Hate for the Pagan

[Zafran]

Because there is absolutely no evidence of any acquaintance with Judaism in their writing (I mention Judaism because that was the only Abrahamic religion at the time). As I stated earlier, their 'God' was like the Deistic God. Hellenistic scientists state so themselves, that the Supreme Being is merely a prime mover, and does not directly interfere with the affairs of men on earth, nor hears their prayers. Which is why the idea of worship was a foolish and futile thing.

It doesnt have to be the God Of Isreal specifically - I'm sure "hellenistic scientists" differed with each other about the supreme diety -

Its well known that Greeks believed the "Gods" interfered with daily life so I'm not sure where you get the idea of prayer being foolish and futile.

 

[Zafran]

Well, I would argue that he persecuted the Christians because he wanted to gain power over the institution of the Russian Orthodox Church, not because he hated people who believed in Christianity. I don't think it mattered to him what people believed, as long as he had attained absolute power. Religious institutions have a way of influencing people to turn away from the government.

It did matter - under stalin and before under Lenin the athiests systematically targeted christains because of there beliefs - You could argue it was for power but so could a christain about Pope Urban the second and the crusade.

 

[Mohamed Issa]

Oh please stop lying I hate what they are doing sure you do, its a known fact that Christians are the most bloodthirst vampires who forced all of Europe to be Christians or die. Their method was evil like their Pope but Pagans had to be destoryed so they can worship the creator. Now the Christians of Europe need saving from the evil lies of Christianity how dare the Pope or priests lie & say god has a son ALLAHU AKBAR Allah is great he doesn't need suck a thing. 19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. 19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. 19:36 Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord: Him therefore serve ye: this is a Way that is straight. 19:37 But the sects differ among themselves: and woe to the unbelievers because of the (coming) Judgment of a Momentous Day! (The Holy Quran Surah 19 Mary) Lets all pray that the conquest of Rome will happen in our life time so that we may see truth (Islam) destroy falsehood (Christianity) like how it was done in Constantinople. Both are in hadiths says of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) its just a matter when Rome falls.

I don't hate pagan godless people. I hate what they are doing. But I would want to help them rather than wish for their destruction.

 

[Hiroshi]

Oh please stop lying I hate what they are doing sure you do, its a known fact that Christians are the most bloodthirst vampires who forced all of Europe to be Christians or die.

Actually, I could probably hate the bloodthirsty false Christians that you describe here.

 

[Thucydides1987]

furthermore when did the caliphate persecute the shia? - you do know what the Caliphate period is right? - the shia were not around then - they came about after the reign of Ali (ra) the last rightly guided caliph (although some say Umar abdul aziz (ra) was the last rightly guided caliph).

Well, unless the history I read was fraudulent, I think I'm more or less informed on this particular subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ever since the battle of Karbala (~680AD?)-- fought because Hussein didn't acknowledge the caliphate of the time --, hadn't the persecution of the Shia under the Umayyad dynasty essentially begun. Which makes the conflict between the Sunni and Shia go way back to early Islamic history, no?

Its well known that Greeks believed the "Gods" interfered with daily life so I'm not sure where you get the idea of prayer being foolish and futile.

I was talking about this from many of the philosophers' and scientists' point of view about the pagan masses, whose beliefs in the gods they rejected.

It did matter - under stalin and before under Lenin the athiests systematically targeted christains because of there beliefs - You could argue it was for power but so could a christain about Pope Urban the second and the crusade.

I concede to you on that point there. But that doesn't mean that an atheist is inherently a worse and more destructive a ruler than a theist. This part of out exchange is slightly getting off topic, although I would love to talk about it more.

 

[Zafran]

Well, unless the history I read was fraudulent, I think I'm more or less informed on this particular subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ever since the battle of Karbala (~680AD?)-- fought because Hussein didn't acknowledge the caliphate of the time --, hadn't the persecution of the Shia under the Umayyad dynasty essentially begun. Which makes the conflict between the Sunni and Shia go way back to early Islamic history, no?

Hussien (ra) is dear to the sunnis as he is to the Shia as he is ahul bait (the family of the prophet) - The ummayed were like any worldly dynasty - the calipahte period specifcally relates to the 4 rightly guided Caliphs from Abu Bakr (ra) all the way to Ali (ra) - the Ummayed period is seen as a different period in history. You do know that right?

 

[Ramadhan]

You do know that right?

You are too generous in assuming Thucydides1987 had the basic knowledge about Islam.

 

[جوري]

You are too generous in assuming Thucydides1987 had the basic knowledge about Islam.

actually that applies to everything not just Islam from Roman law to basics of terminology..no standards and no credibility but hey as the admin put it, telling them how it is is off putting so get your kid glove out and turn the other cheek to gross error!

 

[Thucydides1987]

Hussien (ra) is dear to the sunnis as he is to the Shia as he is ahul bait (the family of the prophet) - The ummayed were like any worldly dynasty - the calipahte period specifcally relates to the 4 rightly guided Caliphs from Abu Bakr (ra) all the way to Ali (ra) - the Ummayed period is seen as a different period in history. You do know that right?

Yes, and I was referring specifically to the Umayyad period/Caliphate, for it was from then onwards that the persecutions of the Shia began. I never heard of "The Caliphate Period" the way you refer to it. I know of the period of the first 4 caliphs to be called the "Rashidun Caliphate", but never as the time of "The Caliphate"...especially considering that there were different "caliphates" all over the middle east throughout history (the cordoba caliphate, the abassid caliphate, etc.)

 

[Thucydides1987]

actually that applies to everything not just Islam from Roman law to basics of terminology..no standards and no credibility but hey as the admin put it, telling them how it is is off putting so get your kid glove out and turn the other cheek to gross error!

ou are too generous in assuming Thucydides1987 had the basic knowledge about Islam.

Do you two have anything else to contribute to this discussion other than your immature and puerile babbling?

 

[جوري]

Do you two have anything else to contribute to this discussion other than your immature and puerile babbling?

Do you have anything to impart that isn't the collective sum of what other members have in fact opined of you?
most things that have been written have flown completely over your head, why are you so disturbed by folks pointing that out?

all the best

 

[siam]

I was reflecting on the comment about Paganism and Multiculturarism.......

Surah 109, very appropriately titled Al-Kafirun......
1. You who reject faith
2. I do not worship what you worship
3. Nor do you worship what I worship
4. I will jot worship that which you worship
5. Nor will you worship that which I worship
6. to you be your way and to me mine

I think it is interesting to look at "Multikulti" in light of the above surah. I have (until recently) thought multikulti was a good idea----but had started having doubts about it when the "west" began to demand that Muslims assimilate by watering down our religious practices and beliefs and be "just like them".

Thucydides mentioned that Pagans simply add other Gods to their already existing pantheon of Gods and respect and worship them. ----I would call that "tolerance/co-existance with compromise". What the Quran advocates is the next evolutionary step from this---which is tolerance/co-existence without compromise. Truth cannot be compromised---for to do so would corrupt it and it would no longer be Truth. Therefore co-existence, while at the same time staying True, is a better way for the integrity of man. ---Thomas Paine said "....But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing or disbelieving; it consists in proffesing to believe what he does not believe."

I think western multikulti is Paganistic when it calls for compromise of Truth. Could that be why they are unhappy with Muslims?---because Muslims strive to stay True?

In my Opinion---the next evolutionary step from tolerance/co-existence without compromise is Tawheed (Unity)---the recognition of the Universal truth of ONE God---regradless of what relgious labels or religious laws we choose to follow. For us Muslims---we can see a glimmer of this in our Hajj where people from all accross the Globe come together in worship of the ONE Universal Truth. ---Can you imagine a world where not just those of us who label ourselves Muslims, but everyone of all faiths acknowledged the One and came to do His will at Hajj?----what an incredible world it might be? self-identity would no longer be important because Gods Will would be our priority?......or is this a bit too sufi?.....anyway---just my thoughts......

....and another thought.....comparing western assimilative Multikulti with the way Islam dealth with the problem in Muslim history where people of other faiths were allowed to stay true to their religion and laws.......

 

[Thucydides1987]

most things that have been written have flown completely over your head, why are you so disturbed by folks pointing that out?

If there's anything disturbing to me, it's your insolence toward non-Muslims on these forums; how you hop from one thread to another with the sole purpose of hijacking discussions with your garbage.

And considering how you previously showed to me that you haven't even read all the replies of this thread, I don't think you should be telling me that I've missed something that people have written.

 

[جوري]

If there's anything disturbing to me, it's your insolence toward non-Muslims on these forums; how you hop from one thread to another with the sole purpose of hijacking discussions with your garbage. And considering how you previously showed to me that you haven't even read all the replies of this thread, I don't think you should be telling me that I've missed something that people have written.

what disturbs you is inconsequential to any thread where you partake and irrelevant to me personally. It doesn't matter whether or not I have read every single post. What matters is to highlight your errors, ignorance, lack of credibility and inability to acknowledge your repeated errors.
If you can't argue from knowledge then quit wasting everyone's time, there is a zillion social network out there for you to dispense with cognitive object and be applauded for it-- Speaking of garbage!

all the best

 

[Thucydides1987]

I think western multikulti is Paganistic when it calls for compromise of Truth. Could that be why they are unhappy with Muslims?---because Muslims strive to stay True?

Well I don't think that multiculturalism is "paganistic", but rather that a pagan society is multicultural/pluralistic -- much like Western society today. It's a little absurd to call multiculturalism as paganistic since the former doesn't necessarily involve religion.

What do you mean by "Muslims strive to stay True" -- this is why Westerners don't like them??? This makes no sense to me...the reason why they don't like Muslims is simply out of xenophobia, just like Europeans didn't like Jews, or Gypsies, etc etc.

I admire what you said about a world where everyone believes in one God, and where we all possess a collective unity. But I don't think that'd happen any time soon, considering how divisive and untrustworthy human beings are of one another. Perhaps such a moment would happen in the future, when we are on the brink of catastrophe and extinction -- THAT's when race, religion, ideology, nationalism will all go down the drain.

 

[siam]

pluralism/pluralistic----an interesting word.

Do you think mulitkulti can have a spectrum, with one end being assimilation and the other end being pluralism?

Maybe France is more assimilative while Britain is more pluralistic?

 

[siam]

"the reason why they don't like Muslims is simply out of xenophobia, just like Europeans didn't like Jews, or Gypsies, etc etc.---I agree with that

My comment was made in the context of multiculturalism and religion---the percieved "threat" of a strong identity that is also very public.

 

[Thucydides1987]

Do you think mulitkulti can have a spectrum, with one end being assimilation and the other end being pluralism? Maybe France is more assimilative while Britain is more pluralistic?

Well, social commentators actually differentiate between multiculturalism and pluralism as two different (although related) theories. I don't know it in detail, but I know that Neo-Conservatives tend to argue for pluralism rather than multiculturalism, since they believe that in a multicultural society one sees the erosion of a singular dominant identity, which consequently could be detrimental to the stability of the society in remaining a single unit. That's is generally what I've heard them say; not sure how correct they may be in actuality.

This is why Neocons tend to advocate pluralism, since they state that within pluralism there is a single dominant culture among all the others, which maintains order within the society.

I'd definitely agree with you about France; it does have a much stronger tendency to demand assimilation -- i'd argue that France is much more pluralistic than Britain. Britain could be pluralistic, but one can argue that, because it's very lax on assimilation, it's very multicultural.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Why is it necessary to hierarchically place one deity over another like that? The point is that they are gods and that they are both above YOU, hence you should pay equal respect to them both.

Necessary or not they always did it, or always had some creator deity, or something. If one of the gods is above the other gods just as it's above us too, why not just focus on it? You may as well say that one should pay equal respect to the king and to the lords and ladies of his court.

I'm trying to explain to you their beliefs, which obviously needs to be put into cultural context since they lived in a world very different from our own (a world, by the way, which Christianity and Islam destroyed).

Funny, I don't remember destroying anything, or even having been born until much later. Word things a little less unfairly next time, will you? As for cultural context, what am I, an anthropologist? I'm talking about the beliefs themselves and you're just diverting the issue.

You, however, don't want to hear it and immediately refer back to your monotheist thinking and dismiss their religious beliefs by calling it "pointless" and "foolish"...That logic would stand only IF there is a consensus for a single highest god. The pagans did not think that there was, so it is not right to call them "foolish" according to your monotheist standards since pagans do not adhere to such ways of thought. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you are ignorant of the way they thought.

There's a difference between me being ignorant and you being unwilling to focus and insisting on discussing culture instead of doctrine. Just because the pagans didn't have any universal agreement as to who this nearest equivalent to a monotheistic deity was does not mean that they didn't always have some such equivalent, and therefore that they all would have been worshiping whichever deity they thought that was if they were to be consistent with their own logic.

Let me guess, you're going to evade the issue again with more talk of cultures? I feel silly even debating you at all. But I really should have seen it coming. Anytime anyone expresses disagreement with anything foreign or secondhand to them in the modern world that magical all-purpose glue of a phrase, "cultural context", gets hurled at them automatically in a backhanded subtle accusation of prejudice whereas the true prejudice is in prejudging it to be impossible for anyone to have any ground for criticizing anything that they personally didn't grow up with. Never mind that 90% of the time, as with this time, CULTURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION AT ALL. I'm getting tired of this.

 

[Thucydides1987]

Funny, I don't remember destroying anything, or even having been born until much later. Word things a little less unfairly next time, will you?

I never said you did; I said Islam and Christianity did.

Just because the pagans didn't have any universal agreement as to who this nearest equivalent to a monotheistic deity was does not mean that they didn't always have some such equivalent

Maybe you can give me an example of this?

There's a difference between me being ignorant and you being unwilling to focus and insisting on discussing culture instead of doctrine.

Yet again, you prove your lack of understanding. If you knew anything about paganism, you'd know that it had no "doctrine"; there was no holy pagan book, like a Quran or Bible, and they had nothing written in stone about how they should behave or think about the divine. There was no "Pagan Doctrine"; you cannot summarize paganism in the way you can summarize Islam's or Christianity's main tenets. This is why a cultural study of paganism is necessary, as that is the best way in which we can understand this religion! (I think I'd know I'm writing a **** thesis on this subject!)