Can Modern Freedoms survive 'Politica... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » On the Failings of Reason (closed-archived) » 1400 years of Imperialism, Disambiguated » Can Modern Freedoms survive 'Political' Islam? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 07:13 pm:   

CAN MODERN FREEDOMS SURVIVE POLITICAL ISLAM?

This is a serious question that will need much exploration. What it addresses is whether or not our modern world's achievements of democratic freedoms and human rights of equal protection under the law, our sense of equality and liberty, can stand up to the more coercive tenets of a religion founded upon a platform of subservience, obedience, and obligatory duty of Jihad against all who do not believe in Mohammed's teachings. It is not the Islamic faith that is in question here, since as a matter of personal faith it is beyond criticism or reproach. The real question is the manifestation of such faith into a political action imperative, where through the jihadic duty of conquering the non-believers each Muslim is obligated to follow out that duty in order to find the rewards of heaven, or at least to obey in submission the dictates of the Holy Quran. So it is written, and so must he obey. But if he obeys, then is his life's objectives and beliefs compatible with our beliefs of freedom, our constitutional freedoms? Where in the Quran does it validate our right to be free as human beings, both men and women equally, before the law? If that fails, then the political aspect of Islam, not the personal faith of Islam, is what fails the compatibility tests of our freedoms. Can our freedoms survive this if we treat Islamic faith on equal footing with all other faiths, rather than a politicized war-cult faith, so that we extend to Islam the same religious tolerance we extend to others? Or, if we extend such tolerance in our freedom to worship personally as we will, will Islam extend the same tolerance towards others who are not of their faith, with a tolerance that in effect invalidates their jihadic imperative to war on non-believers? There is the real question: Can modern society based on constitutional rights to our freedoms survive the Jihad of Islamic imperative to follow the dictates of the Quran, to convert the whole world to Islam, as dictated by their founder Mohammed?

This leads into a secondary question, of whether or not political Democracy is compatible with political Islamic teachings? The issue is taken up in a series of articles by Fjordman: Is Islam Compatible with Democracy?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014368.php

Muslims practice a form of apartheid both within their own cultural borders as well as without in the host countries where they reside. For example, Fjordman writes: "The Muslim superiority syndrome runs deep. In Milestones, the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb writes about "a triumphant state which should remain fixed in the Believer's heart" in the face of every thing. "It means to feel superior to others when weak, few and poor, as well as when strong, many and rich."
"When the Believer scans whatever man, ancient or modern, has known, and compares it with his own law and system, he realizes that all this is like the playthings of children or the searchings of blind men in comparison with the perfect system and the complete law of Islam. And when he looks from his height at erring mankind with compassion and sympathy at its helplessness and error, he finds nothing in his heart except a sense of triumph over error and nonsense. (…) Conditions change, the Muslim loses his physical power and is conquered, yet the consciousness does not depart from him that he is the most superior. If he remains a Believer, he looks upon his conqueror from a superior position. He remains certain that this is a temporary condition which will pass away and that faith will turn the tide from which there is no escape.""
This may have been avoided early on in history, according to Edward Gibbon, Ch. LI: "Yet the spoils of unknown nations were continually laid at the foot of their throne, and the uniform ascent of the Arabian greatness must be ascribed to the spirit of the nation rather than the abilities of their chiefs. A large deduction must be allowed for the weakness of their enemies. The birth of Mahomet was fortunately placed in the most degenerate and disorderly period of the Persians, the Romans, and the Barbarians of Europe: the empires of Trajan, or even of Constantine or Charlemagne, would have repelled the assault of the naked Saracens, and the torrent of fanaticism might have been obscurely lost in the sands of Arabia." Had there been a strong Byzantine resistance to the Caliphs in the first century of Mohammedism, Islam would have dissolved in the desert sands of Arabia. But the formula for conquest and the spoils of war, mainly slaves and booty treasure, women and children taken captive and sold, the advantage to nomadic desert raiders was too powerful a draw to give up, especially if they are told they are doing this with God's approval, as Mohammed told them. (Here is a list of pre-Crusades conquests of Islam in the Middle East: http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/islamic_conquests_632.htm ) So we have a theocratic system of warring, and the spoils of war, that appeals to a general population, even after conquest since the men who resisted were killed, and children and women who could not resist were taken as slaves, so the formula for more conquest continues unabated until forcefully resisted centuries later by Europeans. Can this formula still work for Islam today, now that 'booty' is no longer in the form of slaves and women, but as 'oil money' extracted from the economic needs of an advanced industrial society, such as exists in the West and Asia. Is this 'oil booty' now a new incentive to war on the West, and the East, in order to continue the formulations of the early Caliphs, to conquer the societies of the non-believers in their Arabian religion?

Muslim apartheid is little noticed, though it exists not only in Saudi Arabia, where non-Muslims are treated as second class citizens forced to live separate from the Arabs, to not affect their internal sense of 'superiority', but even practiced against non-Arab Muslims, which are also second class. This inequality cuts even further, as pointed out by Fjordman: "The rates for blood money mirror this apartheid system. A Saudi court has ruled that the value of one woman's life is equal to that of one man's leg. The court ordered a Saudi to pay a Syrian expatriate blood money after he killed the man's wife and severed both his legs in a car accident six months earlier. The court ordered $13,300 compensation for the man's wife, and the same amount for each of his legs. Under Islamic law, the life of an ex-Muslim is worth nothing at all. He is a traitor, an apostate, and can be killed with impunity.

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation as follows:
*100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
* 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
* 50,000 riyals if a Christian man
* 25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
* 6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
* 3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman"


So a Hindu female is worth only 1/33rd of a Muslim male? Can the West with its liberal and tolerant values lives with this kind of glaring apartheid inequality of not only gender but religious beliefs? Religion practiced as a personal faith is one thing, innocent and unobtrusive, but politicized into action, whether legal action through Sharia laws (embedded within the governments of free societies) or through outright discrimination (embedded within Sharia of Islamic states) this politicized Islam becomes a totally different thing from religion: it becomes a coercive force against our natural social freedoms enshrined in our democratic states as constitutional law. Can they coexist on equal terms within any society? Very likely, the answer is a blatant NO. This kind of state-within-a-state becomes a blatant double standard that cannot coexist with liberal values of tolerance and human rights and liberties. The question is therefore, can the Western world with its tolerance of other cultures accommodate an intolerant and warring culture, such as written into law by the Caliphs after Mohammed's death?

Ali Sina wrote: ""According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?"

He thinks that the Islamic system of government is akin to Fascism:

• It is marked by centralization of authority under a supreme leader vested with divine clout.
• It has stringent socioeconomic control over all aspects of all its subjects irrespective of their faith.
• It suppresses its opposition through terror and censorship.
• It has a policy of belligerence towards non-believers.
• It practices religious apartheid.
• It disdains reason.
• It is imperialistic.
• It is oppressive.
• It is dictatorial and
• It is controlling.

According to Sina, "Islam is political and political Islam is Fascism.""

How accommodating does the West wish to be towards a 'political Islam' Fascism?

There is also the question of the authenticity of the Holy Quran. In a rather brazen article by Martin Bright, "The great Koran con trick", http://www.newstatesman.com/200112100017 , he pulls no punches on this issue, and brings up a very damning evidence against authenticity: "Scholars claim that Islam's holy book is not quite what it seems...

With no contemporary Muslim sources to refer to, a group of young historians working under the brilliant linguist Professor John Wansbrough at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in the Seventies developed new scholarly techniques, drawing heavily on earlier biblical scholarship. Following Wansbrough's lead, they decided to look at the Koran as a literary text, to compare it to other devotional writings of the period and to look at internal clues to its origin. They found that it owed much to Judaism, especially the Talmud, a collection of commentaries and interpretations of the Hebrew Bible. They concluded, tentatively, that in the form that survives, the Koran was compiled, if not written, decades after the time of Mohammad, probably by converts to Islam in the Middle East, who introduced elements from the religions previously dominant in the region. Patricia Crone and Michael Cook, also working at SOAS at the time, provided an even more devastating analysis by looking at the only surviving contemporary accounts of the Islamic invasion, written in Armenian, Greek, Aramaic and Syriac by Middle Eastern witnesses to the rise of Islam. They found that Islam, as represented by admittedly biased sources, was in essence a tribal conspiracy against the Byzantine and Persian empires with deep roots in Judaism, and that Arabs and Jews were allies in these conquering communities."
But more damning still is the evidence unearthed in San'a: "Apparent support for their conclusions came from finds made during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a in Yemen, where labourers working in the roof discovered fragments of Korans that are among the oldest in existence. German scholars who studied the manuscripts discovered that some of the Koranic writing diverges from the authorised version, which by tradition is considered the pure, unadulterated word of God. What's more, some of the writing appears to have been inscribed over earlier, "rubbed-out" versions of the text. This editing supports the belief of Wansbrough and his pupils that the Koran as we know it does not date from the time of Mohammad. Andrew Rippin, professor of Islamic history at the University of Victoria in Canada, and the author of a revisionist history of Islam published by Routledge, said: "The Sana'a manuscripts [are] part of the process of filling in the holes in our knowledge of what might have happened."" Here is the 'smoking gun' that the Quran is not uncreated and immutable as Muslim scholars would have us believe. Further, there are other evidences, from Widipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur%27an : "Different copies of Qur'an
A number of Hadith mention that several of Muhammad's companions wrote down their own collections of the revelations.
The best-known among them is Ibn Masud. He claimed to have learned some seventy Surahs directly from the prophet. Muhammad told other people to learn the Quran from him and three others. (Bukhari 6:61:521) However, Surah 1, 113 and 114 were missing in his collection. Ubay bin Kab, the prophet's secretary in Medina, is one of the other three whom the prophet recommended as a teacher of the Quran. Ubay bin Kab's collection contained two additional Surahs and an otherwise unknown verse. His text was widely used in Syria before the appearance of Uthman's text. Abu Musa's collection was used by the people of Basra and was identical with the material of Ubai bin Kab. These different collections of the Quran contained many variant readings. More than 1700 are attributed to Ibn Masud alone."
It was not until 650 AD, nearly two decades after Mohammed's death, that the Quran was standardized through committee: "During the caliphate of Uthman ibn Affan, there were disputes about the recitation of the Qur'an. In response, Uthman decided to codify, standardize, and write down the text. Uthman is said to have commissioned a committee (including Zayd and several prominent members of Quraysh) to produce a standard copy of the text. Some accounts say that this compilation was based on the text kept by Hafsa. Other stories say that Uthman made his compilation independently, Hafsa's text was brought forward, and the two texts were found to coincide perfectly. Still other accounts omit any reference to Hafsa. Some Muslim scholars say that if the Qur'an had been collected by the order of a caliph, it would never have been relegated to the status of a keepsake for one of the prophet's widows[citation needed]. It has also been claimed that the story possibly might have been invented to move the time of collection closer to Muhammad's death [citation needed].
Uthman's reaction in 653 AD is recorded in the following Hadith:
"So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33:23)" (Bukhari 6:61:510)"
Perhaps true believers will accept the "Divine origin" of the Holy Quran, but for scholars of history, there is no valid reason to accept it as such, so the various versions existed at one time were codified, like a Muslim version of the council of Nicea, into what was acceptable doctrine of what Mohammed allegedly said. There is no questioning Muslim on this, since for them this is as pure an act of belief as for Christians to accept the divinity of Christ, but does it make historic sense? The question would not, could not arise for a personal faith, but it must arise for a politicized faith that demands conquest of all non-believers. When the tolerant freedom based West is pressed by Sharia law, not only in terrorism but in demands from Muslims living within their borders, then it must be addressed of necessity. How valid is the Quran? What other religion mandates war on any other faith? What other religion demands polygamy and slavery according to its holy teachings? None. The article in Wiki ends with: "The authenticity of the Satanic verses has been disputed by the earliest Muslim historians who ironiclly happen to be the same historians on whose authority the verses are often cited." Contentious till the end.

The History of the Middle East in those first centuries after Mohammed's inspired religious formula for conquest takes us across a major part of the then known world, from Spain to India, with conquests, war booty, rape, slavery of women and children, murder of old men and priests and nuns, genocide of cultures and peoples, whole nation subdued. Can this philosophy, once again being re-enacted by the followers of Mohammed's Quran, be accommodated by a world that is struggling to set itself free from violence and coercions, from its violent pasts of slavery and murder, and rise into a new consciousness of freedom and respect for all human beings equally? How can this happen? If we are not to regress by centuries, it is our scholarly duty, not to mention governmental duty of leadership, to scrutinize what is it the Muslims want. Do they want freedom? Are they willing to enjoy the successes freedom had brought our world? Or are they terminally rooted in their ancient regressive politicized dictates for their religious founder? What other religion says you will go straight to heaven for killing an infidel? It is so far removed from what we modern human beings believe in that it is truly laughable, except that it is also a very real threat to our future, and our children's futures. Demographic birth rates for Muslims in both their own and our lands far outpace our own, those of us who enjoy the fruits of living in free societies. But they do not assimilate well, and instead to their dying breath insist that Islam is the best social order for all humanity. Well, it is not the best, but rather regressive, cruel, violent, and if anyone doubts, read the news.

Here are some other links of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquests
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/donner.html

And for today: The Jihad: We're All in This Together
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25888
Can Democracy be Imposed? Not in Muslim countries
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=806

But if Islam and Democratic Freedoms are incompatible, then what? What does it mean for 'religious tolerance'? Can the 'political' be separated from Islam? Is Arab Muslim 'superiority' so embedded that religious tolerance is demanded by them but unrequited by them? These are serious dilemmas for the consciousness evolution of our world. We cannot regress back to slavery and religious wars of conquest if we are to be free human beings moving forward into a new world consciousness.

Please feel free to comment and add your ideas. Thank you.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 10:54 am:   

... obligatory duty of Jihad against all who do not believe in Mohammed's teachings.
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 07:13 pm: Ivan


Please read my response at
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/120.html?1165894539#POST2722

I have already established that non-Muslims are safe from Islam. Why is it that my arguments are ignored? The same wrong accusation is repeated again and again. I responded just after reading up to the above sentence.

I am yet to read more. If you and others are bent on accusing Islam without responding to my defence I see no point in my dialogue with you. Please respond to my reasonong.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:16 am:   

Where in the Quran does it validate our right to be free as human beings, both men and women equally, before the law?
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 07:13 pm: Ivan


This demand is patently unfair. Why should Islam be compatible with your democracy? Why? Islam is for Muslims and not for non-Muslims.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=109&from_verse=1&to_v erse=6&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_sh akir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

The above URL clearly spells out that Islam and non-Islam would be followed by non-intersecting groups of people. The URL gives the translation by four translators. For immediate reference, I quote below the translation by M.Khan.

===
109:1 Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)to these Mushrikoon and Kafiroon): "O Al-Kafiroon (disbelievers in Allah, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar, etc.)!

109:2 "I worship not that which you worship,

109:3 "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

109:4 "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

109:5 "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

109:6 "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islamic Monotheism)."
===

Islam is a total faith including the laws of governance of a nation. It cannot be modified or made accommodating.

Is it too much to ask the ‘Democracy Lovers’ that the Muslims be left to live their lives as they believe irrespective of whether it looks to be slavery to the ‘Democracy Lovers.’

Democracy – the true democracy of eliciting the opinion of all concerned - was initiated in the selection of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him. God willing I hope to explain that in my web and give the link here in a subsequent post.

I join you in fighting the ‘Global Conquest’ claimed by some misguided war-mongers among Muslims. We have to fight them. Harping on Islam and demanding that Islam become compatible with Democracy would not help.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:25 am:   

Can modern society based on constitutional rights to our freedoms survive the Jihad of Islamic imperative to follow the dictates of the Quran, to convert the whole world to Islam, as dictated by their founder Mohammed?
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 07:13 pm: Ivan


The above claim is wrong. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, removed all faiths other than Islam from the Arabian Peninsula. That was expected of him and he fulfilled his duty.

All other Muslims living outside the Arabian Peninsula have to respect the other faiths and live in peace with them. They might engage in friendly discussion if the non-Muslims agree like the “Interfaith Dialogue” initiated by the revered Pope Benedict XVI. No Muslim has permission to impose his / her faith on a non-Muslim outside the Arabian Peninsula.

Inside the Arabian Peninsula only Muslims are to live and thus there is no imposition of faith there also.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:00 pm:   

Is this 'oil booty' now a new incentive to war on the West, and the East, in order to continue the formulations of the early Caliphs, to conquer the societies of the non-believers in their Arabian religion?
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 07:13 pm: Ivan


One barrel of petroleum and related products is 42 gallons. From
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page. html
===
US 12/11/06 $2.293 per gallon including taxes.
===

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/crude-flat-ahead-opec-warm/story.aspx?guid =%7B7F1EE7E7-5590-449D-B8CA-22FF13BA5C2B%7D
===
The January crude contract was last up 53 cents at $61.75 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
===

Even at the future high price of $61.75 a barrel the price of crude is just $1.47 a gallon. The selling price of $2.293 per gallon is 1.5596 times the price of crude. But for the energy supplied to refine the crude, there is no expense for the refiners. They get many other products in addition to petrol from the refineries. Thus I ignore the cost of energy and the cost of other petroleum products.

From http://www.ticker.com/petroleum.htm
===
U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve 676 Million Barrels

U.S. Motor Gasoline Consumption 9,105,000 Barrels / Day

Share of US Oil Consumption for Transportation 67%
===

The total US consumption per day is 9.105 / 0.67 million barrels, which is 13.59 million barrels / day. At the worst case, the delay at the refinery could be the period of the strategic stock, giving a maximum delay of 676 / 13.59 days, that is 49.7 days. Profit on crude by the refineries in 50 days is 55.96%; return over 365 days is 408.5%. That is the ROI on crude is just 408% per year.

Pray tell me which other business has such a beautiful ROI? Who enjoys the oil booty: the Muslims or the owners of the oil refineries who are from the advanced countries?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:28 pm:   

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia.
*100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
* 50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 07:13 pm: Ivan


Other than the above two figures, the other figures are irrelevant. Inside the Arabian Peninsula only Muslims are to live. Others are honored guests. The current practice by the Saudis of employing non-Muslims is against Islam. So I would not look at the other figures as they are non-existent in a true Islamic society inside the Arabian Peninsula. God willing, I would try to defend Islamic way of life and not the Saudi or Arab way of life. The behavior of the Saudi or the Arab does not define the behavior of a Muslim.

In the law of inheritance, a male gets twice the share of a female. The female has no responsibility. Whatever wealth she gets she is free to dispose of in any manner that is legal. In contrast a male has the responsibility of providing shelter and food to his family including the females who share the inheritance. So the male gets an extra share to meet the additional responsibility.

In the case of blood money, it is compensation to the family that has lost the person. Accordingly, the family that lost a male gets more blood money.

What happens outside the Arabian Peninsula? It is my understanding that the Sharia is applicable among Muslims alone and that every nation outside the Arabian Peninsula has to have its own non-Sharia national law applicable to all including the Muslims. These laws are not controlled by Muslims but by the whole population. In such nations outside the Arabian Peninsula you could have your current laws as they exist in US. In such nations, as long as the Muslims are allowed to practice their religion – in terms of prayer, and non-criminal laws – if they agree to live there they should obey the national law as well. For the sake of social harmony, the criminal part of the Sharia may have to be suspended if the total population so decides. I state this on the strength of the requirement that a Muslim should live in harmony with his / her neighbor who could as well be a non-Muslim.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 04:05 pm:   

To the Western mind, it is lunacy that Muslims claim a whole land (Arabian peninsula) as under their complete jurisdiction. It is also crazy to think that in this area non-Muslims cannot be employed to work (before you get upset read my explanation below).

Islam has many good messages, but I can't wrap my head around the minutia of detailed rules.

I suppose many non-Muslims feel this way about Islam also. I think Muslims don't understand that, for those outside of Islam, the overwhelming number of rules subtracts from the legitimacy of Islam as a faith . I say this because it is hard for them to imagine that God would create such culture specific laws. Furthermore, many of these laws don't make sense to the modern, Western mind. This further increases sentiments against the religion.

Will modern freedoms survive in the face of Political Islam? I fear, once these two worlds come into full conflict, the opposite question will need to be asked. Unfortunately there are inherent biases on either side. Equally unfortunate for some, is the fact that the balance of power tilts to the West.

We need to monitor the build up of animosity toward Muslims in this country and abroad. Yes (to us), their faith may be strange, threatening, or arrogant. That does not, however, warrant our disdain.

Ultimately our freedoms will remain intact so long as we wish to defend them.
I hope too that they (those who would use religion to undermine our freedom) understand that we will indeed defend our freedoms.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 06:32 pm:   


quote:

Islam is a total faith including the laws of governance of a nation. It cannot be modified or made accommodating.

Is it too much to ask the ‘Democracy Lovers’ that the Muslims be left to live their lives as they believe irrespective of whether it looks to be slavery to the ‘Democracy Lovers.’

Democracy – the true democracy of eliciting the opinion of all concerned - was initiated in the selection of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him. God willing I hope to explain that in my web and give the link here in a subsequent post.

I join you in fighting the ‘Global Conquest’ claimed by some misguided war-mongers among Muslims. We have to fight them. Harping on Islam and demanding that Islam become compatible with Democracy would not help. --Mohideen



No need to feel defensive about my question on whether modern freedoms can survive political Islam. Remember, I am addressing POLITICAL Islam, not your faith in your founder of the Islamic faith. It is the deeds, the actions, all in the name of Islam that are being questioned as being totally incompatible with democratic ideals of equality and individual liberty. You do not like my question because it offends your ideal that you follow the word of God, while the rest of us follow the laws of man. Well, that's your faith, and therefore also it is your problem, not mine, not ours. You have to live with your faith, not us. And for that matter, you live within the laws of a democratic constitutional state, the United States of America, and you must abide by our laws of the land, no matter what you believe in your religion. You did choose to live here of your own free will, true? No one forced you into the 'slavery of democracy' as you put it, true? Then do not complain that we do not obey your Sharia laws. But also do not be defensive if we find so much historical evidence of your religion being hostile not only to whole cultures but to democratic ideals of freedom itself. Islam is what it is, not our problem. What is our problem is what Islam does. And so far, it had not been pretty, nor noble, nor commendable, nor compassionate at any level. Sorry, but that's the world you embrace, a world of Islamic world conquest as dictated by your Mohammed. Political Islam is at fault, because you are duty bound to Jihad, world conquest for Allah. Modify it, or stand the criticism of reality, that your religion is incompatible with modern human values of the diginity of the individual, equally for both men and women, who can enjoy the freedom of being who they are within the parameters of constitutional laws that ensure their freedom. That's who we are. Who are you? Do you really qualify to speak for Islam's history of conquest, rape, enslavement, murder, and wholesale destructive genocide of whole cultures all through your religion's history? Why should we believe you? Did you not say Islam is the best possible governance for mankind? Has your history proved anywhere at any time that this is true? Think about it.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 06:39 pm:   

Naive, sometimes I feel you're reading my mind!

quote:

Will modern freedoms survive in the face of Political Islam? I fear, once these two worlds come into full conflict, the opposite question will need to be asked.


You just said exactly what I was thinking after posting my OP above: What if I asked the question in reverse order?
"Can ancient Islam survive our modern Freedoms?"
It poses an interesting conundrum, because it may very well be that we are facing a truism, that it cannot survive. So my above is cautionary in nature, to warn Islam, more than alarmist. Islam is much more at risk here, the POLITICAL side of Mohammed's demands on his followers, than our culture's developments of free society. Sure, we're far from perfect; but we are centuries ahead of the 7th century philosophy of some desert nomads crafting a formula for making themselves 'feel good' about raiding caravans and settlements. I think the 'Rain Man's a comin.' :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:52 am:   


quote:

I have already established that non-Muslims are safe from Islam. Why is it that my arguments are ignored? The same wrong accusation is repeated again and again. I responded just after reading up to the above sentence. --Mohideen



I agree with your sentiments, but not with the substance of historical evidence for Jihad mandated for his followers by Mohammed, allegedly. I say "allegedly" because Mohammed did not write down his sayings, only twenty years later after his death were they formally written down by a consortium of Caliphs, into what we now know as the Koran. Regrettably, or perhaps on purpose, all the older versions were burnt or destroyed, so no historical records exist against which to compare what was passed down to the present and what Mohammed said, allegedly. Of course, you are free to believe as you will, but those who believe differently from you and do want to do Jihad against all the so-called "unbelievers" are not answering to your call for peace.

One more thing, which I find most puzzling. On what grounds do you claim that the Arabian Peninsula is different from the rest of the Earth? Why should Islam be contained there, but not anywhere else? Conversely, why should it be thought to have any claim to that land at all? It is all Earth, so why would Muslims make special claim to that part of the planet? Again, this is apartheid and supremacy, not in comformity with today's world of egalitanism and equal rights. On what basis would anyone claim that this land belongs to any one religious group at the exclusion of any other group? I find it not only unfair, but anti-social, exclusionary, and anti-peace. Sorry.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 02:24 am:   

Mohideen,

Governments are the keepers of lands, not religions. For example, if I had a vision in which God told me I was now the owner of the world, and then I tried to dictate global policy, I would be ridiculed as a fool. On the other hand, If I had an army and weapons and world sentiment on my side then I could dictate policy as I saw fit.

Would you kindly step off of the earth, if I say my faith demands me to remove you from it? This is the kind of thinking that causes westerners to disdain Islam. You can't claim religious control of a land. It is just land! That is why we separate church and state - to allow the legitimacy of other faiths (including yours) so long as they do not violate the laws of the land. Do not think this makes us feel that man made laws are superior. Rather it is a superior system when the rights of many can be preserved (thus separation of church and state) while allowing us to coexist without fear of subjugation to someone's subjective religious interpretation.

Do you really think God doesn't want non-Muslims to work in or live in the Arabian Peninsula? If so, how does that make sense? Does God favor Muslims then? That is no God if the answer is yes! It seems the more you tell me about your faith, the less I understand its appeal (except to those it favors). Through this logic, God favors the United States and China and any other country with the capacity to destroy the earth because God allows them to have weapons of mass destruction.

When faith and politics are intertwined, faith will always drag the people into a political nightmare, because the world contains more than one faith, and interpretations of religious texts are subjective. Europe learned this when the Protestants, Lutherans, and others defected from the Roman Catholic church. What hard lesson will the Political followers of Islam have to learn before they too realize the folly of combining faith and politics?

So again, explain to me why God favors Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula, but remember to apply the reasoning of my vision to your answer. If your answer is "because God told the prophet", then I say anyone with a vision is entitled to rule the world, for they too can say God told them Muslims should kindly step off of it.


Naive


Ps. The lesson the Church seems to have learned is, men would rather not be controlled, but instead have an intuitive understanding of the freedoms God wants them to enjoy. There was no fighting this truth and the church had to adjust to it. The extent to which political Islam attempts to violate this historical sense of freedom, that took hundreds of years to manifest, is the very extent of its doom. If you love Islam, you will concentrate on spreading that message within the world of its adherents.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 08:15 am:   

Do you really think God doesn't want non-Muslims to work in or live in the Arabian Peninsula?
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 02:24 am: Naive


Yes. Please read on.

It is the exception that proves the rule. As per the Holy Quran when God created the first human and his wife God placed just one restriction.

The URL gives more than what I quote. I quote the bare minimum to give a continuous presentation.
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=35&to_ve rse=35&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_sh akir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1
===
Yusuf Ali 2:35:
We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
===

That was a very simple test to decide the superiority between the best creation (human) and not-so-best creation (devil). In that test the first human couple failed and devil won. The contest continues on earth.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=36&to_ve rse=39&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_sh akir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1
===
Yusuf Ali 2:36:
Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time."

Yusuf Ali 2:37:
Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.

Yusuf Ali 2:38:
We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Yusuf Ali 2:39:
"But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein."
===

As there was a single tree that was an exception, on earth there is a single piece of land, the Arabian Peninsula that is the exception. We, the believers in Islam, believe that the Arabian Peninsula is to be inhabited by Muslims alone and we are duty bound to work towards that goal.

The definition of God differs from religion to religion. We stick to our understanding of God. Whether the non-Muslims approve of our understanding of God or not should not affect our practicing our religion.

When I request that the Muslims be left alone to practice their religion, I include the act of having Muslims alone live inside the Arabian Peninsula. That is our red line.

Because the Muslims shall not accept a non-Muslim living inside the Arabian Peninsula, I have taken pains to undo the mischief done by an earlier generation in building the Suez Canal and bringing the Holy Land inside the Arabian Peninsula by changing the geography of the Arabian Peninsula. My suggestion is a win-win suggestion. Please read it in http://deentech.com/Israel_can_exist.aspx

The Muslims want to live and let live. Give us our exclusive space; don’t crowd us. That is the request from ‘Peace loving Muslims.’ By denying our exclusive space you end up supporting the ‘war-mongers in Islam’ who demand the whole earth for domination; we oppose that; help us.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 10:15 am:   


quote:

As there was a single tree that was an exception, on earth there is a single piece of land, the Arabian Peninsula that is the exception. We, the believers in Islam, believe that the Arabian Peninsula is to be inhabited by Muslims alone and we are duty bound to work towards that goal. --Mohideen



This is nonsense. Saudi Peninsula is not a 'game preserve' for God's "chosen" anymore than any other part of the planet... unless we make it so. Human beings make choices and act on those choices. You want a Muslim "preserve" area, fine. We all agree that this is a good thing for our planet Earth, and you shall have your preserve. Sorry if this is in some way 'insulting', but that's how it is done by free men and women who are conscious of who they are on this planet.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:31 pm:   

We all agree that this is a good thing for our planet Earth, and you shall have your preserve.
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 10:15 am: Ivan


Ivan, thanks for agreeing to help whether you do it to insult or to promote peace. The intention is looked at by God not by fellow human; we appreciate the action irrespective of your intentions. Thanks again.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:40 pm:   

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! LOL just won't do!

Mohideen,

This is the most ridiculous thinking in the world. Now I know why you didn't answer my question regarding genetics and Adam and Eve and the scientific evidence that the first people came out of Africa! It might destroy the "specialness" of your supposed holy land that only Muslims are entitled to. You really have no answer but to fall back upon rhetoric.

There is no red line. It exists within your head. It was a line Mohammed created in his rule book. Outrageous. My respect is now gone. Can a group of people truly believe they are God's special chosen few, that they are entitled to the most special place on earth? This is exactly why I can't stand the dogma of religion. This is exactly what Judaism does with its concept of the Goyim, how the Mormons used to classify nonwhites. Your faith fools its followers into thinking they are the supreme example of humanity or rightness.

Keep living your little lie.

Explain to me WHY the Arabian Peninsula is so special.

I just had a vision. It says anyone who doesn't think like me should kindly step off my planet. It says so in my holy book. Now get off! That is where I draw the line! My new religion is as viable as yours, and as soon as I recruit my holy army, I am going to remove all those who think ignorantly from the earth.

Do you see how ridiculous it sounds when it comes from someone who is not in your faith?

Really Islam needs to grow up and lose some of its arrogance.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Friendly Ghost
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 02:41 pm:   

Pentagon looking into generals' video promotion of Christian group

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061211/pl_afp/usmilitaryreligion

At the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Intelligence Services christian fundamentalists have taken control of the policy making functions within our government.

Onward, Christian Soldier!
From the November 3, 2003 issue: The jihad against General Boykin.
by David Gelernter
11/03/2003, Volume 009, Issue 08

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/297bqnce.asp

Bill Keller of the New York Times has uncovered that Top Pentagon officials have been briefed on Bible Prophesy by Michael Drosnin, author of "The Bible Code II: The Countdown".

http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=000019168


One wonders the influence these true believers have had on the president and the war in Iraq.

Friendly Ghost
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 07:16 pm:   

Mohideen,

Look at it another way: In our land and under our system, peoples of various religions can live, work, interact. In a land where religion and politics are not separate: faith will dictate choice, choice will be limited, free thought is curtailed, and the individual becomes less of a human being. Nazi Germany fell into a situation similar to this. In that case a sweeping wave of nationalism lead to homogeneous thought, action, and a mob mentality. We all know how that ended!

Look at the state of Islam. Practitioners of just two sects kill each other over Quranic interpretation! This happens because of the same social phenomena mentioned above. Indeed, Islam is the most interesting case study of human behavior that I have ever seen (besides the conversion of Africans and Indians from 1500 to the 1800's).

In a way, all faith involves the type of devotion which may leave its adherents open to exploitation. Your warmongers know this Mohideen, and they prey on potential good Muslims. If you do not separate church and state, or if you do not amend your beliefs, this will continue to happen.

Of course you won't see it that way because the Quran tells you that it is a perfect prophecy (no change allowed). Pretty brilliant (but detrimental) foresight.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 07:45 pm:   

Freedom and Islam: my intentions are honorable and peaceful.

I am truly not hostile to Mohammed's religion as it regards human freedoms. In fact, as from the links referenced here, I am supportive of these ideas. I hold reservations on what the Caliphs did with Mohammed's teachings, which in my opinion is the warring side of Islam, but do not hold Mohammed responsible for the (after his death) modifications. And to prove that I am not hostile to Mohammed's teachings, here are a couple of beautiful papers on Islam and Freedom:

The New Order for the World of Faith, Freedom, Welfare and Peace
http://www.shirazi.org.uk/freedom.htm#_Toc477430

Note the 100 "permissible" freedoms in Islam in the New Order. These freedoms are not exactly the same as our presently understood a priori inalienable right to personal freedom in the modern world, but in both ideas "freedom" per se is non-negotiable, our modern "freedom from coercions". More on this later.

Also see:

The Concept of Freedom in Islam
http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/concept-freedom.htm

A beautifully written piece on freedom within Islam. I wish I could discuss this more at length now, but leave them here for reference and hope to get back to this issue in a couple of days, since must go off on boating party in a short while.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 08:18 am:   

Your warmongers know this Mohideen, and they prey on potential good Muslims. If you do not separate church and state, or if you do not amend your beliefs, this will continue to happen.
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 07:16 pm: Naïve


What do you think I am doing here? I believe I am confronting the war-mongers both inside Islam and outside Islam.

I do not expect instant results. The ideas take time to percolate. When the posts here reach the critical mass of young boys and girls, that most impressionable age of teens, the tide would, God willing, turn. The war-mongers would be successful so long as they could recruit; the moment that channel dries up the war mongers would be gone.

There is no need to separate the good of the Church from the state; we need to separate the bad of the Church from the state. (Who defines the good from the bad: we by our understanding define that.) I believe, hope, and work for reclaiming Islam from the war mongers.

Don’t forget that Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, asked us to follow the ‘rightly guided Caliphs.’ The consensus is that the first four Caliphs were indeed rightly guided. During their reign there was no conquest. The conquest started with the fifth Caliph. There were some Caliphs afterwards who were indeed rightly guided. The twelfth Caliph to appear is expected to be rightly guided. We do not know about him until he surfaces. So I am convinced that I am on the right track. My efforts might take time; I have to be patient.

As regards amending the belief, there is a slight misunderstanding. The Muslims follow the Holy Quran. That is frozen; fixed; can not be amended; even one letter of the Holy Quran can not be changed. The next level is the Traditions. With respect to the Traditions the collectors like Imam Bukhari screened the narrators with a fine comb and eliminated innumerable innovations. Still they did not apply semantic checks. May be foolishly I am doing that. One result of such a semantic check is found in:
http://deentech.com/MI_IC_Tradition_4294_of_Sahih_Muslim_is_not_authentic.aspx

Actions taken 1400 years back do not cover all possible future events. That is why we treat the Holy Quran as a set of axioms and the authentic Traditions as theorems already proven. If one desires one could derive the authentic Traditions from the Holy Quran. Taking the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions as a fact-base we derive the law for a new situation.

In Riyadh, my father was to be treated for glaucoma. The doctor advised using a heat laser to burn some tissues inside the eye and possibly enlarge the drain to relieve the pressure. Having understood from the Traditions we are not to use fire, I expressed my reservations to the Saudi assistant of the foreign expert. My reservations were ignored. The foreign expert tried to open the channel. He struggled and finally gave up. He told us that the tissue just becomes black but does not evaporate. May be God intervened!

By proper analysis we could arrive at the law for future events. This is already part of Islam. Any action taken by consensus is acceptable in Islam.

I must clarify that a consensus taken earlier might need to be revised in the light of new developments. Even though a heat-laser can not be used, we could use a laser that induces ultrasound vibrations to remove tissue and perform internal surgery. So to my understanding Islam has enough built in flexibility.

I might venture to add one more aspect to our discussion under controversy now. It refers to the habit of some Muslim women covering their face except a slit for their eyes. Such screening was mandatory for the wives of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It was not required of other women of that time. Still the other women voluntarily covered their faces. Such covering gave them additional protection while moving in the regions inhabited by non-Muslims as the other person does not know whether the female is an ordinary Muslim or related to the ruler. That camouflage had a benefit then. Now there is no such benefit. As far as I am concerned, it would be better for the Muslim women to expose the face. However at this point in time there is no consensus on this issue. Once a consensus gets formed that there is no sin in exposing the face one irritant between the Muslims and non-Muslims would be gone.

So there is no need to reform Islam as defined by the Holy Quran; we need to educate the correct interpretation of the scriptures.

No need to separate the whole Church from the state; just separate the bad Church from the state.

I hope my friends in this site – including you – would help me in reclaiming Islam from the war mongers. Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 11:48 am:   

Democracy – the true democracy of eliciting the opinion of all concerned - was initiated in the selection of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, Allah be pleased with him. God willing I hope to explain that in my web and give the link here in a subsequent post.
Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:16 am: Mohideen Ibramsha


By the Mercy of God, I posted the analysis a few minutes back. Please read at:
http://deentech.com/MI_IC_Islamic_Democracy.aspx
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 11:56 am:   

I agree with your sentiments, but not with the substance of historical evidence for Jihad mandated for his followers by Mohammed, allegedly.
Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:52 am: Ivan


From http://deentech.com/MI_IC_Islamic_Democracy.aspx
===
We act on that condition regarding war. Over the past 14 centuries there were many rulers. Only 11 of them were rightly guided. We are sure that the first 4 Caliphs were rightly guided; we are not sure after them. Of course many wrongly guided rulers have indulged in worldly conquest and possibly based on written records of the actions of those rulers who indulged in worldly conquest some Muslims might claim that they have the duty to spread Islam at the tip of the sword. Since we are talking about consensus emerging out of absence of objection from a historical perspective, it is necessary to object the worldly conquest. Accordingly Mohideen Ibramsha on December 14, 2006 declares that Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran forbids coercing any non-Muslim to become a Muslim. It is hoped that many Muslims agree with him. Please note that historical consensus is subject to change as the perception changes.
===

I hope the above objection to the ‘worldly conquest’ indulged by some rulers of Muslims – a worldly conquest not sanctioned in Islam – be spread wide and far so that the youngsters do not fall prey to propaganda by war-mongers among Muslims.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 03:54 pm:   

I respect your efforts Mohideen!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 11:00 am:   

How Freedom in Islam differs from Freedom in our Modern civilization.

The Faith, Freedom paper referenced earlier: http://www.shirazi.org.uk/freedom.htm#_Toc477430 , shows the hundred 'permissible' freedoms in Islam, which to the unsuspecting eye seems right on the money with our Western modern secular freedoms. However, where we have freedom of belief and separation of church and state, the list allows for "freedom to follow the rulings of any competent religious authority desired" (#98), which is not the same thing. There are freedoms to build 'religious centers' (#80) and mosques (#78) but no freedoms to build churches and temples. Therefore, without the 'separation of church and state' which is a secular idea of our freedoms, the theocratic Islamic ideas of freedom are limited only to those permissible by the religious authorities. Unlike our natural freedoms of the modern world, these freedoms are tightly defined by the 'Rule of Law' within the religious context of restrictions placed upon human beings to conform to the dictates of a religious belief. But there is a problem with this: Belief is an internally subjective thing, and to externalize it into a 'rule of law' objective 'permission' freedoms becomes a de facto 'restriction' on our natural freedoms. So the 'limits of freedom' are not dictated by the natural extension of laws to prevent humans coercing one another, to go against their legal agreements to interact with one another, but instead becomes the religious authorities dictate of what is permissible to human beings, which is not the same thing. As to whether or not it is okay to eat certain foods, for example (#45), is actually a restriction on our freedoms, so not the same as allowing freedom. In fact, (#76) freedom of type of food and drink consumed, is contrary to dietary restrictions such as wine or pork, so it becomes an empty 'permission' in real practice. The religious authorities can abrogate this freedom, if it is against the religious texts. Another example is the number of wives (#74), where in our modern society, by social agreement, we are restricted to one spouse, either male or female equally; while in the Islamic religious dictates, the freedom to own up to four wives, but not to own four husbands, is contrary to our natural freedoms which demand equality for all human beings. Likewise in 'freedom of belief' (#76), there is a reference to Allah's alleged "There is no compulsion in religion", but not a direct statement of freedom to believe in any religion one desires to believe in. The reason is that Islam is a 'political' belief system which defines, a hundred ways and no doubt more, how one is allowed to be 'free', but in fact these are merely restrictions on freedom dictated not by one's conscience, nor conscious personal choice, nor by social agreements made into law, but by the specific dictates of a religious formula that no one is allowed to disobey, for it is frozen in time forever. This therefore makes it 'unfreedom' because the responsibility of our natural freedoms are shifted from the individual human being who must make choices in life, and be responsible in these choices to oneself and others; rather, the responsibility is shifted over to the authority who 'grants' these so-called freedoms to their religious belief's membership. It is not the same thing.

When human beings are naturally free, their freedom is not negotiable. It is not up to some authorities to define for them what they may think or believe. So the Islamic 'freedom' to express opinion (#61) is not the same freedom as a freedom of ideas and expression. The responsibility for this freedom is not with the individual but with the state, or in this case the political arm of religious authority. It may appear similar, but again they are different, since one is a natural right of being who you are, while the other is a state defined right to being who you are. Different. This carries over into another freedom, not allowed in Islam, that of remaining silent, or innocent until proven guilty. This freedom is natural, but in Islam it is missing. There is a comparable 'freedom of admission (of guilt)' (#36) which appears to be the same, but in fact that is a permission to agree with the authorities only, not to disagree with them. Freedom of publishing (#38) also appears to mimic freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, though in practice this seems abrogated by the demand from religious authorities to obey the dictates of the faith, and never speak against them. There is no freedom to question the faith, for example, without invoking punishments, which is an abuse of freedom, so it goes counter to the stated freedom of publishing. Under religious restrictions to our freedoms, though there may be hundreds of 'freedoms' listed, the underlying cause and effect is that the authorities dictate what one may or may not do, or think, while in natural freedom, which is non-negotiable, the restrictions on freedom are only with respect to how they may damage another person, and thus damage their freedoms. Again, these are very different approaches to what constitutes the meaning of Freedom for human beings.

When living under the rule of Freedom in a modern secular society, each individual, both men and women equally, have a responsibility to each other first, and not to some religiously derived dogma limiting their freedoms within a narrow range of what is 'permissible' to them. This means that the rule of law is defined by how individuals interact personally and collectively in a social context, where their limits to freedom is limited to not harming others. This is what the laws of our social agreements demand, that we respect the being of another same as we are to be respected by the other. Our religious beliefs, or non-beliefs, has nothing to do with it. We are naturally free by definition, to be who we are, provided we do not harm others from being who they are. In Islam, such a concept of freedom does not exist, because the being of any soul is defined by their religious text, different for men and women, or slaves, than the equality we expect from our freedom before the law. So again, there is a huge difference between religiously permissible freedoms and natural freedoms. In the Western societies, after centuries of struggle to establish our natural freedoms, our inalienable rights before the law as a protection of those freedoms, we established a civilization built upon those protections. So the right to make agreements with each other, those legally valid by not harming the agreements of others, is defined by our social agreement, that the rule of law will protect our freedoms. Contrast this to a religious demand that our 'freedoms' be defined by the text of an ancient scripture dictated by one man. There really is no comparison, since one man is not God, nor the universe, under which each and every one of us must exist. To act for God, with the political power to restrict our freedoms to only what is 'permissible' by the religious texts, is an error bordering blasphemy of natural law. No one has the power to create our being, our individual right to life and pursuit of our identity's happiness and joy in this world, so no one has he right to restrict our freedoms in these pursuits, except as they interfere with the same pursuits for others. Those are the parameters of limits to our freedoms, that we do not harm others in their freedoms. Nothing like this is evident in Islamic doctrines, since all allegiance is to the authorities who claim they speak for God, and punish those who disobey them. Our relative freedoms, those that are natural to us versus those religiously defined, though they may appear similar on the surface, are not even remotely related. Our constraints on our freedoms are defined in the context of how they impact each other, while the religious dogma's constraints are how they impact the religious authority's definitions made for us. Who can define for another who he or she is? Religion is a personal belief, and it cannot be politicized into law. This was the great lesson Western civilization learned over the past four centuries, and it appears to be a lesson lost on the world of Islam, which is still rooted in the past in its medieval dogma defining who we are. No comparison.

So Koranic laws define for Muslims what is freedom a hundred different ways, but it does not protect their natural freedoms by law. This is the great difference between our two worlds, and this would in and of itself not cause conflict except that the Koranic law is so certain of the rightfulness of its dogma that it says it is universal and should apply to all humanity as the best system of governance for us. This is obviously false, an error in thinking, because what applies to us universally is our natural right to be free and to be who we are, protected by law from anyone taking that freedom away from us. This is why in our western societies we are allowed to criticize our government, but in Islam no such right exists. The difference is that per Koranic law, the members of the society must obey in submission to it, which runs counter to our right to be who we are, and obey only the rights of others to be who they are. Think of how different this is! While in one society the demand for freedom is a natural demand against becoming a slave to anyone else, in the other society, the freedom permitted is only one of being a submissive slave to the authority giving that 'freedom' to obey. It boggles the mind to use the same word, Freedom, when they are so diametrically opposite one another. Freedom does not mean slavery.

This is not meant in any way to show disrespect for what others believe, if their true belief is one of pure submission to a higher authority. But it is meant only as an explanation that such belief in obedience is not the same thing as a belief in freedom of the individual, to be free from the coercions of others. In the above referenced paper, it says: "Restriction of the Human Being through Man Made Laws. In contrast to these freedoms, we can see the oppression of the man made laws in the countries of the so-called free world, or in Islamic countries or in the rest of the third world - as for the communist countries, there is not even a trace of freedom there. As we mentioned, the freedom's existent in the 'free' world only amount to one tenth or less of the freedoms conferred by Islam." This statement shows no consciousness at all of what Western freedoms constitute, and only sees the superficiality of trying to understand a free people, who are fallible and can make mistakes, but also learn from and correct their mistakes, as opposed to a people for whom mistakes are forbidden, all aspects of their lives prescribed in advance for them to obey. The oppression of the soul is on those who do not have the freedom to be who they are, naturally who they are in their hearts and minds, but who must conform to the narrow limits allowed under the dictates of their pre-defined rights in the context of their religious dogma. The "so-called free world" is in fact free as defined by our right to be protected from coercions, even religious dogma coercions and the violence of their punishments, while the Islam world defines what punishments are to be applied against those who disagree with it. Try and criticize Islamic dogma, and see what happens to you when the threats come; or try to renounce that dogma, and see if you are still allowed to live. What freedom is that? Religious dogma is like an abusive parent that will slap the child for asking the wrong questions, and the obligatory retort "You may never question me!" What freedom is that? Is this a greater freedom than "restriction of the human being through man made laws"? These man made laws are there to protect the freedoms, not to restrict them, so a major misunderstanding results between these two worlds. How can it be corrected? Only one way, through a clear separation of church (mosque) and state (rule of law), and then there is hope of understanding and tolerance for the other. Anything less than that only causes more friction between the worlds of freedom and dogma.

Where does the fault lie? It is not in the religion itself, since what we believe is in our hearts and should not be scrutinized by any one other than ourselves. What we believe is private, and it cannot be taken away from us. If a true and good Muslim finds comfort and guidance within the holy texts of his Koran, than that is what he or she believes, and there is no purpose in finding fault there. No one may question another's true belief, even if at times it seems absurd, because that is what is in their hearts. The responsibility called for in Islam, as it regards Freedom, is the same responsibility as called for in anyone universally: We must be responsible for all our acts (#42), to keep our word. But that is the end of the comparison, because beyond that responsibility lies the actual actions of each decision made responsibly. If that action is injurious to others, then it is automatically of necessity at fault. So it is not the beliefs of dogma that are at fault, but their actions, because once acted out they become a political act. Freedom defines the limits of such political actions, and a world of Freedom defines those actions that best insure each individual from injury by others equally. This should be a goal for Islamic scholars as well, to see how they can best insure our natural freedoms, for both their believers and those who believer differently, so that no one human being is trespassed upon and injured by another. This is not a freedom that somehow magically appears with (#55) the elimination of borders, if without borders our right to be who we are is jeopardized, but only within the borders of a constitutional rule of law, where human agreements are validated and prevented from violating each other's rights, can this truly work. To de-politicize one's belief in dogma is the goal of Freedom in the whole world. But this runs diametrically opposite to what Islamic scholars want, which is a politicized religious power under Sharia law for all humanity. The fault lies there, and to allow Freedom to rule the planet, Sharia can never be imposed on its peoples, ever, but must remain constrained within the dogmas of its believers without coercion and violence. Then Freedom has a chance, even within Islam.

Ivan

Ps: Philosophically, this is an old age argument of subjectivity vs. objectivity, where in the real world the two are separated; but in the ancient world they were united, e.g. mythology. Freedom is a modern concept.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 11:26 am:   

Ps: Some additional readings.

Islamic caliphate a dream, not reality - experts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061213/lf_nm/islam_caliphate_dc_1

Unfettered Religious Freedom in Islam: A Fact or Fiction?
http://www.islam-watch.org/AlamgirHussain/unfettered_religious_freedom.htm

Spencer: Tony Blair Renounces Multiculturalism - Sort Of
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014402.php

If I may offer, this is a topic of debate that will dominate dialogue on human freedoms between Islam and the Free World for decades to come. May it be resolved with peaceful discussion and not bloodshed.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 12:48 pm:   

Mohideen, in your referenced above on Islamic Democracy, Dec. 14th, you say:

quote:

Islamic Democracy:

Now we attempt the formulation of the rules of Islamic Democracy.

Rule 1: Any position of authority shall be denied to one who covets it. (This eliminates the process of election followed in most of the democracies today where persons coveting the post fight the election.) The positions would be filled by selection.

Rule 2: The selection could be done by a sub-group. However such selection should be ratified by the whole group. When the result of the selection is announced in the assembly of the whole group, absence of objection implies consensus and thus approval. This aspect of announcing to the whole group could take many forms: a meeting and verbal announcement; publication in a public forum with time to lodge objections; announcement in popular media; placing the result in a web page meant to announce the results and so on.


Rule 3: To facilitate the selection of a person of authority over a very large group for which it is impractical to assemble, representatives would be selected by sub-groups. These representatives would meet – if necessary – in sub-groups selecting their representative and so on. Let us say that a group of 10 billion persons desire to select their leader. From the ground up, we select the leaders of 10 persons first; then leaders of 100; of 1,000; of 10,000; of 100,000; of 1M; of 10M; of 100M; of 1B; and finally of 10B. Such a hierarchical selection process ends up selecting the leaders at all levels by the time the single leader is selected. In the above illustration we used 10 simply for demonstration. Any number more than or equal to 3 would do.

Explanation: Islamic Democracy works by consensus rather than competition.



Nothing with which to find disagreeable here, since democratic consensus is what is implied in any vote gathering agreement, whereby the results of the vote are respected as binding upon those who voted. In reading yours above on the first four Caliphs, they acted by consultation, but this is no different from most tribal consultations, and fairly universal amongst peoples of all ethnic origins, even the Australian or Amerindian aboriginal populations. What makes western styled democracy different from tribal democracy is that there are laws established to protect the individual from the potential tyranny of the majority decision, and then there are judicial processes that are separate and distinct from the vote to establish just acts. Tribal democracy has no such safeguards, so not up to par with western democracies, alas. Still, nice job in giving the explanation on Islamic democracy at: http://deentech.com/MI_IC_Islamic_Democracy.aspx , your web page.

BTW, your description of non-competitive consensus gathering in a democratic process is shared by another faith, that of the Baha'is, whose founder Baha'u'allah claimed to be Mohammed's successor, and thus updated the religion for modern times. Do you know the Bahai faith? They do not allow their members to participate in local politics, nor to campaign actively during their democratic elections to various posts of office within the faith. So in many ways, they already do what you recommend here, and they also preach against violence, but rather desire to promote world peace. Their basic ten points of the faith include universal education and equality of the sexes, rather progressive for late 19th century Islam. However, I believe they are considered apostates, or heretics, by mainstream Islamists, sorry to say.


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 09:22 am:   

What makes western styled democracy different from tribal democracy is that there are laws established to protect the individual from the potential tyranny of the majority decision ...
Posted on Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 12:48 pm: Ivan


Consensus is not majority decision: consensus is absence of objection.

In one of my posts, I broke the so called consensus, if any, touted by the war mongers in Islam by quoting certain old books by declaring that out of the hundreds of Muslim rulers after the first four Caliphs, Allah be pleased with them, only 7 are rightly guided and thus I declared that global conquest was not part of Islam.

I am referring this again now to show that consensus is much more effective in protecting the minority than having the majority decide the law and adding protections for the minority. Under the system of consensus, no law against the minority could be made. So in the absence of any law against the welfare of the minority, the minority is of course safe under the Caliph.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 09:26 am:   

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Former_President_Carter_blames_media_proIsrael _1217.html
===
In addition, I pointed out that the Palestinian people were being deprived of the necessities of life by economic restrictions imposed on them by Israel and the United States because 42% had voted for Hamas candidates in the most recent election. Teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen, and other employees are not being paid, and the U.N. has reported that food supplies in Gaza are equivalent to those among the poorest families in sub-Sahara Africa with half the families surviving on one meal a day.
===

The above are the words of President Jimmy Carter.

See what happens when the majority decides. Under consensus, the Palestinians would have objected to starving them for having practiced democracy! Thus even the so called 'aid embargo' would not have takenplace.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 09:54 am:   


quote:

See what happens when the majority decides. Under consensus, the Palestinians would have objected to starving them for having practiced democracy! Thus even the so called 'aid embargo' would not have takenplace.



On the War thread, I answered here:
http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2778#POST2778

Palestinians insist upon violating the principles of agreement by democratically electing the most violent and coercive force. I don't know if you understand this, however, since you seem to be ignoring this principle entirely. As Naive pointed out, this may be due to their furstration at having such military weakness, that they then use the democratic process to vote for 'might makes right' party of politics, their Hamas. That is a tragedy, because by their choice, rather than choosing peace they choose war. This means they condemn themselves to continuous conflict without possibility of a negotiated peace. Why is that? Don't they want their own state? Or is it that they hate Israel so much that they will be blind to any peaceful solution? Jimmy dhimmy Carter not-withstanding, Palestinnian Arabs are their own worst enemy. Is it because of their mullahs urging them to fight on, no matter what negotiations? Is this really a religious war against Israel, and the whole world of non-Islam, so the hatreds for America and the West, and its freedoms? Mohideen, be honest with yourself. Why do you support the Palestinian Arabs? Why do you not support peace? Don't you care about the future generations who must live with war rather than peace? On which side are you? Peace or war?

The aid embargo is what? Refusal for the Western states to give them money? Isarel should not have frozen their funds, which later were released. But under what obligation is the rest of the world to give aid to a warring, coercively violent party within a state? I don't get it: How can you ask for peace when you vote for war!!!

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 10:36 am:   

Is Mohideen Ibramsha a 'war monger'?

Mohideen, I think you should answer this question, because at present your posts seem biased in favor of war rather than peace:

quote:

Palestinnian Arabs are their own worst enemy. Is it because of their mullahs urging them to fight on, no matter what negotiations? Is this really a religious war against Israel, and the whole world of non-Islam, so the hatreds for America and the West, and its freedoms? Mohideen, be honest with yourself. Why do you support the Palestinian Arabs? Why do you not support peace? Don't you care about the future generations who must live with war rather than peace? On which side are you? Peace or war? --Ivan



How do you answer this question? Are you a war monger or for peace in Palestine? If for war, then why, and who benefits from war? If for peace, then how to negotiate it fairly for all parties involved, so they can live with it? But if you truly are a war monger, then you will not be able to answer this question, so I am curious.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 11:31 pm:   

The boards will be temporarily closed due to spam-blog attacks again. Sorry my friends, but until another time. Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 01:20 pm:   

But if you truly are a war monger, then you will not be able to answer this question, so I am curious.
Posted on Monday, December 18, 2006 - 10:36 am: Ivan


Please see my answer in another thread.
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/145.html#POST2820

You had already responded to the above answer in the other thread offering to point out flaws in my Suez Canal to Suez Lake argument.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 10:16 pm:   

How can Mohideen Ibramsha be shown the difference between 'personal faith' and 'politicized faith', if he is to claim that he is a man of peace and not a 'war monger'?

This is in follow up to this post, as well as this post, asking whether or not Mohideen is a 'war monger', and here the original question: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2793#POST2793 , where he says here:
"As long as the Suez Canal remains as it is, I cannot ignore the wish of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that the Arabian Peninsula is free of non-Muslims.. However, once the Suez Canal is converted to Suez Lake, God willing, I would be the first supporter of Israel being where she is.

Do not ask me to take sides; also do not expect that."
Can Mohideen support Prophet Muhammad without taking sides, and sound the war-monger like this man, who wants to do Jihad against Israel and the West? Is Mr. Mohideen really a man of peace, or war?

Let us examine the proposition: What you believe in your heart and mind is part of your personal belief system, whether or not you recognize it as such, and defines to you who you are. This is not something anyone outside yourself can recognize for you, for this is entirely within yourself; which means your level of consciousness is then defined by how aware you are of your own belief system. Each person's belief system is a totally subjective, internal, and personal phenomenon that no outsider can ever define for them; because only that person knows who they are. This is who they are internally, subjectively, and personally.

Now, compare this to a politicized belief system, where the internal, subjective, and personal belief is externalized into action for or against others. Once you 'politicize' your personal belief, what you believe subjectively in your heart as true, then that belief ceases to be your own when politicized: You now externalize your inner belief into something that is supposed to exist independent of you, and act for you as a public belief. Once public, what had been an internal subjective belief is now open to the world as both what you do, and what you intend to do, so that it becomes a political act of what you believe is the 'right' thing to do, publicly. Even your words then become an external expression of your internal belief system, that "the Arabian Peninsula is free of non-Muslims", so an action is expected in the real world for what you believe to be your 'truth' subjectively. This is how a personal belief becomes externalized into a political force, that certain actions may or may not happen for others based upon a personal belief. However, this is a grievous error, and in fact it is a vile sin against belief.

Regardless of whether one's belief is religious or secular, this belief is something subjectively internal to you. You cannot apply it to the outside world except as it applies to you yourself in the world; once you apply it to others, then your personal belief is now publicized into a public belief, no longer your own. However, once you publicize your belief, which forever and ever remains personal to you locked inside your skull and brain, you have now turned it from being a subjective thing into an externally objective thing: You expect others to follow your personal belief. However, to take and externalize your belief onto another, whether through actions or intent, it of necessity violates the other's internal belief system. You have now trespassed into the other's belief of who they are, what they subjectively believe in, and thus you have knowingly or unknowingly coerced the other. This means that if you act out your internal belief in terms of another, you trespass on that other. But once trespass on the other, no matter how strongly you may believe in your own personal acceptance of your belief, you trespass on the right and sanctity of the other to believe. Here is the grievous error, that in your subjective internal personal belief you subject another to be acted upon against their personal subjective internal belief, which means in effect you are coercing and sometimes both figuratively and really killing the other person's 'who they are' in their belief. This is most grievous, because it profanes your own belief with the sin and crime of killing another human being. Think about it: You are killing another human being with your belief.

I do not wish to engage in debate as to whether or not Mohammed was the messenger of God, or prophet of God, or son of God, or whatever. That is immaterial and truly secondary to what is discussed here. In fact, I think what is discussed here is not Mohammed, but what his lieutenants, the Caliphs, have done with his words and deeds to turn it into a aggressive religion of 'killing' other human beings in their beliefs. The real blame lies there, not the founder of Islam, but on his successors. Period, end of discussion on this issue. This is a personal thing you believe, being a Muslim, and no one can take that away from you. However, once you politicize this personal belief of yours onto how it affects others, as in Zawahiri's jidad, then something else is happening. Now your actions and intent of actions are open to scrutiny by others, because it affects others.

It gets worse. When anyone tries to make an internal belief external by their political actions, especially coercive actions against another, they are bastardizing the very essence of their belief, and belittle belief into a sin. Once politicized, it is a major sin against belief as a personal subjective right to believe as you will in your heart because this right to belief is universal to all humanity; but once politicized you have taken that right away from the rest of humanity by imposing your own politicized belief on the rest of humanity. You cannot externalize your internal belief system without violating the sanctity of of belief. So any claim that what you believe inside yourself is also what all external of you should believe, automatically causes an invalid external conflict in the other's right to believe. This is freedom at its best, the right to believe in terms of who you are. But once politicized, that internal right to who you are is invalidated by the public version of what others should believe, in terms of what you believe. This is a violation of their rights as human beings to be who they are. Once you politicize into action your beliefs onto others, then you are bastardizing your belief into something no longer personal but public, open to the world like a naked whore, an demanding that all in the world pay homage, or money, to you personally because of what you believe. This is a grievous sin against man and God.

Most of the Abrahamic faiths suffer from this condition, that they feel that in their monopolizing the essence of God, what they believe to be right for themselves personally as also right for all humanity externally, they commit this grievous sin of bastardizing belief itself into political action and public coercions. Now, Mohideen mentioned in the above that if Suez became a lake rather than a canal, somehow this would validate the existence of Israel. But this is his personal belief projected onto the world political scene; it is Mohideen's personal belief on the right of Israel to exist. But why should his personal subjective belief in the Arabian peninsula being exclusively Arab Muslim have anything to do with the rest of us, or even with whether or not a sovereign state has the right to exist? Why should you impose your belief on other people, or a whole nation full of people? What makes your belief, internal to you, so special that it should be externalized to the rest of the globe? You may believe this, and so in your mind and heart it makes sense to you; but it does not make sense to anyone else to believe what is your belief internally inside yourself. Unless they are in agreement with you, your belief to another is meaningless gibberish, something germane to you but not anyone else. And even if millions or billions of people agreed with your belief, it still would become corrupt and blasphemous once that belief is forced politically onto another to believe as you all believed internally. You cannot believe in your hearts against another's right to exist, and believe as they believe, by taking political action based on your belief. Once that power to politicize is taken, once such power is exercised against another, especially against another's right to exist, it then becomes a coercive force, a politicized action against the other. This is a most vile violence agains the right of another to exist as a free human being. One cannot push belief on another without the other's consent of agreement, or it is simply pure coercion, trespass, and a bastardization of one's belief. So in the Abrahamic faith there is always this danger, that one's belief trespasses on the other to believe as they believe, in order to politicize that belief into political action against the other: That is pure coercion, and blasphemy against God.

This is the great tragedy of Islam today, that the 1.3 billion adherents to this Abrahamic version of their faith feel politicized that what they believe in their hearts and minds should be, nay must be, forced onto the beliefs of others. So when Mohideen says that Israel can exist if Suez is a lake rather than canal, he is projecting his personal belief onto the beliefs of others, and onto the lives and well being of millions of people affected by his personal decision as to whether or not they have a right to a nation, or even to exist. Think how EGO driven this man is!!! That what he personally believes is supposed to drive the lives of others. But it gets worse, because in his externalized belief system, he then is calling for the destruction of a sovereign state and its people, just like Zawahiri's jihad against the Jews, and this makes him a war monger. Regrettably, but war mongers are not welcome on the Humancafe boards, even if they claim they are for peace. A war monger is no more welcome here than a Nazi or Stalinist. Be aware that any further statements that are anti-Israel and pro-Arab jihad will be regarded as coercive and political in nature, not to be tolerated and to be deleted. No one has the right to determine the fate of another human being, least of all a whole people, not even Mohideen Ibramsha, nor any religious fanatics. Only your personal beliefs are justified here, but not acting upon those beliefs in ways that are coercive to others, for that is not welcome here. If there is a grievance with Israel's existence, it is not to be decided by Mohideen Ibramsha but by the people of Isarel, the UNITED NATIONS Resolution 181 which created the triparty state of Israel, Palestine, and Jerusalem, because the troubles go back to that failed implementation then. Take it to the world court, and not to Jihad against the Jews or anybody else.

If Mohideen Ibramsha is not a war monger, then he is welcome here, and let us hear from him that he is not only against war but also in agreement that all human beings have a right to believe as they believe and live in peace, even the people of Israel. Otherwise, Mohideen, your support of jihad is a coercive war mongering. Is this who you are? So I ask you again Mohideen Ibramsha: Are you a man of peace, or a man of war?


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 12:22 am:   

Ivan,

Mohideen won't see it this way because he truly believes that his faith is God's will. No point in trying to convince him with logic. It will fail because his faith is the foundation of his logic. Your words, although they make perfect sense to him, are just words not to be heeded because to him, they are not divine. You can say, "Peace on earth", but if it contradicts what he believes his prophet said, then peace be damned. They believe they have a divine right to that land. He will never draw the same parallel to Nazism and historical subjugation in the name of religion, that we see in this new, insidious form of religious politics.

Ivan, you cannot argue with people brainwashed by their faith. Just remember that every ancient religion eventually became myth. Humanity will evolve socially and spiritually, ever so slowly. Islam is no different. They believe they have a perfect message, they believe in Quranic codes that prove Muhammad's message was from God. They will not as you ask, keep their faith a personal matter because that is not what their prophet instructed. You are very astute in recognizing the imperial aspects of this religion. Whether these were actually Muhammad's, Allah's, or some other guys words doesn't matter. These very words (the jargon that is being used to expand Islam) will be its very undoing.

Indeed, this probably will be the cause of the next great world war. And when the dust settles we will all know what type of thinking caused the devastation and sorrow. Then will humanity retroactively respond to dogma with little kindness or mercy. We will not stand for a stagnant system that attempts to drag us down. Swept away will be the old ways of thought. Growth will occur from pain, as it always has. And then all will see the true nature of God's will. A will that lies in the power of collective human choice and the desire for freedom, independence from tyranny, and advancement of our species.

I am sure many Muslims want this now. They probably are just too afraid of the consequences within the community of their faith to be vocal about it. Verily, how can they voice their own interpretation of their faith, when death usually follows those who attempt to "dilute" one of the previously accepted interpretations? We have seen these consequences within their countries already. It is understandable (and regrettable) that humans must bow to the interpretations of other humans. This is what religion is. I offer you Mohideen a better solution:

Freedom of thought (and this means NO faith based logic!).

Die for it if you have to. Fight if you truly love your people and your faith. Rebel against ridiculous ideas like an entire land belonging to those of one faith. Admit that many ideas of Quranic law are outdated and even detrimental to humanity. Logic tells you this is an outrage against an equitable and merciful God. Reform will never come to Islam until recognition of its potentials for human destruction is admitted, or until it literally brings destruction down upon itself. I think the latter will happen, and it is too bad that countless humans will die because of it.

Naive

PS: I am also amazed that in this day and age we even have to have this silly discussion. Truly certain pockets of humanity still exist in the dark ages. :-(
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, December 21, 2006 - 08:06 pm:   


quote:

Freedom of thought (and this means NO faith based logic!).



This hits it exactly, Naive. Reason is based upon axioms and premises, but it does not depend upon 'faith based' conclusions which then drive its own form of logic, often unreasonable, such as religious dogma. 'Freedom of thought' is both an internal subjective pesonal belief, as well as a politicized belief, one that applies equally to everyone. That is what Freedom is all about. And people will die for it, because they believe so strongly in the right to be free of politicized dogma. This is the ONLY personal faith that is also equally politicized justifiably, which is what defines Freedom for everyone, equally.

Indeed, it is amazing that such simple thruths must still be explained, rather then being universally understood. I think it is time to leave the 'dark ages' of faith based logic behind, and evolve as a conscious planet of humanity.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 08:48 am:   

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200612/POL2006122 2b.html
===
Goode said he's not in favor of prohibiting Ellison from bringing in a Koran - but he would like to restrict immigration "so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives."
===

It is very unfortunate that "the First Amendment" is forgotten. I believe it guarantees "Freedom of Faith." Islam has not spread at the tip of the sword - at least not in South India.

What would Rep.Virgil Goode do if American non-Muslim born revert to Islam and thus Muslims indeed become a majority?

As regards the issues about whether I am a man of peace or not, a short answer is "I am indeed a man of peace." The detailed answers need time and might have to wait.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 08:56 am:   

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200115. html

The above describes the political survival of Christianity among the tents of protesters, both Muslim and Christian.

Do we need any further proof that we - the human race - would indeed live in peace with diversity?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 10:03 am:   

Freedom of Belief - impossible for Muslims?


quote:

What would Rep.Virgil Goode do if American non-Muslim born revert to Islam and thus Muslims indeed become a majority?



Mohideen, if this happened and they all voted out the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and instead voted in Sharia law, the Freedom based society of the United States of America would cease to exist, and we'd be thrown back into the barbaric enslaving 'faith based' dogmas of the dark ages we all worked so hard to put behind us.

But you really do not understand this. As Naive said above, "Mohideen won't see it this way because he truly believes that his faith is God's will." He is right, because no amount of logic or reason will separate in your mind 'personal faith' from your religion 's 'politicized faith', so you are unable to undersand this. Regrets, but by politicizing your faith, you turn it into a cult worship aggressive to others. That is not what is meant by "Freedom of belief." This cannot exist in a POLITICIZED FAITH, but can only exist as a freedom of belief in a Personal Faith.

But you will never understand this, will you? This is the tragedy of your blind faith in a 'polticized system of personal belief', which is a contradiction, as shown. Freedom of belief can ONLY happen under a separation of 'church and state' in order to 'de-politicize' religion, or else that freedom is lost. But I can safely agree here with Naive that you, as a devout Muslim, will never understand this.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 06:57 pm:   


quote:

It is very unfortunate that "the First Amendment" is forgotten.


Mohideen, your statement here graphically shows your inability to understand this. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of belief, but ONLY under the protection of a separation of Church and State, that no state religion may be formed. This is a de facto separation of Personal Faith and Politicized Faith. Once these two are understood as separate, but not of equal weight in government, then the PERSONAL Belief is honored by the First Amendment, but the POLITICIZED Belief is subordinated to the LAW of th Land. Why can't you understand this? It is not hard, and already we spent hundreds of pages explaining this 'freedom of belief' to you, and still you do not understand. Are you so brainwashed and pathologically thick and narrow minded that your blind faith in your political religion allows for no reason to ever penetrate your skull? Get real, and get a brain, for God's sake!

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 08:01 am:   

Mohideen, if this happened and they all voted out the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and instead voted in Sharia law ...
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 10:03 am: Ivan


Outside the Arabian Peninsula the Shariah Law could be applied, if ever, among the Muslims only. Every space outside the Arabian Peninsula needs a "Common Law" that applies to all - both Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus even if 500 out of 500 Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America become Muslims, the Shariah Law cannot be enacted.

God willing, I hope to expand on this soon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 08:05 am:   

ONLY under the protection of a separation of Church and State, that no state religion may be formed.
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 06:57 pm: Ivan


You are wrong! I advocate the retention of the good of the Church and rejecting the bad of the Church. Who decides the good and bad of the Church? We.

I have already explained that other than the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions, Islam accepts consensus alone. No state sponsored religion. The Caliph has no power to enact any law of his own.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 10:42 am:   


quote:

 ONLY under the protection of a separation of Church and State, that no state religion may be formed.
Posted on Friday, December 22, 2006 - 06:57 pm: Ivan


You are wrong! I advocate the retention of the good of the Church and rejecting the bad of the Church. Who decides the good and bad of the Church? We.

Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 08:05 am: Mohideen Ibramsha



Again we disagree on a key issue: You believe your faith is God-given; while I believe what we call the faith of the Church and Mosque man-given. The Caliphs of old, including the first four whom you deem to be beyond reproach, were all men, and fallible men at that. They are the ones who codified the laws of Islam for you, along with their successors; in the same way, all religions have their laws written and codified by men, and under some rare instances by women, i.e., Christian Science. So whether the Caliph makes laws or congress makes laws, they are all men, and sometimes women, but these are man-made laws. What separates Freedom from religious dogma, whether Islam or Christianity, or Bahaism, or Mormonism, Buddhhism, etc., is that we of the modern world recognize man made laws for what they are without attaching any divinity to them; i.e., we politicize laws, we do, and not God. Once you understand this simple truth, that ALL laws whether religious or secular are man-made, then we can talk on an even plane, and talk rationally. Only through an understanding of why religion, which is a personal thing, must be separated from politics, which is a public thing, can we communicate with each other as equals. The 'good vs. bad' laws of the Church or Mosque or Temple is then secondary, and subject to scholarly debate.

God did not write these laws, men did. Can you see that?

Ivan

Also see: A STATE WITHIN A STATE, by Vijay Kumar
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:02 am:   

Gimme that Olde Tyme Religion!

toon222god.jpg

No matter what you believe, it's only what You Believe... leave God out of it. :-)

You, your mind, are creations of God, and the infinite universe.

All else you can think of is the mind of man...er...and women.


Le Chef
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:51 am:   

Here is an example of a religion gone bad, and forgotten:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

"During his reign, he showed a disregard for Roman religious traditions and sexual taboos. Elagabalus' name is a Latinized form of the Semitic deity El-Gabal, a manifestation of the Semitic deity ?l. He replaced Jupiter, head of the Roman pantheon, with a new god, Deus Sol Invictus, which in Latin means "the Sun, Undefeated God"...

Elagabalus declared the date of the victory at Antioch to be the beginning of his reign and assumed the imperial titles without prior Senatorial approval, which violated tradition but was a common practice among 3rd century emperors nonetheless. Letters of reconciliation were dispatched to Rome extending amnesty to the Senate and recognizing the laws."


Who remembers these laws? Who remember the Syrian-Roman Elagabalus? Hardly anyone remembers them now. But people fought and died for it once upon a time, and he and his weird religion came to a bad end. Men make religions, not God.

Also: "A temple (the so-called Elagaballium) to house El-Gabal, a black conical meteorite, was built in Rome on the east face of the Palatine Hill and its foundations remain today. Speaking of this stone, Herodian says "this stone is worshipped as though it were sent from heaven; on it there are some small projecting pieces and markings that are pointed out, which the people would like to believe are a rough picture of the sun, because this is how they see them".

Hints of the later adopted Mohammed's Kaaba stone?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 06:27 pm:   

Hints of the later adopted Mohammed's Kaaba stone?
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:51 am: Ivan


The following URL gives the attitude of a believer about the black stone. Draw your conclusions.

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=black+stone+kiss+you&transla tor=1&search=1&book=&start=0&submit22=Search
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Friday, December 29, 2006 - 10:27 am:   


quote:

Also: "A temple (the so-called Elagaballium) to house El-Gabal, a black conical meteorite, was built in Rome on the east face of the Palatine Hill and its foundations remain today.

Hints of the later adopted Mohammed's Kaaba stone? --Ivan



This hints of a name drift, where the word for mountain, such as the small one I climbed in Sudan, "Gebel Barkal" at ancient Kushite site of now Karima, to the name "El-Gabal" of ancient Syria, to the modern name "Kaaba", and there seems to be a name drift from ancient times to modern times, where "Kaaba" may actually mean "mountain temple". However, thist fails to explain why the meteorite is worshipped there. I have a small meteorite embedded inside one of my gold rings, and several meteorites in my study, but don't really worship them as such, just curiosities of our heavenly rocks come down to Earth. :-)

The Bukhari has 15 references to the "black stone", which I believe is the meteorite embedded in the Kaaba. Why do they kiss it? It is just a stone.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 30, 2006 - 12:52 pm:   

A Battle for Global Values By Tony Blair

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86106/tony-blair/a-battle-for-globa l-values.html

British Prime Minister Tony Blair writes an exemplary analysis of where we are today on the war against Jihad Islamic terrorism, and how this war can be won. The issue is one of civilization achieved by modern societies to overcome the call by adherents of a violent interpretation of an ancient religious imperative to conquer the world, as practiced by fundamentalists interpreters of 7th century Islam. Their aim is to reinstall some mythical Caliphate as the 'perfect' rule for humankind as per their Sharia. Unfortunately, their idea of rule as 'God given' it totally opposite of the dreams and aspirations of a humanity that has gained the benefits and successes of freedom loving societies, so they are anti-freedom at the core. Tony Blair recognizes this danger to our modern freedoms and gives reasons why such anti-freedom of fundamentalist Islamic jurisprudence must never be allowed to triumph. We can win this battle to preserve our modern freedoms from the regressive theologies of an ancient interpretation of Islam by promoting our core values of the freedoms and gains made in modern civilization against those held by pre-Medieval arabian tribes, those who struggle to impose Sharia on all humanity of the globe, often by violence against our freedoms and ourselves.

Here are some salient quotes:
" This is not a clash between civilizations; it is a clash about civilization. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace the modern world and those who reject its existence -- between optimism and hope, on the one hand, and pessimism and fear, on the other.

In any struggle, the first challenge is to accurately perceive the nature of what is being fought over, and here we have a long way to go. It is almost incredible to me that so much Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of this global terrorism is somehow our fault.

For a start, the terror is truly global. It is directed not just at the United States and its allies but also at nations who could not conceivably be said to be partners of the West.

Moreover, the struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan are plainly not about those countries' liberation from U.S. occupation. The extremists' goal is to prevent those countries from becoming democracies -- not "Western-style" democracies but any sort of democracy. It is the extremists, not us, who are slaughtering the innocent and doing it deliberately. They are the only reason for the continuing presence of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is also rubbish to suggest that Islamist terrorism is the product of poverty. Of course, it uses the cause of poverty as a justification for its acts. But its fanatics are hardly champions of economic development.

Furthermore, the terrorists' aim is not to encourage the creation of a Palestine living side by side with Israel but rather to prevent it. They fight not for the coming into being of a Palestinian state but for the going out of being of an Israeli state.

The terrorists base their ideology on religious extremism -- and not just any religious extremism, but a specifically Muslim version. The terrorists do not want Muslim countries to modernize. They hope that the arc of extremism that now stretches across the region will sweep away the fledgling but faltering steps modern Islam wants to take into the future. They want the Muslim world to retreat into governance by a semifeudal religious oligarchy."

The terrorists fighting their Jihad against modernity do not want our freedoms to succeed, as our freedoms have shown amply that they do succeed, so they fight to bring down, to sabotage, to destroy lives and property wherever they can to promote their religious extremism. This is anti-freedom, anti-peace, and it must be fought.
" That is why it is a mistake to ignore the significance of the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is that, given the chance, people want democracy. From the moment the Afghans came out and voted in their first-ever election, the myth that democracy is a Western concept was exploded. In Iraq as well, despite violence and intimidation, people voted, and not just a few, but in numbers large enough to shame many Western democracies.

What these votes show is that people do not want dictatorship, neither theocratic nor secular. When the supporters of Saddam or Mullah Muhammad Omar dare to stand in elections, they do not win many votes. Iraqi and Afghan Muslims have said it clearly: democracy is as much our right as it is yours. In embracing it, they are showing that they also want a society in which people of different cultures and faiths can live together in peace. This struggle is our struggle.

Who is trying to stop those who want democracy? In Iraq, a mixture of foreign jihadists, former Saddamists, and rejectionist insurgents; in Afghanistan, a combination of drug barons, the Taliban, and al Qaeda. Their case is that democracy is a Western concept that is being forced on an unwilling Islamic culture. Every conspiracy theory, from its being the West's intent to seize Iraqi oil to the West's having designs of imperial domination, is repeated. Some in the West even agree.

Why are these reactionary elements fighting so hard? Because they know the importance of victory or defeat. Right from the beginning it was obvious to them. Of course, there have been mistakes and unacceptable abuses of human rights on our side. But here in its most pure form is a struggle between democracy and violence."

Freedom, our democratically elected governments, ensured by our constitutional laws must be preserved against those who fear them and hate them, and who will fight us to bring us back down to their level of primitive violence in some pre-feudal ideal of society ruled by an extremist religious oligarchy. This fight for freedom is a fight of our values, those achieved by our modern civilization, against the values regressing back to the days of arabian desert tribes trading in women and children, warring for booty and slaves. We do not want to regress to such barbarism again. The 'conspiracy theories' abounding on Arab street are pure examples of ignorance, and they must be overturned, with our values of equality and democratic freedoms for all humanity.
" This is ultimately a battle about modernity. Some of it can be conducted and won only within Islam itself. But let us remember that extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Millions of Muslims the world over want what all people want: to be free and for others to be free. They regard tolerance as a virtue and respect for the faith of others as a part of their own faith.

This is a battle of values and for progress, and therefore it is one that must be won. If we want to secure our way of life, there is no alternative but to fight for it. That means standing up for our values, not just in our own countries but the world over. We need to construct a global alliance for these global values and act through it. Inactivity is just as much a policy, with its own results. It is simply the wrong one.

Islamist extremism's whole strategy is based on a presumed sense of grievance that divides people against one another. Our answer has to be a set of values strong enough to unite people with one another. This is not just about security or military tactics. It is about hearts and minds, about inspiring people, persuading them, showing them what our values stand for at their best. Why are we not yet succeeding? Because we are not being bold enough, consistent enough, thorough enough in fighting for the values we believe in."

This battle against modernity by the regressive Sharia'ists must be overturned, not only by all of us in humanity who love and appreciate freedom, but also by those within Islam who understand that they cannot go back to the primitive days of pre-Medieval Islam for modern times. On this point, all of us who love Freedom, both Muslims and all other faiths, we must unite as one voice.

Tony Blair is not anti-Islam, as none should be, but we must make the distinction between a private and personal faith, and one that is public and politicized. So it is no surprise to have him say this at the outset, though some have criticized him for it:
" To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is. I write with great humility as a member of another faith. As an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, much as reformers attempted to do with the Christian church centuries later. The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance."
There is no contradiction here with what follows or said above, because Blair is referring to a new theology born for that region in the 7th century, and within that region's preceding social reality. Slavery, oppression, treating women as property rather than members of family was the norm. Mohammed tamed the barbarism of the times in his desert lands, but it did not reflect the human reality for the whole world of the time, where some were already gaining a foothold on the path to our modern freedoms and all those freedoms accomplished. Already in Ireland there were monks copying in their scriptoriums the scriptures and all they could get their hands on from other cultures; in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic traditions already existed peerage, where kings were elected; and in all the lands of post-Roman cultures there existed the rights of freeborn. We all of the world accessed our own paths towards the liberation of the human soul from bondage, so Mohammed's attempts to right the wrongs of his world was but one more such effort, specific for his culture, but not universal to all humanity. This must be understood in the historical context, so Tony Blair is right in his assessment of the 'progressive' aspects of Islam, for its day in its place. However, how does one rectify this with today, especially with those who shun and hate our modern freedoms? An example, Jihad in Islam: http://www.islamistwatch.org/main.html
It may well be that the U.S. government is not waging a religious crusade against Islam, but the Islamists are certainly waging a religious crusade against the west. It's not just simply how they interpret things, it's what they really want to do: they believe that western laws are man-made but that Shariah law is divine. It is surely of the highest irony that Muslims throughout the world decry the war on terrorism as a "war on Islam", while the jihadists whom they sympathize with make no secret at all about fighting the polytheists and disbelievers until any vestige of any other religion on earth is erased ("And fight them until there is no more polytheism and religion is for Allah alone"[Surah al-Anfaal:39]).

In a bizarre twist that can be traced at least as far back to Sayyeed Abul A'la Maududi's writings in Jihad in Islam, the Islamists claim that anyone is free to accept or reject Islam. But whether you decide to become Muslim or not, you will live under Shariah law, by force if necessary. This allows them to use all means necessary to destroy a non-Muslim's government and society and establish Shariah law in its place--and yet still make the claim that they aren't forcing anyone to become a Muslim.
It may well be that we do not wish to war on Islam's religious crusade against our modern values of civilization, but there is no doubt that amongst them they are warring against us. We are at war, a war between a culture of modern freedoms and one of violence and slavery, and in this war the Islamists must not win. As we enter the 7th year of the new Millennium, they must not succeed, for Freedom will ring true for all humanity. Our Global Values will win.

Happy New Year to all.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, December 31, 2006 - 10:41 pm:   

Happy New Year.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 10:06 pm:   

Religion, like Freedom is of the heart - unlike Politics, which is Not of the heart - Politics is an act of Reason.

Fjordman wrote a third part in a series on Democracy as incompatible with Islam: http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014774.php

Some clips:
"The late American scholar of Islam, Franz Rosenthal, said that an individual Muslim "was expected to consider subordination of his own freedom to the beliefs, morality and customs of the group as the only proper course of behavior. (…) The individual was not expected to exercise any free choice as to how he wished to be governed. In general, governmental authority admitted of no participation of the individual as such, who therefore did not possess any real freedom vis-à-vis it."
...
"Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, (1058 - 1111 CE) is arguably the greatest Islamic scholar ever. In his book 'Incoherence of the Philosophers' he bitterly denounced Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other Greek thinkers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith. He took aim at Avicenna [Ibn Sina, highly influential 11th century Persian physician and philosopher] for being a rationalist who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. By emphasizing on the incompatibility of faith and reason, and by asserting the futility of making faith subordinate to reason, Ghazali gave validity to unreasoned faith and thus glorified stupidity."
This makes the 'politics of religion' meaningless, since reason is needed for political understanding, which befits our human freedoms of thought, but not conducive to blind beliefs. Thus, Politicized Religion is an oxymoron, because it is unreasonable.

Any politicized religion becomes automatically, of necessity, a form of slavery, as exampled here:
"Ibn Arabi (d. 1240), the "Greatest Sufi Master," defined hurriyya, freedom, as "perfect slavery" to Allah. The mainstream Islamic website Islam Q & A defines the meaning of enslavement in Islam:

"If by 'slave' I mean al-'aabid, one who worships Allaah and obeys His commands, this meaning applies specifically to the believers to the exclusion of the kaafireen [infidels], because the believers are the true slaves of Allaah who attribute Lordship and Divinity to Him Alone and recognize Him by His Names and Attributes, and do not associate anything with Him. Enslavement to Allaah is an honour, not a cause of humiliation. We ask Allaah to make us among His righteous slaves."

If Muslims are "slaves of Allah," it is tempting to view ex-Muslims as runaway slaves, who are to be hunted down and punished for their desire for freedom, just as real slaves were in the old days."

When the call to prayer says there is no God but Allah, if it is voiced outside the heartfelt belief of the true believer of Islam, and if externalized into political action, then it is untrue to the believer's Faith, for it then violates itself as a personal matter of the heart between man and God. Only God through man's and woman's heart equally can be voiced within the heart. But once it is voiced politically into law, or combat, then it becomes anti-freedom, and against the heart of humanity. Freedom and Religion can only co-exist as a matter of the heart, not politics, so must be separated universally for all humankind. What makes Freedom a superior system (to Religious dogma) is that it embodies both, faith and reason.

Ivan

Ps: an example of where politics and religion do not mix, from Boston Globe: The Boston mosque's Saudi connection
Boston is where America's Freedom begins.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 10:49 am:   

Boston is where America's Freedom begins.
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 10:06 pm:Ivan


From the link given by Ivan,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/10/the_ boston_mosques_saudi_connection/
===
According to financial documents supplied to The Boston Globe, major funding for the mosque is being provided by the Islamic Development Bank in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In December 2005, two payments of approximately $250,000 each were wired from Jeddah to the Citizens Bank account of the mosque's general contractor in Boston.

... The Islamic Development Bank is a subsidiary of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and each of the conference's 56 member nations are shareholders.
===

The Islamic Development Bank is the bank of all Muslim nations. How could there be opposition to they giving funds to build a Masjid?

I believe we do not support calling all Muslims as terrorists. Or do we?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 10:56 am:   

Enslavement to Allaah is an honour, not a cause of humiliation.
Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 10:06 pm: Ivan


True. To be a slave of God means that person is slave of none else; that person cannot be commanded by anyone other than God. By implication that person could be requested but not commanded. That is the nature of all believers whether they are Christians, Hindus, Jews, or Muslims. A true believer would obey just his / her religion and that alone.

In Tamil there is a statement, which I transliterate first:
===
Naam Yaarkum Kudi Allom; Namani Anjom.
===

The meaning: We are citizens of no king; and we are not afraid of death! (These are those who are slaves of God.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 09:15 pm:   

Not exactly true:

quote:

In Tamil there is a statement, which I transliterate first:
===
Naam Yaarkum Kudi Allom; Namani Anjom.
===

The meaning: We are citizens of no king; and we are not afraid of death! (These are those who are slaves of God.)


Mohideen, the 'king' in this case is the Ummah. A slave of the Ummah is same as the slave of a king. God is only in the heart, Muslim heart, or any religion. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 06:36 am:   

Mohideen, the 'king' in this case is the Ummah.
Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2007 - 09:15 pm: Ivan


The Ummah is not the majority; it is that part that obeys the religion as defined by the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. Thus there is no king but God.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 11:20 am:   


quote:

The Ummah is not the majority; it is that part that obeys the religion as defined by the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. Thus there is no king but God.


As defined by what? By whom? Even if God speaks through a man, it is still man made, not God made.

Allegiance to an Ummah, even if not majority, is identical to allegiance to a king, also not a majority. It is the same.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 10:48 am:   

it is still man made, not God made.
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 11:20 am: Ivan


The divine nature of the Holy Quran is proved in http://deentech.com/Allah_Exists.aspx
===
The photograph in the home page is one of the proofs of the divinity of the Holy Quran.

... We hope to prove the existence of Allah (God Almighty) using the technique of “Proof by Contradiction.”

... This arrangement of the Chapters of the Holy Quran was given 14 centuries back. However, the message is decoded now. An arrangement given 14 centuries back cannot be derived from the past history of the universe. That is, evolution alone cannot produce the result. Hence, God Almighty exists. End of proof.
===

Please read the details at the link. As far as I am concerned there is proof of divinity. If you still insist that Islam is man-made show the fallacy in the proof.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 01:02 pm:   


quote:

The divine nature of the Holy Quran is proved in http://deentech.com/Allah_Exists.aspx
===
The photograph in the home page is one of the proofs of the divinity of the Holy Quran.
...
Please read the details at the link. As far as I am concerned there is proof of divinity. If you still insist that Islam is man-made show the fallacy in the proof.



Mohideen, you are free to accept this reasoning as your 'proof' that what you believe is correct for you, and nothing else. There is no proof that pictures lining up with text dictated by your prophet, allegedly, and taken down by sheiks who had their own reasons for writing what they thought they heard, does not constitute any kind of proof, objectively. It is only a 'subjective' proof to you, that you are free to believe if you wish, but not objectively proving anything to me, nor anyone else. Please understand this, that your belief is a private matter, not to be imposed on others, regardless of what you believe. If you persist, then you are trespassing.

Please understand that our tolerance of 'religious' inspired trespass is limited, because you trespass with your personal belief on ours by insisting that what you believe is true not only for yourself, but for everybody. That's Bull. Your belief in any 'divinity' is entirely your own, not objective reality. Get that? With all due respect for your faith in Islam, it is not any kind of proof. Rather. it appears more like 'politics'.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Humancafe
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 04:00 pm:   

No Proselytizing here warning.

Please note, per this from the other thread: Remember what their imam of this UK mosque said:

"You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state-within-a-state - until you take over.
"But until this happens, you have to preach, until you become such a force that the people just submit to you."


This is NOT the sort of thing we can tolerate here, to push one's Personal beliefs as if they were public proofs. We are assuming Mohideen does this unconsciously, simply following the (political) aspects of his faith, rather than his personal beliefs. But we cannot tolerate any 'proselytizing' posts here, except as an exprression of Personal faith, not public faith.

Please be warned, do not "preach, until you become such a force that people just submit to you," because it is not allowed here.


Editors, Humancafe
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 01:00 am:   

"I have a dream... Let freedom ring."

To celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we attended some of the best Gospel music I had heard in a long time, at UCI's Barklay Theatre, Irvine, California. It was the eighth concert in memoriam. The audience mix was about half and half, enjoying some really great music and singing, bringing in the spirit of freedom and Jesus into out midst. As the hostess said at one time, "I see the wonderful blend of both descendents, of slaves and masters here", which may have been true for most, though it made us smile; since my wife and I are both foreign born, didn't really fit either or. :-) At another time, another host said that there is no song without the pain that went into conquering it, that we sing from our soul. It was so true, and when voices raised up to where hands went up, a cry of "Lord Lord" went up, and it was as if the Spirit of God entered into the hall right then. A beautiful evening, free concert and Gospel to raise money for Afro American students going to college, a charity benefit from the heart to the mind. The Gospels ended with us all holding hands throughout the hall, singing "we shall overcome." We loved it. God of the Gospel of Jesus was in our heart, with laughter and song, from the heart.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 10:11 am:   

Orwellian sense of un-reality, from a witness living in the Gulf.

"First Hand Experience Living and Working in a Muslim Country" by John Alexander.
"Needless to say, in the two years I have lived in the Gulf, I have found, to my dismay (believe me, I get no pleasure from writing this) that many of the articles I have read on Faith-freedom and Islam-watch.org and others, I have found to be generally accurate for the following reasons:
1. Muslims are generally narrow-minded and bigoted.
2. Muslims are fanatical haters of Israel and the United States.
3. Muslims truly believe they have the best religion in the world and that the rest of the world should be Islamic.
4. Muslims really do believe that adulterers should be stoned and apostates killed.
5. Muslims have a peculiar sense of right and wrong. A thing is right if it is done privately but wrong if the transgression is made public.
...
With time though, I began to discern a darker side to Islam and what it has done to the rationality or thinking of the people. For example, when talking to a well-educated Muslim, one who has more often than not been educated in the West, it is easy to be lead into a false sense of security; that is, they are rational people like yourself. Not at all. I know PhD professors who have lived in Western countries for many years,who still insist that their wives must wear the niqab (ninja face veil) and hijab (head scarf) in public. They insist that adulterers should be publicly stoned and hands and feet chopped off and that apostates should either be killed or at the very least, deported. When hearing such primitive ideas and beliefs held by supposedly “educated” Muslim professors, my heart sank a thousand feet and my head started to swirl. I began to ask myself: WHAT THE HELL AM I DOING IN THIS COUNTRY WITH SUCH PEOPLE! I even started to doubt myself (being trained in the Western tradition of self-doubting). I wondered if I was being too sensitive, that I didn't understand the culture enough and that I didn't have the right to judge them! I was confused but held my tongue and kept working quietly away. But something was gnawing away inside of me; something just wasn't right. I felt less and less comfortable living amongst these people with such callous, medieval religious beliefs. I even started to feel less safe and more fearful. I began to sense that fear and control seem to pervade Muslim society and that Muslims did actually live in fear and mistrust of each other, living in some Orwellian world of self-censorship and over-regulation that stifled thought and creativity There appeared to be a great schism between the private and the public spheres; that you could do anything you wanted in private as long as it was not revealed in public."
...
Read it all at: http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=954

Personally, I did not experience this in my travels through Muslim countries (Egypt, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia) on a vast scale, though I did sense it at times, on rare occasions. But it had been many years since I traveled there, a decade before 9/11, when the world changed. Regrets, I did see much poverty and backwardness, and sometimes severe overcrowding, even child slavery, in Muslim lands.

Is this the distinction between a private faith and a public 'political' belief system? God is in the heart, not theocratic rule.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 - 08:31 pm:   

One of the most ultimate of human conundrums is the fact that our cultural pride usually lead us to devalue the culture of “the other” rather than recognizing the other’s equal worth. Undoubtedly this syndrome rears its ugly head amongst the undereducated of any particular group. The true danger occurs when the learned espouse rhetoric of hatred or cultural superiority. I suppose this is what we dread as far as the issues mentioned above. We feel for those that we perceive exist on the manipulated end of the spectrum. We despise those who do the manipulating. Moreover, the ignorant on our side of the world do things to justify the others distaste for our culture. And some of our learned leaders operate from a personal, or private agenda further widening the divide between us.

Once again I state we need a world standard in cultural education and tolerance. Then I guarantee, citizens would refuse to fight for corrupt leaders, or at least they would be far more difficult to manipulate. Maybe our government should invest in pushing this world educational system, rather than playing global police officer. In the long run we'd save more money (not to mention human lives). :-)


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 - 10:59 pm:   

We are assuming Mohideen does this unconsciously, simply following the (political) aspects of his faith, rather than his personal beliefs.
Editors, Humancafe
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 04:00 pm: Humancafe


Somewhere I read “Teach but do not preach.” I assumed that to preach implies assuming authority on behalf of God whereas to teach means to try and convey information, facts, methods, techniques etc to improve the standard of life of the listener in particular and that of all in general. I felt happy.

I do not occupy any theological seat. So I was puzzled to read the strong reaction to a simple rebuttal I made referring to the proof given in my web site.

Let me record once and for all that a believing Muslim does not proselytize. This is simply because it is God Who tunes the hearts and we mortals have no role in that. Yes Muslims desire and work for others to know about their religion. That is all. So when I refer to a proof penned by me I am simply telling about my religion as others are telling about their religious experiences as in http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/168.html?1168997500#POST3038

I took recourse to Google to understand the difference between ‘teach’ and ‘preach.’ http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99689.qna/category/th/page/ques tions/site/iiim was possibly the first link returned for ‘teach versus preach.’ From that article:
===
The distinction between preaching and teaching is not one that Scripture draws for us explicitly.

… But my hope was to show that the distinctions in Scripture between preaching and teaching are often vague, and are at times nonexistent, in order to point out that the roles we serve as men and women, ordained and unordained, ought to be determined by more nuanced reflection than a dictionary provides.
===

Where do we stand? As a teacher of more than three decades do I teach or preach? The interested might visit my CV at http://deentech.com/MICV.aspx
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 10:17 am:   

Your 'proof' of divinity was contested, nothing more.

Mohideen, in your above post:

quote:

Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 10:48 am:
it is still man made, not God made.
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 11:20 am: Ivan

The divine nature of the Holy Quran is proved in http://deentech.com/Allah_Exists.aspx
===
The photograph in the home page is one of the proofs of the divinity of the Holy Quran.
... etc.


You said that the Koran is not man-made, but God-given, and then proceeded to post your proof. I contested it by saying that your so called proof is only your personal opinion. You are always allowed your opinion, but you are not allowed to speak for God, at least not here, which is why I contested it. I am sorry if this offended you, but a personal opinion is allowed, whereas a political advocacy of 'God's proof' that Koran is somehow more divine than reason, or humanity, is bunk.

I always enjoy your posts here, some well reasoned, and some really silly, IMO. But Freedom has a special responsibility for all of us who are free human beings: We have a freedom to reason as we will, and act as we will, as long as it is not trespassing on the free will of another, either through our action and deeds, or through our words, verbalized thoughts. This responsibility allows for a lot of lattitudes, but it does not allow political actions that limit the right to reason for others. When you say: "THIS IS GOD'S WORD, and I will prove it" you are politicizing your idea and invalidating the ideas that others' ideas, man made ideas, are somehow lesser than so called 'God's word', which makes their man-made ideas lesser, which is a form of supremacism and bigotry. We do not condone this kind of politicized bigotry, or supremacism here. You are free to think as you wish, which makes your belief PERSONAL for you, but yor personal belief is not a proof to anyone else. I hope you can understand this, not a condemnation of your belief, and certainly not criticism of Islam as a personal belief; rather, it is a condemnation of politicizing what is a personal belief with a so called 'proof'.

Understand that modern Western culture had to fight with this dogma 'God's word' demon for centuries, why we now have a separation of church and state, and why we no longer hang or burn people at the stake for their beliefs. Religious beliefs are PERSONAL and not politicial, so the Church no longer holds political powers over our rights to govern ourselves. In Islam, your faith, this demon had not yet been conquered, so the separation of a personal faith and political faith had not yet been made, which makes your religion dangerous to our freedoms. Otherwise, what you choose to believe is entirely yours, free to believe as you wish, personally. No offense, but merely an explanation.

Cheers, Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anon Anon
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 02:29 pm:   

By the proof offered above of the divine nature of the Koran; What of the proof offered by those that believe in the Bible Code?

This list of believers includes men such as Sir Isaac Newton and other notables.

That mathmatical techniques which are used on words can be used to justify such arguments is in itself flawed and subject to the believer's own bias and view on events.

Better to find God in the study of pure mathmatics or geometry where the fundamental forces of creation are to be found than to try and prove the divinity of a set of words

Anon Anon
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:12 am:   

What of the proof offered by those that believe in the Bible Code?
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 02:29 pm: Anon Anon


Elsewhere I showed how one chapter of the Holy Bible was included in the Traditions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

The major differences between Christianity and Islam - to my current knowledge - are in two aspects:
1. Christians believe Jesus, the Savior, is son of God. Muslims believe that Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, is a miraculous creation of God and son of his mother alone. Mankind might in future create a male child from the genes of the mother alone by extracting the X-chromosome and changing it to a Y-chromosome and fertilising the egg and transplanting the same back in the uterus. Who is the father of that male child?
2. Christians believe that Jesus, the Savior died on the cross and was resurrected. Muslims believe that a disciple of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them was crucified and that Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them was taken to Heaven alive; is living in Heaven; would descend from Heaven as Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, and then the whole mankind would believe in him and then Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, would die.

Other than these two main differences I expect the teachings of Christianity to be about the same as that of Islam. At least if we do proper research we would hopefully establish that most of the teachings of Christianity are included in Islam.

So there is no surprise for me when there is proof that the Bible Code is divine.

Let us not forget that my proof is regarding the existence of God through an aspect of Islam. There is no place in my proof or in my writings to say that the other religions are inferior. If that be so Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran could be deemed as cheating. Freedom of faith is central to Islam.

All that Muslims claim is that Islam being the latest revelation it supercedes other revelations. It is like the latest edition of a text book superceding an earlier edition. We do not repudiate an earlier edition of a book just because another edition is published. Likewise we do not repudiate other religions: we feel, believe, and claim that Islam is better.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:20 am:   

When you say: "THIS IS GOD'S WORD, and I will prove it" you are politicizing your idea and invalidating the ideas that others' ideas, man made ideas, are somehow lesser than so called 'God's word', which makes their man-made ideas lesser, which is a form of supremacism and bigotry.
Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2007 - 10:17 am: Ivan


I do not agree. Man is a vicegerent of God. Thus I always state that eventually science would approach Islam.

As a vicegerent man's ideas also deserve consideration. Only when a man's idea clashes with religion, the believer - either Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu or any other - ignores that clashing idea of man and agrees with his / her religion. This is the definition of belief.

Just because I believe that the Holy Quran is correct -- and say so publicly -- does not invalidate any other statement either by a Muslim war-monger or any other human or any other scripture.

I find the so called warnings from the Editors of Humancafe disturbing. I am game for arguments; not threats of disqualification.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 06:40 pm:   

Mohideen,

You say you "feel, believe, and claim that Islam is better" because it is the latest edition. Well why not the accept that every inspiration of humanity is a later edition of God's communication to any particular individual? This is what I believe. Furthermore I believe that while the older editions have much merit in their messages, they are now quite out of date! We are intelligent, sentient beings. God made us so. Therefore we must be progressive in our attitude about what God may be. Religion will always be stagnant because science and other disciplines advance our understanding of what we are.

You must also acknowledge that it is convenient that Islam has a built in "last prophecy" message which seemingly denies future possible prophecy. This is short sighted and stifling to our growth. I don't believe God would do that to humanity. Indeed this goes to the heart of the topic: will modern freedom's survive another's interpretation of an absolute religion where adherents feel their message is the ultimate in prophecy. God would not do this. Christianity went through that phase and came up short in the face of progress. But the Church knew when it was beaten, new interpretation arose, and compromise with modernity was achieved. Why is that not divine? So too radical adherents of Islam are actually hastening their own "compromise period" because humanity will not tolerate their intolerance. I hope you and yours do not lose too much of what you hold dear due to a rigidity of noncompromise.

Just something to think of.

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 12:40 pm:   

Personal opinions allowed, Proselytizing is not allowed, in our Freedom of Belief.


This is a follow up on "Your 'proof' of divinity was contested, nothing more" , where I responded to Mohideen Ibramsha with this:

quote:

You said that the Koran is not man-made, but God-given, and then proceeded to post your proof. I contested it by saying that your so called proof is only your personal opinion. You are always allowed your opinion, but you are not allowed to speak for God, at least not here, which is why I contested it. I am sorry if this offended you, but a personal opinion is allowed, whereas a political advocacy of 'God's proof' that Koran is somehow more divine than reason, or humanity, is bunk.


But what is a person's belief? Is it merely his or her opinion on some religious matter, or is it something deeper that reaches down into their soul, something they are even willing to fight for, or die for?

Our responses to Mohideen's insistence that his religion is somehow better because it is 'God's word' spoken through his prophet, comes from our own beliefs. For myself, my belief is that all human beings are given to 'God's word' in their own time, at their own capacity, in what they come to believe, or not believe. We are all entitled equally to believe as we wish, which is our personal belief, and which cannot be taken away from us. Unlike political religions, such as outdated Medieval Christianity or modern Islam, which demand allegiance to their belief, we modern human beings have come to a consciousness of religious freedoms and an equality of each and every human being's right to believe. For this realization we have both religious tolerance and a separation of church and state. What Mohideen objects to, as seen in his numerous posts, is both this separation of government and personal belief, since it goes against Sharia where these two are combined; and he is against man made laws being superior to so called 'God given' laws of his faith. Because his belief system insists upon being superior to man made laws, or personal beliefs, then he and his system insist that they are best for all humanity, because allegedly their God (Allah) told them so through their prophet, for all time. That's pure bunk. In fact, that politicized belief is nothing more than a political opinion, a human opinion, and cannot carry any weight of spirituality attached to it without profaning such belief.


Where I think the failure of reason rests here, in all fairness to Mohideen, is that he cannot see how these two concepts are mutually exclusive: freedom of religion versus a belief that your religion is superior to man made ideas. Religious freedom of necessity demands that no one's ideas are held in some superior position, other than as a personal opinion or personal belief, but one that cannot be politicized into any form of action against another's beliefs or religion. This is a non-aggression pact that was initiated by a separation of church and state in free countries; but this non-aggression does not exist in totalitarian states, especially in Muslim Sharia states, where their (personal) beliefs that the words of their prophet (as allegedly God's) superseded man made ideas and laws. This is a real problem for Mohideen Ibramsha, that he cannot see how these two worlds are mutually exclusive, and contradictory. Under Sharia, religious freedom, freedom of belief and of thought, are essentially forbidden by their (supremacist) belief that their word is God's (Allah's) and not man's. Our position, we who believe in freedom, is that no matter what Muslims believe, it does not apply to us because it is essentially only their personal opinions, man made opinions, their own, that do not carry any supremacy over others. To make matters worse, their belief system also demands that they push their ideology on others until the whole world is Allah's, their Jihad, so all believe as they do. That is not only bunk, but it is criminally coercive, and Mr. Ibramsha (whether or not aware of this) is guilty of this coerciveness by insisting that his religious personal beliefs are above man made laws. There is the failure of his reason, and something that it seems no matter what we say, he simply refuses or is unable to comprehend.

So where is the failure here? Is it our failure to communicate to him? Is it failure in our reasoning that two beliefs, freedom and religious supremacy, are mutually exclusive? Or is it something in Mr. Ibramsha's brain that simply cannot make the connections, so he must continue to insist that he has the right (under religious freedom) to push (proselytize) his personal belief that his religion (as Allah dictated) is superior to our (man made) beliefs? Therein lies the difference between a personal faith, religious freedom, and a politicized faith, Islamic dogma. Are not the two mutually exclusive, but we cannot convince him of that, not matter what we say? Why is that? Is he truly so 'brainwashed' by his politicized faith that a personal faith, what he is free to believe, cannot coexist in the same brain? Does his politicized faith always dominate inside his brain? And if so, is this indicative of a larger, much larger problem, that Islamic law and religious freedom cannot ever coexist? I suspect it is. And it is for this reason that I must criticize his statement of his alleged proof of "divinity of his Quran", as better than man made ideas. By saying this, he in effect denies two things: one, is that Mohammed was a man, so any thing he said on behalf of his God Allah is a man made idea; and two, that other human ideas are somehow inferior to those said by his prophet Mohammed. This is blasphemy to those of us who believe in religious freedom, and his ideas are therefore anti-freedom. Supremacist, anti-freedom ideas are not allowed here on Humancafe, a discussion forum dedicated to human freedoms as a higher consciousness of humankind. But how do we make this understood? In all fairness, I am coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to convince with reason a brain dominated by a politicized dogma, such as Islam represents. When Mohammed combined personal belief with political action, for all time, he permanently divided human reason from freedom, and in so doing destroyed any possibility of human freedoms in this world, forever. That must be fought, because such a politicized faith is inherently evil, and anti human to the core, because it not only destroys the brain's ability to reason, but invalidates our human beliefs by making them subordinate to Mohammed's followers' beliefs, sometimes by force (Jihad). Mohammed, if what the sheiks copied after his death into the Quran and Hadiths is true, essentially developed an idea of total totalitarian submission devoid of human freedoms, or slavery of the human mind to his ideas of Allah. This is pure tyranny.

We are free human beings before the law. There is no supremacy of religion over our freedoms. We have a separation of church and state for this very reason, so that our freedoms are preserved. We may believe in our heart as we will, provided this belief does not trespass on the beliefs of another. But if this belief does trespass (such as politicized belief systems), such a (politicized) belief is then coercive and invalid, and against our rights of freedom to be Who we are, as God made us. This is the idea of a higher consciousness of humanity, that we understand this, and believe in it, not as a political force, but the contrary, as a non-political right to believe, the freedom to be Who we are. Mohideen's Islamic beliefs do not allow this. Therefore, his ideology must be fought, because it denies us the right to a higher consciousness, and reason, that preserves for us our freedoms. The separation of church and state is in reality a separation of personal belief and political government. I fear Mr. Mohideen Ibramsha is actually unable to understand this, because of his belief system, so this paragraph will mean absolutely nothing to him. I call him on this for his rebuttal:
Do you understand the difference between a personal belief and a politicized belief, one that does not value any one person's opinion as "proof of divinity" over anyone else's right to their belief?

If Mr. Ibramsha understands this, then he will reply that man made laws are as valid to him as his Quran's ideas, of a personal law applicable only for him and his belief; if he does not understand this, his reply will be to negate this, or deny it. If he negates it, then he is anti-freedom; if anti-freedom, then he will reject the idea that we are all equal (and have equal rights before the law), and insist that his Quranic law is superior to man made laws of freedom (our laws' separation of church and state). Can he understand this? Because if he cannot, he is then coercing our freedoms, and must be stopped. I suspect he will not, regrets. But I open this discussion for him, or anyone else, to prove me wrong.


Ivan

Ps: To follow up on Naive's statement above, our Freedom of Belief is the 'latest edition' to our human understanding and right to be Who we are as free human beings, which is progressive and surpasses Islam's (7th century) claim to be right for humanity for all time; this makes Islam a regressive idea to our modern beliefs.

Pps: I sincerely hope everyone who reads this understands that none of this is meant as a personal attack against Mr. Mohideen Ibramsha, nor against his personal belief in the Quran, but rather is meant as criticism of the politicized aspects of his Islamic faith's ideology, especially its Quranic Jihad component, which is coercive, supremacist in nature against our human freedoms, and evil by default. This is an argument of reason, not belief. There is a major difference between religion as a personal faith, which religious tolerance and freedom respects, and the politicized nature of jihadic religious dogma, which is of necessity against our freedom of belief. - Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan, Eds.
Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 12:31 pm:   

Dr. Pepper's "Dialogue with a Muslim" reached termination, safing mode.

Dear Dr. Pepper, Mohideen Ibramsha, thanks for starting this 'voyage of discovery' last April, 2006, and much had been discussed on Islam, ideas well explored with reason, and at times with passion. To all we are grateful. Religion as a personal belief is an open ended search, a search of human consciousness upon the larger universal stage of human evolution; but religion as a dogmatic politicized belief is a closed dead end system, where the universe is closed off from our consciousness. Reason may or may not sway personal beliefs; but it has proven over these past months that it has no effect on a politicizes faith system, one which believes itself superior to other faiths. It is a closed system. How does one reason with an ideology that thinks itself superior to human thoughts, and even mandated to dominate personal beliefs, or any man made ideas? Such supremacist ideology shows no response to reason, so any discussion such as this (it had been a very fine discussion) nevertheless is forced into a dead end. What else can we say that would make a difference here to a mentality that my belief system is divine, and everyone else's is inferior? Words fail where reason fails. Unlike the faith of a personal Islam, political-Islam is no longer a religion; it then becomes but a supremacist political ideology, case closed.

So we had decided, singly and mutually at Humancafe, to put this discussion into a permanent 'safing' mode. When an exploratory spacecraft encounters anomalous and unexplainable phenomena, it is parked into safing mode until the anomalies are understood, to save the craft from self destruction. However, where reason fails, that safing mode may be permanent, if no cause is understandable. So is it with this discussion on Islam, both with a Muslim and non-Muslims, that we had reached an impasse of understanding. Neither side can improve on this, though we had tried sincerely over these past nine months. Once reason begins to fail, the discussion cannot solve the impasse of failed reason, by definition, and the arguments fall back upon personal beliefs. Religion, any religion, when it falls away from reason, then falls back only upon its own beliefs; so it can exist only as a personal faith. As a sacred belief, what the believers believe in their hearts, is entirely in their own souls. None should argue this. But when religion becomes a force of action, politicized into laws of violence, and incumbent upon our beliefs with punishable rules, then it fails as a personal belief. Once this failure is evident, especially when faced with an unyielding dogmatic ideology, reason can make no inroads against its designs, or its use of force, so religious tyranny results. This is a truism for all belief systems, whether faith based or secular, where to argue against such a supremacist system invokes punishments, violent reprisals, and ultimately death to those ideas. None dare question such a belief system without fear of coercive reprisals. So such arguments become totally one sided, where reasonable arguments are silenced, and those who question such political beliefs become silenced as well. And this is the sinister part, in final analysis, that the same silencing that is applied by tyrannical beliefs then spills over to those whose beliefs are apolitical in nature, and everything stops, of necessity. We are there now. So no resolution is possible here except as it had always been resolved historically, when faced with a coercive force, through combat between forces of freedom and forces of tyranny. Where only slaves are free to believe, freedom dies, and with it dies the reasoning human mind. That is the face of evil.

Someone once said something to the effect: "To accomplish achieving everything, one must accept desire for nothing." So is it on these boards that we accept a desire for nothing, that a resolution cannot be achieved, and this is acceptable to us. If reason fails, and we are safing the discussion from further harm and ill will, then let the world resolve this impasse in the ways it had always been. In ancient times, it was believed that God will champion the victor in combat. So we leave this discussion, and how to deal with a supremacist ideology, to God. Wars had been fought to extinction in the past, and when an idea has passed its time, it must face its own extinction. But we cannot judge on this, but must take it out of our hands, our words of reason, and place it before the altar of God. If there is a failed reason, or if there is a failed ideology, then let God's rule determine the outcome for us, we those infinitesimal humans, on this small world, in but one galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, and worlds, within our vast infinite universe. We must desire for nothing, but aim for everything. Thus, we stop it here, and move on. It is a very big universe to explore, which is what these pages of Humancafe aim for, and where all ideas are welcome. The human mind cannot be constrained within a small closed circle, of religious beliefs or otherwise, without sacrificing our freedom of thought. We must move on.


In ten days time, to give time for those who wish to make last statements, we will put all Islamic discussions into a permanent safing mode. Let history be the judge of how this will be resolved, whether a personal faith with prevail, with freedom of belief for all, or a politicized supremacist faith will prevail, with submission of mind for all, and perhaps with extinction for a dead idea. God will be judge. This discussion will then be closed.

God give us victory over all tyranny of mind, and let human consciousness prevail with evolution of freedom in this world. We hope all here will agree, God save our souls.

To all who participated here, thank you. It had been a very fine and enlightening discussion.


Ivan, and editors, Humancafe.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 09:59 am:   

I reciprocate. It seems I have failed to communicate that by virtue of Verse 256 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran the aim of Humancafe -- the personal belief is supreme -- is already part and parcel of Islam.

It is truly unfortunate that the misguided interpretation of Islam by the war-mongers (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) has been accepted by Humancafe.

God willing, I hope to evaluate and critic "Habeas Mentem: The Given Word" in future. It is my belief that the nascent Habeas Mentem when put in practice and when the coercions and their resulting punishments are recorded it would be similar to the Holy Quran. It is my belief now.

In this country there are laws of copyright. I do not know to what extent this law forbids reproduction. Since the discussion would end soon, I would like to have the freedom to quote - if necessary full passages - of my statements and relevant extracts of the statements of others in my future works both printed and non-printed.

I hope Humancafe would permit the above request.

Let me sign off with this post. I plan to sign off from other posts by giving the link to this post.

This forum was very dignified. I thank every one for the same. Let us part ways now and who knows when we meet again we might believe the same belief.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:12 am:   


quote:

In this country there are laws of copyright. I do not know to what extent this law forbids reproduction. Since the discussion would end soon, I would like to have the freedom to quote - if necessary full passages - of my statements and relevant extracts of the statements of others in my future works both printed and non-printed.

I hope Humancafe would permit the above request.



Of course, full permission granted, Mohideen, if used in context. All the best, thanks again.

Ivan D. Alexander
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan, Eds.
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 12:35 am:   

'POLITICAL' ISLAM THREADS ARE NOW CLOSED.

We are permanently 'safing' dialogues and discussions dealing with Political Islam. Any justifications for a politicized faith, whether secular or mythical, such as Nazism or Communism, or religious, of any religious dogma, will not be tolerated here henceforth. All coercive philosophies which are against human freedoms, against human equality, will be treated with equal contempt, and rejected.

This in no way affects any discussions on Personal Faith, in Islam or otherwise. Personal experiences of faith, such as testimonials, are always welcome, since they are personal in nature and are not meant to proselytize the faith, only to share in its wonders. But politicized faith is something different, what has intent to impose itself politically on the rest. Political Islamic belief ranges from embedded Sharia laws of a 'state within a state' , to overturning our Constitutional laws of Freedom into theocratic laws of Sharia, to do either quiet Jihad with deceptions and 'takkiya', or violent Jihad with war and terrorism, where the alleged supremacy of the faith is to be imposed on the rest; none of this is acceptable on Humancafe discussions. Such Sharia-Jihad is coercive in nature at the core, and runs counter to our human freedoms. None are superior to another, we are all free to believe as we believe. However, when one believes it is right and just, even by 'God mandated' words, that they bear down with coercions on another, regardless if or not for their benefit, then something is horribly wrong with such belief. The paradox is that such coercive belief leads to supremacism, which is of necessity intolerant, and therefore inferior to our human freedoms of belief and equalities. Coercions against another, as are all enslaving doctrines, are against the rich beauty of our humanity, against God, and are not allowed here. We broke the chains of slavery, and so they will remain broken. Freedom: That is God's Law.

The great paradox of a politicized faith is that it takes what is in the heart between man and woman, and God, Love, to politicize it into intent and actions of man against man, or woman, as if acting for God. Political-faith, totally unlike personal faith, is an oxymoron, as demonstrated in these pages, no matter what the faith. To make men and women act for God, by utilizing their love of humanity and God, in a political-coercive manner is a major sin against our heartfelt spirituality for God, which is our God given right to be Who we are. It is a rape of God. To act or speak for God is to profane God's words; to punish or enslave human beings in the name of God is profanely horrible, and so totally wrong. We are all equal creations before God. Political-Islam, a supremacist closed belief-system, cannot take that away from us, so it must be stopped. We stop it here in this discussion, by making the burden of this profanity of God theirs, and not ours. We are not to blame for what they do, or say, to blaspheme God, for it is their Cross.

* * * * * * *

Special thanks to all who participated in these discussions over past nine months, starting with "Dialogue with a Muslim" and ending here. Mohideen Ibramsha had been especially gracious to share with us his thoughts on his Islamic faith. But Sharia will never be allowed to undo our freedoms given to us by God. Islam will never be allowed to flex its political muscle of government over a free people. That is a firm rule which all Muslims must come to understand, if the world is to know peace. Judge them not by what they teach, but judge them by what they do.

No more needs to be said. This discussion is now closed.


Ivan, editors, Humancafe

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration