erm.. fitrah?

[Uthman]

Cognescenti,

The use of an expression like Islam being a "step-up" from Christianity is going to make a few people uncomfortable.

I agree

Similarly, the term "revert", on its face, seems arrogant and offensive to non-Muslims. Is that really the correct translation of some Arabic word? Perhaps it refers to a return to some natural state, but someone is going to have to explain to me why it isn't offensive.

It is exactly what you said, a return to a natural state. The 'Fitrah' to be exact. Mankind is said to be born in the state of Islam (i.e. submission to Allah) That is what 'revert' refers to. It is not intended to be offensive. The concept of Fitrah is explained in depth here.

:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

We believe every child is born in the state of Fitrah i.e a Muslim. And as you might already know, Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. So maybe you can explain to us why you find it offensive? It's talking about those who come to Islam.

EDIT
lol u got there before me bro :X

Nice article btw, JazakAllah for sharing.

[Ruggedtouch]

We believe every child is born in the state of Fitrah i.e a Muslim. And as you might already know, Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. So maybe you can explain to us why you find it offensive? It's talking about those who come to Islam.

EDIT
lol u got there before me bro :X

Nice article btw, JazakAllah for sharing.

You believe that because it’s part of your dogma, not because there is any demonstrable truth to your claim.

Support your claim with proof that we are implanted with monotheism or any idea of gods at all. Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing). They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

I am not a theist, I am an atheist and your statement that presumes we are implanted with a god spirit requires it to be supported or discarded as mere speculation (and you're entitled to speculation).

[Cognescenti]

Cognescenti,
It is exactly what you said, a return to a natural state. The 'Fitrah' to be exact. Mankind is said to be born in the state of Islam (i.e. submission to Allah) That is what 'revert' refers to. It is not intended to be offensive. The concept of Fitrah is explained in depth here.

:w:

I am willing to admit it isn't intended to cause offence. Good link you posted. Interesting philosphical contrast the author points out between orignal sin and Fitrah. The idea of original sin always bothered me because of its essential air of pessimism, but still, this citation from the monograph is very disquieting:

Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that are maimed (at birth)?’[1]

[1] Ibn Taymiyya Dar‘u Ta‘arud al ‘Aql wa al Naql. Vol. 8, ed. Muhammad Rashad Sa’im. (Riyadh: Jami‘at al-Imam Muhammad ibn Sa‘ud al-Islamiyyah, 1981), Vol. VIII, p. 383 and pp. 444-448.

Ouch. That is WAAAY politically incorrect. I had to look up what the Magians were.

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

[Uthman]

Greetings Ruggedtouch,

You believe that because it’s part of your dogma, not because there is any demonstrable truth to your claim.

I agree, there is no proof.

Support your claim with proof that we are implanted with monotheism or any idea of gods at all.

I cannot.

Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing).

'Seem' being the operative word.

They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith.

I don't see science and faith as opposites.

If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity.

Certainly.

All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

Can you support this claim?

I am not a theist, I am an atheist and your statement that presumes we are implanted with a god spirit requires it to be supported or discarded as mere speculation (and you're entitled to speculation).

To a Muslim, it is supported by evidence from the Qur'an and ahadith. To a non-Muslim, I do not believe it can be proven scientifically unless, like you said a child is placed in the middle of a remote jungle and observed.

Regards

[Cognescenti]

We believe every child is born in the state of Fitrah i.e a Muslim. And as you might already know, Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. So maybe you can explain to us why you find it offensive? It's talking about those who come to Islam.

EDIT
lol u got there before me bro :X

Nice article btw, JazakAllah for sharing.

Are you serious? Can you not see how a non-Muslim might find that offensive? That because he or she grew up in a culture where one of the other great monotheistic religions was dominant, he is less worthy?

Do you think that is fair to Mother Theresa, who dedicated her life selflessly to helping the poor in India (and they didn't have to believe in her religion either)?

[guyabano]

You believe that because it’s part of your dogma, not because there is any demonstrable truth to your claim.

Support your claim with proof that we are implanted with monotheism or any idea of gods at all. Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing). They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

I am not a theist, I am an atheist and your statement that presumes we are implanted with a god spirit requires it to be supported or discarded as mere speculation (and you're entitled to speculation).

Good point

[Uthman]

Greetings Cognescenti,

this citation from the monograph is very disquieting:

Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that are maimed (at birth)?’[1]

[1] Ibn Taymiyya Dar‘u Ta‘arud al ‘Aql wa al Naql. Vol. 8, ed. Muhammad Rashad Sa’im. (Riyadh: Jami‘at al-Imam Muhammad ibn Sa‘ud al-Islamiyyah, 1981), Vol. VIII, p. 383 and pp. 444-448.

Ouch. That is WAAAY politically incorrect. I had to look up what the Magians were.

Again, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was giving a genuine analogy, not trying to cause offence or preach hatred. To do this would have gone against everything he taught and believed in. He would not compare followers of other religions to animals in an attempt to degrade them.

Regards

[Cognescenti]

Greetings Cognescenti,



Again, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was giving a genuine analogy, not trying to cause offence or preach hatred. To do this would have gone against everything he taught and believed in. He would not compare followers of other religions to animals in an attempt to degrade them.

Regards

I didn't take the animal analogy literally. I understood that to be a reference to purity and the natural state. It is really the implication of a descent from a state of purity or naturalness that is offensive. It seems to me, this would lead to a patronizing view of the "Kuffar" among Muslims. That such a view exists among many Muslims I think has been amply demonstrated. According to the link you provided...we are to be forgiven for this unfortunate detour until we can speak for ourselves (around puberty it seems)..but then we are in big trouble.

And if his parents are Jews, they make him a Jew, with respect to his worldly situation; [i.e. with respect to inheritance, etc.] and if Christians, they make him a Christian, with respect to that situation; and if Magians, they make him a Magian, with respect to that situation; his situation is the same as that of his parents until his tongue speaks for him; but if he dies before his attaining to the age when sexual maturity begins to show itself, he dies in a state of conformity to his preceding natural constitution, with which he was created in his mother’s womb.’[8]

I am willing to admit the concept of "redemption" among Christians could also be offensive to non-Christians but, in general, I think the West is over the Manifest Destiny phase.

[Ruggedtouch]

'Seem' being the operative word.

Exploration, experimentation and testing are the hallmarks of science.

I don't see science and faith as opposites.

I prefer to “worship” critical thinking and the scientific methodology. By definition, adhering to these criteria means one must always assiduously test what one believes and support those beliefs in a demonstrable way. Is this corruptible? Sure, everything is. But just like the ideal of a free court of inquiry means all views have equal rights to being aired equates to an open and more tolerant nation, so does having disciplined but questioning statutes should compel people towards a more cooperative society.

Can you support this claim?

Well, we certainly don’t see primitive South American tribal cultures embracing any of the widely followed polytheistic or monotheistic religions. Neither does the Eskimo culture, American Indian, etc., etc. The list goes on.

I am talking about the fundamental practice of asserting a concept. Religion cannot support its assertions-- it relies on exemptions:

"It's spiritual, not part of the natural world"
"It's a mystery"
"It's blashpemy to ask"
"It's a sin"
"It's a test"
"Who are you to question gods will?"
"We?ll never know?"

Science relies on demonstration -- Conjecture, speculation, hypothesis, collection of data, experimentation, repeatability, falsifiability. From the former, we get dogmatic faith that is never corroborated regardless of the claims it makes, mundane or outlandish. From the latter, we get verified knowledge (a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here, I could offer thousands more). If religion cannot pass that same standard, don't blame science.

To a Muslim, it is supported by evidence from the Qur'an and ahadith. To a non-Muslim, I do not believe it can be proven scientifically unless, like you said a child is placed in the middle of a remote jungle and observed.

Regards

I think there's a danger in using what you would wish to be true (and that which does not meet standards of proof), as a vehicle to support your beliefs.

Allow me to speak to the bigger issue.

Big bang, evolution ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered scholars. Faith on the other hand ... well, I think I'll let the more courageous souls here trail blaze that watery path across the sea. When it comes to "evidence of things unseen" ... the examples devolve quickly into personal experience, which, by the way forms the basis of my comments ... but that'll wait.

Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.

We both have our a priori assumptions (everyone does), and though some may accuse me of it, I am not dogmatic in the least! I recognize and in fact trumpet the fluid nature of science, that knowledge grows and changes and tomorrow everything we think we know may get completely re-written. I find that exhilarating, not oppressive. But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.

You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:

You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of chaos, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that seems to have sprung up out of nowhere in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.

Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the belief that it's not needed that there be a "designer".

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

You believe that because it’s part of your dogma, not because there is any demonstrable truth to your claim.

Support your claim with proof that we are implanted with monotheism or any idea of gods at all. Babies seem to be blank slates, devoid of anything but instinct (eat, defecate, sleep, that sort of thing). They also display curiosity and experiment with their environment, so they seem far more in tune with the processes of science as opposed to those of faith. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

I am not a theist, I am an atheist and your statement that presumes we are implanted with a god spirit requires it to be supported or discarded as mere speculation (and you're entitled to speculation).

First off, I wasnt talking to you. He asked an honest question, where did u pop out from? I didnt post here to start a useless debate. I dont know what your ranting on about. Someone asked what it meant to revert and so on, and mentioned why it seemed offensive to him. He asked, we answered. It seems you already had your head filled with pointless ideas. No one said to take our beliefs and shove it down your own throat. Usually its someone else who does it, but you've done an excellent job of it yourself. Spare the thread please.

P.S. There is already a thread on evolution etc. It would be really nice if you'd not derail the thread any further.

Peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Are you serious? Can you not see how a non-Muslim might find that offensive? That because he or she grew up in a culture where one of the other great monotheistic religions was dominant, he is less worthy?

Do you think that is fair to Mother Theresa, who dedicated her life selflessly to helping the poor in India (and they didn't have to believe in her religion either)?

Excuse me but I didnt ask you to start a fight with me. I asked you how you found it offensive so that I may understand. I figured your question was honest and gave u an honest reply. I'm not talking about Mother Theresa and I didnt say anything bad about her. Who am I to judge. You asked and I told you what it meant. If you cant handle it, please do yourself a favor and dont ask.

Peace

[Uthman]

:sl: sister Jazzy,

You are a fiery sister Mashaa'Allah, but this passion can best be utilised in defence, not offence. Your passion is admirable :) and you do give good arguments, but (please do not take this offensibly) sometimes the way you speak to non-muslims can portray a negative impression of Islam. For instance, your comment to Ruggedtouch:

It would be really nice if you'd not derail the thread any further.

I believe (not sure) that this is an example of argumentum ad hominem (I'm not sure whether you are familiar with this). This could have been said in a politer way and we should look to the way Muhammad spoke to non-muslims for guidance on this. Another example is this:

If you cant handle it, please do yourself a favor and dont ask.

Your intentions are good and you mean well which I respect :), but I would just like to request that you speak to non-muslims in a way that will not cause them to be offended, and in doing so you will be practising the Sunnah of our prophet (pbuh)

:w:

Cognescenti and Ruggedtouch,

Thanks for your replies. I will try to respond asap.

Regards

[جوري]

Science relies on demonstration -- Conjecture, speculation, hypothesis, collection of data, experimentation, repeatability, falsifiability. From the former, we get dogmatic faith that is never corroborated regardless of the claims it makes, mundane or outlandish. From the latter, we get verified knowledge (a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here, I could offer thousands more). If religion cannot pass that same standard, don't blame science.

I can't be bothered to answer all of your post bit by bit, however will address only the above portion. Which is inequitable in my eyes to compare --(religion to science ) for what data can you collect, or what experimentation can you conduct for religion to pass those standards that you uphold of science?

One obviously deals with the spiritual side while the other of things more polymerized so to speak... Can you pass these speculation, hypothesis, collection of data, experimentation, repeatability, falsifiability to something like (hope)? Yet one would assume that you as well as billions of others understand and hopefully share in what hope is? The operative word here is in fact a belief. Further I don't know what blame falls on science if religion doesn't pass the same standards? Religion is there to fulfil a spiritual need, and with any luck it will not contradict science, where it fails to be subjected to the same rigorous standards.

I'd beg to differ where you say "mundane and outlandish" I'd ask you to browse the forum, and read the various threads about the Quran and science, and you'll see that one will not stultify the progress of another nor contradict it... religion in fact picks up where science fails to answer simple basic Questions --for instance:what wills glycolysis, krebs cycle, fatty acid synthesis, cori cycle, urea cycle transcription, translation, Gene expression... proteins and neurochmicals to be expressed, just to name a few functions happening in tiny microscopic cell, which most take for granted to run like clock works on their own volition.

where science might explain the biological and physiological steps of such processes, it fails to answer how it came to be or where from in a verifiable or experimental manner-- -- For neither you nor any scientist has willed it to happen.

And I can guarantee that no one here sits and commands their body to take on functions that happen flawlessly all the time on their own volition-- I know you don't think of the act of breathing when you fall asleep yet you hope that either your pneumotactic and apneustic centers in the brain takes over, should you actually through science be aware of their existence but I can guarantee that people only take notice when there is a malfunction, when science fails, not religion!

Most early Muslims, were far more religious and spiritual than the modern Muslims, and I believe with that they have crossed great feats, The Muslim empire experienced a great age of enlightenment during Europe's dark ages. They did so on the account that their religion (Islam) didn't halt scientific progress or contradict it on any account...You wrote an interesting post... but filled to the brim with generalities, and subjective opinion of what religion is or means to its adherents.

peace and have a great weekend everyone

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

:sl:

Grr bro you come up on me like a stalker lol. Well I approached his question with happiness to be honest, thinking it was harmless. Little did I know I'd get a negative reaction. Anyways your always reminding me...lol. JazakAllah Khair.
I didnt think the derail part was bad, I was being honest :X Besides, if people don't realize what they do, they won't learn, which is why I talk like that.

:w:

[Cognescenti]

Excuse me but I didnt ask you to start a fight with me. I asked you how you found it offensive so that I may understand. I figured your question was honest and gave u an honest reply. I'm not talking about Mother Theresa and I didnt say anything bad about her. Who am I to judge. You asked and I told you what it meant. If you cant handle it, please do yourself a favor and dont ask.

Peace

Fight? Who started a fight? Good grief. In 6 lines you accused me of dishonesty, and cowardice...not to mention implying stupidity.

I have never seen Mother Theresa start a fight before. This may be a first. I only mentioned her as an example. Frankly, I can't understand why it would be difficult to understand why a non-Muslim might find the use of "revert" offensive. It seems to say.."I'm right..you're wrong". Perhaps, if you lack the temprement for discussion about theological principles you should let Osman handle it. He was doing a good job of explaining things.

As you say..."Peace"

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Look, u accused me of stuff I didnt even say and your still doing it. Can you please stop for once. Ok I didnt say anything about her starting a fight, where in the world did that come from? I asked you why u found it offensive so I could get a better understanding and so we may come to terms. I didnt starting attacking questions at you.

We believe every child is born in the state of Fitrah i.e a Muslim. And as you might already know, Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. So maybe you can explain to us why you find it offensive? It's talking about those who come to Islam.

Thats all I said to you. Where did I attack you? Please tell me. I answered in a similar way bro Osman did. We said basically the same thing but I get a different response from you than u gave to him. Is it cuz I didnt use smileys for u and u took it otherwise or what? I dont know what you have against me honestly. I answered your question hoping I could help u understand, but unfortunately I got a negative reaction.

Peace..

[جوري]

Frankly, I can't understand why it would be difficult to understand why a non-Muslim might find the use of "revert" offensive.

Do you find terms like gentiles, or born again offensive? If so we'll have to adjust many words in the English language or as used by others on the account that they are not politically correct to one group of another... If you don't find the former two offensive, then I'd have to think it a bit hypocritical --- I can't think of a more innocuous word than revert, considering that the term applies only to people who have embraced Islam and wouldn't affect your life in the least one way or the other....

Gasp-- not the reverts...

[Cognescenti]

Look, u accused me of stuff I didnt even say and your still doing it. Can you please stop for once. Ok I didnt say anything about her starting a fight, where in the world did that come from? I asked you why u found it offensive so I could get a better understanding and so we may come to terms. I didnt starting attacking questions at you.



Thats all I said to you. Where did I attack you? Please tell me. I answered in a similar way bro Osman did. We said basically the same thing but I get a different response from you than u gave to him. Is it cuz I didnt use smileys for u and u took it otherwise or what? I dont know what you have against me honestly. I answered your question hoping I could help u understand, but unfortunately I got a negative reaction.

Peace..

Very well, we may be boring the other posters, but here it is:

Excuse me but I didnt ask you to start a fight with me

..seems a bit hostile to me....accusing me of throwing the first verbal "punch" when I had no such intent

I figured your question was honest and gave u an honest reply

...implying that my question was not honest but more of a set up.

If you cant handle it, please do yourself a favor and dont ask.

....99.9% of web denizens would consider that a hostile repsonse. It sounds like a Jack nicholson line. :)

Clearly, I wasn't the only one who noticed some attitude.:) As they say in basketball...no harm.. no foul.

On the other hand, perhaps something I said pushed your button. I am not criticizing Islam here or anyone's belief and I think I now understand the concept, I am merely saying it is the kind of thing to foster mistrust or anger between people of different beliefs.

[Cognescenti]

Do you find terms like gentiles, or born again offensive? If so we'll have to adjust many words in the English language or as used by others on the account that they are not politically correct to one group of another... If you don't find the former two offensive, then I'd have to think it a bit hypocritical --- I can't think of a more innocuous word than revert, considering that the term applies only to people who have embraced Islam and wouldn't affect your life in the least one way or the other....

Gasp-- not the reverts...

As a matter of fact, I do find the term "gentile" mildly offensive. My old roomate was Jewish. One day he took me to meet a great aunt (or something like that) from New York. After he introduces me she blurts out "are you a Gentile?" He nearly died of embarrassment:D It is anachronistic. I dont think younger Rabbis use the term anymore.

"Born again" is another good example. It was offensive (mildly) because it implies they are moving up the ladder from the witless sinners left behind. It has now become a kind of slur against overly enthusiatic new-found Christians. They are often called "Jesus-freaks" or simply "born-agains".

I also find the bumper sticker..."in case of rapture this car will have no driver"..offensive...implying the reader will have a problem with a driverless car in front of them as he or she will be headed to Hell.

"infidel", "heathen" and "kuffar" are not exactly neutral either.

You say "reverts" only applies to those who have embraced Islam. What then is the implication for those who haven't? What does it imply for those who have not returned to the natural state intended by the Creator? I don't expect you to change anything, just advising you I find it offensive. I am not going to lose any sleep over it but it does give me a vague unease that several hundred million people seem to think they are better than me and the other 3 or 4 billion people in the world. There is the possibilty for mischief there.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

There's a difference between the World Affairs section and the Comparative Religion section. Debates concerning the evidential foundations of a faith belong in the latter.

Thanks.

[جوري]

"infidel", "heathen" and "kuffar" are not exactly neutral either.

You say "reverts" only applies to those who have embraced Islam. What then is the implication for those who haven't? What does it imply for those who have not returned to the natural state intended by the Creator? I don't expect you to change anything, just advising you I find it offensive. I am not going to lose any sleep over it but it does give me a vague unease that several hundred million people seem to think they are better than me and the other 3 or 4 billion people in the world. There is the possibilty for mischief there.

I have no implication whatsoever for those who haven't reverted. I don't go to my bank clerk and say give me my money you kaffir, nor is it a way I introduce my kuffar friends to my family ( I usually go by their given name)-- I wonder why you don't expect change, yet still pose the comments that you do?....

other people' state of belief or disbelief isn't something that I give much thought to or lose lots of sleep over.. save for my dear friends whose state of affairs obviously concerns me by virtue of our friendship... I find it rather paranoid on your part to have a "vague sense of unease" over what other people think... someone somewhere is bound to not like you or to think thoughts that don't appeal to you... do you also worry about that guy too?

[SirZubair]

:sl:
DishDash is one of the reverts mentioned...and Afroz Ali is SirZubair's teacher :p

Yes, DishDash, otherwise known as Sean McNulty. A good friend of mine, allhumdulilah, he is one of a kind.

As for Shaykh Afroz Ali, he is one of the BEST people i know. He is one of the most generous, kindest people around. And an excellent teacher and friend.

May Allah swt keep them both out of harms way.

Thanks for posting this article bro.

As for the convert/revert issue..

"We fail to see Islam as a religion, and in the 20th century, we have a lot of these semantic gymnastics. So we say, for example, we don't convert to Islam, we revert to Islam, without really thinking about what we are saying. You revert, or something reverts back usually to a previous known state unconsciously. So we say, "The child reverted back to his bad habits", so the child isn't conscious of what he's doing or what she's doing. Whereas conversion involves a conscious decision. This person converted to Communism, he or she studied it and then made a conscious decision to embrace it. So I came here and I was doing an interview, and the interviewer said "When did you revert to Islam?", I said "I never reverted to Islam, I converted to Islam, I made a conscious decision to become a Muslim and I didn't unconsciously revert back to a state that's not even known to me." How can you revert back to something you don't know. A person might say "Every newborn is born in a natural Islamic state". That might be true but he or she doesn't know that, isn't conscious of that. So the parents made that child a Jew, Christian or a Muslim, thats what they are conscious of. So they reverted back to that? So we get into these kind of semantic things that are designed to manifest our sophisication, but they are only making a mess for ourselves individually and collectively…"

- Imam Zaid Shakir

There you go,... i think i've just blown the whale out of the water... :blind:

[Cognescenti]

I have no implication whatsoever for those who haven't reverted. I don't go to my bank clerk and say give me my money you kaffir, nor is it a way I introduce my kuffar friends to my family ( I usually go by their given name)-- I wonder why you don't expect change, yet still pose the comments that you do?....

other people' state of belief or disbelief isn't something that I give much thought to or lose lots of sleep over.. save for my dear friends whose state of affairs obviously concerns me by virtue of our friendship... I find it rather paranoid on your part to have a "vague sense of unease" over what other people think... someone somewhere is bound to not like you or to think thoughts that don't appeal to you... do you also worry about that guy too?

Purest;

You seem like a nice chap. I am here to tell you I find the use of the term "kuffar" offensive. I dont think I am the only one. Try "non-Muslim". I am gratified to hear you don't call your bank clerk a "kuffir' to her face.

As for my "vague unease"....formerly I could care less....then somebody declared war on the country in which I live.

[جوري]

I have always taken the term "born on the fitrah" to mean, that if something untoward should happened to that child, their destination by G-D's will is heaven... contrast that with the catholic church's ruling on the state of un-baptized children who end up in limbo? I believe there was even a whole topic in the news as of late, as the new pope reversed that old belief, with G-D like assurance...

[جوري]

Purest;

You seem like a nice chap. I am here to tell you I find the use of the term "kuffar" offensive. I dont think I am the only one. Try "non-Muslim". I am gratified to hear you don't call your bank clerk a "kuffir' to her face.

Your gratification is my top one priority... Now, I think you should re question why this term bothers you so? considering it was pope Urban II who coined the term "infidel" as a declaration against Muslims.
Also as per dictionary it means an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion-- which I believe is really more a description like your appointed state of Atheism or Agnosticism -- I am sorry I didn't have time to read what you chose for yourself, however that is what you should contrast it to. Simply the state of not being Muslim--- or in times of Crusades, the state of not being a Christian-- do you really have a need to belong to a category? does not belonging to that category bother you? if it bothers you, you should deal with it in a more constructive manner!

As for my "vague unease"....formerly I could care less....then somebody declared war on the country in which I live.

That is very serious... you need to barricade yourself in-- and make sure you build some sturdy bomb shelter (stock up on food)... what are you doing entertaining us in such a high tech way--when you sound like you are in mortal danger?

peace!

[Cognescenti]

I have always taken the term "born on the fitrah" to mean, that if something untoward should happened to that child, their destination by G-D's will is heaven... contrast that with the catholic church's ruling on the state of un-baptized children who end up in limbo? I believe there was even a whole topic in the news as of late, as the new pope reversed that old belief, with G-D like assurance...

Limbo is a good idea for a dance. It never was good theological concept. As for the Pope...you may chose to ridicule a religion which attempts to adapt with the times (sometimes inexpertly) but you do realize Islam used to have a Kaliphate? What did the guy in charge do? Manage the stock portfolio?

[Malaikah]

What does the Kaliphate have to do with anything? The Caliphe is nothing like the pope, he is very much a political leader of ALL the Muslims, he doesn't have the same status of the pope (who is seen to be almost prophet-like).

[جوري]

Limbo is a good idea for a dance.

How about purgatory --a warm afternoon on a hammock?

It never was good theological concept

There is no theology behind it... one self appointed man of G-D on a gloomy day decided the fate of the mischievous/light believers as well as un baptized children should be somewhere in limbo... I believe it is universally accepted that children are innocent regardless of religion!

As for the Pope...you may chose to ridicule a religion which attempts to adapt with the times (sometimes inexpertly)

G-D's law is a constant and not subject to tides of change... it frightens me a little to think some scribes can interpret at whim, this isn't a constitution to amend ... I believe it a bit harsh to believe that un baptized children are doomed to hell which undoubtedly led many to bomb abortion clinics... (this is a whole other topic I don't wish to get into, on any level) just an observation as per an article I have read of the recent amend of Benedict XVI

but you do realize Islam used to have a Kaliphate? What did the guy in charge do? Manage the stock portfolio?

Really? for honest and for truth?-- What does that mean to you? With any luck Insha'Allah the khilafah shall be re-established.. a Khalif governed by G-D's law it was very successful for centuries.... I have no reason to believe it won't be once the Muslim empire gets back on its feet.

peace

[Cognescenti]

Your gratification is my top one priority... Now, I think you should re question why this term bothers you so? considering it was pope Urban II who coined the term "infidel" as a declaration against Muslims.

I am pretty sure he didn't ask my permission. It was a bad idea then. It remains a bad idea now.

Also as per dictionary it means an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion

The historical slang term for African Americans is in the dictionary too. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to use it.

do you really have a need to belong to a category?

Do you?

..does not belonging to that category bother you?

Only if others base their actions on my membership in that category.

That is very serious... you need to barricade yourself in-- and make sure you build some sturdy bomb shelter (stock up on food)... what are you doing entertaining us in such a high tech way--when you sound like you are in mortal danger?

peace!

Ah ridicule! Nicely done. It appears my assessment of your benevolence was premature. I have no need for a bomb shelter. I do have concerns over what might happen over the next decades if efforts are not made to heal the Islam/Non-islam (or as you would say, Kuffar) rift in many parts of the world.

Keep using words that are perceived as hateful by others. It really worked out well for Urban II.

Peace (The use of this noun is purely rote and does not in any way inply goodwill. Readers should not infer any good intent from its use. The managemtn assumes no responsibility for lost or stolen articles)

[Cognescenti]

There is no theology behind it... one self appointed man of G-D on a gloomy day decided the fate of the mischievous/light believers as well as un baptized children should be somewhere in limbo... I believe it is universally accepted that children are innocent regardless of religion!

I have previously stated the concept of orignal sin is troubling to me. It seems to me these are artifices to deal with the problem of defining redemption before a child can make properly informed decisions. In that sense, I find the Muslim concept superior. The problem for me comes when the child reaches a level of cognitive maturity to make a decision, but has been raised in <religion X>. How has he done wrong by not accepting Islam?

G-D's law is a constant and not subject to tides of change... it frightens me a little to think some scribes can interpret at whim, this isn't a constitution to amend

So, who is right then, the Sunni or the Shia?

... I believe it a bit harsh to believe that un baptized children are doomed to hell which undoubtedly led many to bomb abortion clinics... (this is a whole other topic I don't wish to get into, on any level) just an observation as per an article I have read of the recent amend of Benedict XVI

Good neither do I..though I generally agree with you on this point.

[Cognescenti]

What does the Kaliphate have to do with anything? The Caliphe is nothing like the pope, he is very much a political leader of ALL the Muslims, he doesn't have the same status of the pope (who is seen to be almost prophet-like).

Yes, yes. I know that, but the Pope also had real political power at one time.

The Pope is not usually portrayed as prophet-like..after all...he is voted in by Cardinals. Prophets dont usually run for office. :)

Sometimes Popes make big mistakes...sometimes they get it right. (The elimination of most Latin in services for eg.)

[جوري]

I am pretty sure he didn't ask my permission. It was a bad idea then. It remains a bad idea now.

this affects me how?

The historical slang term for African Americans is in the dictionary too. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to use it.

That is a very poor analogy.. The term isn't meant in a derogatory sense-- meant as someone who doesn't believe.. just like some consider it an insult to be a Muslim.

Do you?

No I can't say I do.. I am happy where I am...holding on to my own moral compass as mandated by G-D-- whether I am on an island of infidels or one full of believers. Ultimately I'll be held in pledge of my own deeds, not those of the entire community...

Only if others base their actions on my membership in that category.

Therein lies your problem then... I perceive this as a severe form of paranoia

Ah ridicule! Nicely done. It appears my assessment of your benevolence was premature. I have no need for a bomb shelter. I do have concerns over what might happen over the next decades if efforts are not made to heal the Islam/Non-islam (or as you would say, Kuffar) rift in many parts of the world.

You know, I thought I'd spare you a long story on the account that I have a throbbing headache, but think it amusing nonetheless, as it really reminds me of the state of current predicament that England and the U.S find themselves in.. the story starts off innocuously enough with an old lady moving in to a quaint little town, on the account that her old town was full of murderous fools who were after the innocent for no apparent reason other than jealousy and resentment.. she started working in the library, and people were very sympathetic to her, she had a kind demeanor, always spoke with such conviction and appeared somehow fragile, thus making everyone want to protect her...

she would lock in the doors a thousand times to make sure no murderous fools would steal her money and rob her of her freedom, would constantly attest that you can't trust those youngens -- people often caught her browsing the accident page, and were terribly concerned as she heightened their awareness at the new state of affairs these constant murders and senseless killings...

one day as she was locking up the library and her young friend comes in to check on her to make sure she was alright-- and the old lady was taken aback in fear, so she takes out her knife and starts stabbing her young friend 33 times to death... the next scene starts with the little old lady in a new town, talking about the senseless murderers that cause her to move from one town to the next in pursuit of safety... moral of the story... paranoia and fear and hatred, will breed nothing, but paranoia, fear and hatred plus murder of innocent people and confusing everyone along with you as to how things spiraled so far out of hand.

Keep using words that are perceived as hateful by others. It really worked out well for Urban II.

this isn't leprosy why don't you calm down?

Peace (The use of this noun is purely rote and does not in any way inply goodwill. Readers should not infer any good intent from its use. The managemtn assumes no responsibility for lost or stolen articles)

Indeed.. it is a generic term, I enjoy using it in closure

peace!

[جوري]

I have previously stated the concept of orignal sin is troubling to me. It seems to me these are artifices to deal with the problem of defining redemption before a child can make properly informed decisions. In that sense, I find the Muslim concept superior. The problem for me comes when the child reaches a level of cognitive maturity to make a decision, but has been raised in <religion X>. How has he done wrong by not accepting Islam?.

I don't know... that is too general a term... Besides judgment is more about justice than anything. I have written extensively before about this topic before... and quoted from the Noble Quran

فَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيْرًا يَرَهُ {7}

[Pickthal 99:7] And whoso doeth good an atom's weight will see it then,

وَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ شَرًّا يَرَهُ {8}

[Pickthal 99:8] And whoso doeth ill an atom's weight will see it then.


further making notation that though Abu Lahab was destined for hell from his evil deeds, he shall be granted respite on Mondays for it was the day he spared a slave girl, on the account that he had a new born male nephew... That is just one minor example... I have never really been big on who shall receive what... everyone's judgment is with their creator

So, who is right then, the Sunni or the Shia?.

see previous reply... further we are told G-D is with the majority and 90% of Muslims are sunni.. sunni is the path of the prophet... I don't know why people create faction... to make this a bit clearer for you... if you have learned through netters anatomy that the brachial plexus is an arrangement of nerve fibres (a plexus) running from the spine (vertebrae C5-T1-- but you insist that it belongs to (S1-S4) though all evidence and research attests that S1-S4 is where sacral plexus lies, then who is right and who is wrong? Some people want to rename things... it doesn't make it correct... If you have the law laid down, there is no reason to create factions on whims... especially when we were excessively warned against sectarianism.. again I say each soul is held in pledge by its own deeds... being ignorant doesn't exempt you, especially if you are literate, to just go read and learn for yourself instead of following the whims of your forefathers.

Good neither do I..though I generally agree with you on this point.

Great then-- maybe we can call it a night!

peace

[SirZubair]

ONCE again, i just want to bring a post to the attention of everyone that is banging on about Children being born in the state of fitrah and reverts :

http://www.islamicboard.com/725185-post30.html

[snakelegs]

the way i understood the article is that people are realizing that they do not have to choose between being religious or being educated and part of the modern world and are realizing they can be both. they do not have to be marginalized.
i think that's a good thing and in the long run, it will have a positive effect.

[Joe98]

A---h's law is a constant and not subject to tides of change...

If there is a g-d he is not precise with his laws. Within each religion there are different interpretations.

Which can only mean there is no g-d.

[Uthman]

Greetings Ruggedtouch,

You raised a lot of points in your post, but I will only attempt to address those which are relevant to the topic being discussed. For the rest of your points which I find very interesting, I advise you to create a new topic in the Comparative Religion section if you wish to discuss them. :)

Exploration, experimentation and testing are the hallmarks of science.

I don't doubt that they are, but has any of this been done to test this concept of Fitrah?

Well, we certainly don’t see primitive South American tribal cultures embracing any of the widely followed polytheistic or monotheistic religions. Neither does the Eskimo culture, American Indian, etc., etc. The list goes on.

Oh, I see where you're coming from. I feel the need to clarify because I think there has been some miscommuncation on my part. To that end, when we say that mankind is born upon the Fitrah, we do not mean that they are born having automatically been subscribed to the religion of Islam. We are talking about the underlying principles upon which Islam is based i.e. Tawheed. Specifically, Tawheed-ur Ruboobeeyah (Unity of Allah's Lordship) and Tawheed-al-eebadah or Tawheed-al-Uloohiyyah (Unity of Allah's worship). The concept of Tawheed is explained in detail here

Regards

[Uthman]

Greetings Cognescenti,

Nothing like the dawn of a new day, huh? Ok, it is past mid-day but I had a lie-in.

It is really the implication of a descent from a state of purity or naturalness that is offensive.

I see. The emphasis really is on the purity of the Muslims rather than the 'impurity' of the non-Muslims. That said, I can understand why the word 'impure' would be offensive. Yes, they are said to have digressed from their natural state but It is not like they are looked down upon and pitied because at the end of the day (i.e. the day of judgement) the non-Muslims will be judged on their piety and good action while the Muslims will be judged on how well they followed Islam.

It seems to me, this would lead to a patronizing view of the "Kuffar" among Muslims. That such a view exists among many Muslims I think has been amply demonstrated.

Well, I can only speak for myself. I believe in the Fitrah but I am not aware of any prejudice towards the Kuffar on my part. I really don't think this is the reason.

According to the link you provided...we are to be forgiven for this unfortunate detour until we can speak for ourselves (around puberty it seems)..but then we are in big trouble.

(emphasis mine)

Why are you in big trouble?

I am willing to admit the concept of "redemption" among Christians could also be offensive to non-Christians but, in general, I think the West is over the Manifest Destiny phase.

That is the honest belief of the Christians and I do not believe they can be blamed for believing something that their religion tells them to believe. For that reason, I am not offended by it. I agree that the West is over the 'Manifest Destiny' phase for now, but just wait until...http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-religion.html

:D Sorry, couldn't resist.

Regards

[Uthman]

:sl: and Greetings to the non-muslims,

With regards to the discussion about the use of the term Kafir, there was a discussion about it in this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...del-kafir.html

The point about the slang term for the African-Americans was also discussed (and it turns out that it wasn't a derogatory term originally)

:w: and Regards

[siFilam]

In The Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

If there is a g-d he is not precise with his laws. Within each religion there are different interpretations.

Which can only mean there is no g-d.

there is a Allah and He is very precise with His Laws. There is only one true religion with Allah and thats Islam. Everything else is man made thus subject to change to fit their lifestyle as time changes.


-SI-

[Malaikah]

If there is a g-d he is not precise with his laws. Within each religion there are different interpretations.

Which can only mean there is no g-d.

You seem to have a thing for these type of posts... what next? The grass is green therefore there is no God?

[Umar001]

If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.

Exactly, you've just stated the concept to a certain extend, though you yourself then put forth a presumption, you claim, All theistic beliefs are externally brought to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring. what is interesting is that you only confined your statement to thiestic beliefs!! Whilst you have no proof for that confinement.

What amazes me is that you go on to say, If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism. Bring for your evidence for that please. Because to me, that seems like you believe that because it’s part of your dogma, not because there is any demonstrable truth to your claim.

Regards Eesa,

According to the link you provided...we are to be forgiven for this unfortunate detour until we can speak for ourselves (around puberty it seems)..but then we are in big trouble.

Not really since you will not be judged until the message has been brought to you.

Well, we certainly don’t see primitive South American tribal cultures embracing any of the widely followed polytheistic or monotheistic religions. Neither does the Eskimo culture, American Indian, etc., etc. The list goes on.

I am talking about the fundamental practice of asserting a concept. Religion cannot support its assertions-- it relies on exemptions:

"It's spiritual, not part of the natural world"
"It's a mystery"
"It's blashpemy to ask"
"It's a sin"
"It's a test"
"Who are you to question gods will?"
"We?ll never know?"

Science relies on demonstration -- Conjecture, speculation, hypothesis, collection of data, experimentation, repeatability, falsifiability. From the former, we get dogmatic faith that is never corroborated regardless of the claims it makes, mundane or outlandish. From the latter, we get verified knowledge (a star is a million light years away because it's taken light a million years to get here, I could offer thousands more). If religion cannot pass that same standard, don't blame science.

I think you missunderstand the concept of faith, you see, all the answers you have listed are valid if through scientific reasoning ones to come to a source which withstands the test of truthfulness.

Allow me to explain, a person who examines religions and then through a scientific method arrives at the conclusion that there is a God, which is something that can happen, since scientist cannot prove or disprove with absolute certainity, then once this step is taken the person then finds Islam to the be religion sent by this God, all this while the man has undertook steps of experimentations, falsability and so forth. Then if through all this testing Islam as a religion is still firm then one is justified in accepting the tenents of Islam, so he has scientifically attested the truth of the source of Islam, and when he has done that then it is only logical that he follows it's teachings including some of the statements of above.

[جوري]

If there is a g-d he is not precise with his laws. Within each religion there are different interpretations.

Which can only mean there is no g-d.

Really how so? perhaps you can elaborate on that a little-- in which way are G-D's laws not precise? Is robbing and murdering, and lying a virtue in one religion and a sin in another? that is news to me--perhaps you can lay off the Kibbles & Bits before you write... to avoid the usual simpleton conclusions that you so readily draw from each post.

Peace!

[snakelegs]

for whatever it's worth (probably not a whole lot), i'll share my take on fitrah. to atheists this probably won't make any more sense than the islamic view.
i do not find it offensive at all. i think it is referring to the fact that when we come into this world we are with god. as we develop we become more and more separated from god and further and further away and the spiritual quest is to overcome that separation and the distance. so it is referring to a certain natural state of grace, so to speak.
the muslim interpretation of this is that we all born muslims. i guess it's because of the way i interpret that interpretation that i am not offended by it, tho i see it differently,of course.

[Everybody]

:bump: Good thread :thumbs_up