PDA

View Full Version : How one can fight for secular society and freedom of worship at the same time



WarriorforMarie
08-16-2013, 10:31 PM
I am posting this here because the forum will not let me post on my introduction thread because I am a newbie, even
though I was the one who started that thread!

This is in response to Signor and Eric H.


Thank, I am glad you have enjoyed reading my post. In regards to the issues I am fighting for I will explain.

I fight for secularism because I do not believe people should be forced to live according to someone else's religious values. This does not mean that I am against people practicing a religion. In fact, I think it is a good thing. I am not religious myself but I've studied some decent works by political scientists on the subject. On of the best is Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" which asserts that it is a good thing for citizens of a country to belong to several different civil society organizations (churches or mosques could be one). By engaging in activities with other citizens they are able to build civil trust and reinforce the sense of community. I also think the United States benefits from having people of many different religious backgrounds because then there are multiple perspectives and points of view which will make the United States stronger.

When I fight for the rights of Muslims, Christians, etc. to be able to practice their religion it is not because I want people to become members of these religions. It is because I believe people should have the right to practice the religion they want to without fear of harassment. In the United States there have been a couple of times when Muslims in a community wanted to build a center and the local population tried to stop them, Murfeesboro was one case. When that happened I wrote letters to the local representatives. I think Muslims should be able to practice freely in Christian countries, and that Christians should practice freely in Muslim countries. Also, from reading the posts on here I know that some people do not like Shia very much and I do not want to offend but I think that Shia should be free to practice and worship in Sunni countries (and of course, Sunni should be free to practice in Shia countries). I guess what I am fighting for is freedom of worship.

I hope that helps explain things.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Hulk
08-16-2013, 10:35 PM
Secularism as a philosophical program is terrifying. One really does not need to adhere to it to practice religious freedom. From what I understand, there is a difference between secularism and a "secular government".
Reply

Futuwwa
08-17-2013, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by Hulk
Secularism as a philosophical program is terrifying. One really does not need to adhere to it to practice religious freedom. From what I understand, there is a difference between secularism and a "secular government".
Chances are that neither he does support the "secularism" you are denouncing.
Reply

Abz2000
08-17-2013, 05:04 AM
Maybe because you are unable to delve past the surface of words and labels used to manipilate you,
In Islam we are told that secularism is disbelief and disbelief is a form of satanism.

You claimed that
I fight for secularism because I do not believe people should be forced to live according to someone else's religious values.
Yet seemed to overlook the fact that secularism itself is a "religion".
It is a religion built by the "gods" you submit to, the despots, the kings, the politicians.

the term used in Islam for so called "religion" is "deen"- which means "way of life", and someone who claims to be a "secular" "Muslim" in reality is deceiving himself by claiming that his way of life is submission to politicians/kings/despots and their laws and dictates AND submission to God and His laws and dictates.
And ANYONE with a single iota of sense would be able to tell you that only a believing king who rules by the Laws of Islam would rule within the guidelines of Islam. Any other would conflict and create a confusing dichotomy like that which you see in the west. (manipulation, deception, undeclared wars, pretended equality etc).

The Quran clearly calls so called "secularism" a "religion" in surah Yusuf.
It is called "deen al Malik", the way of life enjoined by the king (with emphasis on law and order).
When your politicians decide your ways of living for you, dos donts etc, they are creating your "religion".

And when your "religion" means "without God" (secularism), it is called kufr, in Islam.
One cannot be a "disbeliever believer", (know wot I mean? ;)

In contrast to a "deen" ("religion") you only have "anarchism" remaining.

n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/d...1&word=anarchy
.
for anarchists "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the status quo, and that is the motto of satanists. (google the phrase if it pleases you).

And If you please, Google the term "deen" "Arabic" "meaning", it may turn out to be a life changer.
Peace,
Abz
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
WarriorforMarie
08-17-2013, 08:38 AM
Well, I Googled the term "deen" "Arabic" "meaning", One of the top sites was quranicteachings dot org


Their definitions for "deen" and "malik" seemed to correspond to what you wrote. They also had this to say about religion...

"ReligionThere is no definitive agreed-upon definition of religion. It has the following meanings:
-Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
-A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
-The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
-A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
-A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

The important part was SUPERNATURAL. Secularism has an absence of supernatural aspects to it so how can it be a religion? You seem eager, but I think your sources for political knowledge are inadequate. If you like, I provide you with a list of books that should broaden your understanding. That way you can avoid making confused comments.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-17-2013, 08:40 AM
Originally Posted by Hulk
Secularism as a philosophical program is terrifying. One really does not need to adhere to it to practice religious freedom. From what I understand, there is a difference between secularism and a "secular government".
What do you mean by "Secularism as a philosophical program" and what aspects of it are terrifying?
Reply

Hulk
08-17-2013, 09:06 AM
Since you brought up that you are fighting for secularism why dont you define it first so that we can have a better understanding. I will read/respond when I can inshaAllah.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-17-2013, 02:19 PM
Originally Posted by Hulk
Since you brought up that you are fighting for secularism why dont you define it first so that we can have a better understanding. I will read/respond when I can inshaAllah.
That's the right question to ask, and the one you should have asked right away. When he says that he supports secularism, what matters is what he means by "secularism", not whatever strawman we conjure of it.
Reply

Hulk
08-17-2013, 03:06 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
That's the right question to ask, and the one you should have asked right away. When he says that he supports secularism, what matters is what he means by "secularism", not whatever strawman we conjure of it.
No, there are no "multiple meanings" of it but rather what someone might think it means. I did not "conjure" whatever it is you are imagining. I merely stated my opinion secularism as a philosophical program and mentioned that "secularism" and a "secular government" are not necessarily the same. So please calm down.
Reply

truthseeker63
08-17-2013, 04:01 PM
Secularism is Haram.
Reply

greenhill
08-17-2013, 04:15 PM
Interesting consideration.... why though?

Islam follows the law of the Quran and hadiths and sunnah, whilst secularism follows the law of man. How can the two co-exist? Talking about the Deen as opposed to other faiths here.
Reply

جوري
08-17-2013, 04:26 PM
you can't be a fascist and a liberal they're a contradiction, you can't be a capitalist and a communist, it is a contradiction, you can't be a Muslim and a secular it is a contradiction. I hope the simple exercise clarifies things for everyone!

best,
Reply

sister herb
08-17-2013, 04:27 PM
Interesting discussion. I hope it doesn´t end to kind of comments like "this and that is haram".

Is this what you mean about word "secularism?

Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie
I fight for secularism because I do not believe people should be forced to live according to someone else's religious values.
If yes, then you fight for freedom of think and believe freely, by the other words; for some very basic rights of humanity.

Nice to meet you, pal, I think I fight for the same basic rights too (but I don´t call it as secularism ;D ).
Reply

glo
08-17-2013, 04:48 PM
Warrior is proposing that in secular state all people are treated equal - whether they believe in God or not and regardless of their religious affiliation.

Secularism protects both believers and non-believers

Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens. Secularism is not about curtailing religious freedoms; it is about ensuring that the freedoms of thought and conscience apply equally to all believers and non-believers alike.

Religious Freedom

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html

We may assert that in our religion people from other religions are granted equal rights and status ... but if we are honest, when we look around in the world, we have to admit that that is very often not the case.
In 'Christian' nations non-Christians often feel discriminated against or persecuted and in 'Muslim' nations non-Muslims feel the same.

Whilst I don't know if secular states could really live up to such a high ideal (or if indeed we have truly secular states where this could be put to the test), I like the principle and I can see that a no-religion-rules-principle may be best for everybody.

Having said that, I know that the Church of England, which is the official church in the UK, speaks out very strongly for followers of other faiths too, and that is appreciated by people of many other faiths.

There is a fear amongst believers that in a purely secular state spirituality and a belief in God would eventually be squeezed out ... and I can relate to that fear too.
Reply

sister herb
08-17-2013, 05:00 PM
^^ Good points, Glo.
Reply

Signor
08-17-2013, 05:03 PM
I am neither advocating nor supporting his views but he made a response to me and Eric H regards to "an interesting mixture of issues to fight for". This what he wrote in his Intro:

The one woman who was the love of my life. I have sworn myself to forever be a warrior on her behalf. I fight to protect the weak anywhere I can. I protect women from abusive men. I protect Muslims in countries where they are the minority, I protect Christians in countries where they are the minority. I fight for the weak and I will never stop. With my last breath I will fight for women's rights and secularism.
All of what he said in first post was explanation of his words/his view/his perception of looking at things,thats all
Reply

Futuwwa
08-17-2013, 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Hulk

No, there are no "multiple meanings" of it but rather what someone might think it means. I did not "conjure" whatever it is you are imagining. I merely stated my opinion secularism as a philosophical program and mentioned that "secularism" and a "secular government" are not necessarily the same. So please calm down.
Words mean exactly what we mean when we use them. There is no such thing as an objectively correct definition of a word. Every word is made-up.
Reply

greenhill
08-17-2013, 05:21 PM
Makes sense seeing the point from a non muslim perspective. Thanks for the reiteration, Glo.

If it were to be a 'perfect' world, there would be a place for everyone. Those who choose to live following various laws merely have to make that 'move' or jihad. The muslim have their caliphate nation, various other faiths if they choose to or remain as the separated secular states.

Mistrust amongst people is something not easily controlled. Seeds of discord are easily sown. As they say, prevention is better than cure, having large groups or sects living in a loose community has the ingredients of turning volatile if serious effort are not made to accept the differences and to just concentrate on your own destiny. It only takes someone acting out of stupidity to incite things with terrible consequences. Imagine living in an area where all practices are allowed. We will have church bells, the Adhan (call to prayer) and all the other calls ringing in our airwaves constantly. Would everybody accept this? :hmm:

Personally, I'd love to have the Caliphate system back. A totally islamic community. In Syaa Allah.



Peace
Reply

glo
08-17-2013, 05:50 PM
Originally Posted by greenhill
Personally, I'd love to have the Caliphate system back. A totally islamic community. In Syaa Allah
Would the Caliphate system treat all people as equals though?
As far as I understand non-Muslims would only ever be second-class citizens - tolerated and protected, yes, but with less rights.

Please correct me if I am wrong. It's a while since I have read anything about the Caliphats.
Reply

Hulk
08-17-2013, 06:19 PM
Thank you for the link glo though I am very suprised that a website called "secularism" actually speaks very little of "what is secularism".

A muslim does not necessarily have to be against a "secular state", for the simple reason that as many here have mentioned it allows everyone to "practice their religion". So a muslim can live in a country with a "secular government", so long as they are able to practice their religion.

Secularism in itself is much more than simply "religious freedom".

Please take a moment to read up (non-islamic source), note that I said "secularism as a philosophical program".
http://atheism.about.com/od/seculari...larization.htm

I'd also recommend reading Prof. Syed Naquib Al Attas's book "Islam And Secularism"
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/684492.Syed_Muhammad_Naquib_al_Attas
------
Also one can youtube "the impact of secular media worldviews" to see one of the reasons why i said it to be terrifying. The video was made by christians who perhaps share a similar worry.

Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Words mean exactly what we mean when we use them. There is no such thing as an objectively correct definition of a word. Every word is made-up.
So if someone says that they reject Islam because "Islam is racist against blacks.", based on his understanding from what he read somewhere. You would agree that what he is rejecting is really Islam?
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-17-2013, 06:21 PM
Originally Posted by Hulk
No, there are no "multiple meanings" of it but rather what someone might think it means. I did not "conjure" whatever it is you are imagining. I merely stated my opinion secularism as a philosophical program and mentioned that "secularism" and a "secular government" are not necessarily the same. So please calm down.
I did not mean to cause an argument!

Hulk is right that secularism and a secular government do not necessarily go hand and hand. A government may not be based on any religious principles and yet society could still be dominated by religion depending on the amount of political consolidation. But anyway...

By secularism I mean that the public space should not be organized along religious lines. Now, I do not mean that religion should be absent for society. People should have the right to practice their religion (or lack thereof) and part of that means not excluding it from the public space. Just that the ordering principles of the public space should not be decided by any specific religion. In fact, I think it is advantageous for a society to have a healthy amount of religious people. I think the United States benefits from having people from many different religions.

Of course secular could describe someone individually, I am secular myself.
Reply

Abz2000
08-17-2013, 06:59 PM
The original poster has not as of yet accepted that it is his desire that atheism/Godlessness is the only a accepted only way of life in the political sphere and in the social sphere.
That to Muslims IS satanism. We are told throughout the Quran that it is the desire of Satan to divert us from the path of Allah - which makes him an ADVOCATE of the devil, please forgive me if u feel offended by my lack of beating around the bush, it took a lot of knocks and bumps for me to wake up and cut the crap, I have come to the realisation that we are under attack and Obama has proven (even recently) that this is not about "terrorism" and his and his types' lies about "this is not a war against Islam" have been made evident from the recent events in Egypt.

Whereas a Muslim understands that right and wrong are not equal, only people living in an Orwellian fantasy believe them to be so.

The main foundation of secularism is absence of God.
And the term atheist means without God or no God, so to try to sell their satanism as "neutrality" is an insult to our intelligence.

The ideals, aspirations and way of life in Islam are available to everyone alike, there is no hidden agenda or swerving from fundamental rights and duties.
There are no Islamic books that are "top secret" or "only for people with security clearances.

France is a relevant example of how "secularism" (atheism) seeks to remove any faith or even acceptance of God's laws and commands. It is all deceptively done in the name of "neutrality.
Their tremendous schemes and plots are hidden behind the veil of "national security" - making possession of their dossiers a heavily punishable crime for the average citizen or foreigner alike. Their ideals are shaped by racism (preference of ones own tribe over all others regardless of right or wrong).

قالَ ما مَنَعَكَ أَلّا تَسجُدَ إِذ أَمَرتُكَ ۖ قالَ أَنا۠ خَيرٌ مِنهُ خَلَقتَنى مِن نارٍ وَخَلَقتَهُ مِن طينٍ

(Allah) said: \"What prevented thee from prostrating when I commanded thee?\" He said: \"I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay.\"

Quran 7:12

Islam on the other hand differentiates based on one's conduct regardless of which tribe someone belongs to.
There is no "tribesman is given preference to foreigner" just because he happens to live on the other side of a border drawn by men.

Again, to push secularism/atheism/satanism in the name of neutrality is an INSULT to the intelligence of anyone who cares to put down their bottle of intoxicating liquor, wear some decent clothes, turn down the volume blaring lady gaga's degeneratin mind control - and consider.

Also, I noted that the original poster decided to continue with the word "religion" despite being given the meaning of the term used by Muslims which is "deen" (way of life).
Since you're on a board trying to push Muslims to accept atheism as their "way of life", it would be more proper to use the terms that best describe their system of governance and not the utterly confusing, meaningless term that only adds to the confusion already thrown in.

Pharaoh's (who was very "secular") pen does not dictate the way of life to one who accepts God as Creator and Lawmaker. (The two have always and will always clash - and one shall ultimately prevail).
Neither does that of bush, Mubarak, Obama, Blair or Cameron.

وَلَقَد كَتَبنا فِى الزَّبورِ مِن بَعدِ الذِّكرِ أَنَّ الأَرضَ يَرِثُها عِبادِىَ الصّٰلِحونَ

And before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Reminder (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth.\"

إِنَّ فى هٰذا لَبَلٰغًا لِقَومٍ عٰبِدينَ

Verily in this is a Message for people who would (truly) Serve.

Quran 21:104-105

Does anyone wonder why it is always the despots and criminals who have a vested interest in controlling people via outright lies and subjugating them to their own will - who have no huge problem with anything BUT Islam?


Peace be to those who follow the Guidance.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-17-2013, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Hulk
So if someone says that they reject Islam because "Islam is racist against blacks.", based on his understanding from what he read somewhere. You would agree that what he is rejecting is really Islam?
Then he's rejecting something else than what you and I mean by "Islam". Just like you are rejecting something else than Mr. Warrior means by "secularism".
Reply

Snel
08-17-2013, 09:22 PM
Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie
I am posting this here because the forum will not let me post on my introduction thread because I am a newbie, even
though I was the one who started that thread!

This is in response to Signor and Eric H.


Thank, I am glad you have enjoyed reading my post. In regards to the issues I am fighting for I will explain.

I fight for secularism because I do not believe people should be forced to live according to someone else's religious values. This does not mean that I am against people practicing a religion. In fact, I think it is a good thing. I am not religious myself but I've studied some decent works by political scientists on the subject. On of the best is Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" which asserts that it is a good thing for citizens of a country to belong to several different civil society organizations (churches or mosques could be one). By engaging in activities with other citizens they are able to build civil trust and reinforce the sense of community. I also think the United States benefits from having people of many different religious backgrounds because then there are multiple perspectives and points of view which will make the United States stronger.

When I fight for the rights of Muslims, Christians, etc. to be able to practice their religion it is not because I want people to become members of these religions. It is because I believe people should have the right to practice the religion they want to without fear of harassment. In the United States there have been a couple of times when Muslims in a community wanted to build a center and the local population tried to stop them, Murfeesboro was one case. When that happened I wrote letters to the local representatives. I think Muslims should be able to practice freely in Christian countries, and that Christians should practice freely in Muslim countries. Also, from reading the posts on here I know that some people do not like Shia very much and I do not want to offend but I think that Shia should be free to practice and worship in Sunni countries (and of course, Sunni should be free to practice in Shia countries). I guess what I am fighting for is freedom of worship.

I hope that helps explain things.
The practicing of religious freedom is permissible under an Islamic state, the christians and the jews even had their own courts, which muslims definitely don't have today in Europe or in the USA.

Originally Posted by truthseeker63
Secularism is Haram.
Secularism is not just haram, it's kufr. Because, the secularist prefers the opinion of the majority over the opinion of Allah. That's why you can't call yourself a "muslim secularist", it's self-contradictory.
Reply

tearose
08-17-2013, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Then he's rejecting something else than what you and I mean by "Islam". Just like you are rejecting something else than Mr. Warrior means by "secularism".
No, Islam has an intrinsic meaning because Allah subhanahu wa taala has prescribed it for us as our religion and revealed how we should be Muslims. So we cannot give it any other meaning, that would be intrinsically false.

As for other words, the meaning of some words may change over time, but there has to be a shared understanding and general acceptance of what the meaning is otherwise communication would be impossible. A few words may be subject to various interpretations but there has to be a cored shared meaning and the person using them should make clear what their interpretation is.
Reply

sister herb
08-17-2013, 09:33 PM
Originally Posted by Snel
The practicing of religious freedom is permissible under an Islamic state, the christians and the jews even had their own courts, which muslims definitely don't have today in Europe or in the USA.
Salam alaykum

That´s great, but what about rights of other religions in islamic state? This matter might interest those whose are looking for full freedom of practice they religion (or not to practise any).
Reply

Snel
08-17-2013, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by sister herb
Salam alaykum

That´s great, but what about rights of other religions in islamic state? This matter might interest those whose are looking for full freedom of practice they religion (or not to practise any).
To be honest, I don't know the exact details of how the relation between Islam and other religions was built to allow such a thing as non-Islamic courts. I can only imagine it being a complex but still practical solution, so I'm going to leave that to somebody more knowledgeable than me to explain.
Reply

Hulk
08-17-2013, 10:04 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Words mean exactly what we mean when we use them. There is no such thing as an objectively correct definition of a word. Every word is made-up.
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Then he's rejecting something else than what you and I mean by "Islam". Just like you are rejecting something else than Mr. Warrior means by "secularism".

I hope that you will take some time to think about what you are saying. I think it's quite clear that you jumped the gun at assuming I was trying to make an argument against Warrior based on what he wrote. It's unfortunate that you assumed what I meant while he on the other hand asked me to clarify which was what you were accusing me of not doing.


Now you are saying that there is no such thing as a true meaning of a word and that it means whatever we think it means. It seems you're even willing to say that there are even multiple Islams. I'm not sure whether you really believe it or you're just trying to avoid admitting your mistake.
-------

Reply

Abz2000
08-17-2013, 10:28 PM
The U.S government system has been used as an example more than once here, i think it fit to break down what I believe it to be in essence and you may correct me if I'm wrong, there is a presumption included but not without substance. Here's an example (aside from it's obvious actions) of why one may come to the understanding that it is a harbinger of the anti-Christ, Christ being the one who ushers in the kingdom and rule of God, and the AntiChrist being opposed in essence to submission to such authority, we'll begin with descriptions of terms and topics which form the basis of this thread:

sec·u·lar *(sky-lr)
adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.
n.
1. A member of the secular clergy.
2. A layperson.
[Middle English, from Old French seculer, from Late Latin saeculris, from Latin, of an age, from saeculum, generation, age.]
secu·lar·ly adv.

--------

forms saecla, saeclorum etc. were normal alternatives to the more common saecula etc.

However on the same page, The proponents of separating secular from seclorum argue that:
The word seclorum does not mean "secular", as one might assume, but is the genitive (possessive) plural form of the word saeculum, meaning (in this context) generation, century, or age. (despite admitting that the term secular also has the same meaning) Saeculum did come to mean "age, world" in late, Christian Latin, and "secular" is derived from it, through secularis. However, the adjective "secularis," meaning "worldly," is not equivalent to the genitive plural "seclorum," meaning "of the ages."

So we can see that the root term describes "rejecting the presence or acknowledgement of God in an act, and an age in contrast to an age/age to age/of the ages
Therefore Both seclorum and secular are derived from the same root term.

Ok, let's look at the term "kafir":

Kafir is an Arabic word literally meaning "ingrate." In the Islamic doctrinal sense the term refers to a person who does not recognize God (rejects God) or the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad and hides, denies, or covers the truth. It is usually translated into English as "infidel" or "disbeliever."

The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R "to cover". As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting. Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning "a person who hides or covers". In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects faith, i.e. "hides or covers [viz., the truth]".

Ok, so we see a clear similarity in both definitions "secular" and "kafir" : in that they both are based on rejecting the Rule or even Presence of God.

Now we will look at a Hadith which was penned down long before the united states of america existed or the great seal of the united states was made:


Imam Ali was reported to have said:
His right eye will be punctured, and his left eye would be raised to his forehead and will be sparkling like a star. Only the believers will be able to read the word ‘Kafir’ [disbeliever], inscribed in bold letters, on his forehead. There will be big mountains of smoke at both front and backsides of his caravan. People will anticipate food within those mountains, during the severe famine. All rivers, falling in his way, will become dry and he will call upon people in aloud voice, "O my friends come to me! I am your lord who has made your limbs and given you sustenance.[10]

you will notice an elevated left eye shining brightly with the word "seclorum" inscribed in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, the eye is called the "eye of providence" (something to do with sustenance i'd presume, maybe just a coincidence, but an amazing one with a very very low probability score:
(It's also visible on the dollar bill).


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:..._(reverse).svg

Above the eye it says: "He approves of the undertakings" or "He has approved of the undertakings"
The only animate item visible describing "he" is a left eye.

Let's se who they claim it is:

Annuit Cœptis is translated by the U.S. State Department,[7] The U.S. Mint,[8] and the U.S. Treasury[9] as,
"He [God] has favored our undertakings" (brackets in original).
However, the original Latin does not explicitly state who (or what) is the subject of the sentence.

However:

Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger said: There is never a prophet who has not warned the Ummah of that one-eyed liar; behold he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. On his forehead are the letters k. f. r. (Kafir).

Or instead of ka fa ra, the term kafara means "he disbelieved/rejected".
And in Islamic terms, disbelieved/rejected God.

So in my personal opinion, using the U.S governance system as an example only proves the dichotomy.

Peace.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-17-2013, 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by tearose
No, Islam has an intrinsic meaning because Allah subhanahu wa taala has prescribed it for us as our religion and revealed how we should be Muslims. So we cannot give it any other meaning, that would be intrinsically false.

As for other words, the meaning of some words may change over time, but there has to be a shared understanding and general acceptance of what the meaning is otherwise communication would be impossible. A few words may be subject to various interpretations but there has to be a cored shared meaning and the person using them should make clear what their interpretation is.
Originally Posted by Hulk
I hope that you will take some time to think about what you are saying. I think it's quite clear that you jumped the gun at assuming I was trying to make an argument against Warrior based on what he wrote. It's unfortunate that you assumed what I meant while he on the other hand asked me to clarify which was what you were accusing me of not doing.

Now you are saying that there is no such thing as a true meaning of a word and that it means whatever we think it means. It seems you're even willing to say that there are even multiple Islams. I'm not sure whether you really believe it or you're just trying to avoid admitting your mistake.
However, not everyone who self-identifies as a Muslim agrees on what true Islam is, so yes, it's still just a word that means what we use it to mean. The way language works doesn't change simply because God uses human language to communicate with us. So there are indeed "multiple Islams" in the sense of different things different people mean by the word, even if there's only one true religion.


As for the whole topic, can we let Mr Warrior choose for himself what kind of secularist he is?
Reply

Abz2000
08-17-2013, 11:09 PM
To be honest, I don't know the exact details of how the relation between Islam and other religions was built to allow such a thing as non-Islamic courts. I can only imagine it being a complex but still practical solution, so I'm going to leave that to somebody more knowledgeable than me to explain.
I'm not more knowledgable and won't pretend to know how, but the justification for "why" is to be found here:

وَليَحكُم أَهلُ الإِنجيلِ بِما أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فيهِ ۚ وَمَن لَم يَحكُم بِما أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الفٰسِقونَ

Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

وَأَنزَلنا إِلَيكَ الكِتٰبَ بِالحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِما بَينَ يَدَيهِ مِنَ الكِتٰبِ وَمُهَيمِنًا عَلَيهِ ۖ فَاحكُم بَينَهُم بِما أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ ۖ وَلا تَتَّبِع أَهواءَهُم عَمّا جاءَكَ مِنَ الحَقِّ ۚ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلنا مِنكُم شِرعَةً وَمِنهاجًا ۚ وَلَو شاءَ اللَّهُ لَجَعَلَكُم أُمَّةً وٰحِدَةً وَلٰكِن لِيَبلُوَكُم فى ما ءاتىٰكُم ۖ فَاستَبِقُوا الخَيرٰتِ ۚ إِلَى اللَّهِ مَرجِعُكُم جَميعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُم بِما كُنتُم فيهِ تَختَلِفون

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

Quran 5:47-48
Reply

Abz2000
08-17-2013, 11:16 PM
As for the whole topic, can we let Mr Warrior choose for himself what kind of secularist he is?
.

Lol, as the market gives way to the supermarket, the shelves have more to pick and choose from when you go "shopping" and you can even design your own recipe throw everything in the shop in and still call it what u like, screw trademarks and brand names!

Gee, talk about calling a spade a spade.........

I used to love Anthony Buckeridge's books about the escapades of Jennings when I was a kid, here's one that I recall quite vividly, especially the part where he tries to explain to his classmate what the club was about.....

Especially Jennings!
by Anthony Buckeridge

It was the little plastic badges given away with the packets of Krunchie-Whispie cornflakes that sparked off the idea of the Jennings Membership Club - a group whose aims were such a closely-guarded secret that nobody (including the members) could find out what the club was really for!
First published in 1965 by Collins.


...And I just googled "gospel according to"
And got these results:

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene - The Gnosis Archive

Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal ...

The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964) - IMDb

The Gospel According to David Cameron


The Gospel According to 'Me' - NYTimes.com
mobile.nytimes.com/.../the-gospel-accord...

The Gospel According to Jesus Christ - Wikipedia, the free ...

The Gospel According to the Meninblack - Wikipedia, the free ...

The Gospel According to Peanuts: Amazon.co.uk: Robert L ...

.....I'm sure yu'll appreciate the diversity of opinion.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 01:23 AM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
However, not everyone who self-identifies as a Muslim agrees on what true Islam is, so yes, it's still just a word that means what we use it to mean. The way language works doesn't change simply because God uses human language to communicate with us. So there are indeed "multiple Islams" in the sense of different things different people mean by the word, even if there's only one true religion.


As for the whole topic, can we let Mr Warrior choose for himself what kind of secularist he is?
Hello Futuwwa,

Thank you for helping to try to explain my position. I did not mean to cause a length disagreement between you and Hulk, especially since it appears to be about minute details. But yes, there are many different versions of things and many different interpretations.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 01:32 AM
Originally Posted by sister herb
Interesting discussion. I hope it doesn´t end to kind of comments like "this and that is haram".

Is this what you mean about word "secularism?



If yes, then you fight for freedom of think and believe freely, by the other words; for some very basic rights of humanity.

Nice to meet you, pal, I think I fight for the same basic rights too (but I don´t call it as secularism ;D ).
Hello, it is nice to meet you as well! You seem to have a very sensible view of things.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
The original poster has not as of yet accepted that it is his desire that atheism/Godlessness is the only a accepted only way of life in the political sphere and in the social sphere.
Abz2000, What proof (other than your confused, rambling posts) do you offer that it is my desire that atheism/Godlessness be the only accepted way of life in the political sphere and the social sphere? In the political sphere, I suppose you could say so. I want public policy to be based on interest aggregation along with particular restraints placed on government action (including non establishment of a state religion). However, in the social sphere I have no problem with religion. In fact, when some narrow minded fools wanted to prevent the Muslim community of Murfeesboro, Tennessee from building a community center I wrote letters to local leaders stressing that they must have the right to build a place of worship. As I have repeatedly stated, I think it is a good thing to have many religious people in civil society and particularly of different religions.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
The U.S government system has been used as an example more than once here, i think it fit to break down what I believe it to be in essence and you may correct me if I'm wrong, there is a presumption included but not without substance. Here's an example (aside from it's obvious actions) of why one may come to the understanding that it is a harbinger of the anti-Christ, Christ being the one who ushers in the kingdom and rule of God, and the AntiChrist being opposed in essence to submission to such authority
You have now just reduced yourself to the intellectual level of people like Glenn Beck. Thank you for your long, rambling, and utterly confused rants Abz2000. It is amusing to see the massive constraints your logic is laboring under.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by Snel
The practicing of religious freedom is permissible under an Islamic state, the christians and the jews even had their own courts, which muslims definitely don't have today in Europe or in the USA. However, you mentioned the Shia. They are very different from the christians and the jews since they label themselves as muslims. That is a big issue becuase the shia have justified countless of crimes against the muslims and Islam. Some of them are: The killing and torturing of muslims (look at Syria), shirk (The worst crime in Islam that is obvious kufr), allowing prostitution (mutaa), calling Omar, Abu Bakr, Aisha disbelievers, hiding their true Shia beliefs through lies (Taqyya) and so on and so forth... The list goes on, this is a war from within (internally) and even externally through attacks and expansions. They are obvious disbelievers that are calling themselves "the true Muslims", so they are corrupting the message of the Prophet Muhammad by stealing the identity of Islam and killing muslims. The western society can give them religious freedom because it's immune to that type of virus. But for us muslims they remain our enemies.
But surely you can't think that most Shia mean you harm. Surely most Shia are like most Sunni, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. They just want to live their lives, spend time with their beloved spouse, raise their children, and be happy. And all Shia can't be blamed for the actions of some. Some Sunni have brutally oppressed Shia (Saddam in Iraq for example), but their actions are not representative of all Sunni. I imagine there are Shia who say such things about Sunni.

We are only on this planet for a short time. There is no way to know for sure where we will go when we die if we go anywhere. Doesn't it make sense for us to just accept that we are all different?
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
Imam Ali was reported to have said:
His right eye will be punctured, and his left eye would be raised to his forehead and will be sparkling like a star. Only the believers will be able to read the word ‘Kafir’ [disbeliever], inscribed in bold letters, on his forehead. There will be big mountains of smoke at both front and backsides of his caravan. People will anticipate food within those mountains, during the severe famine. All rivers, falling in his way, will become dry and he will call upon people in aloud voice, "O my friends come to me! I am your lord who has made your limbs and given you sustenance.[10]

you will notice an elevated left eye shining brightly with the word "seclorum" inscribed in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, the eye is called the "eye of providence" (something to do with sustenance i'd presume, maybe just a coincidence, but an amazing one with a very very low probability score:
(It's also visible on the dollar bill).



Above the eye it says: "He approves of the undertakings" or "He has approved of the undertakings"
The only animate item visible describing "he" is a left eye.

Let's se who they claim it is:

Annuit Cœptis is translated by the U.S. State Department,[7] The U.S. Mint,[8] and the U.S. Treasury[9] as,
"He [God] has favored our undertakings" (brackets in original).
However, the original Latin does not explicitly state who (or what) is the subject of the sentence.

However:

Anas b. Malik reported that Allah's Messenger said: There is never a prophet who has not warned the Ummah of that one-eyed liar; behold he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. On his forehead are the letters k. f. r. (Kafir).

Or instead of ka fa ra, the term kafara means "he disbelieved/rejected".
And in Islamic terms, disbelieved/rejected God.

So in my personal opinion, using the U.S governance system as an example only proves the dichotomy.

Peace.
What precisely is the dichotomy that you have "proven" ???
Reply

جوري
08-18-2013, 05:51 AM
Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie
But surely you can't think that most Shia mean you harm.
What does this have to do with Islamic courts or sharia etc.? They've their own way of dealing with things it is their prerogative but I am not sure why you're taking a judicial matter and turning it into a personal matter?
Reply

Abz2000
08-18-2013, 06:47 AM
:) I'm having to type on a phone as I don't have internet on the computer at home, my posts do tend to come out haphazard since I can't see what I've written in the previous sentence, let alone paragraph, something I notice myself even b4 I hit send :)

I don't really care wot intellectual level u think I reduce myself to, it's irrelevant. I just gotta say what I can, and do wot I can, and try and get off this planet with a decent retirement plan nice and simple :)

if someone told you they saw the Antichrist with their own eyes u wouldn't believe them anyway- because you don't believe he can exist, because you are an atheist pushing the doctrine of atheism (Godlessness) as the only unanimously accepted way of life. The Hadith is "nonsense" to you because in your broad mind, God doesnt exist and obviously someone that diesnt exist can't have sent prophets, and they in turn cant have seen future events.
you probably even believe your ancestors were apes and stuff. That's an intellectual stretch to justify the infidelity and denial some like to cling to.

Ummm, the dichotomy?
Two totally opposite polarised ways of life which never co-exist peacefully and always come into huge friction, under one political system - run by the side who rejects and those who agree to disobey God.
Actually an oval dichotomy.


قَد كانَت لَكُم أُسوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ فى إِبرٰهيمَ وَالَّذينَ مَعَهُ إِذ قالوا لِقَومِهِم إِنّا بُرَءٰؤُا۟ مِنكُم وَمِمّا تَعبُدونَ مِن دونِ اللَّهِ كَفَرنا بِكُم وَبَدا بَينَنا وَبَينَكُمُ العَدٰوَةُ وَالبَغضاءُ أَبَدًا حَتّىٰ تُؤمِنوا بِاللَّهِ وَحدَهُ إِلّا قَولَ إِبرٰهيمَ لِأَبيهِ لَأَستَغفِرَنَّ لَكَ وَما أَملِكُ لَكَ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِن شَيءٍ ۖ رَبَّنا عَلَيكَ تَوَكَّلنا وَإِلَيكَ أَنَبنا وَإِلَيكَ المَصيرُ

There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: \
"We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone\":
But not when Abraham said to his father: \"I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah.\" (They prayed): \"Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.
Quran 60:4

That man (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was the furthest from secular.
He just bust the idols and told them there's only one God.
And some people hated him :)
And God took him for a friend :)
He was always a wanderer.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-18-2013, 11:42 AM
Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie
You have now just reduced yourself to the intellectual level of people like Glenn Beck. Thank you for your long, rambling, and utterly confused rants Abz2000. It is amusing to see the massive constraints your logic is laboring under.
You'll be amazed to find out how widespread conspiracy theory adherence is among Muslims nowadays.
Reply

faithandpeace
08-18-2013, 12:07 PM
Too often governments and entities claiming to be secular go far beyond "separation of church and state" to promoting the total erasure of religion from public life and attempting to replace personal religion with political ideology or corporate philosophy. There is a reason that the most attacked aspect of Islam that is targeted by secular governments and entities is the hijab. We Muslims can do our salat and wudu in private if we need to. We cannot hide our hijabs. Furthermore, secular culture insists on neutrality on the personal level. They don't want you to have dietary practices that limit corporate-driven consumption, times that you spend in prayer and study as opposed to watching intellectually deadening dumbed down television shows and sensory-driven
commercials, and they certainly don't want individuals forming community based on cooperation and executing righteous values as opposed to being divided and conquered, in fear, competing, and fighting over the dollar bill.

It is real simple. Secularists are in particular at war with Islam. They fear Islam because deep down they know it is the truth.
Reply

Abz2000
08-18-2013, 02:43 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
conspiracy theory
only a theory when western lamestream media says so no doubt, otherwise all other events are conspiracies, including legitimate elections in the face of stiff conspiracies and plots.
this is amazing, some of us are so into labels that we forget the meaning of terms.

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)n. pl. con·spir·a·cies1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.



i'm sure you saw how they attacked Julian Assange and Edward Snowden for exposing their vast conspiracies, and if the wmd deception wasn't a conspiracy of the highest magnitude leading to the mass murder of millions worldwide, i don't know what was.

It is actually a requirement of Islam to believe in the fact that "conspiracies" exist:


There were in the city nine men of a family, who made mischief in the land, and would not reform.


They said: "Swear a mutual oath by Allah that we shall make a secret night attack on him and his people, and that we shall then say to his heir (when he seeks vengeance): 'We were not present at the slaughter of his people, and we are positively telling the truth.'"


They plotted and planned, but We too planned, even while they perceived it not.


Then see what was the end of their plot!- this, that We destroyed them and their people, all (of them).

Quran 27:48-51

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.


يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَلَا يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَهُوَ مَعَهُمْ إِذْ يُبَيِّتُونَ مَا لَا يَرْضَىٰ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ مُحِيطًا

They seek to hide them selves from people, but they cannot hide from Allah, while He is with them when they plot by night, in words that He cannot approve: And Allah Doth compass round all that they do.

Quran 4:108

وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَا فِي كُلِّ قَرْيَةٍ أَكَابِرَ مُجْرِمِيهَا لِيَمْكُرُوا فِيهَا ۖ وَمَا يَمْكُرُونَ إِلَّا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ

Thus have We placed leaders in every town, its wicked men, to plot (and burrow) therein: but they only plot against their own souls, and they perceive it not.
Reply

Pygoscelis
08-18-2013, 03:23 PM
Secularism as I understand it is the separation of church and state. That is what I support. I support the freedom of religion and I support the freedom from religion (ie, your religion should not control me). And I strongly believe that to have the freedom of religion you need the freedom from religion. If we force you to adhere to Catholic practices, you won't be able to practice Islam. I strongly believe that we should all be entitled to practice whatever religion we want, or practice no religion, so long as that practice does not infringe upon others.

I really don't see how anybody can fairly object to that.
Reply

Pygoscelis
08-18-2013, 03:27 PM
Originally Posted by faithandpeace
Too often governments and entities claiming to be secular go far beyond "separation of church and state" to promoting the total erasure of religion from public life and attempting to replace personal religion with political ideology or corporate philosophy. There is a reason that the most attacked aspect of Islam that is targeted by secular governments and entities is the hijab. We Muslims can do our salat and wudu in private if we need to. We cannot hide our hijabs. Furthermore, secular culture insists on neutrality on the personal level. They don't want you to have dietary practices that limit corporate-driven consumption, times that you spend in prayer and study as opposed to watching intellectually deadening dumbed down television shows and sensory-driven
commercials, and they certainly don't want individuals forming community based on cooperation and executing righteous values as opposed to being divided and conquered, in fear, competing, and fighting over the dollar bill.
I agree with you on this, to some extent. Women, Men, Everybody should be entitled to wear whatever they want, barring legitimate security reasons otherwise. But I have to ask you if you would extend this same rule in all directions or if your concern is only for muslimas. Would you, for example, be ok with nudists (assuming for the moment that sanitary concerns were not a factor). I suspect that most muslims would view nudists the same way the people you complain of (and I agree with your complaint) complain of burkas.

It is real simple. Secularists are in particular at war with Islam. They fear Islam because deep down they know it is the truth.
No. They fear Islam because they have cultural values that conflict with what they (if unfairly) believe Islam to be. And because the western media has painted Islam as violent and oppressive, and those who listen only to Fox News buy into that.
Reply

Abz2000
08-18-2013, 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Secularism as I understand it is the separation of church and state.
now we're getting there, the western media often prey upon the ignorance of the general public by using terms like that hoping people won't be able to differentiate between the church - and the complete system of governance and application of laws that is required in Islam. let's not fall for such deception and ask them what they mean first, coz one will usually find that they don't know what they mean themselves,

i was once incarcerated and before my hearing, some fat ugly woman came and asked me loads of questions, when she got to: what is your view on fundamentalists?
i asked her what she meant by the term fundamentalist, she looked like she was straining her brain and then said: it's ok, leave it.

stupid cow.

These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever).
They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!
Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!
Quran 53:23


peace,
abz
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by جوري
What does this have to do with Islamic courts or sharia etc.? They've their own way of dealing with things it is their prerogative but I am not sure why you're taking a judicial matter and turning it into a personal matter?
I'm not turning it into a personal matter. I'm addressing the comments Snel made concerning Shia. He said the follow, "They are very different from the christians and the jews since they label themselves as muslims. That is a big issue becuase the shia have justified countless of crimes against the muslims and Islam. Some of them are: The killing and torturing of muslims (look at Syria), shirk (The worst crime in Islam that is obvious kufr), allowing prostitution (mutaa), calling Omar, Abu Bakr, Aisha disbelievers, hiding their true Shia beliefs through lies (Taqyya) and so on and so forth... The list goes on, this is a war from within (internally) and even externally through attacks and expansions. They are obvious disbelievers that are calling themselves "the true Muslims", so they are corrupting the message of the Prophet Muhammad by stealing the identity of Islam and killing muslims. The western society can give them religious freedom because it's immune to that type of virus. But for us muslims they remain our enemies."

I was just trying to point out that while some Sunni may think that they are the real Muslims and that the Shia are disbelievers that call themselves Muslims, shouldn't he consider that some Shia may think similar things about the Sunni. Are both not Muslims, just with different ways of interpreting Islam? Snel said that the Shia seek external expansion and internal war. But I imagine the Shia feel that it is the Sunni who are doing this.

Why can't these two different versions of Islam simply recognize that the other are Muslims (just with a different interpretation) and that most Sunni and most Shia just want to live their lives in peace?
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 06:15 PM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
You'll be amazed to find out how widespread conspiracy theory adherence is among Muslims nowadays.
Hello Futuawwa!

Well, Muslims are not alone in believing such nonsense. In the United States there are many Christians who believe nonsense as well. In the past two months I've had two Christians try to convince me that the Muslim Brotherhood controls the Obama Administration!!!! The problem is that actually doing formal study into politics is too difficult for these people. Instead they use their ameteurish knowledge to try to understand politics but without anyway reference as to how to conduct research they are often out of touch with reality. It is like people who search for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. If they really wanted to discover a new species they could get a biology degree and go the Amazon. There are numerous species that have not been discovered yet. They are discovering new species all the time. But real research bores them. So instead they look for the Loch Ness.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I agree with you on this, to some extent. Women, Men, Everybody should be entitled to wear whatever they want, barring legitimate security reasons otherwise. But I have to ask you if you would extend this same rule in all directions or if your concern is only for muslimas. Would you, for example, be ok with nudists (assuming for the moment that sanitary concerns were not a factor). I suspect that most muslims would view nudists the same way the people you complain of (and I agree with your complaint) complain of burkas.

It is real simple. Secularists are in particular at war with Islam. They fear Islam because deep down they know it is the truth.
No. They fear Islam because they have cultural values that conflict with what they (if unfairly) believe Islam to be. And because the western media has painted Islam as violent and oppressive, and those who listen only to Fox News buy into that.
Yes Pygocelis, I agree. Women should have the right to wear the hijab. It is wrong to deny them that. They should be allowed to choose.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by faithandpeace
It is real simple. Secularists are in particular at war with Islam. They fear Islam because deep down they know it is the truth.
I neither fear Islam, nor do I think it is the truth. I hear Christians in the United States say the same thing about secular people.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
if someone told you they saw the Antichrist with their own eyes u wouldn't believe them anyway- because you don't believe he can exist, because you are an atheist pushing the doctrine of atheism (Godlessness) as the only unanimously accepted way of life. The Hadith is "nonsense" to you because in your broad mind, God doesnt exist and obviously someone that diesnt exist can't have sent prophets, and they in turn cant have seen future events.
you probably even believe your ancestors were apes and stuff. That's an intellectual stretch to justify the infidelity and denial some like to cling to.

Actually an oval dichotomy.
I'm not an atheist. Why do you think that I am an atheist? I believe it is possible God can exist, but I don't know if he exists. And if he does, how can I know which religion is the right one. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus. All of them claim to be right, they all have books and stories and say the others are wrong. How can someone choose between them? I do not believe that atheism is the only unanimously accepted way of life. And I don't think the Hadith is "nonsense" it has as much of a chance at being valid as any other component of a religion.
Reply

sister herb
08-18-2013, 07:24 PM
To me it is just same what you are or what you are not but it sounds like you are some kind of agnostic. Any way, to me you are my brother in humanity, that´s all.

:D
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
now we're getting there, the western media often prey upon the ignorance of the general public by using terms like that hoping people won't be able to differentiate between the church - and the complete system of governance and application of laws that is required in Islam. let's not fall for such deception and ask them what they mean first, coz one will usually find that they don't know what they mean themselves,
Well, I am obligated to fight against such a system that you describe. You may believe that means I am fighting against Islam, but that is just your interpretation. Anyone who wants to live as a Muslim, to pray, to read the Quran, or wear hijab should be free to do so. But anyone who wishes to dominate society with their religion as you seem to be proposing is someone I must stop because I am swore to fight on behalf of my one true love. She would never yield to idiots who would force on her a lifestyle based off their own flawed understandings of their religion.
Reply

Abz2000
08-18-2013, 09:33 PM
Well, I am obligated to fight against such a system that you describe. You may believe that means I am fighting against Islam, but that is just your interpretation. Anyone who wants to live as a Muslim, to pray, to read the Quran, or wear hijab should be free to do so. But anyone who wishes to dominate society with their religion as you seem to be proposing is someone I must stop because I am swore to fight on behalf of my one true love. She would never yield to idiots who would force on her a lifestyle based off their own flawed understandings of their religion.

Lol you just came around to the story of pharaoh and Moses, pharaoh was able to humour Moses with the first two but took exception to the last, you'll have to research the term "rabb" (translated lord) to understand the true significance of the argument (it was his kingdom and ability to legislate on whim at stake):

Said Pharaoh, "And what is the Lord of the worlds?"
26:24
[Moses] said, "The Lord of the heavens and earth and that between them, if you should be convinced."
26:25
[Pharaoh] said to those around him, "Do you not hear?"
26:26
[Moses] said, "Your Lord and the Lord of your first forefathers."
26:27
[Pharaoh] said, "Indeed, your 'messenger' who has been sent to you is mad."
26:28
[Moses] said, "Lord of the east and the west and all that is between them, if you were to reason."
26:29
[Pharaoh] said, "If you take a god other than me, I will surely place you among those imprisoned."


You see, he was able to reluctantly tolerate and humour the idea of "lord of the heavens and earth and everything between and even the existence of God and messengership of Moses (pbuh) ..... Until he realised the suggestion that his "dominion" (narrow minded prick) was about to be reclaimed by it's rightful owner and RULER,
But just like pharaoh was irrelevant, your claim of "stopping" God's system being acknowledged and re-instated is akin to a cow trying to jump over the moon.


هُوَ الَّذى أَرسَلَ رَسولَهُ بِالهُدىٰ وَدينِ الحَقِّ لِيُظهِرَهُ عَلَى الدّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَو كَرِهَ المُشرِكونَ

It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the way of life of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all ways of life, even though those who associate others with Godhood may detest (it).
Quran 61:9

Others in your case could mean your atheist leaders, they're just as relevant as pharaoh - fuel for hell.
Dunno y I wasted my time answering you and giving you good advice before, maybe just God's Will.

Peace be to those who follow the guidance.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-18-2013, 10:43 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
But just like pharaoh was irrelevant, your claim of "stopping" God's system being acknowledged and re-instated is akin to a cow trying to jump over the moon.
As I seem to recall there is an American flag on the moon. Is there a Quran on the moon? Maybe the next time you look up at the moon in preparation for Ramadan you should think about that.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-18-2013, 11:24 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
only a theory when western lamestream media says so no doubt, otherwise all other events are conspiracies, including legitimate elections in the face of stiff conspiracies and plots.
this is amazing, some of us are so into labels that we forget the meaning of terms.

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)n. pl. con·spir·a·cies1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Conspiracy, in the sense it is used in conspiracy theories, means a larger group of powerful people or institutions secretly cooperating towards some end. That's what you are claiming when you spout conspiracy theories, so how about defending that rather than moving the goalposts and retreating to a more narrow, easily defensible definition?

Originally Posted by Abz2000
i'm sure you saw how they attacked Julian Assange and Edward Snowden for exposing their vast conspiracies, and if the wmd deception wasn't a conspiracy of the highest magnitude leading to the mass murder of millions worldwide, i don't know what was.
Assange and Snowden didn't expose any conspiracies, just specific cases of governmental misconduct that had been kept hidden. The WMDs weren't a conspiracy, there was never any secret collaboration intended to dupe the public, just a single government that pushed the case. A government that may or may not have believed in it itself, and probably chose to believe in it because it was convenient for it to.

Originally Posted by Abz2000
It is actually a requirement of Islam to believe in the fact that "conspiracies" exist:


There were in the city nine men of a family, who made mischief in the land, and would not reform.


They said: "Swear a mutual oath by Allah that we shall make a secret night attack on him and his people, and that we shall then say to his heir (when he seeks vengeance): 'We were not present at the slaughter of his people, and we are positively telling the truth.'"


They plotted and planned, but We too planned, even while they perceived it not.


Then see what was the end of their plot!- this, that We destroyed them and their people, all (of them).

Quran 27:48-51

And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.


يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ النَّاسِ وَلَا يَسْتَخْفُونَ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَهُوَ مَعَهُمْ إِذْ يُبَيِّتُونَ مَا لَا يَرْضَىٰ مِنَ الْقَوْلِ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ مُحِيطًا

They seek to hide them selves from people, but they cannot hide from Allah, while He is with them when they plot by night, in words that He cannot approve: And Allah Doth compass round all that they do.

Quran 4:108

وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَا فِي كُلِّ قَرْيَةٍ أَكَابِرَ مُجْرِمِيهَا لِيَمْكُرُوا فِيهَا ۖ وَمَا يَمْكُرُونَ إِلَّا بِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ

Thus have We placed leaders in every town, its wicked men, to plot (and burrow) therein: but they only plot against their own souls, and they perceive it not.
Ok, so the Quran says that there was once a specific, described conspiracy. It's quite a leap of logic to get from that to NWO and black helicopters.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-18-2013, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
But just like pharaoh was irrelevant, your claim of "stopping" God's system being acknowledged and re-instated is akin to a cow trying to jump over the moon.
I'm not holding my breath regarding the reinstatement, not if people who keep blowing their horns about it over the internetz are any indication.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-18-2013, 11:38 PM
Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie
Hello Futuawwa!

Well, Muslims are not alone in believing such nonsense. In the United States there are many Christians who believe nonsense as well. In the past two months I've had two Christians try to convince me that the Muslim Brotherhood controls the Obama Administration!!!! The problem is that actually doing formal study into politics is too difficult for these people. Instead they use their ameteurish knowledge to try to understand politics but without anyway reference as to how to conduct research they are often out of touch with reality. It is like people who search for Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster. If they really wanted to discover a new species they could get a biology degree and go the Amazon. There are numerous species that have not been discovered yet. They are discovering new species all the time. But real research bores them. So instead they look for the Loch Ness.
I'm not so sure that's actually what makes people believe in conspiracy theories. I think it has rather to do with apparent holes in conventional explanations. Instead of allowing the conventional explanations some leeway and admitting that there might be perfectly valid reasons that they just don't know about for the discrepancies, they throw out the whole explanation for not being perfect and choose to believe in a conspiracy theory, preferably one that conforms with their earlier biases. Since the theory apparently explains reality better than the conventional explanation, they stick with it, oblivious to the fact that the theory almost always introduces mucn more discrepancies than it actually solves.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-19-2013, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
I'm not so sure that's actually what makes people believe in conspiracy theories. I think it has rather to do with apparent holes in conventional explanations. Instead of allowing the conventional explanations some leeway and admitting that there might be perfectly valid reasons that they just don't know about for the discrepancies, they throw out the whole explanation for not being perfect and choose to believe in a conspiracy theory, preferably one that conforms with their earlier biases. Since the theory apparently explains reality better than the conventional explanation, they stick with it, oblivious to the fact that the theory almost always introduces mucn more discrepancies than it actually solves.
Yes, I think you are right Futuwwa. Their theories seem to explain things better and fit their narrative. A serious study of political science would open their eyes to concepts and explanations they would never have considered, but that would require an investment in time that most do not have.
Reply

sister herb
08-19-2013, 06:07 AM
Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie
As I seem to recall there is an American flag on the moon. Is there a Quran on the moon? Maybe the next time you look up at the moon in preparation for Ramadan you should think about that.
We don´t worship moon, the Quran or the American flag but Allah when we look time when Ramadan will start from the moon. And Allah is everywhere. Also Allah was everywhere before man made his flags.
Reply

glo
08-19-2013, 07:51 AM
Here is a statement from Dr. Muqtedar Khan, a well known Muslim intellectual and an associate professor in the Department of Political Science, and International Relations at the University of Delaware:

"The irony of Muslim existence today; Barring a few exceptions we are safer and live in greater social harmony as minorities in non-Muslim majority states than in Muslim majority countries."

Thoughts?

https://twitter.com/MuqtedarKhan
Reply

Pygoscelis
08-19-2013, 08:34 AM
I think it all comes down to the question of whether or not you see peace, harmony, and co-existence as greater virtues, or righteousness and purity as greater virtues.

Intolerance breeds intolerance. So if you are intolerant of others and make that the norm of the land, then you are going to face intolerance yourself as the in group shrinks smaller and smaller and becomes more and more exclusive.
Reply

Independent
08-19-2013, 08:46 AM
Originally Posted by Futuwwa
Assange and Snowden didn't expose any conspiracies, just specific cases of governmental misconduct that had been kept hidden.
Assange and Snowden both provide excellent evidence that there is no Illuminati etc. There is not one single email or document in all the material they revealed that suggests a conspiracy. What we do see is embarrassing personal remarks about ambassadors and the kind of things people think about each other, but don't normally say to their faces. It is stunning how little the revelations of Assange and Snowden change our understanding of US policy. It turns out that everything was more or less in the open any way.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-19-2013, 09:58 AM
Originally Posted by sister herb
We don´t worship moon, the Quran or the American flag but Allah when we look time when Ramadan will start from the moon. And Allah is everywhere. Also Allah was everywhere before man made his flags.
Yes Sister HErb, you are right. I meant that the moon is looked at for Ramadan's start. I did not mean to suggest that Muslims worship the moon. I apologize if I gave offense. The point I was trying to make to Abz2000 is that while there may be an Allah, and Allah may be everywhere, that does not mean that he is going to intervene in the politics of the Islamic World. Ultimately the Islamic World is going to have to bring about political and social modernization about if they hope not to fall further and further behind the United States and a rising China.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-19-2013, 10:56 AM
Originally Posted by Independent
Assange and Snowden both provide excellent evidence that there is no Illuminati etc. There is not one single email or document in all the material they revealed that suggests a conspiracy. What we do see is embarrassing personal remarks about ambassadors and the kind of things people think about each other, but don't normally say to their faces. It is stunning how little the revelations of Assange and Snowden change our understanding of US policy. It turns out that everything was more or less in the open any way.
I imagine the Illuminati theorists will say that Assange and Snowden were actually plants by the Illuminati to throw us off their trail!
Reply

Independent
08-19-2013, 11:16 AM
Originally Posted by WarriorforMarie
I imagine the Illuminati theorists will say that Assange and Snowden were actually plants by the Illuminati to throw us off their trail!
The beauty of conspiracy theories is that you can claim absolutely anything you want, and change it as often as you want, based on exactly the same piece of evidence.
Reply

aamirsaab
08-19-2013, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by glo
Here is a statement from Dr. Muqtedar Khan, a well known Muslim intellectual and an associate professor in the Department of Political Science, and International Relations at the University of Delaware:

"The irony of Muslim existence today; Barring a few exceptions we are safer and live in greater social harmony as minorities in non-Muslim majority states than in Muslim majority countries."

Thoughts?

https://twitter.com/MuqtedarKhan
I'm in full agreement and I'm sure most Muslims residing in non-Muslim lands are regardless of what they say. Even the most vehement Muslim critics know deep down this is true.
Reply

glo
08-19-2013, 04:03 PM
Thank you for making that statement, aamirsaab. That's good to hear when it sometimes feels like many Muslims complain about the Western societies (which of course are far from perfect in many ways).
Reply

Abz2000
08-19-2013, 04:14 PM
Do you believe that is because Muslims in so called Muslim ands are living under Muslim rule, or because they live under puppets who need to appease the kuffar and loan sharks to stay in power?

The constant meddling in the affairs of Muslims and invasions if they don't listen is a stark indication of why Muslims are actually standing up to the puppets and the puppet drivers, getting called extremists and insurgents in the process, worse still, some who are untouched by the fitnah wonder why they don't just sit there suffering without doing something.

Those who like to be among the kuffar rather than try to help in the establishment of Islam will be with the kuffar on the day of judgement, even the prophet pbuh washed his hands off them.
Let me make it clear to you that the kuffar will not allow you to establish Islam in peace and that those who strive in the effort will have to endure reproach and spite from the kuffar and Munafiqeen alike.

May Allah save me from being among the kuffar and give me the honour to die under an Islamic khilafah or in the process of working towards it.

I'm gonna give this site a break for a while, it seems even the mods are more worried about falling into fitnah than understanding the meaning of freedom and what it requires.

Remember when the kuffar came to the ProPiet pbuh to compromise in service?
We'll serve ('ibaadah) your God and you serve ('ibaadah) ours? He refused.
It is not very different for those happy to live under infidel "gods" who reject the rule of Allah and prescribe rules for them at whim - as long as they compromise and throw you a few tidbits and "freedom to do anything but disobey our laws".


I'll leave you to consider these examples, see if it fits with your style:

Muslim reported another part of this story on the authority of Abu Hurairah [R] — He said: "When the following verses were revealed:

"And warn your tribe (O Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace)) of near kindred." [26:214]
The Messenger of Allâh (Allah bless him and give him peace) called all the people of Quraish; so they gathered and he gave them a general warning. Then he made a particular reference to certain tribes, and said: "O Quraish, rescue yourselves from the Fire; O people of Bani Ka‘b, rescue yourselves from Fire; O Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) , rescue yourself from the Fire, for I have no power to protect you from Allâh in anything except that I would sustain relationship with you." [Muslim 1/114; Bukhari 1/385,2/702]

It was verily a loud suggestive Call stating unequivocally to the closest people that belief in his Message constituted the corner-stone of any future relation between him and them, and that the blood-relation on which the whole Arabian life was based, had ceased to exist in the light of that Divine ultimatum.

Shouting the Truth and the Polytheists’ Reaction

The Prophet’s voice kept reverberating in Makkah until the following verse was revealed:

"Therefore proclaim openly (Allâh’s Message — Islamic Monotheism), that which you are commanded, and turn away from Al-Mushrikûn (polytheists)." [Al-Qur'an 15:94]
He then commenced discrediting the superstitious practices of idolatry, revealing its worthless reality and utter impotence, and giving concrete proofs that idolatry per se or taking it as the media through which an idolater could come in contact with Allâh, is manifest falsehood.

The Makkans, on their part, burst into outrage and disapproval. Muhammad’s (Allah bless him and give him peace) words created a thunderbolt that turned the Makkan time-honoured ideological life upside down. They could ill afford to hear someone attaching to polytheists and idolaters, the description of straying people. They started to rally their resources to settle down the affair, quell the onward marching revolution and deal a pre-emptive strike to its votaries before it devours and crushes down their consecrated traditions and long standing heritage. The Makkans had the deep conviction that denying godship to anyone save Allâh and that belief in the Divine Message and the Hereafter are interpreted in terms of complete compliance and absolute commitment, and this in turn leaves no area at all for them to claim authority over themselves and over their wealth, let alone their subordinates. In short, their arrogated religiously-based supremacy and highhandedness would no longer be in effect; their pleasures would be subordinated to the pleasures of Allâh and His Messenger and lastly they would have to abstain from incurring injustices on those whom they falsely deemed to be weak, and perpetrating dreadful sins in their everyday life. They had already been fully aware of these meanings, that is why their souls would not condescend to accept this ‘disgraceful’ position not out of motives based on dignity and honour but rather because:

"Nay! (Man denies Resurrection and Reckoning. So) he desires to continue committing sins." [Al-Qur'an 75:5]
They had been aware of all these consequences but they could afford to do nothing before an honest truthful man who was the highest example of good manners and human values. They had never known such an example in the history of their folks or grandfathers. What would they do? They were baffled, and they had the right to be so.

Following careful deliberations, they hit upon the only target available, i.e. to contact the Messenger’s uncle, Abu Talib and request him to intervene and advise his nephew to stop his activities. In order to attach a serious and earnest stamp to their demand, they chose to touch the most sensitive area in Arabian life, viz., ancestral pride. They addressed Abu Talib in the following manner: "O Abu Talib! Your nephew curses our gods; finds faults with our way of life, mocks at our religion and degrades our forefathers; either you must stop him, or you must let us get at him. For you are in the same opposition as we are in opposition to him; and we will rid you of him." Abu Talib tried to appease their wrath by giving them a polite reply. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) , however, continued on his way preaching Allâh’s religion and calling men hitherto, heedless of all their desperate attempts and malicious intentions. [Ibn Hisham 1/265]
.....

....
Quraish’s Representative negotiates with the Messenger of Allâh (Allah bless him and give him peace)

Shortly after the conversion of these two powerful heroes, Hamzah bin ‘Abdul-Muttalib and ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab[R] , the clouds of tyranny and oppression started to clear away and the polytheists realized that it was no use meting out torture to the Muslims. They consequently began to direct their campaign to a different course. The authentic records of the biography of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) show that it had occurred to the Makkan leaders to credit Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) with ambition. They, therefore, time and again plied him with temptation. One day some of the important men of Makkah gathered in the enclosure of Al-Ka‘bah, and ‘Utbah bin Rabi‘a, a chief among them, offered to approach the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and contract a bargain with him whereby they give him whatever worldly wealth he asks for, on condition that he keep silent and no longer proclaim his new faith. The people of Quraish endorsed his proposal and requested him to undertake that task. ‘Utbah came closer to Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) and addressed him in the following words:

We have seen no other man of Arabia, who has brought so great a calamity to a nation, as you have done. You have outraged our gods and religion and taxed our forefathers and wise men with impiety and error and created strife amongst us. You have left no stone unturned to estrange the relations with us. If you are doing all this with a view to getting wealth, we will join together to give you greater riches than any Quraishite has possessed. If ambition moves you, we will make you our chief. If you desire kingship we will readily offer you that. If you are under the power of an evil spirit which seems to haunt and dominate you so that you cannot shake off its yoke, then we shall call in skilful physicians to cure you.

"Have you said all?" asked Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace); and then hearing that all had been said, he spoke forth, and said:

"In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Hâ-Mîm.
A revelation from Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
A Book whereof the verses are explained in detail;
— a Qur’ân in Arabic for people who know.
Giving glad tidings and warning.
But most of them turn away, so they listen not.
And they say: Our hearts are under coverings
(screened) from that to which you invite us …" [Al-Qur'an 41: 1-5]

The Messenger of Allâh (Allah bless him and give him peace) went on reciting the Chapter while ‘Utbah sitting and listening attentively with his hand behind his back to support him. When the Messenger reached the verse that required prostration, he immediately prostrated himself. After that, he turned to ‘Utbah saying: "Well Abu Al-Waleed! You have heard my reply, you are now free to do whatever you please." ‘Utbah then retired to his company to apprise them of the Prophet’s attitude. When his compatriots saw him, they swore that he had returned to them with a countenance unlike the one he had before meeting the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) . He immediately communicated to them the details of the talk he gave and the reply he received, and appended saying: "I have never heard words similar to those ones he recited. They definitely relate neither to poetry nor to witchcraft nor do they derive from soothsaying. O people of Quraish! I request you to heed my advice and grant the man full freedom to pursue his goals, in which case you could safely detach yourselves from him. I swear that his words bear a supreme Message. Should the other Arabs rid you of him, they will then spare you the trouble, on the other hand if he accedes to power over the Arabs, then you will bask in his kingship and share him his might." These words of course fell on deaf ears, and did not appeal to the infidels, who jeered at ‘Utbah and claimed that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) had bewitched him. [Ibn Hisham 1/293,294]

http://www.sunnipath.com/library/books/B0033P0009.aspx


Realise that as long as you uphold this way of life firmly, you will be seen as troublemakers by those who have a vested interest in controlling people and hate what Allah has revealed.

Peace, and bye bye.
Abz
Reply

Futuwwa
08-19-2013, 04:58 PM
I'm open to the possibility that there might actually be worldwide conspiracies out there. I'd think, though, that if your goal is to find if there is one, the absolutely worst place to start is: "What if an ineffectual 18th-century Bavarian secret society might actually have survived and turned into an all-powerful cabal of secret overlords?"

Conspiracy theory adherents like to insult those who disbelieve them as duped, brainwashed "sheeple", yet I'm not seeing them being much different. When was the last time you heard an original thought from one? No, it's the same old conspiracies being recycled and propagated back and forth within the conspiracy theorist community, updated from time to time to retroactively account for recent world events. A flock of sheep if there ever was one.

Also, NNWO
Reply

Abz2000
08-19-2013, 05:42 PM
Reply

Independent
08-19-2013, 06:05 PM
The irony about the appeal to tradition that Abz makes - this idea of getting back to the original spirit of Islam - is that the first 100 years of Islam simply cannot have been anything like the world he now seeks.

Who knows exactly what it was like all those centuries ago. But when Muslims first conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt etc they were in a tiny minority, and that tells us something about how they must have lived.

One thing is for certain. It's impossible that they could have treated the overwhelmingly Christian populations they ruled over with the contempt and disgust that Abz shows today.
Reply

WarriorforMarie
08-19-2013, 06:35 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
Those who like to be among the kuffar rather than try to help in the establishment of Islam will be with the kuffar on the day of judgement, even the prophet pbuh washed his hands off them.
Does it make your blood boil that there are Muslims that do not agree with you? In my experience, the insecure harbor the greatest anger not for those who are different from them, but who are almost the same except for some differences.

Originally Posted by Abz2000
I'm gonna give this site a break for a while
;D;D;D Please message me you email so that while you give this board a break you will at least not be giving me a break. My intuition is that you are having doubts about your opinions and that is why you are fleeing from the board.
Reply

Abz2000
08-19-2013, 07:34 PM
I have no reason to flee, I just prefer to leave ignorant diversions from what is at stake with noble dignity, especially when I see people unable to support their position and divert issues to childish assertions like "jealousy" for something there is no reason to be jealous about. And I would definitely decline your request for any of my emails since from my experience, you have no intention to learn anything, just to troll and create disputes about unnecessary issues - when Muslims are dying and in need of our support and collective agreement on the way forward.

Futuwwa, I prefer not to have to go back to level one but you make it essential to respond to your labels and misconstructions.
I have often found you resorting to "scary labels" like "conspiracy theory community" etc which is an old ploy used by lamestream media in order to make people fear to agree with certain topics out of fear of being mis-labelled or bundled with a group to which they don't belong. The resultant effect is that people tend to dismiss often
valid concerns as "those crazy ideas" without looking at the facts.

Let me make it clear to you, it is not just one administration or a "regrettable mistake" on he part of the u.s government, it's standard practice of a successive group which continuously wields massive influence on American policy, these people get away with murdering heads of state when things don't go as they plan. The MAJORITY of American people believe the government is hiding the true events of he Kennedy assasination and u.s documents and statements PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that they are AT LEAST hiding something or more credibly hiding active participation or perversion of te course of the investigation.

Here's a famous "conspiracy" "theory"(ahem) for your digestion:

Operation Northwoods was a series of false flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962, but were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit perceived acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[3] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S.*government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.
Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying: "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al. Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans."
People like assange and Snowden are just mild "problem-reaction-solution" examples the u.s government crucify in order to scare people and edit laws- maybe because their designs are darker than they can afford to have exposed:

Included in the nations the Joint Chiefs suggested as targets for covert attacks were Jamaica and Trinidad-Tobago. Since both were members of the British Commonwealth, the Joint Chiefs hoped that by secretly attacking them and then falsely blaming Cuba, the United States could incite the people of the United Kingdom into supporting a war against Castro.[16] As the U.S. Department of Defense report noted:

Any of the contrived situations described above are inherently, extremely risky in our democratic system in which security can be maintained, after the fact, with very great difficulty. If the decision should be made to set up a contrived situation it should be one in which participation by U.S. personnel is limited only to the most highly trusted covert personnel. This suggests the infeasibility of the use of military units for any aspect of the contrived situation."[16]
You will notice the privacy protection edits being made are not about refraining from spying and Desisting from those crimes, it's about who can access them and what laws should be made to deal with leakers.
They also serve another purpose, a tactic which Orwell described long ago to instill fear of the unknown among the masses: "big brother is watching you" be careful of what you say, censor yourselves out of he idea of open opposition to our schemes, because it's impossible for us to control all of you.
Reply

Futuwwa
08-19-2013, 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by Abz2000
I have no reason to flee, I just prefer to leave ignorant diversions from what is at stake with noble dignity, especially when I see people unable to support their position and divert issues to childish assertions like "jealousy" for something there is no reason to be jealous about. And I would definitely decline your request for any of my emails since from my experience, you have no intention to learn anything, just to troll and create disputes about unnecessary issues - when Muslims are dying and in need of our support and collective agreement on the way forward.
And how, pray tell, are we to reach that collective agreement, and who is at fault for there not being such an agreement?

If the answers are "By everyone starting to agree with Abz" and "Everyone who doesn't agree with Abz", then you're hardly helping.

Originally Posted by Abz2000
Futuwwa, I prefer not to have to go back to level one but you make it essential to respond to your labels and misconstructions.
I have often found you resorting to "scary labels" like "conspiracy theory community" etc which is an old ploy used by lamestream media in order to make people fear to agree with certain topics out of fear of being mis-labelled or bundled with a group to which they don't belong. The resultant effect is that people tend to dismiss often
valid concerns as "those crazy ideas" without looking at the facts.
Whether there's such a ploy by the mainstream media or not is irrelevant. There is such a thing as a conspiracy theorist community, so I'm going to refer to it like that. As much as you accuse me of dirty ploys, the fact remains that my post #56 refuted your post #43, after which you ignored that track. You are the one ignoring facts, not me.

Originally Posted by Abz2000
Let me make it clear to you, it is not just one administration or a "regrettable mistake" on he part of the u.s government, it's standard practice of a successive group which continuously wields massive influence on American policy, these people get away with murdering heads of state when things don't go as they plan. The MAJORITY of American people believe the government is hiding the true events of he Kennedy assasination and u.s documents and statements PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT that they are AT LEAST hiding something or more credibly hiding active participation or perversion of te course of the investigation.
Oooh, the Kennedy assassination, the favourite topic of conspiracy theorists. You are right, though, there was a conspiracy pertaining to the Kennedy assassination. A conspiracy by the KGB to proliferate conspiracy theories in order to undermine the trust of the public in the US government, a purpose for which the KGB falsified evidence of involvement of US governmental agencies in the assassination. Congratulations, conspiracy theorists! You thought you were exposing conspiracies, while in fact you were unwittingly exploited by the KGB in a conspiracy of its own. Who's being sheeple now? ;D

Originally Posted by Abz2000
Here's a famous "conspiracy" "theory"(ahem) for your digestion:
Except that it is not a conspiracy theory. At its height, it was a small conspiracy. It's a planned false flag attack that was shelved, and nobody but the involved knew about until it was declassified much later.

It would be a conspiracy theory, and an indication that the conspiracy theorist community is actually onto something, if it had been able to predict

To later point out that there were indeed conspiracies does not, in any way, shape or form, imply that the current conspiracies you are going on an on about are actually real.

Tell me, when was the last time the superior insight you have into the conspiracies that exist made it possible for you to predict the future course of events? Got any actual predictions from years ago to show that have turned out to be true? Predictions that are actually specific enough that one can evaluate objectively whether they failed or succeeded, and which couldn't be made without "knowledge" of the conspiracies? I.e. not easy, obvious safe bets like "The USA will be involved in a war in the Middle East".
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | International Institute of Entrepreneurship and Professional Development - IIEPD | Truly Halal Humour

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!