The Qur'an

[baftan]

But that's how this Universe is. It is but an interwoven mesh of causality - of temporal moments that link each other almost seamlessly. However, when we regress all these temporal moments, we always beg the question as to what caused the prior etc - priori cause. That's why it's considered a fallacy of logic in Philosophy.

If you can accept this theory being circular logic and think about it carefully, then you will come to a conclusion that; ultimately we will need a truly atemporal and uncaused original existent (causer), state-of-affairs, or whatever you want to call it - (outside of this temporal causal existence). It really is a necessary solution to this logical problem. Wouldn't you agree?

What makes you think that there was a priory of anything? Is there any tangible –not imaginary non-existent beings such as Allah, eternity, infinity- evidence or example in given nature that shows or hints any a priory existence.

Just because it is considered as “fallacy” by human logic, it doesn’t mean that a creator, first cause, a priory beings must exist. Logic is not something that was carved into the deepest origins of universe, it is a human way to analyse things, and it exist in mind level, there is no particle for logic, or no tree out there that produces natural “logic” fruit. Human logic itself is evolving, what you find as logical today could not be found logical two thousands of years ago. And what you find as logical today is nothing but a thought exercise. Of course, if you are not using divine logic, such as Qur’anic verses or Cosmological Argument without checking out what is really going in Cosmos…

About astronomic knowledge we get from Qur’an:

The average person in Hellenic and Roman times knew that our
world is round. The philosophic inquiries and dialogs that began
with Thales reached their peak with Aristotle. Later, various
hellenistic astronomers made measurements of the size of the
Earth and the sizes of and distances to the Sun and Moon.

-from Globes on Ancient Coins-

Pythagoras (who died ca. 497 B.C.) who defined his era with geometrical perspective must have applied his theories on any shape I assume.

Before them, even previous ancient civilizations like Egyptian or Indian had vast amount of knowledge about “heavenly bodies” –not your imaginary dream-like heaven. Because they were “measuring” and “observing” and illuminating themselves, they were not waiting for divine revelations.

Stealing this knowledge and selling thousands of year old human knowledge as Allah’s words are nothing but plagiarism. When Christians were trying to promote their God, they tried to cut off this information from their people; yet early Islamic civilization translated this and many other ancient –particularly Greek- knowledge into Arabic and they also observed skies. That’s why there has never been a serious “flat earth” theory among Muslim scholars when Europeans believed that earth was flat, and Bible even doesn't teach this kind of things, it was a political attempt by some Christians. Yet Muslims didn’t get this knowledge a priori from Qur’an; no, actually even Qur’an took this knowledge from ancients. Around five to six centuries ago from today, Muslim scholars also joined the club and stopped their curiosity due to some social historic reasons.

You didn't get the Big Bang, at least not the same way modern science got it. It took science hundreds of years and numerous observation to claim that everything in this universe originates (not "created", definitely not this disgusting word) from Big Bang. Science needed to measure the background radiation and related calculations in order to make this claim. Yet no one claims that Big Bang , or anything else for that matter, came from nothing. Big Bang must be originated from something else if everything else originates from something. I repeat: creation, art, philosophy, Qur'an, eternal, infinity, Allah, heaven are all the products of human imagination. They have nothing to do with real physical universe.

Now you are trying to sell us Qur'anic astronomy lessons which belonged to humanity long before Qur'an. Night and Day, orbits were all observed, categorized and they built pyramids on this knowledge. Since this thread is about Qur'an, why don't you come with other scientific revelations of Qur'an such as how did it guess the DNA or Atom. Bring the verses and hadiths...

 

[Michael]

YUSUFALI: Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

This to me epitomizes exactly what's wrong with superstitions like Islam on so many many levels.

Delineating people "Unbelievers" is bigotted. I would hope that if one were to read this: Do not Niggers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together... they'd feel a sense that something is wrong. Because that's what I see when I read this crap about "Unbelievers". It is no more possible for a so-called "Unbeliever" to believe this fairytale as real then it is for a person born with dark skin to change their appearance. It's not a choice to be an "Unbeliever" and if you don't think so just try choosing to believe in Xenu. It's impossible for me to believe in Xenu or Allah.

Think about how the author is trying to frame the argument using the word "Unbelievers" as bait. Talk about a shenanigan. But, then again, the author uses the logical fallacy of Appealing to Authority (aka: magical know everything Allah) to make their case.

On so many levels this line of reasoning and method of thinking stiffens and snuffs out human creativity, questioning, challenging authority, changing dogma - and ultimately changing society. EXACTLY what the author of this document did NOT want to have happen. This is exactly the reason why there exists such propaganda as "Islamic" Golden Age. Stagnate and maintain the power structure is the order of the day.

Ask yourself, how are Islamic Caliphates ANY different then any other Theocracy that existed before or after? Dictator and Aristocracy on top, Mercantile class next and the powerless peasants on bottom, but still one step above Slaves and Women.

Just another example of thuggery and unenlightened thought from the Qur'an. Us versus Them .... Believers versus Unbelievers, how many millions of people have been murdered, raped, pillaged, destroyed because of this simple lack of insight spewed from this middle age draconian superstitious story book. I wonder what the Meccans would have said, just prior to their Temples and houses being smashed to bit? Did the word "Unbeliever" ring true in their ears when Muslims ran swords through them? I wonder, if they USA were a theocracy and we marketed the wars as being against "Unbelievers" would you finally "get it"?

Come on SAM couldn't even pony up post-hoc on this "astronomical" revelations form the Qur'an? Please....

 

[S.A.M.]

Delineating people "Unbelievers" is bigotted

How would you describe people who don't believe in Islam, in a non-bigoted way?

 

[Michael]

Exactly. How can you? How does a WASP Bigot who preaches White Supremacy refer to non-whites in an equitable manner? Monotheistic ideology is THAT flawed. The entire superstition needs to rewritten from the ground up.


ON a side note: What do you mean when you say "Don't beleive in Islam?" What is this thing "Islam"?

 

[S.A.M.]

So you are saying that those who believe in Islam should simply pretend that there are no people who do not believe in Islam? I should simply consider everyone a Muslim by default and not take into account that others may have different beliefs?

 

[swarm]

How would you describe people who don't believe in Islam, in a non-bigoted way?

Sane?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sane?

Well fellow Muslim, how do you do?

 

[Michael]

So you are saying that those who believe in Islam should simply pretend that there are no people who do not believe in Islam? I should simply consider everyone a Muslim by default and not take into account that others may have different beliefs?

The author of the passage presents "Unbelievers" as people who are wrong in their belief. The reference to "Unbeliever" is not made in a vacuum. It's made to other god-bot bigots so as to make them feel better by pointing their fingers at the "Unbeliever" and thereby feeling better about themselves - - safe in the knowledge their little book is "Perfect" and its ideology is superior. The "Unbeliever's" book is not perfect, it is flawed in someway and the "Unbeliever's" ideas are wrong and inferior to the believer.


You do believe the Qur'an is "Perfect" don't you SAM?


WASPs refer to non-whites as niggers.
The Qur'an refers to non-Muslims as Unbelievers.

Referring to a person as a nigger implies that there is something inferior with the person. Referring to a person as an Unbeliever implies that there is something inferior with their ideology. WASPs are a group, they do this on purpose. The Qur'an was written by people who were thinking exactly like WASPs. These people chose their words so as to further their bigoted ideology. Just like a WASP your ideology is inherently intolerant. It's a fault in monotheism itself.



A much better ideology would be one that takes the stance that it, as an ideology, may indeed be wrong itself. Or may be it is correct. Then again, the other guy's ideas may be correct. Or they may be incorrect. Perhaps both people are correct this time around? And that's it. Did you see how easily you read over that SAM? Both People. Not Believer and Unbeliever. But two people.

 

[S.A.M.]

The author of the passage presents "Unbelievers" as people who are wrong in their belief.

Thats usually how it works, e.g. if you believe that it is alright to abort children, you consider people who do not share this belief as wrong in their belief. But as long as they keep their wrongful beliefs to themselves you don't care about it. Its only when they try to impose their lack of belief on you that you have a problem with it.

 

[Michael]

SAM,

Go back and think about the implications of "Unbeliever" from a Muslim's perspective. Think about what happened in Mecca. Think about Islam. If you just don't get it then you just don't get it. That's not a surprise. A lot of really nice white supremacists out there that just don't want any mixing of pure good white blood with the non-white stuff. Oh, just like you SAM, they ain't meaning no harm - leave them unbelievers, oh, I mean dark peoples, to themselves - they just don't want the races mixing and watering down the superior white race.

Funny enough, every now and again, a WASP goes off and kills a non-white. No one knows sure why. But what they can all agree is the White Supremesy doesn't teach violence and is only about preserving God's Perfect White Race.

You'd have to be blind not to see the inherent intolerance oozing from their ideologies. And yet, you don't.

What's interesting is it seems like the Indian philosopher named Buddha thought a lot about this stuff. Or at least the Indian's who made him up. India would be the place I suppose. That's interesting. Maybe that could make a good thread topic. Why did Indian philosophers see past monotheism?

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

No I get it, I get it that some people are afraid of differences and diversity. That they are afraid of other people having different beliefs and thoughts. Thats why it is so refreshing to be a Muslim. Such things don't matter to me.

I recommend you look up Brahman.

 

[Michael]

OK, you don't mind if your neighbors teach their kids Indian's are an inferior race of smelly people. Good for you SAM. When one of them beams your in the head with a apple and calls you a racist name you can think: I for one like diversity. I for one think teaching racism is not the correct way to think. AM I forcing people not to? No. But I can write something, I can teach people. That much is OK.

Especially when racism is not true. I think to myself: Why teach children to be intolerant racists? I can't see the upshot? Is there one? Why teach people to be intolerant monotheists? I can't see the upshot? If there is on please post it, I'll give it some consideration.

 

[S.A.M.]

Don't worry, I understand that it is hard for you to break away from your inherent tendencies to liberate the savages. The savages are quite understanding of your uncontrollable urge to reform them. We sympathise with your intolerance.

Its always refreshing to meet a post colonial reformer. Who can't get very far from his roots. I bet you're surprised that no one can see the wisdom of your ways, eh? Why won't they assimilate? you question as you live your western life in Aboriginal lands. Having moved from a similar western life in native American lands.

I recommend you start your campaign against monotheism by promoting native religion in Australia and America.

 

[Michael]

That's red herring.

There is an inherent intolerance in the dividing of humanity into two groups: good Muslims and the "Unbelievers". It's no different than a WASP dividing the world into good White people and the non-Whites.

If you can not see the inherent bigotry in the verse from the Qur'an, well, then you can't.

Try to remember your rational on why it was good and "godly" that Mohammad attacked and destroyed other people's personal belonging and smashed their temples and their statues and then killed them - you know, when he invaded Mecca. What was his rational? Oh yeah, they were "Unbelievers". People were murdered for the crime of being "Unbelievers". Something to think about.

 

[iceaura]

I usually address the opinions he expresses

You don't. You don't know what they are, and you address what you have invented and ascribed.

Actually, I usually respond to people based on how they act towards me

I haven't had the privilege of such a response from you with any frequency. Neither have several others.

The Aztecs and the Incas did sacrifice what are considered unbelievable numbers of prisoners. But the victims were never debased or dehumanised,

Many were cut into pieces and fed to zoo animals. Others were simply eaten by people.

Then you should have no problem finding ONE invasion in 1400 years justified by the other being an infidel

Justifications are cheap - words. Different folks tend to use what works for them.

So you are saying that those who believe in Islam should simply pretend that there are no people who do not believe in Islam?

They should not lump them all together under one word, as if they had something in commonn - the potential for confusion becomes too great.

No I get it, I get it that some people are afraid of differences and diversity. - Thats why it is so refreshing to be a Muslim. Such things don't matter to me.

You differ, then, from most Muslims in most places.

 

[S.A.M.]

You're right, I have responded to you much better than what you have addressed me as. Should I change that?

May I see a citation for people being fed to zoo animals by the Aztecs and Incas? I have never heard of it.

Justifications are cheap, sure, but assertions are not. They require at least something more than mind reading to back them up.

They do have something in common. They do not believe in Islam. What is the potential for confusion here?

No I don't think I differ much from most Muslims. Have you travelled or lived in any Muslim communities? There are some here who have e.g. hypewaders and I invite anyone who has lived in a Muslim community to offer their opinions of how they are treated.

 

[swarm]

Originally Posted by SAM
The Aztecs and the Incas did sacrifice what are considered unbelievable numbers of prisoners. But the victims were never debased or dehumanised,

I would consider being druggged on morning glory seeds and then having your heart cut from your body and shown to you still beating or having your lungs pulled from your baody so they flop around as being fairly high on the "debased or dehumanised" scale. Prisoners were considered fodder and were treated appallingly, just like in about every culture before the modern era and even still so in some places, like say islame.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would consider being druggged on morning glory seeds and then having your heart cut from your body and shown to you still beating or having your lungs pulled from your baody so they flop around as being fairly high on the "debased or dehumanised" scale. Prisoners were considered fodder and were treated appallingly, just like in about every culture before the modern era and even still so in some places, like say islame.

Again, may I see a citation?

 

[swarm]

Again, may I see a citation?

Most of the sacrificial rituals took more than two people to perform. In the usual procedure of the ritual, the sacrifice would be taken to the top of the temple.[28] The sacrifice would then be laid on a stone slab by four priests, and his/her abdomen would be sliced open by a fifth priest with a ceremonial knife made of flint. The cut was made in the abdomen and went through the diaphragm. The priest would grab the heart and tear it out, still beating. It would be placed in a bowl held by a statue of the honored god, and the body thrown down the temple's stairs.[29]

Before and during the killing, priests and audience (who gathered in the plaza below) stabbed, pierced and bled themselves as autosacrifice (Sahagun, Bk. 2: 3: 8, 20: 49, 21: 47). Hymns, whistles, spectacular costumed dances and percussive music marked different phases of the rite.

The body parts would then be disposed of: the viscera fed the animals in the zoo; the bleeding head was placed on display in the tzompantli, meaning 'hairy skulls'.[30] Not all the skulls in the tzompantlis were victims of sacrifice. In the Anales de Tlatelolco it is described that during the siege of Tlatelolco by the Spaniards, the Tlatelolcas built three tzompantli: two for their own dead and one for the fallen conquerors, including two severed heads of horses.

Other kinds of human sacrifice, which paid tribute to various deities, approached the victims differently. The victim could be shot with arrows (in which the draining blood represented the cool rains of spring); die in unequal fighting (gladiatorial sacrifice) or be sacrificed as a result of the Mesoamerican ballgame; burned (to honor the fire god); flayed after being sacrificed (to honor Xipe Totec, "Our Lord The Flayed One"), or drowned.[31]

28 Bernardino de Sahagún, Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España (op. cit.), p. 88
29 Duverger, Christian (2005). La flor letal. Fondo de cultura económica. pp. 139–140.
30 Duverger, Ibid., 171
31 Duverger (op. cit.), pages 157-167

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture#The_sacrifice_ritual

A bit on entheogen usage:
http://www.wayeb.org/download/theses/blainey_2005.pdf

 

[S.A.M.]

Most of the sacrificial rituals took more than two people to perform. In the usual procedure of the ritual, the sacrifice would be taken to the top of the temple.[28] The sacrifice would then be laid on a stone slab by four priests, and his/her abdomen would be sliced open by a fifth priest with a ceremonial knife made of flint. The cut was made in the abdomen and went through the diaphragm. The priest would grab the heart and tear it out, still beating. It would be placed in a bowl held by a statue of the honored god, and the body thrown down the temple's stairs.[29]

Before and during the killing, priests and audience (who gathered in the plaza below) stabbed, pierced and bled themselves as autosacrifice (Sahagun, Bk. 2: 3: 8, 20: 49, 21: 47). Hymns, whistles, spectacular costumed dances and percussive music marked different phases of the rite.

The body parts would then be disposed of: the viscera fed the animals in the zoo; the bleeding head was placed on display in the tzompantli, meaning 'hairy skulls'.[30] Not all the skulls in the tzompantlis were victims of sacrifice. In the Anales de Tlatelolco it is described that during the siege of Tlatelolco by the Spaniards, the Tlatelolcas built three tzompantli: two for their own dead and one for the fallen conquerors, including two severed heads of horses.

Other kinds of human sacrifice, which paid tribute to various deities, approached the victims differently. The victim could be shot with arrows (in which the draining blood represented the cool rains of spring); die in unequal fighting (gladiatorial sacrifice) or be sacrificed as a result of the Mesoamerican ballgame; burned (to honor the fire god); flayed after being sacrificed (to honor Xipe Totec, "Our Lord The Flayed One"), or drowned.[31]

28 Bernardino de Sahagún, Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva España (op. cit.), p. 88
29 Duverger, Christian (2005). La flor letal. Fondo de cultura económica. pp. 139–140.
30 Duverger, Ibid., 171
31 Duverger (op. cit.), pages 157-167

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture#The_sacrifice_ritual

A bit on entheogen usage:
http://www.wayeb.org/download/theses/blainey_2005.pdf

Yeah, ritual sacrifice. Thats pretty much what I said.