erm.. fitrah?

[Uthman]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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.

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.

 

[Uthman]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

'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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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)



Cognescenti and Ruggedtouch,

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

Regards

 

[جوري]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam



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.

 

[Cognescenti]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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]

Re: The Australian face of Islam

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 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.