Print Page | Close Window

The essence of disbelief

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: General
Forum Name: General Discussion
Forum Discription: General Discussion
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13200
Printed Date: 28 November 2014 at 7:54pm


Topic: The essence of disbelief
Posted By: Israfil
Subject: The essence of disbelief
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 11:27am
Contrary to what scholars say about "disbelief" (Kufr), I've come to the personal conclusion that disbelief is socially determined. with the right conditions and the wrong (negative) experiences this can turn someone who once believes something whoheartedly to being an opponet of that former belief. After reading the books by Ibn Waraaq (author of Why I am not Muslim) and others who are borderline I've found what they all have in common are the social influences in their respective upbringings. Being brought up in predominantly Muslim societies and them encountering some of the injustices in their country has conditioned them to question their faith in their adult lives. This gets to the boiling point where thy eventually forsake their faith and act against it.
 
Some have had such bad experiences to where they debelieve in the religion and God altogether. It's funny I remember talking with an intern at my clinic i work at and asked him "Why he wanted to become a physician" his response was "because my parents wanted me to." I found a similar behavior in other monotheistic religions. Kids don't have a choice to know truth nor experience truth from falsity they grow up believing because it is forced and if they forsake it they are cast out. So, from my readings on these authors what this boils down to is for one to forsake a religion is to commit cultural treason, versus one who is culturally patriotic. It has less become about rejecting God than rejecting a cultural tradition.
 
I know Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are not practiced today primarily for spiritual reasons (generally speaking) but because the aprents influenced it upon their children. How do I know? I'm a by-product of that. I grew up in the church, went to church, and believed what everyone else did until I started thinking for myself and examining different faiths. Although my experiences weren't totally negative I know that with the right conditions I could either continue believing what I believe forever or forsake it because of some tragic event(s).
 
I know for a fact Muslim Scholars ar enot psychologist therefore they are not equipped to answer the social conditions of disbelief so they answer in accordance to how a theologian would answer. Is this the best kind of advice for any monotheistic faith? No, at least not for all circumstances. Sometimes telling someone whose faith is faltering to pray to God is not the best advice. One needs to examine the social conditions on why this individual is starting to lose faith this is equivalent to telling an alcoholic to stop drinking (on their own) because its bad for them. Unfortunately these authors didn't have that particular guidance and consequently, end up disbelieving in God and religion altogether.



Replies:
Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 11:48am
You said it Israfil :-) It's a bit like 'idolatry' I think, and why it is forbidden. Or whatever the word is - prohibited. If we put any thing or person in the place of God, taught to do such a thing, place our complete trust in that 'created' being, thing. Then if that person or thing 'fails' - then 'God' 'fails,' and we are faced with a spiritual wounding that rips to the core, and can take a long time to 'heal' - if ever. I have often wondered about the little children.
 
Some times I have been in classes of the beautiful innocent little children. And you wonder to yourself why they are taught to be anything. Why do they have to become Muslim, Christian, Jew - or anything else. Does the 'religion' itself become an 'idol'.
 
I dunno.  But thanks for the sharing and insights there. Fully agree. I think it's an awful thing that we are stripped of belief because we were led to believe in 'idols'.
 
There - the ologists among you can have a field day. LOL ;-)
 
God bless


Posted By: Friendship
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 1:18pm
Brother Israfil.
If you received my reply add this to it. People do not understand that today Islam is to be practiced indoors because the Muslims do not have a central authority to enforce respecting the Sunna. We do not know where one can have an opinion and where an opinion is not allowed. We rush to allow our children to start praying without allowing them to know the implication. I too studied Medicine and in the university a christian approached me wanting to accept Islam. I am adviced him to think twice and not to hurry and that he should better go back to his hometown and embrace it there. Our greatest mistake is that we believe only on facing the Ka'aba and praying without establishing the 1st pillar of Islam which is the Khalifate. Even while praying people do it the way they like and not acording to the Sunna. If you ask them they will mention the name of an Imam. Is this not disbelief? Is there one more serious and unpardonable by Allah more than this one? I do alot of reading especially the Commentary of the Bible by Reverend Matthew. The matter is not that of disbelief but the reality awaiting us. Consider what Allah told Prophet Moses in Numbers 14:20-23, who among the followers of Muhammad will enter Paradise today?  Read also Malachi 2:17. Is it not our attitude that the Lord is pleased with evil and doesn't care about justice? Friendship


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 1:40pm
 
 
Jesus says, "suffer the little children to come unto me. For to such as these belongs the Kingdom of Heaven".
 
How do we pass on the beautiful gift of real and true faith in God to children, that very gift that gets them through the dark to the light - without destroying them, even unwittingly, in the process. It would seem that Jesus would not have approved of 'indoctrination'. Where is Islam on teaching children about God.
 
I wonder if we can do it. Or if life itself must be the 'teacher' and passer on of 'true faith in God'.
 
 
"Love your neighbour as you love your self."
 
 

 


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by Israfil

Contrary to what scholars say about "disbelief" (Kufr), I've come to the personal conclusion that disbelief is socially determined.
 
Israfil, you said; " Freewill is not just about rejection. It is about doing what we want, when we want, without restriction. Even if I know taking a sip of beer is against Islam and I still do it, it is my exercise of my freewill. "
 
 
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13100&PN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13100&PN=2
 


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 7:33pm
Originally posted by abuayisha

Originally posted by Israfil

Contrary to what scholars say about "disbelief" (Kufr), I've come to the personal conclusion that disbelief is socially determined.
 
Israfil, you said; " Freewill is not just about rejection. It is about doing what we want, when we want, without restriction. Even if I know taking a sip of beer is against Islam and I still do it, it is my exercise of my freewill. "
 
 
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13100&PN=2 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13100&PN=2
 
 
 
Abu you missed the point.  I'm talking about what contributing factors lead to people to disliking a religion and/or rejecting it. Of course its so-called rreewill when I do something that transgresses the laws of that particular religion, but what are the contributing elements of why I do that? Is the person unhappy with the religion? Do they not have supportive elements to help maintain their faith? Although its a persons own doing in sinning how does someone go from religious to sinner? Or an adherent of that religion to wanting to disassociate themselves from that faith?


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 9:14pm
Israfil:
 
You are confusing followers of a faith with the faith itself. If someone is unhappy with Islam are they unhappy with the tenants and teachings of Islam or those around them who profess to be Muslims and follow Islam.
 
Blaming the religion for someone's unhappiness is the same as blaming the religion for acts of violence. Islam has never made anyone unhappy or caused them to disbelieve. It is how each individual perceives Islam, or any faith, and what they choose to do with that perception.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 10:08pm
S.A.
 
There is no confusion its a natural response to individuals in paritcular situations. Like I said after reading several books from "former Muslims" and reading their experiences and events that lead up to their consequential beliefs it appears evident that social influences/experiences influenced their disbelief. For example when Ibn  Warraq (mind you this is a pseudonymn to protect his real name) heard about the Rusdhie affair his belief in Islam wanned when he viewed thousands of Muslims calling for Salman Rushdie's death. Mind you this is an individual who knew the whole Qur'an at an young age and attended a Madrasa.
 
Or what about Irshad Manji who ignorantly targets Muslims especially Palestinians and justify the Israeli ethnic cleansing. Her sickness and hatred on Muslims especially calling for the reformation of orthodox Islam ideology stems from someonewhere, so quite frankly my question draws from the inquiry of where these individuals get their ideas? what makes them so angry or dislike Islam. Contrary to what you think people will associate the religion with the people. Don't think so? Look at 9/11. Individuals did that not Islam but ignorant people will associate what happene that day with the religion.
 
What goes on in the middle east people have associated the violence with Islam. Of course you are familiar with the constant bombardment of evangelicals saying "Islam condones killing" they always use current events and Quran to support their distorted view. So as you rightly point out the views tend to become distorted and not the faith, people consequently and ultimately (and naturally) blame religion for the actions of human beings. Confusion? I don't think so you should read the post carefully.
 
Besides this is not my opinion this is what I have read and researched on.


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 10:14pm

Also consider Wafa Sultan (another popular figure who outright criticizes Islam) was (or is) born sunni Muslim who criticized Muslims shortly after 9/11 and called them to accept "Jewish accomplishments." to me, this is nothing but anger in an individual and I want to know where this pain and anger come from. It surely isn't conjured spontaneously, nor does it just hit someone. I question the environment and other contributing factors that leads an individual to want to hate the thing they were raised in. It certainly isn't confusion on the persons part since, these individuals were Muslims later in their adult years. So I question what is it? What is the 'essence of their disbelief?' For instance I coincidentally came across this while researching on Wafa Sultan on Youtube as she said:

"I have decided to fight Islam; please pay attention to my statement; to fight Islam, not the political Islam, not the militant Islam, not the radical Islam, not the Wahhabi Islam, but Islam itself...Islam has never been misunderstood, Islam is the problem....(Muslims) have to realize that they have only two choices: to change or to be crushed." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ
 
What is even so confusing is she still considers hereself a Muslim (I assume by culture and not spirituality) but does not believe in Islam. So again, through he obvious anger, hatred, and pain where did it all come from? How could she have seen it all differently?


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 11:01pm
Originally posted by Israfil

So again, through he obvious anger, hatred, and pain where did it all come from? How could she have seen it all differently?
 

Her situation and the relative few like her are an aberration.  The vast majorities do not abandon their faith – especially Muslims.  Much the same as most people raised in difficult childhoods do not murder as adults. Certainly some segments of society will ask why did they murder, but most of us are perfectly satisfied that murders are imprisoned or put to death for their crime.  To Wafa Sultan and her ilk we say: They desire to extinguish God's Light with their mouths. But God refuses to do other than perfect His Light, even though the unbelievers detest it. (Qur'an, 9: 32)



Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 18 September 2008 at 11:33pm
"What is even so confusing is she still considers hereself a Muslim (I assume by culture and not spirituality) but does not believe in Islam. So again, through he obvious anger, hatred, and pain where did it all come from? How could she have seen it all differently?"
 
You could ask this question of any disenfranchised individual or group. Look at our own country, members of the KKK consider themselves true patriots and Americans, yet their beliefs and view of what American democracy should be have very little to do with reality. They have a skewered vision of what they think America should be and a hatred of what it truly is. Why? What has made them see things so differently from the rest of us and why are they so full of hatred, pain, and anger?
 
Why have so many individuals resorted to shooting sprees and mass killings in this country? We live in America, the land of freedom and opportunity. So what makes the belief system, the moral compass of some people so distorted that they feel the need to shoot 30 innocent people?
 
I think the real question you should ask is why are there so many reverts to Islam from other religions yet very few of them become hatemongers. Why is that?  That those leaving Islam are filled with hatred and the need to destroy their former lives and those turning to Islam generally find peace and enlightenment.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 1:18am
Ibn Warraq is one of those thousands east Asian  so called Muslims like Salman Rushdie who followed their masters / colonizers in state of mental immaturity to European lands and ended up losing their souls for few extra pieces of gold!

Most of the dirt poor migrants from the subcontinent who knew nothing but  bondage for over a century were just awe struck with Europen standard of living as compared to their homeland! Some of them sold their souls to get a part of that glitter by doing all things unIslamic few joining the anti Islamic groups that were part of the British colonial system. They turned neocolonial after the WWII and any such character would be welcomed with open arms!
Any wonder that most leaders of Muslim Part of the subcontinent are still subservient to the WHitehall and Whitehouse even after the passing of six decades of so called independence! And of course the Jewish groups working for Israel would assist anyone to publish any rubish against Islam in the European or American areas!
Those who hung in there with their broken Islam are now finding their children or grand children getting radicalized! The best argument against the likes of Ibn Warraqs is why didn't other millions who went to whiteman's continent leave Islam?
Cuz they didn't want to sell their souls for more bucks!
The Brits did succeed in creating a new religion in India that is Qadianism or ruin Muslims economically but they couldn't take the love of Muhammad completely from their hearts, leaving an opening for come back instead of becoming a Xtian! I have heard few stories about who were Indian Xtians and migrated to England thinking they were going to their home country got a big shock of their lives with racial discrimination that set their head screwed on right finally!


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 1:53am
Shame on Wafa Sultan for getting Green Card on the Farm worker amnesty visa of 80s and that proves that she is classic opportunist, like all those illegals who are fighting for the illegal wars for the neocons for US green cards!
She sold her soul for Almighty Dollar! She is a Zionist agent plain and simple! She was Alwite who are not even Muslim to begin with!
Read more about this wretched soul!
http://www.infocusnews.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4009&Itemid=135#jc_writeComment - WAFA SULTAN: Reformist or opportunist? http://www.infocusnews.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4009&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=135"> Print http://www.infocusnews.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=4009&itemid=135"> E-mail
  


Unlikely journey from obscurity to fame, rags to riches.

She has been described as a hero, a reformist, a crusader, and a brave woman who defied the Muslim world and stood up for what she believed in. In 2006, Time Magazine named her one of the 100 most influential people "whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world." Dr. Wafa Sultan has been honored countless times for her now famous appearance on Al-Jazeera television opposite a Muslim cleric named Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouly on February 21, 2006.

In that memorable clip widely distributed by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), Sultan referred to the current conflict between the West and militant Muslims as "a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another that belongs to the 21st century... a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality." The clip spread through the internet like wild fire and landed Sultan in the LA Times, the New York Times and CNN among others. MEMRI estimated that the video was viewed at least one million times.

All of a sudden, and out of obscurity, Sultan found herself the center of both attention and controversy. On the one hand, she became the darling of many right wing media pundits and mainly pro-Israel groups who viewed her as a beacon of reform that stood up to what was wrong with Islam and Muslims. On the other hand, Muslims contended that by making broad, unfounded and ignorant proclamations about their faith, Sultan was nothing more than a pawn playing into the hands of Islamophobes, and an opportunist who intentionally pushed the divide between the Islamic world and the West to further ulterior motives that included fame, fortune and immortality.

Reformist or opportunist, Sultan continues to enjoy the spotlight as she routinely figures prominently as a guest speaker at many functions and fundraisers across the country. As her fame grows, so do her admirers and detractors.

Born in 1958 in the coastal town of Baniyas, Syria, Wafa Sultan grew up in a modest middle class Alawite family. She attended the University of Aleppo where she majored in medical studies 

In an interview with the New York Times, Sultan claimed that in 1979, gunmen from the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor before her eyes. It was then that her disillusionment and anger with Islam started. According to the same interview, Sultan, her husband Moufid, who goes by the Americanized name David, and their two children applied for a visa to the United States in 1989 and eventually settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif.

Post 9/11, Sultan reportedly began writing for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic) run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix. She wrote an angry essay about the Muslim Brotherhood and her writings eventually drew the attention of Al-Jazeera television, which invited her to debate, first an Algerian Islamist in July 2005 and then Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouly, a lecturer at the prestigious Al-Azhar University, in February 2006 (New York Times, March 11, 2006).

It was the second debate, excerpts of which were translated and circulated by MEMRI that garnered her worldwide attention. Sultan went from obscurity to fame in a matter of weeks.

While Sultan’s admirers have nothing but praise for her, detractors charge that many of her public claims do not corroborate with facts. Moreover, they assert that the reasons behind her rise to fame have more to do with her personal life than with her desire to reform Islam.

Adnan Halabi*, a Syrian expatriate who met and got to know the Sultans when they first came to the United States, spoke at length about the Wafa Sultan that very few people know.

According to Halabi, Dr. Wafa Ahmad (her maiden name) arrived in California with her husband Moufid (now changed to David) in the late 80s on a tourist visa. Contrary to what she told the New York Times, they came as a couple, leaving their two children back in Syria.

Another source named Nabil Mustafa, also Syrian, told InFocus that he was introduced to Moufid Sultan through a personal friend who knew the family well, and both ended up having tea at the Sultans’ one-bedroom apartment one evening in 1989. It was then that Moufid told Mustafa the story of how he was reunited with his two children. According to Mustafa, Moufid Sultan told him that a short time after they arrived in the country, his wife, Dr. Wafa Sultan, mailed her passport back to her sister Ilham Ahmad in Syria (while the passport still carried a valid U.S. tourist visa). With Ilham bearing a resemblance to her sister Wafa, the plan was to go to the Mexican Embassy in Damascus and obtain a visa to Mexico, making sure that the airline carrier they would book a flight on would have a layover somewhere in the Continental United States.

With an existing U.S. visa on Wafa Sultan’s passport, Ilham Ahmad had no trouble obtaining an entry permit to Mexico. Shortly after, Ilham and Wafa’s two children landed in Houston, Texas. She and the children then allegedly made their way through customs and were picked up by Moufid and brought to California.

Taking advantage of an amnesty law for farmers, the Sultans applied for permanent residency through a Mexican lady who worked as a farm hand. She helped Moufid with the paperwork by claiming he had worked as a farmer for four years. The application went through and the Sultans obtained their green cards.

As incredible as the story sounds, Mustafa told InFocus that to the best of his recollection, this was the exact account he heard from Moufid Sultan. Halabi, who is not acquainted with Mustafa, corroborated the story, which he heard from Dr. Wafa Sultan herself but with fewer details. Dr. Wafa Sultan declined InFocus’ repeated requests to be interviewed or comment on the allegations. InFocus contacted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to check on the veracity of the story but an official said that they would look into the allegations, which could take months to investigate.

Halabi alleges that Ilham Ahmad lived as illegal resident with her sister Wafa for years until she met an Arab Christian named Khalid Musa Shihadeh whom she ended up marrying (they were married in Nevada on 12/8/1991 and filed for divorce in 2002). It was during that time that Halabi got to know the Sultans well.

Halabi alleges that the Sultans lived in dire poverty. "Their rent was over $1,000 per month and Moufid was only making $800," he said. Dr. Wafa Sultan was forced to rent out a room in her apartment and work at a pizza parlor in Norwalk, Calif. where a personal friend used to pick her up and drop her off daily. This same friend used to help the Sultans out with groceries and occasionally loaned them money just so they could make it through the month. "It was a serious struggle," Halabi recalled. "The Sultans lived hand to mouth for years on end." Further, Halabi said that at no point during the period he knew the family did Sultan ever discuss religion, politics or any topic relevant to her current activities. "She is a smart woman, articulate and forceful, but she never meddled in religion or politics to the extent she is doing now," Halabi said.

As to the claim that her professor (thought to be Yusef Al-Yusef) was gunned down before her eyes in a faculty classroom at the University of Aleppo, Halabi said the incident never took place. "There was a professor who was killed around 1979, that is true, but it was off-campus and Sultan was not even around when it happened," he added.

InFocus contacted the University of Aleppo and spoke to Dr. Riyad Asfari, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, who confirmed Halabi’s account. "Yes, the assassination took place off-campus," he said. Dr. Asfari was keen to add that no one had ever been killed in a classroom anytime or anywhere at the university.

Syrian expatriate Ghada Moezzin, who attended the University of Aleppo in 1979 as a sophomore, told InFocus that she never heard of the assassination. "We would’ve known about the killing if it had happened," she said. "It would have been big news on campus and I do not recall ever hearing about it." Moezzin, who lives in Glendora, Calif., added that government security was always present around the university given the political climate in Syria at the time.

What are perceived as inconsistencies and half-truths like these convince Sultan’s critics that the motive behind her invectives against Islam and Muslims is other than her alleged desire for reform.

These same critics allege that Islamophobes are most certainly behind the likes of Sultan. They argue that the clip that made her famous was distributed by MEMRI, a media group that purports to independently translate and distribute news from the Middle East when in reality it is promoting a pro-Israeli slant. In an article titled, "Selective Memri," published on August 12, 2002 by the British newspaper The Guardian, investigative reporter Brian Whitaker wrote: "The stories selected by MEMRI for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel."

According to Whitaker, the founder of MEMRI is an Israeli named Yigal Carmon. "Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin... of the six people named (as MEMRI’s staff), three - including Col. Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence." (The entire article can be obtained at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html - http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Another feature of deliberate bias and media myopia, critics say, is the fact that the Al-Jazeera clip was edited intentionally "out of context" to reflect one single point of view and promote Sultan’s arguments through American-style media sound bites, reducing the other debater to a mere punching bag.

InFocus was able to obtain a translated transcript of the Al-Jazeera debate. An example of this bias critics allege is Sultan’s much-rehashed quote, "It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

In the transcript, Shaikh Ibrahim Al-Khouli responded by saying, "…here we must ask a question, who facilitated the conflict and indeed initiated it; is it the Muslims? Muslims now are in a defensive position fighting off an aggressor... who said Muslims were backward? They may be backward in terms of technological advances, but who said that such are the criteria for humanity? Muslims are more advanced on a human level, in terms of the values and principles they endorse." (Entire transcript can be viewed at:

http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/aljazeera_trans.php - http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/aljazeera_trans.php
 

InFocus also found out that the web site called Annaqed (www.annaqed.com) she supposedly wrote for before being noticed by Al-Jazeera Television is not an "Islamic reform Web Site" as was reported in the New York Times article, but rather an Arab nationalist blog run by a Syrian Christian who defines it as being "in line with Christian morality and principles." The site is also replete with anti-Muslim writings.

Sultan’s detractors include not only Muslims but members of the Jewish community as well. In an op-ed piece published in the Los Angeles Times (June 25, 2006) and titled "Islam’s Ann Coulter," Rabbi Stephen Julius Stein at Wilshire Boulevard Temple, who attended a fundraiser for a local Jewish organization where Sultan was a speaker, wrote, "The more Sultan talked, the more evident it became that progress in the Muslim world was not her interest.... She never alluded to any healthy, peaceful Islamic alternative."

The rabbi mentioned that Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, "was one of the few voices of restraint and nuance heard that afternoon. In response to Sultan’s assertion that the Koran contains only verses of evil and domination, Pearl said he understood the book also included ‘verses of peace’ that proponents of Islam uphold as the religion’s true intent. The Koran’s verses on war and brutality, Pearl contended, were ‘cultural baggage,’ as are similar verses in the Torah."

He added, "Sultan’s over-the-top, indefensible remarks at the fundraiser, along with her failure to mention the important, continuing efforts of the Islamic Center (of Southern California), insulted all Muslims and Jews in L.A. and throughout the nation who are trying to bridge the cultural gap between the two groups. And that’s one reason why I eventually walked out of the event."

In the end, Dr. Wafa Sultan will remain a conflicting figure. Loved by some, reviled by others, she does not seem to be afraid to voice her opinions. She once said, "I don’t believe you can reform Islam," and claimed that the Qur’an was riddled with violence, misogyny and extremist ideas. Her Muslims detractors believe Sultan does not even qualify as a Muslim reformer since she has publicly rejected Islam and declared herself an atheist.

As for the Sultans’ financial troubles, Halabi told InFocus that ever since Dr. Sultan gained notoriety those troubles are a thing of the past. "She bought a house for herself and bought another for her son," Halabi said. "She also bought two smog-check stations, one for her husband and another for her son," he added. When asked about the source of her material well-being, Halabi was unsure.

As to the reasons that may have pushed Sultan to be so outspoken and vocal against Islam in a post-9/11 world, Halabi sympathetically remarked, "Poverty. It drives people to sell their soul."




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 10:53am
I think Sign Reader actually offered the best response!
 
"Most of the dirt poor migrants from the subcontinent who knew nothing but  bondage for over a century were just awe struck with Europen standard of living as compared to their homeland! Some of them sold their souls to get a part of that glitter by doing all things unIslamic few joining the anti Islamic groups that were part of the British colonial system."
 
After all, these outspoken individuals were educated in a Western system. However this maybe part of the influence but more specifically how does one come to the decision to hate? For instance, Ibn Warraq grew up in a conservative Muslim community. He studied and memorized the Qur'an wholeheartedly (according to his biography). But perhaps this is all apart of the confusion within the individual himself.
 
As for Wafa Sultan I agree, she is a nut who sold herself for money. Her YouTube clippings show her ignorance. The fact that she justifies Israeli ethnic cleansing is appaling. She puts blame on innocent Palestinians because of who they are. It is ridiculous but surely in Wafa Sultan's case it must be more than: "Poverty. It drives people to sell their soul."
 
"What has made them see things so differently from the rest of us and why are they so full of hatred, pain, and anger?"
 
 
Easy question. they have been conditioned by their parents to have ethnocentric beliefs.  They have been taught to hate and to be Xenophobic. They have been taught to hate minority groups as being enemies of this country and have been taught that their hatred stems from their ethnic inferiority thus promoting the "white supremacy." Most hate groups are not complex nor are their beliefs even as messed up as they seem. But individuals on the other hand can be complex because of their complex views concerning themselves in the world. It doesn't follow a social pattern as it does racist hate groups....
 
 
"Why have so many individuals resorted to shooting sprees and mass killings in this country? We live in America, the land of freedom and opportunity. So what makes the belief system, the moral compass of some people so distorted that they feel the need to shoot 30 innocent people?"
 
Could be a variety of reasons. Mental disorder, Alcoholism, childhood abuse.....the list is endless we don't know but can only prove their guilt or innocence in court but as far as psychoanalyzing them we as outsiders couldn't know.
 
 
"I think the real question you should ask is why are there so many reverts to Islam from other religions yet very few of them become hatemongers. Why is that?  That those leaving Islam are filled with hatred and the need to destroy their former lives and those turning to Islam generally find peace and enlightenment. "
 
 
Well I'm not asking that. I focusing on the individual mind and their openness to reject relgion in its entirety and at the same time being an opponent of that former belief.
 

 


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 11:06am
"As for Wafa Sultan I agree, she is a nut who sold herself for money."
 
Israfil. I am in shock. I need a vet - sedation !!!  LOL 
 
Where is your compassion. You are going to burn in hell for all eternity.
 
I am kidding :-)
 
LOL
 
It's good to see people being 'honest' some times.  The rest is mostly aspiration - for any of us, methinks. 


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 12:46pm
Gullive rif you look on YouTube or better yet, read some of her work it obviously apparent her logic is absent. She blantantly accuses the muslim world of not "assimilating" and calls the war between "civilization and barbarism." To me this superiority complex nis a consequence of succumbing to "white imperialism" and colonial thinking. when the Portugese and Dutch as well as Western powers were deciding to which part of Africa to take, one of the psychological methods they employed was  convincing the indigenous people that it was "God's will they take the land" and that, their "barbaric ways" had to be punished.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 1:15pm
I think Sign Reader gave you the answer you personally wanted to see. Each individual is different and what drives one may not drive another. Perhaps some of these converts are playing to what the Western audience wants to hear and perhaps not. There are those making money and those who live in obscurity.
 
I know an ex- Muslim who converted, he said that Islam was just too hard. He wanted to drink and have girlfriends and be able to do what he wanted when he wanted and still have the comfort of knowing he was "saved".
 
If you really want to know why Wafa Sultan left Islam and became such a vitriolic opponent, why not e-mail Wafa Sultan and ask her.
 
BTW: The KKK actually started as a religious group. Their roots are in Christianity: the burning crosses, white is righteous, black denotes evil, etc... so the comparison is valid.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 1:38pm
Hello Israfil. I have no idea who this woman is you are all speaking about. Don't read me wrong. I am not 'laughing' at the seriousness in any of this.
 
It's just that sense of 'getting to know' someone, even through this internet. It was meeant in a humorous way to yourself.  Not any kind of judgement on this woman or what she might have done, or any of your serious comments on that behaviour.
 
I was telling a friend of mine about this place today. He is well read on many things, and I said he'd enjoy some of you. He is very disillusioned with 'clericalism' in the Catholic Church. That whole thing that seems to be more about empowering 'clerics' than the whole family of God - spritually. We are all gifted in one way or another, and should all be encouraged to use and share those gifts in the service of each other. I must tell him to register some time and let him decide for himself what he might like to contribute to. Many good people everywhere and maybe we all need to share what we have in common and help each other know our 'purpose in life'. We were talking today about young people. The pressures they are under and temptations to drink, drugs, sex and everything else.
 
There is a line in the Prophet Hosea of the OT. Only one I know. "My people perish for lack of knowledge." As true today as it was then.
 
I was telling him how Muslims call each other brother and sister, and seem to genuinely try and support each other. When I met my friend six months ago. First time I went to the mosque with him. There were others there from various parts of the world. Mostly Africa. Some beautiful souls, honest to God. They didn't have much - but what they had they shared. There was one man there who'd obviously been badly hurt in some kind of bomb incident. Only one foot. To see that man walk, and talk, and the smile on his face and light in his eyes was something to behold. True humility is like a lamp in the soul and he had it. I wonder if that is what it's really all about - trying to 'serve' each other - loving and supporting each other as we are able. No rocket science. I know it all seems a tad naieve and idealistic perhaps. But that little community is what it should be about. And I've seen it too in other 'religions'. What stops them all just coming together. Hmmmmmmmmmm.  I don't think I'll even try to go there.
 
God bless


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 3:05pm
 
  S*R had equated Qadiyanis with Wafa Sultan and that fellow Warraq. I cannot believe it. Wafa has disowned and attacked the good things of Islam, say the Quran etc. Qadiyanis do not do that. Wafa has said good bye to Islam and has blamed Islam. I doubt if Qadiyanis have done such thing. Also to put Qadiyanis (Ahmadis) in the same chapter as Salman Rushie could not be true.
 
 Can any one explain the beliefs of the Qadiyanis by personal knowledge? Then we can assess their relation with Islam. It is well known that there was much ignorance in India (Muslims) when Qadiyanis emerged. There was hatred all around and infighting amongst sects. At the same time hatred for the English rulers and an under cover cry for Jihad. That was about 120 years ago.
 
 Does any one know about the real beliefs of the Qadiyanis who do not abuse the Quran and Islam. They may just be having a difefrence of opinion and  a different approach to religion. ( I cannot find that post now where S*R had blamed the Qadiaynis)


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 19 September 2008 at 11:11pm
Minuteman i guess its upto Sign Reader to back up his statement with proves, to come with arguments that prove that qadianis are stemmed from brit Govt and that they abuse quran and and islam and only then we can research on those arguments and see what the real qadianis beliefs are. otherwise he is no different to the bigoted mullahs of today who are doing nothing but spreading hate towards other others, misconceptions against others.
Infact this is another reason, it is not the islam but the totally irrational interpretation of islam by these many not all scholars which makes people turn their beliefs, become frustrated, but still that no excuse as God has given everyone a mind/intellectual ability, so it is on them to use it before any conclusion.

And most of the people turning to islam are doing research of their own, trying to read and understand the quran themselves and not through any scholar, if they were to listen to  many islamic scholars, i dont think there will be many converters.


as i said before in apostacy thread, had i  believed in these scholars version of islam, i wouldve left islam a long way by now but Allah gave me the mind that everyones got which i used to get to real islamic teachings.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 1:42am
Originally posted by H3OO

Minuteman i guess its upto Sign Reader to back up his statement with proves, to come with arguments that prove that qadianis are stemmed from brit Govt and that they abuse quran and and islam and only then we can research on those arguments and see what the real qadianis beliefs are. otherwise he is no different to the bigoted mullahs of today who are doing nothing but spreading hate towards other others, misconceptions against others.
Mr. Osama for your information IC is a Ahle Sunnah site and if act like a moron on a subject not knowledgeable enough then watch watch what you say! There is no misconception or hate as regards to facts about Qadianism!
Read on:

The Qadiyanism
How the heretical beliefs of the Ahmadiya sect, who accept their founder Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet,  have put them outside the fold of Islam and left them designated as non-Muslims in Pakistan .

Being an independent non-Muslim minority is a natural and reasonable result of all that Qadiyanis chose for themselves. They caused and urged everything that result in making them a non-Muslim community. The first of which is their fabrication of the meaning of "the Last of Allah's apostles" by which they differed from all Muslims who believe in Mohammad (peace be upon him) as the Last Apostle and that there will be no apostles after him until the day of judgment takes place. This is the meaning which the Apostle's companions understood and derived from the following verse "Mohammad in not the father of any of your men, but the Apostle of Allah and the Last Apostle" (Sura Al-Ahzab verse 40). The Apostle's companions fought all those who pretended being apostles after the death of Mohammad (peace be upon him). And this was the meaning which Muslims understood from all the sources, and thus they did not and do not accept any one who pretends to be an apostle.

Qadiyanis only, and for the first time in the history of Muslims, interpreted the Quranic phrase "The Last of the Apostles" (*Malfuzal Ahmadiya by M.Manzur Ilahi pp.290*) to mean that Mohammad is the Apostle's stamp which certifies and signs other Apostle's Messages. What we have said can be proved by the texts quoted here from Qadiyanis books and essays. Here are three quotations.

--"The promised Christ (peace be upon him) said in his interpretation of `Khatamu Nabiyeen': what is meant is that no Prophet's message can be authorized and certified except by Mohammad's stamp. As every document is not accepted unless affirmed or confirmed by stamp and signature, so every message that is not confirmed by Mohammad's stamp is not true. (Malfuzal Ahmadiya edited by M.Manzur Ilahi pp.290)

--"We do not deny that Mohammad (peace be upon him) was the seal of prophets, but what the majority of people understand contradicts the greatness of the prophet (peace be upon him) since it leads to the conviction that the prophet had bereft his nation from Allah's greatest favour - prophets. What is meant by this phrase is that the prophet is the seal which confirms messages after his, so there will be no prophet if not affirmed by the holy prophet Mohammad. In this meaning only we do believe". (Al-Fadl, 22 Sept 1939)

--"The seal is the stamp, and if the holy prophet is the stamp, how can he be a stamp and no prophets to be confirmed". (Al-Fadl, 22 Sept 1923)

The differences between all Muslim and Qadiyanis are not limited to the explanation or the fabrication of one word "Khatem", but differences went to extremes since Qadiyanism claimed openly and frankly that not only one prophet is likely to appear after Mohammad (peace be upon him) but thousands of prophets. This is to be found in Qadiyani texts, some of which are the following "The rise of many new prophets is as clear a fact as the sun in midday". (The Reality Of Qadiyanism by Mirza Bashir Mahmud pp.228)

--"Muslims falsely claim that the sources of Allah ran out and no more prophets will appear. They do not justly estimate God. As for me, I say that not only one prophet may appear but thousands". (Anwar Khilafat by Mirza Bashir Mahmud pp. 62)

--"If a man sharpened swords close by my neck threateningly asking me to say that no prophet will appear after Mohammad(peace be upon him) I would say to him, you are a liar, it is right, there must be prophets after him". (Ibid. pp.65)

After Ghulam Ahmad had opened the way of messages and prophets, he pretended he was a prophet. Qadiyanis believed his pretense and accepted it completely. We quote here some of their declarations and sayings to witness to their deviations and fabrications as well as can be.

--"The promised Christ declared his claim to a Message and to be a prophet, as he wrote `I am a prophet and an apostle' (Al-Badr 5 Mar 1908), or as he also wrote `I am a prophet according to Allah's orders. If I deny this I am sinful. And If Allah calls me thus how can I deny it. I will stand by this claim until my death' (Letter to Akhbar Am by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad written three days before his death and published on his date of death i.e., 26 May 1908).

--"The characteristics Islam gives of the promised Christ means that is truly a prophet". (The Reality Of The Message by Mirza Bashir pp.174)

An essential element in all the persons who pretend to be prophets, is to charge those who do not believe in him with disbelief and refection of faith. This is exactly what Qadiyanis do in their congregational speeches and publications against Muslims who deny their pretense. I quote the following from their speeches:

--"All Muslims who do not swear fealty to Ghulam Ahmad are disbelievers, even if they have not heard his name". (Ayina Sadakat by Mirza Bashir Eddin pp. 35)

--"Every man who believes in Moses but not in Jesus Christ, in Mohammad but not in Ghulam Ahmad is not only a disbeliever, but in the deepest levels of rejection of faith". (Word Of Demarcation by Bashir Ahmad pp 110).

--"Since we believe in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet, and all non-Ahmadis diebelieve in him, we consider non-Ahmadis disbelievers according to the Quranic verse which says that in one prophet is a rejection of the whole prophets".(Mirza Bashir Ahmad's article in Al-Fadl, 26 May 1922).

Qadiyanis not only say they are anti_muslim in Ghulam Ahmad's message but say that there are nothing to connect them with Muslims since their God, Islam, Quran prayer and fasting are unlike the Muslims.

Qadiyani caliph's speech published in Al-Fadl on 21 Aug 1927, under the title of `Advice for Students' explains to his followers the differences between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. He says "... Since the promised Christ said that their Islam, their God, and their pilgrimage are unlike ours, we always differ from them in every thing".

In Jul 30, 1931 Al-Fadl published another speech by the Qadiyani caliph in which he mentioned a dispute that ensued between two groups of Qadiyanis. One reasoned that since differences between Qadiyanis and Muslims are known, and the promised Christ has clarified them there is no need to establish independent Qadiyani schools: we can learn all undisputed matters in Muslim schools. The other group disagreed. While they were still arguing, the promised Christ himself entered and listened to their dispute. Then he gave his judgment saying: "It is wrong to say that we differ from Muslims only in the matter of Christ's death. We disagree with them in the wholeness of God, in the prophet, (peace be upon him), in the Quran, in prayer, in pilgrimage and in Al-Zakat. In short, he explained to them that we disagree quite completely with Muslims concerning all religious matters".

Qadiyanis themselves broke relations with Muslims in accordance with the great gap they had dug between them and Muslims. They organized themselves independently as if they were a non-Muslim minority as affirmed by their own writings.

--"The promised Christ made it clear that Ahmadis should not be led in prayer by a Muslim. Many letters come questioning this matter. My answer to them all is that no matter how many times you repeat the question I will answer that it is not right, not right, not right to be led in prayer by a non-Ahmadiyan". (Anwar Khilafat by Mirza Bashir Mahmud pp. 89)

--"We must neither believe in non-Ahmadiyan Islam, nor be led by them in prayer because in our opinion they are disbelievers in one of Allah's prophets". (Ibid. pp. 90)

--"If a non-Ahmadi's son died why we do not pray for him though he does not disbelieve in Ghulam Ahmad as the promised Christ! I myself ask those who have questioned me why we do not pray for the son of a Hindu or a Christian when they die....The non-Ahmadi's son is one of the non-Ahmadis and for this reason prayer for them is not right". (Ibid. pp.93)

--"The promised Christ was loathsome of an Ahmadiyan who wanted to let his daughter a non-Ahmadiyan. The man asked him many times but the promised Christ ordered him not to do so. Then the man allowed his daughter marriage after the death of the promised Christ so the caliph drove him away from his religious position and did not accept his penitence though the man repeated it many times until six years elapsed". (Ibid. pp. 93-94)

--"The promised Christ did not allow any transaction with Muslims except those permitted to be so with Christians and Jews. He distinguished us from Muslims in prayer, prohibited intermarriage with them, and prayer for their dead, so what is left to connect us with them? Interactions between people depend on two things and have two forms; a religious and a worldly transactions. The greatest means of religious transactions is to pray together and to intermarry. These two kinds are prohibited in our religion, and if you say that we are allowed to marry Muslim girls, I say that this applies to Christians, too. And if you question me why it is right to greet non-Ahmadis, my answer will be that according to a true prophet's Hadith he returned the greetings of Jews". (Word Of Demarcation published in Rioy av Religinter, pp. 69)

Not only did Qadiyanis broke relations and transactions with Muslims in their speeches and writings, but they did so in practice as hundreds of thousands of Muslims had reported. They made an independent nation of themselves refusing to pray or intermarry with Muslims.

Ref. Abu'l Ala Mawdudi

Infact this is another reason, it is not the islam but the totally irrational interpretation of islam by these many not all scholars which makes people turn their beliefs, become frustrated, but still that no excuse as God has given everyone a mind/intellectual ability, so it is on them to use it before any conclusion.
Your writing as clear as mud! Who is interpreting Islam here? The problem at hand started with Mirza G. Ahmed's interpretation of Quran!

And most of the people turning to islam are doing research of their own, trying to read and understand the quran themselves and not through any scholar, if they were to listen to  many islamic scholars, i dont think there will be many converters.
LOL what kind of converter are you talking about?

as i said before in apostacy thread, had i  believed in these scholars version of islam, i wouldve left islam a long way by now but Allah gave me the mind that everyones got which i used to get to real islamic teachings.
Good for you!






-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 5:02am
Originally posted by Sign*Reader

Not only did Qadiyanis broke relations and transactions with Muslims in their speeches and writings, but they did so in practice as hundreds of thousands of Muslims had reported. They made an independent nation of themselves refusing to pray or intermarry with Muslims.

Ref. Abu'l Ala Mawdudi




i'll only answer this here;
what their views on this are that it were the muslims 1st who not only finished all their relations, transactions with them, but muslims also find it bad to eat with them, bad mouthed their prophet and khalifa, called them to have stemmed from the Brit govt or a plan of the jews, prosecuted them if they were found praying in any muslim mosque, or if they called themselves muslims, or if they propagated the islamic teachings openly or  used the word islam with them, etc, so their response is pretty much.
 natural.

inorder not to hijack this thread, the issue related to seal of prophet and prophet after Hazrat Muhammad [pbuh] is tackled in the following thread (from ahmedis point of view)

Seal of prophets - Khataman Nabiyyeen
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=1



[/QUOTE]


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 11:26am
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=60458&FID=29 - Gulliver
Groupie
Groupie 
 
"What stops them all just coming together."
 
 
Faith is complex. Having faith in a metaphysical being such as Allah, Brahman or whatever you call the beyond is beyond the objective explanation of any science, that is why faith cannot be proven or disproven. Faith is powerful. It is something which we hold on to in times of need, but equally, disbelief too is powerful and complex and can be something we hold on to as well. From a sociological standpoint I think there are a series of events that happen that lead up to why a person disbelieves.
 
I think what Sign Reader pointed out in part was key as to identify factors that lead up to a persons disbelief. True, there are many who convert, however a percentage of that ufortunately are vulnerable women (most primarily of Caucasian decent) who marry men from muslim countries who need visas. Some convert for sincere reasons, out of a desire to know God through the umbrella of Islam. Some convert because of a kind of cognitive dissonance (See Wafa Sultan).
 
 


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 12:22pm
Yep I see and understand and agree with what you say there Israfil.
 
Is 'cognitive dissonance' the diagnostic term for 'nuttiness' ;-) lol Kidding.
 
Interesting to look at why anyone holds onto disbelief.
 
How much of life we hold onto faith really only in, 'times of need'. Seems it can be a very positive life giving thing for sure, when it permeates the whole life - in 'times of plenty' too. Well kinda what I begin to realise again.
 
K


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 12:57pm
. "True, there are many who convert, however a percentage of that ufortunately are vulnerable women (most primarily of Caucasian decent) who marry men from muslim countries who need visas. Some convert for sincere reasons, out of a desire to know God through the umbrella of Islam. Some convert because of a kind of cognitive dissonance (See Wafa Sultan)."
 
Israfil, 
 
You cannot with any certainty say that any woman converted to Islam simply to please a man. You do not know what is in that woman's heart.
People may come to any religion for different reasons, and there may be unfortunate white women who first become aware of Islam because they marry a Muslim who later does them wrong, but that does not mean that their acceptance of Islam is not sincere or that they do not want to be Muslims.
 
A blanket statement could be made that African Americans accept Islam because it is not the white man's religion. Not only is this as offensive as your statement, it denigrates the sincerity of the reverts intentions and insults their intelligence. Caucasian women accept Islam to please Middle Eastern men and African Americans accept Islam to thwart the white man... 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 12:59pm
 
 
  Thanks H300 and S*R for presenting your views. I found that para in which S*R equated the Qadiyanis with wafa Sultan and Salman Rushdie. I was surprised at the general knowledge of S*R. How could that be possible for any sensible man to do like that? I mean some people who do not denounce Islam, they do not abuse Quran and Sunnah. They are being made equal to those who are abusing Islam by lectures and writing books  e.g. Satanic Verses. That could never be possible.
 
 I am thankful to H300 too that he/she has taken notice and helped to correct the matter somehow. It is only a difference of opinion for which a community is being persecuted and abused. That could be the mistake of the common Muslim majority against a minority.
 
  I do not trust any government Fatwa against Qadiyanis. That is because the King Pharoah siad to Moses a.s. "Anta kafir". That you are Kafir. I will give correct words and reference from the Quran. So that is an official government Fatwa against hazrat Musa a.s. Will S*R believe it that hazrat Musa was a Kafir? Surely not.
 
 Again,  Qazi Shari'e gave fatwa against Hazrat Hussain a.s. that it was lawful to kill Hussain. (wajab ul Qatl). On top of that Fatwa writing was written the Bismillah too. That was a government document with Bismillah telling every one that Hussain was such ugly person that it was lawful to kill him.
 
  Therefore, government Fatwa has no value. The bigotted religious leaders try to get the help of the government to arrest and kill the men of God, like Isa a.s. was caught by the Jewish leaders with the help of Roman soldiers.
 
  I request S*R to withdraw his remarks about the Qadiyanis unless he has personal knowledge of their misconduct. We need to look into the claim of the hazrat Mirza Sahib Qadiyani. What was his claim. He being such a famous person, it should be found out what wa shis original claim. I feel that he did not claim to be a prophet in the beginning.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 1:33pm
 
I think I've read more in the last week than I have in last five years. Not pushing any 'religion' - just looking at various journeys from disbelief to belief..........     
 
C S Lewis (Hound of Heaven)
 
"The letters reveal a bruised and open heart that was thoroughly and painfully explored by the God Lewis came, reluctantly, to believe in.
Lewis can hurl his objections to religion at the patient Greeves without risking their friendship, as seen in one of the first letters between them to explore Christian ideas:
 

 
  [S]trange as it may appear I am quite content to live without beleiving (sic) in a bogey who is prepared to torture me forever and ever if I should fail in coming up to an almost impossible ideal…

As to the immortality of the soul, though it is a fascinating theme for day-dreaming, I neither beleive nor disbeleive (sic): I simply don’t know anything at all, there is no evidence either way. (VI, p.235).
 
That the man Yeshua or Jesus did actually exist, is as certain as that the Buddha did actually exist: Tacitus mentions his execution in the Annals. But all the other tomfoolery about virgin birth, magic healing, apparitions and so forth is on exactly the same footing as any other mythology. (VI, p.234).
 
‘Terrible things are happening to me. The “Spirit” or “Real I” is showing an alarming tendency to become much more personal and is taking the offensive, and behaving just like God.’ (VI, p.882). Something is slouching towards Bethlehem in Lewis’s mind’s eye! Furthermore, Lewis is awkwardly aware that he is not entirely in control of what is going on: ‘I can’t express the change better than by saying that whereas once I would have said “Shall I adopt Christianity”, I now wait to see whether it will adopt me: i.e. I now know there is another Party in the affair—that I’m playing poker, not Patience, as I once supposed.’ (VI, p.887)."
 
http://www.publicchristianity.org/CSLewisletterspage1.html - http://www.publicchristianity.org/CSLewisletterspage1.html
 


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 3:10pm
Religion may be myth. No one can be 100% sure until they have died, and then it is too late.
 
However, if you do believe that there is a God and that He has created us for a purpose that is bigger than this transitory and often cruel life, then you have faith that there is more. 
 
If you choose to follow the tenants of a religion to the best of your ability, without distortion or intentionally harming anyone along the way, then what evil have you brought forth into the world?
 
As a Muslim I do not smoke, drink, take drugs, fornicate, or charge interest. I try not to lie or give false witness and to conduct myself in public in a manner that is modest. I give charity and poor due, I strive to help others and I am part of a global community that strives in the same fashion.
Even if at the end we discover that it was all a fairy tale and God does not exist, what harm have I caused by living the way I am living and believing what I believe?
 
As for punishment from God, well, that's Newton's Third Law: For each action there is an equal an opposite reaction. Do we really think that people like Hitler, Saddam, etc... get away with their heinous acts without punishment equal to the crime or sin committed?
And there is always repentance and forgiveness: equal and opposite...


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 3:53pm
Hello Shasta
 
Beautiful faith life you have. I cannot fault you in any way for that or what you have said here, not that I'd even wish to :-)
 
You are right too. The whole concept of justice. The likes of Hitler etc etc.
 
Forgiveness is a profound matter indeed. I don't know about that on the grander scale. I did post that poem from the annymous inmate/s of Revensbruck concentration camp.
 
Prayer for Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day)

Lord, remember not only the men of good will, but also those of ill will. But do not remember all the suffering they have inflicted upon us. Remember rather the fruits we have brought, thanks to this suffering: our comradeship, our loyalty, our humility, the courage, the generosity, the greatness of heart that has grown out of this. And when they come to judgment, let all the fruits we have bourne be their forgiveness.
 
 
How a person can get from a place where they'd willingly have wished another dead, committed the act perhaps, given the 'right' circumstances - and seen that person 'burning in hell for ever and ever amen', ;-) to that place they'd pray forgiveness for that individual, and wish that person know peace in death and God's Light. I don't know how that works. I just know it does. And in forgivess is that deeper 'mystery' of healing and redemption. It's known to God alone - I am sure the very source of it all.
 
I do tend to 'focus' on the mercy and compassion of God, and ask it for all in this world when I pray, meself included :-) Somewhere it says, "mercy is greater than justice," or words like this. I don't believe it is a fairytale Shasta - not really. There is some firm faith/hope deep within - a hope that came from that profound experience of forgiveness and redemption, that just seemed to affirm, for me anyway, that there is a Good God/Allah, greater and bigger than all of it. Sometimes we meet 'God' in 'hell'. Or maybe I should say, 'God' meets us there. Maybe cause I grew up fearing God when there was absolutely no need to - that I feel it near 'blasphemous' to speak of God in a way that instills fear of God in anyone.
 
But that's just me and my own experience. I think with Lewis and the 'myth'ology. He is really trying to understand the myth - the reality behind/within the 'myth' as it reveals itself to him, in the context of the realities of his own life, through/after some very profound experience/s in that life - and beyond his ability to really rationalise or comprehend. Left in awe really. It is so much a mystery.
 
I don't know - but I believe. Can you rationalise that. Maybe one of the good docs will look at my head ;-) lol
 
"Blessed are those who do not see, yet believe."
 
"At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present we know partially; then we shall know fully, as we are fully known."
 
"So faith, hope, love remain, these three..........     but the greatest of these is love."  
 
 I am sure there are similar words of Muhammad somewhere too.
 
God bless you Shasta. Take care and good nite from Emerald Isle folks :-)
 
Salam
 
 
Allahu Akbar :-)
 


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 3:53pm
 
 Beautiful advice/ post from S_A above.  Many thanks for helping, guiding  the wandering salesmen. The important point has been that by living that good life as a Muslim, you have not harmed any one and that is what is wanted from every one.
 
 One may think that the others can also do good without religion. But that is not possible without some union and collective effort. There is no such unity in Atheists. And why they will do anything good and what for? They are, as per their disbeliefs, heading into a blind alley.
 
 I stop here because I may be going in the wrong direction or may be hurting some one. Pardon.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by H3OO

Originally posted by Sign*Reader

Not only did Qadiyanis broke relations and transactions with Muslims in their speeches and writings, but they did so in practice as hundreds of thousands of Muslims had reported. They made an independent nation of themselves refusing to pray or intermarry with Muslims.

Ref. Abu'l Ala Mawdudi




i'll only answer this here;
what their views on this are that it were the muslims 1st who not only finished all their relations, transactions with them, but muslims also find it bad to eat with them, bad mouthed their prophet and khalifa, called them to have stemmed from the Brit govt or a plan of the jews, prosecuted them if they were found praying in any muslim mosque, or if they called themselves muslims, or if they propagated the islamic teachings openly or  used the word islam with them, etc, so their response is pretty much.
 natural.

inorder not to hijack this thread, the issue related to seal of prophet and prophet after Hazrat Muhammad [pbuh] is tackled in the following thread (from ahmedis point of view)

Seal of prophets - Khataman Nabiyyeen
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=1



[/QUOTE]

You are well advised- stop digging when in a hole!
Pleading on behalf of the impostor Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is fruitless. The book on his treasonous claim has been closed for some times now! Just like the Nation of Islam has no recognition as part of the Ummah so are the Ahmedis why waste more time on it!

If you can't refute all the items stated in my post, just forget it!
This IC is no place for proselytizing for your Qadiani crap!

The Anglo Saxon vultures who protected him and his votaries are still hovering over the Ummah that need to be taken care ofWink


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 20 September 2008 at 11:49pm
 
  S*R, Thanks for upgrading the Qadiyanis to a better level i.e. Nation of Islam level. I hope you have realised that they did not belong to the salman Rushdie class or Wafa Sultan type. I was only interested that you should refrain from making highly derogatory claims about others. Still youhave not admitted and cleared the mis-information that you were trying to present on net.
 
There had been a famous program on English TV "Mind your language" That was interesting.
 
  You have quoted from Maudoodi. I had been a great Maudoodi fan. But he turned out to be mere political leader and a bigot. The Deobandis and the Brelvis all hated him and he was punished by the government too. To quote maudoodi about anything is not good and reliable. Whatever he said about anything is not true.


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: H3OO
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 1:45am
Originally posted by Sign*Reader

Originally posted by H3OO

Originally posted by Sign*Reader

Not only did Qadiyanis broke relations and transactions with Muslims in their speeches and writings, but they did so in practice as hundreds of thousands of Muslims had reported. They made an independent nation of themselves refusing to pray or intermarry with Muslims.

Ref. Abu'l Ala Mawdudi




i'll only answer this here;
what their views on this are that it were the muslims 1st who not only finished all their relations, transactions with them, but muslims also find it bad to eat with them, bad mouthed their prophet and khalifa, called them to have stemmed from the Brit govt or a plan of the jews, prosecuted them if they were found praying in any muslim mosque, or if they called themselves muslims, or if they propagated the islamic teachings openly or  used the word islam with them, etc, so their response is pretty much.
 natural.

inorder not to hijack this thread, the issue related to seal of prophet and prophet after Hazrat Muhammad [pbuh] is tackled in the following thread (from ahmedis point of view)

Seal of prophets - Khataman Nabiyyeen
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=1 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=13211&PN=1





You are well advised- stop digging when in a hole!
Pleading on behalf of the impostor Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is fruitless. The book on his treasonous claim has been closed for some times now! Just like the Nation of Islam has no recognition as part of the Ummah so are the Ahmedis why waste more time on it!

If you can't refute all the items stated in my post, just forget it!
This IC is no place for proselytizing for your Qadiani crap!

The Anglo Saxon vultures who protected him and his votaries are still hovering over the Ummah that need to be taken care ofWink

[/QUOTE]

seems like i hit a nerve there. clam down sir. U need to think, thats what u are not doing.

u have not yet clear whats  so harmful/degrading/abusive about ahmedis interpretation mentioned in Seal of prophets thread (if u have read that).


May Allah open ur mind. amen


Posted By: Angel
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 7:25am
Originally posted by Israfil

Contrary to what scholars say about "disbelief" (Kufr), I've come to the personal conclusion that disbelief is socially determined. with the right conditions and the wrong (negative) experiences this can turn someone who once believes something whoheartedly to being an opponet of that former belief. After reading the books by Ibn Waraaq (author of Why I am not Muslim) and others who are borderline I've found what they all have in common are the social influences in their respective upbringings. Being brought up in predominantly Muslim societies and them encountering some of the injustices in their country has conditioned them to question their faith in their adult lives. This gets to the boiling point where thy eventually forsake their faith and act against it.
 
Some have had such bad experiences to where they debelieve in the religion and God altogether. It's funny I remember talking with an intern at my clinic i work at and asked him "Why he wanted to become a physician" his response was "because my parents wanted me to." I found a similar behavior in other monotheistic religions. Kids don't have a choice to know truth nor experience truth from falsity they grow up believing because it is forced and if they forsake it they are cast out. So, from my readings on these authors what this boils down to is for one to forsake a religion is to commit cultural treason, versus one who is culturally patriotic. It has less become about rejecting God than rejecting a cultural tradition.
 
I know Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are not practiced today primarily for spiritual reasons (generally speaking) but because the aprents influenced it upon their children. How do I know? I'm a by-product of that. I grew up in the church, went to church, and believed what everyone else did until I started thinking for myself and examining different faiths. Although my experiences weren't totally negative I know that with the right conditions I could either continue believing what I believe forever or forsake it because of some tragic event(s).
 
I know for a fact Muslim Scholars ar enot psychologist therefore they are not equipped to answer the social conditions of disbelief so they answer in accordance to how a theologian would answer. Is this the best kind of advice for any monotheistic faith? No, at least not for all circumstances. Sometimes telling someone whose faith is faltering to pray to God is not the best advice. One needs to examine the social conditions on why this individual is starting to lose faith this is equivalent to telling an alcoholic to stop drinking (on their own) because its bad for them. Unfortunately these authors didn't have that particular guidance and consequently, end up disbelieving in God and religion altogether.
 
The essence of disbelief is not always steming from social. I don't necessarily disagree with your assesment I do agree that some people are in that arena, but disbeliving or turning away from a religion is not always from a negative event or social conditions. A lot of people do turn away because it has something to do within themselves they are not being spiritually fulfilled and religion does not always particularly hold truth to or for a person. And some beliefs whatever they may be do not resonate with a person and/or their truth. People also change over time so their old beliefs systems are outdated. Of course some people will hold onto their beliefs systems right through life either because it resonates with them (therefore its their truth) or for fear of God.
 
For me the essence of disbelief doesn't always stem for social events but within the state of a person.
 
I know social, environment, upbringing, greatly determines what a person believes in but there is a part of me that feels that something inside helps determine a persons belief. Do we need outside influences to tell us that standing out in the sun we eventually get warm or standing out in the rain we will get wet?
 


-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 11:34am
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

. "True, there are many who convert, however a percentage of that ufortunately are vulnerable women (most primarily of Caucasian decent) who marry men from muslim countries who need visas. Some convert for sincere reasons, out of a desire to know God through the umbrella of Islam. Some convert because of a kind of cognitive dissonance (See Wafa Sultan)."
 
Israfil, 
 
You cannot with any certainty say that any woman converted to Islam simply to please a man. You do not know what is in that woman's heart.
People may come to any religion for different reasons, and there may be unfortunate white women who first become aware of Islam because they marry a Muslim who later does them wrong, but that does not mean that their acceptance of Islam is not sincere or that they do not want to be Muslims.
 
A blanket statement could be made that African Americans accept Islam because it is not the white man's religion. Not only is this as offensive as your statement, it denigrates the sincerity of the reverts intentions and insults their intelligence. Caucasian women accept Islam to please Middle Eastern men and African Americans accept Islam to thwart the white man... 
 
 
 
Then I guess the various Muslimahs whom I've spoken to here are wrong. Besides, I didn't say "all" I said a percentage, that could be 1% or 10% you don't know. I was referring to a particular group (one of many) who have converted for reasons other than themselves. As for African-Americans who convert the same rules apply. Some have converted to Islam because some have been taught that Islam is the closes thing to a human beings religion. Some convert as a way out of prison some convert out of sincerity. I'm pointing towards the varieties of why people convert and leave. If you don't like the comment don't read plain and simple, but it is the truth nonetheless.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 12:46pm

I have yet to read here that anyone posting here who reverted to Islam did not want to do so but did anyway for a man, or otherwise. I can't vouch for other reverts, but it took me a long time to actually do the Shahada, because I knew that once I did there would be no going back and my life as I knew it would change forever. It was not something I took lightly, in fact it was terrifying in some respects, because I knew what I was giving up.

I would venture to say that someone who reverts or converts to anything without truly wanting to in their heart, mind, and soul has not reverted/converted. They are merely paying lip service while believing something else. Which Muslimahs posting here would you say this of?
 
 


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 21 September 2008 at 6:22pm
I think also one can ask about it form  how much depth of knowledge does a person have before doing the Shahada.. when I was deciding to do the Shahada I asked myself "do I believe there is no God, but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger."  I answered yes and well that was that. But was it to the level that I have now, of course not.
 
Some people may never asks themselves beyond that point.
 
I am sure there are some people who do "convert" to various religions for social reasons, marraige being one of them. Men and women alike. I would say it is quite small.
 
I would guess however that the number of athiests, self-proclaimed, will "convert" in order to marry.  I know a man who became a Muslim, at least nominally, in order to marry.
 
I would suspect if your heart is not into it, the road will be especially tough going as Islam is about discipline. It will come out in the end, and certainly in the after-life.
 
 


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 22 September 2008 at 9:39am
Hayfa,
 
"I woulssuspect if your heart is not into it, the road will be especially tough going as Islam is about discipline."
 
That is a good point. Perhaps the reason for the disbelief in part would be the lack/lost of discipline. But when discussing "born Muslims" or, Muslims who grow up in Muslim societies their discipline immediately comes from parents and then outward. This is why I was particularly interested in Ibn Warraq who, knew the Qur'an and memorized it at a young age only to later on in his life, be an opponent of Islam as well as religion in general.
 
"Which Muslimahs posting here would you say this of?"
 
I'm not trying to sound rude but I'm not concerned what's in your heart S.A. Like you and others about mine. I don't care what you say regarding your belief from the most beautiful thing to the most incriminating thing. what you say in regards to spirituality whether in love or disgust is between you and God. This is the beauty of my belief.
 


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 22 September 2008 at 12:48pm
"I'm not trying to sound rude but I'm not concerned what's in your heart S.A. Like you and others about mine. I don't care what you say regarding your belief from the most beautiful thing to the most incriminating thing. what you say in regards to spirituality whether in love or disgust is between you and God. This is the beauty of my belief."
 
 
If you don't care what is in people's hearts and minds why start a subject questioning what is in their hearts and minds?
 
Wait, could it be so that you can try and dazzle everyone with your  "philosophical" musings on what is wrong with Islam? Or just to reread the cleverness of your own words in print?
 
Not meaning to be rude here.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 22 September 2008 at 7:03pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt

"I'm not trying to sound rude but I'm not concerned what's in your heart S.A. Like you and others about mine. I don't care what you say regarding your belief from the most beautiful thing to the most incriminating thing. what you say in regards to spirituality whether in love or disgust is between you and God. This is the beauty of my belief."
 
 
If you don't care what is in people's hearts and minds why start a subject questioning what is in their hearts and minds?
 
Wait, could it be so that you can try and dazzle everyone with your  "philosophical" musings on what is wrong with Islam? Or just to reread the cleverness of your own words in print?
 
Not meaning to be rude here.
 
 
Let me rephrase, I'm not concerned about your beliefs nor those beliefs concerning personal spirituality. Those are personal matters between you and God. Not sounding rude, but you are the last person to use sarcasm, last I checked you need to revamp your own thoughts.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 22 September 2008 at 8:19pm
Usually when you say you don't want to sound rude you are extremely so. Why be coy?
 
Until the actual existence of "thought police" is proven, I will not "revamp" my own thoughts. They are mine to do with as I will.  Whoa, I'm thinking something right now....


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 23 September 2008 at 9:56am
Confused


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 8:24am
The essence of disbelief depends on the essence of belief. Disbelief comes as a result of weak faith to start with. A person indoctrinated with a certain belief from childhood, still has intellect to determine the correctness of that belief. If that person continues to hold the belief for any reason despite being unconvinced or partly believing is more likely to disbelieve when given the circumstances. The true believer is the one who verifies his/her belief without bias and accepts it out of conviction. Such a person is highly unlikely to disbelieve, given any circumstances.
Calamities are great testers of faith. Facing a calamity, out of a people of the same belief, for some faith is strenghtened while some lose faith. The former had the answers through his belief while the latter did not.
In the end belief or disbelief is as a result of using one's free will and intellect.


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 8:41am
For example when Ibn  Warraq (mind you this is a pseudonymn to protect his real name) heard about the Rusdhie affair his belief in Islam wanned when he viewed thousands of Muslims calling for Salman Rushdie's death. Mind you this is an individual who knew the whole Qur'an at an young age and attended a Madrasa.
 
There are quite a few evangelists who have more knowledge of Islam than most muslims do. Doesnt make them believers. Knowledge becomes Wisdom only when absorbed and used positively.
Ibn Warraq chose to understand Islam from muslims who were calling for Rushdie's death instead of reasoning from his knowledge of the Quran and knowledge gained at the madrasa. So much for his intellect.


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: minuteman
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 9:38am
 
 Two good posts by Saladin above. Allah gives chance to every one to understand things. The truth is revealed to every one in packets at different times. It all depends what one will do with that truth.
 
 If a person does not care for the truth then no more truth is given to him. Jesus (Isa a.s. ) said "To any who has, more will be given..." ,,,  "For any one who knocks, the door will be opened"
 
 The Quran also teaches the same thing. It says " La in Shakartum. La azeedanakum" meaning, "If you are thankful then bounty will be increased for you"
 
 If a person is in the habit of denying the truth then his faculties become damaged and sometime to such an extent that he almost acts like a wild dog. In order to gain knowledge ( a pre-requisite for belief), one has to be gentle soul, thinking, contemplating, evaluating soul, self accusing soul (nafs e Lawwamah).


-------------
If any one is bad some one must suffer


Posted By: Gulliver
Date Posted: 01 October 2008 at 10:27am
"Calamities are great testers of faith..........   "
 
"Knowledge becomes Wisdom only when absorbed and used positively."
 
Indeedy. I think maybe we gotta be whacked over the head with a big hammer called Calamity (Jane ?) lol, to beat that knowledge in well enuff to become 'wisdom'.
 
I like what you are doing here Minute :-) Quoting Jesus(Isa) and the Qu'ran to give differing perspectives on the same message. Now that is a very 'positive' thing to do :-)
 
God bless
 
 
Do you think they'll ever invent a 'Satnav' that will get us to heaven ?  
 


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 02 October 2008 at 10:10am
Originally posted by Saladin

The essence of disbelief depends on the essence of belief. Disbelief comes as a result of weak faith to start with. A person indoctrinated with a certain belief from childhood, still has intellect to determine the correctness of that belief. If that person continues to hold the belief for any reason despite being unconvinced or partly believing is more likely to disbelieve when given the circumstances. The true believer is the one who verifies his/her belief without bias and accepts it out of conviction. Such a person is highly unlikely to disbelieve, given any circumstances.
Calamities are great testers of faith. Facing a calamity, out of a people of the same belief, for some faith is strenghtened while some lose faith. The former had the answers through his belief while the latter did not.
In the end belief or disbelief is as a result of using one's free will and intellect.
 
Well, I'm inclined to agree with you Saladin (on the highlited bold above) conditionally which is the result of my skepticism of calling disbelief in something 'weak.' Perhaps your perception of of weakness may differ from the indivudal whose faith in a religion is wanning. For instance, what if this individual who was in a particular faith decided that he/she did not believe in the tenents anymore because they just stopped believing it anymore? Or what about the one who goes through a series of negative emotional experiences in that particular faith (e.g. living in a Muslim community and experiencing detrimental encounters)? Or what about the one who is convinced through contemplation that this faith (insert religion here) is, after all, not the right one for them?
 
I disagree with you here:
 
"A person indoctrinated with a certain belief from childhood, still has intellect to determine the correctness of that belief."
 
Indoctrination (I assume you mean religion) can only come about if the parents are actively religious. But I have to ask you what is correctness? Growing up I wasn't knowledgable of other faiths until I saw the movie 'X' by Spike Lee which is the movie on Malcolm X (and posthumously given the title of shaheed after his death). After seeing that movie I began examining various religions (mind you I was 8 years-old). As far as me 'knowing' I'm in the right faith that goes insofar as my belief in the wholehearted belief in that faith. Obviously now it has change. But you should explain what you mean by correctness.
 
"The true believer is the one who verifies his/her belief without bias and accepts it out of conviction. Such a person is highly unlikely to disbelieve, given any circumstances."
 
I agree. I would also add ultimately if it is religion and promotes a metaphysical being such as God then ultimately the sole basis of that faith is, well, faith.
 
 
"Calamities are great testers of faith. Facing a calamity, out of a people of the same belief, for some faith is strenghtened while some lose faith. The former had the answers through his belief while the latter did not.
In the end belief or disbelief is as a result of using one's free will and intellect."
 
I disagree with the freewill part and, as far as calamities are concerned, I don't think they are great testers of the belief in the religion itself, but I believe calamities are great testers in testing whether or not God exists, and if God exists whether God is actively existing in the physical plane. But as far as the entire religion I am inclined to disagree. One may disagree with the spirituality of let's say Islam but may agree in giving to the poor, but as far as what is given to the poor is an arguable matter.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 02 October 2008 at 10:15am
There are quite a few evangelists who have more knowledge of Islam than most muslims do. Doesnt make them believers. Knowledge becomes Wisdom only when absorbed and used positively.
Ibn Warraq chose to understand Islam from muslims who were calling for Rushdie's death instead of reasoning from his knowledge of the Quran and knowledge gained at the madrasa. So much for his intellect.
 
 
I think you use knowledge and wisdom interchangably. Knowledge is not wisdom nor it cannot be wisdom. One may know algebra like, knowing square roots and such but that doesn't mean you are wise. As far as your later post, Rusdie didn't CHOOSE to know Islam through extremist. He was a young child and put there (know the difference from choice and compulsion). He knew the entire Qur'an and was able to recite it. Rusdie wasn't even on the scene when he was growing up learning Qur'an. He knew about  Rushdie only sometime later.


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 04 October 2008 at 4:35am
Well, I'm inclined to agree with you Saladin (on the highlited bold above) conditionally which is the result of my skepticism of calling disbelief in something 'weak.' Perhaps your perception of of weakness may differ from the indivudal whose faith in a religion is wanning.
 
Why would faith wan unless the individual finds no meaning believing in that religion wholeheartedly.
 
For instance, what if this individual who was in a particular faith decided that he/she did not believe in the tenents anymore because they just stopped believing it anymore?
 
Well, there should be a reason for disbelieving. Dogmatic flaws?
 
Or what about the one who goes through a series of negative emotional experiences in that particular faith (e.g. living in a Muslim community and experiencing detrimental encounters)?
 
Blaming the religion for the harm done by the people supposed to be following that religion, especially when the religion was not responsible for that, shows ignorance of the religion. Hence cant be counted as a wholehearted believer in the first place.
 
Or what about the one who is convinced through contemplation that this faith (insert religion here) is, after all, not the right one for them?
 
Thats exercising freewill and intellect. However, how the person contemplated depends on what the person wanted.
 


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 04 October 2008 at 5:53am
Indoctrination (I assume you mean religion) can only come about if the parents are actively religious. But I have to ask you what is correctness? Growing up I wasn't knowledgable of other faiths until I saw the movie 'X' by Spike Lee which is the movie on Malcolm X (and posthumously given the title of shaheed after his death). After seeing that movie I began examining various religions (mind you I was 8 years-old). As far as me 'knowing' I'm in the right faith that goes insofar as my belief in the wholehearted belief in that faith. Obviously now it has change. But you should explain what you mean by correctness.
 
If a person is indoctrinated with a religion or an ideology or social norms, right from childhood, by parents, teachers or society; that person can still determine with his intellect, whether the doctrines that was infused into him are right or wrong.
Correctness - What the person sees as confirming to his perception of right or wrong. However, perception should be intellectual.
 
I would also add ultimately if it is religion and promotes a metaphysical being such as God then ultimately the sole basis of that faith is, well, faith.
 
Yes, but when faith is complimented by reasoning it becomes more than just faith.
 
I disagree with the freewill part and, as far as calamities are concerned, I don't think they are great testers of the belief in the religion itself, but I believe calamities are great testers in testing whether or not God exists, and if God exists whether God is actively existing in the physical plane. But as far as the entire religion I am inclined to disagree. One may disagree with the spirituality of let's say Islam but may agree in giving to the poor, but as far as what is given to the poor is an arguable matter.
 
Why do you think freewill has got nothing to do with belief or disbelief? Please explain.
Belief in God is the first principle of all theistic religion. A theist losing belief in God is the utmost act of disbelief.
 


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Saladin
Date Posted: 04 October 2008 at 6:24am
I think you use knowledge and wisdom interchangably. Knowledge is not wisdom nor it cannot be wisdom. One may know algebra like, knowing square roots and such but that doesn't mean you are wise. As far as your later post, Rusdie didn't CHOOSE to know Islam through extremist. He was a young child and put there (know the difference from choice and compulsion). He knew the entire Qur'an and was able to recite it. Rusdie wasn't even on the scene when he was growing up learning Qur'an. He knew about  Rushdie only sometime later.
 
Knowledge is Awareness. Wisdom is knowing how well to use knowledge; sound judgement.
Ibn Warraq may have learnt the Quran but he was not wise enough to be considered as anywhere near a person with Quranic or Islamic knowledge.
The calls for Rushdie's death is all that took for his faith to wan. Some believer he was. 


-------------
'Trust everyone but not the devil in them'


Posted By: Israfil
Date Posted: 04 October 2008 at 10:17pm
The calls for Rushdie's death is all that took for his faith to wan. Some believer he was. 
 
 
I think there were other additional reason to consider to his faith than simply watching extremist call for Rushdie's death.


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 05 October 2008 at 4:35pm

  Here is wonderful article by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Deedat - Sheikh Ahmed Deedat http://www.irf.net/can_you_stomach_the_best_of_rushdie.doc - - CAN YOU STOMACH THE BEST OF RUSHDIE? "The Satanic Verses” unexpurgated



Print Page | Close Window