The trouble with the fundamentalists is that they don't want to listen what's the trouble with Muslims. They don't want anyone to discuss why Muslims are so much backward these days where there's more fundamentalism.
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch.
The trouble with the fundamentalists is that they don't want to listen what's the trouble with Muslims. They don't want anyone to discuss why Muslims are so much backward these days where there's more fundamentalism.
By fundamentalist I mean the one who believes in just fundamentals of Islam. Fundamentalists use Islam to do nothing to the society but to make it dysfunctional only.
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch.
I am proudly a fundementalist of Islam.
I believe.
I never heard anyone calling me backward.
Good for you.
Nobody calls you backward maybe you're in the middle of the people who are facing the same direction. But believe me we're all moving forwards even if don't make a concious effort. We're in a train that always moves forwards.
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch.
Nobody calls you backward maybe you're in the middle of the people who are facing the same direction. But believe me we're all moving forwards even if don't make a concious effort. We're in a train that always moves forwards.
I don't understand. Usually those who claim others of backwardness base it on the principle of what is aligned towards the thhought. So if someone does not agree towards their thought he is backward even though thogh he (the one who is accused) has a valid reason.
In reality their is no such thing. Tell me who is backward?
I don't understand. Usually those who claim others of backwardness base it on the principle of what is aligned towards the thhought. So if someone does not agree towards their thought he is backward even though thogh he (the one who is accused) has a valid reason.
In reality their is no such thing. Tell me who is backward?
History always moves forward. Lifestyles change with knowledge and new ideas. You also use a lot of modern facilities. Don't you. But the fundamentalists don't to make new things using new ideas. They discourage the development of human kind with new ideas. Those who don't want to develop their societies remain backward. They buy, borrow or beg everything from those who have developed and moved forward.
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch.
History always moves forward. Lifestyles change with knowledge and new ideas. You also use a lot of modern facilities. Don't you. But the fundamentalists don't to make new things using new ideas. They discourage the development of human kind with new ideas. Those who don't want to develop their societies remain backward. They buy, borrow or beg everything from those who have developed and moved forward.
History is the account of what happened in the past. How could it move forward?
Yes lifestyle changes but Islam does not.
Knowledge increases but that has to be coupled with knoweldge that is correct (or and truth).
Their is alway's new ideas, that is the formation of thought and that must be coupled with knowledge and with the ascessiblility and availability of the means to bring it to fruitation. Otherwise it is going nowhere.
Modern facility is what we call technology, you can't snap you finger and here it is, it takes time. IT might take 100 years for some nation to come to the point where some advance nations are. If they don't get bombed that is.
Who does not wan't to develop? and who is backward. I don't know of such.
I am all for development aslong as one do not barter ones deen for a miserable price.
Last edited by Skillganon; 03-10-2007 at 04:19 AM.
History is the account of what happened in the past. How could it move forward?
Yes lifestyle changes but Islam does not.
Knowledge increases but that has to be coupled with knoweldge that is correct (or and truth).
Their is alway's new ideas, that is the formation of thought and that must be coupled with knowledge and with the ascessiblility and availability of the means to bring it to fruitation. Otherwise it is going nowhere.
Modern facility is what we call technology, you can't snap you finger and here it is, it takes time. IT might take 100 years for some nation to come to the point where some advance nations are. If they don't get bombed that is.
Who does not wan't to develop? and who is backward. I don't know of such.
I am all for development aslong as one do not barter ones deen for a miserable price.
When we say history moves forward, then it's meant that mankind always moved forward in history. Those nations which got trapped in traditions and fundamentalism in the name of mazhab or deen or any other kind of spiritual ideology remained backward. Any society which fails to move forwards becomes stagnant and corrupt. That's why all those societies where the process of history is made to stop by turning it's face backwards to some old point in history develops nothing but corruption, poverty and illiteracy in its poeple.
Movement of history is natural like the movement of water. When the movement of water is stopped by trapping it in a pond, then it starts smelling bad and becomes unsuable and harmful. Similarly, those societies in which the movement of history is stopped by putting the society into the restrictions of religous fundamentalism, then that society also starts smelling bad and becomes useless and harmful.
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch.
The trouble with the fundamentalists is that they don't want to listen what's the trouble with Muslims. They don't want anyone to discuss why Muslims are so much backward these days where there's more fundamentalism.
The trouble with modernists today is that they don't want to follow the fundamental teachings of Islam. They don't want anyone to discuss why Muslims are so far from The Straight Path were there are more modernists.
The trouble with modernists today is that they don't want to follow the fundamental teachings of Islam. They don't want anyone to discuss why Muslims are so far from The Straight Path were there are more modernists.
If the modernists tell a camel rider not to follow the fundamental rules of camel riding in deseert, then they're wrong. But if they tell a car driver not to follow the rules of camel riding, then they're right. Forcing the car drivers to follow only the rules of desert are completely wrong.
Let me tell you very interesting real life example. One day I saw my neighbor digging the earth on the side of the our street and putting on the paved road. he answere that the road was a little low and some rain water collects on the road, so he was trying to raise the level of the road like this. I told him that the dirt will damage the road further and it's also become muddy in the rain making it more difficult. He said no, it's a Sunnah to the raise the level of the street near your house by putting dirt on it. The fundamentalist didn't know that Sunnah was to raise the level of the unpaved road only. For the paved roads you've to call the concerned department to do it. You pay tax for it and you must know must know how to get the job done in modern times.
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch.
Fantastic analogy ... if you have a protocol set for a particular situation, chances are even the really modern views will draw from that fundamental concept! 100 years ago the first mastectomy mandated the removal of lymph nodes along with pectoralis major and minor and the breast itself.... not only leading to the collapse of that part of the body but serious fluid accumulation as a result to loss of lymph nodes for drainage, not to mention the psychological ramification of having essentially a part of your body that might have defined your identity removed! Now a days Doctors may get away with a lumpectomy --but still have to do constant monitoring to observe progression of the disease or mets. ... in essence the very first radical mastectomy that was preformed is the gold standard and in fact was curative! even if modern methods get away with something as little as a lumpectmy, not only are the original fundamentals to draw from mandated a 100 years ago, technically they are still the best...
Islam is likewise transcendent, a religion for all ages even if the people aren't observing or under-educated, under-education isn't the definition for fundamentalism! it is what it is--... the answers have always been right there for those who seek...
peace!
Last edited by جوري; 03-11-2007 at 03:35 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Fantastic analogy ... if you have a protocol set for a particular situation, chances are even the really modern views will draw from that fundamental concept! 100 years ago the first mastectomy mandated the removal of lymph nodes along with pectoralis major and minor and the breast itself.... not only leading to the collapse of that part of the body but serious fluid accumulation as a result to loss of lymph nodes for drainage, not to mention the psychological ramification of having essentially a part of your body that might have defined your identity removed! Now a days Doctors may get away with a lumpectomy --but still have to do constant monitoring to observe progression of the disease or mets. ... in essence the very first radical mastectomy that was preformed is the gold standard and in fact was curative! even if modern methods get away with something as little as a lumpectmy, not only are the original fundamentals to draw from mandated a 100 years ago, technically they are still the best...
Islam is likewise transcendent, a religion for all ages even if the people aren't observing or under-educated, under-education isn't the definition for fundamentalism! it is what it is--... the answers have always been right there for those who seek...
peace!
I don't know what you actually wnat to say. Do you mean to say that Doctors shouldn't had tried lumpectomy at all to treat a serious disease and remained stuck to the fundamentals only? Do you mean the medical science should never be allowed to work beyond the fundamentals? Why do do the fundamentlists go to the doctors who practice many treatment methods that are beyond the fundamentals?
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch.
I don't know what you actually wnat to say. Do you mean to say that Doctors shouldn't had tried lumpectomy at all to treat a serious disease and remained stuck to the fundamentals only? Do you mean the medical science should never be allowed to work beyond the fundamentals? Why do do the fundamentlists go to the doctors who practice many treatment methods that are beyond the fundamentals?
I guess that makes us even-- your grammatical structuring is rather foggy!
what you should have understood from the above -- as an analogy is; to treat Breast CA. will always involve removal of tissue (surgery) as opposed to let's say sprinkling affected area with garlic!The Doctrine is set and agreed upon!... how much or how little tissue removed depending on technology, how far it has advanced, isn't what is important!... what is important is the foundation for RX was set 100 yrs ago and has proven to work; It is the gold standard! and will always be the protocol to refer to and follow even if you tweak your technique! & finally the decision whether to seek treatment, be it radical or not at all will always lie with the Pt.! without so much as an objection from a health care provider or a concerned family member! in that last statement just by itself is an appreciation and respect for the human dignity and right for one to choose to live as one desires!
Trends come and go... foundation.... the protocol ... the jurisprudence will like wise always be what to draw upon and refer to.. it is the gold standard! and the so-called backward fundamentalists have a right to live as they so choose! you are more than welcome believe they are backwards and go preach it... just go do so to a bunch who might buy it from you!
peace!
Last edited by جوري; 03-11-2007 at 05:58 AM.
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
... if you have a protocol set for a particular situation, chances are even the really modern views will draw from that fundamental concept! 100 years ago the first mastectomy mandated the removal of lymph nodes along with pectoralis major and minor and the breast itself.... not only leading to the collapse of that part of the body but serious fluid accumulation as a result to loss of lymph nodes for drainage, not to mention the psychological ramification of having essentially a part of your body that might have defined your identity removed! Now a days Doctors may get away with a lumpectomy --but still have to do constant monitoring to observe progression of the disease or mets. ... in essence the very first radical mastectomy that was preformed is the gold standard and in fact was curative! even if modern methods get away with something as little as a lumpectmy, not only are the original fundamentals to draw from mandated a 100 years ago, technically they are still the best...
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks