Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[S.A.M.]

I have never understood why people would want to mock Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed. What is the aim?

But even then, just mockery is not a problem, it is when the mockery is designed to ridicule the beliefs, to desecrate what someone holds high in esteem that it is hurtful.

Much as one would not like to have a friend call your mother a slut or your father a pimp.

 

[Michael]

As I said before, 500 years ago mocking the King would see you head removed from your shoulders. People felt the exact same way you do about these religious people. Was it wrong to mock the King? Was it wrong to point out perceived flaws. I went to see an interesting movie filmed in India and Tibet about a Tibetan monk that quit the Priesthood got married and had an affair with an India girl. Then, in the end, he wanted to leave his wife to become a Priest again. The movie was a criticism on the perceived life of Buddha. Maybe it hurt the feelings of some Buddhists. Oh well tough - the movies Author had a point to make and he shared it. If someone doesn't like that point 0- they don't have to see the movie. Or they can refute it. Or debate it. Or whatever. The point is the movie made a mockery out of Buddha's entire pilgrimage and painted him out to be a selfish not selfless individual. That was that persons point of view and they are entitles to share it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Of course, but they did not make the film ABOUT the Buddha, IOW, they used an analogy. This allowed those who wanted to make a point to make it without ridiculing those who revere the Buddha. It also allowed those who revere the Buddha to understand the point without feeling threatened or insulted. Such considerations are important when there is a diverse group present.

I may have the same opinion and may discuss it with a non-Buddhist, but if I were to discuss it with a Buddhist, I would be careful to say "I feel" or "I think" to underline the fact that it is my opinion, rather than a derision of his or her values.

Otherwise, I would merely be imposing my beliefs on him or her, which would cut short any dialogue on the topic and in fact lead to a negative opinion of perhaps my beliefs in his or her mind. I have in fact, tried this out experimentally on this forum and I can confidently say the results were as expected.

 

[Michael]

Well this is supposed to be a scientific debate forum - which is supposed to follow in a question, answer, question, answer sort of manner. I find it doesn't really work all that well as when confronted with the inevitable YES there is equal evidence for Allah as there is for Xenu (that being zero) people begin to make it up per usual or simply ignor the question or maybe disect the question, what do you mean by equal?

I'm thinking the genetic component to beleif may be stronger than the nurture.

 

[S.A.M.]

Perhaps scientists should learn that ethics and consideration have no empirical basis.

 

[iceaura]

Perhaps scientists should learn that ethics and consideration have no empirical basis.

They have very solid bases in ecological and theoretic biological science, however.

There seem to be a great many branches of scientific inquiry that conflict with the alleged constraints of empiricism.

As far as mockery of the Prophet - nothing wrong with it, in its place. It's place is probably not at the dinner table with the Muslim inlaws. But there's no reason to have such contempt for Muslims that you figure they all have to be babied through life.

 

[S.A.M.]

They have very solid bases in ecological and theoretic biological science, however.

Theoretic science? Are we talking philosophy?

There seem to be a great many branches of scientific inquiry that conflict with the alleged constraints of empiricism.

Yes, fortunately, scientists find ways and means to elude perception and empiricism as required. Statistics help, of course.

As far as mockery of the Prophet - nothing wrong with it, in its place. It's place is probably not at the dinner table with the Muslim inlaws. But there's no reason to have such contempt for Muslims that you figure they all have to be babied through life.

I have never considered good manners as an exercise in babysitting. In fact, I frequently use it as a ruler to ascertain the ability of a person to hold a conversation intelligently.

And no, I'm not averse to mockery. Only inconsideration.

 

[Michael]

Well, I'm sure it was an affront to Theologians when Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. But that's just too bad.

Regardless, criticizing superstitious beliefs such as Xenu and moon splitting is not unethical. It's no different than when some young Earth monotheist states evolution is wrong or that all atheists have no morals and only appear to have empathy when they have something to gain, etc...

Just because the group of people brainwashed is large doesn't exclude them from criticism.Does it? We can see that general consensus around here is that Scientology is not a religion but is a scam. The truth is it's no more a scam than was worshiping the Pharaoh or praying towards some moon-rock in Mecca. It meets the psychological needs of some people. That said, it's still open for criticism.


They all are. I personally think that society will function much better without a large percentage following Scientology precepts. That's my opinion. As a member in society I am free to state my opinion on Scientology. If a Scientologist doesn't like it well tough titty said the kitty Such is life.


Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, I'm sure it was an affront to Theologians when Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible. But that's just too bad.

Regardless, criticizing superstitious beliefs such as Xenu and moon splitting is not unethical. It's no different than when some young Earth monotheist states evolution is wrong or that all atheists have no morals and only appear to have empathy when they have something to gain, etc...

Just because the group of people brainwashed is large doesn't exclude them from criticism.Does it? We can see that general consensus around here is that Scientology is not a religion but is a scam. The truth is it's no more a scam than was worshiping the Pharaoh or praying towards some moon-rock in Mecca. It meets the psychological needs of some people. That said, it's still open for criticism.


They all are. I personally think that society will function much better without a large percentage following Scientology precepts. That's my opinion. As a member in society I am free to state my opinion on Scientology. If a Scientologist doesn't like it well tough titty said the kitty Such is life.


Michael

And of course, your personal thoughts must override all other considerations.

An interesting concept, one that becomes even more interesting when the entire society absorbs it.

Clearly, atheists have no morals at all, beyond their own selfish considerations.

 

[Arsalan]

Bush = arse face.

Well, that made me lol. First time ive heard that.

You may ask, if they want to pipe up and say something they are welcome to.
They said Mr. Hubbard was a science fiction writer, not a real Prophet, and that Scientology was a means to scam money form the gullible. And that Scientology is not a “real” religion.
Now, I’m not saying I disagree, I totally think this makes sense – except I don’t know if Ron really made it up to make money or if he really heard voices in his head and thought he was a prophet. I am 100% certain there is no God, so the question is did Mohammad make it up for some alternative reason or did he really hear some voices in his head – my guess is partly TLE (temporal lobe seizures).
Anyway, I’m simply saying it’s hypocritical to call Ron a scam artist and then turn around an whine when someone says something about Mohammad. And it is hypocritical.

It is wrong yes. The Quran teaches Muslims not to mock anyone else’s religion because in turn they will mock Allah. So whoever tried to mock Mr. Hubbard needs to know he or she did something which the Quran forbids.

That’s nice. Sounds like something I’d here from an evangelical Xian to tell you the truth. They always have these sorts of stories. I hope your Imam wasn’t hanging around a Pentecostal They LOVE to tell those antidotal stories. One of the reasons why there are now 500,000,000 Pentecostals. Yeah, I know, scary huh? They’ll take over Catholics soon.

Lol,nah don’t think so. Hes a nice guy and all. There was some disbelief at first why he supported and funded such research. But when he said why everyone agreed. After all, if its the truth, what have you got to hide eh?

By evidence I mean scientific reproducible evidence. If you have some please start a thread and link it. Be specific and I don’t need a list of BS just ONE peace of evidence so simply pick the best one and link it. If not concede the point.

Tbh I don’t know what you would class as scientific evidence. But what I have learned when reading most Atheist points of views is that they seem to think that religion, or worship of someone or something, began in a time when man was not aware of what the forces f nature were around him so he started to worship the thunder and the sun. And from what ive read, this worship eventually evolved into worship of deities and in some areas turned into monotheism while other areas retained their polytheistic beliefs. Is that what you believe as well?

Well at least we agree to that much. Yes, the Qur’an takes a new perspective. BUT, I don’t think a superior one. For one, it slams polytheists. For two, it resulted in the levying of tax based on belief (not at all the kind of Universality preached by evangelical Jews and then Xians nor Buddhist. I’d say a step backwards personally.) for three, it refers to people of the book – another line in the sand and finally it delineates Muslims from other religious people, yet another line.

Anyway, Scientology has a new take as Universal religion. So what? Yeah, we all came from another planet .. Xenu and DC12 airplanes. .. blah blah blah… To me the first to come up with the notion of Universality is the more important. Heck, anyone can take a new take on things. I could do it right now. Big deal.
One would think with a God speaking in your ear you’d, Oooo I don’t know, maybe have an all new and first time ever fantastic epiphany not just a rehash and new take on old ideas.

Do you get my point?

If there is a God and if this God is talking to you then you damn well should come up with something ALL NEW. If not then I think you are just copying other people's ideas with a new take. No different than Ron Hubbard and he got millions and millions of people to believe him too - all in what 20 years. Tells you something doesn't it?

Well you see this point I have been trying to explain in all kinds of ways to you. How can I do this... Hmm... Let me have another try here. Muslims do not believe Islam is a new religion. The Quran attests to that fact as well. Muslims believe that Islam is the same message given to the people before them in its final and eternal form. Islam is simply the final step in the evolution of the religious message given to the Prophets before. Evolution is defined by WordNet as:

evolution (a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage))

So for Islam to call itself the final step in the evolution of the Message means that something was already there before it came and it developed over time, grew to maturity. As mankind evolved so did the Message until mankind was evolved enough to understand the final Message and live by it. This was visible nowhere better than in Arabia where the final Message was revealed. It was revealed to a society filled with people doing the most vile and stupid acts. Decades of wars were fought over a camel by 2 tribes... That was the society the Message was revealed in and the transformation that took place is well recorded in history.
Your point that Islam was just plagiarised from other religions in the area would be valid if the following were true:

1) Scriptures from pre-Islamic religions did not foretell of the coming of a Great Prophet with a Great Law.

2) Those prophecies in other scriptures had not been fulfilled with the Prophet and Islam

3) If the Prophet was not widely known as the most reliable and truthful person around. His reputation for always speaking the truth made him a highly respected judge and arbitrator in various areas and regions. I do not believe that a person who is so truthful for decades would suddenly start lying and stealing bits from this religion and that.

4) The Prophet lived in an area where he had quick and easy access to all these other religions and claimed to be a new Prophet with a new Message totally different to anything else and yet the Message contained teachings from the previous scriptures.

Anyway, the thing im trying to say is Islam was and is nothing new. In essence, it is the same Message sent to the previous Prophets in its final form. Its called evolution. The Quran affirms this. I also gave you links in that other thread to teachings which were exclusive to Islam. I do hope you read those links. The fact that you are still not able to grasp the Islamic concept of Universality shows how different it is to what you expect.

Now that ive tried to explain to you, again, that Islam is not[/b[ a new religion lets move on to the other points you make. You say it slams polytheists. That is in keeping with the Message sent to the previous Prophets. If anything it just reaffirms that it comes from the same source.
As for taxes, everyone’s favourite be all and end all of all debate says:

A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed on an individual or a legal entity by a state or a functional equivalent of a state (for example, secessionist movements or revolutionary movements). Taxes are also imposed by many subnational entities. Taxes consist of direct tax or indirect tax, and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent (often but not always unpaid). A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government […] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government […] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]
In modern taxation systems, taxes are levied in money, but in-kind and corvée taxation are characteristic of traditional or pre-capitalist states and their functional equivalents. The method of taxation and the government expenditure of taxes raised is often highly debated in politics and economics. Tax collection is performed by a government agency such as Canada Revenue Agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States, or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in the UK. When taxes are not fully paid, civil penalties (such as fines or forfeiture) or criminal penalties (such as incarceration)[2] may be imposed on the non-paying entity or individual.

You can find that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax
Now one of the five Pillars of Islam is called Zakat which is:

Charity towards man, in the widest sense of the word, is the cornerstone of the Islamic society and a constant theme in the Quranic teachings. There are two kinds of charities in Islam: the obligatory and the voluntary. The obligatory charity is called Zakat while the voluntary charity is called Sadaqah.
The concept of Zakat was not totally new to Islam; similar alms giving had been enjoined upon the Israelites and the Christians as well. In Islam, the Zakat takes the form of a prescribed contribution based on a person's wealth and income. The rate of contribution varies with the kind of property owned but, on an average, works out to two and one half percent of the total value. The proceeds of Zakat are supposed to be devoted towards:
o relieving poverty and distress
o helping those in debt
o providing comfort and convenience for travelers
o providing stipends for scholarships
o providing ransom for prisoners of war
o propagation of Islam
o meeting the expenses for the collection of Zakat
o other things beneficial for the society
Zakat, therefore, is a duty enjoined by God in the interest of the society as a whole. While on one hand these charitable contributions provide for the needs of the society, on the other hand the act of giving in the name of God purifies the heart of the contributor from selfishness and greed.

In other words: tax. Every government, well almost any, I don’t know about everything about every country in the world, enforces the payment of taxes by its subjects. After all, it is an important duty as it is one of the things which keeps a country running in more ways than one. In an Islamic country therefore, taxation is also unavoidable as it helps the country and people. But Muslims pay the Zakat. It is also one of the five Pillars of Islam. Would it therefore be ethically and morally just to ask or enforce non-Muslims to pay Zakat while it’s one of the fundaments of the Islamic faith? No it would not. Besides the ethical hurdles on forcing non-Muslims to pay Zakat, the simple fact of the matter is that if non-Muslims were forced to pay Zakat, there would be an outcry that the Muslims are sneakily trying to convert non-Muslims by force, both of which have been forbidden in Islam as a method of conversion. Therefore the non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government in a Muslim country pay the less heavier tax known as Jizya. It is a tax which is not meant to be eternal and can be paid in various ways and was most of the time not even enforced. Now you may see this is as being at odds with teachings Universality, I see it as another affirmation of Universality: the fact that it acknowledges that other people have their own faith, which, because it is from God, you are not allowed meddle with or enforce your own on them. I hope now you understand why there are 2 kind of taxes levied in Muslim countries. Let me put it this way: do you pay every tax there is? Or are there different kind of taxes for different people and things?
The next thing you say is that it refers to the people of the Book. I personally don’t see what you find wrong with that. Then you say it delineates Muslims from other religious groups. Muslims are people who follow Islam. Islam means total submission to the will of God. This, as is affirmed by the Quran itself, includes all righteous believers, be they Jew, Christian or anyone else. Therefore Muslim does not just apply to who you think are Muslims.
Finally you say that you think that the person who started Universality is more important than anyone who builds on it. This is your personal opinion and therefore ill let you find the logical fallacy in it yourself.

a) I thought that was part of the joke???

Not really, they dared Scientologists to sue them then chickened out basically.

b) much better lawsuits than violence – agreed???

Lawsuits as filed and executed by the Scientologists can have disastrous consequences for a person, especially financially. I’d have to agree with Ghandi, economic terrorism is worse. But yes, violence is deplorable. It was to the Prophet, it is to Islam and the vast majority of Muslims.

Anyway, many Chinese have a very poor opinion of Muslims. Are you going to say Western media somehow influence Communist China – hardly. (the same is true for Thai, Japanese, Koreans – ooo, especially after that preacher and the young boy had their heads chopped off)

I don’t believe many Chinese or any of the people you named have a very poor opinion of Muslims. One of their greatest legends is a Muslim, namely Zheng He and there are others. Chinese emperors have had a fondness for Islam as well. Check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China I doubt people as philosophical and studious as the Chinese will be as narrowminded as to put labels on certain acts like the Western media does. There was a piece in the Times about a teen whose family invited men to rape her. Ofcourse, the headline read “Muslim teens family invites men to rape her”. There wasn’t any need to put “Muslim” in the headline but it drew many people’s attention. The piece was about a teenager who was constantly abused by her mother-in-law and who turned her into a prostitute to make some money. I don’t even have to tell you how wrong that is and forbidden in Islam. But that is the kind of stuff I mean. Sneaky and malicious at the same time.

RE: Jizya tax
It was certainly leveled against non-Muslims, so we can talk about the History of Jizya and why it is wrong.

It was only levied against non-Muslims.

RE: Slavery, we can still talk about the history. And I on both accounts you are being an apologist. Which is at least a step in the right direction. It is acknowledging such things are wrong – which is good

First of all, I am in no way an apologist. I hate apologists for the same reason I hate being called moderate: it carries the implied sanction that somehow I feel sorry for being what I am or following this religion and try to apologise for it and not live by the teachings I find stupid or vile or outdated. That is in no way true. That is the reason I call myself an extremist, a fundamentalist or orthodox. Throws people off for a while usually and they stop with these nitpicky labels.

Now it’s all about reinterpreting history so that such things never happened. That’s fine. Mohammad didn’t own a Slave. Good because we both agree Slavery is wrong.

As taught by the Quran as well

Mohammad didn’t have more than one wife. Good because polygamy is bad for social equality.

He had more than one wife. And i disagree that polygamy is bad for social equality. Ive talked about polygamy in Islam before and Ive told you when marrying more than 1 wife is permitted. Ive also told you that Islam constantly tells people not to marry more than 1 wife. I disagree that polygamy allows for inequality in society for the simple fact that marrying another woman without the permission of ones current spouse is not allowed. This keeps in check the equality in society. Another reason society can benefit from polygamy is the fact that while a lot of men are married to 1 woman, they have numerous girlfriends and or mistresses “on the side” as it were. Thats lying and extremely unfair to the woman they are currently married to. How many marriages break down because of such things? How many cruel divorces are children put through just because their father could not control himself? You will not find this in a society, at least not to this level, where men are allowed to marry more than 1 woman. All with the womans permission ofcourse. And no, the House of Saud is not following Islamic law.

Mohammad didn’t harm anyone. Good because murder is the wrong way to settle disagreements.

Agreed

Mohammad never fought against the polytheists – good now we’re getting somewhere.

Agreed. He only fought those that fought him.

Mohammad is not the Last Prophet. Good. Mohammad was no better than any other man.

Hes a Prophet of God. Hes nor ordinary man but hes not more than human either.

The Qur’an is not any better or any worse than other peoples superstitious book. Good, yes, tolerance I like it.

I do believe the Quran is the best religious message. That doesn’t mean tolerance of others is at odds with my way of thinking. After all, as South Park put it: Tolerance isn’t the same as acceptance.

I do not think Mohammad was a child molester or else he would have set about surrounding himself with Children. He did not do that so logically he was not a child molester. BUT, a truly enlightened person would have adopted the girl as a daughter and raised her with his ONE wife. This would have alleiviated the suffering of many CHILDREN in the future that HAVE been the prey of pedophiles – which, believe it or not, exist in ALL societies. Lets not give a mentally sick person in the modern world any more of an excuse – agreed??

I don’t believe Aisha was under 10 at the time of her marriage. There is a myriad of inaccuracies and conflicting statements which, let’s not forget, were recorded down by hearsay years after the events themselves. The reason Aisha got married to the Prophet was because she was shown to him in a vision. She was to have a great future. And that was fulfilled. She became one of the greatest Islamic scholars. The reason she was not adopted was because to fulfil her duty as one of the greatest Islamic scholars of all time, she needed to experience how Islam dealt with every circumstance, marriage was one of them.

thats not your relative being stoned i guess, a non muslim perhaps?

You do know stoning is not part of Islamic Sharia right? It’s part of Jewish Sharia.

 

[iceaura]

So whoever tried to mock Mr. Hubbard needs to know he or she did something which the Quran forbids. - - -

All with the womans permission ofcourse. And no, the House of Saud is not following Islamic law. - - -


You do know stoning is not part of Islamic Sharia right?

No, I don't know that stoning is not part of Islamic Sharia. And I don't know that the House Of Saud is not following Islamic law. And I don't know what the Quran forbids, nor can I discover it by simply reading the Quran.

For knowledge of all these matters I am dependent on millions of Muslims who practice their religion and act according to their beliefs and inform me as to what the Quran tells them and what their Islamic law requires and asserts.

So in fact stoning is part of Islamic Sharia law, in at least some places. And so forth. The Muslim religion is not an abstract faith - it is a real religion, with an actual existence, and its adherents establish that by their actions and beliefs.

And of course, your personal thoughts must override all other considerations.

No more than yours. And no less.

 

[Michael]

Arsalan,

Good response

So, to go back to the OP, do you think that it is OK to criticize Religion? (even to the point of pissing off some people?)


Michael


RE: Mohammad, I had a question, it seems many people have this impression that Arabs were very barbaric people prior to Islam. I agree they fought, but they fought a lot after Islam too so this didn't change, I disagree they were barbaric. You know a lot of Syrians were Roman Citizens and migrated and lived in Italy? One Arab was even the Emperor of Rome for a time.

Anyway, my question, if Arabs were so backwards, then why is it that Mohammad's first wife held some much power at that time - pre-Islam I mean? I had a Persian tell me Arabs killed all their daughters they so despised have girls and so desperately wanted boys. Well, so do people living in India and China, but certainly not the majority! Anyway, it I don't buy it - if people did that there would be no female to grow the population. I don't buy this notion that Arabs were backwards and barbaric and perhaps, some of their earlier customs were superior?

 

[tresbien]

MICHAEL.I have selceted to u some wise sayings.I hope it will be useful to all of us.
The prophet succesor imam Ali said

: "Remember that this world is a thoroughfare, a road upon which people are passing night and day, and the Next-World (Aakhira) is the abode of permanent stay. While, passing along this road make provision for the next where you will reside forever. Do not go with a burden of sins and vices before the One (Almighty Allah), Who knows everything about you. Remove vicious ambitions from your mind before death removes you from your surroundings. Remember, that you are being tried in this world, and are created to be given a permanent residence in the Next World. When a man dies people ask what he has left behind as a legacy, and angels want to know what he has sent forward (good deeds and good words). May God have mercy upon you, send something in advance to the place where you will have to follow; it may be a sort of a deposit with God to be repaid to you on your arrival. Do not leave all of your s behind, it will be a drag upon you. - Nahajul Balaghah, Sermon-203.

He further said: "Remember, that this world which you covet (desire enviously) so ardently and attempt to acquire so earnestly, and which some times annoys you and some times pleases you so much, is neither your home nor a permanent destination. You have not been created for it, nor invited to it as your resting place. It shall neither remain with you for ever nor will you remain in it eternally. If, it has enticed you with its charms, it has also warned and cautioned you of real dangers lurking in its folds. Take account of the warnings it has given you and do not be seduced or deceived by its allurements. These warnings should desist you from being too greedy or too covetous to possess it. Try, to advance towards the place where you are invited for eternal bliss, and turn your face away from the vicious world. - Nahajul Balaghah, Sermon-173.

Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq (A) is reported to have said:



God, the Supreme, in His supreme justice, has associated happiness and comfort with certainty and contentment [that is, resignation to God's will], and coupled sorrow and pain with doubt and resentment [with respect to Divine will].

Imam al-Rida (A) has been quoted as saying:

Worship does not lie in copious prayer and fasting, but in the amount of contemplation in the works of God.

Imam ali says
There is no wealth like reason, no poverty like ignorance, no heritage like culture and no aid like consultation.

There is no wealth like reason, no poverty like ignorance, no heritage like culture and no aid like consultation.

Blessed be he who humbles himself, whose livelihood is pure, whose habits are virtuous, who spends his savings (in the name of Allah), who prevents his tongue from speaking rot, who keeps people safe from his evil, who is pleased with the (Prophets) Sunnah and who is unconnected with innovation (in religion).

The Prophet said: ‘Modesty brings nothing but good.’ A person named Basheer ibn Kaab said to him: ‘It is written in Al-Hikmah: It is part of modesty to maintain propriety, and to have inner serenity.’ Imran said to him: ‘I am reporting what God’s Messenger has said and you speak to me of what is written in your scroll.’” (Related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Say What is Good OR Keep Quite

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said "Anyone who believes in God and the Last Day (of Judgment) should not harm his neighbor. Anyone who believes in God and the Last Day should entertain his guest generously. And anyone who believes in God and the Last Day should say what is good or keep quiet."
--------- Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 47

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) once told his wife: "Avoid Cruelty and injustice..and guard yourselves against miserliness, for this has ruined nations who lived before you."
--------- Riyadh-us-Salaheen, Hadith 203

 

[tresbien]

Arsalan,

Good response

So, to go back to the OP, do you think that it is OK to criticize Religion? (even to the point of pissing off some people?)


Michael


RE: Mohammad, I had a question, it seems many people have this impression that Arabs were very barbaric people prior to Islam. I agree they fought, but they fought a lot after Islam too so this didn't change, I disagree they were barbaric. You know a lot of Syrians were Roman Citizens and migrated and lived in Italy? One Arab was even the Emperor of Rome for a time.

Anyway, my question, if Arabs were so backwards, then why is it that Mohammad's first wife held some much power at that time - pre-Islam I mean? I had a Persian tell me Arabs killed all their daughters they so despised have girls and so desperately wanted boys. Well, so do people living in India and China, but certainly not the majority! Anyway, it I don't buy it - if people did that there would be no female to grow the population. I don't buy this notion that Arabs were backwards and barbaric and perhaps, some of their earlier customs were superior?

MACHEAL
when I studied cultural discourse, i realised that many western writers emphasise the concept of eurocentrism that is the white race is the center while the other that is Arab or Africans or even Indians are inferiors , savages or backwards.Indeed, there are many misconception about Arabs and many sterotypes.I read some texts in which the writers associate Black with magic and brand Arabs as womanizers.If u read JANE EYERE u will realise that she places herself as educator and has divine role to educate the uncivilised.

 

[(Q)]

I have never understood why people would want to mock Buddha, Jesus or Mohammed. What is the aim?

But even then, just mockery is not a problem, it is when the mockery is designed to ridicule the beliefs, to desecrate what someone holds high in esteem that it is hurtful.

Much as one would not like to have a friend call your mother a slut or your father a pimp.

What a load of crap.

Those fairy tale creatures are mocked, not because they are fairy tale creatures, but the fact that YOU believe in them. It is YOU who is being mocked.

Holding fairy tale creatures in high esteem and treating them as your mother or father certainly does expect at the very least, mockery.

 

[Vkothii]

But saying that they're fairy-tales is mocking the idea of a religious hero.
Mohammed certainly existed, we can't be too sure about JC. Buddha presumably was a real person.
They still represent an ideal. Mocking an ideal just because it's an ideal is a bit churlish, isn't it?
Surely it's better to just point out the rational problems with some of the things idealists like to believe, than to denigrate them because they believe it?

Idealism, and Religious idealism, are easy targets, but I think deserve some credit. The Bible, Buddha's teachings, the Koran, all have something in them that isn't exactly fairy-tales (but there's a healthy skepticism requirement with some of it).

 

[tresbien]

IMAM ALI SAYS IN HIS WILL
On the Heart

I am amazed at the heart of man: It possesses the substance of wisdom as well as the opposites contrary to it ... for if hope arises in it, it is brought low by covetousness: and if covetousness is aroused in it, greed destroys it. If despair possesses it, self piety kills it: and if it is seized by anger, this is intensified by rage. If it is blessed with contentment, then it forgets to be careful; and if it is filled with fear, then it becomes preoccupied with being cautious. If it feels secure , then it is overcome by vain hopes; and if it is given wealth, then its independence makes it extravagant. If want strikes it, then it is smitten by anxiety. If it is weakened by hunger, then it gives way to exhaustion; and if it goes too far in satisfying its appetites, then its inner becomes clogged up. So all its shortcomings are harmful to it, and all its excesses corrupt it.

There are four things that make the heart die: wrong action followed by wrong action, playing around with foolish people, spending a lot of time with women, and sitting with the dead. Then they asked Imam Ali: 'And who are the dead, O Commander of the believers?' He replied: 'Every slave who follows his desires.'

Surely want is a trial, and having sickness of the body is more difficult to bear than indigence, and having a sickness of the heart is more difficult to bear than having a sickness of the body. Surely being very wealthy is a blessing, and having a healthy body is better than being very wealthy, and having awe of Allah in your heart is better than having a healthy body.

Surely hearts have desires, and they turn towards, and they turn away ... so approach them by means of what they desire and what they turn towards, for surely if the heart is forced to do some thing against its will, it goes blind.


On Intellect

A person's intellect becomes apparent through his dealings, and a man's character is known by the way he exercises authority. The intellect is a king and characteristics are its subjects, so if it is weak in governing them, disorder takes place.

The intellect is better than desire, for the intellect makes you a king over your destiny, and desire makes you a slave of your destiny.

The intellect is a natural disposition which learns from experience.

The intellect is what arrives at what is correct through reasoning, and recognizes what has not yet happened through what has already taken place. Use your intellect to understand something when you hear about the intellect that examines, that is, and not just the intellect that repeats what it hears, for surely there are many who repeat the knowledge that they hear, and there are few who examine it.

The one who has an intellect longs to be like the righteous people so that he can be of one of them, and he loves them so that he can be united with them in his love, even if he falls short in emulating their actions.

The one who has an intellect does not openly display it except in one of two situations: when he is furthest away from seeking something in the world, and when he is furthest away from abandoning it.

Surely hated adversity has final objectives in which it will inevitably end, so the one who has an intellect should try to sleep over it until this happens, for surely any attempt to stop it before it has come to an end will only intensify that hated diversity even more.

The first opinion of the person of intellect is the last opinion of an ignorant person.

The one who has an intellect finds harshness of life amongst persons of intellect more agreeable than a life of ease amongst the foolish.


The Station of men of Knowledge

Know that the slaves of Allah are those who seek to preserve knowledge of Him, safeguarding what safeguards it, and lettings its springs flow freely. They are united by friendship, and they meet with love, and they drink from the cup that quenches their thirst, and they go on with their thirst satisfied. They are not troubled by doubt, and they are not quick to backbite. It is on this basis that their natural disposition and character rest, and on this is based their love, and by this they are united. They are like seeds that have been assessed and selected, some to be kept and some to be thrown away, identified through purification, and refined through clarification.
The Sayings & Wisdom of Imam Ali (AS)



enjoy your time with the teacher of imam ali and man just by cliking on
http://mohammad.islamway.com/?lang=eng

 

[spidergoat]

My intellect has revealed to me there is no God.

 

[tresbien]

IBN QAYEM AL JAWZIA is one of the medievel famous scholars whose books are taught at islamic university and whose wisdom is usezd by scholars.This man says

Aql - Intellect


People use their intellect to gain arrogance, they try to outsmart others at times to seem superior. Eventually, if it is not controlled, it gets to people’s head that they think that they are always right or their reasoning is always right. Logic and intellect is used to gain arrogance. In order for soemone to respond to intellect or logic, it requires a smarter logic to overcome the other logic or reasoning. The only thing that cuts off the roots of this intellectual argumentation which might go to and fro is revelation. Our teacher gave us a very powerful statement. He said, “Knowledge without revelation is speculation” which is so true.

This can apply not only to people looking down upon others or oppressing them but it also is true for rejecting the truth. So many are the examples and the sects that have developed in Islamic history that have rejected the truth which is revealed in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sal Allahu alayhi wa Sallam), by relying solely on their intellect and giving it more importance than it actually deserves.

spidergoat believe me i wish all the best and pray to God enlighten u heart and protect u from satan and your self and all nice people i pray for them the same

 

[spidergoat]

There's no Satan, either. You should use your intellect and not believe everything you read in an ancient and very wrong book of lies and superstitions.