wqeqw

Do you guys agree with Friedrich Nietzsche's argument: 1. Without God, humans are deprived of absolute values or eternal truths. 2. Absolute values and eternal truths rely upon the existence of God. Gay Science PS: by the way Mutakalim, you are bit childish.

Dr. William Hatcher , who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. in mathematics, delivered a logical proof for the existence of God. Hatcher outlines a simple logical proof for the existence of God, an accomplishment made possible, he said, by reexamining a classic proof of God offered by the great Muslim philosopher Avicenna (ibn Sina, 980-1037) and applying to it some new logical tools derived from recent developments in mathematics. I wanted to post the short excerpt of his book here, but unfortunatly the forum would not allow me to paste the required symbols here. Instead here is a link. Go read it and lets do discuss it afterwards. http://www.onecountry.org/e102/e10214xs.htm

Can the designer – God- have such infinite attributes that he can elude the smartest of minds, with the deep motive to disprove him, that is to say those minds which lack objective motives, to actually elude them to the conclusion that they have disproved them, when they did not? In other words, God’s perfection not only comes from the creation of the world (which is clearly not ‘THE’ only masterpiece, if not a masterpiece at all, which you get when you read the Quran), but actually comes from the perfection of Free Will. That is to say, a mind set out to disprove God is correctly exercising its free will to do so and hence nothing will change it, till itself changes. peace

Sorry I was high on caffeine. I have just read over it, I think I was tad too aggressive. Anyway, please do comment.

Sophist, like always, out to exaggerate everything into a simple notion that is defined by his own priori definition. He is like a man who knows of a certain life, his own boring life. Who then comes to the conclusion that life is dull and meaningless, and that there is no point in thinking about it; nothing great ever happens, there are no heroes or villains—no point. Surely, such a man has no choice but to define life in such a way. However, if it the fact is pressed to him that every day someone wakes up, gets dressed and has breakfast, just to go and consciously take away life; to murder, to cause evil and terror to people who would otherwise may have happy and fulfilling lives. Or that someone else does the complete opposite: consciously sacrifices his own life for strangers. Willingly gives his own to the needy at his own expense. What would such a man say to such reality? How would he respond? Surely, if he is reasonable, he will swallow back his mischievous conclusions and change the very premises, his own life, which he used to arrive as such absurd conclusions. The point I’m trying to make is: who are you to question love. Honestly, how can you be so ungrateful as to judge the very thing which makes life possible? You were born, and bred, and have grown up, because somebody loved you. And you the work of its hands, its foster child, the pupil of its thoughts, its own proof, have the nerve to say itself has no meaning or that its all a mistake—and that person did not actually love you, but thought they did; there must be something wrong with you, you have made a mistake. And I think your mistake is that you have too narrowly defined love, although you claim it cannot be defined (like Allah, by the way I’m still trying to get over the bad taste it has left in my thoughts). It sounds like a women has broken your heart, and you came to a popular conclusion. The sad thing is, however, you actually believe this, this random jottings of immoral thoughts founded on nothing, aspire to something original; original enough to render a well established Truth such as love into nothing! Shame.

Mutakalim I think you are missing the point. The premises of your argument supports one particular conclusion, a conclusion derived by Western philosophers, based on their understanding of Christianity. Then you take this conclusion, which is vaguely related to the beliefs of Islam (or the undistorted beliefs the other two Abrahamic faiths), and then you build upon a special form of irreverence to arrive at your intended conclusion. You have to understand these people, these Western thinkers and refuters of the Objective God, have reasons in deitising logic and condemning religion. They are people made to believe, or were required to believe, the absurdities of the (distorted) Bible, such as the creation of light before the sun, the creation of the world six thousand years ago, and also that absurd sacrament, of which Voltaire even used to say, that though many different religions had existed and still exist, never before had there been one the principle religious act to which consisted of eating one’s God, or that God is one and Three in the same moment. Thusly, if men of strong spirit, like these you have mentioned and whose arguments you use, free themselves from the hypnotic influence in which they were educated in childhood and confirmed in maturity, will become the new priests of science and reason, and thus, this unprincipled man, instead of freeing revelation from the vile distortions, the same revelations that first of all ignited man’s reason, will be guided in life by the same principles which have distorted revelation itself. He will consider himself to be on the highest plane of mental development accessible to humanity. Alas they forget, all is irrelevant and is nothing more than ignorance built upon ignorance, uttered in the certainty of hope— faith in their own ignorance. To these man, and the same applies to you since your entire reasoning depends upon this established ignorance, faith is the realisation of things hoped for, and the certainty of things unseen. This is based on the impossibility of assuming faith to be just a hope, a hope of the un-unified internal state of mind with that of external events. Faith in Islam, however, is the unification of everything with the Infinite (not the separation of the internal from the external), That which has been before and will be after time, the unification of one’s will with that of God’s, the acknowledgement of tawheed. Faith is not hope, as Pascal says: we have nothing to loose from believing God, if He does exist then we will be saved, but if he does not, well then there is nothing, and since you are nothing, nothing which is now dead, I doubt it you will be whining about not finding the God you have ‘hoped’ for. Additionally, to further correct your misunderstanding, faith is also not confidence. Faith is man’s consciousness of his position and duty in the Infinite Will, his position in the Will of God, which imposes on him the obligation to fulfil certain actions, certain reasonable actions. And reason, which is that naturally understood by every thinking man to be good and that which is confirmed by revelation, makes us aware of our position and duty. I was going to go into discussion about revelation and the infallible evidence of God’s existence, but I will not. No point. Contrary to your mischievous attempts at originality by quoting the random jottings of immoral thoughts founded on nothing, professed by the half-mad Western thinkers who do not even represent anything whole and connected, all has been said before. Go back to your books, read some more, reflect some more and than read some more. Find Truth, do not just regurgitate others failed endeavours. My advice to you is don’t be like those men of the strong spirit who after having freed themselves from the clutches of ignorance, became the new head priests of the Church of blind reason. Don’t be that man who after having attempted to proof his knowledge only proofed that he knew nothing. Peace

verbosity doesn’t equal intelligence. I think that should be tattooed on Sophist's forehead. Sophist , I think you do have a point when you say Somalis tend to assimilate the negative aspects of western culture. However you need to be reminded that this phenomenon is not something particular to Somalis as it also happens to most migrants. You should not be dismayed. In time most migrants come to their senses, after having come to understand the pros and cons of the host nation’s culture, they have a tendency to make rational choices towards their future. What's more I don’t think the generalisation is entirely necessary, I have seen cases where two out of five brothers have worked hard through high school and subsequently through academia, whereas the rest became drop outs [in academic sense] and found work at local factories. So in any case there are variations, especially when there is such a vast exodus of Somalis to the west, you are bound to have those who get assimilated into other cultures and those who after [inevitably] having adopted some aspects of others cultures remain intact and benefit from the experience. Peace

My dear Somali-Girl, Do believe me when I say my intention was not to offend you. Rather it was to appease your hostility. Since you have quite a few times made crude and unworthy remarks about how others write. So do not be dismayed about my comment, for it was not short of a taste of your own medicine. Moreover, I do not consider anyone here inferior, nor do I take pride in writing in English -as apposed to writing in Somali. I employ whatever language I see fit, even though I grew up in the west I still consider Somali to be my first language, and always will have. Secondly, I think you should understand that any comment directed at Somali-Girl does not necessarily claim to be a fitting assertion of the person behind the handle. All I know you could be a cunning linguist, but as far as I’m concerned Somali-Girl’s prose is ghastly ungrammatical. Having said that, lets try to forgive and forget shall we. Peace

I don't think it has anything to do with conspiracies such as white supremacy or even Malthusian theories. Rather it is an outdated mode of development which reflects greed and corruption. Sure it is easier to blame population control than to admit that at any given point in time there are enough resources (food, medicine etc) to sustain twenty billions lives. If the west and the well off admit to this point, they will be depicting a morally repugnant view of themselves and this will not help them sleep better at night. Peace

Somali-girl, What is with the crusade? Let the man speak. Surely you don't see us complaining about your bad grammar and those hideous smiles.

Samurai Warrior, How are the public schools in England? Sophist, I have had only four hours of sleep for the past two days. Plus I just came out of an oral exam, on St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas’ notion of “Jus Ad Bellum”. I think the examiners liked the Islamic perspective that I shared with them. Anyway going to bed. Peace

Salafi_Online I think you are missing the point!

Mutakalim, You know you are right I should get my money back, they haven’t taught me anything that I did not know before. However, I’m glad you are fond of philosophy but I feel I should correct you. Karl Popper, I think, said, theory will be 'regarded more satisfactory the greater the severity of the independent tests it has survived,' but he insisted that falsification was the only way to finally eliminate an invalid theory, ‘If the theory fails a test, it has been falsified.’ In short the nature of the ‘knowledge’, which the inductive method yields, is what can be known for certain is ‘what is not true.’ But to be honest with you I don’t really understand the reason to why you have used this quote, I have never claimed that the topic in hand, dreams, was never a subject beyond philosophy. I simply said it was one befitting of a neurologist. If you feel the need, like most philosophy enthusiasts do, that you need to bring everything in posterity to philosophy, then by all means go ahead. Peace

Mutakalim, I have studied philosophy at undergraduate level, but I do not feel the need to proof myself to everyone. Surely, the concept that all events and objects that we encounter in real life come into existence as visions and feelings in our brains or that live can exist without the existance of concrete physical world is not a philosophical speculation. I think it is one fitting for a neurologist rather than a philosopher. To conclude what could be a long argument short, your shortcoming is not that you are too familiar with philosophy; it is that you are not familiar with anything else. I think this has always been the source of my intolerance towards philosophers as well as amateur philosophers.

Jamaal, I'm glad you have found the website helpful. I'm assuming you have read fair bit of literature on the topic. What are your personal thoughts so far?

Salafi_Online, I am honestly not the person to take this sort of discussion very seriously for two reasons: first, I think this is one of those things you can neither prove nor refute, secondly, even if it could be proofed indisputably, like you said we are still at the end of the day accountable and nothing changes. However, I think the discussion is valuable because it encourages further contemplation and this can benefit a person in many ways. It can make him more aware, value material life little less and see the true purpose in life and so on. So for this reasons if you want to read further about this sort of issue from what you can call a Islamic perspective read the work of Harun Yahya. Here is a precept from the book: "The world of senses" that we experience in dreams A person can experience all senses vividly without the presence of the outside world. The most obvious example of this is dreams. A person lies on his bed with closed eyes while dreaming. However, in spite of this, that person senses many things which he or she experiences in real life, and experiences them so realistically that the dreams are indistinguishable from the real life experience. Everyone who reads this book will often bear witness to this truth in their own dreams. For example, a person lying down alone on a bed in a calm and quiet atmosphere at night might, in his dream, see himself in danger in a very crowded place. He could experience the event as if it were real, fleeing from danger in desperation and hiding behind a wall. Moreover, the images in his dreams are so realistic that he feels fear and panic as if he really was in danger. He has his heart in his mouth with every noise, is shaken with fear, his heart beats fast, he sweats and demonstrates the other physical affects that the human body undergoes in a dangerous situation. However, there is no external equivalent of the events in his dream. They exist only in his mind. A person who falls from a high place in his dream feels it with all his body, even though he is lying in bed without moving. Alternatively, one might see oneself slipping into a puddle, getting soaked and feeling cold because of a cold wind. However, in such a case, there is neither a puddle, nor is there wind. Furthermore, despite sleeping in a very hot room, one experiences the wetness and the cold, as if one were awake. Someone who believes he is dealing with the original of the material world in his dream can be very sure of himself. He can put his hand on his friend's shoulder when the friend tells him that "matter is an image; it isn't possible to deal with the original of the world", and then ask "Am I an image now? Don't you feel my hand on your shoulder? If so, how can you be an image? What makes you think in this way? Let's take a trip up the Bosphorus; we can have a chat about it and you'll explain to me why you believe this." The dream that he sees in his deep sleep is so clear that he turns on the engine with pleasure and accelerates slowly, almost jumping the car by pressing the pedal suddenly. While going on the road, trees and road lines seem solid because of the speed. In addition, he breathes clean Bosphorus air. But suppose he is woken up by his ringing alarm clock just when he's getting ready to tell his friend that what he's living at that moment isn't a dream. Wouldn't he object in the same manner regardless of whether he was asleep or awake? When people wake up they understand that what they've seen until that moment is a dream. But for some reason they are not suspicious that the life that starts with a "waking" image (what they call "real life") can also be a dream. However, the way we perceive images in "real life" is exactly the same as the way we perceive our dreams. We see both of them in the mind. We cannot understand they are images until we are woken up. Only then do we say "what I have just seen was a dream". So, how can we prove that what we see at any given moment is not a dream? We could be assuming that the moment in which we are living is real just because we haven't yet woken up.It is possible that we will discover this fact when we are woken up from this "waking dream" which takes longer than dreams we see everyday. We do not have any evidence that proves otherwise. Many Islamic scholars have also proclaimed that the life around us is only a dream, and that only when we are awakened from that dream with "a big awakening", will people be able to understand that they live in a dreamlike world. A great Islamic scholar, Muhyiddin Ibn al-'Arabi, referred to as Sheikh Akbar (The greatest Sheikh) due to his superior knowledge, likens the world to our dreams by quoting a saying of the Prophet Muhammad: The Prophet Muhammad said that "people are asleep and wake up when they die." This is to say that the objects seen in the world when alive are similar to those seen when asleep while dreaming, meaning that they exist in the imagination.16 In a verse of Koran, people are told to say on doomsday when they are resurrected from the dead: They will say, "Alas for us! Who has raised us from our sleeping-place? This is what the All-Merciful promised us. The Messengers were telling the truth." (The Koran, 36:52) As the verse demonstrates, people wake up on doomsday as if waking from a dream. Like someone woken from the middle of a dream in deep sleep, such people will similarly ask who has woken them up. As the verse points out, the world around us is like a dream and everybody will be woken up from this dream, and will begin to see images of the afterlife, which is the real life. ----------- peace

Jamaal, Are you familiar with the work of Harun Yahya, well if you are not it might be of some interest to you. Read his book titled ‘Matter: the other name for illusion'. I think all of his books are available on his website, for free, at www.harunyahya.com. He argues that there is no need for a real world to exist, everything we feel are nothing more than stimulations, stimulation produced by God and felt by the soul. And that everything belongs to God; hence, this is a test for the real life to come. And that death is not the end; it is the awakening of the soul. Well I wont go into it further, but I recommend that you read it. It kept me awake for nights first time I read it. Peace

Feynman, I have no idea what the rules are, but from what I gather I think you can reply to articles. Having said that. When I posted Chuck Morris’s article I posted it because I thought it was different. However this is not to say the left is blameless or benevolent. But I will not get into this since this is not a debate. So here is another article. ISLAMIC ETHIC by Asghar Ali Engineer Every religion lays great emphasis on ethical aspects of human conduct in its own unique way. Generally there is great commonality between different religions as far as moral and ethical questions are concerned. In fact to mould a moral character is the most fundamental function of religion. All other functions are subsidiary to it. But it is also true that each religion has unique way of doing it and every religion puts differing emphasis on different aspects of human morality. Islam is also unique in this respect. It has its own ethical values and moral concepts, which are universal as well as specific to Islam. This paper will throw light on Islamic ethic. Islam has unique morality of its own. It puts great deal of emphasis, for example, on equality and justice and emphasises dignity of all human beings. We will deal with these issues in the course of this paper. However, there are also universal moral values, which Islam lays emphasis on. The Qur'an gives us the concept of what it calls `amal salih which, translated into English, would mean 'good deeds'. But this translation does not adequately convey the meaning. The key word here is 'salih'. The root of the word is slh from which are derived many words with the meaning to be good, to repair, to mend, to improve, to be righteous, to be efficient, to be suitable, peace and friendliness, reconciliation etc. Thus it will be seen that 'amal salih leads to a society which is reformed, good, efficient, suitable (to humanity), improved and above all which is peaceful and friendly to all human beings. The Qur'an uses the word 'amal salih' repeatedly. For a moral conduct, according to the Qur'an, 'amal salih' is very necessary. In the chapter 103 the Qur'an says, "By the time! Surely man is in loss, except those who believe and do good work ('amal salih'), and exhort one another to Truth and exhort one another to patience." Thus the key ethical concepts here in this chapter are 1) 'amal salih'; 2) to be truthful and 3) to observe patience. One can say that these are key elements of Islamic ethic. Man is surely in loss but those who perform good deeds are truthful and patient would not be. Thus for 'amal salih' truth and patience are highly necessary. One can say that this is most comprehensive statement of the Qur'anic ethic. Here important question is why so much emphasis on 'patience'? Why truth and patience are made integral to each other? Because to be truthful is most arduous and challenging. One has to face great problems in order to be truthful. One will have to face opposition, even intrigues, from vested interests. It is, therefore, necessary, to be steadfast and patient and face all these challenges with fortitude and courage. All this requires great deal of patience. Hence the Qur'an lays so much emphasis on being steadfast and patient to follow the path of truth. Only a man of great patience can be truthful. Truth is a universal value in all religions. Some religions like Hinduism also maintain that truth (Satyam) is God. The Qur'an also elevates truth (Haq) to the status of being God. Allah has been described as Haq in the Qur'an. No human being can claim to be Truth in absolute sense. Mansur al-Hallaj, the famous sufi saint who claimed to be ana'l haq (I am the Truth) was hanged because it meant claiming to be God. Thus truth has great significance in the Islamic ethical system. Here it should be remembered that truth is not mere conformity with observable facts as in empirical sciences. Truth in moral sciences, especially in religion, has moral or ideological dimension also which is not necessarily verifiable. It is this aspect of moral or religious truth, which separates religion from science. However, it should also be born in mind that truth should not be contrary to observable facts also. All one can say is that truth, in moral and religious discourse, is not mere conformity with fact. It is more than mere conformity with fact. In Islamic system of morality, as in some other religions too, it is establishment of a moral society that is very fundamental. The emphasis of Islamic teachings is not personal salvation but establishment of a society that is just and free of zulm (oppression). Here we will like to deal with this aspect of Islamic ethic in greater detail, as it is most central to Islam. The Qur'an lays great emphasis on 'adl (justice). It is the central value in the Islamic ethic. The Qur'an says that "Be just; it is closest to being pious." (5:8). Thus in Islam there is no concept of piety without being just. The opposite of 'adl' is 'zulm' (oppression). Zulm is derived from the root z.l.m. that has several shades of meaning i.e. to do wrong, injustice, darkness, iniquity, oppression etc. The Qur'an often uses it in the sense of wrong doing and oppression. Islam basically lays emphasis on establishing a just society free of all forms of oppression. The Prophet also says that a society can live with unbelief (kufr) but not with oppression (zulm). Thus Islamic ethic conceives of a society which will be free of all forms of exploitation and oppression. Islam basically is a non-violent religion. It does not approve of violence at all. The most basic attribute of Allah is mercy and compassion of which we will talk more little later. But Islam approves of violence (in a highly controlled sense, of course) only to remove zulm, the structures of oppression.. Thus the Qur'an says, "And how could you refuse to fight in the cause of Allah and of the utterly helpless men and women and children who are crying, "O our Sustainer! Lead us forth (to freedom) out of this land whose people are oppressors, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, a protector, and raise for us, out of Thy grace, one who will bring us succour!". (4:75) Thus the Qur'an's emphasis is on fighting against injustice, against oppression. Everyone has right to live in peace in ones own country. If someone tries to throw them out just because they have their own inner conviction, they cannot be thrown out of their homeland. And if someone tries to do that, one has to stand up to that and fight against this injustice. Islam does not permit violence in matters of preaching of religion. It believes, as is obvious from the above verse also, in full freedom of conscience. In fact if this freedom is violated that Islam permits use of regulated force. As for preaching of religion it has to be done only through 'goodly exhortation and wisdom' (16:125). There is no question of use of violence or that purpose. If some one does that it is against the Divine injunction. It is zulm. There is much misunderstanding about inter-connection between Islam and violence which needs o be clarified here since we are dealing with the question of Islamic ethic here. Islam does not approve of violence except in certain extra-ordinary circumstances. The word Islam has been derived from the root s.l.m. Which means to escape danger, to be free from fault, to deliver or hand over, to commit oneself to the will of God, to lay down arms, to establish peace. Thus the best meaning of the word Islam will be to establish or promote peace in harmony with the Will of Allah. Thus a Muslim is not a true Muslim if he commits acts of violence either for spread of Islam or for purposes of achieving power be it in the name of Islam. His primary duty is to establish peace so that justice prevails and humanity prospers. The Prophet has also said that the best form of jihad is to say truth in the face of a tyrant ruler. Tyranny could be both physical and psychological. The Qur'an says that no human life can be taken except in keeping with law. Thus we find in the Qur'an that "whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed entire humanity. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved lives of all men." (5:32) The Qur'an, it will be seen is against violence against humanity. It could be resorted to only for a just cause that too after great deliberation and if all other doors are closed. It is true the Qur'an has permitted retaliatory violence (for qisas). But the Qur'anic statements should also be seen at various levels. At the level of the Arabian society, with its customs, norms and traditions, permitting qisas (retaliatory violence) was necessary. The Qur'an had to deal with a given society. But at the higher moral level retaliation is not a good moral practice. It may be necessary in a society which is not highly morally developed. But in a morally developed society the virtue of pardon is he highest virtue. There is great moral worth in the act of pardon. One of Allah's attributes is that He pardons. He is Ghaffar i.e. He is forgiver. Forgiving is the great moral virtue. Retaliation may be human but forgiving is divine. Retaliation amounts to giving vent to ones anger but forgiving amounts to suppressing ones rage and suppressing ones anger or rage is described as great virtue by the Qur'an. Those who suppress their anger are called kazim al-ghayz. On moral level the Qur'an deals with this issue in the verse 3:133. The verse reads, "Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their) anger and pardon men. And Allah loves doers of good (to others). This verse (3:133) deals with the moral aspect whereas the verse dealing with the question of qisas deals with the prevailing practice. The Qur'an's intention is not to perpetuate the practice of retaliation but to build a human character on the basis of restraining anger and forgiving. To absolutise the verse on retaliation and to maintain that it is the ultimate divine will is to do injury to the spirit of the Qur'an which is to cultivate higher morality among human beings. It is the verse 3:133 which represents this higher morality. This is further reinforced by Allah's own attributes of being Merciful and Compassionate on the one hand, and repeated assertion by the Qur'an of the concept of ihsan (doing good to others). Thus it will be seen that the Islamic scripture does not morally approve even retaliatory violence which has at least some justification. Thus the question of violence has to be dealt with great caution as far as the Islamic tradition is concerned. At the level of the value Qur'an upholds non-violence and exhorts Muslims to use wisdom and benevolence (hikmah and ihsan) while dealing with others. Whatever violence has taken place in the Islamic history it is Muslims and the then Arab society and their norms that could be held responsible than the teachings of the Qur'an. It is highly necessary to make this distinction in order to properly understand the essence of the Islamic ethic. Certain concessions to the situation should not be mixed up with the transcendental ethical norms given by the Qur'an. In this connection it should also be borne in mind that the Qur'an's repeated advocacy to fight (qatilu) is not to give permanence to violence or the glorify it but in the situation the Qur'an was dealing with, there was absolutely no other alternative but to fight. Inter tribal wars went on for years. Violence, in other words, was very much in the air. Also, there were powerful vested interests who were out to destroy Islam in its infancy and to eliminate the Prophet physically. Any moral discourse would not have influenced such people. The only alternative was to first defeat or subdue such elements and then to build new moral human from out of the believers. It was very difficult task indeed. If there has been blood shed, and there has been, in the history of Islam the problem lies with the type of the society rather than the quality of the religious teachings. Most of us read into religion what suits our interests. In other words we often instrumentalise religion for our own purposes. There is abundant proof in history if we care to examine it carefully. Buddhism, Jainism and Christianity laid great deal of stress on compassion, non-violence and love and yet these religions put together could not build a society based on these values. Society still is full of violence, conflict and clash of interests. However, there is one more aspect we have to deal with to clear Islam of the charge that it promotes violence. It can be said that the Buddhist, Jain or the Christian scriptures do not permit or talk of violence where as the Islamic scripture does. But here one has to keep in mind the historical and social situation those scriptures were dealing with and the Islamic scripture was called upon to deal with. Here one has to refer to the Meccan context also. In Meccan verses there is absolutely no mention of meeting violence with violence. Therefore some of the religious thinkers like Mehmoud Mohammad Taha of Sudan have laid emphasis on the Meccan Islam. The Muslims were a persecuted minority in Mecca and they bore with great patience all the persecution let loose on them. Islam in Mecca was a great spiritual force. Those who lay emphasis on Meccan Islam would argue that had Muslims not migrated to Madina Islam would have remained a passive spiritual force like Buddhism or Christianity. There is great deal of truth in this argument. But there are some problems, if not flaws, in it. Firstly, even in Meccan stage Islam was not a religion of individual salvation. Right from beginning Islam laid great emphasis on building community. The concept of ummah was a collective concept. The concept of the community was always at the heart of the Islamic movement. In tribal society in which Islam arose in Mecca, individual is always subordinate to the collectivity. If Islam had laid emphasis on individual spiritual salvation the Meccan tribal lords would have hardly bothered to oppose it. However, Islam had a social agenda. It aimed at reforming not only the individual but also the whole society. It knew that the roots of exploitation and oppression lay in social structure, not only in individual avarice. So it aimed at transforming the society along with the individual. If the Meccan verses are examined carefully the transformatory agenda of Islam becomes very clear. It forcefully attacks accumulation of wealth and exhorts the believers to spend their wealth on the poor, needy and orphans and widows. The rich of Mecca were neglecting them. This the Islamic agenda even at the Meccan stage was to set up a society which was based on socio-economic justice. Look at this powerful denunciation of accumulation of wealth in one of the Meccan chapters (104): 1 Woe to every slanderer, defamer! 2 Who amasses wealth and counts it – 3 He thinks that his wealth will make him abide. 4 Nay, he will certainly be hurled into the crushing disaster; 5 And what will make thee realise what the crushing disaster is? 6 It is the Fire kindled by Allah, 7 Which rises over the hearts. 8 Surely it is closed on them, 9 In extended columns. More such chapters and verses could be cited from the Meccan verses. Thus it becomes clear that Islam was attacking the very roots of social and economic exploitation and trying to lay foundation for a just society. The Meccan lords were, therefore, determined to throw out such a movement lock, stock and barrel. They, therefore, severely persecuted Muslims and forced them to migrate. When the Prophet migrated to Madina he seriously busied himself in laying the foundation of a just society. In doing so he became threat not only to the Jews of Madina whom he had given full religious freedom in his covenant with them (known as Mithaq-e-Madina) but also continued to remain a threat for the Meccan vested interests. The Meccan vested interests were determined to thwart any attempt to set up a just society even in Medina as successful experiment in Madina could pose serious challenge to their own interests. They were lording over an exploitative system. Thus they went in full force and attacked Madina . The Prophet was again faced with a violent situation and had to defend himself and urge his followers to fight for defence of Madina and for defence of Islam. The Jews and hypocrites betrayed him and thus he had to face internal strife also. He had to mobilise forces to fight the Jews with whom he had no religious quarrel. The Jews, who otherwise free to practice their own religion, felt threatened that they could no longer dominate the Madinese market. The migrants from Mecca too were expert traders and were now posing challenge to the dominance of the Jews. The Prophet of Islam had hardly any choice. In an attempt to set up a just society based on high ethical standards, integrity of character and spiritual values he had to take on most powerful vested interests out to rack his movement. Thus violence appears in the history of Islam not out of choice but out of compulsion. It is certainly not prescriptive violence but imposed one. Now as for the instances of Meccan model of Islam we do come across them in history, particularly in Sufi Islam. Sufi Islam is essentially build around the theory of individual salvation. A Sufi saint is engaged more in individual character building and spiritual practices and hence his whole emphasis on 'ibadat (prayers). The Prophet of Islam, it is interesting to note, was a perfect synthesis of a Sufi and an activist engaged in building a just society. That is why the Sufis consider the Holy Prophet as their Master from whom they derive their spiritual practices. But in later history of Islam we find either the Sufis or the activists or the 'Ulama (theologians) who theorised on the basis of the Qur'an and available reports of the Prophet's sayings and practices. The problem with the 'Ulama was that they froze Islam in its first century and lost track of its fundamental vision. Thus they could not keep pace with the changing society or new challenges emerging from different historical situations. The Prophet combined in himself both the Meccan and the Medinese Islam and thus he became a perfect model to follow. However, for those who came after him the Meccan Islam lost all relevance and they became more involved with building up a political community. The overemphasis in history of Islam on building up a political community created several problems and Islam became politicised rather than spiritualised. Hence its critics usually maintain that Islam is integrally associated with power. However, it would be a serious mistake to associate Islam with power. Islam, like any other religion, has strong spiritual and ethical base. Its basic emphasis on ethical foundations of individual action cannot be ignored. The 'ibadat (which include praying, fasting, giving alms and performing hajj – pilgrimage - ) are very central to Islam. It is these 'ibadat which, according to the Qur'an, lead to inner peace (sakinat al-qalb). Thus the Qur'an says "He it is who sent down inner peace into the hearts of the believers that they might add faith to their faith." (48:4). Inner peace and spiritual solace are the very foundation stones of an ethical conduct. Here we would like to point out that compassion like in Buddhism, is very central to Islam also. The key word for this is rehmah. This word has been derived from its root r.h.m. which in its root meaning means womb of the mother. And one of the ethical concept of Islam is sila-i-rahmi i.e. maintaining close relationship with those connected with ones mother's womb i.e. close relatives. Since mother nurtures and sustains life, she is more compassionate than man. Thus compassion and mother's womb are derived from the same root in Arabic. God is most compassionate (arham al-rahimin) as he is the creator and sustainer of all life. His Mercy and Compassion envelop everything in this universe (7:156). Thus a Muslim who worships Allah has to display compassion by all his actions. True worship does not mean merely physically bowing down before Allah. It means bowing down to His attributes and to imbibe these attributes in ones life. Thus a true Muslim is compassionate to all forms of life and he is committed to remove suffering from this earth. In other words a Muslim is quite sensitive to sufferings of all living beings and he should never be a cause of suffering of others. The Prophet is reported to have said that a good Muslim is one at whose hands others are safe. The Islamic prayers ('ibadat) sensitivise Muslims to others suffering. The salat makes him sensitive to equality of all human beings since all Muslims, irrespective of their social status have to stand in one line to pray; fasting during the month of Ramadan make s him sensitive to others hunger and thirst and zakah makes him conscious of others financial needs. And we need these prime virtues in human beings to make them righteous and conscious of their duties to other human beings. The Qur'an also lays great stress on spiritual freedom and accepts different ways of worship. Spiritual freedom is very basis of a free human person responsible to himself as well as to whole humanity.

Bashi, Thank you, I know we are meant to share articles but first I would like to say few words on the above article. Without involving ourselves in these vexed definitions, let us consider the parody of the notion. I have always wondered can belief in the Divine Unity be so un-unified? I think not. It is my believe that traditionalists, modernists, fundamentalists and secularist are nothing but self-interested parasites. Let me express my views about these different groups. Modernists. The word itself implies a notion of superiority. To be a modernist Muslim, I believe, is to be that like that forgetful genius who invented a machine in his garage, which can turn gold into copper. The basic assumption to modernise is to progress, although progress is something inevitable and natural I feel as if these modernists are using the west as their standard yardstick. Their objective is to remake Islam in the image of the west, or some other Marxist communist utopia. In their fear of traditionalist they reject tradition, not understanding that traditions are different from traditionalism. While traditionalism is nostalgic and futile, tradition on the other hand change with its own parameters because if they were to vacate their position a meaningless vacuum would be a created, a vacuum, which has to be filled because society cannot exist with a huge gab in its soul —a gap that is most likely be filled with fundamentalism. Blinded by notions of modernisation they forget any change needs to be a meaningful change with an integrated and meaningful sense of progress with its sense of identity still attached. Traditionalists. These I believe are the worst. They are nothing but a contradiction in term, they love Islam so much they are willing to romanticise a golden past and thus suffocate all life from it. They are nostalgics who validate tradition as it exists on the basis of a roseate vision of their own history. This is the easiest position to advocate because it appeals to the defeated masses, ministering as it does to battered pride and replacing insult with confidence-boosting assurance. The biggest problem with this group is that they produce a disease, a disease that is complacency. They think all questions are answered by tradition and thus there is no real questions to be addressed. They believe tradition need not to be questioned for urgent solutions to current dilemmas and disasters. Merely one just needs to dig a hole in the ground and keep his head low while received tradition brings a return to the Golden Age. Fundamentalists. I think fundamentalism is a direct result of the failure of secular nationalism in the Muslim world. Dictatorial nation-states stripped Muslim societies of their plurality by marginalising all except the westernised elites from power, and ruthlessly suppressing all minorities. However, when nationalism and modernity have failed fundamentalism has inspired many Muslims with its success. Fundamentalism is very much related to traditionalism, their very nature is based as they are on the retrieval of an imagined ‘pristine’ beginning. However, since both of them lack Islamic authenticity they are pretty much reactionary in everything. Their whole world is made up of false dichotomies: fundamentalism vs modernism, normativism vs acculturationism, revivalism vs re-entrenchment, Islam vs the west. Thus everything must be rejected; and the rejection begins by cutting of everything that is western with all its ills, and this ends with intolerance of all interpretations of Islam which differ from those of the clan aka many of the fundamentalist groups. Hence this narrow version of Islam can only come into power by force and rule by terror. Secularists. I don’t really have much to say on this group other than that I can only tolerate a secularist insofar he or she does not claim to be a Muslim. How can Islam be separated from everything? It is nonsensical to suppose Islam, a worldview, can only govern the private aspect of life. I think this group formed out of intolerance to all the other moronic factions, fundamentalists and traditionalists in particular. Sorry this has turned out to be more than a few words. Here is the article I wanted to post. ------------------------------------- Islamic Liberation Theology November 2, 2002 by Chuck Morse It's become quite fashionable for leftist intellectuals to blame Islamic terror on religion without differentiating between radical Islam and Judeo-Christian faith. Psuedo-scientific jargon is used to equate religious Jews and Christians with Islamic extremists with the preposterous contention that any belief in G-d somehow leads to violence and fanaticism. Somehow the violent and fanatic record of anti Judeo-Christian Nazism and atheistic Communism, movements that evolved out of the modern enlightenment, go unmentioned. While violent Jihad against the infidel is certainly an integral part of Islam, the Islamic world nevertheless reached a fork in the road in the early 20th century. The choice was between the enlightened leadership of Kemal Ataturk, who sought to modernize and westernize Turkey and Prince Faisal, who signed an internationally recognized peace treaty with Zionist leader Chaim Weitzmann on the one side, and the Nazi backed Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and, later, his Soviet backed nephew Yasser Arafat on the other. For the most part, the Islamo-Nazism of the Grand Mufti and the Islamo-Communism of Arafat seems to have carried the day. The Grand Mufti, undoing the progress made by Prince Faisal, introduced terror into Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East. The Mufti mixed some of the more violent aspects of traditional Islam with modern National Socialism, which he participated in while spending World War II in Berlin as head of a Nazi/Muslim government in exile. The Egyptian born Arafat, a creature of the left-wing Soviet Union, founded the terror cell al-Fatah in the early 1960's after spending a year in Russia. According to terrorism expert Yossef Bodansky, the Soviet Union developed a network of international terror cells for the purpose of destabilizing the West. In 1972 at a terror conference held at the Baddawi refugee camp in Lebanon, Marxist PFLP chairman George Habbash, Soviet KGB head Yevgeny Primakov, Arafat, and others formed an "alliance of progressive movements and terrorist organizations." After Baddawi, terrorists struck first in Quirat Shemona, Israel, April 11, 1974 murdering 18 people, including 8 children, and then in Maalot on May 15, 1974 murdering 25 schoolchildren. This was followed in short order by the forced landing of a hijacked airplane at Entebbe Airport in Uganda where Jews were separated from other passengers for execution. After the Jewish hostages were rescued by Israeli commandos, terrorists murdered Dora Block, an elderly passenger left behind in a hospital bed. Soon afterward, on a passenger ship called the Achille Lauro, terrorists threw Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly Jewish man, overboard in his wheelchair. The left-wing Soviets, through arms, finance, training, and propaganda, are responsible for launching the international Islamic terrorism of today. The left continues to serve as a fifth column in the non-Islamic world by supporting an anti-American, anti-Israel posture as well as appeasement. But has the left actually influenced the radical Islamic faith of Osama bin Laden and his fellows? My suspicion is that communists created an Islamic liberation theology not unlike the Christian liberation theology that has been so effective for the communists in Catholic Latin America. Christian liberation theology isolates a couple of passages in the New Testament, placing them in a context that creates a false illusion that Jesus Christ advocated communism. Once this idea is embraced, the "liberated" Christian is more susceptible to support a violent communist revolution in the name of Christianity. Communists have also been able to work a version of this type of perverse magic within Judaism. By isolating and emphasizing the more violent aspects of Islam, perhaps the modern socialists, first the Nazi's and then the Communists, created, or at least fostered the development of the current lethal "liberation" version of Islam. While posing as traditional Islam, this communized form retards modernization. Radical Islam today, employing all the jargon of modern communism, including the strident language of victimization and conspiracy, seems to be in the service of the modern Islamic despot.

You see that is what I'm talking about. Your last post was lyrical and smooth. Honestly, how can I learn to master a style like that? I'm a law and political science major, so prose and literary style was never that important in my line 'business'. By the way, we have not been introduced, what is it that you do? Well done.

Samurai Warrior I can’t claim to know what your line of business —or should I say work– demands, but I think it is rather demeaning to assume that I was asking for a simplistic style of writing. I should also remind you, I was not making a judgment based on an empirical critique of your style of writing, simply because I'm not familair with how you write. My previous post was exclusively based on the clause that I have quoted. And in my opinion is, that clause, no matter what style your line of business requires, is quite rigid and taxing on the eyes. I have read far more lyrical proses and I have been quite at ease with them. I don’t believe it is necessary to undermine fluidity for the sake of substance. Because what is substance if it is not comprehensible. At the end of the day, writing is a reflection of ones thoughts and you are at liberty to write as you wish. But please do understand, my aim was not, and is not, to condemn your style of writing; on the contrary, my intention was simply to bring to your attention the rigidity and lack of flexibility — after all you, write and we, the read. Peace

"Often times matters of interest, worthy of ripe dialogue demanding mature engagement clearly with concrete, primary objectives of reaching congruous climax of which benefactors are none other than participating members along with supporting rationale achieved in the end which immensely matters, are raised." I’m normally not the type of person who picks on others and how they write but I think your prose has too many adjectives and not enough transition. And this gives it an overall effect of changing gears without a clutch. I suggest you set a norm of simple sentences--subject, verb and object--and use other grammatical forms and more complex constructions to produce calculated effect, don't just aim for variety. All the best

Jamaal, I strongly believe it is possible; Islam is nothing but a revolution. Although I don’t consider Islam to be an ideology – for many reasons I wont go into- but it nevertheless is very ideal. In this world nothing is ever complete or perfect, there are always poor people to help, injustice to be opposed, now more than ever. So you see grassroots revolution is possible, it has always been and always will be.

Maybe it is as Jung argued, from his own profound inner work and what he saw around him, that we are tied to a much greater archaic collective unconscious mind that emits universal symbols and processes we all share. And maybe,we Somalis, all of our current struggles and conditions are representative of one aspect of the collective, tribalism. You see normal (or should I say ideal) people are meant to take on the archetypal human situations such as Birth, Death, Childhood, Marriage, Maturation, Transformation, and so on. Along with the archetypal personages like Mother, Father, Lover, Hero, Healer etc. However, we Somalis just took this little bit further and added "loyalty to the tribe" as a human situation and "tribal leader" as personage. This is not to say this is a bad thing, but it is an important aspect of the collective. So, when the whole tribal aspect took on a negative character so did the "collective" (can't get more negative and bloody than a civil war); and the attributes of hatred, strengthened loyalty, and a almightier tribal leader got loaded up into the collective psyche. And now these aspects are just doing what they naturaly do: reinforce themself through the collective. Question is, how do you explain all those Somalis who don't share these aspects: non-tribal and not loyal in a negative way. The answer is to the passive/conforming (majority) mind they are seem natural but to the critical mind, they are unnatural. Because they are distructive. Oh yeah, this is the article I wanted to post. Not related by the way. ----------------- Against Blind Imperial Arrogance by John Nichols Edward Said closed one of his last published essays with the lines: "We are in for many more years of turmoil and misery in the Middle East, where one of the main problems is, to put it as plainly as possible, U.S. power. What the U.S. refuses to see clearly it can hardly hope to remedy." Said's frustration was obvious, but so too was the determination of the man Salman Rushdie once said "reads the world as closely as he reads books" No one worked harder and longer than Said to awaken Americans to the damage their government's policies had done to the prospects for peace and justice in the Middle East. It cannot be said that he succeeded in that mission, but nor can it be said that he failed. If successive presidents refused to listen to Said's wise counsel, millions of citizens were influenced directly and indirectly by his speeches, writing and tireless advocacy. To the extent that there has been a broadening of sympathy for the cause of Palestine and Palestinians in the United States in recent years -- especially among younger Americans -- it can be traced in no small measure to the work of the world-renowned scholar, author, critic and activist who has died Thursday at age 67 after a long battle with leukemia. Born in 1935 in British-ruled Palestine, and raised in Egypt, Said came to the United States as a student. He would eventually become a professor at Columbia University and the author of internationally acclaimed books on literature, music, culture and imperialism. His groundbreaking 1978 book, Orientalism, forced open a long-delayed and still unfinished debate about Western perceptions of Islam. Said was horrified by the ignorance and distrust of Islam, Arabs and, in particular, of Palestinians that he found in the United States. "Every empire... tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate. These ideas are by no means shared by the people who inhabit that empire, but that hasn't prevented the U.S. propaganda and policy apparatus from imposing its imperial perspective on Americans, whose sources of information about Arabs and Islam are woefully inadequate," Said wrote in July. "Several generations of Americans have come to see the Arab world mainly as a dangerous place, where terrorism and religious fanaticism are spawned and where a gratuitous anti-Americanism is inculcated in the young by evil clerics who are anti-democratic and virulently anti-Semitic." Said bemoaned the "blind imperial arrogance" of the United States and argued that, "Underlying this perspective is a long-standing view -- the Orientalist view -- that denies Arabs their right to national self-determination because they are considered incapable of logic, unable to tell the truth and fundamentally murderous." Echoing the concern he had expressed for many years, Said reminded his American readers that, "Since Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798, there has been an uninterrupted imperial presence based on these premises throughout the Arab world, producing untold misery -- and some benefits, it is true. But so accustomed have Americans become to their own ignorance and the blandishments of U.S. advisors like Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, who have directed their venom against the Arabs in every possible way, that we somehow think that what we do is correct because ‘that's the way the Arabs are.' That this happens also to be an Israeli dogma shared uncritically by the neo-conservatives who are at the heart of the Bush administration simply adds fuel to the fire." ---------------------- PS: Baashi, here is the link to Charles MacKay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds