Yes, reformation is in progress now right before our eyes.
Reforming back to its original form. As Muhammad intended.
We can proudly proclaim that we had a hand in this.
Ditch the Shah and replace it with Khomeini.
No wonder they shout death to America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNjae521qa8
No. The Christian Reformation happened in spite of being impossible though.
Shia and Sunni aren't the same. But they both have minerals we want (to help China get to).
No bowl of fried rice for you, Pr126.
QuoteDitch the Shah and replace it with Khomeini.
No wonder they shout death to America.
Face palm so hard right now. Please look up the secular, democratically elected Mosaddegh, then look who overthrew him. I'll give you a hint... it starts with Brit and ends in -ain.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 02, 2017, 02:43:52 PM
Face palm so hard right now. Please look up the secular, democratically elected Mosaddegh, then look who overthrew him. I'll give you a hint... it starts with Brit and ends in -ain.
British Petroleum strikes again ... not just in the Gulf blowout. But as helped by Kermit Roosevelt, the ner-do-well younger son of Teddy Roosevelt.
The US never interferes in the politics of other nations, that is why we should all be mad if another nation does it to us!
Several issues, now that I am at home and have a keyboard rather than a phone...
1. Islam is reforming, yes... and in different parts of the world, it is reforming in different ways. You have the Wahhabist fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia, but then you travel to Turkey and see people drinking raki and visiting brothels. In Indonesia and Singapore, you can meet devout Muslims who eat pork and have tattoos.
You can claim Islam is capable of reforming, or you can claim it cant. But you cant claim both, and you cant just use negative examples but rather have to look at the big picture which is that Islam in certain regions is becoming more moderate, in some regions is staying the same, and in other's is reverting to a more fundamentalist interpretation (which is unpopular to both the moderate and conservative Muslims around them).
2. "We can proudly proclaim that we had a hand in this." - I mean, yes... yes we really can. We have funded and propped up fundamentalist terrorists and governments in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab League. We have overthrown democratic, secular leaders in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and left power vacuums for more radical groups to take charge.
The three largest sponsors of state terrorism in the world can directly trace their political rise to Western powers... the Saudi family being backed by Western interests, in Iran overthrow of the secular Mosaddegh to install the hugely unpopular Shah, and in Pakistan the Western backing of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq to fight the Soviets.
This is simple fact, simple history. This is what happened, so when you talk about Islam as being the root cause of all the violence in the Middle East, what you are essentially saying is that history, actual fact, is irrelevant and it must be because they are "different" that all the problems in the world are there fault.
It's funny, I never thought about how the people who cry loudest about how terrible identity politics are... are the people who most blatantly use such ideas.
3. "Ditch the Shah and replace it with Khomeini. No wonder they shout death to America." - While I already posted about him before, seriously... look up who Mosaddegh is. If you really did ignore me, than if someone would quote that name for me, I would be grateful. It's also funny you come from an Eastern Bloc country, and yet support the Shah, who was basically a Western Eastern Bloc country leader with his own versions of gulags, secret police and all the stereotypical shitty things about the Soviet Union.
For those of you interested...
This one does a great "crash course" coverage of the history of modern Iran. While it leaves alot out, it still hits all the key bits. If you are more interested, the book, "All The Shah's Men", is absolutely great.
Greenwald absolutely demolishes Maher, who basically parrots (or who pr parrots) posts here.
Except Khomeni was an agent of French communism, aka an agent of the Soviet Union. Where were the Vietnamese communists and Cambodian communists when they were in exile? In the French colonial motherland. Not so the Iranians, but they also have a love relationship with France. But a pragmatic choice ... the Soviets had to agree to sacrifice the Iranian communist party members to horrible deaths.
I am not opposed to Iran or Shiism or Ayatollah theocracy. But I wouldn't want to live there. Read "Persepolis" by Marjane Satrapi.
Any reformation is done to soften the rules of the Islam to make the religion seems like soft to outsiders.
But the rules of any religion is static and stiff and cannot be changed.|
How you can change the sayings of Allah...?
It is like how it is written at its times...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 02, 2017, 10:02:42 PM
Any reformation is done to soften the rules of the Islam to make the religion seems like soft to outsiders.
But the rules of any religion is static and stiff and cannot be changed.|
How you can change the sayings of Allah...?
It is like how it is written at its times...
Correct. All of the Quran is the words of G-d ... only some of the words of the Bible are the words of G-d. Jews and Christians got out competed in theocracy!
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 02, 2017, 10:02:42 PM
Any reformation is done to soften the rules of the Islam to make the religion seems like soft to outsiders.
But the rules of any religion is static and stiff and cannot be changed.|
I doubt appealing to outsiders was the first thing on their minds when Islam splintered between Shia and Sunni, and the resulting ideological differences (with Shia being a fusion of traditional Islam and elements of Persian culture and theology sprinkled in). Nor do I think Luther's first thought when he nailed the thesis to the wall was, "Man, this should make the Catholic Church look much better!".
Reformers are, generally, super devout men who see their religion as doing something un-their-religion, and want to fix it. That, or they are super non-devout men who want something their religion prohibits and contests it until a sizable group agrees with them. But reformation is very inward aimed rather than outwards.
QuoteHow you can change the sayings of Allah...?
It is like how it is written at its times...
Pretty easily; translate it differently (though they were smart and insisted that only Arabic, rather than a dead language, is the "true" interpretation [which is actually accurate if you want to understand him the most clearly]). We do it all the time with Islam; reading it in English loses and gains things in translation that the original message didn't intend to be lost or added.
But reformation is more about interpretation of what was written rather than changing what was written. That is what is important. 100 people can read the Qu'ran and come away with 100 different interpretations.
Except that ... Muslim jurists of Sunni or Shia version, will tell you that there are only a few correct interpretations, that don't differ in anything essential ... that happen to be their jurisprudence traditions ;-)
Quote from: Shiranu on August 02, 2017, 11:09:23 PM
I doubt appealing to outsiders was the first thing on their minds when Islam splintered between Shia and Sunni, and the resulting ideological differences (with Shia being a fusion of traditional Islam and elements of Persian culture and theology sprinkled in). Nor do I think Luther's first thought when he nailed the thesis to the wall was, "Man, this should make the Catholic Church look much better!".
Reformers are, generally, super devout men who see their religion as doing something un-their-religion, and want to fix it. That, or they are super non-devout men who want something their religion prohibits and contests it until a sizable group agrees with them. But reformation is very inward aimed rather than outwards.
Pretty easily; translate it differently (though they were smart and insisted that only Arabic, rather than a dead language, is the "true" interpretation [which is actually accurate if you want to understand him the most clearly]). We do it all the time with Islam; reading it in English loses and gains things in translation that the original message didn't intend to be lost or added.
But reformation is more about interpretation of what was written rather than changing what was written. That is what is important. 100 people can read the Qu'ran and come away with 100 different interpretations.
There are lots of types of Arabics which are spoken.
The spoken Arabic in Egypy, in Saudi Arabia, or in Algeria, All are different. They cant even understand each other
But the Arabic taught in schools in that countries called Fasih Arabic is the language spoken in Muho s times. about 1400 years ago.
What i mean with reformation is for example not to kill ones who leave the religion etc..
Like they know better than Allah what Allah means in the Quran : )
"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion." Qur'an, 5:3
How can you change anything in what is perfect? It is blasphemy.
Imam Al Tabari in his commentary states: (http://www.answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/gods_words_unchangable.html)
Quote"None can change His words", He is saying that there is no one who could change what He has informed in His books about anything which is bound to happen during it's time or has been postponed. It all happens as Allah says it would. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 6:115, Source)
It is hard baked into the Quran that "reformation" is not possible.
Islam did not "reform" in 1400 years. It will not change now when Islam is winning ground all over.
By
reformation we mean enlightenment, as it happened in Christianity.
But reformation also means to reform to its original form, i.e. as it was in the times of the prophet.
See Wahhabism.
Or further back in the 11th century with Al Ghazali.
QuoteAl-Ghazali has been referred to by some historians as the single most influential Muslim after the prophet Muhammad.[17] Within Islamic civilization he is considered to be a Mujaddid or renewer of the faith, who, according to tradition, appears once every century to restore the faith of the community.
More:
Why calling for an ‘Islamic Reformation’ is lazy and historically illiterate (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/02/why-calling-for-an-islamic-reformation-is-lazy-and-historically-illiterate/)
QuoteMartin Luther wasn’t trying to create a more liberal political order. It’s time to talk about what really happened
It’s been said for years now: Islam needs its reformation. Some centuries ago, Christianity ditched its theocratic impulse and affirmed modern political values â€" let Islam do likewise! Let its Luther, who is presumably sulking in the corner of some madrassa, come forward! Islam hath need of him!
This sounds briskly no-nonsense, in its willingness to say that Islam has a problem that needs fixing, and open-minded about religion, in its assumption that religions can change and be compatible with secularism. But it’s actually lazy and historically illiterate. It involves a misreading of how Christianity relates to modernity.
It implies that, once upon a time, Christianity was in conflict with healthy political values, but it learned to change its ways. Maybe it is supposed that Martin Luther was the pioneer of this, that he said something along the lines of: ‘Let’s question what the Pope tells us and adapt our faith so that it accords with humanist morality, equal rights, and the separation of church and state.’
Instead, Luther said something along the lines of: ‘Let’s purify our religion, be more faithful to its essential logic, contained in its founding documents.’ And this reforming movement gradually produced new political realities and ideas. Creating a more liberal political order was not on Luther’s agenda, nor on anyone’s at that time, but it did become a central concern of some Protestants in the next century. The Protestant Reformation was not a matter of Christianity accepting the truth of something else, something beyond itself. And that is what people really want when they say that Islam needs a reformation: they want it to accept the truth of western values, adapt to them.
So the ‘Islam needs its reformation’ line makes this mistake. It supposes that Christianity and Islam are two comparable forms of religion: if Religion A adapted to modernity, Religion B can too. But Religion A didn’t adapt to modernity: it inadvertently made modernity, by trying to be more purely itself.
QuoteWhat i mean with reformation is for example not to kill ones who leave the religion etc..
Like they know better than Allah what Allah means in the Quran : )
Except there are plenty of Muslims that believe that, both in the West but also in the Middle East.
For whatever reason, Westerners have engrained in their collective psyche that Islam is a monolithic pillar that cannot be altered, when that is simply inaccurate and contradictory to basically all of human history ever.
QuoteIt is hard baked into the Quran that "reformation" is not possible.
So reformation is not possible, but they are having to reform back to a more pure form, which means reformation happened, even though reformation is impossible.
Stop. Take a breath. Think your words through before you type them.
QuoteSo the ‘Islam needs its reformation’ line makes this mistake. It supposes that Christianity and Islam are two comparable forms of religion: if Religion A adapted to modernity, Religion B can too. But Religion A didn’t adapt to modernity: it inadvertently made modernity, by trying to be more purely itself.
The simple truth is in a modern world, with modern resources, people will adopt a modern way of life. This is simply the reality of the world. Muslims are not aliens that doesn't apply to. You look at the Western transition to modernity, and it was a turmoil filled several hundred year process which is still far from perfect; we still have atheists arguing against LGBT+ communities using very archaic interpretations of gender that stem from religious doctrine, so when theological mindsets still dominate the atheist community you have to consider just how theological our general population is.
So when we criticize a region that has developed later, and who has been consistently suppressed by us (and that's not a statement against the west, that is a historical norm... whoever has the biggest, baddest, newest stick or gun exploits those around them), then it's not at all surprising that they are not at our level.
Rather than a reformation of Islam, what we should be pushing for is a reformation away from colonial mindsets and a reformation of the education and standards of living within these countries. But we also have to realise that those changes cannot be forced on anyone, and when they are it almost always has disastrous results.
Long story short; we have to stop acting like it's a black-and-white issue with one problem (ISLAAAAAAAMMMM!!!) and instead realise that theology, politics and sociology in the Middle East, and everywhere else, is an extremely complex system and the problems in it are likewise extremely complex and have no one simple answer. If you were to magically poof Islam out of existence this very moment, the situation in the Middle East would likely, for all intents and purposes, remain almost exactly the same. Islam is an extension of culture, not the source of... no more than the oppressive theocracies of the Dark Ages were an extension of a culture recovering from the fall of the Roman Empire and not a product of Christianity.
QuoteSo reformation is not possible, but they are having to reform back to a more pure form, which means reformation happened, even though reformation is impossible.
Stop. Take a breath. Think your words through before you type them.
Wordplay again?
The meaning of reformation: To
reform to its original form.
Not the same as we see Reformation == enlightenment.
That is why Christians bothered with the New Testament.
There will be no Quran 2.0 anytime soon.
In this context, we have given the word “reformation†another meaning.
Words and their meaning are changing all the time.
Being an apologist for the worst ideology possible on the planet is not a virtue.
Unless you are doing dawah.
What people want to say is Enlightenment, European secular progressivism ... like being a French atheist like Rousseau or a French leader like Robespierre. Reformation Luther wasn't a Progressive, he was a Wahabi ... same as they current regime in KSA or Iran. Reform involves puritanism. The Arabs had their Reformation back in 1700s with imam Wahab.
What Luther wanted was an Apocalypse, with Germany at the head of it, and himself at the head of Germany ... which is why Hitler found him so useful, particularly his hatred of Jews. KSA probably also wants an apocalypse, with only Arabs surviving. In particular they want ethnic Indian and Indonesian Muslims dead ... and Persian Muslims dead too. Don't forget they want the Turkish Muslims dead, since at least 1914. This is why they foment terrorism and civil war in Muslim countries. The new heir of the kingdom, will be the king soon (the old man is dying) and he is a war hawk, with everyone.
"The simple truth is in a modern world, with modern resources, people will adopt a modern way of life."
Shiranu ... you are in the Matrix, you are not Neo, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Your Marxism is so ... 19th century man.
Reformed Islam wants all non-Muslims dead, even all non-Arab Muslims. Reformed Islam is actually worse that Medieval Islam ... just as Christian Reformation was worse than Catholic Medievalism. You want Enlightenment ... but we aren't all turning into Rousseau or Robespierre for you.
I think Shiranu is being "schooled" on Islam by his Muslim friends.
He does claim to know Islam well, but the knowledge comes from Muslims, rather than the Muslim text themselves.
After all, they are Muslims, and who should know Islam better?
And they wouldn't lie to him, would they?
For example, he claimed that FGM is not Islamic. But the Hadiths and Sharia clearly states that it is.
Well, Islamic apologist is a dime a dozen. Muslims and non-Muslims.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet." - Barak Hussein Obama.
I wonder what he thinks of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (The biography of Muhammad)?
Or as I call it "The little book of Horrors".
Ibn Ishaq: The Life of Muhammad (http://www.justislam.co.uk/images/Ibn%20Ishaq%20-%20Sirat%20Rasul%20Allah.pdf)
QuoteHe does claim to know Islam well, but the knowledge comes from Muslims, rather than the Muslim text themselves.
I must of missed where the Qu'ran is not a Muslim text.
I'm sorry, but your so consistently just factually wrong that it's like a kindergarderner telling you that physics is just, "1+1 and you have the answer! Anyone who thinks that is wrong is dumb!". From someone who might actually know something about what they are talking about, that might be offensive, but from you it's just kinda sad.
Start here, Shiranu: Islam 101 (https://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.pdf)
Download it onto your computer and read in your own time.
I am sure you won't read it. It is contrary to your preconceived ideas.
Willful ignorance.
Its the social contract ... children take out contracts on adults, women take out contracts on men, colored folk take out contracts on White folk ...
Difference between Islam and Christianity ... not between Bible and Quran
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXa80iqZQqI
A good analysis ... and also a tie-in to post-Christian behavior not being savage ... because it is Stoic
Quote from: pr126 on August 03, 2017, 09:47:37 AM
Start here, Shiranu: Islam 101 (https://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.pdf)
Download it onto your computer and read in your own time.
I am sure you won't read it. It is contrary to your preconceived ideas.
Willful ignorance.
You're right, I won't read it. Though to be fair, that's because it is a broken link...
Quote from: Shiranu on August 03, 2017, 06:20:36 PM
You're right, I won't read it. Though to be fair, that's because it is a broken link...
Here is the corrected link ...
https://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101
Didn't take an IT genius to find it.
Not an endorsement of it ... neither do I support Medieval Christianity nor Medieval Judaism. But at least Medieval Jews were concerned about ethics, unlike the Gentiles.
Quote from: Baruch on August 03, 2017, 06:41:18 PM
Here is the corrected link ...
https://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101
Didn't take an IT genius to find it.
Not an endorsement of it ... neither do I support Medieval Christianity nor Medieval Judaism. But at least Medieval Jews were concerned about ethics, unlike the Gentiles.
On my phone at work, so didn't have time for that. I'll check it in a bit.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 03, 2017, 06:44:30 PM
On my phone at work, so didn't have time for that. I'll check it in a bit.
So prehistoric ... you "phone people". Kind of like iHomo eHabilus. Pretty soon the giant screen people will evolve into a separate species from the tiny screen people ;-)
The mistake some people make is conflating “Islam†the ideology and “Muslim†the identity.
Islam is a religion; it’s a set of beliefs, a bunch of ideas in a book. It’s not human.
Muslims are real, living, breathing people, and there’s a big difference between criticizing ideas and demonizing human beings.
If one criticizes those set of ideas, is automatically accused of demonizing the people holding those ideas.
That person is immediately declared a bigot, hater, an Islamophobe.
All other ideas are open to discussion, examination, criticism.
Except for this one. The question is why?
Answer: because we are scared. Now that is Islamophobia.
Shiranu, I need to ask you this, before I head to work, what is your opinion of women in burka's, both in the middle east and those wearing them in the west.
I'll get back to this later.
Shiranu wrote:QuoteI must of missed where the Qu'ran is not a Muslim text.
I doubt that you have read the entire Quran and understood its message.
You have been probably reading passages approved for you by your Muslim friends.
The other passages are "explained away" sanitized, white washed, with taqiyya and kitman for you.
Are you aware of the principle of abrogation? The later violent verses are abrogating (canceling) the earlier, more peaceful verses.
In effect, there are two Qurans in one, the Mekkan, and Medinan chapters. When Muhammad was starting out his religion he was more conciliatory.
Later when he had his followers and army, he became more violent and war like. So the concept of abrogation was implemented because verses cannot be deleted once "revealed".
See verse Q 2:106
Also a word about context.
The Quran is not arranged in chronological order but in the order of chapter size.
It starts with the longest chapters and proceeds by size to the shortest one.
But Muslims are also commanded to obey the Hadiths and the Sharia.
Then there is the Sira, the life of Muhammad.
Without the Hadiths, the Quran doesn't make much sense, as most of the Islamic customs are not in the Quran.
For example how to perform ritual washing and prayers, etc.
Then there are the many volumes of Tafsirs explaining the meanings by chapter and verse in the Quran.
The Quran claims to be clear and easy to understand. But it is nothing of the sort.
That is why the tafsirs needed.
Quran 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the last dayâ€
Fight not because of self defence, but because of what they believe.
“Even if they are people of the book - Christians and Jews - until they pay the jizya (protection money) and feel themselves subdued†(second class).
There is no expiration day to this, the Quran is eternal.
Pr126 ... you know Islam better than most Muslims. I know Christianity better than most Christians. So by now, given your obsession ... you should be Muslim yourself. My excuse is I was married to a Christian woman. I am glad you bake bread etc ... while not studying Islam.
I think you have things backward ... I don't condemn ideas, like infective memes. Entertaining ideas is something I am comfortable with. Free thought and free speech. I condemn the behavior (beyond speech), not the ideas that people hold. And therefore I condemn individual humans, including individual Muslims. Otherwise, I would want to genocide all Germans (as holders of the meme of Germaneness) ... which is inconsistent because I am part German.
But I understand where you are coming from. And I join you in condemning identity politics and virtue signaling. The idea that we must tolerate all human behavior ... is self destructive. Some behavior is criminal, even collectively criminal.
Medieval Jewish philosophy, which I am studying, couldn't have happened without Medieval Islamic philosophy. And there are selected Medieval Christian thinkers (author of Imitatio Christi is late Middle Ages) who I appreciate. The Middle Ages weren't all bad. And I read their ancient predecessors. All of that ... including the exogamous influence of Islam ... are part of Western Civilization.
Shiranu ... the position of self hate and obsession with correct behavior .. is so Jewish (pre WW II). Are you sure you aren't Jewish?
Forbidden questions:
Ever wondered why our leaders, the media, and academia consistently lie about Islam?
Why is the left helping, promoting, financing Islam?
Why are those people marginalized, demonized, and sometimes dragged to court who tell the truth about Islam?
Why is the religion of peace can only be sustained by deception and lethal violence?
Why is it that when a jihadist after a terrorist attack justifies his deed by the commands of the Quran, he is not believed but declared mentally unstable or distorting the Quran?
Quote from: Baruch on August 04, 2017, 06:32:49 AM
Pr126 ... you know Islam better than most Muslims. I know Christianity better than most Christians. So by now, given your obsession ... you should be Muslim yourself. My excuse is I was married to a Christian woman. I am glad you bake bread etc ... while not studying Islam.
I think you have things backward ... I don't condemn ideas, like infective memes. Entertaining ideas is something I am comfortable with. Free thought and free speech. I condemn the behavior (beyond speech), not the ideas that people hold. And therefore I condemn individual humans, including individual Muslims. Otherwise, I would want to genocide all Germans (as holders of the meme of Germaneness) ... which is inconsistent because I am part German.
But I understand where you are coming from. And I join you in condemning identity politics and virtue signaling. The idea that we must tolerate all human behavior ... is self destructive. Some behavior is criminal, even collectively criminal.
Its why I hold a lot of respect for you Baruch, you have your own take on things but are open to ideas and opinions on such subjects, I can have a conversation with you about the state of religion and non belief and the people associated with it, without any offense being perceived.
I am not triggered (as the young seem to be). If I say I am, it is sarcasm. I am not hostile to humanity, but I do understand that some people need to be restrained, because of their anti-social tendencies. Being anti-social in a way that doesn't physically touch me or my property ... is tolerable. Otherwise we have to stop free speech and free thought, as Google, Facebook etc are trying to do. Cultural Marxists of course are anti-my body, anti-my property and very much in favor of ending free speech and free thought, for the good of the proletariat.
Moderate Muslims (I call them inactive Muslims) do not drive Islam.
The radicals devout do.
The "moderates" are the silent majority waiting to see which way it will turn.
Once the west fell to Islam (not an impossibility, see the EU) then watch all those moderates spring into action.
And run for your lives.
You will be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
Resistance is futile? Who is resisting? Only bigoted racist Islamophobes would.
They will be dealt with soon enough.
Well, Islam has been doing this for 14 centuries. This is no longer taught in schools.
History of Jihad (http://www.historyofjihad.org/)
Scroll down on the left margin for the chronological jihad from 622 AD to the present day
Quote from: pr126 on August 05, 2017, 02:39:37 AM
Moderate Muslims (I call them inactive Muslims) do not drive Islam.
The radicals devout do.
The "moderates" are the silent majority waiting to see which way it will turn.
Once the west fell to Islam (not an impossibility, see the EU) then watch all those moderates spring into action.
And run for your lives.
You will be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."
Resistance is futile? Who is resisting? Only bigoted racist Islamophobes would.
They will be dealt with soon enough.
Well, Islam has been doing this for 14 centuries. This is no longer taught in schools.
History of Jihad (http://www.historyofjihad.org/)
Scroll down on the left margin for the chronological jihad from 622 AD to the present day
History cannot be ignored. But neither should it control the future. We are better than that.
Baruch wrote:QuoteHistory cannot be ignored. But neither should it control the future. We are better than that.
We can learn from it not to make the same mistakes again.
Quote from: pr126 on August 05, 2017, 11:18:48 AM
Baruch wrote:We can learn from it not to make the same mistakes again.
Alas, the only thing we learn from history, is that we never learn from history. I am a realist, you are an idealist. You will die very disappointed with real people. I struggle to learn to at least tolerate real people. The only real problem in the world, is people.
So ... what can we learn from the 1930s ... that declaring war on Germany in 1933 or 1936 would have worked out better? That is alternative history ... and no, we don't know it would have worked out better. Germany nearly won, maybe they would have, on an earlier timeline. I do think on a later timeline, they would have certainly won. France and Britain guaranteeing Polish sovereignty, that they wouldn't do for Czechoslovakia ... worked out bad enough for everyone concerned. If the US had intervened in 1936, maybe FDR would have lost his second term. Without FDR, I don't think that Britain would have survived (Winston had a special relationship with FDR), and without Britain surviving, Germany would have won. As it was, FDR was nearly couped in 1933, when they weren't trying to assassinate him. Those were the same people who supported Hitler, from within Britain, aristocrats like Chamberlain.
Well, for Germany, third time lucky.
Mama Merkel will win this time for sure. Probably without firing a shot.
Wrecking Europe is a work in progress for them.
Maybe you'll live long enough to watch Europe go up in flames. Again.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Of course the phrase don't become what you fight against can be applied to any side.
THE CHALLENGE OF MODERNIZING ISLAM. PUTTING A HAPPY FACE ON EVIL. WHY THE REFORM OF ISLAM IS A FRAUD (http://godofmoralperfection.com/new-page-115.htm)
QuoteChristine Douglass â€" Williams in her new book: The Challenge of Modernizing Islam does a grave disservice to all those who are fighting Islam. She creates in people’s minds the very dangerous illusion that there are 2 Islams: the wonderful, peaceful, moderate version followed by wonderful, peaceful, moderate Muslims and the Evil Islam of murder, rape, sex slavery, denigration of women, booty, terror, torture practiced by the evil ISIS Muslims and their ilk. Her book could be sub titled: The Challenge of Modernizing Nazism.
What Christine does not state is that Islam was reformed by Muhammad in 622AD â€" the greatest ideological reformation in mankind’s history. ALL Muslims today are Reform Muslims. http://www.godofmoralperfection.com/new-page-56.htm ISIS are reformed Muslims following exactly the Quranic teachings and Sunna of Muhammad. The Reformed Islam of 622 AD is the divine, timeless word of God as recorded in the Quran and can never be altered in any way. To change just one word is an act of apostasy â€" an act that must be punished by death. Christine and ALL the so called reformers have absolutely no authority to alter the Quran in any way. For “ What Freedom of religion Means to Muslims†go to: http://godofmoralperfection.com/new-page-44.htm
What 'Freedom of Religion' Means to Muslims?[/quote] (http://godofmoralperfection.com/new-page-44.htm)
There are very few secular Muslims ... just as 100 years ago, there were very few secular Catholics. We nearly didn't survive Catholic warmongering in the first half of the 20th century as it was.
Reformation of Islam in inevitable. All religions eventually relax. Islam is just a new one and will take time. That doesn't mean they aren't a problem today. But no more than the Christian fanatics in the days of the Inquisition.
All religions are crazy.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 04:01:27 AM
Reformation of Islam in inevitable. All religions eventually relax. Islam is just a new one and will take time. That doesn't mean they aren't a problem today. But no more than the Christian fanatics in the days of the Inquisition.
All religions are crazy.
Well, it did start to reform, we've seen evidence of it decades ago in Afghanistan where they followed a Sufi form of it, where women could dress how they wished and it looked more like a western culture
(https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/webfm/pictures/women/548x331_afghan_women_1970s_via_twitter.jpg)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6c/c2/c7/6cc2c77ddedebebc000d18d0c7fb404b.jpg)
And then the Taliban happened, and we see what the region has been like since.
I'd love for their country to get back on track with the rest of the modern world, they were on the path to going so. Its just a pity it had no counter action to extremist fundamentalism. Its just sadly so engrained in their culture now its gonna take generations to bring them back into the modern era, if its still possible
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 04:01:27 AM
Reformation of Islam in inevitable. All religions eventually relax. Islam is just a new one and will take time. That doesn't mean they aren't a problem today. But no more than the Christian fanatics in the days of the Inquisition.
All religions are crazy.
You are basing your assumption on wishful thinking.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 04:01:27 AM
Reformation of Islam in inevitable. All religions eventually relax. Islam is just a new one and will take time. That doesn't mean they aren't a problem today. But no more than the Christian fanatics in the days of the Inquisition.
All religions are crazy.
Catholic Church -> WWI and WWII. That is recently. They also cooperated with the Juntas to suppress freedom in Latin America and recycled pedophiles. They are still crazy. Poop on the Pope.
Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2017, 06:47:36 AM
You are basing your assumption on wishful thinking.
Omega point - all humans evolve into San Francisco dwelling snowflakes. Atheists and liberals are so ... deluded. Each generation starts over ... I see this in my daughter ... children never take advice from parents, they have to repeat all our mistakes.
The Sufi form of Islam, which involves personal pietism, prefers to stay out of politics ... because Sufis are "marginal Muslims" to the Muslim establishment. This was the dominant form for over 200 years, until WWI radicalized them (see Napoleon and later Lawrence of Arabia). The Amish are subversive of secular Statism ... but they aren't militant ... think of the Sufis as Amish in a turban.
Actually, the Sufi has no different Islam than the other ones. Just as blood thirsty hater of kuffar.
Incidentally, the Sunnis hate them.
There are the Ahmadiyas however, who reject violence but nevertheless proselytize for Islam.
In Pakistan, Ahmadiyas are declared by the state as non-Muslims. Persecuted and sometimes killed.
Pakistan had one Nobel prize winner Mohamed Abdus Salam (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38238131) (Physics) an Ahmadya Muslim, 1926-1996 his grave was desecrated by the moderate and peaceful Muslims.
Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2017, 06:47:36 AM
You are basing your assumption on wishful thinking.
I seldom "wishful think" unless reading deliberate sci-fi (willful suspension of disbelief). All religions start out firm and slowly give way to human reality. The Jews were originally (by their texts) murderous sons of bitches. The Christians were murderous in their early times (after taking control of Europe), and the Moslems are about on the same schedule. Give them another 500 years or so and they will be all like the Christians are now. Time wears out fanaticism give or take a few pockets of crazies.
The way the "crazies" are progressing now, I don't think we will have 500 years of navel gazing, waiting for Islam to mellow.
The world will go up in flames pretty soon the way things are going.
As I have said before, the "moderates" don't drive Islam, the fanatics do.
The silent majority are waiting to see who will prevail.
Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2017, 11:03:05 AM
Actually, the Sufi has no different Islam than the other ones. Just as blood thirsty hater of kuffar.
Incidentally, the Sunnis hate them.
There are the Ahmadiyas however, who reject violence but nevertheless proselytize for Islam.
In Pakistan, Ahmadiyas are declared by the state as non-Muslims. Persecuted and sometimes killed.
Pakistan had one Nobel prize winner Mohamed Abdus Salam (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-38238131) (Physics) an Ahmadya Muslim, 1926-1996 his grave was desecrated by the moderate and peaceful Muslims.
Sufis in the Middle Ages could be fanatic, some sects. The Naqshbandi are still militant, they helped found the Taliban, who in turn oppose Sufism. The Salafist influence grew out of Saudi Arabia and the Muslem Brotherhood in Egypt. So I can tell one from another, based on anecdotes of Muslims from prior generations. Their first thought wasn't to go West and kill Christians etc back then. You can thank the Soviet Union for part of this, invading Afghanistan, and secularizing Baath regime countries and Nasser's Egypt. All part of the Cold War.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 11:21:27 AM
I seldom "wishful think" unless reading deliberate sci-fi (willful suspension of disbelief). All religions start out firm and slowly give way to human reality. The Jews were originally (by their texts) murderous sons of bitches. The Christians were murderous in their early times (after taking control of Europe), and the Moslems are about on the same schedule. Give them another 500 years or so and they will be all like the Christians are now. Time wears out fanaticism give or take a few pockets of crazies.
The Catholic Christians were Roman pagans, pretending at monotheism. Mafia with a cross. Many Christians would still skin you alive, if they could. Your idea of progress is hopeful self deception.
Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2017, 11:53:07 AM
The way the "crazies" are progressing now, I don't think we will have 500 years of navel gazing, waiting for Islam to mellow.
The world will go up in flames pretty soon the way things are going.
As I have said before, the "moderates" don't drive Islam, the fanatics do.
The silent majority are waiting to see who will prevail.
Well, maybe the Moslems will "mature" faster. Everything seems more accelerated these day.
But my point was that all religions were crazier and more violent when the started. Not that current events in any theistic cultures are encouraging. And when I read about "revenge rapes" and "honor killings" in places of the older religions, I doubt my own hypothesis. Religious fanatics are everywhere.
Worse, an article I read recently (newspaper? magazine?) suggests that there are way fewer real atheists than I thought.
OK, lets all take a pill and see if cats or something evolve to do a better job...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 06, 2017, 12:52:38 PM
Well, maybe the Moslems will "mature" faster. Everything seems more accelerated these day.
But my point was that all religions were crazier and more violent when the started. Not that current events in any theistic cultures are encouraging. And when I read about "revenge rapes" and "honor killings" in places of the older religions, I doubt my own hypothesis. Religious fanatics are everywhere.
Worse, an article I read recently (newspaper? magazine?) suggests that there are way fewer real atheists than I thought.
OK, lets all take a pill and see if cats or something evolve to do a better job...
Get off! Cats are already evolved!
Unfortunately, Islam is a religion like no other.
Firstly, it is not just a religion but a complete system, political, law, state.
The religion is there to command obedience and cohesion.
The state and religion are inseparable.
The Islamic memeplex (http://fluechtling.net/Islam/islamic-memeplex.html)
Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2017, 12:59:23 PM
Unfortunately, Islam is a religion like no other.
Firstly, it is not just a religion but a complete system, political, law, state.
The religion is there to command obedience and cohesion.
The state and religion are inseparable.
The Islamic memeplex (http://fluechtling.net/Islam/islamic-memeplex.html)
OK, I actually agree with you. Islam is currently the craziest religion. But that isn't saying a whole lot for the others. The bar isn't set very high. Hindus massacre moslems. Moslems kill christians, christians kill anyone who isn't one of them and everyone kill judaists.
Joke:
In a closed room, a jew, a moslem and a christian are circling each other with knives waiting for a chance to stab. Suddenly an atheist is pushed into the room. The three immediately join hands saying "Kill The Infidel"!
Another joke...
A person visited Ireland in "The Time Of Troubles"". He was warned about walking the streets at night. But he had a plan. He would just say he was jewish. So he is walking along and suddenly there is a knife at his throat and the person say's "declare your religion". He squeaks "I'm jewish". And the attacker says ...
"I must be the luckiest Arab in Ireland"!
Hey, if you can't laugh at absurdity, you're already dead... And the whole religious world is absurdity.
QuoteUnfortunately, Islam is a religion like no other.
Firstly, it is not just a religion but a complete system, political, law, state.
Uhhh... Hinduism under Modi? Catholicism in much of South and Central America? Protestantism in parts of the South and amongst several Congressmen and Senators (and Presidential candidates)? Tribalism Christianity in Africa? Hard line Judaism in Israel?
And that's just modern day examples, you don't have to go back even a hundred years to see examples of religions being the primary force of political and social power.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 06, 2017, 02:31:34 PM
Uhhh... Hinduism under Modi? Catholicism in much of South and Central America? Protestantism in parts of the South and amongst several Congressmen and Senators (and Presidential candidates)? Tribalism Christianity in Africa? Hard line Judaism in Israel?
And that's just modern day examples, you don't have to go back even a hundred years to see examples of religions being the primary force of political and social power.
The Inquisition is a few centuries past. Christians don't burn people as witches. Hindu/Moslem massacres are reduced in numbers. Jews can live in many places without daily fear. in current times.
That doesn't sound like much, but consider a few centuries ago or even 7 decades ago. As bad as things seem, they are getting better. There was a time when hindus had the assassin societies. That has faded.
Except for Islam, yes. But even then, Islam in Europe and the US is being moderated by the general civil society.
Theists are all crazy, but violence from the more organized religions fades. I would still like them to disappear of course, and I'm certain they will someday. Not in my lifetime, but someday it will happen.
I expect that SOME DAY, there will be a last theist. Her children will miss Gramma, but not be infected with the fear of a deity.
Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2017, 12:59:23 PM
Unfortunately, Islam is a religion like no other.
Firstly, it is not just a religion but a complete system, political, law, state.
The religion is there to command obedience and cohesion.
The state and religion are inseparable.
The Islamic memeplex (http://fluechtling.net/Islam/islamic-memeplex.html)
Until Jews were let out of the ghetto, we functioned the same way ... all encompassing system run by Jewish elders (kosher imams).
QuoteThe Inquisition is a few centuries past.
Never said they weren't.
QuoteChristians don't burn people as witches.
Uh, you sure about that? Maybe not always burnt, they are chopped up with machetes and knives as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/centralafricanrepublic/12018588/Christian-militias-in-Central-African-Republic-burnt-witches-at-stake-says-UN-report.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/centralafricanrepublic/12018588/Christian-militias-in-Central-African-Republic-burnt-witches-at-stake-says-UN-report.html)
https://www.seeker.com/seven-accused-african-witches-burned-to-death-1769174209.html (https://www.seeker.com/seven-accused-african-witches-burned-to-death-1769174209.html)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29572974 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29572974)
QuoteHindu/Moslem massacres are reduced in numbers.
For now, but the conflict between India and Pakistan is starting to heat up again, Kashmir is pushing more and more for independence (which will cause more tension amongst the two +Sikhs and Buddhist in the region), violence in Sri Lanka is off-and-on, and India is currently lead by a PM who was a recognized terrorist and who instigated the slaughter and arrest of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat a few years ago.
Actually, if either side is closer to being the one pushing for peace amongst the majority, it's Pakistan. Politically not so much due to the sheer corruption of the country, but the average Pakistanis I have met seems sick and tired of the constant violence and just want to be left alone to live a normal life. It's India, and particularly Modi and the Hindu Nationalists, who have been stirring up trouble when ever they get a chance domestically.
I could go on, but you get the point; there is still ALOT of religious violence outside of Islam, we just don't pay as much attention to it because it's not aimed at us. Which goes to my second point...
QuoteExcept for Islam, yes. But even then, Islam in Europe and the US is being moderated by the general civil society.
...this needs a caveat, even after the but; Islam in a select few Middle Eastern countries. The majority of Muslim countries are either neutral or moderate, it's just a few that we have directly politically influenced that are causing issues; Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan (who then export their radical beliefs to their neighbours). All three of the biggest instigators of Islamic violence were put into power either as Western puppets or in the overthrowing of Western puppets.
So while you can blame Islam, which it certainly has a large role in the consolidation of power for leaders and exerting their will amongst diverse populations, the real underlying blame has to be aimed at the Cold War policies of England, the United States ,and the Soviet Union as they installed dictator after dictator in the Middle East to protect their interests and hurt the other's.
Islam, like any other religion, has a natural tendency to ebb and flow, and that flow appears to be heading towards moderation when allowed to. However radicalism is heavily benefited and supported by the major powers, who in turn are backed by Western influences... the short of the long is that it is an extremely complex situation, and we cant say that Islam is the sole, or even root, cause of political instability in a region intentionally politically destablised for the last hundred years by foreign powers and internal forces looking to get ahead.
Shiranu wrote:QuoteIslam, like any other religion, has a natural tendency to ebb and flow, and that flow appears to be heading towards moderation when allowed to.
No, not at all.
When Islam is weak, or small in numbers they keeping their heads down, being "moderate".
When they are strong, [in numbers, money, ] they attack and become fighters for the cause.
This was Muhammad's modus operandi from the very beginning. And still done this way today.
Case in point.
In the USA they are small in numbers in relation to non-Muslim population. They seem well behaved. There, they have a different approach. They are embedded in the institutions, in the government, schools, even in the WH. No need for terror.
In Europe, there are over 50 million Muslims so they are much more "active" with terrorism, rapes, crimes.
Strength in numbers.
If you remember, I mentioned the Mekkan and Medinan verses in the Quran where the Mekkan verses were abrogated by later more violent verses. That's how Islam works.
Why the concept of abrogation?
Abrogation is the only way that Muslims can reconcile such contradictions in a book which is supposed to be the eternal and infallible word of god.
Would you consider the possibility that Islam has already been reformed and reformed to as far as it can possibly be reformed and what you have now is the no frills version ,beyond which Islam would lose its reason to exist ?
Islam, like Christianity and other cruel and evil fictions, has no reason to exist.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 07, 2017, 05:19:24 PM
Islam, like Christianity and other cruel and evil fictions, has no reason to exist.
If cruel and evil fictions didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them. And we did.
Quote from: Baruch on August 07, 2017, 06:37:48 PM
If cruel and evil fictions didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them. And we did.
The most heinous is called organized religion. So far christianity has been the most destructive.
QuoteSo far christianity has been the most destructive.
I would like to see the actual numbers on that (from reputable sources)... I have my hunch Islam comes relatively close. If it wasn't for Europe's need to explore and then discover the New World, it probably would lose out to what the Muslims did in India and Africa.
I thought it out loud and then erased it... but if you look at the damage Christianity did in the New World, Africa and parts of Asia, it's hard to image Islam actually is close in terms of damage done. It just depends what side of the pond you are on; the destruction Christianity has caused isn't as relevant to a British person as it is an American in the South, for example, in regards to both racial damage (Natives/Hispanics + African Americans) and cultural damage. But in terms of just sheer numbers... I have a hard time believing Islam has done as much damage in Africa and India (with Africa being contested by Christian violence as well, so really only India is it's major zone) as Christianity has done in Latin America... and I say that as someone who is something of a Latin americaphile.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 07, 2017, 10:48:25 PM
I would like to see the actual numbers on that (from reputable sources)... I have my hunch Islam comes relatively close. If it wasn't for Europe's need to explore and then discover the New World, it probably would lose out to what the Muslims did in India and Africa.
I thought it out loud and then erased it... but if you look at the damage Christianity did in the New World, Africa and parts of Asia, it's hard to image Islam actually is close in terms of damage done. It just depends what side of the pond you are on; the destruction Christianity has caused isn't as relevant to a British person as it is an American in the South, for example, in regards to both racial damage (Natives/Hispanics + African Americans) and cultural damage. But in terms of just sheer numbers... I have a hard time believing Islam has done as much damage in Africa and India (with Africa being contested by Christian violence as well, so really only India is it's major zone) as Christianity has done in Latin America... and I say that as someone who is something of a Latin americaphile.
I have not done a hard study of the matter. But considering christianity is quite a bit older I'd say, with that head start, it is ahead of Islam. But then, Islam is coming on strong lately; who knows when they will pass christanity. Too bad either one has to exist.
@ Unbeliever. These religions are going to be around long after you’re gone.infact religion will still be around after the extinction of mankind. Until such time ,ebola doesn’t say religion has no reason to exist . ebola says you have no reason to exist . think about that .
I think the phrase “reform or reformed religion “ is unintelligible. There hasn’t been any reform of religions that I can see . What happened some people backed Luther. The common man went along . the reform was reform of mind not religion. And those reforms in minds revolved on stuff like , for example that is , who gets the authority to catechize, not the catechism per say .and the changes in the catechism are not that impactful not even when you consider furthest on the spectrum liberal protestants .
Christianity and reform of the mind go together . Christianity was built that way . new testament is loose document pretty much like the American constitution..add to that the bible has the Christian god point to a Roman centurion, a pagan, as faith incomparable in all Israel back then. Fact of the matter the Christian god would call some atheist as paragon of faith and belief and give them a pat and on the shoulder and on you go guys through the golden gate ...
I was talking more in terms of Islam in terms of Quran with one third of it omitted and haddith graded - reform stufff ,and of Islam being out there to supplant Christianity coupled with the Republican brothers , followers of Mahmood Mohammed Taha , who having discarded all the hijra suras are now running around today talking about Christian Mohmmedian message !!!! in that respect reform of Islam returned it back to the cult it was and that came from the cult it was derived from -ice Christianity . Hence loss of reason to exist .Got it ? carry on.
Organized religion is bad ? but isn’t chaos the very problem with Islam ??? organized is better , easier to grabble with . Islam thrives through disorganization. chameleon is the issue.
One other thing , when you do the numbers remember the world was merely 40 million at inception of Islam. So a kill back then scores more points than today
There is video that details the killing fields . I’ll see if I can find it .
I think I’m now few post to ten. Humor me .
Well Ibn, your first statements silly, because the nature of religion is a human construct, and whatever causes mankind to be wiped out would likely also wipe out any evidence of religion too.
Also isn't it a ironic to claim religion can't reform, when you just later mentioned the reforms to Christianity. Reformation is not the destruction of an idea but reshaping it into something, in religions case, more manageable, this is why the west doesn't live in a theocracy, something past civilizations did do, such as the power the church had over everything back then.
Quote from: Munch on August 08, 2017, 06:56:47 AM
Well Ibn, your first statements silly, because the nature of religion is a human construct, and whatever causes mankind to be wiped out would likely also wipe out any evidence of religion too.
Also isn't it a ironic to claim religion can't reform, when you just later mentioned the reforms to Christianity. Reformation is not the destruction of an idea but reshaping it into something, in religions case, more manageable, this is why the west doesn't live in a theocracy, something past civilizations did do, such as the power the church had over everything back then.
Terminology fail. Not Reformation, Enlightenment. Luther was an authoritarian too ... pro-German instead of pro-Rome.
@ Munch…….You’re being raciest. My dog has a religion. He prays everyday.
I think a little humility is called for on your part. You should go find a plant and get down on your knees and talk to it .it will be good for you. Trust me on that .
Yes there will be religion after you’re gone .
Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ….. that’s one thing.
There was always a healthy detachment in Europe. The people owed their allegiance to the king more so than the pope. it was kings and their subjects
in the Islamic empire , the sultan sent a stranger to rule any given people. one of his inner circle guys . the people in the area hated the guy guts .
it was not a theocracy in the Islamic empire. The Sultan was always on top. If the ulema gave him a hard time he withheld the money from the awqaf . if they behaved and did his bidding he released the money
. what is taking place in Iran is an anomaly. Welliyat al Faqih or Velliyat al faqih .not good .spells big trouble. the iranian regime must be removed .
I was talking reform of mind not religion. Read again please. I’ll appreciate if you don’t put words in my mouth again. I forgive you. Jesus says to forgive you. I’m good catholic person. Go much you are forgiven . I pardon thee.
you may call me silly. it is a pleasure to be insulted by someone like you.
Ibn Khaldun wrote:Quote
These religions are going to be around long after you’re gone.infact religion will still be around after the extinction of mankind.
Religion is an idea, man made.
When there is no more human to hold that idea, there is no more religion.
There is no religion on the other planets of the solar system except earth.
There may be in the future if man settles on them.
There are thousands of gods, religions that are no longer practiced, they are already extinct.
(http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/listofgods.html%5BListofdeadgods%5B/url)
Ibn Khaldun, I think you are a fraud.
Welcome to the forum.
Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on August 08, 2017, 06:01:53 AM
@ Unbeliever. These religions are going to be around long after you’re gone.infact religion will still be around after the extinction of mankind. Until such time ,ebola doesn’t say religion has no reason to exist . ebola says you have no reason to exist . think about that .
This is old material for us here. But the atheists here know there is no reason or purpose to our existence. To be exact, if anybody desires to have a reason or purpose for their life, then they have to supply it, for the universe does not care one way or the other. Most of us embrace that way of thinking. You see, your god is simply a fiction you chose to believe in; apparently you need a reason to live and so you adopted a fiction to believe in. If it makes you feel better, go for it!
Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on August 08, 2017, 07:38:53 AM
@ Munch…….You’re being raciest. My dog has a religion. He prays everyday.
I think a little humility is called for on your part. You should go find a plant and get down on your knees and talk to it .it will be good for you. Trust me on that .
Yes there will be religion after you’re gone .
Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ….. that’s one thing.
There was always a healthy detachment in Europe. The people owed their allegiance to the king more so than the pope. it was kings and their subjects
in the Islamic empire , the sultan sent a stranger to rule any given people. one of his inner circle guys . the people in the area hated the guy guts .
it was not a theocracy in the Islamic empire. The Sultan was always on top. If the ulema gave him a hard time he withheld the money from the awqaf . if they behaved and did his bidding he released the money
. what is taking place in Iran is an anomaly. Welliyat al Faqih or Velliyat al faqih .not good .spells big trouble. the iranian regime must be removed .
I was talking reform of mind not religion. Read again please. I’ll appreciate if you don’t put words in my mouth again. I forgive you. Jesus says to forgive you. I’m good catholic person. Go much you are forgiven . I pardon thee.
you may call me silly. it is a pleasure to be insulted by someone like you.
"the iranian regime must be removed" ... can't stand a competitive Vatican? Qom in Iran is the Shiite Vatican. Iranians are Persians not Arabs. They have always hated each other. Zoroastrians had a state religion in Persia, almost 100 years before Constantine (so it wasn't entirely new). And a great number of Jews used to live in Persia, and many Persians converted to Christianity before the Muslim conquest there. So they had a prior-art relationship with formal clergy. This is why they have ayatollahs not imams.
Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on August 08, 2017, 07:38:53 AM
@ Munch…….You’re being raciest.
Can't be racist if I like cocks of every color.
unless you do mean raciest, implying I'm being suggestive or risqué. Which is true.
Gentlemen , this thread is about reform of Islam . lets not derail it .
Last post here
did I say universes or god or purpose or reason for living ? I said Islam would lose its reason to exist and revert to the cult it came from if it were to be reformed . and I gave an example , a current one .i can give moré . so reason for being is because of it being different . Cancel that difference and Islam is gone. and anyway that’s how to it began. When Mohammed ( not his real name) started out he pitched himself as second coming of Jesus .he was going around saying he is Jesus come back from the hereafter .
Then I said ebola . it kills you because you are not able to mutate it into a harmless form , harmless to you .that’s the reason. love or hate life, Universe cares or doesn’t got nothing to do with it .what I was saying was in response to unbeliever . I was pointing out to him that is what decides , an example of what , decides his existence . Taken to the limit I was predicting the extinction of mankind by such natural forces and religion remains because my dog wailed and wailed when his female partner got killed in car accident . he laid on her grave barking for days . animals , insects have religion. Better than people religion too.
People don’t need a reason to live. not unless we’re talking mental issues/situation. What people need is motivation to die . you have to convince them to die . the jihadist says he loves death more than you love life . he loves it . that’s what I’m talking about .nurture. you start when the child is young . you condition him from very young so he becomes receptive to death . you raise him so he has the right sort of mind to enter into a sympathetic relationship with death. You twist his intellectual resources so they resonate positively when presented with the prospect of annihilation .
this is what does it . not choice. . what choice ? you think you had a choice ? if left to your devices you would have been a feral child. Or Muslim. then you would be a jihadist maybe
How do you deal with that ?
One example, Alice auma , the catholic warrior priestess .her army armed with sticks and stones fought three pitched battles against armies armed with modern weapons and routed them . They sang King David psalms as they marched and fought ……though I walk through the valley of death I fear no evil….the Lord is my staff … . great action . really . wish I was there . she was defeated eventually because an European power aided the other side . they opened up on her with mobile artillery ,tanks , mortar , rockets , mounted canons, mounted dushkas . the whole works . still she marched with her army singing bible psalms carrying their bibles as they rushed forward to engage the enemy . . .
Again further north, cattle herders animist , quasi Christianized, natural worriers further trained by the Israelis met the jihadist on the battle fields and decimated them . today the African animist sings proudly….. ask the grass land what became of the jihadists .The hyenas ate their corpses.
He sees myself as part of something bigger than himself , his people . his life or his death is relevant only in that context . you think you’re the measure of things .
I can move my mind from one State to the other freely . I just happen to be one of those who do not get hard wired. I observed that in myself .people get upset with me . people prefer routine .they’re about routine. that’s how the lion gets them . eats them . they complain that I have said so and so. I tell them that was yesterday , today I’m Buddhist . I go to the temple sit facing the wall and go qu qu raa rra ra . really get into the thing. Look you just have to wait till I feel like being an atheist . right now I’m enjoying being catholic . I’m Catholic . `
hey you want tot ake me to task , open a post . but look don't go crying foul when I trample on you .
@Brauch , The Sultan is not on top in Iran. The clergy are . check the history further. Islam is ruled jointly with Sultan and ulema (clergy)with the Sultan on top. I calculate a high probability if Iran continues the way it there is going to be a calamity . you have to remove the ulema from the top and return the Sultan back on top. Qatar also another problem . Qardawie is in charge
@Munch , you female ? inquiring minds want to know
Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on August 08, 2017, 02:17:53 PM
@Munch , you female ? inquiring minds want to know
this answer your question?
(http://i.imgur.com/dgNhetH.jpg)
Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on August 08, 2017, 02:16:17 PM
Gentlemen , this thread is about reform of Islam . lets not derail it .
Thank god! At last! The post monitor has arrived!
"@Brauch , The Sultan is not on top in Iran. The clergy are . check the history further. Islam is ruled jointly with Sultan and ulema (clergy)with the Sultan on top. I calculate a high probability if Iran continues the way it there is going to be a calamity . you have to remove the ulema from the top and return the Sultan back on top. Qatar also another problem . Qardawie is in charge"
Didn't say different. The Shah isn't on top in Iran, the Ayatollahs are. Hence Vatican (as in Papal States prior to 1870). There are kings on top in Sunni lands ... more Protestant, like Kaiser of Germany in charge of Lutherans, but the Lutheran pastors don't rule, he does.
I think you aren't correlating your Catholicism with parallels elsewhere. Not that you have to. Like you said, you are constantly modulating in your moods.
Islamic reformation is possible. Most religions calm down in time.
But I will say that Islamist religions come from hard places and those take longer.
@Munch, is that a yes or no . hey these days I demand to hear a yes or a no. one time i was riding my bike and I see this really pretty sexy girl , so i pull over and i talk to her the talk and shit and we end up at the motel . she takes off her clothes and she has a dick. first time for me to see that shit . I jump up and run screaming leaving the booze and drugs on the bed . I thought something went wrong with my head. what the hell that dealer gave me i was thinking . help me please as I struggled to put back my pants and shoes running on one leg on teh sidewalk and street and falling down and getting up. she got a dick . i swear to allah she has a dick . go look if you don't believe me . cultural education
@Brauch, here is what I will do for you . I will do a couple of articles on Sharia Law and the history surrounding what you call sunni and Shiite . Sharia Law because sharia is Islam in its totality you could argue .Then we can phrase the questions such that they are agreeable and acceptable to both of us . then we furnish the answers to those questions such that the answers are agreeable and acceptable to us . then we can begin to dispute those answers as a matter of fact or rule .
I think that’s the better way to resolve all that equivalency stuff that obscure truth such as State from state differ, religion from religion differ ,etc. Infact I’m of the opinion that Christianity and Judaism are two different religions of different paradigms and world view . I mean Christianity and Judaism are different let alone Islam
But that should be done someplace else. and if you want to that is . the work is going to be tedious . stuff like that is best done by group of people , think tanks sort of thing . moreover the method requires highly practiced hands and even then it is doubtful if we can attain bona fide states of disagreements or agreements . I’ve watched recognized intellectual powerhouses get mired trying to join minds. . look not even in court you can get anywhere really . they keep turning over each other findings .
Now concerning the reformation of Islam , I claim that it is not possible . I further claim that religion can not be reformed . what can be reformed is the person. In effect I’m taking the position of a critic .
I begin by first by turning the attention of the illustrious members to something of vital importance. As I’m sure you all know that what happened to Hamid abed Al Samad , suggests there is an issue regarding freedom of speech when it comes to Islam . Mr. Al Samad book titled “Islamic fascism†was first published and released in Germany where upon it caused an uproar which in turn attracted the attention of publishers from other countries . the Book was translated to a bunch of languages, English , Korean , Swedish ,etc. Following that the author was approached by a French publisher who expressed an interest in publishing the book for distribution in France . The deal was made and the book was translated to French . before it went to the printing press Charlie Hebdo happened and the publisher held back waiting for things to calm down some . Then the two other terrorist acts followed , the last being the one where people got run over by the truck by a Muslim terrorist . the publisher then informed the author that he has decided not to go ahead with the publishing expressing fear that he can’t protect his employees and whatnot . news spread among the circle of that trade , reaching another publisher who disdaining the sort of fear that clamps down on freedom of speech called the author and informed him that he would be glad to publish his book and the book got published accompanied by lots of congratulations from active ex Muslim org and civil rights org.
Today if you go to a book exhibition in Muslims majority countries you will not fail to notice that some 80% of publications are religious all having being reviewed and approved first by the respective religious authority in that country . moreover there are dozens of TV channels funded by the State in those countries reinforcing and peddling Islamic hate message .by contrast a single TV channel manned by ex Muslims was banned from broadcasting on Nile Sat .
I will continue
"I jump up and run screaming leaving" ... there you have it. Real men compare dick sizes. Were you afraid yours was smaller? (rhetorical question).
Some people are "stuck on phonics" and you are "stuck on Sunnism". Actually, the Sufis are the real Muslims, neither Sunni nor Shia are ... though on a technicality you could count the Sufis as Shia (and some in fact are, modern Iran was founded 500 years ago by Shia Sufis in Tabriz) because they are a kind of dissent. Like Christians calling anyone atheist who disagree with them.
Comparing "theology" sizes? Sorry, nobody here would be interested in that kind of circle jerk ;-) And yes, theocratic control of publication is a very old thing ... often practiced in most cultures ... and only got out of hand because the Catholic Church censors didn't do their job burning all the portable printing presses (circa 1500s). In the Soviet Union, this was called "samizdat" and owning a typewriter was a crime.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 09, 2017, 10:48:36 AM
Why????????????????
Because he wants to push fantasies on us?
@Munch, where I come from it is what not why .stop being so ethnocentric . I will explain later on if you insist . just hang in there for now . persevere .
@Baruch. I’m different culture . I really don’t care what the woman thinks about my dick size be it big or small. I don’t have those ego issues. I don’t even believe in sexual fulfillment .sex is pleasure of short duration . I’m more procreation oriented . the women where I come from are too. but in western company I do frame my mind such that I care what the woman thinks and get into the act . . but I can also easily deframe my mind anytime I want . but know this the second I step out the front door and its women women women all over me . sometimes I come home so exasperated I take off my jacket and fling at the wall and fall flat on my back on the floor . I do not go for love me you and love you me BS. I always tell my wife not to come at me with that BS real love . I prefer pretend love .i tell her do not love me , I had a mother plus a whole harem that loved me already more than she ever have or can .I telol her to act like you do love me . do like Myurel street in the movies . movie love is more interesting . . c’mon c’mon go back and change the silly stuff you have on. Did I say I want to be loved today ? ask me first if I want to be. you have a serious problem in the west , people just go ahead and love you without asking if you are okay with it . stuff is invasion of privacy , not to mention smothering . they should include a clause in the universal human rights declaration about that , violation of human rights by love, war crime .
Thank you for trying .Also I think it is high time I return the compliment. you said I was creative I say you’re the god of creativity .I enjoyed reading your response . was kind of difficult though keeping a straight face .you’re funny .
Think of different paradigms and world views as formulas and sub formulas . you plug in the numbers and you get different result .
Example : Both formulas forbade printing of their holy texts . Plug in the numbers in one , you get the bible . but with the other formula you get a Quran that is a version of some fifty others , all differing from each of other . Count the number of suras , figure on an average of three differences in each sura and multiply by number of suras and you get thousand of differences . according to my own count I have over ten thousand differences when I make room for long suras like Al Baqarah.an d lets not factor in the nature and implication of differences. But know this today Qurans that are authorized in some Muslim majority countries are banned in some of the others .
But keep on trying . I commend you for that . I really do .you can stay . you know Baruch in the bar there are guys like you who talk like you . The predators are drunk and get ideas. I look at them and I say to them , leave him alone . he can talk. Don’t kill him. Talk talk . you can talk. .
I would like to continue with the recent history . I mentioned the situation of Hamid abed al Samad . the general idea is to continue back wards till you get to Mutazzla . so I’m talking 1400 years of failed attempts at reformation , or renewal of religious speech or tajdeed , the terms are many but meaning is one which is reformation. But first I would like to rephrase the question .
is it possible to fix that huge confounding stacked mix called Islam ,starting with the text of the quran , through the sira and al Haddith and schools , theologians , exegesis ?
what scholars witness are recognized and highly esteemed Sheikhs and ulema stumbling aimlessly without success in their writings and sermons and efforts . some say the problem is Ibn Taymiah , others Al Bukhari and others yet say the problem is in Mohammed Abed Al Wahab or it’s the whole haddith , some even struck off all the hate suras and verses in the quran . Regimes such as Egypt’s attempting to streamline Friday sermons , revising school curriculum . in short solutions that have been tried over and over again through the centuries and never worked .
are those solutions called for ? upheaval social upheaval all over
why I’m doing that ? because I don’t want people to think I’m conceited westerner who presumes he can tell people how to fix their problem based on his own irrelevant but imagined not to be historical experience, Christianity did this and had this too and this and that and all Muslims have to do is do like us . if I ever become a Muslim again I will find that sort of thing unbearable .,irrelevant and clueless . good for you I’m presently catholic. But then I know you don’t mean it that way . you’re just programmed to think that way culturally . you’re being you and the other thing , keep wondering
She is sitting in the kitchen pretending she is reading the paper. Silent treatment crab .i got to go say I’m sorry . or she is not going to make me dinner. Women can cook, right . you have to give credit where credit goes. . I make a sandwich, she makes one from same ingredients too, but hers taste million times better . I really can’t figure it out. Is that the same thing for you to? . Maybe women secret something that goes into the sandwich that make them taste better .invisible stuff. i love you , you love me ,we're happy family .
@Munch I will continue later on .sorry Munch . look use your right hand to scratch your right ear . as your advisor I irecommend ...
Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on August 09, 2017, 01:27:49 PM
@Munch, where I come from it is what not why .stop being so ethnocentric . I will explain later on if you insist . just hang in there for now . persevere .
@Baruch. I’m different culture . I really don’t care what the woman thinks about my dick size be it big or small. I don’t have those ego issues. I don’t even believe in sexual fulfillment .sex is pleasure of short duration . I’m more procreation oriented . the women where I come from are too. but in western company I do frame my mind such that I care what the woman thinks and get into the act . . but I can also easily deframe my mind anytime I want . but know this the second I step out the front door and its women women women all over me . sometimes I come home so exasperated I take off my jacket and fling at the wall and fall flat on my back on the floor .
deleted
You don't even realize how sad you sound...
The West had a one up on reformation because of the distinction between Church and State. Not separation, that came later, but separation had its roots in distinction.
To put it simply, the religious and secular authorities were not the same person. They relied on each other in a very incestuous relationship, and the "fight" between them that litters the history books was over who was to be senior partner, but they both agreed that both were separate and both were necessary.
That distinction eventually proved to be the wedge that divided them during first the protestant reformation and then later the age of enlightenment.
Islam does not have such a distinction, and as such needs to learn it from the West if they are to reform in the manner discussed in this thread.
QuoteIslam does not have such a distinction...
Try telling that to the various royal families, dictators, secular states and terrorist groups spread across the Islamic world...
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on August 14, 2017, 11:14:33 PM
The West had a one up on reformation because of the distinction between Church and State. Not separation, that came later, but separation had its roots in distinction.
To put it simply, the religious and secular authorities were not the same person. They relied on each other in a very incestuous relationship, and the "fight" between them that litters the history books was over who was to be senior partner, but they both agreed that both were separate and both were necessary.
That distinction eventually proved to be the wedge that divided them during first the protestant reformation and then later the age of enlightenment.
Islam does not have such a distinction, and as such needs to learn it from the West if they are to reform in the manner discussed in this thread.
Oh but the Church and State WERE partners in ruling all the lands of Europe after the Romans got all worn out. They loved each other, trading money, influence, titles and all that. Where to you think the Holy Roman Empire came from in the 800s to the 13th century...?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 17, 2017, 06:48:18 AM
Oh but the Church and State WERE partners in ruling all the lands of Europe after the Romans got all worn out. They loved each other, trading money, influence, titles and all that. Where to you think the Holy Roman Empire came from in the 800s to the 13th century...?
And that is why the HRE aka Germany is still a problem ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on August 17, 2017, 06:48:18 AM
Oh but the Church and State WERE partners in ruling all the lands of Europe after the Romans got all worn out. They loved each other, trading money, influence, titles and all that. Where to you think the Holy Roman Empire came from in the 800s to the 13th century...?
I agree they were partners, but partners implies two parties which was my point.
Even though the Muslim countries with their royal families aren't priest-kings, there is a difference even yet. The medieval peasant was subject to church law and secular law, but they were distinct and separate law. In many Muslim majority countries Sharia law is part of the law of the government even under a monarch. Some dictators dispense with it. The democracies struggle with it but are able to struggle because the distinction between church and state is something they are learning.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on August 17, 2017, 09:46:51 PM
I agree they were partners, but partners implies two parties which was my point.
Even though the Muslim countries with their royal families aren't priest-kings, there is a difference even yet. The medieval peasant was subject to church law and secular law, but they were distinct and separate law. In many Muslim majority countries Sharia law is part of the law of the government even under a monarch. Some dictators dispense with it. The democracies struggle with it but are able to struggle because the distinction between church and state is something they are learning.
Would you care to describe any Islamist nation that could be called a "democracy"? They are theocracies AND dictorships. And monarchies are dictatorships...
I do not like the term Islamist.
Muslim countries yes. Or Islamic countries.
Islamist is an invented word. About as valid as Christianist.
Quote from: pr126 on August 20, 2017, 04:40:41 AM
I do not like the term Islamist.
Muslim countries yes. Or Islamic countries.
Islamist is an invented word. About as valid as Christianist.
"Islamist", followers of Islam". Not being "Christian", I would understand "Christianist" without argument. I understand "Christian" or "Christianist" as a follower of "Christ". So you are saying a "Muslim" is a follower of "Mus"? The liguistics get hairy.
Do you want to make a big "hairy" deal over "Islamic" vs "Islamist".
And "mus" is a mouse... LOL!
No, I think it is wrong.
There is no Muslim who would call himself an Islamist. A follower of Islam is a Muslim.
The word Islamist is used to distance Muslim terrorism from Islam. Another word used is Islamism.
Note that politicians repeatedly say that “those terrorist are perverting the true peaceful faith, Islam is peace†, therefore they are Islamist, not true Muslims, extremist, nothing to do with Islam, ad nauseam.
Notice that not one politician, media etc will ever say that it is the religion, it is Islam that drive Muslims to jihad. Not once.
Islam is peace. No it is not. Islam is a religion of war. Always have been.
Nothing to do with fancy semantics.
Quote from: pr126 on August 20, 2017, 05:16:58 AM
No, I think it is wrong.
There is no Muslim who would call himself an Islamist. A follower of Islam is a Muslim.
The word Islamist is used to distance Muslim terrorism from Islam. Another word used is Islamism.
Note that politicians repeatedly say that “those terrorist are perverting the true peaceful faith, Islam is peace†, therefore they are Islamist, not true Muslims, extremist, nothing to do with Islam, ad nauseam.
Notice that not one politician, media etc will ever say that it is the religion, it is Islam that drive Muslims to jihad. Not once.
Islam is peace. No it is not. Islam is a religion of war. Always have been.
Nothing to do with fancy semantics.
I really don't care about Islam, Islamist, Moslem, Muslim, Mohammdem, Mohammdism, or Mohammadist, etc. I have seen all used, all considerred "correct" all considered "incorrect, and I really don't care. Some adherents have liked all, none, or one term at some times.
I DON'T CARE! If they all agree on a term someday, I will try to use it.
I equally really don't give a crap whether followers of Jesus call themselves Christians, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox or Coptics.
I really don't care whether the Old Testament followers call themselves Jews, Jewish, Judaists or anything else.
They are all primitive superstitions idiots to me! I'll be glad to use any term they all agree on among themselves so long as they announce it and keep it consistent.
Until then, don't be a definitional pain in the ass.
You may not care about Islam, but Islam cares about you. They are deadly serious about you.
Quote from: pr126 on August 20, 2017, 06:33:06 AM
You may not care about Islam, but Islam cares about you. They are deadly serious about you.
I am more deadly serious about them then they may realize as well. I would like to see every one of them vanish from the face of the Earth. As equally as much as an other damn fool theism, though.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 06:49:02 AM
I am more deadly serious about them then they may realize as well. I would like to see every one of them vanish from the face of the Earth. As equally as much as an other damn fool theism, though.
Maybe when the Galactic Senate makes you Emperor ...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 05:06:00 AM
"Islamist", followers of Islam". Not being "Christian", I would understand "Christianist" without argument. I understand "Christian" or "Christianist" as a follower of "Christ". So you are saying a "Muslim" is a follower of "Mus"? The liguistics get hairy.
Do you want to make a big "hairy" deal over "Islamic" vs "Islamist".
And "mus" is a mouse... LOL!
Islamist doesnt just mean muSLiM or follower of iSLaM(same etymology, look at the consonants, Arabic word structure)
But at the same time Islamist means who wanna implement Islam as a political ideology, who wanna apply Islam in politics.
From the point of political terminology...
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 08:43:31 AM
Maybe when the Galactic Senate makes you Emperor ...
What do you mean and imply from Galactic Empire?
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 20, 2017, 10:23:13 AM
Islamist doesnt just mean muSLiM or follower of iSLaM(same etymology, look at the consonants, Arabic word structure)
But at the same time Islamist means who wanna implement Islam as a political ideology, who wanna apply Islam in politics.
From the point of political terminology...
"Islamist means who wanna implement Islam as a political ideology, who wanna apply Islam in politics." Wow, so profound. Look I understand that. Replace christian, jew, and hindu for moslem, and it is all the same. That's what they ALL want.
You seem to think the capital letters "SLM" means something. What? Are you a "Letterologist"?
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 20, 2017, 10:25:00 AM
What do you mean and imply from Galactic Empire?
Looks like Baruch is making yet another meaningless joke. Just ignore him. If we are lucky, the Troll will eventually go away.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 10:30:47 AM
"Islamist means who wanna implement Islam as a political ideology, who wanna apply Islam in politics." Wow, so profound. Look I understand that. Replace christian, jew, and hindu for moslem, and it is all the same. That's what they ALL want.
You seem to think the capital letters "SLM" means something. What? Are you a "Letterologist"?
Yes, this is the method how Arabic language derive new words/ It is understood that you dont know the Arabic even at the elementary level. But this is no problem.
Because there are more than 3000 words in use in Turkish that passed into Turkish in classical times, i know just a little bit.
For example:
JiHaD: jihad
muJaHiD: one who do jihad...
And SLM means something, yes... The jewish language and Arabic share the same Arameic origin. The 2 language resembles very much. You know -ShaLom- means SeLaM in Arabic. And shalom means -peace be upon you-
Interesting idea. Is it a vowel free writing?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 10:49:40 AM
Interesting idea. Is it a vowel free writing?
Yes, there is no wovel in the Arabic alphabet. But this suits the Arabic perfectly.
Before the letter revolution in Turkish in 1927(we now write Turkish with the Latin alphabet) Turkish had been written with Arabic alphabet and it was very hard to understand because they didnt write the vowels...
Some Muslims are trying to sell the idea that Islam means peace because the root word SLM which is also found in Salam, but Islam actually means submission.
Submission to the one deity Allah, (Hubal) which is the stone idol in the Kaaba.
Muhammad promoted it to be the god of the universe.
There is a whole lot of misinformation on this particular subject.
Another one is conflating the word El (Elohim) to make it sound like the Jewish God.
Some uninformed kufar believes all this claptrap.
The shahadah says there is no god but Allah which Muslims try to translate as there is no god but god, but the shahada does not say that.
Ilah in Arabic is god. Allah is not god, but a name of a god.
A name like Zeus, Thor, Apollo.
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 20, 2017, 10:25:00 AM
What do you mean and imply from Galactic Empire?
I see Cavebear as a scifi villain ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 10:35:01 AM
Looks like Baruch is making yet another meaningless joke. Just ignore him. If we are lucky, the Troll will eventually go away.
Not "the Troll" .. but "The Troll" ... I eat little children who try to cross my bridge. Don't worry, I won't eat you, I don't like coughing up hair balls ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 11:11:41 AM
I see Cavebear as a scifi villain ;-)
Nah, "Cavebear is from 'Clan Of The Cave Bear' by Jean Auel". You didn't know that? Well. probably cuz it wasn't in the bible...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 20, 2017, 10:58:57 AM
Yes, there is no wovel in the Arabic alphabet. But this suits the Arabic perfectly.
Before the letter revolution in Turkish in 1927(we now write Turkish with the Latin alphabet) Turkish had been written with Arabic alphabet and it was very hard to understand because they didnt write the vowels...
Same thing in Hebrew. Vowel points are only used to teach children correct pronunciation. Also Aramaic today. Israeli Hebrew in newspapers and street signs, has no vowels. Though technically there are semi-vowels or if you prefer, semi-consonants. "Y", "W" are semi-vowels in English too. in romanization of Hebrew, "Y" can represent (i, y, j) and "W" can represent (o, u, w). The other usual vowels (a, e) are always implied, not written ... but in alphabet history, the gutturals (alef and ayin) evolved into the Roman (a and e). In Ivrit (modern Hebrew) both alef and ayin are silent. But in Arabic, they are still pronounced as guttural consonants, as they were in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic.
Turkish is an Altaic language, not Semitic, not European, not Indo-Iranian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knqg9tHDWWQ
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 20, 2017, 10:58:57 AM
Yes, there is no wovel in the Arabic alphabet. But this suits the Arabic perfectly.
Before the letter revolution in Turkish in 1927(we now write Turkish with the Latin alphabet) Turkish had been written with Arabic alphabet and it was very hard to understand because they didnt write the vowels...
So when in the desert, they said mgngtthdrst?
Yes I know better than that. Among other things, I'm good at cognates in older to prototype languages. Or in this case prttp lnggs...
Quote from: pr126 on August 20, 2017, 11:09:02 AM
Some Muslims are trying to sell the idea that Islam means peace because the root word SLM which is also found in Salam, but Islam actually means submission.
Submission to the one deity Allah, (Hubal) which is the stone idol in the Kaaba.
Muhammad promoted it to be the god of the universe.
There is a whole lot of misinformation on this particular subject.
Another one is conflating the word El (Elohim) to make it sound like the Jewish God.
Some uninformed kufar believes all this claptrap.
The shahadah says there is no god but Allah which Muslims try to translate as there is no god but god, but the shahada does not say that.
Ilah in Arabic is god. Allah is not god, but a name of a god.
A name like Zeus, Thor, Apollo.
Shahadah also means to be witness,
How can Muslims be witnesses that there is a God that they dont see...One only can be witness after seeing.
Another translation of shahadah is that there is no ilah but el ilah(allah) or that there is no god but the god...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 11:20:14 AM
So when in the desert, they said mgngtthdrst?
Yes I know better than that. Among other things, I'm good at cognates in older to prototype languages. Or in this case prttp lnggs...
Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic write the correct way, right to left ;-) Modern Turkish is like European languages, writing left to right.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 11:24:30 AM
Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic write the correct way, right to left ;-) Modern Turkish is like European languages, writing left to right.
Well, ox-plow is the sensible way. A for the ox, after all...
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 20, 2017, 11:22:48 AM
Shahadah also means to be witness,
How can Muslims be witnesses that there is a God that they dont see...One only can be witness after seeing.
Another translation of shahadah is that there is no ilah but el ilah(allah) or that there is no god but the god...
Theists see in their "mind's eye". Or "evil eye" if you prefer ;-)
Islam specifically finds G-d in the Quran ... as recited, not as written. That is why the primary religious obligation is to recite ... and the recitation doesn't quite match the written form ... there are small changes in the written form, to accommodate spelling. Originally the Quran wasn't written with vowels either ... but the Arabs quickly added vowel points (borrowed from the Aramaic system) so that learners could recite the same way. The point isn't to read the Quran it is to internalize it thru memory. The most revered Muslims are those who literally don't say anything, unless it is a cribbed quotation from the Quran. Then they are literally speaking for Allah. All their vocabulary is limited to the Quran.
This was partly derived from an old Jewish custom, memorizing the Psalms. The Quran is a kind of Psalm book. Some Christians used to to this also, but religion has been inherited by lazy people. Unless you internalize the religion, into your body, emotions, thoughts and identity (spirit) ... you aren't really experiencing the religion. For that ... I have to admire serious Muslims. Of course, taking in a complete meme system, non-critically .. is what produces Salafists. If Jews still did that ... we would be completely incompatible with Gentiles ... as Salafists are with Infidels. Hasidic Jews in upstate NY ... are incompatible that way, with any other society.
Central Arabia (Hejaz) was an aural culture. It was literate to the North (Nabatean) and to the South (Sabaic). So Classical Islam is a culture that hears G-d, not see G-d. This is part of the prohibition against graven images. Old Judaism was the same, aural, with no graven images (at least in the idealization of it). Books were only possessed by the authorities and the wealthy. Stained-glass windows, icons and holy statues were used ... because Christianity was as much visual as aural. This separates them from the other two Abrahamic religions. Originally Buddhism wasn't visual either, and pre-Constantinian Christianity wasn't. Buddhists and Hindus learned of statues from the Greeks of Alexander's time. Christians who were Greco-Roman, already knew about statues when they were still pagans.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 11:30:41 AM
Theists see in their "mind's eye". Or "evil eye" if you prefer ;-)
Islam specifically finds G-d in the Quran ... as recited, not as written. That is why the primary religious obligation is to recite ... and the recitation doesn't quite match the written form ... there are small changes in the written form, to accommodate spelling. Originally the Quran wasn't written with vowels either ... but the Arabs quickly added vowel points (borrowed from the Aramaic system) so that learners could recite the same way. The point isn't to read the Quran it is to internalize it thru memory. The most revered Muslims are those who literally don't say anything, unless it is a cribbed quotation from the Quran. Then they are literally speaking for Allah. All their vocabulary is limited to the Quran.
This was partly derived from an old Jewish custom, memorizing the Psalms. The Quran is a kind of Psalm book. Some Christians used to to this also, but religion has been inherited by lazy people. Unless you internalize the religion, into your body, emotions, thoughts and identity (spirit) ... you aren't really experiencing the religion. For that ... I have to admire serious Muslims. Of course, taking in a complete meme system, non-critically .. is what produces Salafists. If Jews still did that ... we would be completely incompatible with Gentiles ... as Salafists are with Infidels. Hasidic Jews in upstate NY ... are incompatible that way, with any other society.
One of the newer inventions of writing were vowel symbols. They always existed in speech, of course, but were considered parts of consonants. It seems the Greeks did that leap into writing, but it was late (rltvl spkng).
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
One of the newer inventions of writing were vowel symbols. They always existed in speech, of course, but were considered parts of consonants. It seems the Greeks did that leap into writing, but it was late (rltvl spkng).
Yes, the Greeks were clever. I don't think Egyptian had vowels either, just semi-consonants. Egyptian is Hamitic, so part of the larger family that also includes Semitic. In India, the same thing applies (they learned their alphabet from copying Old South Arabian and Aramaic. The vowels were extra in all their writing too, but in modern times they compromised with a very complicated consonant/vowel system. Compound consonants being the hardest. And character writing (Chinese & Japanese) ... don't even have letters! Consonantal writing was invented in the late Bronze Age by Canaanites. The Greeks copied from Canaan (aka Lebanon). The Etruscans and later the Latins copied from the Greeks.
Quote from: pr126 on August 02, 2017, 11:15:07 AM
Yes, reformation is in progress now right before our eyes.
Reforming back to its original form. As Muhammad intended.
We can proudly proclaim that we had a hand in this.
Ditch the Shah and replace it with Khomeini.
No wonder they shout death to America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNjae521qa8
Now reform the fucking Xtians. They need it as bad as anybody.
Quote from: Baruch on August 20, 2017, 11:57:32 AM
Yes, the Greeks were clever. I don't think Egyptian had vowels either, just semi-consonants. Egyptian is Hamitic, so part of the larger family that also includes Semitic. In India, the same thing applies (they learned their alphabet from copying Old South Arabian and Aramaic. The vowels were extra in all their writing too, but in modern times they compromised with a very complicated consonant/vowel system. Compound consonants being the hardest. And character writing (Chinese & Japanese) ... don't even have letters! Consonantal writing was invented in the late Bronze Age by Canaanites. The Greeks copied from Canaan (aka Lebanon). The Etruscans and later the Latins copied from the Greeks.
Well, the Romans took pretty much everything from the Etruscans, (wine, women, AND songs), though they got their gods from the Greeks (who didn't realize what was coming) and naval warfare from the Carthaginians (who also didn't realize what was coming).
And by that I mean only that the Carthaginians showed the Romans that control of the Mediterranean was cool so they decided to copy THAT, and well, one conquest led to another as they say...
Western success is based on Roman success. Back to the gladiatorial show, fellow Roman.
Quote from: Baruch on August 26, 2017, 08:17:38 AM
Western success is based on Roman success. Back to the gladiatorial show, fellow Roman.
Actually, Europe is not very Roman except for language (which I do not discount).
Quote from: pr126 on August 02, 2017, 11:15:07 AM
Yes, reformation is in progress now right before our eyes.
Reforming back to its original form. As Muhammad intended.
We can proudly proclaim that we had a hand in this.
Ditch the Shah and replace it with Khomeini.
No wonder they shout death to America.
Funny, the video leaves out why those "reformations", the revolutions, the "Islamification" happened, and what direction those countries were heading before they did...
Too inconvenient for the narrative, I suppose. If you acknowledge that it took outside forces putting massive resources into changing the direction Islam was going for their own political gains, then suddenly it makes this story that Islam is inherently evil a little bit more baseless.
If the only way you can tell something is up, by putting it isolated on its own planet for 100 years, and watching it carefully, so that outside influences are nullified (aka controlled experiment of the ghetto type) ... then we will never be able to tell. In modern times, nothing exists or develops in isolation. It is a world culture, and world culture today, sucks. In that way ... I really can't accept that Islam this or West that. It is complex interaction.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 26, 2017, 06:18:54 PM
Funny, the video leaves out why those "reformations", the revolutions, the "Islamification" happened, and what direction those countries were heading before they did...
Too inconvenient for the narrative, I suppose. If you acknowledge that it took outside forces putting massive resources into changing the direction Islam was going for their own political gains, then suddenly it makes this story that Islam is inherently evil a little bit more baseless.
Islam isn't any more inherently evil than Christianity or Judaism. Just younger and rougher around the edges. Mind you, I think they are all crazy superstitions...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 26, 2017, 06:27:06 PM
Islam isn't any more inherently evil than Christianity or Judaism. Just younger and rougher around the edges. Mind you, I think they are all crazy superstitions...
I'd say any cult that kills gay people because its scripture and representatives tell them to is pretty evil.
Quote from: Munch on August 31, 2017, 03:31:07 AM
I'd say any cult that kills gay people because its scripture and representatives tell them to is pretty evil.
Yeah, most religions...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 03:42:08 AM
Yeah, most religions...
Sorry, Cavebear. I must protest.
Please list the religions (other than Islam) that
presently kills gays.
I spotted another one:
QuoteIslam isn't any more inherently evil than Christianity or Judaism.
Please list the religions (other than Islam) that
presently mass murders in the name of their gods.
Here is a clue:
(https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg)
Quote from: pr126 on August 31, 2017, 04:38:44 AM
Sorry, Cavebear. I must protest.
Please list the religions (other than Islam) that presently kills gays.
I spotted another one:Please list the religions (other than Islam) that presently mass murders in the name of their gods.
Here is a clue:
(https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg)
Christians, Hindus, African Tribal beliefs, mostly all of them.
Christians? Are the crusades still happening? Damn that (socialist) pope!
Quote from: pr126 on August 31, 2017, 05:56:17 AM
Christians? Are the crusades still happening? Damn that (socialist) pope!
The Crusades have never actually stopped. "Be Christian or Die" is still the rule in many places.
• June 12, 2016 â€" A gunman opens fire in Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 50 people and sending 53 to the hospital.
• Dec. 31, 2013 â€" Musab Masmari poured gasoline in a stairway at a decades-old gay nightclub and set it on fire. There were about 750 people in the Seattle club for a New Year's Eve celebration at the time, but the fire was extinguished with no injuries. An associate of his "reported that Masmari confided in him that he "burned a gay club" and that he did it because 'what these people are doing is wrong,'" an assistant U.S. attorney said in court documents. Masamari was sentenced to 10 years on federal arson charges.
Just a couple examples...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 06:13:35 AM
The Crusades have never actually stopped. "Be Christian or Die" is still the rule in many places.
• June 12, 2016 â€" A gunman opens fire in Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, killing 50 people and sending 53 to the hospital.
• Dec. 31, 2013 â€" Musab Masmari poured gasoline in a stairway at a decades-old gay nightclub and set it on fire. There were about 750 people in the Seattle club for a New Year's Eve celebration at the time, but the fire was extinguished with no injuries. An associate of his "reported that Masmari confided in him that he "burned a gay club" and that he did it because 'what these people are doing is wrong,'" an assistant U.S. attorney said in court documents. Masamari was sentenced to 10 years on federal arson charges.
Just a couple examples...
What if I told you that the two examples you mentioned were not Christians, but Muslims?
QuoteOmar Mir Seddique Mateen has been named as the gunman who killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, CBS News reports.
The gunman was later killed by police after taking hostages at the LGBT club. The shooting, carried out with an AR-15 rifle and a handgun, is the deadliest in American history.
He pledged allegiance to ISIS, the so-called Islamic State, before the shooting, according to Congressman Adam Schiff, D-California.
Musab Masmari (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-nightclub-targeted-by-arsonist-reaches-out-to-victims-of-orlando-massacre)
Unless I have misunderstood you, and you knew it all along?
Quote from: pr126 on August 31, 2017, 09:43:14 AM
What if I told you that the two examples you mentioned were not Christians, but Muslims?
Musab Masmari (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-nightclub-targeted-by-arsonist-reaches-out-to-victims-of-orlando-massacre)
Not exactly Christian names, are they?
I was off my thoughts...
OK, the Crusades and Inquisition and witch-burnings are sufficent. So were the Christian conquests of the Americas. Forcible conversions and all that.
Am I back on the logic circuit now?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 10:06:49 AM
I was off my thoughts...
OK, the Crusades and Inquisition and witch-burnings are sufficent. So were the Christian conquests of the Americas. Forcible conversions and all that.
Am I back on the logic circuit now?
Not quite. I would like you to keep to the 20th - 21st century, if you please.
What matters is the here and now. We can't change the past.
We can only learn from it.
Quote from: pr126 on August 31, 2017, 10:23:08 AM
Not quite. I would like you to keep to the 20th - 21st century, if you please.
What matters is the here and now. We can't change the past.
We can only learn from it.
Diachronic vs synchronic thinking. Muslims are synchronic ... it is always 632 CE, Friday, Noon. They exist in holy eternity, time has stopped, like when Joshua prayed for the Sun to stop moving across the sky. Westerners are diachronic ... this is because of the Catholic Church daily prayer cycle, which required mechanical clocks to synchronize all Catholics across Europe, to make the recitation of the daily Hours ... more magically powerful.
So for a devout Muslim, everything that happened in the past, is happening right now. Extreme diachronism ... if a terrorist isn't killing right now, then they aren't murderous. They are only murderous at the moment of killing. Both are ... dysfunctional.
Quote from: pr126 on August 31, 2017, 10:23:08 AM
Not quite. I would like you to keep to the 20th - 21st century, if you please.
What matters is the here and now. We can't change the past.
We can only learn from it.
But we CAUSED the past, which is the presentt. Well, theists anyway.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 10:32:27 AM
Diachronic vs synchronic thinking. Muslims are synchronic ... it is always 632 CE, Friday, Noon. They exist in holy eternity, time has stopped, like when Joshua prayed for the Sun to stop moving across the sky. Westerners are diachronic ... this is because of the Catholic Church daily prayer cycle, which required mechanical clocks to synchronize all Catholics across Europe, to make the recitation of the daily Hours ... more magically powerful.
So for a devout Muslim, everything that happened in the past, is happening right now. Extreme diachronism ... if a terrorist isn't killing right now, then they aren't murderous. They are only murderous at the moment of killing. Both are ... dysfunctional.
And in the US South, it is always 2pm at Gettysburg when Picket's charge began. And they keep hoping it will succeed.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 11:06:40 AM
And in the US South, it is always 2pm at Gettysburg when Picket's charge began. And they keep hoping it will succeed.
And Yankees still are impaling Southern babies on their bayonets? See, this kind of prejudice is ... bidirectional. Yes, Picket messed up, but he was only following Lee's incompetent orders. Lee wasn't much, if Stonewall wasn't there, and by that time, he wasn't.
BTW - Lincoln died, Davis survived. Reconstruction failed, to be followed by 100 years of Jim Crow. Who won?
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 12:43:10 PM
And Yankees still are impaling Southern babies on their bayonets? See, this kind of prejudice is ... bidirectional. Yes, Picket messed up, but he was only following Lee's incompetent orders. Lee wasn't much, if Stonewall wasn't there, and by that time, he wasn't.
BTW - Lincoln died, Davis survived. Reconstruction failed, to be followed by 100 years of Jim Crow. Who won?
The South mostly won. They just had to pay their slaves a pittance afterwards. The North should have CRUSHED the South. But then look at Europe and all the ancient hatreds still alive. Actually, there is no good solution to civil war. Heads you lose, tails you lose. You need the coin to land on edge.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 31, 2017, 03:14:27 PM
The South mostly won. They just had to pay their slaves a pittance afterwards. The North should have CRUSHED the South. But then look at Europe and all the ancient hatreds still alive. Actually, there is no good solution to civil war. Heads you lose, tails you lose. You need the coin to land on edge.
And Genghis Khan, instead of raping most women in Asia, should have raped every woman on Earth? With Lincoln, the coin did land on the edge, but neither disappointed South nor radical North ... could tolerate his humanity. It was necessary for both sides to make a martyr of him .. same as Kennedy. As a legend under the control of "the Narrative" .. he is much more useful dead than alive. See Jesus for another example. A living Jesus would totally discredit Christianity.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2017, 08:33:52 PM
A living Jesus would totally discredit Christianity.
So does a fictional one.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 31, 2017, 10:52:05 PM
So does a fictional one.
Yes, but it is magically possible, thru hermeneutics to query a fictional Jesus than a living one in your living room and get the answers you expect ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on September 01, 2017, 08:42:12 AM
Yes, but it is magically possible, thru hermeneutics to query a fictional Jesus than a living one in your living room and get the answers you expect ;-)
Oh you mean like a singing cod wall mount, but instead of a cod its Jesus' head?
Quote from: Munch on September 01, 2017, 09:38:27 AM
Oh you mean like a singing cod wall mount, but instead of a cod its Jesus' head?
Well the original would have been Pisces ... so two singing cods are required ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on August 20, 2017, 11:15:02 AM
Nah, "Cavebear is from 'Clan Of The Cave Bear' by Jean Auel". You didn't know that? Well. probably cuz it wasn't in the bible...
I read those long ago, and enjoyed them. I may even read them again someday. I liked the characters, but I only remember Jondalar, I think his name was.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 01, 2017, 03:18:18 PM
I read those long ago, and enjoyed them. I may even read them again someday. I liked the characters, but I only remember Jondalar, I think his name was.
Just another nice guy stuck in the friend zone?
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 01, 2017, 03:18:18 PM
I read those long ago, and enjoyed them. I may even read them again someday. I liked the characters, but I only remember Jondalar, I think his name was.
Ayla was the main character. Orphaned as a 5 year old Cro Magnon, adopted by Neandertals. Went off alone, met Jondalar, learned speech, etc.