Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Today at 01:32 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 09:01 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Today at 08:53 AM

New Britain
Yesterday at 08:17 AM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed

 (Read 169180 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 10 11 1213 14 ... 17 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #330 - July 26, 2015, 04:06 PM

    So I've been wanting to chime in for the past few hours but I've been at two different doctor's visits and my phone is not ideal for doing basically any task. Anyway: the thing is, as far as naming/identifying species go, we tend towards OVER-numbering things, not UNDER-numbering things. This is largely because whenever you find or breed a new species of something, you get to name it, and everyone wants to have something they named. You can read about how this effected the estimates of the numbers of insects: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1949109.stm

    The thing is, with humans, we really are only one species. People looked very hard for about 100 years to find differentiating morphological features indicating separate species within the human population, largely to justify their own mistreatment of others. They measured everything they could think of--including the things happymurtad mentioned (skin color, nose structure, eye slenderness, the size of lips...). They tried and tried and tried. And in the end, they failed to find ANY traits that they could say universally applied to one "race" and not another. Additionally, when humans from different areas interbreed, the offspring are fertile (they can have children of their own, and so can their children), which is the one thing that separate species that can interbreed generally cannot do, eg. ligers and tions can sometimes have children, but those children are sterile, are plagued with health problems, and tend to die young. There was nothing they found that could serve as a reliable indicator. With the sequencing of the human genome, any lingering doubt in the scientific community vanished. There isn't anything in the genome to indicate separate species with the human population. It's not a conspiracy by scientists. It's facts.

    We haven't had time to sequence the genome of every plant and insect we've come across or that individuals have put forward as having bred into a subspecies. Until recently, the cost and time requirements were too prohibitive. As we start being able to sequence DNA on the cheap and very quickly--I mean, you can buy a paternity test over the counter for $200 at any pharmacy in the US and have the results mailed to you in a few weeks, so probably soon you'll be able to get a home DNA sequencing kit for plants and insects you find--the over-numbering of subspecies of plants and animals will probably start to get cleared up, and the numbers will drop.

    So the problem isn't that we're under-numbering human species, it's that we're over-numbering plant and animal species, and this will probably be fixed soon when DNA testing gets a bit cheaper and easier.


    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #331 - July 30, 2015, 09:00 AM

    Awesome post from Wahabist.
    The chief problem with the Qur'an lies in its dizzying disunity, in its uncategorisability rendering any serious systematic refutation of it very hard to come by. It contains stories but it is not a history book; it contains Islamic commands but leaves out a lot to Sunnah (thus Islam isn't in its entirety contained with in it, intertextuality takes place on many levels) ; it deals in topical generalities so that context invariably gets supplied by its dynamic readers (thus, the meaning is necessarily contingent, always being made and never is or has been made) ; it contain words it says they are letters -- i.e. Alif, Lam, Meem etc -- whose meaning not exactly but even roughly nobody knows (is Allah teasing us by telling us something we cannot understand?) ; it rhymes but it is not poetry in the Arabic sense, and its prose has undeniable rhythms; its narrative shifts unexpectedly so that beguiling displacement -- ie chronological distortion and talking about the future in the past tense using, as it does, incredibly complex grammatical structures and flowery style -- catches the already conditioned and receptive reader unawares; it refers to sciency, embryological stuff even though it is not a biology book; it seeks legitimacy from asserting it is on a continuum with older traditions, thus its discourse outside the scope of its home-grown believers tends to be directed at the people of the other 'revealed' books, a hostile takeover and pinching other religions' faithful customers. More frightfully rehashed stuff and then some.

    Now, how can anyone have a successful go at refuting something so multifarious and menacingly complex? This is without taking into consideration the prohibitive effect of the usual death threats and living in fear that this ideal refuter would have to endure for having the audacity to undertake such an insulting project. This refuter someone needs to be a grammarian extremely familiar with an admissible type of Arabic, which by the time of the second Caliph, Umar Ibn Al Khattab, has become "impure", it has to fall within 150 years before the inception of Islam ( thus, an expert in Arabic philology). This refuter someone needs to be extremely familiar with but not prejudiced against the Bible and the Torah in order to cross reference the different and disparate versions of the same stories in the Qur'an. This refuter someone needs also to be a historian, a muhaddith. Basically, an encyclopedic before standing the slightest chance at coming abreast of the nomenclaturally elusive Qur'an and beating it on its own terms.

    Thus, any attempt to engage the Qur'an on its own terms, in my opinion, is futile because it deals with so many things at once that it really does not deal with anything at all. Take surat Al-Nasr (110) and you'll find it a private message between Allah and Moe and topically nothing more. Strangely, it uses the future conditional tense to refer to past events (a problematic tense -- using the past to talk about the future -- also happens in Al-nahl 16:1). Yet, all the mufassireen spill precious ink on contextualising it to the point where you'd think this surat was a historical record for the conquest of Mecca. Not orders for Moe to seek forgiveness and glorify Allah. Well, wait! Because other mufassireen then said it was Allah hinting to Moe he was about to die. So, even those supposed to be in the inner circle of Islam cannot make up their minds on what a very simple surat actually means (they would of course say, as its their wont, that this was complimentary variation, as if this fact alone gets them out of the other bigger philosophical problem; that of indeterminacy --- which this final, perfect and completest of all books has in abundance).

    The Qur'an is undefinable ragtag heap of things, things that do not easily give themselves up to taxonomic, systematic examination necessary for modern understanding and or adaptation. So is Islam.

    Recently, I was invited to tea by Arabist sandal-wearing lefty friends of mine who live in a salubrious part of London (in leafy Chiswick). The subject of conversation shifted towards - yes, you guessed it! - ISIS. "This is not Islam, is it?" asked me one of them. I said no, this is not all of Islam.

  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #332 - July 30, 2015, 09:39 PM

    Taken from a thread that was sent where the bad threads go, but this post was too good to lose....

    Quote from: Happymurtad
    That’s the thing with racism, it all smells the same. Incidentally, I myself was raised not very far removed from a similar sort of racism. It taught that there was one particular race so prone to violence, bloodshed, deceit, and corruption that they could scarcely be classified as human. It taught that wherever this race went, it brought vice and corruption so great as to completely disrupt or even exterminate ways of life that had existed for millennia beforehand. It taught that this race, within generations of its invasive arrival upon any given land, would make rivers undrinkable, drive herds to the brink of extinction, deplete natural resources, and displace or kill the populations that had existed there for tens of thousands of years – sometimes for sheer greed, and sometimes just for the fun of it.





    This racism, from which my own upbringing was not very far removed, taught that these “devils” would enslave, rape, and pillage. They would travel the world in search of new victims, treating human beings as commodities to be bought and sold. They would fuel corruption amongst local leadership through bribes, alcohol, and material luxuries – degrading the very fabric of the societies they came into contact with.

    This racism taught that in order to enforce their control over the populations they enslaved, the “devils” resorted to some of the most brutal, savage, indescribably inhuman methods of torture ever recorded. They beat, whipped, hanged, stretched, and killed. They denied basic education, even reading and writing. They exterminated cultures.  Then, through brute force and only to maintain their imposed superiority, forbade the adoption of their own culture. For hundreds of years, they communicated only in the language of violence. It was such an irony, this racist ideology taught, that this same race would blame their victims for speaking in the only language they had been spoken to for so many generations.



    These damning charges against these devils were undeniable, it was taught. The evil they did was a part of their nature and not due to any factors other than their race.

    I myself visited the same fields and plantations where such atrocities took place. When the evil institution that held so many human souls in bondage finally collapsed, it left in its place laws on the books that would make overt discrimination the norm. In addition to having been cut off from their ancient culture, language, and way of life; in addition to having been systematically denied any semblance of an education in the ways of their enslavers; in addition to being left destitute and literally without a possession in the world, these same human souls also faced a legal system that was quite literally and without any ambiguities set up against them. Even as they moved to new lands, “promised lands,” in search of freedom and opportunity, they carried with them in the very hue of their faces the inescapable mark of their history. Many an opportunity were lost due to discrimination, even at a time when opportunities for unskilled immigrants was on the decline.

    A generation ago, many of these souls gathered in the only places they could afford, in the crumbling inner cities of America’s post-industrial revolution. And many of them cited the very things I mentioned above to fuel a racism that is not very much unlike the one that you guzzle, TheProphet15.

    I am a Black American, and I have read your posts in utter disgust. Your views are, at the same time, wrong, sickening, and divisive.

    But let’s be honest. What is really happening to you is not a feeling of racial superiority, but a feeling of personal inferiority. You are furious that now, Muzlems, Pakis, and niggers are proving that they are not inferior and are taking the opportunities that you aren’t good enough to achieve.

    Frankly, though, this forum is not the place for your whining. Take your racism somewhere else. We don’t want it here. It stinks.


    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #333 - July 30, 2015, 10:30 PM

     Afro
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #334 - July 31, 2015, 06:59 PM

    Another thoughtful post by Whabbist:

    Quote

    About Hitler, I do not think he was uniquely the most evil man in the world. Nor do I think that a nation like Germany – of learning and sophisticated culture — had lost its mind and gone completely mad for 12 weird years, so that whatever wickedness in Hitler’s person and Nazi Germany could thus be compartmentalised. George Orwell started off in England, your England by felicitously saying “As I write, highly civilised human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.” It was not a lack of civilisation that led to the atrocities and pogroms that followed. Hitler loved his dog, his daughters, loved Wagner (damn it, I myself cannot listen to the "Ride of the Valkyries" in the shower without getting all goose-bumped) and I’m sure there was at least one thing about him that was personable, one thing that you - dear reader - and I are most likely to share with him. Rather, I think too much has been made about the evilness of Nazism and Stalinism as if they were an aberration and not something that we are all capable of doing if left unchecked with propitious conditions.
     
    Very little is out there about the estimated 9 million German non-combatant civilians who were rounded up in the streets of many highly civilised European cities, made to wear or had the swastika painted on their coats, spat at, punched, lynch mobbed, and systematically shot in cold blood after the Second World War. Unless you dig really deep, you wouldn’t know about the concentration camp that was set up by the Poles for ordinary German people calling it “Punishment Camp”. Let’s not start talking about flattening Dresden and the undisputable wickedness of what A.C. Grayling called “the deliberate mass bombing of civilians” by the Allied Forces in WW II. Let’s not talk about carpet bombing, about cluster munition. About using white phosphorus in Iraq (considering it not a biological agent even though it melts and slowly breaks down its alive victim's bones) and then turn around tut-tuting the evilness of Assad’s barrel bombs and Sarin (A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Gas and Germ Warfare by Jeremy Paxman and Robert Harris is a very readable book on how we humans dream up ever more cruel ways to kill each other, and more broadly, on how no one empire, ethnicity, nationality, culture can claim monopoly on evil. I used to think that there was something uniquely evil about the US for dropping atomic bombs on Japan, I fooled myself that this wouldn't happen if other warring nations had the means and capability. No you nincompoop!! Have you not so recently read the Saudi jihadi cleric Nasir al-Fahd on the admissibility of biological agents in sharia?? ). Moving on to lesser evil crimes against the person and what do we find? We find rape. In the UK, marital rape was not illegal until 1990s. That’s not very long ago, considering this was tolerated as a 'private family matter' by the House of Lords in a civilisation that celebrates Hobbs’ Leviathan and had given the State - not men over women - complete monopoly on violence.

    The inconvenient truth is that we, as a species, are not nice. When we are nice, we are being nice. We are not innately good or ethical and this goes for all of us. This is truism of course and it doesn't need much adumbration. Yet, I was shocked to learn that the author of the timeless masterpiece, Alice in Wonderland, was probably a kiddy-fiddler, a non-practising paedophile (according to a recent investigation by Martha kearney). Felt unease when the evidence for Vladimir Nabokov’s homophobia towards his brother, Sergei, started to corroborate. Again and again, we find that nobody’s completely good, completely bad. And to cash my return ticket to agnosticism, I particularly include Islam in not being completely good nor completely bad. 

  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #335 - August 02, 2015, 10:11 PM

    Let's assume that all religious text is true, no matter the religion it is associated with, regarding the existence and behaviour of God. We cannot pick and choose between them, because each claims itself to be most accurate.
    I don't understand how an all knowing mind with infinite wisdom and infinite powers could be seen as anything other than a bully in light of what it chooses to ignore. Being that it ignores everything. Also, it used to bully races of people that were not it's chosen people, driving other groups of humans off of lands it deemed reserved for it's special favourites, advocating genocide, etc.
    Fictional superheroes are far superior, with their limited supernatural powers, because they keep trying to make a positive difference in their fictional stories. They have good intentions.
    So I know this is not much about complexity, what I am saying, rather it is about value.
    God has no value. A God who refuses to make a difference when it has the resources to do so is just useless. I am embarrassed by my fellow man's devotion to a being who simply does not give a shit.
    So it does not demonstrate any complexity, in my view. If I had to admit all religious text and prophets were true, and that God did exist, I would say it was asleep, and had fallen asleep quite some time ago, and that prophets since the last recorded meddling of God in man's affairs were dreams that God had, people inspired by it's dreams, rather than a demonstration of any intelligence or long-term planning by that God. Why would a complex and infinitely powerful being act like a shepherd to certain groups and of humans and then just fall off the face of the earth?
    There is actually no evidence of long range planning by God that I can see. Just poor decisions, half assed prophets who needed more and more messengers after them, and a lack of concern for the ethical evolution of the human race.
    Per religious texts, God does not even have a uniform personality, but rather is subject to fits of temper or mood that varies from book to book, too mercurial to be evaluated or assessed or agreed upon, which, if God were possessed of infinite mind, he could easily have predicted would lead to the sorts of blood baths we are currently witnessing.  I don't see that as complexity. My toddler behaves the same, destroying something one minute, then being helpful the next, then threatening before the hour is out. She has no forethought to how such behaviour will affect her (or me) tomorrow. Indeed, tomorrow barely exists for her, and it seems the same for God.
    So if God has infinite power and infinite wisdom, why is it that God still does not show emotional intelligence?
    How could you have a being with more wisdom and more everything than us, but no empathy? My son, who lacks Theory of Mind, shows more complexity in his responses, because he shows concern for people and all lesser beings, including ants. My son would get me a bandage if I asked him to, and God would refuse, even though supposedly God could instantly heal my wound.
    I obviously know nothing about philosophy. This is an emotional evaluation. More about value. It might be not worth our time to even speculate about God, since God does not interact with us any longer (assuming there was once a God who did).
    Probably there is some religious text out there explaining why God went to sleep (currently ignores us). If I assume such text is true, then that might change my argument. But I think not by much.
    I know most of this is rambling and not very collected. But I just seriously overloaded on chocolate and have little self control at the moment. Being a decent baker is a curse.


  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #336 - August 02, 2015, 10:40 PM

    Loving this thread.
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #337 - August 02, 2015, 11:11 PM

    Even though I read three's post here in Greatest Hits, I want to re-post it here. Afro
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #338 - August 03, 2015, 02:16 AM

    Y'all just gave me an excuse to bake brownies tomorrow. Thanks, much love!

    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #339 - August 03, 2015, 03:41 AM

    ^
    Good to see you getting the recognition you deserve.  Smiley
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #340 - August 06, 2015, 10:41 AM

    Many folk have huge misunderstanding of faith and belief so I will define below:

    Belief - this is something you believe in.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #341 - August 06, 2015, 11:31 AM

    Lol i hope Ted can see the humour in all of this but that is a good misquote
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #342 - August 08, 2015, 04:53 AM

    I have been paying attention. It's that YOU do not pay attention when reading religious texts. You start with your idea, and create a narrative around it, and to you, it is real. You created it in your mind, and to you, that makes it real. But that's not going to convince anyone else.


    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #343 - August 09, 2015, 10:42 PM

    I'm a believer in geocentrism. I wasn't always like (that) and firmly believed that the earth orbited the Sun. However as I have learnt over the years it's not that simple. Something is not quite right (most likely it's with me). But for me there is strong evidence that the sun orbits the earth. I can't prove it yet but I really do believe that science will show that geocentrism is true. However this won't do much to convince the vast majority of non-believers.

  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #344 - August 15, 2015, 11:13 PM

    A very good post, in a surprisingly good discussion:

    Whether you view it as housed in the brain, a cosmic force or dust sprinkled onto you by fairies while you sleep doesn't matter to me. The fuck does it matter? Love is real and one of, if not the, most powerful and consuming things we can ever experience. It at both the same time makes us weak in ways we never knew existed and strong in ways we could never have imagined. Love is myth and legend and real every day life. Who cares that it's something that exits in our minds? How does that make it less real? In what possible way is our experience of it any less magical?


    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #345 - August 19, 2015, 12:05 PM

    Shari'ah Law

    I not only reject the notion that Shari'ah is for all times & all places - I reject the very idea of a "Perfect Divine Law." All laws are human - and very fallible. They always have been and always will be.

    Had God truly wanted to send a detailed legal code on how to live our lives he could have done so quite easily without fuss or confusion. But he didn't. Because that is not the nature of the world he created. God clearly intended the world to be full of questions and doubts and a struggle both physical and spiritual. He intended it to be a world where we have to think for ourselves. Look around you! That's the reality of this world we live in. That's simply the way it is!

    There are no divine "A to Zs" - No handbook on: "How to do Everything Exactly Right!" - No easy answers! If there is an ultimate truth out there, we humans for sure can't see it from our perspective.

    After all my years of searching I am inclined to think that there is no "Eureka!" moment where absolute truth is discovered and the world can now stop turning because all we have to do is imitate.

    We just have to make our own meanings and truths using our heart and mind - as best we can - being honest to ourselves and others and showing love and empathy and charity to our fellow man.

    If there is a God, he couldn't possibly ask much more than that.

    ________________

    (Then I added in a comment)

    Just to add to what I said in my original post:

    I personally doubt the authenticity of ALL the traditional sources of information on Muhammad. I am inclined to think that we actually know very little about the historical Muhammad. However we are not dealing with history or science - we are dealing with people's beliefs and faith. In which case it doesn't really matter how historical any of it is (and as I say I doubt most of it anyway) - because the reality is this is what people use as the basis of their beliefs. I don't think the answer is to search for the "true historical accounts" because you will never find them. The answer is for us to realise that it is we ourselves who shape beliefs and we have the power to change traditional views.

    Smiley


    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #346 - August 23, 2015, 03:17 AM


    Ideas of heaven and hell can and often do profoundly retard our moral compass. We naturally take things in and form bonds and relationships and realise that other people feel joy and sadness and love and loss and hope and sorrow, just like us. Human morality is intrinsicly linked with our sense of empathy. This is part of our evolution as a social species. Great moral teachers throughout history, both religious and non religious, have independently taught what's become known as the golden rule. Treat others as you wish to be treated. This works well for us because we're not naturally a species of psychopaths.

    What heaven and hell often does is limit our empathy. Instead of growing the way we're naturally supposed to, we get a perversion of it where we do good for promise of reward and do bad in fear of punishment. There are people who've left religion and their own mothers honestly cannot understand why they still want to be good people without the promise of heaven or the threat of flames licking their skin. You can see it all the time. People saying if you don't believe in divine judgement you have no basis for morals. People saying if they didn't believe in god they'd be stealing, raping, murdering. Quite frankly, if this is the only reason you don't unleash evil onto the world, you're not a good person. You're a monster in a cage.


    Don't let Hitler have the street.
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #347 - August 23, 2015, 05:19 AM

    Aww yisss Wink Finally feeling pretty darn good and can spend a bit of time lurking around, came and looked at this thread and see not one but two quotes by me!  001_wub Thanks pplz. <3

    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #348 - August 24, 2015, 11:35 PM

    One of HM's posts, I couldn't quote it directly as the thread is now locked.


    If we have hoodies on, it might just be because we're chilly.

    If we have hats on, it might just be because we like the team, or because it matches our outfit, or because we want to keep the sun out of our eyes.

    If we are playing music, it might just be because we like the song.

    If we're walking down your street, we probably are just trying to get somewhere.

    Please don't shoot us.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #349 - August 25, 2015, 10:31 AM

    Lua, you’re spot on. This is laughing at someone else’s misery regardless of whether he’s lying or not. If I say lying is a Big Sin and then I get caught lying, what does that do to the normative status of lying? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. If anything, this means I’m susceptible to lying like anyone else; it doesn’t, however, mean I deep down think and believe lying is okay. And it makes me a human, trying to live up to what I believe to be right but not always successfully, and trying to avoid the things which I believe to be wrong but not always able to — particularly, things for which I have weakness or they're my delectation.

    This childish pointing and laughing is not very different from what my former Muslim friends do when they gloat over my post-Islam depression as a way to argue their case with me. I am depressed, they tell me, because I have gone astray from the truth. Eat seven Ajwa dates and spit Koranic verses over your head and you should never again need your Mirtazapine.

    Not very long ago, I saw Hassan politely pointing out something similar to Yeezevee when he played the man, not the ball; calling Hamza an emotional wreck for crying over his parents not being Muslim. This was pointing at him as a person, at his misery and laughing. It’s so contemptibly cheap.

    As you, lua, say, let’s call a spade a spade. And there are other possibilities here. Suppose he was on the website to marry Kitabiyat. This is permissible within his faith (so long as his current wife didn't make it an exclusionary term) and doesn't automatically render him a philanderer. I thought only in rough trades like politics that ‘guilt by association’ and ‘character assassination’ worked.

  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #350 - August 25, 2015, 02:32 PM

    But I am worried about us. I am worried about the directions we're willing to take when we try to rise to meet these apologists. I am worried about our conduct, I am worried about us focusing too much on, as Whabbist put it, playing the man and not the ball. I am worried that the behavior of some more vocal ex-Muslims or our allies and associates is not becoming of us, is working against us, is making us look just as petty and vitriolic as some of these preachers.

  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #351 - August 26, 2015, 11:38 PM

    Perfect wording  yes and mostly agree
    Lua, I really understand why you seem to be getting impatient for revisiting the same ground again and again. Unfortunately, the drawback to having the gift of the gap is that some of the important, core stuff gets mixed with other tangential and unimportant stuff, so that not everyone is able to remain sharply focused or able to discern matters of secondary nature from those at the fore of your preoccupation (= this is me saying let’s break things down to smaller digestible chunks, just in case they need to). Even though this sounds like it, I honestly don’t mean to be condescending by saying this; and, it’s believing this misunderstanding to be the case here (rather than others being deliberately obtuse or unreasonable) that gives me the energy to post in this discussion again.

    Let me repeat myself, then, but by saying something I have told you, lua, privately and in relation to an unconnected matter. I don’t like debates nor do I care for what the voting audience thinks at the end of one. (Indeed, I have a very theoretical itch about trial by jury — let alone by the media, the twitterati or on this forum — where someone’s guilt or innocence is decided democratically i.e. by a majority vote) I don’t like them because I have never gone away from a debate with my convictions changed or having changed those of my opponent. In my experience, debates, especially heated ones, are more about entertaining the audience than anything like a serious purpose.

    And even if we change our minds, it’s hard to imagine us admitting it publically during or after the debate; changing someone’s mind over something they strongly believe in for a very long time doesn’t happen overnight and this person would fight in the last trenches, throwing everything in their persuasive power at it and would exhaust every possible way of keeping the integrity of their beliefs intact. We like to have our truths with a capital T and for some strange reason, treat our truths as though they were all rigorously fettered, well-reasoned for and hard won -- to the risible end where we brook no divided allegiance from anyone and anything that might challenge them. Our set, daily ‘truths’ get constantly stress-tested even by our most indirect  consciousness, say, of there being too much specialisation within each field of inquiry, that to keep up with the most current thinking in anything is incredibly exhausting if not impossible. This alone should make us doubtful of the possibilities of knowledge: it was Otto Rank who said that for the time being he was giving up writing because there was already too much truth in the world, an overproduction which apparently cannot be consumed.

    We don’t like changing our minds. This is because changing your mind means you’re admitting to yourself and to other not necessarily sympathetic people to being wrong, opening yourself up to the usually pitiless connotations of being wrong: this is why leaving Islam is so painful, and I personally still have strong emotional attachment to a lot of Islamic things for it is within their beauty and sheer enchantment in those young, leisurely, insouciant old days that peace with everything became me . . .

    I guess what I’m saying here is that people hold different, contradictory views to ours for various reasons, not all of which are rational or capable of change through rationality (TheRationalizer et al: put this in your piper and smoke it) and the only thing in anyone’s power is to state the differing view in the simplest, most civil way and then move on. If we don’t move on after having made our point abundantly clear, then maybe our motivation is more than explaining and wanting to be understood.

  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #352 - August 29, 2015, 04:19 AM

    The simplest usually offered ideological answer to this pertinent and interesting question is, extreme puritanical romanticism of a desert people.

    This is what I was taught and thus it's conjectural i.e. me relying on the doubtful little the Saudi Government allows to be known about the Ikhwans prior to 1319 Hijiri (before 1900). The Saudi Government's version of how the kingdom started 'unification' was in large due to the heroism of Abdulaziz ibn Saud; the returning rightful ruler and his 15 men with whom he came from Kuwait. (This is not to be confused with Emirate of Diriyah 1744-1818, during which Ibn Abdel Wahhab's star had risen). Focus thereafter is largely on how intending to spread Islamically the purest and most authentic aqidah had fostered successful unification of the yet to be kingdom. Abdulaziz Ibn Saud was after ruling the bedouin people and there was nothing more useful than reconnecting with Ibn Abdel Wahhab's tradition to which Ikhwans subscribed fully and completely and this, in turn, gave him religiously sunctioned legitimacy. Even today, governmentally ruling the people in matters of Islam, that is to say, the Ministry of Religious Affairs, is headed by relatives of Wahhab and people who originate from or around Al-Qassim. This is relevant. Also a small uncategorisable armed unit known as Almujahidoon that was mainly 'in service' at night time and was tasked with protecting sensitive areas such as water purification stations etc -- I say was in service because I left Saudi in 2007 -- this unit was said to be the remnant of the tradition of the Ikhwans who were also handsomely given from the spoils of unification war (there had been many spoils: King Abdulaziz was reported to have married to no less than 300 women from different tribes in order to cement alliance with their tribes. Indeed, he was reported to be suffering from back as well as both knees pain before his death, that he wanted the wheelchair from the US President FDR --- a gift that was to help close the petrol exploration deal with the US and finish in creating Aramco, California-Arabian Standard Oil Co, currently the single most valued company in the entire world, estimated to be worth around 3.5 US trillion. All that aching and pain was due to shagging too much. He would marry for one night, instantly divorcing his oldest wives of the current four, yup, and was running on full islamic marital capacity just like that and there was always an Imam around to validate these pay-as-you-go marriages.) Almujahidoon couldn't be demobilised and disbanded after all this, in other words. If so then, they were being on the government's payroll without having any functional purpose, just like a lot of the toadying sycophants employed in the Royal Diwan, in particular -- and I kid you not -- the Office of Bedouin Affairs.

    Yet sociologically, it's not far-fetched to think they, the Ikhwan, had grown tired of perpetual tribal wars which were in all probability their only steady source of income. Futuhat mubarakat! They were likely to have grown tired of banditry in the same way al-Aws and al-Khazraj had fought endless wars before Prophet Moe reconciled between them. These fanatic fighters were originally said to hail from or around Buraydah and Al-Qassim Region. I personally visited the masjid of the very well known Shaykh Abdul- Kareem Al-Khudayr a.k.a The Zahid of Qassim. He was, in short, a Luddite; shunning modern technology and believing things like electricity were forbidden magic and forbade people from entering his masjid with pictures on their person i.e. their money to be kept out!!! This austere guy, however, comes from Ikhwan tradition and says so whenever it was possible as a way to share his opposition to the Saudi deviation from "the truest form of Islam". Thus, even within this marriage of Deen and Dunya, everything wasn't okay possibly because of the Ikhwan's idealistic impracticality. The Saudi Government needs the religious guys to anesthetise the populace against any form of rebellion, because rebelling would be morally wrong against the Allah fearing Imams, and in turn, the government gives them a lot of money and social promotion from which they can teach people the purest Islam -- I think this is broadly called symbiosis. Another incredibly and impossibly knowledgeable Qassimi and traditionally Ikwani fanatic is the muhadith, Sulaiman Nasir Al-Alwan -- presently His Majesty's guest in prison. Lastly, Juhayman al-Otaybi -- the guy who embarrassed the Saudi Government by militarily taking over the Grand Mosque in Mecca for two weeks, pushing the government to seek help from the French infidels as well as the too happy to help Pakistani army -- was also Ikwan and had sought a return to a purer version of Islam accusing, at that time, religious leaders of selling out to Dunya and 'taking the king's shilling'. So think of them, the Ikhwan, if you will, as The Gurkhas in completely glorifying gallantry and having the motto "better die than be a coward". Only the Ikhwan had borrowed a lot of heat, if not light, from absolutist faith in Allah.

    The health warning necessary here, of course, is that all of the above is hearsay and historical transmission through orality: so please don't quote me.

  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #353 - September 01, 2015, 11:41 PM

    And if we fail this test? If we fail to bear the pain patiently? If we fall to our knees cursing the heavens with our child in our arms - what then?

      Sorry but God can shove this stupid test right up his holy arse!


    Sorry but God can shove this stupid test right up his holy arse!..... Hassan

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #354 - September 02, 2015, 12:10 AM

    lol  Afro
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #355 - September 03, 2015, 04:29 AM

    Right, so asbie has taken his ball and gone home, and Inception has left the building.  Unless anyone nominates in the next hour, I'm awarding the crown to Quod.  In fact, although I'm not allowed to nominate, I think Quod should be nominated at least for his opportunistic attempt at claiming the crown. 

    He's a bit like William the Bastard landing on the beaches of Hastings, falling arse over tit, and then rising with a bunch of sand in each fist.  "I already hold England in my hands" he roared, and then became William the Conqueror. 


    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #356 - September 04, 2015, 09:57 AM


    Culture is what we are. The arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively as culture. And multiculturalism is the coherence of multiple cultures in one single platform...............

     ...............Hijab doesn’t fits with feminism either. Every female as a human being, has the full right to decide what they should wear and which amount of their body part they gonna show in public. If they don’t wanna show anything, regardless the disappointment of the most of the man, we all need to accept their choice. But there are certain places like office or school where fixed dress code is applicable to boast acceptability and uniformity. You have the freedom of dressing, doesn’t mean you can dress and act like a cop even though you are actually not an officer. It doesn’t mean you can wear a bombsuit and mock around in a metro. Cause it will freak the shit out of other peoples. You do have the right to wear whatever you like but you don’t have the right to harass other people by your gaudy badinage. Imagine as a children you are being taught by a teacher fully covered with hijab and niquab. Can you really concentrate on the study without watching the face of your tutor? Is it okey to scare those little kids by posing as a faceless creature? As a woman isn’t it derogatory to your self esteem to hide your own face of identity? How can you ever justify it with feminism and freedom of dressing?   .........


    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #357 - September 08, 2015, 02:46 PM

    I understand what you are saying here, but I’m not sure that is actually the case. For the most part, I’m not sure your average Muslim is faced with the reality of some of the nastier parts of Islam on a regular basis. Unless you are intimately familiar with Islamic texts and their contexts (asbab an-nuzul, etc.), or unless you happen to find yourself in an environment where psychopaths are combing through the text in order to bring out the most barbaric practices and bring them back to life, then you simply are not confronted with those things in a real way.

    For your average, decent Muslim, there is plenty of “good stuff” in the Qur’an and sunnah, enough to make the nasty stuff irrelevant. Beheadings, slavery, amputations. Even when you read about those things as an average, decent Muslim, they don’t stand out as real in a way that needs confronting.  They are confined to the pages of old books. The Islam that you actually live really is all about praying, feeding the poor, being truthful, and being good to your neighbor (and lots of self-repression). The other stuff sounds completely foreign.

    In fact, just the other day, I was thinking of some of your writings regarding God, Hassan, and the thought crossed my mind that many sunni scholars would probably just dismiss you as a modern day jahmi. Then, I began thinking of the refutations of Jahm ibn Safwan, and how his teacher, Ja’d ibn Dirham, was BEHEADED for his views. “Oh people, commence your sacrifice, may Allah accept it from you. I am sacrificing Ja’d ibn Dirham, because he says that Allah did not (actually) take Ibrahim as a friend and did not (actually) speak to Musa with words.”

    The thing is, I had read that story numerous times, but I only saw in it a refutation of the doctrine that denied God’s attributes. Never did it click in my mind that I was actually studying and upholding the ideology of people who beheaded a man for expressing rather reasonable views! But if you were to have shown me videos of ISIS at that time, I would likely have accused them of being “extremists” who had “nothing to do” with Islam. And that was with my level of exposure, which was probably more than your average “decent” Muslim.

    Ultimately, I think there are several different camps at play. The first are the good intentioned, ignorant Muslims who, through barriers of language or their own naivety, simply don’t know enough about Islamic sources to paint the full picture for themselves. They are the ones who believe that Muhammad really was all about emancipating slaves and empowering women. They cite the same extracted examples that we’ve all heard: Bilal ibn Rabah calling the athan above the Ka’bah, or Muhammad’s wife Um Salama giving him the profound advice of enacting his own commands before expecting his followers to follow suit in Hudaybiyyah. These “prove” the status of freed slaves and women in Islam. And it’s enough. You never have to discuss the capture of Safiyyah bint Huyay or the torture of Ka’b. For them, Muhammad’s battles were all in self-defense.  His interactions with others were always benevolent and peaceful. “Slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat. Start with our Jewish neighbor.” And so on. Honestly, that is the Muhammad I was taught about growing up. A Mercy for all the Worlds.

    The second camp are those who know the full picture but have a vested interest in keeping up the façade. Either their jobs as preachers depend on it, or they have fooled themselves into thinking that they can be the gatekeepers of knowledge, only letting the nice bits seep out in order to “guide” the community. These are the ones I think you are referring to, Hassan. I agree with you that they are at best highly selective and at worst downright dishonest. And they are. 

    The last camp are the ones like you who know the full picture and all its implications – and are honest about it all. They will be faced, if they have a shred of decency, with an inevitable crisis of faith. That is a very difficult position for most to be vocal about because I think they know that Islam in general is just a house of cards built just across from an open window. There really is nothing to it, so it makes such grand claims for itself. Doubt and disbelief in the miraculous infallibility of this house of cards, then, becomes paramount.

    The impressive part is that this also demonstrates the true power of faith (call it conviction, if you will.) People believe this entire system called Islam that has been built literally on nothing but words. It’s remarkable. And it is remarkable what can happen so long as people don’t lose faith.

    I’ll digress just a bit here in my rambling, but I’ll try to tie it all back in to my final point. Think about this. Muhammad never had a single miracle, but people still believe in him as a prophet of God. He never came up with a single original story, but people still believe in him as a prophet of God. He behaved essentially like any other desert chieftain in the 7th century, but his legacy lived on because people believed he was a prophet of God. He got entangled in multiple sex scandals, ones that would usually ruin the career of your average religious leader, but he was able to pull through because people believed he was a prophet of God.

    So, the thing that you are asking them to do by admitting that the Qur’an is not divine is essentially to lose faith in the one thing that makes the house of cards stand on its own. It’s essentially kufr from everyone’s perspective, the one thing that cannot be forgiven. And people are scared shitless to approach it because they know very well what it actually means.

    Though, I think if people did go there with you, they would find that Islam does not simply melt away once you admit you don’t actually believe that it is entirely and divinely true. They’d find the freedom to admire the beauty, comfort, and guidance that centuries of Islamic thought can give them without having to force themselves into ignorant or dishonest positions.

    They’d find that even Muhammad himself becomes a much more impressive character, a much more understandable character, a much more complex character, when you admit that he was nothing more than a remarkable, and remarkably flawed human being. Because what the unlettered prophet was able to give to the Arabs, and even to all of us here still talking about him, was nothing short of amazing.

    They’d find that Islam could take its place amongst all great religious traditions that humanity has developed,  not as God’s way of reaching down to us, but instead as our way of coming together and reaching up to God – whatever God may or may not be. 

    But it’s a radical shift and most people will not be comfortable with it.


  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #358 - September 09, 2015, 10:56 PM

    I’m going to be blunt here. What’s being proposed here is a bloodless coup, and — to use a historically analogous example — wanting something nothing short of the Glorious Revolution (how very English of you, Hassan!). That is, taking away by means of discourse & doubt the literality of Allah’s divinity, which would hopefully culminate in pacifying Muslims. The process of pacifying Islam, if you ask me, is extremely unlikely to be bloodless. Thus, peaceful organic transition of Muslims into a spiritualist, self-focused, inoffensive, apolitical, C of E type of Islam remains largely wishful.

    It is for this reason that I think ISIS is not very bad news; ISIS is in actuality good. I have come to think ISIS to be a necessary evil, a movement that earnestly tries to realise the hitherto suspended, dusty ideals of Islamic teachings. ISIS quotes all the relevant verses from the Quran — beautifully recited and translated into English — before it goes ahead with carrying out floggings, beheadings and grisly amputations. ISIS rubs the practical realities of theoretical Islam in the face of any honest Muslim, in ways other terrorist movements, including Takfir wal-Hijra and Al-Qaida, don’t. This is because all modern Islamist movements are focused on defensive Jihad to the near exclusion of all else; others are one-trick ponies and are very busy with Jihad to even try to implement anything Islamic beyond its scope — whatever you have to say for Taliban, they were not universalising expansionists in the ISIS sense. You pick your ISIS deed and they would furnish you with the Quranic verse which supports it, or a Salafi interpretation of the verse which supports it, or an authenticated hadith explaining its asbab alnuzol and lending it theoretical compliance, or a validating action or saying of any of The Rashidun Caliphs or those who followed them and those who followed those who followed RCs.

    When Muhammed said in authenticated hadith — in Alhakim’s Mustadrak i.e. of the same rigour of Bukhari and Muslim —that Allah will send from his ummah every 100 years a mujedid (reformer), he didn’t exactly mean an innovator with an imaginative reconstruction project. Rather, he meant someone who takes the ummah back in time and tradition to its point of origin in him. The hadith is also in Abu Dawood and it’s not for frivolity that he narrated it in the chapter of Great Wars (Bab Almalahim). ISIS to me therefore, is Islamic spiritual and ideological revolution (and thus, reformation) in which people are polarised into Muslim or not; ruling is established through bayyah according to Al Kitab and Sunnah, and people are ruled by Al Kitab and Sunnah and is a geography in which people elect to live on Al Kitab and Sunnah.

    The whole thing is built on the infallibility of Allah and His book. Take that away, and nothing’s worth praying or fighting for. This is because a lot of the crucial Islamic stuff falls, in terms of its legislative wisdom, within the scope of trustful submission (علل تعبدية) where the worshiper trusts the validity and importance of an Islamic matter without any recourse to reason; an example would be why a camel’s meat breaks a Muslim’s wodu and why prayer where camels sleep is invalid. There’s a sort of interdependent survivalism to which earliest of thinkers and religious practitioners within the circumference of Allahu Akbar — Mutazilite et al — referred to, when they humbly acknowledged that a lot of the deen is erected on the absolute ‘truthfulness of the teller’ rather than on reason (and the examples they gave were the impossibility of reaching to the certainty of Allah having risen on his throne, or that his throne was on water, or that the throne is carried by eight angels whom he empowers to carry i.e. he carries himself).

    You, Hassan, bring fallibility into this mix and none of it stands the gentlest logical scrutiny. I think it would very dishonest of me, of you, of happymurtad and others to say that we ourselves would still have remained Muslim if Allah's infallibility and that of his book were stripped away. Why should other people sell themselves short by remaining Muslims after having discovered through a lot of probable pain the baseless quintessence of Allah? Why are there so many Ex-Muslims here when they could have remained culturally Muslim if cultural affinities and shared ancestral and social history were sufficient to make anyone Muslim? I love you dearly, Hassan, and I'm completely supportive of you subjectively calling yourself an agnostic Muslim. But beyond the subjectivity of such an imaginative label, you are not Muslim in any traditional, scriptural sense. And well you know it. You do not look forward to meeting Allah and are practically ensconced in hayat al-dunya (as mentioned in surat Yunus, verse 8 ) so that if Allah were real, only Jahanum awaits you after death, like the rest of us murtadoon.

    A lot of scholars knew this infallibility weakness, knew about this chink in the Islamic armor which is forged through generous submission and anyone’s greatest willing to believe in Allah's and his book's perfection against their own reason. These scholars, thus, have written books precisely on Islam’s legislative wisdom to make up for the possible human thing of us wanting to subject this type of truth to a minimum of common sense i.e. reason. Thus, the jurist Ibn Qayyim al- Jawziyyah wrote two books, I'laam ul Muwaqqi'een (اعلام الموقعين) and Shifa al-Alil (Healing of the Sick) to expand on the possible humanly comprehendible reasons behind Islamic rules in case raw imaan stopped doing the trick. So did his peer, Al-Iz bin Abdussalam when he wrote a very detailed book — Qawa'id al-ahkam fi masalih al-anam. Lots of what Zaghloul al Najjar and his fellow Muslim scholars do vis-a-vis I'jaz is also to acknowledge the wild might of human reason even when it's been extremely demosticated; when they seek to islamise science and scientific discoveries by claiming the miraculous Qurran has foretold them here (http://quran-m.com/).

    It would more likely to fall to ISIS rather than to pacifist, lovable hippies to make Muslims wake up and face the implementation realities of their peaceful Deen. And look around you, why is the West so insistent on rejecting violence as a way of settling arguments and differences? Was the French and American Revolutions peaceful? No. I believe the West rejects violence because it tried it for long enough and has got tired of violence. Muslims and the Islamic World haven't. Muslims cannot skip the historical cycle of lasting peace being a product of long wars and misery. We here on CEMB are a pointed example that the totality of Islam left us no choice but to totally reject it, rather than opting for creating a 'reformed' Islam that is fit for us to consume; no, if we are going to create it ourselves in principles, then that ability is sufficient for us becoming murtadoon with knobs on. I'm sorry to say this but it is my deeply held belief that ISIS, like 9/11, is more likely to drive a lot of honest Muslims away from Islam (after having exhausted all the efforts to re-imagine the Quran without its infallibility claims) than through aeons of erudite, peaceful reformation.


    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • CEMB Greatest Hits - posts you may have missed
     Reply #359 - September 10, 2015, 05:34 PM

    For the Bruce Lee quote if for nothing else:

    However much we might protest, I’m not convinced that “ex-Muslims” are as external to this debate as we’d like to think we are. Whatever we may call ourselves, our experience is a uniquely Muslim one.  Our backgrounds don’t suddenly change and our experiences don’t suddenly vanish just because we were honest enough to admit we don’t believe in Islam.

    Traditional Islam, of course, has given us lots of derogatory titles: murtad, munafiq, kafir, etc. But people don’t follow labels. They follow what they can actually believe – if they are given the chance.

    Traditional Islam is, as Bruce Lee said of classical Kung Fu, “a form of paralysis (which) only solidifies and conditions what was once fluid. These practitioners [insert, for our purposes, Islamic Scholars] are merely blindly rehearsing systematic routines and stunts that will lead to nowhere.” No one stands to benefit from it but those who derive their power and influence from the status quo, and the poor saps who genuinely believe them.

    Removing the pressures of fear and intimidation will mean that people will be free to salvage whatever they want from the wreckage of classical Islam. I don’t think the task at hand is about looking backwards to determine what we are “allowed” to believe or not.


  • Previous page 1 ... 10 11 1213 14 ... 17 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »