A debate on April 15, 2008 hosted by the show Intelligence Squared put forth the premise "Islam is Dominated by Radicals." On the "pro" side appeared Daveed Garten-Stein Ross, Paul Marshall and Asra Nomani. On the "con" were Reza Aslan, Richard Bulliet and Edina Lekovic.
When the audience was polled with the following (paraphrased) question, upon entering the debate, the numbers were thus:
Do you agree or disagree with the statement that Islam is dominated by radicals?
43% agreed
32% disagreed
22% were undecided
After the debate, the numbers stacked up as follows:
73% agreed
23% disagreed
4% were undecided
During the debate, a number of shocking points were made by the "pro" team, using statistics concerning what is actually happening in the world today, including Islamic law in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as how much money is being spent worldwide to spread "radical" Islamic fundamentalism that abides by these appalling laws. One point raised by Paul Marshall was that Iran has now recently proposed legislation that would make heresy and apostasy a capital offense even outside of Iran, meaning that, in Marshall's words, "Under Iranian law, Barack Obama should be executed as an apostate."
We are reminded that the "radical" Muslims are not only quite willing to kill and die for their cause, but they are "well funded, often by Saudi Arabia." We can look towards Saudi Arabia, in fact, for an example of a "true Islamic state," according to them, of course. There, Marshall informs us, the terms "human rights" and "democracy" are considered to be "un-Islamic terminology." Saudi Arabia's long brutal and oppressive history verifies this notion that human rights in that country are un-Islamic.
Marshall also reminds us that in Iran if you murder someone from an "unrecognized religion," such as the Bahai faith, you will not be punished. The life of a human being who is not a member of a recognized religion is as worthless as that of a dog or cat in Iran.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are in competition to spread their "radical" version of Islam around the world," the Saudis spending at least $3 billion a year on missionary causes.
We also hear about the millions of people who have died in the past few decades because of "radical" Islam being introduced into their countries, such as in Pakistan and Nigeria. This radicalization is happening even in moderate Muslim countries like Malaysia and Indonesia.
As concerns the "cons," one of the first comments out of Reza Aslan serves to establish the superiority of Islam, insulting the intelligence of the people in the audience at the same time (apparently because they are NOT Muslim): "So, I suppose it's not surprising that a large percentage in this room would believe that Islam - unquestionably the most eclectic, the most diverse religion in the history of the world - is dominated by radicals. After all, no field work or research is necessary to come to such a conclusion, just turn on your television...."
Yes, "unquestionably" is the correct term here, since questions are not encouraged within Islam. And how do total submission to Allah and the compulsion to pray five times a day constitute "diversity?"
Moreover, those who are speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have often been in the heart of it, not just sitting in front of the boobtube, mindlessly watching propaganda films.
Aslan continues in the same vein, stating that the cartoons that cause people to riot are "deliberately provocative." (Can't you hear it now: "Your honor, she was wearing a miniskirt, so I had to rape her.") Aslan also calls Geert Wilders a "racist," evidently because he doesn't want "radical" Islam to destroy his country or the world. (Reza apparently does not understand that Islam is NOT a race, as he, a darker-skinned Persian sits next to a white Muslim woman.) As a typical Muslim apologist, Aslan just cannot acknowledge that "radical" Islam is the source of violence and terror the world over. He couldn't possibly answer Marshall's factual recitation with a truly MODERATE statement like, "Yes, that doesn't sound very good, and I do not support those things within Islam." No, he immediately started insulting people, in a typically aggressive Muslim manner.
In the fourth clip, in response to a question by Garten-Stein Ross, Aslan essentially proves the point about every devout Muslim potentially being "radical," when he asserts that Islam is not "just a religion" but an identity, and that an attack on Islam is an attack on him personally which would warrant violence. In his response, in fact, Aslan seems to start shaking with anger at the very thought of "his" religion being assailed.
Re-wording a question from Daveed Garten-Stein Ross to ask, "Should I act violently in defense of my religion," the so-called "moderate" Reza Aslan responds, "ABSOLUTELY."
Is that not radical Islam in a nutshell?
It is my long-held stance that religious fanaticism is a form of psychopathy, and these responses merely verify my position. I personally hold that we are NOT "our" religion - indeed, they are not even OUR religions but are borrowed beliefs extending back to caveman days - and that becoming violent against a living, breathing human being over such an IDEOLOGY is in itself evil. In the end, my constant requests online since 1995 for people to DROP religious "isms" and "i(n)anities," and just be HUMAN BEINGS become even more urgent and meritable.
Back on the pro side, Asra Nomani gives us an insider's view about how even in the U.S. moderate Muslims are now being bombarded by radical Islam calling for the ostracism and oppression of non-Muslims.
Con speaker Edina Lekovic essentially admits that Islam does not belong to the 21st century and that electing a secular government is a good thing, as is "integration" (i.e., assimilation) for Muslims. Indeed, her remarks pretty much prove that Islam IS dominated by radicals, as she puts out the call for help to overpower them.
Daveed Garten-Stein Ross goes into factual detail about the lack of human rights and religious freedoms in Muslim countries, as well as the opinion, for example, of many Muslims in the West that Muslim apostates should be killed. Ross also nails home the point that Saudi Arabia is radical and that its ideology is being pushed all over the world, using oil money. He also addresses the fact that "mainstream" Muslim organizations are now attempting to shut down free speech worldwide, demonstrating their desire for hegemony.
Anyway, I could make comment throughout this debate - and I was doing so as I watched it - but this blog would then become very long.
In the end, the debate here was not whether or not Islam is a "great religion" but whether it is dominated by so-called radicals - who, it should be noted, consider themselves in fact to be the REAL Muslims and are, therefore, not "radical" at all.
The verdict is in: "Islam is dominated by radicals."
Following are some of the clips from this important debate. If you would like to see the rest of the 15 parts, including the free-for-all Q&A at the end, please go to YouTube.
Pro: Paul Marshall
Con: Reza Aslan
Debate: Garten-Stein Ross and Aslan
Pro: Asra Nomani
Con: Edina Lekovic
Pro: Daveed Garten-Stein Ross
For further reading:
'Islam Is Dominated By Radicals'
Note to Commenters: Before you write some hateful spew against Jews, read this website about Islam. If you haven't read my original article above and cannot prove to me that you have, I will not pass through your message. (BTW, mindless hatred of Jews is a sign of RADICAL Islam, so if no one but Jew-haters post here, they will be proving the point that Islam is dominated by radicals.)
57 comments:
The last opinion that I would want to listen to is one from a propagandistic lucifer worshipping Babaylonian Talmudic jew loyal to the stinking Rothschilds and Rockefeller who put the Lucis Foundation into the U.N. building when they built it. Lucis is the greek word for Lucifer and that 'Foundation' is nothing more than a chapel to Lucifer. I was able to confirm it is there because my landlady saw it. She is the ex-ambassador to the U.N. from Bolivia. She didn't know what it was but confimed the sign was there when I asked her. Yes Ahkmenijhad(sp?) is a radical as was Kohmeini but both are/were members of the New World Order which is totally controlled by the Lucifer worshipping jewish Rothschilds. SO CUT THE CRAP!
Any opportunity to attack Jews, eh? This type of argument is called "tu quoque," wherein you frantically point your fingers elsewhere in order to divert from the real issue being raised. Pointing your finger at everyone else's atrocities will not make your own go away - and many of us are quite tired of this tactic.
This article is NOT about Jews, and I would bet that you didn't even read it before pronouncing it "crap."
The problem is not with Jews but with people who have violent, kneejerk reactions to everything and start spewing hatred at everyone else.
And WE kuffars are sick to death of THAT.
I think Mel Gibson got it right the first time.
Why do I have the feeling these anons are the same usual group of hateful know-nothing hecklers? *rolling eyes*
The leadership of the "east" and "west" is the same. They stay clean while the masses die.
Please consider the Islam vs. Jew conflict in the context of the allegorical content of the TV Show Battlestar Galactica, especially season three on 'New Caprica" where the humans were the insurgents instead of the victims of a Pearl Harbour style attack! Then the shoe is on the other foot, and if the glove does not fit, you must aquit!
Have fun!
Signed,
Colostomy Bag Exlorer
I have no problem in her continually pointing out injustices. But she continually uses bad logic to arrive at her conclusions. You could easily just as well conclude that abuse is cultural, and not religious, or has its base in male domination of females. Or that race and genes is the cause of the problem. Or perhaps more accurately - that the abuse occurs from several individuals within that religion. If you're going to use logic and arguments to defend your position, then let the arguments and logic come to their logical conclusions. Not the other way around - arrive at a conclusion, and then try to make evidence and logic fit that conclusion.
If you continually use logic that does not agree with the real truth, then it becomes much harder to defend against legitimate arguments and you generally come under greater scrutiny than if you had not posted distortions/lies in the first place. Good arguments stand up to bad arguments very well while bad arguments eventually come forth as to what they are. And the only way to win an argument using bad logic is to use either censorship, force, bribery, name calling, or circular logic - where you use one lie or bad logic to continually cover up other lies or bad logic.
I've debated a lot of people over numerous years on various issues. And not a single one of them has won when I was on the side of truth. You can't win against truth - you can only tie against it or lose against it - at least when you have intelligent debators and you have an open forum (and you don't start using ad hominum attacks, and so forth).
Who are you talking about? You don't make sense yourself; yet, you feel that you are the epitome of "good logic."
Ayaan Hirsi Ali? The woman's brilliant and doesn't use "bad logic." THAT's just a mindless ad hom. In fact, you start out with a mindless ad hom and then end by speaking against ad homs. Talk about "bad logic!"
Oh, and by the way, organized religion is unnecessary and harmful to humanity. Period.
Acharya S,
Once again you have posted very thought provoking material about the brainwashing called religion....which seems to trigger irrational response from brainwashed individuals.
Thank you for your efforts,
Respectfully,
Asoka
Radical Islam is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CIA, MI-6, and Mossad. If you're going to have a "clash of civilizations" and set the whole world ablaze, you need a fiendish, relentless enemy...someome like Emmanuel Goldstein with a turbin. Read "Ropes of Sand" or "The Devil's Game" to see how radical Islam has been paid for and nurtured every step of the way by radical Wall Streeters, the real terrorists.
By the way, "Acharya S", you never answered my e-mail question. If Jesus never existed, why did the Pharisees/rabbis waste so much invective on Him in the Talmud? You know, comments like, "He's neck-deep in boiling excrement for eternity?" Isn't safe to say that they were in a better position to know if He was real than you are?
Mike said...
By the way, "Acharya S", you never answered my e-mail question. If Jesus never existed, why did the Pharisees/rabbis waste so much invective on Him in the Talmud? You know, comments like, "He's neck-deep in boiling excrement for eternity?" Isn't safe to say that they were in a better position to know if He was real than you are?
Well, if they were in a better position to know about Jesus, are you suggesting we should take their word that he's boiling neck-deep in excrement?
May I just broaden your perspective a bit by asserting that not only Islam is dominated by radicals, but also the other world mainstream religions.
Religion was created for control, period. Check some true history books and see how much blood was shed and how many attrocities commited in the name of Jehovah, Allah, Jesus. Thus, if true justice is to be served, then we should say that all religion, when strictly followed, leads to radicalisation of one's perspectives.
And I do not need to look further, I myself have been a radical christian for many years, teaching people that either they repent and be converted or go into everlasting damnation... And I meant it!
A christian, when being a strict follower of his denominational creeds is no better than his muslim follower. Bible can be twisted to mean whatever one wishes to promote, from a radical darkside/polarity perspective of deep control and manipulation to a radical lightside/polarity perspective of victimhood (turn the other cheek) and personal spiritual, mental and physical slavery. It all depends on the abilities and desires of the manipulator. And I say all these more so as I experienced them myself, in my life.
All religion is a majour experiential loop that one needs to break if one is to understand true spirituality.
asoka said...
It may not be correct to paint all Muslims as agreeing with "radical Islam".
No one is doing that to my knowledge.
However, Islam by its very nature dictates that it is superior to all religions and that devout Muslims must spread it - by force if necessary. Those who are not engaged in such behavior are not considered "true Muslims" by the fanatics, of course.
Mike said...
Cute. No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm a Christian. I know who my God is and where He is. I'm just trying to figure out who YOU answer to.
As to your response to 'Muslim', no, the Jews are not running Iran or Syria, although I think you'd be surprised how many so-called "radical Muslims" are, in reality, undercover Jewish agents (e.g., Adam Ghadan, a.k.a, Adam Perlman). They don't have their central banking scam set up in these countries---yet, and that drives them crazy. Or do you think it's just coincidence that the "Axis of Terror" corresponds precisely with the countries who don't allow the "fractional reserve" bankers to set up their counterfeiting operations within their borders?
So, you object to Jews controlling things, but you don't mind being controlled by an invisible Jewish man floating around in the sky, residing inside your heart or lodged inside your mind named Jesus?
Jesus is a mythical character created by Jews to usurp the gods of the Pagan religions and to create Jewish hegemony under the Bible. You've fallen for one of the biggest scams on the planet; yet, you are attempting to assert your superiority of thought.
"Our tribal customs have become the core of your moral code. Our tribal laws have furnished the basic groundwork of all your august constitutions and legal systems. Our legends and our folk-tales are the sacred lore which you croon to your infants. Our poets have filled your hymnals and your prayer-books. Our national history has become an indispensable part of the learning of your pastors and priests and scholars. Our Kings, our statesmen, our prophets, our warriors are your heroes. Our ancient little country is your Holy Land. Our national literature is your Holy Bible. What our people thought and taught has become inextricable woven into your very speech and tradition, until no one among you can be called educated who is not familiar with our racial heritage.
"Jewish artisans and Jewish fishermen are your teachers and your saints, with countless statues carved in their image and innumerable cathedrals raised to their memories. A Jewish maiden is your ideal of motherhood and womanhood. A Jewish rebel-prophet is the central figure in your religious worship. We have pulled down your idols, cast aside your racial inheritance, and substituted for them our God and our traditions. No conquest in history can even remotely compare with this clean sweep of our conquest over you."
Marcus Eli Ravage, Century Magazine
I answer to my conscience because I fortunately have one. And I don't fall for ethnocentric fairytales made up to control me.
izgabearta said...
May I just broaden your perspective a bit by asserting that not only Islam is dominated by radicals, but also the other world mainstream religions.
No need to broaden my perspective of religion, as I have been critiquing religion in general online for well over a decade and have written three books dealing mainly with Christianity, along with Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. My entire website, TruthBeKnown.com, in fact, deals with all major organized religions and some minor ones.
In regards to the obvious imperialism inherent in Islam (of which there is much) I agree. Islam is rife with contempt for non-Muslims, belief in the superiority of their barbaric fairytale over all else etc. I don't think people realise. The Quran COMMANDS Muslims to spread Islamic law and culture 'until the world is under the house of Allah'.
Not only are the princplies behind Islam completely and utterly incompatible with the Constitutions of Britain and the US, it also brings with it so much dissimulation that spineless Western liberals would rather kowtow and pretend Islam is lovely.
I've read the Quran. I've studied other scholars accounts of Muhammed and how Islam came about. The Surahs that speak of peace were written when Islam was in its infancy and needed followers. Once they had a large following (and well armed) new Surahs were added calling for the conversion to Islam or death to everyone. The new Surahs overrule the earlier ones, remember that when apologists try to quote 'peaceful' Surahs when they are attempting to portray Islam as peaceful.
Setback for Muslim sect's 'mega-mosque' in London
Remember that Sharia Law forbids the building or repair of any religious building that is not Islamic.
Islam is a religion of peace, so long as you're Muslim. If not then you are as unclean as the dirtiest pig, apparently.
It's really lovely.
Regarding apologists in the EU, I can refer you to The Barcelona Declaration.
On the other hand, Islam is being promoted by various communist/ socialist governments and their alphabet agencies (CIA etc) via Zionist banking families because of its diametric opposition to Western culture and the way of life. It is an enabler for creating totalitarian police states via the Hegelian Dialectic with false flag terrorism.
Judaism and Zionism are two separate things.
True Torah Jews against Zionism
People need to take emotions and sensitivity of their belief systems out of the equation and simply try and seek the truth. I follow no religion by the way.
The commentor Mike has it right in my opinion, their communist central banks don't exist in every country (of use) yet.
Thanks for posting the videos. I was surprised that the CON arguments were so weak, and often strayed off topic. Reza Aslan seems immature, like he has an idealized view of things and he is sticking to it, reality be damned!
I really enjoyed the part about how moderates were afraid to stand up to the radicals for a variety of reasons. Even though they disagreed with the fanatics, they would go along with them to avoid conflict, maintain social standing etc.
It's also interesting how Moderate Muslims spend so much time and energy protecting the image of Islam, yet spend so little time and energy fighting the very radicals themselves within Islam. Its almost as if they are covering for them. They blame the media for shining a light on the situation... but they don't seem to blame the people who stone women to death!
People should be totally free to enter into a religion and totally free to leave. Even God respects a human beings Free Will.
One more thing... to the people saying that MI5, CIA, etc. created the problem: Even if that were the case, you still have to deal with their creation. It's a little too late in the game to do much else. Exposing the people who are 'really behind' radical Islam does nothing to mitigate radical Islam, which is a very real problem that affects millions of people.
Re: Iran has now recently proposed legislation that would make heresy and apostasy a capital offense even outside of Iran...
///
I think that what you mean to write is that "some nutter in the Iranian legislature has proposed such a law"--- not Iran.
We see republican and democrat nutters proposing all kinds of bizarre legislation that never goes anywhere except to the trash bin.
Was this a mistake on your part or are you promoting an Israel serving agenda? Most of the holocaust in the Middle East can be laid at the feet of neocons with dual citizenship and dubious loyalty using the sword of the U.S. to eliminate the enemies of Israel-- and then some.
Acharya do you have a problem with Islam or Muslim extremists?
Look up what "ad hom" means. You are attacking the individual - not the argument. And yes, you are using bad logic. Correlation is not the same thing as causation. That is the type of logic you are using when some are saying that Islam is dominated by radicals.
Take one trait about something and ignore all other variables and blame that one variable for the cause of the problem. Please explain how that is an "ad hom".
Jesus was not a "Jew". The simple faith of Abraham had become, at the hands of the Pharisees, something horrid and unacceptable to Jesus. Their oral traditions had made the scriptures "of no effect." The codified oral traditions, i.e., the Talmud and Kabbalah, are still at the center of so-called Judaism today. Jesus could have been called a Judean, although he grew up in Galilee, but he was not a Jew to the religious leaders of his day, as his crucifiction amply demonstrates.
Yes, the early Church father coopted much of the lore of goddess worship and others in order to attract converts. The apostle Paul said forthrightly that he would become whatever he needed to in order to bring people to faith in Christ.
I am somewhat confused about the purpose of posting this article. I am in full agreement that there are radicals in all ideologies/religions that are a danger to all of us, including Islam. I am also of the opinion that religions and ideologies have been used to exert power over the people throughout history. On this particular subject, it appears to me that our government and a huge movement of right wing fundamentalists are using the analogy of Islamic radicalization as a tool to promote the fear of terrorism - which has been used for the purpose of promoting wars, the demise of our liberties and rights, etc., including spending trillions of dollars which has virtually bankrupted our country. In reading the article and the links that you posted, it seemed to me that you were sending out the very information that we have been fed to support these tactics??? I have read your responses and I am still confused as to the exact reason this was posted? Obviously, I am missing something here and would greatly appreciate you expounding on it further. Thank You.
I am COMPLETELY against any - ANY religion. WOrship...or not, of a Creator is a personal matter, best done individually - at home.
It's obvious why imams rant and rave, and droll with rage when their livelihood is in dangerfr also.
I also have to laugh at the popiola and his visits to every one. Why do you think he- this former head of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith " - has changed? Obviously this head of the Vatican has a vested interest!
It's NOT an honor to receive a visit from this man, He also visited the king of the saudi tribe - TYRANTS. He also received a gold sword from the islamic king - what would this mean? The popiola also met in SECRET with the islamic king.
Javad said...
Acharya do you have a problem with Islam or Muslim extremists?
Yes.
Anonymous said...
Look up what "ad hom" means. You are attacking the individual - not the argument. And yes, you are using bad logic. Correlation is not the same thing as causation. That is the type of logic you are using when some are saying that Islam is dominated by radicals.
Take one trait about something and ignore all other variables and blame that one variable for the cause of the problem. Please explain how that is an "ad hom".
I'm well aware of what "ad hom" means, having been on the receiving end of such logical fallacies for well over a decade by "loving" religious fanatics.
Obviously, I disagree with your simplistic and uninformed assessment that I use "bad logic." You do not know my work and are not qualified to make such an judgment. I don't leave out anything in my analyses, including the fact that religious fanaticism constitutes child abuse which turns out hard and nasty people who feel the need to insult others into accepting their unfounded beliefs.
Your original rant made little sense, and yet you would pretend to place yourself in a superior position. That's truly "bad logic."
Mike said...
Jesus was not a "Jew". The simple faith of Abraham had become, at the hands of the Pharisees, something horrid and unacceptable to Jesus. Their oral traditions had made the scriptures "of no effect." The codified oral traditions, i.e., the Talmud and Kabbalah, are still at the center of so-called Judaism today. Jesus could have been called a Judean, although he grew up in Galilee, but he was not a Jew to the religious leaders of his day, as his crucifiction amply demonstrates.
Yes, the early Church father coopted much of the lore of goddess worship and others in order to attract converts. The apostle Paul said forthrightly that he would become whatever he needed to in order to bring people to faith in Christ.
Well, we are in agreement that Jesus was not a Jew! He was a fictional character based on the gods of other cultures who were turned into a Jewish messiah by Jewish priests interested in dominating the world with their biblical fictions.
Sorry, but I'm not buying into the sale of shoddy used religious goods.
I attach a link to google video entitled "Mohammad's Allah" a talk delivered by Bill Donahue of http://www.hiddenmeanings.com back in 1995. This talk was based a on a book by Ahmed Hulusi with the same title and is available on line for a free download at:
http://www.ahmedbaki.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7750770001479936990
Without understanding the Noun Allah--Islam can't be understood correctly either by Muslims or any body else. Please note that the quality of sound at times
is a bit questionable.
which one Acharya, religion of Islam or Muslim extremist, or do you think Islamic extremism in the product of the religion of Islam?
Javad said...
which one Acharya, religion of Islam or Muslim extremist, or do you think Islamic extremism in the product of the religion of Islam?
2+2=4
Why We Left Islam
Javad clearly gets it. Maybe there's hope even for atheistic humanists, eh "Achary S"? How many wars were started in the 20th century by "radical Muslims"? Gen. Albert Pike and Giuseppe Mazzini, grand commanders of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in the 1870's, outlined their plan for 3 world wars. Were they praying to Allah for guidance? When H.G. Wells predicted in 1933 that World War II would start as the result of a border dispute between Poland and Germany and that World War III would start in Basra in 1980, was he a psychic? Did he pray toward Mecca? Or were these men part of a globalist scheme, contrived by men whose religion is the worship of gold and power, to herd men about like cattle to the slaughter?
Everyone worships at some altar, whether they acknowledge as such or not. Perhaps the question is, "whose god do you mistrust the least?" I have chosen the Christian God, even though I'm part so-called Jew, because, properly understood, Jesus, offered the clearest road map to world peace. Certainly there are radical Arabs who pose as "Muslims", some of them probably swapped ideas on toppling all organized religions with the Kabbalistic Templars centuries ago. But if you don't strike at the current ROOTS OF TERRORISM, found in the CAPITALS OF EUROPE, particularly London, you're just shadow boxing.
Mike said...
Cute. No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm a Christian. I know who my God is and where He is. I'm just trying to figure out who YOU answer to.
Just how do you know where he is? How are you so sure you know who your god is? Are you sure it's not Brahma, Krishna, Mithra, or Horus? What if IT has no name, form, or gender? Why does IT have to have a gender even? Why does it have to be an invisible man in the sky? Why can't it reside within you and everything/everyone on the planet earth and in the universe? Why would a loving deity want to be so far removed from those it supposedly loves? If one loves someone, wouldn't they want to be with them and not far removed? And IF it created everything on earth, why would it want to be so cruel, violent, and hateful? BTW, when speaking in general about a deity, it is not capitalized. When it is a name like "God said,..." then you capitalize it. And why does a grown woman have to answer to anyone?
izgabearta said...
May I just broaden your perspective a bit by asserting that not only Islam is dominated by radicals, but also the other world mainstream religions.
You're absolutely right and I don't think Acharya is arguing that point. Christians are not without their radicals either. There are dominionists, Rapturists, Evangelicals, Religious Reich, and more. Jews have radicals too. The list goes on an on.
Religion was created for control, period.
If you read her books, she's not arguing that either. In fact, she confirms that in her books.
Anonymous said,
Religion, like guns, can be used as a weapon for or against abuse, and can be a catalyst for abuse.
How well we know or at least I do. I abhour any form of violence and abuse. I think Acharya feels the same way, although I can't speak for her, just what I have come to know of her. Religion is just one form that is used to abuse, kill, and mistreat people. I, for one, fight all forms of violence, which includes religion and guns/leathal weapons. The problem is, more often than not, religion is currently at the bottom of all of this. If it is not that, then it is some other mentally derranged egotistical disorder.
Here's the thing though... Slavery in the U.S. was based on the idea of the "mark of Cain" and other verses in the Bible that supported the idea of slavery. Currently, anti-abortionists try to base their ideas on the Bible. Thing is, the Bible says nothing against abortion. In fact, it encourages "throwing babies against stones" and not even blinking twice about stoning a pregnant woman. The Quran is not much better concerning women and children. The idea of no birth control is based on the verse "be fruitful and multiply", however, it does not state that life begins at conception. It's much later. So, religionist screw with the Bible to suit their purpose and the list goes on and on, causing more harm than good.
Here's the other problem with Christianity at least, some Christians say that since Jesus came, the OT is not important, but the NT is. However, when it suits them the OT is VERY important- ie homosexuality, women's health, etc. What's up with that?
Muslims do similarly- anyone who is not Muslim does not understand the Quran, non-Muslims take things out of context (much like Christians), BUT when it suits them, they can say this or that about the Quran, even take it out of context to suit their purposes. I've seen it so many times. You can say the Quran is full of violence, but they will deny it by saying a non-Muslim doesn't understand it, until they call a Jihad and then they base it on every violent, hateful, and prejudice verse in the Quran.
Then there is this current war. It IS a Crusade/Jihad, but you won't see the radicals on either side admitting that, but listen to them talk. Their speech is full of religious dogma and dialogue.
So, yes, currently the basis of violence and abuse is mostly religious and yes, once that is gone it will probably be something else. Even Gene Roddenberry pointed that one out, but would you rather religious delusions and dogma continue to avoid something else?
We are in our infancy and moving into adolesence, if we aren't there already, but when we do grow up, we could very well be an amazing race of people, IF we don't destory ourselves first. Call it fantasy, a dream, or what have you, but I would far rather strive for Gene's dream, than stay stuck where we are now. I would far rather see a more humanistic world than see the one we live in now continue.
I have chosen the Christian God, even though I'm part so-called Jew, because, properly understood, Jesus, offered the clearest road map to world peace.
How so? How can you be so sure it is the right god and "saviour"? Why rely on any archaic religious text for world peace? We don't really need them, not even for moral value. While I don't deny there is some value to studying various myths, we don't need them to base our morality or anything else. We can glean some knowledge from them, but no single text is the end all and be all to world peace or morality. I also do not deny that the Bible has some valuable literature, such as Corinthians 13. However, if you look at Corinthians 13, there is no mention of any deity, but rather "the greatest of these is love". There is also the story of the "Good Samaritan" who did what he did from the goodness of his heart and not out of some sense of obligation. Again, there is nothing about a deity in that story. It was solely based on what was in the man's heart. No one told him he had to do it, but he had more inner desire to assist the man than the other two men. The other two made a judgement on his race/place of origin rather than just seeing a human being who needed help and he did it without the expectation of reward or punishment.
Therefore, I will say again, what I have said many times before, any god that is worth it's salt, will not judge a person only by their actions and what they believe, but rather what is in his/her heart. IMHO, belief from the head, doing things out of guilt, shame, or because something or someone said they had to, is less worthy than what comes from one's heart. This does not negate reason, but it is not an imposed duty/action/obligation.
Yes, there is a touch of Buddhism in that statement, for an action done by one who doesn't really want to do something but does it because it is their elderly relative is completely different because one does it for that person purely out of love, compassion, care for that person. It's better to do something purely from the heart than to groan and to say, "I don't really want to, but it's my grandma" or even "Well, I don't want to, but God says I have to do it."
Granted, there are some things we have to do out of obligation, but I think action that is done purely from the heart is far better.
By the same token, I think it is wrong to believe something purely out of fear of going to hell or a desire to go to heaven- ie John 3:16-18. One should not believe in something out of imposed guilt either. A god that is worth it's salt, IMO, would not accept that person who believes in the expection of some reward or a fear of punishment as readily as one who has unimposed belief, free of any guilt trips, and does not expect anything. There is difference and is difficult to explain to one who is filled with religious dogma.
No, I do not believe in the god of religion- any religion. However, it is far easier for one to understand if they have experience it, than for me to explain it and it is not some induced emotion from some evangelical hellfire damnation trip either. Sagan and Einstein didn't explain it, but they experienced it. Spong doesn't explain it either, for he too experiences it. Anyone who comprehends what I am saying more than likely experiences it and it is enhanced, using Spong's words, by living life fully, striving to be all we can be, and loving wastefully.
This does not include violence, hate, bigotry, prejudice, thoughts of the same, for there is no room for those things if you are trying to live life fully, striving to be all you can be, and loving wastefully. Ironically, there is some truth in the Buddhist doctrine of right thought, right action, and alike. No, I am not a Buddhist either, but I know a truism when I read it. I am a Humanist and I do not believe what I believe out of the expection of reward or punishment.
The thing is, few people trust themselves to know what is right or wrong, not realizing that is it within them to know. That and they also have the guidance of parents, rules of society, and like. Most people know there are legal consequences for violence, but they fear that without a belief and following of a religious text, they will not be able to follow it. I disagree. I truly believe there is an inner desire and drive in most people not to harm others. It is a human condition that a mentally healthy and rational person feels.
Few religious people feel any internal guilt when they persecute (physically or mentally) those who don't believe as they do. This is not a healthy condition, yet it is drilled into them to be hateful, cruel, and even violent to those who do not believe as they do. It is sad, but very true. They are also taught to have expection of reward or punishment, heaven or hell and rarely what they do, IMO, is truly from the heart. Oh there are some instances, but they are taught fear of punishment/hell and guilted onto a mental belief to fear a supernatural deity- one in which they learn to send "adult letters to a santa claus deity". In the end, it is all in the head, not from the heart, although they have managed to convince themselves it is from the heart. If so, why all the fear, guilt, and shame? Why not warmth and love? Oh they say they feel warmth and love, but is truly warmth and love when they believe something out of fear and the expection of reward or punishment? I don't think so.
I'm sorry, but suicide bombings isn't going to get one 72 virgins (or rather in the original translation, it's fruit). It's just going to get you dead. Persecuting non-Christians and forcing them to believe out of guilt and shame isn't going to get one into heaven nor are they going to hell for not doing so. You're just going to die. Such beliefs are all smoke and mirrors, not reality or truth.
What is the truth? I don't know, but I know it's not anything in religious texts, dogma, or extremism. What is God, IF there is a god? I don't know, but I know it's not anything found in religious text or dogma. I do know what it feels like and it's not violence, hatred, cruelity, prejudice, the degredation of others or the universe, the denial of dignity, etc. I also would not begin to label it for any attempt to do so is only a human concept which cannot be scientifically proven or even rational and to label it love and compassion is purely a human emotional experience.
There is much to be said about this, but clearly I think the Muslim side has people better equipped to engage the other side. I believe that Gai Eaton, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Hamza Yusuf would have made a great trio. I think that the "west" who ever they are do have legitmate points and reasons to fear "us" who ever that us is. I am a convert to Islam from the United States. I believe that the U.S and the U.K does show freedom of religion and expression to me and many of us as Muslims. However their fear is that if the situation was reversed would we Muslims show the same tolerance towards them. I would like to share that the history of Islam shows two pictures one of intolerance but also one of much tolerance and intra racial, intra religious harmony.
At the same time I think those on the side opposing 'radical islam' really need to be honest in addressing this point. Who is making the mig fighter jets? The F 16 tom cats? Who is making the ak-47s and the grenade launcher? Does Iran have a mass factory? They can hardly put together a great car for Pete's sake. It's obvious that France, U.K U.S and Russia have a very profitable buisness in making weapons that people use to kill each other. As Megadeath once said on an album cover, "Killing is my buisness and buisness is good."
So yeah I think both sides make interesting points and there needs to be more such dialogues and heated debates. We all have to live on this planet that's for sure.
Javad said...
Acharya why not accept the desire of 1.6 billion who are Muslims who want to stay Muslim and not an aesthetic like you?
And you somehow know the desire of 1.6 billion people - are you all BORG? So it seems.
I highly doubt that MOST of those people would make the choice to remain Muslims if they were fully educated and allowed to make such a choice. They are not. Most of them are impoverished and compelled through intense and abusive brainwashing from childhood. They are essentially SLAVES.
So, why don't YOU fight to give them the chance to make up their own minds, as I am doing? Or are your own beliefs so flimsy, irrational and repulsive that you simply must have 1.6 billion people in your corner to bolster them up?
BTW, Javad, an "aesthetic" like me?
aesthetic
1. pertaining to a sense of the beautiful or to the science of aesthetics.
2. having a sense of the beautiful; characterized by a love of beauty.
Thank you!
But you really think that 1.6 billion people don't want to have a sense of beauty? Within Islam, that does seem to be the case.
beauty? oh you've got to see Islamic art, it's beautiful so should I say you're anti god.
let's say Muslim kids only study the Quran and are brainwashed but when they grow up they get the chance to choose wether to stick with Islam or leave, those who choose to leave Islam wont get killed or based on Islamic law they shouldn't get killed, you wont find anywhere in quran which says an infidel should be shot dead. if we see the opposite of that being done or talked about is a result of Islamic radicals. believe me if Obama gets elected and wishes to talk to Iran we wont kill him in fact hes very welcome
I'm not a good Muslim Acharya please tell me what Quran says on the punishment for the infidels, please refer to verses in quran not hadiths.
You don't know me, I have many non-Muslim friends, Indian Hindu, European Cristian and American Jew. I also consider myself as a member of human specie cose I know I'm not an alien or an Animal.
You don't like to hear that Allah is the god of cosmos do you? ok NASA is the god of cosmos, you like it?
And about the Obama tool and stuff, please don't read articles about Muslims on Israeli websites because they seem to be a little bias.
To my Muslim brothers and sisters, don't hate the Jews even though they're killing babies in Palestine, remember they're not Jews they are Zionists, Zionism is a tool for the Freemasons to capture Jerusalem and turn it into their capital.
I bet the Israeli Zionists had a hand in September 11th as well! Who gained more (financially) than Larry Silverstein(Jew) - leaseholder of the WTC complex - when those buildings were pulverized into tiny little pieces? And what about the instant messaging service - Odigo? (A US based company with offices in Isreal) Members of this service say that they were warned about the impending attacks two hours before the buildings were blown up.The company has not identified from where those messages originated. Was the WTC complex RAPED by Israeli Zionists on 9-11-2001?
those who believe Muslims were behind the 911 events are the ones who think Islam wants to dominate the world with force, but we all should know Muslims were not involved because we didn't have the desire to attack America nor do we have the power and will to dominate the world. you should also remember Israel did 911 to convince public opinion towards the invasion if Iraq in order to secure the continuation of their land expansions.
Javad said...
those who believe Muslims were behind the 911 events are the ones who think Islam wants to dominate the world with force, but we all should know Muslims were not involved because we didn't have the desire to attack America nor do we have the power and will to dominate the world. you should also remember Israel did 911 to convince public opinion towards the invasion if Iraq in order to secure the continuation of their land expansions.
Javad, you are young and innocent, and you do not speak for all Muslims in the world. In fact, it is clear that you really do not know what Muslim leaders have been planning and enacting for centuries, which is the quest for total global domination.
You are completely unaware of the facts of Saudi involvement in numerous power structures, including owning major media outlets in the United States and elsewhere. You do not know about the terrorist network within the United States. Nor have you paying any attention to the repeated statements by Muslim fanatics whose desire it is to dominate the globe. Nor are you evidently aware of what is happening in Europe as we speak, which is the destruction of the European culture and its replacement by Arab cultural imperialism, including Islam. Your own country was destroyed and enslaved under Islam; yet, you continue to apologize for your enslavers.
Despite your denial and that of other youthful and innocent individuals who do not know about all of these factors, the fact will remain that there is a concerted effort, plot and ongoing attempts to dominate the world by Islamists - and that they are succeeding, in large part because of individuals like you who are in denial, as well as your non-Muslim counterparts who are likewise in denial of these facts.
If you would like to know more about the Muslim plot to dominate the world, see this book:
Eurabia Against America
I have linked to a page that outlines the plot for Arab Muslims to take over France. There is much more in that book demonstrating this decades-old effort that is clearly coming to fruition.
You may enjoy the thought of the globe being dominated under Islam - although for the life of me I cannot understand why - but I strenuously object to it. The denial of this plot represents either unconscious or willful disrespect and disregard for my rights and desires as a human being. I've stated it before, and I will state it again:
I DO NOT WANT TO BE ENSLAVED UNDER ISLAMIC DOMINATION AND ARAB CULTURAL IMPERIALISM.
That is my modus operandi in a nutshell. If you are part of the effort to prevent that from happening, then I welcome you. If, however, you are aiding and abetting the enslavers in their attempts to enslave me and destroy my rights, then we have a serious problem, and I will consider you an unethical individual.
If you want to be helpful, you really need to read these links I provide so that you will know what is going on. Until then, it is evident to me that you do not know what is really going on, and you certainly do not speak for the Muslims of the world and especially not for the powers that be who are very much involved in this plot for total Islamic global domination and the enslavement of all non-Muslims.
Please read this article:
Islam's War Against the West
There you will find quotes like this:
"Islam is a tree that feeds on blood and grows on severed limbs."
A fundamentalist clergyman in Lebanon says, "Don't believe that we want an Islamic republic in Lebanon. ...What Hezbollah wants is a world Islamic republic."
Although it is a bit dated, this article is for the most part accurate. You cannot disprove these facts; you can only remain in denial of them.
There are many more such statements by powerful Muslim leaders - I guess we should just ignore them as quaint and adorable little barks from biteless puppies? I'm sure they would be quite insulted by such an attitude.
(FYI, I do not believe that Arab Muslims acting alone pulled off 9/11; yet, I am certain that there is an Islamic conspiracy for total global domination. A conspiracy only requires two people to be involved - and it is scientifically proved that there are far more than two people involved in this plan for a global Muslim caliphate. In fact, no belief is needed to know that there is a plot for Islamic hegemony - Muslim leaders have repeatedly admitted as such.)
Javad said...
those who believe Muslims were behind the 911 events are the ones who think Islam wants to dominate the world with force, but we all should know Muslims were not involved because we didn't have the desire to attack America nor do we have the power and will to dominate the world. you should also remember Israel did 911 to convince public opinion towards the invasion if Iraq in order to secure the continuation of their land expansions.
Now why don't I buy that? The thing is, Muslim extremists were involved with the 9/11 incident. Several were involved and some are either dead from their Khama Kazi stunt or in jail. If all it takes to hurt people is to hijack a plane then Islamic extremists do have the power to dominate- through fear at least and that is how Islam works, dominating people through fear and even enslavement of those who refuse to submit. It's in history books even.
The thing is, those who don't have a tendency towards violence, probably don't want to dominate, but the submissive ones don't have a say in the matter. The dominate Muslims do. So, you may think you don't want to dominate, but tell that to the dominate Islamics.
"Islam is a tree that feeds on blood and grows on severed limbs."
Sounds like the Borg. I never did like the Borg either.
Notice, Mriana, that he clarifies using the phrase "with force":
...Islam wants to dominate the world with force...
In other words, apparently he believes that overrunning us with superior numbers and destroying our culture without dropping bombs dot not constitute "force." Even though any act of Islamizing ME and MINE would be a most serious act of FORCE against me - an act of aggression, in fact, that represents VIOLENCE.
I wonder how many ways I can spell it out that I don't want to be a Muslim. I don't want to be forced to pray fives times a day. I don't want to wear a hijab, burkha, chador or niqab. I don't want to learn Arabic or to read the Koran. (Although I've already been forced to many times.) I don't want be enslaved under Islam in any way, shape or form. Under Islam I would cease to exist, as I would not be allowed to have developed myself as a true human being, with the availability afforded to me of a great deal of education and access to other data to help develop my natural talents. Hell, if it were up to the Saudis, I wouldn't even be able to drive - what an infringement on my basic human rights that one is!
And, please, don't tell me that life for women under the Shiite Islam of Iran is any better. I know you won't stoop to insult my intelligence that badly.
I really do not understand what is so appealing about Islam that anyone exposed to the world outside of it would be attracted to it at all. There is no love - all marriages that are not arranged are haram. You must FEAR Allah, not love "him." Indeed, you don't even have a choice to use your mind in deciding whether such a creature even exists.
Islam constitutes enslavement of mind, body and soul. It is the product of desert tribesmen bent on dominating, enslaving and exploiting everyone else around. Let's not compound this evil by being mindless, uninformed cheerleaders for it.
I don't want to be forced to pray fives times a day.
With the economy the way it is, who has time to send adult letters to a santa claus god?
Under Islam I would cease to exist, as I would not be allowed to have developed myself as a true human being, with the availability afforded to me of a great deal of education and access to other data to help develop my natural talents.
"Because Allah afflicted Eve, all the women of the world menstruate and they are stupid."
Got the quote and this link from someone on the Free Speech Atheist list: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/Prophet_of_Doom_02_Devils_Deceptions_and_Backrubs.Islam The MP3 isn't a bad listen either.
There is no love - all marriages that are not arranged are haram.
AKA concubines, sex slaves.
You must FEAR Allah, not love "him."
I'd rather embrace Mother Earth and hug a tree. Or better yet, my cats. :D My little Shiva (pronounced Sheeva, because at the time that's how we thought it was said) mybe a little destroyer, but she can sure love up on you. :) I also wish I still had my pet runt pig Wilber- no joke I did have pet runt pig and named him after Charolette's Web. He was a sweety. :D He wasn't meant for a butchering sacrifice.
That's the other thing about Islam. It has no respect for animals or the environment.
I'm young but I know whats going on, I'm sure many non muslims will agree with the things I said. You're old and you've been systematically brainwahed by the media and mews tycoon, actually the majority of Americans agree with you cos you've all been brainwashed, thats highly visible in the 2008 elections with Ron Paul who opposed war and intervention in middle east got knocked out and a wormongerer Israel puppet McCain won the republican domination. watch their debates as romney says I've read the jihadists writings and they wanna attack us we'te the greatest nation bla bla, and ron paul supported the idea to pull out troops and bases out of middle east and fuckin guliani kept laughin at him. see there are two ideas inside and out side US and that is the foreign policy of US in the Islamic middle east. at the momemt Muslims are under attack for a 911 that they didn't commit.
Javad said...
I'm young but I know whats going on, I'm sure many non muslims will agree with the things I said. You're old and you've been systematically brainwahed by the media and mews tycoon, actually the majority of Americans agree with you cos you've all been brainwashed, thats highly visible in the 2008 elections with Ron Paul who opposed war and intervention in middle east got knocked out and a wormongerer Israel puppet McCain won the republican domination. watch their debates as romney says I've read the jihadists writings and they wanna attack us we'te the greatest nation bla bla, and ron paul supported the idea to pull out troops and bases out of middle east and fuckin guliani kept laughin at him. see there are two ideas inside and out side US and that is the foreign policy of US in the Islamic middle east. at the momemt Muslims are under attack for a 911 that they didn't commit.
No, dear, I am not "old" - does my picture look "old?" So you lose credibility with such remarks. Nor do you know more about the subject than I do, so please do not pretend to be better educated.
Nor do I subscribe to the MSM - that's "mainstream media." The very notion is laughable, so once again you lose credibility. I read several languages and often go to the sources myself. No one who knows me would ever indict my perspective on the grounds of listening to the MSM. In fact, I am considered a "radical" and a "liberal" by many.
Is the Koran a product of American propaganda? It is full of hatred for the infidel, as is the history of Islam, which is responsible for the murders of no less than 270 million non-Muslims - tens of millions of whom were slaughtered under Islam long before the U.S. even existed. This cult of death is morally repugnant to anyone who has a conscience. It doesn't take MSM to prove that point, and your denial of these facts merely highlights that abject ignorance of your own cult displayed by far too many. Have you even read ANY of the links I've provided here? I think not. That makes you far more ignorant than I, since I have studied them all, pro and con.
It is YOU who are brainwashed by a cult of death that invaded your land and destroyed your culture. Yet, you continue to stump for it, like someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Being a youngster with a smattering of superficial knowledge provided to you by the MSM, you reveal yourself to be devoid of the knowledge of history going back hundreds to thousands of years necessary for a proper judgment of what is going on.
Once again, I ask you why you mindlessly adhere to this cult of death - this Arab cultural imperialism - that invaded your country and slaughtered and raped your ancestors?
I think the truth about the Zionist terrorists that were the masterminds behind the 9-11 attacks in New York CIty will eventually come out although the Jew media will work hard to keep the brainwashed people ignorant. Acharya has been assigned to this "post" to disinform people. All she provides is twisted disinformation and nonsense chitter chatter - blah blah blah.
Jamilla
You're old and you've been systematically brainwahed by the media and mews tycoon, actually the majority of Americans agree with you cos you've all been brainwashed, thats highly visible in the 2008 elections with Ron Paul who opposed war and intervention in middle east got knocked out and a wormongerer Israel puppet McCain won the republican domination.
Because you are young, you know everything? Whatever happened to "with age comes wisdom"? Secondly, not all of us who are in our 40s (sorry if you are younger than I am, Acharya) are for Ron Paul and we're esp not for McCain nor are we all warmongers. There are some of us who are anti-war. I'm a child of the 60s and I am extremely anti-war, so much so that I would be ashamed if either of my sons joined the military.
Oh, but don't take that last as being unAmerican. I am hardly unAmerican and uphold the Constitution highly. I also vote in elections.
However, it is possible to be so unbrainwashed that your brains fall out. Let's hope no young people's brains do.
I highly suggest that you read several religious texts (Egyptian Book of the Dead and other Egyptian texts, Babylonian Myths, Assyrian Myths, Hindu texts, Buddhaism texts, Sufi texts, Jewish texts, the Toa, Confusicius, etc) and compare them to each other, as well as read them with a critical eye. This does not mean to put down, for there is also constructive criticism. However, I think by the time you get to the Quran, you will see a more violent and dehumanizing text that is like no other.
Of course, but the time you get through with a serious study of the various texts, you maybe old and tired, but if you are lucky, you maybe able to take the better parts of each and form your own beliefs, be they atheistic or theistic, while discarding the worst. Hopefully, by the time you get to the Quran you will see how bad bad can get.
ok I'll order and read the book to know why people don't like Islam, if you know other books which are good please give me a link so I can get free shipping from amazon. thanks
Thanks, Javad. I'm glad we could get to this point in our discussion.
I haven't read Makow's book, but I do know about his work and I've read some about this particular issue. I am sure that many popular movements have the backing of the powers that be at some point or another.
Let us take a look at the environmental movement, however. I like to joke that the first environmentalist was a cave woman who told the cave man to get his shit out of the cave.
Environmentalism started with individuals who were either sickened by the destruction of their environment or had family members who were thus sickened. This "sickening," of course, need not be physical but could also be psychological, as in becoming upset at the nightmarish destruction.
In any event, for decades (or even centuries) this movement was fought mightily by the mainstream "powers that be" - i.e., those Makow is impugning. Eventually, however, the movement became too big to be ignored, and various aspects of it have been co-opted by the puppetmasters to further their goals.
That is the classic trick of powermongers - adapt and thrive. Fight the change at first, then co-opt it to suit your purposes.
So, I'm quite sure that "feminism" began many eons ago when women were sick of being slammed around simply because they were smaller than men and could not physically overcome their oppressors.
There was a point in history - in fact, long eras - where the female was so revered that GODDESS was the order of the day. Most recently the biggest goddess was Isis. She and the rest of the goddess figures were destroyed and usurped by the Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is yet another reason I find them to be atrocious.
The Abrahamic religions are sexist, period. They utterly denigrate the female and - other than Catholicism with its reverence for the Virgin Mary - leave little to no room for the Divine Female. They are incomplete and false, to a one. It is morally repugnant to me to follow false ideologies like Judaism, Christian and Islam.
From what I have seen of his writings, Makow is a fervent supporter of these sexist women-hating Abrahamic religions. (And he does not like my work at all, apparently for the reason that I dare to criticize these FALSE women-hating and sexist ideologies.)
The fact that the major monolithic desertified religious ideologies absolutely shun and denigrate all things female - except for a PERPETUAL VIRGIN in one instance - is not a sign of mental health.
In reality, it is abusive and revolting.
As concerns recommended books, Javad, here's a list of some of the best:
Infidel
Why I Am Not a Muslim
Eurabia
While Europe Slept
The Truth about Muhammad
American Jihad
That should be a good start and should get you free shipping!
I appreciate the opportunity to share with you, Javad.
I ordered the books and I'll try to understand your concerns but you don't expect me to leave Islam do you?
Javad said...
I ordered the books and I'll try to understand your concerns but you don't expect me to leave Islam do you?
I appreciate that, Javad. Obviously, I can't tell you what to do, especially since you could be MURDERED for becoming an apostate - and that's one the main problems I have with Islam.
I was born and raised a Christian, albeit it a very mild one, and I was also a born-again Christian briefly, which requires more devotion. However, when I became better informed about a wide variety of issues, including Christian history and the mythical nature of Christianity, I stopped being a Christian. It was simply morally repugnant to me.
I feel the same way about Islam, obviously, having studied its doctrines. I have studied so many of the world's religions, and most of them make very similar claims to being "the truth" and "the only way." Obviously, they can't all be "the truth" and "the only way." If one is true, the others are all false. In reality, they are ALL false in that they are not "the truth" and "the only way."
So, I already know that if Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Taoism and all the rest are "true," then Islam is false. And vice versa. Knowing these facts, I cannot follow any one of them and arrogantly set myself apart from the rest of humanity by saying that only "my" cult/sect/religion is true, while everyone else's is false. I do feel comfortable, however, rejecting them all as false. I suppose that could be considered "arrogant" as well, although in this case, it really means that it is morally repugnant to me to follow any of them strictly as "the only truth" because they simply are not.
Naturally, every religion, cult or sect contains SOME truth - nothing can be absolutely evil and still have any kind of "shelf life" on planet Earth. But most of the time what is "good" within any given religion already exists as "good" in the world at large. It was already good and was simply adopted into the religion. It is not the product of the religion. Therefore, the religion is not needed.
Knowing about all of these religions and their purported founders and representatives, I find it incredibly arrogant to believe that there is "one true prophet" who speaks for THE god of the cosmos. In fact, such a claim is simply megalomaniacal. If "God" is omnipresent - that is, everywhere present - then "he/she/it" is within ALL of us and not simply in the mind of one Arab guy 1400 years ago. His conceit in claiming that he and he alone speaks for God is mindboggling and depraved, frankly. Indeed, it is utterly morally repugnant. It is also totally FALSE.
And, knowing what I do about Muhammad's character as laid out in the Koran and Hadiths, I am even further revolted that anyone in their right mind would have the audacity to raise this man up as "the only prophet of the One True God." Muhammad is depicted as personally murdering hundreds of people and repeatedly raping females, including at least one CHILD (Ayesha) beginning when she was only 9 years old. I don't care what "cultural" or "traditional" framework you come up with, such behavior is morally repugnant. And any good god in charge of anything - as is claimed of "Allah" and the Yahweh of the Bible - would certainly NOT pick for "his" "only prophet of the One True God" such a despicable character.
No matter how much I am abused, I will NEVER follow such an evil character, and I surely do hope that everyone who becomes educated as to this figure's true nature will agree with my assessment. I am appalled to consider the nightmarish world we will live in should this awful person's phony cult be compelled upon all of us. I fear for my little child - to be forced to follow a mass murderer and serial rapist would destroy his soul, as it would my own.
Muhammad in His Own Words
Now you know where I am coming from.
And if you would like to follow up on this issue, please do go to this site:
Leaving Islam
There's also a forum there at the bottom of the page where people share their experiences.
Java "I ordered the books and I'll try to understand your concerns but you don't expect me to leave Islam do you?"
Here's an article you may enjoy while waiting for those books to arrive.
"Why Critical Scrutiny of Islam Is an Utmost Necessity"
22
Javad said...
I ordered the books and I'll try to understand your concerns but you don't expect me to leave Islam do you?
May I field this question too, Acharya?
Javad, if I said no, I would be a lier, but I realize that is probably not possible for you to do, esp if you have said the words that commit you to Islamic ideology. The last thing I want to see is people killed over religion.
Forgive me if I rely heavily on Anglicans, for that is my background and I can appreciate some of the people and their ideas who are still in the Anglican Church. At the same time, they help to support my point in what can be possible for people who do not want to entirely let go of religion for whatever reason.
My personal hopes for all people is that they eventually stop relying on mythological religious texts as a way to live their lives. Currently, the best I can hope for is that people become religious and/or cultural humanists. I am not trying to evangelize Humanism in any form, but I wish to present it as an alternative, esp the ideas of religious and cultural humanism in it's various forms.
What do I mean by that? Salman Rushdie is an example, as well as Bishop Spong, Anthony Freeman, Tom Harpur, Greg Epstein, and Robert Price. None of them have entirely let go of their cultural and religious upbringing, but they are non-theistic concerning their beliefs.
What does this mean? Robert Price has an article on religious humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/price_22_3.htm He is an atheist, a Humanist, and a member of the Episcopal Church. He was once a Baptist minister before this, but a real education changed his mind about all of it, yet he still has an appreciation for the various stories of religion. He has written many books on the subject of religion and I think one of his best ones is The Reason Driven Life and even though it is geared towards Christianity, I think it could be of value to others of different beliefs.
Bishop John Shelby Spong, retired from the Epsicopal Church and wrote "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" and his 12 theses: http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html . He is also involved with the Sea of Faith, which believes in non-realism: http://www.sofn.org.uk/
Greg Epstein, a Jew by birth, but is a Humanist and a Humanist Chaplin at Harvard. Humanistic Judaism/Cultural Humanism, he talks about occassionally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_Judaism and Humanistic Islam: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/greg_m_epstein/2007/07/islam_beyond_allah_apostasy_or.html His way of thinking about religion is not entirely bad for it teaches us to appreciate some things about our culturally religious upbringings and yes, there is even a culture to Christianity, but one has to take a few steps back from it to actually see it.
Most of all, what will probably interest you most is Salman Rushdie, again a Humanist, but culturally Islamic. If I remember right, he was involved with Humanistic Islam. Yes, he wrote The Satanic Verses and was living in exile until his death (natural causes, thank goodness): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdi Here's a podcast where he talks about Cultural Humanism: http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=299&article=1 before he died.
Anthony Freeman, a former Anglican priest and wrote the book God in Us: A Case for Christian Humanism would also be considered a Cultural Humanist too as well as Tom Harpur who wrote The Pagan Christ. Both have non-theistic beliefs, yet can appreciate the mythology of their ancestors, as well as the origins.
Now here's the thing, all of them are non-theists, some atheists or atheistic in their beliefs. They know (knew in the case of Rushdie) the religious texts were more myths, yet have some value without taking them literally or as the inerrant word of God. Even Greg Epstein, is an atheist, but can appreciate his Jewish culture without believing in the texts or a deity.
What is there to fight over when people are non-theists and don't take any religious texts anymore seriously than Aesop's Fables or Taoism allegorical stories? They do not live their lives by the stories of any religious text though, yet in some respects they still consider[ed] themselves culturally Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. Rushdie was an apostate, yes, but Islam was still his background.
Even Richard Dawkins admits that his background is Anglican and can still appreciate some things that are religious- like religious music- but he does not live his life by scripture and the closest he ever comes to a belief in a deity is an Einstein/Sagan idea. He appreciates the awe and wonder of the universe, like it were a deity, yet knows it is not.
If people could even acheive something like Bishop Spong or even Richard Dawkins's belief, I would be happier. Spong has not completely thrown out the religious texts, but he realizes they came from a tribal origin where superstition was popular at the time due to the lack of knowledge that we have today, yet he can glean some value from the myths and he does call them myths, right down to Genesis. He relies on science, reason, compassion, and love. What he refuses to accept is prejudice, hatred, the degradation of humans, etc based on some religious text. He even refuses to accept the crucifixion as Christ dying for our sins. To him, it is a spiritual thing, not an actual crucifixion and resurrection. None it actually happened as depicted in the Bible.
Greg Epstein still sees some social value in things that are considered religious, such as rites of passages.
These are ideas I can appreciate and accept more readily than supernatural beliefs. They are more focused on the human than they are on some santa claus deity. At the same time, IF one feels the need to pray, that is fine, because it can have some psychological value for some people. Just don't enforce it on me and insist that I pray five times a day. Don't enforce an unnatural dress code that demeans and lowers the self-esteem of others either and above all, don't impose your deity on me or others either. The list goes on and on as to what I object to.
IF you must believe in a deity, make it one that has no form or gender and seems (at least to you) as real as the wind and/or love, yet does nothing to influence the course of human events. Leave it to the human to strive to be all they can be and to live this life, probably the one and only life we get, as best they can. Don't map it out for them and don't tell them how they should live- ie if they believe they are gay, let them be, if they chose to have an affair or premarital sex, allow them to take responsibility for their actions without criticism, and again the list goes on and on. Show them actual and genuine compassion, not hatred, prejudice, discrimination and alike as long as they are not harming others. Do things from your heart, expecting nothing in return (not even some sort of afterlife), not from a sense of obligation or because some religious text, Iman, preacher, or what have you tells you to do so. In a sense, create your own ethics which do not harm anyone or even yourself. We, as humans, can be good without a belief in a god and/or a religious text. It is time we let go of the security blankets and learn to appreciate where we came from, our heritage, without acting on the beliefs and texts thereof. It can be done and without necessarily leaving a religion. One can work from the inside to change things, esp if leaving would endanger their lives.
Where we get our information is dominated by those who would like us to think Islam is dominated by radicals, Just as if Acharya S. was to be given any media exposure she would undoubtedly be considered a radical, fomenting hatred and dissension.
I must admit people in power, as Constantine did, sought to advance and retain their agenda over the masses, even if it means Dark Ages, Crusades, or an Inquisition. In America we call it protecting democracy abroad, searching for the elusive WMD, with CIA, and Blackwater. We also have politicos that sit on the boards of multinationals, and major news stations, that have an agenda that does not serve the masses, but merely subjugates them.
We have to watch out for the Arabs, the Muslims, after all they are the new N-words, remember that Black people would really do harm to you, your women, and your community. The Arabs are the new boogey-man, as the Japanese were, beware. They say America needs a boogey-man. It at a nursery level we learned of the boogey-man, just as we learned of santa claus, easter bunny, tooth fairy, and yes G-d. Not many have read, studied, or even thought much about or of G-d until in distress. "Oh God!" Radicals oftimes are not objective readers of truth, they have a nursery level mindset, and are driven by that. Just as many people see truth in Salvific Imagery. It makes them feel safe, secure, and good. Oh well so much for ignorance.
A reality is that many so-called religious people are not versed in their books, be it New Testament, Talmud, or Quran and others. Muslims can recite the Quran cover to cover on every continent, even the Arabs have not studied it beyond learning passages, by heart. The Quran is in classical Arabic, Arabs don't even speak classical Arabic, it often perplexes them, i.e. the masses. They have no idea how things are to be read and it is NOT all literal. People of religion should know this. I applaud Acharya for breaking down the conspiracy and relationship of mythology, yet we must not be xenophobic, eurocentric, or any of that. Realize that things are taking place above us and we are being toyed with at this level as pawns. Our attention is on what they want it on.
I agree with most of the points you made along the article. But i would like to make a comment that not just have these "abrahamic" religions including islam and christianity become "radical" and pro-violence but so have hitherto peace-loving religions like hinduism [though its only a borrowed name for the religion] become "radicalized", probably because of influence from the abrahamic religions or because influence of time. Sanatan Dharma had always stood on its principle of "non-institutionalizing" itself and accepting even views totally in contradiction to its core doctrines as valid philosophies as long as they were proved in intellectual debate. There was a time when in Sanatan Dharma to be considered a 'rishi' you had have a philosophy of your own that had not yet been postulated. But as we now supposedly witness the rise of "knowledge-era" it is ironical that the world is swept over by human tendency and leaning as well to institutionalizing everything be it in the name of Jesus or Allah. I think unless the world [people] undergoes some kind of enormous transformation this is bound to continue despite sustained efforts of few intellectuals who truly uphold peace. Am not surprised at Islam being radical when Hinduism itself is today witnessing that state. Of course it can be a domino effect but still i believe it is because of our tendency to institutionalize. Christian conversion and Musilm terrorism might have given birth to Hindu Radicals, but not even Bhagavad Gita endorses radicalism in Hindusim. While christian crusades and islami jihad can be traced back to bible and koran respectively, hindu radicalism can only be traced back to "koran-biblical" influence. Thankfully it has not grown so rabidly as have the the other two possibly because it is not justified in the scriptures, but sooner or later it might. So i believe it is the strife of these two abrahamic religions to have just one religion all over the globe killing all traces of diversity that is the root cause of all human suffering in recent history [from 0 BC - present]. And this is because of institutionalization of these two religions. While bible actually tells not to pray in public place like church or synagogue [Matt 6: 5-6] and asks its believers to do it in person in their closets [indicating to keep their religion to themselves], institutionalization has led to churches and mosques in every corner of the street. I have personally heard to vengeful and inciting speeches made over loud speakers in mosques in the sub-urbs during ramzan in India that clearly send out one message to muslim brothers and sisters - "kill the kafirs". And then there is this Ideology called "Secularism". In the name of secularism basic human rights are strangled. One muslim had raped his daughter-in-law. The "secular" law of India allowed muslims to take up this under their law which am sure was written by some intellectually challenged person who also happened to be equally immoral. The muslim law cancelled the rapist's son's marriage to the woman and declared that she now be considered the rapist's legal wife. While under even basic morality and human consideration this person must have atleast been jailed he was married off to a girl probably 30 years younger to him! So much in the name of secularism. As you would agree secularism is just as bad as radicalism. And again the basis is institutionalization. When you try to institutionalize religious tolerance the result is secularism.
All said and done, how exactly can we as individuals contribute to make this place at least as good as it was few thousand years ago, if not any better.
This reminds me of a beautiful vedic prayer:
असतोमा [let untruth] सद्गमय [be dispelled by Truth]
तमसोमा [let darkness of ignorance] ज्योतिर्गमय [be dispelled by light of Knowledge]
मृत्योर्मा [let decadence] अमृतं गमय [be overcome by the fountainhead of true spirit]
Om shanti shanti shanti!
No religion, no institutionalization and no trace of so called secularism - just a heartfelt prayer for humanity!
K
Post a Comment