I would like to present this video, in defense of some concepts and "controversial" ideas, that I am quite attached to.
Namely, Liberal democracies, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, women's rights, gay rights, bi-sexual rights, trans-sexual rights, and trans-gender rights, the rights to differing beliefs,or no belief at all. Only in the "the West" can I defend them,because it's here they exist. They are enshrined (only here) in law,and enforced.
Tarek Fatah, is a self described Marxist, and a Canadian Muslim and he puts fourth both a strong,and a chilling rejection of our path (free thinkers, non-conformists, us, the people, you and me) Please,please take the time to hear the man's message,it should not be ignored. Starts about at the 1;30 minute mark.
He was one of the founders of the Muslim Canadian Congress in 2001 and served as its communications director and spokesperson until 2006. In this capacity, he has spoken out against the introduction of Sharia law as an option for Muslims in civil law in Ontario, Sharia banking in Canada, which he has described as a 'con-job', promoted social liberalism in the Muslim community and the separation of religion from the state, and endorsed same-sex marriage. He resigned as the communications director of the MCCin August 2006, claiming that his public profile as a socially liberal Muslim had put him and his family at risk
To the left-leaning members of our newsvine community, I do not begrudge you your harsh criticism of America. I think it's the never ending self criticism that improves the state of us all. I will engage in some harsh criticism, shortly myself. Nothing is above criticism, exploration, or examination. My "prophet" was a disgusting"dude" who said
if, and that is a big
"IF", an idea is worthy, it will flourish within an intellectual realm.
But the debate must be open, and not be dependent on the "feelings" of those to be critiqued for their beliefs or actions in support of said beliefs. It's not individuals under scrutiny, it's the ideas they support. The ideology or "school of thought" in the classic Greek sense of the word. They should be explored and held up to the harsh light of day, sunlight not only illuminates, it disinfects as well.
western civilization has a rich history of this, as this article reminds us. Lessons from 'The School of Athens!' that Qom and Al-Azhar need to learn by iqbal.latif.
Why do we need reminding?
It's our history,our heritage.
Even if we don't happen to be, Greek.
Some of the distinctness of ancient skepticism lies in the fact that it is developed by philosophers who genuinely think of themselves as skeptics. In later epistemology, skepticism is largely construed from the outside. In particular, early modern skepticism is, for the most part, conceived by philosophers who aim to refute it. But ancient skepticism is explored by skeptics. “Skepsis”means investigation, and ancient skepticism is perhaps best described as a deep and persistent commitment to investigation.
Criticism is a good thing, but not to the point of "eating your young"
So I have looked at other "schools of thought"( Sunni Islam / 85% of Muslims are Sunni) "cultures", or philosophy, to see how they look back at us.
We have a lot to go over.
What will the world be like, when a child born today reaches the age of twenty five. Will there still be a struggle (jihad) going on between Islam (dar al-Islam)and the West (Dar al-harb)? the definitions give a clue.
This forces me to raise some most unpopular questions, on some widely held beliefs.While I recognize America is not at war with Islam.
Islam, is at war with disbelief, in it self. Failure to obtain proper and full submission, will end always with bloody results.
Muslims are people, who can be, or do, anything they please.Islam is submission to an Orthodox ideology. It's legal rules and code can be documented. And critiqued.
If one wishes to discover why life seems so cheep, in a theocratic Islamic sense. We can find videos of clerics, calling for the death of this infidel, or that infidel, or that group of people, or entire nations, like Israel. We see the suicide bombing and mass killings on an industrial scale .(Sudan-Dar_fur)-(Pakistan-Bangladesh)-(Turkey -Armenia)
The first thing, I would like brought to every ones attention is, our President is not infallible. He made a mistake in his Cairo Speech. (ny times full text) He "gets" Islam wrong. Many people still hear the words "Islamic fundamentalism" and don't associate it with the fundamental principles of Islam. This (the speech) should have been a challenge to reform, not an apology. Every Islamic cleric in the room knew the verses that I will link, and there proper context. Must have been a good laugh.
It's the miss understanding of the basic premise, the very nature of the beast as they say. It's wonderful to look at a glass and call it half full, but if the object under scrutiny, is not a glass, and water is not present with in my line of sight. I will think. We are well and truly fucked when I hear you still presenting your argument. I will look at you funny mister President.
I'm sure they got a nice laugh, at Al-Azhar, the Harvard of the Islamic world, who certified the authenticity of the book The reliance of the Traveler as a source of Sharia law. And it can be used to question my assertions put forth in the article.(see "Blood money")
Obama choose one of the most universally acceptable lines in a long chapter (sira or surah) of the Quran that says, in his paraphrasing:" Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind."
My religious figure or "object of worship",was the cynic. Diogenes of Sinope the dog ( I am being religious by questioning)
So I am cynical of the truthfulness of the quote, as reality, is in direct and observable actions in opposition.
now this, I think, is the quotes origin. I will question and dissect this in great detail.In an attempt to discover the truth.
"Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an
entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an
from a Jewish rabbi. commenting on the
story of Cain and Able. Well before the advent of Islam.
Now let's see how the traditional schools of Sunni Islam understand this
from the tasfir of Ibn Kathir
(We ordained for the Children of Israel...) meaning, We legislated for them and informed them
(that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land -
sorry to point out, depending on who (Jihadists) ?
mischief, is a rather wide exception,to the rule. By extension, could not refusal to accept Islam, be considered mischievous, and therefore worthy of death ?
it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.) The Ayah states, whoever kills a soul without justification -- such as in retaliation for murder or for causing mischief on earth -- will be as if he has killed all mankind, because there is no difference between one life and another.
now what does this mean to the jurists and Imams of Islamic thought
(it would be as if he killed all mankind. .) means,
"Whoever kills one soul that Allah has forbidden killing, is just like he who kills all mankind.'' Sa`id bin Jubayr said,
"He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim,
very specific, not "people of the book", nor all humanity....but a Muslim
is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people.
He who forbids shedding the blood of one Muslim, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.''
again, a specific group of people (namely fellow Muslims)
In addition, Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah,
[فَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمِيعاً]
(it would be as if he killed all mankind,) "He who kills a believing soul intentionally,
once more, in this instance a believing soul, is a Muslim ? it does not say and people of the book.
Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode, He will become angry withhim, and curse him, and has prepared a tremendous punishment for him, equal to if he had killed all people, his punishment will still be the same.'' Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that the Ayah,
and clicking next, will show what will befall those who commit, mischief in the land.(Crucifixion )
As I said, I will examine the shit out of the subject, can we find a definition of mischief. I could be wrong about how I am reading this, I would feel better, if I had more understanding of this.
In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented,
﴿وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِى الأَرْضِ قَالُواْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُصْلِحُونَ ﴾
(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,'' they say: "We are only peacemakers.'') "They are the hypocrites. As for,
﴿لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِى الأَرْضِ﴾
("Do not make mischief on the earth''), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience.'' Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement,
mischief is disbelief in "allah".
﴿وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ لاَ تُفْسِدُواْ فِى الأَرْضِ﴾
(And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth,''), means, "Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth.
I am seeing a difficulty in dealing with the "other" in a humanitarian, tolerant, or decent way at all. I think it might be, if not encouraged, accepted, as a punishment from "allah" on earth for it's rejection. But I will continue to look to see if there is more subject matter. I am still a little skeptical.
This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.
just like the tafsir I linked. A believer (Muslim) it protected, and a non-Muslim can be killed, it's not that difficult to grasp, even for a skeptic (cynic),like me.
just to be fair, I'll look at one more source,and see what it says. As,in this instance Quran (9;28) may apply.
84.The following ten things are essentially najis:
- Dead body
- Alcoholic liquors
- The sweat of an animal who persistently eats najasat.
The unbeliever or Kaffir is only one step above (or bellow,depending on point of view) a pig,but is less unclean than urine.
Placing a group of humans in that category is troubling, to say the least.
Combining that information with the knowledge that,slavery is an ongoing problem in Africa, as Muslim are buying and selling non believing Africans.When you hear the term "Islamic fundamentalism" why don't you associate it with the "fundamental principles of Islam"?
hear a freed slave, tell his story of freedom,and emancipation.
Sudan. On 23 March 1999 he was twice stopped on a ‘point of order’ by the delegation of Sudan before he could ask a key question on genocidal character of the war in Sudan” In 1992, the regime in Khartoum declared Jihad in Khartoum against the people of southern Sudan and the Nuba mountains. Since then, Jihad has been declared again and again.
I ask this very important question: is the Jihad a religious right of those who declare and wage it or is it a violation of the human rights of the people against whom it is declared and waged?] (21)
[A day later the former Sudanese Prime Minister Al-Sadiq Al-Mahdi sent his letter to Mary Robinson, in which he referred to Jihad and slavery in Sudan – his letter was widely circulated at the Commission. Under the title, War Crimes, he asked (his 5th question): “Is it legitimate for the ruling regime in an Islamic State to call for a JIHAD against its citizens, be they Muslims or Christians?” He concluded by writing that: although no one would justify slavery today, under shar’ia, “the traditional concept of JIHAD does allow slavery as a by-product.”]
and now tell me, just how "skeptical" are you now.
Would the world be better off now, had President Obama took a different option, instead of an apology ?
Perhaps confronting realty, and saying , stop killing for your "faith"
The American people will at some point (soon), demand an end to the killing.The Japanese will unfortunately remember the response America's anger, can and will bring.