• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

After being in denial for some time, I've come to a realization: I'm agnostic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bidermaier said:
are you reading the bible in a non alegorical way?
are you like those fucktards that think the word was created a few thousands years ago?


You're not supposed to read the bible as an allegory. You're supposed to read it literally. If everyone thought it was an allegory it wouldn't be that big of a problem. And the poster you're quoting obviously does not believe it literally.
 
Zapages said:
EU - like block for all Muslim nation to have one single currency.
-This will lead to less powerful countries to become develop and finally rise up from 3rd nation status to 2nd to 1st world status.
-Benefit the economies of nations that supply the money for the development as they will have control of what economical ventures they built there.
-No passport needed to travel around those regions.


This is the quickest recipe for virulent Wahabiism and resource poverty ever posted on gaf. Congratulations sir, you have the fast track idea for destroying not only the Islamic world, but every country close to it.
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
This is the quickest recipe for virulent Wahabiism and resource poverty ever posted on gaf. Congratulations sir, you have the fast track idea for destroying not only the Islamic world, but every country close to it.


Oh yeah forgot to mention there should be some sort of peaceful revolutions in these so called pious nations such Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Egypt/etc...
 
icarus-daedelus said:
Also, you can't "discover" a continent if there are already people there. That one really bugs the shit out of me.


nah, it's logically sound. If you flew to an alien world and they did not in turn fly to yours, you'd be discovering that world, since it would otherwise remain isolated. Geographical Discovery can and does include an element of connection. But a couple of Vikings might be on your side anyway.
 
Bidermaier said:
are you reading the bible in a non alegorical way?
are you like those fucktards that think the word was created a few thousands years ago?


No Sir. I'm fucktard free for the most part. I think a person would have to be clinically insane to think the Earth is only a few thousand years old. No, I believe the Earth was formed around 4.5 Billion years ago.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
I thought we had this shit figured out when people first realized that ships sailing off on the horizon were not actually sinking, but that the Earth was curved.

Also, you can't "discover" a continent if there are already people there. That one really bugs the shit out of me.

Actually, all sailors knew that the world was round, the main reason they tried to mutiny against Columbus was because they were running out of food and believed that they wouldn't reach 'India' in time.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
I thought we had this shit figured out when people first realized that ships sailing off on the horizon were not actually sinking, but that the Earth was curved.

Also, you can't "discover" a continent if there are already people there. That one really bugs the shit out of me.

Eratosthenes had thing shit figured out in 300 AD
 
Zapages said:
Hopefully this be founding steps for the re-establishment of a Caliphate. As Muslim nations will be politically and economically connected... Which these ties have separated ever since the establishment of the present borders.

Heh... overlooking Zapages napkin written plan to save the Muslim world, you still didn't address how a system wherein an autocrat is chosen to lead will not repeat its mistakes again.

Let's put it in a way you're likely going to understand. You're always going off about how these problems are not with Islam but with 'the people' or that it is humans who are corrupting Islam.

Your grand solution to that is to therefore place one man, one human, as the point of authority over all Muslim lands. For his troubles, he gets to be the most powerful individual in the entire Caliphate.

... and you don't see any problems arising from that?
 
icarus-daedelus said:
I thought we had this shit figured out when people first realized that ships sailing off on the horizon were not actually sinking, but that the Earth was curved.

Also, you can't "discover" a continent if there are already people there. That one really bugs the shit out of me.
How is it possible to discover anything then?
 
Atrus said:
Heh... overlooking Zapages napkin written plan to save the Muslim world, you still didn't address how a system wherein an autocrat is chosen to lead will not repeat its mistakes again.

Let's put it in a way you're likely going to understand. You're always going off about how these problems are not with Islam but with 'the people' or that it is humans who are corrupting Islam.

Your grand solution to that is to therefore place one man, one human, as the point of authority over all Muslim lands. For his troubles, he gets to be the most powerful individual in the entire Caliphate.

... and you don't see any problems arising from that?

and you know you can impeach through the Shura a caliph if he's not doing the right job.
 
Zapages said:
and you know you can impeach through the Shura a caliph if he's not doing the right job.


No you can't, because there is no Caliphate. And there won't be one either. Islam is as divided as it has ever been in history and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get it a magical king.

It has to fix itself internally on a per region basis where it's problematic to begin with. Which means starting with Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly Saudi Arabia.
 
OuterWorldVoice said:
No you can't, because there is no Caliphate. And there won't be one either. Islam is as divided as it has ever been in history and no amount of wishful thinking is going to get it a magical king.

It has to fix itself internally on a per region basis where it's problematic to begin with. Which means starting with Pakistan, Afghanistan and possibly Saudi Arabia.

Yes you can... You can definitely impeach a Caliph if he is not doing job properly.

What is the Caliphate?
Introduction
Tony Blair on 16th July 2005 at the Labour Party National Conference delivered his famous ‘evil ideology’ speech where he discussed, in his view the vision of the extremists. He said:

They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and government; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations. We don’t have to wonder what type of country those states would be. Afghanistan was such a state. Girls put out of school. Women denied even rudimentary rights. People living in abject poverty and oppression. All of it justified by reference to religious faith.

Many Western politicians, commentators and thinkers have also begun to discuss the Caliphate, in many cases describing it as a medieval, backward, seventh-century terrorist state that’s establishment would usher in a new era of oppression and tyranny for the world.

Although these allegations are totally unfounded, the Caliphate has become an easy target for those wishing to plant misconceptions and blatant distortions in people’s minds about its institutions and rule.

First and foremost this is due to the absence of a Caliphate that can practically show people that it is in fact a progressive and advanced state that is a force for good in the world.

Secondly the knowledge of the Caliphate has been brutally suppressed by the despotic governments in the Muslim world. The books on the Caliphate are banned and the scholars and political parties working for its re-establishment through peaceful political means are imprisoned or boiled alive and massacred as happens in Uzbekistan.

Some aspects of the life under the Caliphate are discussed here to illustrate that the re-establishment of the Caliphate will usher in a new era of peace, stability and prosperity for the Muslim world. These points are elaborated in more detail on the rest of the site.

The Caliphate

The Caliphate (khilafah) is a unique political system from the ideology of Islam that bears no resemblance to any of the Muslim Governments today. Although many commentators and historians have tried to interpret the Caliphate within existing political frameworks, it is in fact a unique political system, built upon a concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed that is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping.

Caliphate is not a dictatorship

The Caliph (khaleefah) is the name given to the head of state in the Caliphate. The Caliph’s authority to rule must be given willingly by the people through a special ruling contact called bayah. Without this bayah he cannot be the head of state. This is totally opposite to the post of a King or Dictator who imposes his authority on the people through coercion and force. The tyrant Kings and Dictators in the Muslim world are ample examples of this, imprisoning and torturing their own people and stealing their wealth and resources.

This bayah contract stipulates that the Caliph must be just and rule the people by Islamic Law (shari’ah). He is not sovereign and cannot legislate laws from his own mind that suit his personal and family interests. Any laws he wishes to pass must be derived from the Islamic legal sources through a precise and detailed methodology called ijtihad. If the Caliph legislates any law contrary to this or commits oppression against his people, the highest and most powerful court in the State called the Unjust Acts Court (mahkamat muzalim) can impeach the Caliph and order his removal from office.

Caliphate is not a theocracy

The Caliph has been likened to a Pope, who is the Spiritual Head of all Muslims, infallible and appointed by God. This is not the case as the Caliph is not a priest. His post is an executive post within the Islamic government. He is not infallible and can make mistakes, which is why many checks and balances exist to ensure he and his government remain accountable.

The Caliph is not appointed by God rather he is elected by the people and assumes authority through the bayah contract. The Caliphate is not a theocracy since its legislation is not restricted to religious and moral codes that neglect the problems of society. Rather shari’ah is a comprehensive system that legislates on ruling, social, economic and judicial matters to name but a few. Economic progress and enhancing the living standards of the people is one of its major objectives. This is totally opposite to backward, medieval theocracies found in Europe where the poor were oppressed and forced to work and live in squalid conditions in return for the promise of heaven. Historically the Caliphate was a very wealthy state with a flourishing economy, high standard of living and world leader in industry and scientific research for many centuries.

Caliphate is not an Empire

The Caliphate does not favour the state’s capital or any of the lands it rules over above any others. Nationalism and racism have no place in Islam and are totally prohibited. The Caliph can be from any race or colour and from any school of thought such as Sunni or Shia as long as he is Muslim. Historically the capital of the Caliphate moved as the State expanded. Medina , Kufa, Baghdad , Damascus and Istanbul have all been capitals of the previous Caliphate, and the Caliph’s have been from many different tribes and races. As for the Caliph being Muslim, the head of state in any country must believe in the ideology or law being implemented. This is usually embodied in the oath of allegiance sworn by the head of state when taking office. This is why as an example a Communist could never be accepted as the US President.

Rights of non-Muslims

Non-Muslims have an honourable status in the Caliphate. Non-Muslims are referred to as dhimmi (people of contract) in the Caliphate, which means they enjoy the full rights of citizenship. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

He who abuses a dhimmi [non-Muslim citizen] then I will be his rival and dispute him on the Day of Judgment.

The rights of non-Muslims are enshrined within statutory Islamic Law (shari’ah) and cannot be reversed by legal precedent or the whims of any government. This provides stability and security to the non-Muslims allowing them to live their lives without fear of losing their rights some time in the future. Contrast this with western governments who are introducing more and more draconian anti-terror legislation targeting the Muslim community in the name of combating terrorism and national security.

Imam Qarafi (Classical Islamic Scholar) summed up the responsibility of the Caliphate to the dhimmi when he said:

It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the People of the Dhimma to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely, and even tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbour, even though the Muslim would have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violates their rights.

The Caliphate cannot force or pressurise any non-Muslim to become Muslim. Churches, Synagogues and Temples are all protected by the Caliphate. Those who follow a religion can practise their religion without interference or harassment from the police and authorities. The government will not threaten to close places of worship or spy on the worshippers and sermons as the British government is doing.

Historically, when the Caliphate was ruling Jerusalem , it protected the holiest Church in Christianity. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The keys to this church have been held for centuries by the Nusseibeh Muslim family who until today still open and close the doors on a daily basis.
 
Continued

Accountable Open Government

The Caliph and his government believe in Islam and their motivation for strictly adhering to the letter of the law is their belief in accountability for all their actions when they die. This belief will create trustworthy and responsible politicians, not politicians who say one thing and do something else. They are chosen for their merit rather than due to ‘political favours’. Having said this, members of the government are not divine and can make mistakes and can commit crimes. For this reason a strong and effective accountability process exists through an independent judicial court called the Unjust Acts Court (mahkamat muzalim), which has the power to impeach any government official including the Caliph if they breach their ruling contracts and commit injustice.

Each Muslim has a responsibility in accounting the Caliph and his government. The action of accounting is one of the best and noblest tasks in Islam. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

The best of Jihad is to say a word of truth before a tyrant ruler.

Therefore anyone in the State whether they are individuals, members of political parties or in the media, has the right to account and criticise the Caliph. They cannot be arrested or criminalised for speaking out as we find happening to many people in Britain, such as Walter Wolfgang the 82 year old man who dared say the word “nonsense” during the foreign secretary Jack Straw’s speech on Iraq in September 2005.

Representative Government

Consultation is one of the pillars of ruling and a House of Representatives (majlis al-Ummah) will exist in the capital with regional assemblies in the provinces of the Caliphate. This is an elected house consisting of men and women from all religions and ethnic groupings within the state.

Unlike in Democracy, this House of Representatives is not a legislature. The only resolutions passed by the House that are binding on the government, are those related to the practical implementation of government policy and those related to removing government officials. The House acts as another counterbalance to the executive powers of the government.

The House has the right to account the Caliph regarding all the actions that the state has executed, whether domestic or foreign, financial, military or the like. Also the House can pass resolutions expressing dissatisfaction with the Governors, Mayors and Assistants (mu’awin), and the Caliph must remove them.

The Rule of Law

The Caliph does not have immunity from prosecution and nor do any of his Cabinet. If any of them commit a criminal offence they will be taken to court and tried before a judge. The judge applies the sentence without regard to their status or government position. Even the Caliph can be impeached and removed from office if he violated his ruling contract (bayah).

The Caliphate cannot suspend habeas corpus by interning any of its citizens. It is has been reported on the authority of Abdullah ibn Zubayr in the hadith book Abu Dawood:

The Messenger of Allah has ordered that the two disputing parties should sit before a judge.

Therefore any citizen whether Muslim or non-Muslim must be brought before a judicial court and their case investigated by a judge. The detaining of ‘foreign terror suspects’ without trial for years in some cases would never happen in a Caliphate.

The burden of proof required to convict someone of an offence in an Islamic Court is far higher than in the West. The court does not accept circumstantial evidence as a legal proof, and only trustworthy witnesses, whether Muslim or non-Muslim are allowed to give testimony.

Many miscarriages of justice have occurred in Britain due to flawed forensic evidence such as the Birmingham six trial or due to convicted criminals giving testimony. Confessions are investigated to ensure they were not extracted under duress or torture as is prevalent in Muslim countries today.

The Presumption of Innocence exists in an Islamic Court and the onus is on the plaintiff to provide the evidence. This legal principle cannot be overturned by the government of the day, as Tony Blair is trying to do by introducing more summary offences. Narrated in the hadith book by Al-Baihaqqi, the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

It is the plaintiff who should provide the evidence, and the oath is due on the one who disapproves.

All these legal principles are exemplified in the famous legal trial that took place between Caliph Ali and one of his Jewish citizens in the 7th century. The Jew stole a coat of armour from Ali so he took the matter to court and brought his son as a witness. The judge ruled against Ali even though he was the head of state (Caliph), stating that a son cannot be a witness for a father in court. When the Jew witnessed such fairness he voluntarily confessed that he stole the shield and embraced Islam.

Progressive Economy

The Caliphate’s currency is based on the Gold Standard providing economic stability for domestic and international trade, as well as low inflation. There are no interest rates so wealth is created through investment as opposed to savings. This investment led economy where wealth is constantly circulating coupled with a stable currency will produce strong economic growth, and low unemployment.

Private companies cannot own natural resources such as oil and gas. These are owned by the people and managed by the government, with their revenues going to the Treasury (Bait ul-Mal). Revenue gained from natural resources must be used for the interests of the people, and the House of Representatives will advise the government on where the money is spent.

Taxation in the Caliphate is on excess wealth and not income, and there are no regressive taxes like VAT. The only taxes on companies are the agricultural land taxes (ushur and kharaj) that are a percentage of the agricultural produce or the land value. Non-agricultural companies do not pay this. Muslim owned companies will also pay the alms tax (zakat), but non-Muslim companies are exempt from this.

Non-Muslim men must pay a nominal tax called Jizya that gives them full citizenship rights, exempting them from National Service and taxes specific to Muslims such as zakat . Jizya is means tested and there are different bands for different levels of wealth. Caliph Omar imposed three bands for the Jizya tax – 4 dinars (£108) for the rich, 2 dinars (£54) for the middle class and 1 dinar (£27) for the poor. The Jizya tax rate is much lower than that of zakat, therefore the tax burden of non-Muslims is lower than that of Muslims in the Caliphate.

The Caliphate does not have National Insurance to pay for health care, pensions and other state benefits. A modern efficient Health Service must be provided free of charge to the people. This includes free dental care, optician costs and prescriptions. There are no pensions or state benefits as such within the Caliphate. All pensioners, women, children, unemployed and those with disabilities must be provided for financially by their families. Only if they had no family or the family cannot provide for them will the government then intervene.

Community Life

Non-Muslims will not be isolated in to ghettos, with poor housing and low government funding. Muslims and non-Muslims will live together side by side, as neighbours in the community. Neighbours have many rights over each other, designed to keep the home and community a place of peace and tranquillity. A place where children can play safely without fear of abuse. Nuisance Neighbours and yobs roaming the streets are a growing problem in Britain due to selfishness and individualism. Muslims do not hold these ideas, and instead believe in responsibility to their neighbours and community. It has been reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar and ‘Aishah in the hadith books Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

Jibril (Angel Gabriel) kept recommending treating neighbours with kindness until I thought he would assign them a share of inheritance.

People cannot distress their neighbours by playing loud music, growing high hedges, parking irresponsibly or even backbiting them. They must enquire about their neighbour’s welfare and aid them as much as they can.

Anti-social behaviour on the streets is not tolerated and Inspectors (qadi hisbah) with the power to impose immediate sentences will patrol the neighbourhoods, accompanied by Police. Pubs and clubs that sell alcohol are prohibited and there is a strong punishment for those found drunk and disorderly on the streets. Non-Muslims however can drink and trade alcohol amongst themselves as long as it remains in their private homes and bars.

Caliphate is not a Police State

The Caliphate cannot intrude on peoples private lives by spying on its Muslim or non-Muslim citizens and arbitrarily detain people and hold them in prison without trial. Torturing anyone including prisoners of war is absolutely prohibited, and the perpetrators will face a severe punishment. Any evidence obtained via torture or wiretapping is not legally admissible in an Islamic Court.

Right of expression exists within the Caliphate. People are free to criticise the government and bring them to account for their actions and they cannot be arrested or imprisoned for this. Criticism and expressing opinions must be done within the limits of decency and respect. Lying, slandering, false accusations and blaspheming of any religion, member of the public or politician will not be tolerated. This allows for constructive, respectful debate within the society without the divisive and degrading reporting prevalent in much of the western press. The demonising of Muslims within the western press and the publishing of blasphemous and insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) are just some examples of this.

International Relations

The Caliphate does not go to war based on lies and deceit. Its sole purpose in fighting a war is to remove injustice and bring a new system for the people to live under. Although America and Britain cited the same objectives in Iraq the reality is far from this. Their use of depleted uranium, torturing and killing of civilians and imposition of another corrupt system would never happen with the Caliphate. Historically the Caliphate won the hearts and minds of the people on the lands it occupied. It never mistreated them and as opposed to an Empire, it didn’t impoverish them in order to enrich the capital.

In the classical book ‘Kitab Al-Kharaj’ Abu Yusuf gives the following report:

After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the Jizya and the Kharaj , news reached Abu ‘Ubeida that the Byzantines had amassed their troops to attack him. The effect of this was great on Abu ‘Ubeida and the Muslims. He sent messages to the rulers of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizya and Kharaj with an instruction to tell them: ‘We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the enemy troops amassed to attack us, but, if God grants us victory against the enemy, we will keep up to the promise and covenant between us.’ When this was delivered to the dhimmi and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: ‘May God bring you back to us and grant you victory over them!’

The Caliphate’s army must follow strict rules of engagement when fighting war (jihad). The soldiers do not fight the enemy out of anger or hatred, but to please their creator – Allah. Hence, atrocities committed by US troops such as the infamous 1968 My Lai massacre of 500 villagers in Vietnam or the recent massacre of two dozen Iraqi civilians by US marines in Haditha would not happen under a Caliphate. In the Battle of Khandaq 627CE, Ali (who later became a Caliph) was about to kill one of the enemy soldiers when the soldier spat in his face. Instead of killing him, Ali lowered his sword because he didn’t want to kill him out of anger. This is an example of the high values held by soldiers in the Caliphate’s army.

The Caliphate is not isolationist and must abide by the international agreements it signs. It will encourage non-Muslims from other countries to visit it, study in its universities and conduct trade. Economic and cultural treaties will be signed to facilitate this. Any non-Muslim visiting the Caliphate from a country that the Caliphate has a treaty with, can enter without the need for a visa. They are called a Mu’ahid and have full protection under the state similar to the dhimmi. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

The one who kills a Mu’ahid (people with whom the State has treaties) without right he will not smell the fragrance of jannah (heaven) even if its smell was forty years travelling distance. [Reported in the Hadith book Ahmed]

Historically scholars and scientists from across Europe flocked to the Caliphate and studied in the universities of Cordoba, Cairo and Baghdad.

Caliphate is a mainstream view

The aspiration of restoring the Caliphate is not a minority view held by extremists and terrorists as all Muslims believe in the idea of a Caliphate or Imamate as Shia refer to it although both are synonymous.

On January 14th 2006, the Washington Post published an article ‘Reunified Islam: Unlikely but Not Entirely Radical’ by Karl Vick. The article heading was “Restoration of Caliphate, Attacked by Bush, Resonates With Mainstream Muslims” and he quotes many ordinary Muslims in Turkey traditionally the most secular country in the Muslim World. ‘I wish there was a caliphate again, because if there was a caliphate all the Muslims would unite,’ said Ertugul Orel, in a sweater and tie at the sidewalk cafe he owns outside Istanbul’s vast Hagia Sophia, an iconic building to both Christians and Muslims. ‘There would be one voice. But I know neither the American nor the Europeans will ever allow it.’ From the next chair, gift shop owner Atacan Cinar added, ‘Before the end of the Ottoman Empire , there was no problem in the Islamic countries.’ ‘The concept of the caliphate is very much alive in the collective memory of society,’ said Ali Bulac, a columnist and author of several books on Islam and Turkey. ‘There is absolutely nothing to keep Muslim society together at the moment.’

Majority of Muslims want the Caliphate

The Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan published a survey in 2005 entitled Revisiting the Arab Street in which they interviewed numerous population samples throughout the Middle East. Some of their conclusions clearly highlight the desire of Muslims in the Middle East to live by the Shari’a in a Caliphate. Quoting from the survey it,

Asked whether Shari’a should be the only source of legislation, one of the sources of legislation, or not be a source of legislation, most Muslims believed it should at least be a source of legislation. Support was particularly strong in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt, where approximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents stated that the Shari’a must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be ‘one of the sources of legislation’. By comparison, in Lebanon and Syria, a majority (nearly two thirds in Lebanon and just over half in Syria) favoured the view that Shari’a must be one of the sources of legislation.

The report continued:

In contrast, neither education nor age seems to explain attitudes toward the role of the Sharia in legislation. Pooled data from Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt indicate that 58% of respondents with low education, 59% of those with moderate education, and 56% with higher education believe that Sharia must be the only source of legislation in their countries. Similarly, the pooled data found that approximately 50% of respondents in all age groups wanted to see the Sharia become the only source of legislation, another 36-40% across age groups wanted to see it as a source of legislation, and 10-13% preferred that the Sharia not become a source of legislation.

Conclusion

These are just some aspects of life under a future Caliphate that will make it a force for promoting good within the world. Clearly this vision completely contradicts what many western commentators, thinkers and politicians such as Tony Blair would have us believe. The restoration of the Caliphate will usher in a new era of peace, stability and prosperity for the Muslim world and beyond, ending years of oppression by some of the worst tyrants this world has ever seen such as Islam Karimov of Uzebkistan and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and finally solving the long running problems of Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir and Chechnya to name but a few.
 
KHarvey16 said:
Not sure I understand what that means.

Comment about feeling good through excess and distractions

KHarvey16 said:
Again, I would never claim religion offers no individual benefit. What I will say though is I believe most, if not all, comfort it provides is a false comfort where people, knowingly or not, lie to themselves to feel better. Whether you believe that is true or not you have to agree that the ability to be comforted by a lie exists and therefore ability to comfort cannot be assumed to be a reflection of truth or wisdom.

Again, i semi agree with the last bit. Wisdom is the application of understanding and knowledge which religion is full of. You cannot deny that either (i think we agree here).

Positive states of mind improves health, this much is truth. Religions emphasis on altruism, philanthropy and suppression of selfishness are all proven methods to reach these positive states of minds. As an individual and a community. This is not false comfort but an attempt for lasting comfort and contentment.

KHarvey16 said:
I think some of the biggest benefits of religion come from its social aspects, which is not unique to religion at all.

I agree
 
Zapages said:
and you know you can impeach through the Shura a caliph if he's not doing the right job.

Yes, and these leaders placed into the Shura won't be playing political games to gain favor from the Caliph? Or that the Caliph itself will not single-handedly decide either directly or overtly who ends up in the Shura?

You're letting your belief that ALL Muslims are one people override the reality that there are many different versions of Islam being practiced, and that there are many diverse ethnic groups with different practices.
 
Himuro, I'm sad that Islam didn't work out for you, but you have to do what your heart tells you and if Islam isn't in your heart than that's just really that.

I can't say that I've never questioned my faith, the first time when I was in my early teens or when I was a preteen (can't remember) and I had my first encounter with wahabbis, I could have never believed that anyone, especially a Muslim, could actually have that much hate and intolerance in their hearts, I didn't want to be a part of the same religion as them, but since then I've run into so many racists and bigots and just plain old ignorant idiots that nothing surprises me anymore. I think that questioning your belief is just human nature and in the end I believe that it has made me a stronger believer of my faith. I love science and it's ability to prove what was thought to be unprovable, but when I look around me I just find it hard to believe that this is all just a result of a coincidence.

Oh yeah, Atrus, you should check out the BBC documentary "An Islamic History of Europe", some of the things you said in this thread contradict some of what they said in that documentary.

As a Muslim, I hope you will find your way back to Islam, but you should do whatever makes you happy.
 
Atrus said:
Yes, and these leaders placed into the Shura won't be playing political games to gain favor from the Caliph? Or that the Caliph itself will not single-handedly decide either directly or overtly who ends up in the Shura?

You're letting your belief that ALL Muslims are one people override the reality that there are many different versions of Islam being practiced, and that there are many diverse ethnic groups with different practices.


The Shura is elected by the people of each city-state/nation. What different practices?

Islam is not practiced differently at all, I mean there are a few cultural things. But nothing is radically different from one region to another.

What I mean is the prayer is the same all over any Muslim country or region.
 
X-Ninji said:
What about the countries like Iran where the actual people want democracy?

Those are just in the major Cities while in the farm lands people are really content with what is happening.

Regardless of that, maybe some social reforms could happen and make everyone happy in Iran as they have their own system. (Shia Islam is different than Sunni Islam in terms of leadership/Caliph wise).
 
Zapages said:
Those are just in the major Cities while in the farm lands people are really content with what is happening.

Regardless of that, maybe some social reforms could happen and make everyone happy in Iran as they have their own system. (Shia Islam is different than Sunni Islam in terms of leadership/Caliph wise).

Zapages said:
The Shura is elected by the people of each city-state/nation. What different practices?

Islam is not practiced differently at all, I mean there are a few cultural things. But nothing is radically different from one region to another.

What I mean is the prayer is the same all over any Muslim country or region.

You'd think a different take on the Caliphate ideal would be radical enough.
 
Kinitari said:
You'd think a different take on the Caliphate ideal would be radical enough.


Shia Islam is only practiced in Iran/parts of Afghanistan/Iraq/very small parts of Pakistan(Arab countries like Syria/Lebanon)...

While the rest of the Muslim world is practices Sunni Islam.

80/20 divide from my understanding.

Also I was referring to Sunni Islam in my posts.
 
Atrus said:
Actually, my view of the Palestinian v. Israel conflict is that it has greatly overshadowed more pressing issues elsewhere in the world that could benefit from all the capital spent there.

Care to point out where I don't care about Palestinians? Palestinians, being human beings are a concern to me. On the flip side I do not have any sympathy for Hamas, not because of their rockets or attacks, but for their disdainful attempt to turn children into martyrs, which if you think about it, is actually pro-Palestinian. I think I predicated their dismantlement solely on that act alone.

In separate threads on issues that's occurred, you'll also find me in support of Obama's call to halt developments and even remitting lands appropriated from Palestinians. Similarly, you'll also find me pointing out that Jordan also nabbed a sizeable chunk of what is considered Palestine and that part of the reason they get away almost scot free is based on ethnic and religious ties perpetuated by foreign Arab/Persian influences which focus on Israel to the exclusion of Jordan.

While I can't change, nor do I care about your perception of me, you're still not exempt from making an evidentiary argument to support your points. Although I'm not really sure as to how this thread suddenly became an issue of Israel vs. Palestinian one, or why you seem to be inferring I would be Pro-Israeli.

As for your views on religion, you'll note that religion is not the sole claimant to "bringing stability to peoples lives" and you'd probably concede that not all ideologies are as effective or as humane. While I would still critique it's effectiveness even if it were benign, I'd be much happier if that was all I could critique. The biggest issue I have, is the fact that intentionally and unintentionally, certain religious memes if left alone will inevitably end up butchering people. It may be fine for you, but I like to place myself in another persons shoes and in cases like that of Du'a Khalil Aswan, it is very difficult to accept that other people should be murdered because they chose to leave a religion, walked with a boy from another religion, and a whole array of other absurd reasons just because some people are too lazy to remove lines of an "inerrant" text that call for militarism, murder, or misanthropy.

Im simply demonstrating your inability to see any good with religion/Islam, which makes you a radical on the other side.

The Palestine reference was brought in as an example of your championing for human rights simmering down (at a convenient time). And the predicted pattern of side stepping and bringing blame back to those that were bombed (Hamas planted the children!).

You do speak sense, but its mostly skewed when it comes to Islam and its followers. Theres always something sinister behind everything these people do, or they dont deserve compassion etc.

GSG Flash said:
Oh yeah, Atrus, you should check out the BBC documentary "An Islamic History of Europe", some of the things you said in this thread contradict some of what they said in that documentary.

He should also watch BBC documentry "Science and Islam" airing in Jan. Contradicts what he thinks Islam absorbed, but proves what it contributed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gksx4
 
Zapages said:
The Shura is elected by the people of each city-state/nation. What different practices?

Islam is not practiced differently at all, I mean there are a few cultural things. But nothing is radically different from one region to another.

What I mean is the prayer is the same all over any Muslim country or region.

You constitute Islam as merely praying in the same fashion? So your Caliphate will tolerate the Muslim Chinese when they eat pork, the Albanian Muslims allowing Gay Marriage, the Iranian Muslims having sex-changes and marrying their formerly same-sex partner, or even the Shia notion that temporary marriages of convenience is permitted under Islam.

Do you really believe that this Shura of yours will not be manipulated by the Caliph or eliminated altogether when he gains supreme power? A bit like how a certain German chancellor gained power and then abolished the very institutions that gave it to him.

I've asked how this Caliphate of yours would avoid the issues of the ones before it, but you've provided nothing but magical thinking.

Somehow in your mind, an altruistic group of male elders will be elected by Muslims from all over the world who apparently all share the same vision and will elect an altruistic Caliph. Yet you don't seem to have provided any reason as to why this will happen.

This is of course all fun and games until of course you see your ideology fail like so many utopian thinkers. Don't you find more than a little in common with the Communists? That you think to overthrow a corrupt system, gain power and then realize it's a bit more complicated than you first thought.

Before you know it, a strongman rises to power and then takes your grand vision into a new direction of despotism, all while you cry that he is not embracing the "true" version of your ideology. Soon after, your ideology is no longer one specific thing as every implementation of it gets it's own label as people try to avoid conceding that the ideology is fundamentally bankrupt.

Oh but Communism works! It's just they were practicing Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Rykovism, Krushchevism, Gorbachovism, Maoism, Juche, Castroism, Guevarism, and whatever the hell you want to call the one Pol Pot used.

Then you get your Sino-Soviet split and start waging war amongst yourselves. In the long run, all you've got is a bloody history where many millions of people die while everyone pretends their utopian ideal actually works.

The real question then Zapages, is not whether or not your Caliphate works, is to ask how many people are you willing to kill trying to make it work.
 
Prine said:
Im simply demonstrating your inability to see any good with religion/Islam, which makes you a radical on the other side.

The Palestine reference was brought in as an example of your championing for human rights simmering down (at a convenient time). And the predicted pattern of side stepping and bringing blame back to those that were bombed (Hamas planted the children!).

You do speak sense, but its mostly skewed when it comes to Islam and its followers. Theres always something sinister behind everything these people do, or they dont deserve compassion etc.

Sorry but I reserve the right to skepticism. That's what differentiates me from people on both sides of that issue. Unlike those, much like yourself, who are invested into a particular side, I don't actually care about your petty land issues, your insignificant cultural divisions, or your absurd religious claims.

While it's easy for you to make up caricature statements without presenting an actual quote you have an issue with, they are more complex than you think they are. Furthermore, on looking through the actual posts I'm going to have to ask you what exactly you take an issue with. I've outlined my position very well on that. I clearly outlined my support against Hamas (clearly stating Hamas and not Palestinians), warned against the use of extremist and emotional language, warned against conflating Hamas deaths with Palestianian civilians, and even mentioned throughout that "they should continue to limit civilian casualties wherever possible. The only problem is that such strikes should always be limited and whenever done so, should be carried out to the greatest effectiveness." and that "unless you pacify all key Hamas members and shut down its financial arms, these counter-strikes are rarely effective."

Apparently I also had time in post #4294 to shut down your use of Benazhir Bhutto as an example of progressive attitudes towards women in Islam by describing South Asian women in politics.

I also take issue with the ideas that my points suddenly become skewed when it comes to Islam. Don't you think that occurs because you're Muslim? Don't you think the Christians would think the same but change out Islam for Christianity? If this board were predominantly Sikh or Jewish, I'm sure they'd also think the same. This goes the same if your a Communist, Nazi or even a Lolbertarian.

I'm an equal opportunist deconstructor of ideologies. If I think your ideology has problems, then I'll dive right in. If you're butthurt because I'm questioning your basis for life, then too bad.

GSG Flash said:
Oh yeah, Atrus, you should check out the BBC documentary "An Islamic History of Europe", some of the things you said in this thread contradict some of what they said in that documentary.

Already saw it a long time ago. Which parts do you find contradictory?
 
Himuro said:
After being in denial for some time, I've come to a realization: I'm agnostic
your next revelation will be that such terms and definitions don't matter.
 
Socreges said:
science is here for you...
Please explain one thing through science:

The amount of energy in the universe is a constant. You can't create new matter out of anything other than old matter (or energy). Basically, you can't create anything out of nothing.

Where did the matter that exploded in the Big Bang (or whatever you want to call it) come from?

Please stick to scientific evidence in your explanation.

I don't mean this in a "You're all going to Hell, HEATHENS!" type of way, it's just that to me this argument is the strongest one for a higher power of some sorts. Oh, this and platypus. Religion is bogus, but I do think there's a supreme power out there somewhere.
 
Tf53 said:
Please explain one thing through science:

The amount of energy in the universe is a constant. You can't create new matter out of anything other than old matter (or energy). Basically, you can't create anything out of nothing.

Where did the matter that exploded in the Big Bang (or whatever you want to call it) come from?

Please stick to scientific evidence in your explanation.

I don't mean this in a "You're all going to Hell, HEATHENS!" type of way, it's just that to me this argument is the strongest one for a higher power of some sorts. Oh, this and platypus. Religion is bogus, but I do think there's a supreme power out there somewhere.

And where did the supreme power come from? Please stick to scientific evidence in your explanation.
 
MightyKAC said:
Came to a similar conclusion a while back myself, also coming from a heavy black Southern Baptist background.

When I finally sat my (incredibly spritual) mom down to talk about it, instead of being dissapointed she looked at me with relief and said that she was expecting me to tell her I was gay.

I must say, I LOL'ed.
 
Tf53 said:
Please explain one thing through science:

The amount of energy in the universe is a constant. You can't create new matter out of anything other than old matter (or energy). Basically, you can't create anything out of nothing.

Where did the matter that exploded in the Big Bang (or whatever you want to call it) come from?

Please stick to scientific evidence in your explanation.

I don't mean this in a "You're all going to Hell, HEATHENS!" type of way, it's just that to me this argument is the strongest one for a higher power of some sorts. Oh, this and platypus. Religion is bogus, but I do think there's a supreme power out there somewhere.
The scientist would say "I don't know...yet, but we have a few hypothesizes". Science doesn't claim to know it all, that's precisely what drives it forward.

The scientist wouldn't assume that ignorance or a lack of knowledge is an argument for a higher power, give up scientific inquiry and be content, on contrary. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and certainly not evidence for a higher power.
 
Tf53 said:
Please explain one thing through science:

The amount of energy in the universe is a constant. You can't create new matter out of anything other than old matter (or energy). Basically, you can't create anything out of nothing.

Where did the matter that exploded in the Big Bang (or whatever you want to call it) come from?

Please stick to scientific evidence in your explanation.

I don't mean this in a "You're all going to Hell, HEATHENS!" type of way, it's just that to me this argument is the strongest one for a higher power of some sorts. Oh, this and platypus. Religion is bogus, but I do think there's a supreme power out there somewhere.

The big bang does not assert that something came from nothing. The "thing" that existed was a singularity that exploded into everything we see now. What came before that "thing" existed or where it came from is not covered by the big bang theory, and science in general doesn't know with any reasonable confidence.
 
KHarvey16 said:
The big bang does not assert that something came from nothing. The "thing" that existed was a singularity that exploded into everything we see now. What came before that "thing" existed or where it came from is not covered by the big bang theory, and science in general doesn't know with any reasonable confidence.


Read up on quantum loop gravity. There are theories that treat spacetime as a series of discrete points rather than a continuous manifold. That removes the singularity from the mathematics, and opens up potential for experiments to test the validity of predictions of what it was like before the big bang.
 
I don't speak on behalf of religion when I say this, but there are just some things we don't know and hence science (nor can religion for that matter) cannot explain. I get the impression that whenever the Big Bang theory is questioned those who are atheist get uncomfortable and frustrated because they feel they are being preached to and go on some hardcore defensive.
 
I can't even comprehend this realisation being a big deal.

What typical reprucussions would the average american person face for making this type of thing known?
 
Meus Renaissance said:
I don't speak on behalf of religion when I say this, but there are just some things we don't know and hence science (nor can religion for that matter) cannot explain. I get the impression that whenever the Big Bang theory is questioned those who are atheist get uncomfortable and frustrated because they feel they are being preached to and go on some hardcore defensive.

We get frustrated because it's not proof for God, but they still use that argument; science is very incomplete, we're right in the middle of finding so much, we've barely started.
 
Meus Renaissance said:
I don't speak on behalf of religion when I say this, but there are just some things we don't know and hence science (nor can religion for that matter) cannot explain. I get the impression that whenever the Big Bang theory is questioned those who are atheist get uncomfortable and frustrated because they feel they are being preached to and go on some hardcore defensive.

Why do you believe in god if Jesus had sex with elephants?

(the reason a christian might respond to that is the same reason a supporter of the big bang theory might respond to "questioning")
 
Dabookerman said:
Arkham Asylum
:D

on topic:

in my eyes religion is a men`s tool he can use to life his life, leave fear or thoughts behind and give them out of his hands... witch is kind of convenient







if you`re a pussy
 
Atrus said:
Heh... overlooking Zapages napkin written plan to save the Muslim world, you still didn't address how a system wherein an autocrat is chosen to lead will not repeat its mistakes again.

Let's put it in a way you're likely going to understand. You're always going off about how these problems are not with Islam but with 'the people' or that it is humans who are corrupting Islam.

Your grand solution to that is to therefore place one man, one human, as the point of authority over all Muslim lands. For his troubles, he gets to be the most powerful individual in the entire Caliphate.

... and you don't see any problems arising from that?

Zappages believes that a muslim theocracy will out of necessity (the islam is a perfect religion after all) be perfect and beneficient for every single human, muslim or not. It's the same idea that 30 years ago millions of Iranians believed in: that living in a 100% muslim nation would lead to an ideal, perfect society without any of the problems of the past (like the dictatorial shah regime). The harsh reality is that a muslim theocracy will be ruled by humans and that power corrupts. Iran didn't become a wonderful country filled with happiness and good cheer, but a nasty religious dictatorship.

Of course this example of muslim thocracies gone wrong won't convince Zappages that there's anything fundamentally wrong with his ideal of one global muslim caliphate. Every time something goes wrong in islam, it's never the islam that is at fault but something else. If only the people behind those islamic revolutions had REALLY adhered to the flawless tenets of the islam!!

It's just like with communists of yesteryear who religiously believed in the communist manifest. Everytime a communist country became a dictatorship (USSR, communist China under Mao, North Korea) it didn't mean that the perfect society Karl Marx envisaged was a utopian fantasy but the fault lie with flawed people who just didn't follow the communist manifesto close enough.
 
I always wanted to know...

What is the difference between mythology and religion?

Are they different because one is currently practiced while the other isn't? Does the difference imply or denote that one is thriving, while the other was once practiced, but currently a "dead" belief?
 
-PXG- said:
I always wanted to know...

What is the difference between mythology and religion?

Are they different because one is currently practiced while the other isn't? Does the difference imply or denote that one is thriving, while the other was once practiced, but currently a "dead" belief?

There's no real difference. Christiany or Islam is just as much a set of myths as what the old Greeks or the Egyptians believed. T
 
ymmv said:
There's no real difference. Christiany or Islam is just as much a set of myths as what the old Greeks or the Egyptians believed. T

Well if that is the case, then why don't we call Christianity or Islam mythology as well? I've heard people get pretty offended if you refer modern religion as "mythology".
 
Tf53 said:
Please explain one thing through science:

The amount of energy in the universe is a constant. You can't create new matter out of anything other than old matter (or energy). Basically, you can't create anything out of nothing.

Where did the matter that exploded in the Big Bang (or whatever you want to call it) come from?

Please stick to scientific evidence in your explanation.

I don't mean this in a "You're all going to Hell, HEATHENS!" type of way, it's just that to me this argument is the strongest one for a higher power of some sorts. Oh, this and platypus. Religion is bogus, but I do think there's a supreme power out there somewhere.
So where did this supreme power come from then?
What you're effectively saying is that you don't believe the big bang could have been caused without outside influence. That yet another big bang caused the big bang. That is, another unknown (or rather an unknowable) event caused the big bang. What makes you have peace with a belief like that?
Basically it's like this
Science: crunch/singularity/require more info?-> big bang -> universe
You: ?Some being? -> big bang -> universe
?
 
Bidermaier said:
are you reading the bible in a non alegorical way?
are you like those fucktards that think the word was created a few thousands years ago?

Being an allegory doesn't excuse it from being a shitty allegory that doesn't make sense.
 
Atrus said:
You constitute Islam as merely praying in the same fashion? So your Caliphate will tolerate the Muslim Chinese when they eat pork, the Albanian Muslims allowing Gay Marriage, the Iranian Muslims having sex-changes and marrying their formerly same-sex partner, or even the Shia notion that temporary marriages of convenience is permitted under Islam.

Do you really believe that this Shura of yours will not be manipulated by the Caliph or eliminated altogether when he gains supreme power? A bit like how a certain German chancellor gained power and then abolished the very institutions that gave it to him.

I've asked how this Caliphate of yours would avoid the issues of the ones before it, but you've provided nothing but magical thinking.

Somehow in your mind, an altruistic group of male elders will be elected by Muslims from all over the world who apparently all share the same vision and will elect an altruistic Caliph. Yet you don't seem to have provided any reason as to why this will happen.

This is of course all fun and games until of course you see your ideology fail like so many utopian thinkers. Don't you find more than a little in common with the Communists? That you think to overthrow a corrupt system, gain power and then realize it's a bit more complicated than you first thought.

Before you know it, a strongman rises to power and then takes your grand vision into a new direction of despotism, all while you cry that he is not embracing the "true" version of your ideology. Soon after, your ideology is no longer one specific thing as every implementation of it gets it's own label as people try to avoid conceding that the ideology is fundamentally bankrupt.

Oh but Communism works! It's just they were practicing Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Rykovism, Krushchevism, Gorbachovism, Maoism, Juche, Castroism, Guevarism, and whatever the hell you want to call the one Pol Pot used.

Then you get your Sino-Soviet split and start waging war amongst yourselves. In the long run, all you've got is a bloody history where many millions of people die while everyone pretends their utopian ideal actually works.

The real question then Zapages, is not whether or not your Caliphate works, is to ask how many people are you willing to kill trying to make it work.

1st) Chinese Muslims don't eat pork...
2nd) If they find Islamically permissible then its permissible.

Unlike with the German Chancellor, you can't the Caliph can't abolish the Shura as its people elected. Shura is modern equivalent of the Parliament or House of Representatives.

Muslims need a person to be their head a voice to end the tensions that have arisen throughout the years. It is obvious nothing has happened with the Palestinian, Chenchyian, Kashmir, Philippine, Ugyhurs, and Sudanese, Muslims in India, and all over the world.

If the Caliph takes the direction that the Shura does not like then they can remove the Caliph.

Anyway there is the Islamic Conference: http://www.oic-oci.org/home.asp They can expand on that go from there.

The Shura has a system of checks and balances that make everything ok in the end of it all. Read the article.
 
X-Ninji said:
We get frustrated because it's not proof for God, but they still use that argument; science is very incomplete, we're right in the middle of finding so much, we've barely started.


How do you know that isn't proof of God, prehaps that is the one thing that can prove his existence and in an thousand years people will find "our primitive" beliefs that it isn't proof as absurd and laughable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom