I guess another common trait of atheists is their penchant to read into my posts whatever suits their purpose. Obviously me stating blatantly and unambiguously that I do not support or condone the acts of violence perpetrated by extremists of any religion or group isn’t enough. Anyway, assume what you will. To you is your way and to me is mine.
Blog
-
It is narrated from Abu Tha’labah al-Khushani that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه و آله و صحبه و سلم said:
“After you there will come days during which being patient will be like holding on to a live coal. The one who strives during those days will have a reward like that of fifty men who strive as you do.”
According to another report: It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, the reward of fifty men like them or like us?” He said: “No, the reward of fifty men like you.”
{Sahih Hadith ===> Sunan at-Tirmidhi # 3058}
Desperate for serenity tonight…
-
I'll keep it to asks. Submit allows editing and I prefer to make sure my words remain my own. Besides I said respond to, not necessarily engage. When your logic involves blaming the victim of a crime who was simply expressing their freedom of speech, and in any way providing the slightest justification to extremists there is no engagement to be had. There are certain views that just don't need to be debated, they're self evidently moronic. Atheism has no dogma, means it's not a religion. Simple.
That’s unfortunate. I was hoping to have some meaningful debates in line with what you profess to be the purpose of your blog. By the way, according to Merriam-Webster, one of the meanings of ‘dogma’ is “c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds”. How is this not true about the atheist ‘philosophy’ or the ‘progressives’ views on why they’re superior to established religions and why religion supposedly has no place in this enlightened modern society of ours?
-
the72sects:
For the sake of brevity, I’ve omitted the original parts of this post which can be found here. In response to brad-t: Firstly, if you read my blog, you’ll note that I am totally against radical or irrational responses to the slander that is heaped against Islam and Muslims. So…
Unfortunately you choose to read into my posts whatever perspective suits your argument best. There’s no implicit justification of either, and if there was, let me clear that up for you now. Every action comes with the responsibility of accepting the accountability of the backlash or response that it will get. Assuming anything less is naively liberal and impractical in the real world. It’s not just about sensitivity but about respect as well. Don’t selectively paraphrase what the Quran contains about scientific content. Or would you assume to know more than esteemed Western scholars of medicine that confirmed the accuracy of both the detail and the sequence of embryology as described in the Quran? And no, the Quran does not stop at stating that sperm is required for procreation. Furthermore, assuming that there is even an iota of credibility to your claim that the ancient Greeks knew all this before the Arabs around 600 AD, pray tell would you hazard a theory on how an unlettered prophet that never left the peninsula came across such knowledge, and then related in such eloquent poetry that not even the most accomplished of poets of the time could equal it? Before you answer that, you should study the importance of poetical eloquence and the social status it carries in the Arab world before assuming that it was something that was taken lightly. By the way, if you assume that the publisher did not do anything wrong, then why does your secular system of justice allow for crimen injuria? Surely then everyone is entitled to their opinion about anything and everything regardless of how insensitive, blasphemous or slanderous it may be? Besides, who decides who has the moral high ground to begin with? If I were to listen to you, I’d have to believe that it would be the self-proclaimed progressives. It’s all relative, isn’t it? All the more reason to show respect and consideration for the belief system of others. If it doesn’t concern you, leave it alone. A simple rule that would find the world in a much better place instead of looking for deliberately inflammatory content of a sector of society that had nothing to do with them, yet they found it necessary to vilify its followers? Oh, let me guess, by me presenting this view, you will once again assume that I am defending the action of the Muslims in this case. So again, NO, I’m not! Just trying to get you to understand that nothing is ever as cut and dried as you’d like to paint it to be. Beyond this, we’ll have to agree to disagree. And no, I won’t take out a fatwa to have your house fire bombed, or your blog hacked. 🙂 Peace. -
Honestly, your url creeps me out. Is Islam really gonna end up with 72 sects?
Actually, from what I just read, there will be 73 sects, only one of which will enter Jannah. The Hadith can be referenced in Abu Dawud, Model Behaviour of the Prophet (pbuh), No. 4579. When I chose the url, I really chose the first thing that came to mind that reminded me of the numerous views that people hold about who is more right than whom. It’s sad, but unfortunately a reality. That’s why I believe it’s so important to identify what is culture versus what is Islam, and then to have a clear understanding of the two so that we don’t follow blindly. Not all cultural practices are contrary to Shari’ah, but not being able to identify which is culture and which isn’t contributes to the erosion of the purity of Islamic teachings, and I believe ultimately leads to the establishment of yet another sect. Allah knows best.
-
The reform needed in Islam is the same reform needed by all other religions — abolition.
There is no justification for the continued existence of primitive belief systems in a world where we can disprove just about everything mentioned in the holy books of said religions. They are tools of the ignorant, only perpetuated by ignorance and brain-washing. They are the uninformed ramblings of delusional desert-men, grasping for explanations as to why the sun goes down at night.
The fact that you try to defend the Muslims who committed this fire-bombing makes me embarrassed for you and shows how completely out of touch they are with the realities of the situation. This newspaper made fun of Islam. It doesn’t matter fuck-all why they did it. They did not bomb anyone, kill anyone, or injure anything other than the typically fragile egos of the fanatically religious. You cannot say that this response is not part of a larger pattern of violence among Muslims. Just because we can predict the irrational , disproportionate reactions of fanatical Muslims does not excuse their behaviour.
I don’t think Muslims were being baited here, but let’s say for the sake of argument that they were. What does that change? These were human beings with the capability of rational thought who firebombed a building because of satirical articles and cartoons. Muslims are people and they should be held to the same standard we expect of any other person. This has happened too many times before.
If Muslims want to change the perception of Islam, the onus is on them to do so. And as long as this type of behaviour is justifiably expected of them, they will continue to be looked down upon. Fix your own problems before you bitch about perception.
For the sake of brevity, I’ve omitted the original parts of this post which can be found here.
In response to brad-t:
Firstly, if you read my blog, you’ll note that I am totally against radical or irrational responses to the slander that is heaped against Islam and Muslims. So for you to be embarrassed for my part because of my supposed defense of the above action is for one thing pompous (there’s that word again) and for another grossly misinformed.
Secondly, actually you cannot “disprove just about everything mentioned in the holy books of said religions” because you’re obviously again misinformed in believing that the Quran contains the same scientifically proven inaccuracies of the bible. If you take the time to read the Quran, you’ll note that there are a number of accuracies contained therein, so much so that present day scientists cannot explain how such accurate detail could have been contained in a scripture from the desert penned by an illiterate man over 1400 years ago. So in fact the reverse of your statement is actually true. Embryology, big bang theory, orbital paths of the planets, origin of the moon, etc. Look it up. You may be pleasantly surprised to discover that the Quran explained these concepts when the church was still burning people at the stake for opposing the flat-earth view.
Thirdly, I will never defend a Muslim or anyone else if their actions are blatantly contrary to Islamic beliefs, and obviously extreme. Again, read through some of my posts and you’ll note that I am not in any way supportive of extremism, and in fact, neither is Islam which dictates that we lead a life of moderation. Killing of innocent women and children, suicide bombings, cowardly acts of terror, disproportionate use of force, scorched earth policy, etc. are all hallmarks of warfare of the western powers and other non-Muslim organisations like the Tamil Tigers that Muslims have unfortunately adopted for themselves. Just because it’s carried out by Muslims these days does not in any way imply that it is sanctioned in Islam. It’s not!
As for your final paragraph, there is actually some truth in there. Again, read my posts and you’ll see that I fully encourage the reformation of Muslims before we complain about the perception of the West on Islam. Muslims have tainted the image of Islam, and not the other way around. If you read my original response to this post again, I suspect you’ll note that I did in fact raise concerns about both sides and not just one, unlike you that appear to be making the publisher a victim in all this. The Muslims were wrong to firebomb the building because it was a cowardly act, and the publisher was wrong to be deliberately insensitive on what is obviously a very volatile subject. Act in the extreme, and you can expect responses in the extreme. Again, that is not a justification, simply stating the facts because it’s obvious that this world is not full of rational people, be they Muslim, non-Muslim or otherwise.
-
Well, it’s a touchy subject. You can’t hope to rally the other progressives on your side if you speak with such words. It’s kind of annoying, I know, but at the same time, you have to keep in mind that a lot of those zealous people are first and foremost: victims. Those religions have been carefully created to enslave human minds, it’s brainwashing since the cradle. That’s why it’s a touchy subject: some progressives only see this, while other people associate all Muslims to be terrorist and such. We have to make the distinction very clearly and in a way that our fellow progressives can get behind, so we are not thrown too easily in the second category.
Of course, you’ll always have idiots (yes, true idiots) who only care about pushing their own subjective agendas. Even the most reasonable, polite and well-thought critic of an act violating universal human rights, if committed by a non-white-heterosexual-christian-male, will go at best to be dismissed, at worst to be rooted in this stupid concept of “Islamophobia”.
So basically, our goal should be first and foremost to rally all progressives back in track of defending universal human rights, no exception. Once they stop standing in the way of progress, we can hope to bring changes in the law and society as a whole in order to protect individuals from the brainwashing and mind destruction of religions. Let’s just hope that happens before WE become the minority, thanks to their irresponsible birth rate.
This is so pompous and ill-informed, it seriously lacks any humour and barely holds any merit. A bunch of ‘progressives’ patting each other on their backs for taking a stand about everyone else’s belief systems as self-declared protectors of the freedom of religion under the guise of protecting universal human rights for those that were too irresponsible to think before having children. Right?
Perhaps it would do the author/s good if they actually sought to understand the issues before spewing this drivel. Also, it would also be great if they bothered to look at the deliberate and consistent provocation involved in the incident that they so liberally reference in their posts. One more thing worth noting is that religion has become a cash cow for the cash strapped and creatively challenged media outlets. When sales fall, pick on the Muslims, but ensure you to do it to the point where you’ll provoke an irrational response, cry foul and defend your freedom of speech, and then watch your sales figures go through the roof. The same satirical publication referenced in these posts did exactly that a few years ago, and it seems they’ve realised how profitable it can be.
Hopefully some day soon the Muslims will realise that they’re being baited, that they’re fighting a losing battle trying to earn dignity for Muslims through secular courts and that in fact their only chance at salvaging their dignity is in true reform, and not assimilation. Reform of their own actions, reform of their inclination to pick and choose what is or is not good to implement in their lives, reform of the practice of Islam independent of the cultural contamination that has served to polarise the Ummah in ways that we have yet to realise.
