Islam
- Thread starter timojin
- Start date
Yeah, things were getting too peaceful around here.
Islam means surrender. Thise bastard that are fighting and making misery for the true Islamist , They are taken the name if islamist, there are bringing shame to their name . They should be called NONISLAMIST or ANTIISLAMISTS
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Why?
I have to say that of all the world's major religions, Islam is the one that I like least. It's as if they took all the features of the worlds other religions that I don't like, and combined them together.
The question is what needs to be surrendered, and to what.
I suppose that Muslims would say that man needs to surrender his autonomous freedom of choice to God and to God's will. Which assumes that Muslims possess God's true revelation and know what God's will is.
In practice, the most currently influential form of Islam is highly legalistic, a system of what is proclaimed to be divinely revealed law intended for all mankind. It's a law that can't possibly change, since it supposedly comes from God himself.
That divine origin and unchanging nature is why so many Muslims like Islamic law. It gives them a seeming moral alternative to corrupt secular legal systems controlled by brutal Middle Eastern tyrants. And it provides them with a psychological anchor in the face of tempting cultural changes that they fear will undermine their civilization, traditions and identity, changes that often seem to be coming at them from the West.
(Hence their love-hate relationship with the US and Europe, rich and to them loose and libertine places where they simultaneously want to live and cultures that they dream of transforming, humbling and even destroying.)
The unhappy result of the current Islamic emphasis on legalistic Shariah is that Islam has seemingly locked itself into a 7th century dark-ages sensibility and into a deep cultural opposition to what the West thinks of as progress and modernity.
Last edited:
Funny, that's just what militants say about the people they are fighting.
For the time being, who knows where you're actually coming from. But among the possibilities fermenting out there... I have occasionally wondered if a very mild degree of "envy-based" transition to Islam could eventually and ironically emerge among some fundamentalist Christians, and others nostalgic about what they consider to be the "good ol' days" in the USA and elsewhere. Or if not that extreme of conversion, than a tighter cooperation and fellowship developing between conservatives of both Abrahamic-core camps toward a quasi-common goal of restoring aspects of a bygone era.
Since I had noticed a handful in that community both hypothesizing and complaining that Islam is (according to them) more protected from the reproaches and rehabilitative methods of ideological correctness and social engineering trends. Or IOW, claiming that Islam is one of the very "teacher's pets" popularly tooted by detractors as sheltered under diversity appreciation, the newer species of thought-policing, etc. Due (in the context of their assertions) to muslims being able to pull out some kind of racial / ethnic / "we're a special-group" card should criticism of their patriarchal ways, social traditions, and heavy-handed moral prescriptions get too severe from western evaluators ["You're bullying bigots!"]. Thus the envy, but the envy possibly triggering at some point a tactical scheme of inter-coordination between the two, when not the outright, minor transition to Islam by a few.
I like to make a distinction : those are not true Islam , they are same as christian in the medieval time who persecuted those who did not believe in the church rules ( they were, they were a political institution not Christian either ) The same goes for Atheists during communist regime . They persecuted whoever was a believer.
I'm sure you would like to make that distinction. Too bad it's merely self-delusion. You don't want to accept that religious people often act in evil ways due to their religion.
Can you explain why you think this way? Just making a statement like you have gives us nothing to respond to. Tell us why you think this way so that we can better understand you. Thanks.
Be ot delusion . but we have to set some goals . Same as you in your Buddhist meditation, you strive to dominate your ego and be at peace
The word islam means surrender to the way Jesus have told us on how to live one man with the other fellow man.
No it doesn't. Show me where the Koran said that.
I've learned that striving for inner peace is like looking for your hat while you're already wearing it. It's the striving that disturbs the peace already available. You have to give up. Islamic submission is submission to the will of god. I feel that what this really means is submission to those people who pretend to know the will of god.
Koran mentions Jesus many times . I just like to put it my way. The Koran have been rewritten many time . in favor to acomodate the imams .
I agree with that . ( submit to people who say they know the will of God ) Zoroaster said as soon the clergy surfaces the spirituality fades away .
Then you must hate Islam.
It mentions but doesn't say what you stated.
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
There are many Islamic group like Hanafi, Mohammadi, Ahmadia, Sunni, Horkatul jihad, Jmb, Al- kaida......etc(sorry for spelling mistake). But there is a important problem in all Islamic group that is there is a debate about actual rules and regulations of Islam in those groups. So simply I know about the problem.
Mod Hat ― In search of ... a thread
Perhaps a little more affirmative definition would be helpful; open-ended threads of this sort don't tend to do well around here. For instance, as we see there are diverse understandings of what the surrender of Islam means or is expected to mean, and not all of them bother with niceties like pathos.
What, approximately, would you like people to consider about the breadth of what you mean? I might say, sure, non- or anti-; but what is a more affirmative identification? And, certes, there is a condition I might consider an appropriate context of surrender, but I'm just as certain it means something so different to what you intend as to be irrelevant.
Thus: Where is this discussion supposed to go?
Timojin said:
Perhaps a little more affirmative definition would be helpful; open-ended threads of this sort don't tend to do well around here. For instance, as we see there are diverse understandings of what the surrender of Islam means or is expected to mean, and not all of them bother with niceties like pathos.
What, approximately, would you like people to consider about the breadth of what you mean? I might say, sure, non- or anti-; but what is a more affirmative identification? And, certes, there is a condition I might consider an appropriate context of surrender, but I'm just as certain it means something so different to what you intend as to be irrelevant.
Thus: Where is this discussion supposed to go?
You say that as if it a good thing!
Whatever denomination of islam people believe in, has a different version of the Qu'ran. Just like christianity.
The world doesn't need any irrational beliefs systems, but we cant eradicate them. so we have to let them, soil the minds of the innocent.
One day in the future hopefully, but I doubt it.