majority will go to hell.

Once the prophet had prayed to Allah to get rid of all the kafirs (non-believers) but Allah did not agree. He did not bother either to explain why He allowed kafirs to exist and even let them thrive to the chagrin of the muslims. It is, however, a fact that muslims were geuine believers when they were in minority even in Makka. It were the `submitters` and not the believers who surged their numbers later on.

As to the question `Which Islam`, I think the Munir Inquiry Report is the last word on the subject.

Urstruly (#97),

I asked what I asked since you were talking from both sides of your mouth (nao’zob’illah). On a different note, you represent no Jesus in this conflict, rather the ullema who tried to have Jesus crucified. So cut this crap out and read on to understand how ...

Essentially your position is that … `Church is not needed since State is supposed do the job of the Church`.

Jesus (as you quoted) was actually opposing such intermixing of church and state when he exclaimed that Caesar be given what belonged to him, and God be given what belonged to Him.

Jewish ullema were in cahoots with Roman rulers (very much like your ullema during times of Zia and Butto). These ullema conspired with the rulers and judges to have Jesus crucified, since Jesus was raising his voice against exploitation of people by state and the ullema.

Your views mirror those of corrupt Jewish ullema, and not those of Jesus. Note the parallels here - Jesus was charged with blasphemy by mullahs of his time. Your ullema too use blasphemy laws as a way to harrass and threaten others.

There`s much more but I`ll pause here for now.

urstruly #various:........while your argument on secularism/athiesm has logic, your, ``ultimate`` solution does not..........

......i tend to agree that the present-day arguments of secularism do not have much of a philosophical basis to stand on.......they are more arguments of convenience, i.e. people wanting to believe in God and some religion, but only up to a point.......as i stated earlier, one cannot believe God was correct when it comes to personal life, but incorrect when it comes to public life.......either He is correct or incorrect in both arenas........what kind of God is only half correct?...........

......these are the battles secular societies are fighitng when they debate gay marraige, polygamy etc.......the logical end of these debates will be a shift of the basis of morality, which currently is based on religion......whom one can marry, whom one cannot.......whom one can kiss and whom one cannot.......

however, the ultimate solution will not be one religion winning over the other.........at least not in the near future........the demographics of the world clearly indicate that will not happen.......are 1.4 billion christians, 1 billion hindus and 1 billion chinese going to convert to islam? will they all be killed? will aliens pick them up?......

.......in addition, islam, itself, is so abstract and vague (its true strength in my opinion) that much of it has been legislated based on the ideas of imam bukhari etc. only a smaller fraction is legislated on the quran..........hence there will always be so many flavors of islam that very few muslims will follow what you are suggesting........for example, i certain don`t follow it and i consider myself a muslim..............

............in fact, there is a pretty good chance that as secularism evolves towards its philosophical basis, i.e. God was wrong in state and personal life, athiesm may become the norm...........much of the world may move away from religion all together, much like like th west (other than usa) is doing, as people become more prosperous, and start interacting with people from other religions and start discussing these ideas...........

i think the future will be a large group of religious people of different religions (as is today) and a large group of athiests (the eventual evolutionary stage of secularism)..........

Re: # 110 masadi {``...Colonization did not end with the british, it merely changed forms, and the effects of that continue...``}

Exactly my sentiments...

``...Imperial centralization under the British ... took a major blow in 1947. The British Raj underwent a metamorphosis in that year but it remained alive and well standing firmly on its three pillars of power: (a) the imperial military, (b) the colonial bureaucracy and, (c) the feudal aristocracy.

What happened in 1947, was a mere ``change of the palace guards``. The imperial structures only substituted their cold western professionalism with native nepotism and malaise, otherwise they remained intact, and the masses were none the better off. The Empire, in spirit, continued after 1947, though not as a monolith, but as a bi-polar imperial structure under native masters...``

Strange, masadi sahib, we do agree on some things after all...

...SR

frethinker writes << Dear Sir: You accused me of slave mentality, I don’t know why. However the facts appear to be quite different. I have long stopped accusing the British colonists for our shortcomings...>>>

Precisely for this reason, you blame the victims and not the perpetrators of the crime. Colonization did not end with the british, it merely changed forms, and the effects of that continue. Further, the ``attitude`` that describes the scientific spirit among the Arabs had Islam as percipitating factor, giving examples of a few individuals does nothing to disprove what I wrote. Ghazali`s ``Christianization of Islam`` and its effects and relationship with knowledge further proves my thesis and not yours.

#86 Krisha_xyz {``The eternal wet dream of religious bigots of any and all stripes...``}

regarding my comment in #74: ``if we all stopped using Islam for our selfish causes, this wonderful faith would naturally and easily become universal.``

Krishna_choose your alphabet,

Of all the interesting points raised by the author and the ensuing dialogue by other interactors, you saw fit to expend 50% of your nonsensical posts on my simple and sincere comment about the eventual universal acceptance of Islam.

The only wet dream seems to be your own hallucination about appearing as a modern libertarian atheist. The truth is that you come across as a right-wing Islamophobic Hindutva extremist. That big bulge in your stylish jeans is nothing more than the dhoti you always wear underneath.