The Problem (and challenges) of the world today

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I was giving to it a bit of thought and I have figured out that I came up
with a few points which define more than 90% of world problems today.

Moreover, these points also define our challenges and the challenges of
our generation.

All in all it seems that we live in a fascinating time.

1. We live in a world which has the potential (with a bit of good will) to
supply abundance and peace for all of humanity.

2. One of the things which prevent us from achieving this wonderful
situation is our attachment to "historical myth" which we seem to
transfer like a contagious disease to our children.

3. Previously in time - putting aside these narratives was utterly
impossible since people largely received their sense of reality from
the narrow bureaucratic systems which organized all of their life
experience.

4. Lately something has happened that changes the rules from the
bottom - the internet. In my opinion we had not yet learnt who to
accommodate to this wonderful new tool and to understand the
true options it outlines for humanity.

5. Contrary to what we learn from some sections of society -
religion does not in 100% derive its importance to humanity from
history, hardly, it derives its
importance as it contains the blueprint to put history aside. This is
since religion gives us guidance on who to live our lives independently
of whatever historical narrative we tell.

In fact, we believe that the religion of many nations has been corrupted
through the urges and inclinations of wicked men who wished to use religion
for bureaucratic purposes. It is the first time in history in which this corruption
can be corrected and set aside - but only if those who know about it would tell
to those who do not know (contrary to those who already know).

6. This is exactly the essence of the conflict between bureaucratic organizations
and the religious inclination of humanity. People who are religious make a choice
of independence. This choice threatens the bureaucratic idea.

7. Our challenge is to learn to wisely use the internet - as a community - and learn
to deliver our true wishes - without the intermediary of media\government\bureaucratic
organizations. Humanity is going through a process of globalization - we for sure will
have a "global society" and the next few years - the question which lies upon our shoulders
is wether it would also be a community.

In my view - if we would learn who to do this in a well structured way - we can solve
many problems which today seem unsolvable (again, with a bit of good will )

 

[InfiniteMercy]

ASalam Gabriel Ibn Yus, i do share those thoughts with you, but just like ying yang there will always be balance between goodness and evil since bad people take advantage of people of goodwill unfortuantely, so the equilibrium shifts from time to time..but the world we live is "limited" in resources and people have been in competetion since day 1..we as humanity need to rise above this and unify and progress for the benefit of all...win-win situation...but all that i've said is meaningless philosophy to leaders, businessman, and politicians...on a more positive note the world is definitely changing faster than ever and will continue to do so and the ordinary man on the street is more empowered...ahh life can be such a mess to comprehend
JazakAllah Khair

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

ASalam Gabriel Ibn Yus, i do share those thoughts with you, but just like ying yang there will always be balance between goodness and evil since bad people take advantage of people of goodwill unfortuantely, so the equilibrium shifts from time to time..but the world we live is "limited" in resources and people have been in competetion since day 1..we as humanity need to rise above this and unify and progress for the benefit of all...win-win situation...but all that i've said is meaningless philosophy to leaders, businessman, and politicians...on a more positive note the world is definitely changing faster than ever and will continue to do so and the ordinary man on the street is more empowered...ahh life can be such a mess to comprehend
JazakAllah Khair

Well, we should get pass "leaders, businessmen and politicians" as they are usually just wasting
our resources on unimportant things - in fact, most of the resources going into business, politics
and industry are being wasted on worthless ego fights.

Bad people take advantage because the good people let them take advantage.
The formula is very simple

1 Bad Person >> 1 Good Person.

1 Bad Person <<<< 1000000 Good People

But - in order to get 100000 Good People together - you have to find some
magic glue !!

But - We have it!!

It is called RELIGION!!

This is why the "Bad People Group" hates religion so much -
and want the people from the "Good People Group" to fight
each other so that they won't unite together and wash them off.

Sneaky little fellows I would say. But - every joke has an end.

 

[InfiniteMercy]

Yeah, that is one of the biggest ironies of the past few centuries, where people have been blaming religion on conflicts and hate, meanwhile it is because of greed, racism, imperialism and power-hungry groups..i think during the 1700s up to now, starting in europe after renaisance and during "enlightenment age" people began to turn away from religion and move towards complete secularism..i think people lost faith in the church in europe and as a consequence looked down on all religion around the world...and this caused disunity and allowed bad people to take advantage..certain groups such as greedy and corrupt capitalists want things to stay this way...Religion is the one thing that unifies people, just think about how many different languages and cultures there are in Muslim world yet we all pray to Allah only.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

This is the real task of Islam today.

In fact - it is of supreme importance for humanity.

People run away from war and are attracted to security.

If Islam would be able to raise as a force of peace, security and
harmony the world would come to the greatest time ever.

 

[AinEstonia]

This is the real task of Islam today.

In fact - it is of supreme importance for humanity.

People run away from war and are attracted to security.

If Islam would be able to raise as a force of peace, security and
harmony the world would come to the greatest time ever.

Even if everyone was a Muslim, there would still be problems. Not that it will ever even be possible for people to agree on such a big scale. People have had different opinions since the dawn of time, and unless you're willing to kill every person who disagrees, there will be those who disagree.

 

[AinEstonia]

Yeah, that is one of the biggest ironies of the past few centuries, where people have been blaming religion on conflicts and hate, meanwhile it is because of greed, racism, imperialism and power-hungry groups..i think during the 1700s up to now, starting in europe after renaisance and during "enlightenment age" people began to turn away from religion and move towards complete secularism..i think people lost faith in the church in europe and as a consequence looked down on all religion around the world...and this caused disunity and allowed bad people to take advantage..certain groups such as greedy and corrupt capitalists want things to stay this way...Religion is the one thing that unifies people, just think about how many different languages and cultures there are in Muslim world yet we all pray to Allah only.

Religion does not unify people, if anything it does the opposite. There are conflicts between Muslims, so obviously you guys don't agree on everything.
And religion didn't lose its importance in Europe because people became so EVIL, but because religion was so abusive and oppressive. Obviously you can't say that religion has caused every conflict, or even the most. But religion most certainly has created a lot of problems.
And secularism is good, a secular nation is like a non-apartheid nation. If there's a reason you don't like secularism, it will probably be that there in a few secular European nations, Islam is kinda getting knee jerked, like the burqa ban in France, minaret ban in Switzerland or niqab ban in Belgium. Those things are stupid, but that does not mean that secularism is bad, just cause those things happened in secular nations.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Religion does not unify people, if anything it does the opposite. There are conflicts between Muslims, so obviously you guys don't agree on everything.
And religion didn't lose its importance in Europe because people became so EVIL, but because religion was so abusive and oppressive. Obviously you can't say that religion has caused every conflict, or even the most. But religion most certainly has created a lot of problems.
And secularism is good, a secular nation is like a non-apartheid nation. If there's a reason you don't like secularism, it will probably be that there in a few secular European nations, Islam is kinda getting knee jerked, like the burqa ban in France, minaret ban in Switzerland or niqab ban in Belgium. Those things are stupid, but that does not mean that secularism is bad, just cause those things happened in secular nations.

Hey AinEstonia, welcome to our forum.

Let me answer you as the issues we are discussion are highly important and therefore have to
be addressed slowly.

First of all - I have the feeling that we are using the same words however have very different
things in mind and if we would continue this discussion we would not understand each other
simply because we speak about different things - also note that you have made many assumptions about me which are inaccurate without properly understanding what I say.

Let me explain you what religion means for me (and please reset any previous understanding you have about this word). In order to explain this to you I have to explain to you what secularism is.

Our existence is roughly divided into two domains:

1. Physical

2. Spiritual.

This is far from being vague. For instance, you do not need to go far and you can see this in your
on personal life:

- you have a body yet when you lift your hand it is a non-physical will that makes your body to
do that - this is the spiritual domain.

- when you drop an apple from a tree there is a certain non-physical force that pulls it down to the
ground (if you think about it you would see that there is no physical connection between the apple
and the ground).

Secularism by definition the weird idea of having a view of life which disregards the 2 domain as unimportant. Now, why would anybody want to do that?

You obviously won't want to do that - because anything a human being holds (or should hold) dear is in this (2) domain - like your family relations, wife, love, children and community are in this (2) domain (since the special connection you have with them is not physical but rather spiritual).

However, interestingly, there is a force in the universe which would have the interest to erase the (2) domain - and this is bureaucracy.

It's true - bureaucracy is important, however, we do not need to be stupid and let it erase away our lives.

The tension between religion and bureaucracy is the attempt to take control over the bureaucratic systems that are important for our life (this is not always highlighted because our media is a highly bureaucratic creature by itself).

True, during the time many mistakes have been done through this process - but this is mainly due the fact that previously in time people in general did not have the mental capacity to deal with the
full depth of religious ideas and a lot of times misunderstood them.

Today, this situation has seemed to change and all that is required is that the people who do have the capability would turn their attention to these issues for the benefit of their communities.

 

[AinEstonia]

Hey AinEstonia, welcome to our forum.

Let me answer you as the issues we are discussion are highly important and therefore have to
be addressed slowly.

First of all - I have the feeling that we are using the same words however have very different
things in mind and if we would continue this discussion we would not understand each other
simply because we speak about different things - also note that you have made many assumptions about me which are inaccurate without properly understanding what I say.

Let me explain you what religion means for me (and please reset any previous understanding you have about this word). In order to explain this to you I have to explain to you what secularism is.

Our existence is roughly divided into two domains:

1. Physical

2. Spiritual.

This is far from being vague. For instance, you do not need to go far and you can see this in your
on personal life:

- you have a body yet when you lift your hand it is a non-physical will that makes your body to
do that - this is the spiritual domain.

- when you drop an apple from a tree there is a certain non-physical force that pulls it down to the
ground (if you think about it you would see that there is no physical connection between the apple
and the ground).

Secularism by definition the weird idea of having a view of life which disregards the 2 domain as unimportant. Now, why would anybody want to do that?

You obviously won't want to do that - because anything a human being holds (or should hold) dear is in this (2) domain - like your family relations, wife, love, children and community are in this (2) domain (since the special connection you have with them is not physical but rather spiritual).

However, interestingly, there is a force in the universe which would have the interest to erase the (2) domain - and this is bureaucracy.

It's true - bureaucracy is important, however, we do not need to be stupid and let it erase away our lives.

The tension between religion and bureaucracy is the attempt to take control over the bureaucratic systems that are important for our life (this is not always highlighted because our media is a highly bureaucratic creature by itself).

True, during the time many mistakes have been done through this process - but this is mainly due the fact that previously in time people in general did not have the mental capacity to deal with the
full depth of religious ideas and a lot of times misunderstood them.

Today, this situation has seemed to change and all that is required is that the people who do have the capability would turn their attention to these issues for the benefit of their communities.

I wouldn't define my brain activity as something "spiritual," and secularism is not a view of life which disregards 2 of your domains as unimportant, secularism ie separation of church and state, is just that government shall not give more rights to a different group just because of their religion. Secularism makes all religions equal, and in a secular nation, you're free to practice your religion, even if the majority of your nation's population does not practice the same religion. I think that's a good thing.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I wouldn't define my brain activity as something "spiritual,"

Well - people seem to like to give their "brain activity" as an example for something non-spiritual.

The problem is that most people do not have enough brian activity to form enough experience to decide wether it is indeed spiritual or not. In order to develop such experience one has to be a bit less close minded.

Therefore, I advise you, in order to start noticing your spiritual existence - not to go to your mind (which is for advanced students) - but rather to your heart.

Let me explain - your heart is very crucial for your life. In fact, you really need it. However, did you ever had
to consciously pump it? Ahhm...so how does it get pumped?

If you would think about it - you would see that nobody really knows!!

And how can you know that? Because if we would know we would have access to knowledge beyond our dreams - think about it - your heart is a billion gazzilion times more efficient than an engine of a car.

But - what magic force pumps it???

A good question to think about. You might think that you are not spiritual at all - but this would give you a very silly and limited picture of reality! If you are fine by that then good.

and secularism is not a view of life which disregards 2 of your domains as unimportant, secularism ie separation of church and state

You have a confusion between secularism - which is a viewpoint on life and a certain political system which you would want to see - more important is what your view point on life is - this is mainly due to the fact that this is
something which you can truly decide for yourself and would actually effect your on personal life.

is just that government shall not give more rights to a different group just because of their religion.

Governments bore me!! It seems to me that some people just replace the word God by the word government these days. It is foolish and unadvisable because it cuts away your connection with him to a purely economical one - and you are the one who is getting hurt by that - because you only experience the bureaucracy (which at the end of the days is all that the government is about to begin with).

Secularism makes all religions equal, and in a secular nation, you're free to practice your religion, even if the majority of your nation's population does not practice the same religion. I think that's a good thing.

Again - you mix secularism with pluralism. It is not your fault as lately we have came up with the idea that there are "many religions". This is foolishness that has to be explained as it causes unnecessary confusion. There is only one religion as there is only one God. This religion is Islam as the name Islam is complete. The other things which we call religions are incomplete and therefore should accommodate themselves to the religion of Islam.

 

[AinEstonia]

Well - people seem to like to give their "brain activity" as an example for something non-spiritual.

The problem is that most people do not have enough brian activity to form enough experience to decide wether it is indeed spiritual or not. In order to develop such experience one has to be a bit less close minded.

Therefore, I advise you, in order to start noticing your spiritual existence - not to go to your mind (which is for advanced students) - but rather to your heart.

Let me explain - your heart is very crucial for your life. In fact, you really need it. However, did you ever had
to consciously pump it? Ahhm...so how does it get pumped?

If you would think about it - you would see that nobody really knows!!

And how can you know that? Because if we would know we would have access to knowledge beyond our dreams - think about it - your heart is a billion gazzilion times more efficient than an engine of a car.

But - what magic force pumps it???

A good question to think about. You might think that you are not spiritual at all - but this would give you a very silly and limited picture of reality! If you are fine by that then good.

The heart is not the organ that controls our feelings or anything like that, love is not in the heart, love is in the brain. And heart is far more simpler than a brain, and hearts aren't billion gazzilion times more efficient than modern engines. [/QUOTE]

You have a confusion between secularism - which is a viewpoint on life and a certain political system which you would want to see - more important is what your view point on life is - this is mainly due to the fact that this is
something which you can truly decide for yourself and would actually effect your on personal life.

Secularism is just the concept that government should exist separately from religion, nothing more nothing less. Secularism is not a viewpoint of life or anything like that. We should all decide what our point of life is, there shouldn't be a governmental religion that decides that for us.

Governments bore me!! It seems to me that some people just replace the word God by the word government these days. It is foolish and unadvisable because it cuts away your connection with him to a purely economical one - and you are the one who is getting hurt by that - because you only experience the bureaucracy (which at the end of the days is all that the government is about to begin with).

Are you saying you would want a theocracy ? Then there would be people who would claim that God told them to do such and such thing, theocracies seriously suck ass. Government of the people, by the people for, for the people.

Again - you mix secularism with pluralism. It is not your fault as lately we have came up with the idea that there are "many religions". This is foolishness that has to be explained as it causes unnecessary confusion. There is only one religion as there is only one God. This religion is Islam as the name Islam is complete. The other things which we call religions are incomplete and therefore should accommodate themselves to the religion of Islam.

There are many religions, that's something that people unanimously agree with. If you don't know that there are many religions, you should see a doctor.
"There is only one religion as their is only one God", now that's your point of view, other people have different points of view, some people think there are many many Gods, some think there are non, you think it would be good if everyone was forced to have the same point of view as you ?

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Secularism is just the concept that government should exist separately from religion, nothing more nothing less. Secularism is not a viewpoint of life or anything like that. We should all decide what our point of life is, there shouldn't be a governmental religion that decides that for us.

Well, we seem to be speaking about different things.

For me secularism is an individual view of life which attempts to live life without God and religion at all.
In my view this is highly unhealthy.

As for what you suggest - I highly agree with you - I pray to the day that governments will have no
involvement with the religious issues and would dedicate their time for the bureaucratic organization
of the affairs. Of course, however, the systems have to be guided and this guidance should be done
by the people through the religious leaders - whom they trust.

are many religions, that's something that people unanimously agree with. If you don't know that there are many religions, you should see a doctor.
"There is only one religion as their is only one God", now that's your point of view, other people have different points of view, some people think there are many many Gods, some think there are non, you think it would be good if everyone was forced to have the same point of view as you ?

There is only one religion and a lot of confusion around it.

As for people thinking things - they can think what ever they want but it would not
change the facts. If you say that you think that an orange is green it would not change
the fact that it is orange.

 

[AinEstonia]

Well, we seem to be speaking about different things.

For me secularism is an individual view of life which attempts to live life without God and religion at all.
In my view this is highly unhealthy.

"For me secularism is an individual view of life which attempts to live life without God..." you may think secularism is that, just like I could think that racism is giving flowers to a pretty girl, but we don't have the power to decide what a word means. Racism does not mean giving flowers to a pretty girl and secularism is not a view of life which attempts to remove God. There are over a billion people who live without a God, they seem to do pretty **** well.

As for what you suggest - I highly agree with you - I pray to the day that governments will have no
involvement with the religious issues and would dedicate their time for the bureaucratic organization
of the affairs. Of course, however, the systems have to be guided and this guidance should be done
by the people through the religious leaders - whom they trust.

I wouldn't say that people trust religious leaders, if you ask an average European right now if they trust the Catholic church, most of them would say "NO".
And what expertise does a religious leader have that others don't ?
I would rather want a gardener giving advise to nations leaders than a religious leader.

There is only one religion and a lot of confusion around it.

As for people thinking things - they can think what ever they want but it would not
change the facts. If you say that you think that an orange is green it would not change
the fact that it is orange.

What kind of an ignorant person would say that there's only one religion ? That's like saying that there's only one continent.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I wouldn't say that people trust religious leaders, if you ask an average European right now if they trust the Catholic church, most of them would say "NO".
And what expertise does a religious leader have that others don't ?
I would rather want a gardener giving advise to nations leaders than a religious leader.

Do you know any religous leader? I don't First let's find a candidate and then see if he is appropriate.

A religious leader, at least according to the profile is quite appropriate as he begins his career by being highly involved with life. People come to him with wishes to be married, blessing their sons when they are born, personal problems etc. Thus, he should have, at least in theory, a very broad and healthy experience with community life
aside from just knowing things to do with checks and balances. This is of course in theory.

What kind of an ignorant person would say that there's only one religion ? That's like saying that there's only one continent.

I do not understand why you above anybody should be uncomfortable with this as you have no emotional attachment to any religion. I would understand why a Christian or a Jew might feel uncomfortable with that. However, secular people should not care to much about that.

In fact, modern day religions, aside from Islam, are more on the verge of sects than being close to religion.

As for the definition of secularism I checked wikipedia and you are right. I was not aware that there is a political movement of secularism. If so you can indeed count me in - I do not think that religion should be part of the constitutional civil laws of any country. However, the countries should encourage the religious inclinations of its citizens or at least not interfere.

 

[AinEstonia]

Do you know any religous leader? I don't First let's find a candidate and then see if he is appropriate.

A religious leader, at least according to the profile is quite appropriate as he begins his career by being highly involved with life. People come to him with wishes to be married, blessing their sons when they are born, personal problems etc. Thus, he should have, at least in theory, a very broad and healthy experience with community life
aside from just knowing things to do with checks and balances. This is of course in theory.

What about the Pope ? Oh wait, he participated in covering up cases of child molesting, so he's pretty much out of the window.
What do you mean by "...he begins his career by being highly involved with life," are you saying other people aren't "highly" involved with their life ?
And if you would want a person who's given a lot of advice to people to counsel nations leaders, then why not a therapist ? And just wondering, couldn't a religious leader who councils nations leaders female ?

I do not understand why you above anybody should be uncomfortable with this as you have no emotional attachment to any religion. I would understand why a Christian or a Jew might feel uncomfortable with that. However, secular people should not care to much about that.
In fact, modern day religions, aside from Islam, are more on the verge of sects than being close to religion.

I'm not attached to any religion, but I am attached to a little thing called TRUTH. And the truth is that there are many many many religions. You claim that Islam is the only "One", cause you're a Muslim, I'm sure there are Christians who call Christianity the only religion.
And don't refer to me as a secular person, since many many religious people are secular, I'm an atheist, that's a label that creates far less confusion.
Why do you say that "most modern day religions, aside from Islam, are more on the verge of sects than being close to religion" ? I like how you said "aside from Islam", there's nothing like being hugely biased, right

As for the definition of secularism I checked wikipedia and you are right. I was not aware that there is a political movement of secularism. If so you can indeed count me in - I do not think that religion should be part of the constitutional civil laws of any country. However, the countries should encourage the religious inclinations of its citizens or at least not interfere.

Finally, took you long enough to check the definition of such a basic word.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

First, my friend, I would enjoy talking to you much more if you would try to be a bit more respectful. Do not get me wrong, I do not ask you to be respectful to my religion but to me as a person. Ok?

What about the Pope ?

The pope is not a religious leader he is a high religious official. These are two different things. Prophet Mosis,
Prophet Muhammad where religious leaders and in fact had to earn their leadership from scratch by proving
themselves rather than being advanced in some predetermined scale (as are more official leaders today)

This also excludes your example of a psychologist as a psychologist earns his degree and then people come to ask him for advice on the basis of a predetermined authority - rather than truly proving himself as someone whom the people come to naturally - just by simple appreciation and fate in his word.

This might seem a foreign idea to an atheist - however, you would find that it is somewhat very adequate to the human nature (in healthy state).

do you mean by "...he begins his career by being highly involved with life," are you saying other people aren't "highly" involved with their life ?

People in the modern world are in constant running away from their life and are involved more and
more with abstract ideas rather than with life itself.

And just wondering, couldn't a religious leader who councils nations leaders female
?

Yes.

do you say that "most modern day religions, aside from Islam, are more on the verge of sects than being close to religion" ?

Well, you just need to look for yourself to find the answer. A sect according to what I understand is a closed group of people putting a lot of emphasis on rituals which are meant to make them different than others. Most modern religions fit this description. Islam on the other hand has in its core a certain fundamental spiritual message which is, by definition, meant for humanity as a whole - i.e not for a closed group of people.

If these religions would want to loosen up the sect elements which pertain to them and stress the universal messages which seems to be in their basis, great - but then you would not be so far of from Islam anyway.

 

[Dagless]

Edited the offending quote as requested, though I think you should start being truthful about who you are.

 

[shuraimfan4lyf]

First, my friend, I would enjoy talking to you much more if you would try to be a bit more respectful. Do not get me wrong, I do not ask you to be respectful to my religion but to me as a person. Ok?
.

How can you not ask him to be respectful towards Islam? That is really sad. Is that how you really stand up for Islam?

 

[marwen]

.... To Delete ...

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

How can you not ask him to be respectful towards Islam? That is really sad. Is that how you really stand up for Islam?

I found that, sometimes, being respectful towards Islam is disregarding foolishness.