Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah. I'm not letting Muslims off the hook just because they are not Islamist. There is some horrible things in those 2000 year old books that both they and Christians try and deny while incorporating it in secret. That brutality will probably play a big part in waking people up. It looks to me that in the past 100 years things that were once considered normal are now called abuse. People are growing a conscience that is beyond 2000 year old brutality.
yup. we are growing up. It takes time. sometimes a little too much for my liking.
That perhaps is why this ex -Muslim finds that the terms need to be used differently. What I think, do and how I live could be in your definition 'My religion'. But I actually don't have one. Not only because I don't believe in any god, let alone submit to one. And I do no religious rituals and observe no religious law. For an ex -muslim, living your life can indeed be separate from religion and of course an atheist or humanist would argue that most of us live a non religious life with religion being added on to it.
Just how much the religion is added on depends upon how much one wants it to be or how much it is imposed. The term 'Fundamentalist' springs to mind when people have their lives pretty much dominated by the rules of a religion.
This ex -Muslim argues that the Islamic or Muslim religion was political right from the start. The founder was a political leader and so were the successors in a way no other religion was. Christianity only became political when the emperor became the tool of the Pope in suppressing other religions. From the start Islam was the state.
Another ex -muslim atheist in Egypt has explained how the 'Arab spring' movement against military rule was humanist in character, wanting democracy, freedom of thought and general liberation. It was significant that the Muslim brotherhood stood back rather. At the time it was thought to be a way of ensuring that the military government couldn't use the accusation of being the (banned) Muslim brotherhood against the demonstrators. But later it looked (so the ex -muslim said) as though they let the Spring' dislodge the president and then stepped in and got themselves elected. Religion and political rule are the same in their minds. Submission to Allah means submission of the state and political machinery to the religion in a way that we get nowhere else, except perhaps in the dogmatic ideological states of Stalinist communism.
Indonesia is the moist populous Muslim country, but Islam is not the state, and nowhere is it - though Saudi Arabia and Iran come pretty close. But ISIS is absolutely (a the ex -Muslim explained) going back to the origins. A caliph running an Islamic state where there is no thought or politics or education that is not religious. There is no separation of religion and society in a way we find in Indonesia, Turkey of course, as a conscious political policy, or even Iran, where humanism has to be kept out of sight.
The ex -muslim also touched on whose fault IS is. Well, we know. Even Blair is beginning to realize what he has done, though the idiot Bush probably still thinks he was doing God's work. I was against the war in Iraq, too. Not because I liked Saddam. But because the war was fought on the basis of a logical fallacy. Faith in the existence of WMD and never mind the lack of evidence. And I still remember listening with horror to Blair arguing that, if you didn't support a war to remove Saddam, you much be a supporter of Saddam (false dichotomy, in case you didn't know). But then politics has always been about rhetorical tricks, not about logic and reason.
But the point the ex -muslim made was..and we already see this...is that ruthless leaders like Saddam and Assad now look better than what abrogation or removal of their power has led to. Because if you remove a communist dictator, after confusion, the humanist -democratic worldview will become the political default. But in Islamic countries, it is Islam that is ready to be the political default. And the more that Islam sees to it that there is no humanist alternative, the more complete, fundamentalist and appalling is the Islamic State that we get.
That my old friend is why Islam is unacceptable to me and repellent. To get back on topic, muslims and Islam can be ok, just as Christians can. But not because of their religion, but in spite of it.
It is not for nothing that Boko Haram is the name of one nasty group. It symbolizes the essential basis of Islamic thought that is opposed to western politics, education and all that cultural humanism that allows Islam to look acceptable. In just the same way we can see how Fundamentalist Christianity is ghastly and very dangerous, Islam is even more hardwired to fundamentalism.
I have gone on too long. I haven't even touched on his talk of hope and the role of the Internet in putting the ideas that Authority wants to suppress. China as well as Islamic authority. But there is hope - even for the Muddle east. But it is the Internet and talking and thinking and seeing the need to roll back religious authority that is going to realize that hope.
Well old Friend another long but very good post. Like always your insight is deeply appreciated.
I see a language issue in regards to the words Religion and De'en. They are not exactly the same in meaning. Yes I believe that your life and beliefs are your De'en and while De'en translates into English as Religion, in the English concept of Religion you have no religion.
Thanks friend. There has to be a certain amount of wiggle room in terms and definitions. I totally accept that a discipline (to use a general term) is the one entitled to define its meanings. (atheism certainly is) but they can be open to question. I recall a programme on Sri Lanka where a Buddhist said that Buddhism wasn't a religion (in the context of comparison with and difference from, other religions), but a way of life. At the time I though that a pretty fatheaded remark and still do. I have heard Islam called 'A way of life'. And you can say the same of any religion or indeed criminality and drunkenness. It's a 'Way of life'. It tells us nothing.
With Islam, the rules and tenets and thus the meanings may have stayed unchanged, but the world has changed and terms that fitted a few centuries ago don't any more. A "Deen" being a whole life has now rather become a set of rules and traditions within a different and it must be said, western global culture with which it has to find an accommodation. At one time Islamic culture had the most advanced science anywhere- based on a totally foreign learning : Greek. This was Boko back in the 10th century but it wasn't haram.
Even in the Islamic period I come close to loving - the Mughal - the glittering culture was in spite of Islam, not because of it and the harshness was always there ready to pop up as soon as an Aurangzeb thought that the unbelieving Hindus should be killed or converted.
yup. we are growing up. It takes time. sometimes a little too much for my liking.
Festina lente.
I have one concern deeper than the immediate worry about heritage -smashing fanatics in the Muddle east. Since Creationism was stopped dead at Dover which was the Imphal of I/D, I am sanguine that the long retreat is assured. Nor does the rise of Christianity in China or even Russia bother me unduly. I do worry though that the need seems to be overlooked for something better than the social kegeree of God -given morality, "Common -sense" reasoning and political self -justification that is the matrix of the sorta humanistic global society we have (without realizing it). That we should wish to cast him down and have no one in his place is not a thought that occurs to his mind. (Gandalf. Lor -TT)
Neither do we, but we need something better than the kneejerk 'we all know what's right' if and when the fiction that morality is god -given is finally driven back into the empty tomb from whence it came.
But we ought to have something to replace it, even if we could rub along with the flawed society we have. We no longer believe that war is good - never mind glorious and pleasing to God (who is on Our side of course) but we think it is regrettably necessary when the other lot simply won't hand over this or that concession when asked, and it just ain't patriotic not to cheer our Boys on.
Philosophy and ethics seem to have failed to deliver as resoundingly as religion. Though it does tend to go in for handwringing rather than religious flag waving. But I think that it is science...of all disciplines... that will help us to understand how much oif our morality and social conduct is based on evolved survival instinct - which is fine for driving the other tribe of apes away and taking their females to spread our gene pool around (1) but we need to do better in a complex and devastatingly beweaponed planet such as we have. Mr Spock to the rescue.
(1) I have a theory... ...that sex -tourism is instinctive genetic racism. Not finger pointing - just sayin'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-25-2016 at 08:22 AM..
Philosophy and ethics seem to have failed to deliver as resoundingly as religion. Though it does tend to go in for handwringing rather than religious flag waving. But I think that it is science...of all disciplines... that will help us to understand how much oif our morality and social conduct is based on evolved survival instinct - which is fine for driving the other tribe of apes away and taking their females to spread our gene pool around (1) but we need to do better in a complex and devastatingly beweaponed planet such as we have.
A scientific comprehension of the human condition and of human weakness IS the answer, but has been slow in coming and will be even slower in finding and applying and reaping the benefits of the answers it unearths.
More than one deep thinker has come to a better understanding of human nature and has ended up shaking their heads and loathe to prescribe a simplistic remedy. The problem is that we have trouble seeing ourselves clearly because we're inside our own issues and problems and perceptions. It is rather like trying to figure out if we are part of higher dimensional space or if on the other hand everything collapses to a single dimension below the Planck length. It takes a lot of effort to tease out answers to such conundrums because we can't step outside of our reality and observe it objectively.
We must constantly question our assumptions and this runs counter to the wiring and assumptions of many people who want the comfort of certitude and perceive existential threats when certitude can't be obtained.
I think we see this very graphically in our current presidential race in the US. The candidates on the Republican side that are doing by far and away the best are the ones who pander to fear and insecurity with disjoint positions that have no relation to each other or accounting for knock-on effects, but what is selling to that part of the electorate is shows of strength, can-do attitude, and a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" sort of of Teddy Roosevelt manliness and preening that says, in effect, "we can fix this or that existential threat without bothering about little details like human rights or decency or competition for resources". As well as "we can break the political gridlock without making pesky compromises". This is a perfect setup for anxious people to cling to a leader who promises to "fix" what is "wrong". And if you note, the sloganeering is appropriately vague. We are going to "take America back". From whom or what? And do what with it? The supporters simply fill in the blanks as they wish, often in conflicting ways.
It is this kind of knee-jerk seeking out of comfort and certitude that humanity has to be weaned off of, and it is the work of many generations, I'm afraid.
I'm sure this happens though I haven't really seen it much. What I see more of is some atheists (alongside Christians) bash Muslims unfairly in comparison to Christianity and other religions.
The conservative right in the US has a big movement of very much considering Islam as bad and evil. That it is inherently violent and bad compared to Christianity. Maher is one of these. I agree with 99% of what Maher says but he puts Islam in a different league than Christianity, he usually then cites verses to support this. The thing is the Christian Bible has just as bad material in it. The Christian God committed and/or commanded genocides, killed innocent children, supported slavery, etc. I think it's a fair argument to say the Muslim world is behind the times as far as civil rights go compared to Christianity, but it's not due to the material being nicer or better in Christianity, just that the Western Christian world is about 100-200 years ahead of the Islamic world in civil rights.
I'm sure this happens though I haven't really seen it much. What I see more of is some atheists (alongside Christians) bash Muslims unfairly in comparison to Christianity and other religions.
The conservative right in the US has a big movement of very much considering Islam as bad and evil. That it is inherently violent and bad compared to Christianity. Maher is one of these. I agree with 99% of what Maher says but he puts Islam in a different league than Christianity, he usually then cites verses to support this. The thing is the Christian Bible has just as bad material in it. The Christian God committed and/or commanded genocides, killed innocent children, supported slavery, etc. I think it's a fair argument to say the Muslim world is behind the times as far as civil rights go compared to Christianity, but it's not due to the material being nicer or better in Christianity, just that the Western Christian world is about 100-200 years ahead of the Islamic world in civil rights.
There is nothing about Islam that makes it inherently worse than Christianity, which as you point out has all sort of incitements to violence in its own holy book. The difference, I think, is that after an initially promising period early in Islamic history where they made advances in mathematics and other innovations, the nutters won the day and Islam was never "gentled" as Christianity ultimately was by the Enlightenment. The latter produced secular society that allowed a vibrant flowering of the sciences and the arts, as well as the concept of separation of church and state. The church was no longer dominant in and even synonymous with government. Islam went the other way over the centuries, towards theocracy.
The Atheists that protect Muslims from Atheism have a stronger affinity to their Leftist ideology than to Atheism.
Liberals are now calling this group as "Regressive Left".
yup. they don't left a base faith belief statement run how they think. As misguided as they are. Help innocent people first. It's basically separation of church and state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...that sex -tourism is instinctive genetic racism. Not finger pointing - just sayin'.
