Is Islam an Organized Religion or a System of God?
-
Yours and a few others' understanding of Islam as per Quran is misrepresented, distorted and dislodged from historical standpoint. Fundamental principals of living a ?good?, ?peaceful? and ?just? life are common traits inherent in ALL humans, including Atheists and ?wrongdoers?. How these traits are encountered, administered and diversified are purely environmental and have nothing to do with a superstitious insidious demanding commanding fearful unknown Deity written in a man-made book. All life-forms live, survive and adjust their environments as a direct consequence of what Nature dictates.
peace Danish, an "athiest" can be a "muslim." And can you explain the part in bold letters? We make choices based on our situation/environment, and whether we prosper or fail depends on the choices we make. And to make the right choices, we have to be in a state of peacefulness. That's islam.
You have to stop looking at the word and at the quran like everyother religion filled with superstition. It's much simpler than most people make it out to be......believe or else
exactly. Your actions have consequences, don't they?
You can either believe in the truth, and live a good, happy life, or you can believe in falsehood and be miserable.Don't look at this as Muslim vs Non Muslim. I think taking it this way ruins the whole message.
If you think about it, all the rituals and superstitions we have today come from literal interpretation of people's words or "holy" texts. -
Peace Danish,
Information is gathered from factual realistic Nature. Today, humans have gained, advanced and surpassed the information that was ancient. Intelligence and Knowledge are neither patented nor proved, information is. Thanks to Nature and welcome to Reality.
Danish, if intelligence is the faculty of comprehension, then there is nothing in your words to indicate someone alive today is more intelligent than someone alive 1000 years ago. The abundance of data is completely irrelevant because it is the potential to analyze/comprehend that data that you've called into question. Nevertheless, this is far off-topic.
Now that?s a newbie; a fascinated attempt. You point is well taken.
Attempt at what, bro? Religions are systematic. Do you agree or disagree?
You, as a Muslim, can conveniently extrapolate that Allah said this while another Muslim or even a non-Muslim can easily swear by this very Allah to mean that, both adamant in their views without knowing who or what exactly Allah is to begin with and suddenly each thumping the verses 218 and 2171 upon each other.
And you conveniently say that Allah does not exist. So who's right? Is that what this thread is about? In the past, I've enjoyed debating with you because your approach seemed fair in the realm of logic. This reply of yours seems to me, however, as simply a way to steer the conversation into your arena of islam-bashing.
The fact is, my view is what I'm sharing. I don't represent the masses nor even a few. I represent me and my understanding of the book called the qur'an, and my understanding of what islam equates to. It has nothing to do with convenience nor backpedalling nor apologia. These are simply my views based on my capacity to understand the text. If it's ok with you, in our future dialogue, I would appreciate keeping the points between me and you and leave the rest of the muslim world out of it.
Peace,
Tay -
Information is gathered from factual realistic Nature. Today, humans have gained, advanced and surpassed the information that was ancient. Intelligence and Knowledge are neither patented nor proved, information is. Thanks to Nature and welcome to Reality.
Danish, if intelligence is the faculty of comprehension, then there is nothing in your words to indicate someone alive today is more intelligent than someone alive 1000 years ago. The abundance of data is completely irrelevant because it is the potential to analyze/comprehend that data that you've called into question.
Tay, intelligence and knowledge gained and advanced over a span of 1000 years is by metes and bounds truely relevant and important and has nothing to do with my words. It is a very basic continuous life?s upward trend (called advancing stages) having combined past and present information gathered along that you can?t seem to grasp. It?s an evolution process. One can clearly see this from an education standpoint. Do you think that the level of education taught today at universities would match that of 1000 years ago? Don?t we have the tools to live a much sophisticated and comforted life today than 1000 years ago? Aren?t we not traveling, communicating and commuting in speeds rivaled 1000 years ago? If the ?Gurus? of the past were to suddenly appear today, they?d be in shock-n-awe and in total dismay. If not, why not and what made today what was not yesterday? And please don?t give me this potential stuff to steer away from what I am expressing because according to the holy-shmolies an alleged deity taught Adam everything and bestowed some of his "favorites" with unimaginable powers of knowledge, intelligence and strength long before Muhammad was born.
Now that?s a newbie; a fascinated attempt. You point is well taken.
Attempt at what, bro? Religions are systematic. Do you agree or disagree?
Attempt to fascinate your own convoluted statement as to ?Islam being neither a religion nor a system?. Religions are systematic in what way? By comparison, they are world apart, carry some truth and mostly capricious.
You, as a Muslim, can conveniently extrapolate that Allah said this while another Muslim or even a non-Muslim can easily swear by this very Allah to mean that, both adamant in their views without knowing who or what exactly Allah is to begin with and suddenly each thumping the verses 218 and 2171 upon each other.
And you conveniently say that Allah does not exist. So who's right?
While your reply is off-tangent, I will respond by saying, ?Not conveniently but honestly and factually?. Honesty and facts are always right.
The fact is, my view is what I'm sharing. I don't represent the masses nor even a few. I represent me and my understanding of the book called the qur'an, and my understanding of what islam equates to. It has nothing to do with convenience nor backpedalling nor apologia. These are simply my views based on my capacity to understand the text. If it's ok with you, in our future dialogue, I would appreciate keeping the points between me and you and leave the rest of the muslim world out of it.
I?m afraid Your views of the Quran, and rightly so of any other, are only fitting by convenience and extrapolation of words/verses without historical backup just to shape up the look-good feel-good faith. This seems to be an ongoing genetic problem among all Muslims and more recently in Quran Aloners, especially the hilarious scientific ones. It is no wonder Muslims themselves can?t seem to comprehend their own holy book and live in peace together. Virtually all denominations of Islam are segregated and confrontational. The most peaceful sect of Islam that I've come across thus far are the Ismailies (Aga Khanies), unlike the hard-core faithheads who cannot think outside their sealed patented super-duper boxes.
In the past, I've enjoyed debating with you because your approach seemed fair in the realm of logic. This reply of yours seems to me, however, as simply a way to steer the conversation into your arena of islam-bashing.
Please stick to the discussion at hand. I have deliberated several criticisms against the Quran and towards a religious personal supreme idol, so this mustn?t be a surprise. Islam-bashing, if you must put it that way, is a common trait among Muslims as well, which ofcourse they will never realize nor admit.
-
Peace Danish,
Tay, intelligence and knowledge gained and advanced over a span of 1000 years is by metes and bounds truely relevant and important and has nothing to do with my words. It is a very basic continuous life?s upward trend (called advancing stages) having combined past and present information gathered along that you can?t seem to grasp. It?s an evolution process. One can clearly see this from an education standpoint. Do you think that the level of education taught today at universities would match that of 1000 years ago?
You're stretching to prove your point, which was refuted in my first reply. Potential is not affected by the available data. Rather than take a guru from the past and present him/her with todays technology (which is intellectually dishonest in regards to the definition of intelligence), you would have to take a guru baby and raise him/her in today's society to see that your ridiculous original comment is arbitrary. Hawking is not more intelligent than Galilieo, and Galileo is not more intelligent than Aristotle. More factual based on more data, yes. But not more intelligence. You cannot measure the intelligence of dead people.
Attempt to fascinate your own convoluted statement as to ?Islam being neither a religion nor a system?. Religions are systematic in what way? By comparison, they are world apart, carry some truth and mostly capricious.
Let's ask merriam webster
Main Entry re?li?gion
Pronunciation ri-'li-j&n
Function noun
Etymology Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic scrupulous conformity conscientiousnessDon't believe Webster? Let's ask Oxford
religion
? noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.While your reply is off-tangent, I will respond by saying, ?Not conveniently but honestly and factually?. Honesty and facts are always right.
And subjective, apparently
I?m afraid Your views of the Quran, and rightly so of any other, are only fitting by convenience and extrapolation of words/verses without historical backup just to shape up the look-good feel-good faith.
So the same can be said of your anti-islamic views (minus the look-good feel-good part).
Please stick to the discussion at hand.
I tried, but you seem to be dead-set on staging another venting session. I said islam is neither a religion nor a system. Rather than address what I stated, you chose to describe my view as "misrepresented, distorted and dislodged ". Now if I did the same to you from the get-go, then there would be no discussion. What's the point of starting a thread if you don't want to discuss anything that differs from your own viewpoint?
Like I said, in the future, please address me and what I've stated as dialogue between me and you. If you're incapable of that, then I leave you in peace.
-Tay
-
Tay, intelligence and knowledge gained and advanced over a span of 1000 years is by metes and bounds truely relevant and important and has nothing to do with my words. It is a very basic continuous life?s upward trend (called advancing stages) having combined past and present information gathered along that you can?t seem to grasp. It?s an evolution process. One can clearly see this from an education standpoint. Do you think that the level of education taught today at universities would match that of 1000 years ago?
You're stretching to prove your point, which was refuted in my first reply. Potential is not affected by the available data. Rather than take a guru from the past and present him/her with todays technology (which is intellectually dishonest in regards to the definition of intelligence), you would have to take a guru baby and raise him/her in today's society to see that your ridiculous original comment is arbitrary. Hawking is not more intelligent than Galilieo, and Galileo is not more intelligent than Aristotle. More factual based on more data, yes. But not more intelligence. You cannot measure the intelligence of dead people.
My stretching is an extension to get to your head (if you don?t mind me being discreet) as to what I am talking about while you deliberately bend and twist it to talk about intelligence ONLY and claim a misconstrued refutation/victory and then acknowledge more data. Without data, there?s no potential and the more the data/information (knowledge), the more the potential (intelligence).
Pick out any today?s guru and he will teach wonders to his ancient predecessors. As far as those scientists you mentioned, the ?data? (information/knowledge) Aristotle had centuries ago is no where close to today's Hawking?s and since Hawking already knows Aristotle?s, Galileo?s and as well as his own all latest data, Hawking is a lot more informed and knowledgeable and hence vastly intelligent. Besides, unlike gurus of God, scientists have their own fields of studies and can be totally unrelated. Another bend and twist, LOL! Was that a joke, Tay! Never seen you like this before. This is getting nowhere and becoming absurd.
Attempt to fascinate your own convoluted statement as to ?Islam being neither a religion nor a system?. Religions are systematic in what way? By comparison, they are world apart, carry some truth and mostly capricious.
Let's ask merriam webster
Quote
Main Entry re?li?gion
Pronunciation ri-'li-j&n
Function noun
Etymology Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic scrupulous conformity conscientiousnessDon't believe Webster? Let's ask Oxford
Quote
religion
? noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.Earlier you mentioned ?as per Quran? and now you are mentioning ?as per English dictionaries? and that too with a pick-n-choose verbiage. What happened to those good old fashioned classical Arabic/Aramaic/Hebrew language. Yet another bend and twist to suit your need.
While your reply is off-tangent, I will respond by saying, ?Not conveniently but honestly and factually?. Honesty and facts are always right.
And subjective, apparently
Certainly not, since I?m not the one making superstitious wishful claims and twisting and bending words/verses of an ancient alleged Allah?s book fallen out of thin air to fit today?s agenda by hook or by crook.
I?m afraid Your views of the Quran, and rightly so of any other, are only fitting by convenience and extrapolation of words/verses without historical backup just to shape up the look-good feel-good faith.
So the same can be said of your anti-islamic views (minus the look-good feel-good part).
Certainly not, because I take historical information, other sources, current views and world views as legitimate accounts (as per the Quran by any stretch of means) that are extremely important to understand Quran and not just pick, choose and fit dictionary or personal meanings as whatever pleases you to budget your wishful latest agendas just because that meaning fits, and viola. Without historical support, Quran will never be properly understood, no matter how hard you try and this is exactly what is being witnessed by Quran Aloners and even by 19ers. I will guarantee you that much and you will spend all your life trying to figure it out by venting upon Allah said this and Allah said that whilst having no clue whatsoever, which has become rather a nuisance.
Like I said, in the future, please address me and what I've stated as dialogue between me and you. If you're incapable of that, then I leave you in peace.
I?m not sure what you are trying to achieve here, but my responses are addressed directly to your replies and none other. Perhaps you need some fresh air, bro.
What I am truly concerned with as of this very moment, is that, you and five other moderators, may take my criticisms to Martian levels of profanity and disband me from further participation by unjust means without a trial. Can you guarantee my save haven on this forum, if I were to stay within justified means of ?free speech?? If I am not supposed to bring about criticisms and discussions against religious belief systems on this section of forum, then please let me in advance and I shall refrain from doing so without getting ?slaughtered? out of forum.
-
Peace,
Danish, here is a small article on the differences between religion and the Quranic system
http//mahjoorquran.blogspot.com/2006/11/quranic-system-compared-to-religion-or.html
-
Peace Danish,
Without data, there?s no potential and the more the data/information (knowledge), the more the potential (intelligence).
This is where you're wrong. Potential and ability to fulfil that potential are not the same, Danish. More data does not mean more potential. 500mb of storage does not change if you have more or less data than 500mb. The potential stays the same no matter what.
This is getting nowhere and becoming absurd.
Agreed.
Earlier uou mentioned ?as per Quran? and now you are mentioning ?as per dictionaries? and that too with a pick-n-choose verbiage.
Context. "System" is a word you used in the title of this thread. You did not get "system" from the qur'an. Further, you said a religion cannot be a system. Since we're using English words, I provided the English definitions.
Certainly not, since I?m not the one making superstitious wishful claims and twisting and bending words/verses of an ancient alleged Allah?s book fallen out of thin air to fit today?s agenda by hook or by crook.
Please provide the evidence that I made a single superstitious claim, else, stand corrected.
Certainly not, because I take historical information, other sources, current views and world views as legitimate accounts that are extremely important to understand Quran and not just pick, choose and fit dictionary or personal meanings as whatever pleases you to budget your wishful latest agendas just because that meaning fits, and viola.
I see. Historical information = hadith? Other sources = no other sources? Current views = someone's opinion? World views = media? Interesting how not included in your criterion is the arabic language itself, nor your own understanding of the text. Like I said, subjective. And you accuse me of being selective?
I?m not sure what you are trying to achieve here, but my responses are addressed directly to your replies and none other.
I'm trying to achieve dialogue, between Tay and Danish, without the constant interference of your mind's compelling desire to bring the entire muslim world into the mix. You've known me long enough to know that I don't buy what the majority is selling. It's truly disappointing to see this regression coming from you.
What I am truly concerned with as of this very moment, is that, you and five other moderators, may take my criticisms to Martian levels of profanity and disband me from further participation by unjust means without a trial.
My appointment has not changed my persona. Have I ever treated you this way before?
Can you guarantee my save haven on this forum, if I were to stay within justified means of ?free speech??
The rules are the rules, bro. You know what they are and you know the limits. It's not my place to guarantee anything. I'm just a helper.
If I am not supposed to bring about criticisms and discussions against religious belief systems on this section of forum, then please let me in advance and I shall refrain from doing so without getting ?slaughtered? out of forum.
Criticism and discussion is fine, and you know that. What I'm talking about is our discussion right here and now. I presented my view, answering your question at the title of this thread, and you didn't address it. What you did was tell me it's irrelevant and that it's wishful thinking. Not very cool. If that's the way you're going to handle your threads, then let me know and I'll refrain from wasting my time.
In ending, you of all people should know that views and understandings change with time. We remain open-minded and we discuss and share thoughts and keep things respectful, and all is well. There will always be disagreement. But no one on this forum holds a monopoly on the truth. As long as you come at me with that attitude, we're better off not discussing at all.
Peace,
Tay -
Tay, JFYI, you don't need to address by 'Peace' on each and every replies and I really don't mind as I understand its a continuous converstation, but then again, I shall leave that up to you. I rather prefer being realistic.
This is where you're wrong. Potential and ability to fulfil that potential are not the same, Danish. More data does not mean more potential. 500mb of storage does not change if you have more or less data than 500mb. The potential stays the same no matter what.
Agreed.
Tay, the more the data, the more or better the potential. Your analogy of 500mb becomes restrictive and moot, simply because if I had 550mb of data, your storage cannot hold and would thus require more storage (potential) to store that xtra data and hence retain all information. Why are so bent with desperation to misunderstand a simple fact and bring about silly analogies, beats me?
Context. "System" is a word you used in the title of this thread. You did not get "system" from the qur'an. Further, you said a religion cannot be a system. Since we're using English words, I provided the English definitions.
Okay fine, and I gave you an answer either way. Further, it was you who contended towards Islam being neither a system nor a religion, and I acknowledged it.
Please provide the evidence that I made a single superstitious claim, else, stand corrected.
O com'on Tay, don't be such a naive pain in the butt. Not only yours but this entire forum is full of such claims and you know exactly what I've been talking about. You are acting like a child now.
I see. Historical information = hadith? Other sources = no other sources? Current views = someone's opinion? World views = media? Interesting how not included in your criterion is the arabic language itself, nor your own understanding of the text. Like I said, subjective. And you accuse me of being selective?
I'm sorry, but I call your above two quoted replies as "bull-crap" or victimization. This happens too often when religious fanciful and wishful adherents start losing grounds.
I'm trying to achieve dialogue, between Tay and Danish, without the constant interference of your mind's compelling desire to bring the entire muslim world into the mix. You've known me long enough to know that I don't buy what the majority is selling. It's truly disappointing to see this regression coming from you.
This regression and arrogance of yours will come out of its hibernation when majority becomes Quranists. Let me know how would you handle the minority's view then? The majority line of reasoning, is the one of most vicious and crooked argument Islamists has invented. If the majority is right, you will cheerlead, but when they are wrong you will spit out the magical verse. How convenient!!!
My appointment has not changed my persona. Have I ever treated you this way before?
The rules are the rules, bro. You know what they are and you know the limits. It's not my place to guarantee anything. I'm just a helper.
All I know that your rules as per Quran are not my rules and certainly not the rules of 6+ billion people living succesfully and meaningfully today. But ofcourse, as per your persona, the majority are wrong and they simply can't help in living their purposeful natural ways without the Quran. O well, tough luck to all "miserable" ones, they will abide in hell either way and I am sure I shall be treated well in hell, like Abraham did.
Criticism and discussion is fine, and you know that. What I'm talking about is our discussion right here and now. I presented my view, answering your question at the title of this thread, and you didn't address it. What you did was tell me it's irrelevant and that it's wishful thinking. Not very cool. If that's the way you're going to handle your threads, then let me know and I'll refrain from wasting my time.
Tay, what are bungling about now. I really don't seem to understand you. One minute you start talking about intelligence only and the next on personal issues and then on titles of thread. It is you who is hip-hopping from side to side and blaming me for it. Is this your newly moderated rule of way in expounding to expunge me. Check who I gave my first response to on this thread AFTER taxing me for a month and then you barged in to respond. Revert, read and reflect, and come to your senses please.
In ending, you of all people should know that views and understandings change with time. We remain open-minded and we discuss and share thoughts and keep things respectful, and all is well. There will always be disagreement. But no one on this forum holds a monopoly on the truth. As long as you come at me with that attitude, we're better off not discussing at all.
I just hope there's no political vandalism by "defeat" to cause an unecessary effect on "attitude" by superiority complex. That's all.
-
Peace Danish,
O com'on Tay, don't be such a naive pain in the butt. Not only yours but this entire forum is full of such claims and you know exactly what I've been talking about. You are acting like a child now.
Just one superstitious example would have been good. I really don't know what you're talking about. Superstition is something I shy away from.
I'm sorry, but I call your above two quoted replies as "bull-crap" or victimization. This happens too often when religious fanciful and wishful adherents start losing grounds.
Religious fanciful??? I guess you don't know me at all. I guess all the dialogue you and have had in the past was lost on deaf ears.
If the majority is right, you will cheerlead, but when they are wrong you will spit out the magical verse. How convenient!!!
Thanks for reading my mind and telling the future in the process, and then judging me based on these phenomena.
All I know that your rules as per Quran are not my rules...
Forum rules, bro. Not mine. Not rules as per Quran.
I really don't seem to understand you.
Ditto.
One minute you start talking about intelligence only and the next on personal issues and then on titles of thread.
As each point is made, it's addressed. This is the way we converse.
It is you who is hip-hopping from side to side and blaming me for it.
I don't know about any hip-hopping or blame. My beef is pretty simple, and I've stated it more than once now. You asked a question in your thread title. I answered to the best of my ability. You did not respond to my view, you swept it under the rug as wishful thinking. It's in black and white for all to see. I'm not evading, I'm not hip-hopping, I'm not blaming, I'm not thinking wishfully. If you're still confused, then so be it.
Is this your newly moderated rule of way in expounding to expunge me.
There's no agenda here bro. It's me...Tay. I'm talking to you about our discussion.
Check who I gave my first response to on this thread AFTER taxing me for a month and then you barged in to respond.
I didn't realize it was a private thread. I apologize.
I just hope there's no political vandalism by "defeat" to cause an unecessary effect on "attitude" by superiority complex. That's all.
If I treated you that way in the past, then I would understand your apprehension. As it stands, I do not. I've always respected you and your beliefs. I've never talked to you the way you've talked to me in this thread. If there's one thing you can take from these most recent exchanges, let it be that I harbor no ill will. I maintain my respect for you and your beliefs. I am, however, disappointed that we've come to this point.
May peace be upon you,
Tay -
Just one superstitious example would have been good. I really don't know what you're talking about. Superstition is something I shy away from.
How about a deity named ALLAH and HIS words called Quran??? Do you personally know anything about this Allah to begin with?
Religious fanciful??? I guess you don't know me at all. I guess all the dialogue you and have had in the past was lost on deaf ears.
I guess so, pretty sad.
Thanks for reading my mind and telling the future in the process, and then judging me based on these phenomena.
Kyle taught me the secrets of mental phenomenon.
Forum rules, bro. Not mine. Not rules as per Quran.
I guess forum are current and superior, but not the Quran, which is fine with me.
Ditto.
Fair enough.
As each point is made, it's addressed. This is the way we converse.
Must change forum rules then pertaining to off-tangent addressing. Nevermind, things change around pretty fast here to catch up to. But then, must be my sluggish mind. -X
I don't know about any hip-hopping or blame. My beef is pretty simple, and I've stated it more than once now. You asked a question in your thread title. I answered to the best of my ability. You did not respond to my view, you swept it under the rug as wishful thinking. It's in black and white for all to see. I'm not evading, I'm not hip-hopping, I'm not blaming, I'm not thinking wishfully. If you're still confused, then so be it.
You didn't answer to thread title but to a specific post on my come-back. Nevertheless, almost every thread on this entire forum strays off one way or the other. I guess I'm on the Watchful Squadron Eagle Eye's top list to spite upon while the beautiful singing Robins and Finches are petted?
There's no agenda here bro. It's me...Tay. I'm talking to you about our discussion.
Okay Tay, understood. My bad.'(
I didn't realize it was a private thread. I apologize.
You simply didn't catch my words, how silly of me. I wish I knew there were private threads.
If I treated you that way in the past, then I would understand your apprehension. As it stands, I do not. I've always respected you and your beliefs. I've never talked to you the way you've talked to me in this thread. If there's one thing you can take from these most recent exchanges, let it be that I harbor no ill will. I maintain my respect for you and your beliefs. I am, however, disappointed that we've come to this point.
Trust me, I had the same feelings and would rather not become emotional and disspirited but brush it off to begin anew. )
Perhaps we shall meet again in good spirits. peace