Western Concepts: Are they Compatible with Islam??

[c0de]

@ Tao

If you mean by materialism that mankind should enjoy the fruits of his ingenuity then yes I am unashamedly a materialist.

And how will you stop man from wanting more and more until that drive to enjoy the fruits becomes rabid consumerism? Your philosophy is based on the satisfaction of desire and instinct is it not? What will you do then to tame the human instinct?

Boom boom!! Every priest, monk, Iman, or any other that chooses that path both deliberately puts themselves on a pedestal and is held there by his 'flock'. So please spare me the nonsense.

This is not a criticism of religion. It is criticism of the herd mentality of most men. I can apply these same words of yours to the minions of Richard Dawkins.

lol, where in the muslim world will you see more wealth displayed than in a mosque? Regardeless money is the means, power is the ends. Islam overtly loves power more than any religion.

Again, nothing to do with Islam. I already stated that is the work of a materialistic establishment. Not religion.

Nonsense. Any barter system attempts to make profit out of scarcity. Thus scarcity is designed into the system by the greedy. You seem to have a very poor grasp of even basic economics.

Where in Islam is a barter system enforced? And what does this have to do with my objection? I said that religion does enforce charity. What other systems on your list enforce that? Capitalism? Communism?

I have proved to myself beyond all reasonable doubt that all holy books are the work of men AND that there is not one shred of evidence for any god. That is patently good enough for me. As I KNOW you are incapable of presenting any evidence to prove me wrong I will stick with it.

Exactly, you have proved it to yourself. And you have just admitted your hardcore bias. Contradicting your own statements about how you are unbiased. This is why no counter evidence is ever accepted by you.

[DrumR]

Greetings all

I have not responded for some time to this thread as I have been working upon a coalescence in my own mind of those ideas that have been presented thus far. There is a clarification I should like to obtain to assist in that process from "those" in the know.

What would be the difference, if any, between a "Muslim" and an "Islamist?"


Would it be correct to say that a Muslim is one of the "faithful" and an Islamist is one who endeavors to propagate a Worldly State based upon Muslim Spiritual teachings? Either/or? Neither/nor? Expansion and illumination would be appreciated.

[farhan]

<font face="Verdana"><font size="2">

Originally Posted by DrumR

The Shareeah ideal appears to be more in line with the view that:
the stability of the community has priority over the rights of the individual coupled with the implied assumption that;
the individual is not sufficiently up to the task of discerning the differences involved.

The Anglo-American ideal <2> appears to be more in line with the view that:
a citizen, having reached the age of their majority, is to be considered as a competent adult sufficient to all tasks required of them i.e.; the steady advancement of the society.

I don't think that's the case. Stability of community is an issue in both ideals (eg french ban on religious symbols in general & Hijab in particular, which is being prescribed in UK too). Similarly individual's reason isn't considered sufficient in any society, otherwise theoretically there was no reason of having any form of constitution. The difference in more or less of where you draw the line.

And then there is the problem of majority. One cant equate physiological age of majority to psychological majority. You must have seen many minors who talk very major, & many majors who are still so teenage. It mostly depends upon the ideals of the society, their collective consciousness. If ideals are teenage, people will remain teenage throughout their life. Very few people are actually strong enough to evolve out of their "tribal beliefs". Which means psychologically evolved people will always be in minority. So we will always have a huge majority of psychological minors, & we will always need laws.

One big difference between Islamic & AA ideals is that unlike the AA ideals, "islam proper" which is the seed of Islamic ideals; is not law, but metaphysics. This metaphysics manifests itself in the forsm of a personal/social psychology, which in turn manifests itself in the form of Moral personal & state law. So Islam does put heavy emphasis on training people psychologically (to push them towards majority) , & at the same time it emphasizes upon a strict law too. Simply putting it, islam is just a bit more serious (compared to AA worldview) about holistic progress, discipline & justice in human society.

Originally Posted by DrumR

It is good that one initiates the process by asking the question. The answers to those questions are not all that difficult, a long process perhaps, but not difficult. The arguments presented, and their reasoning, will be evident of themselves once the principals have been established. What follows is a poor attempt, at its best, to lay the foundation of the Reasonable Man concepts.

First one asks "What constitutes a reasonable man?" and searches, with further questions, for definitions to build a foundation upon.

Q. What does "reasonable" mean?
A. reason-able is, quite simply put, the ability to reason.

Q. What is reason?
Q. Who then is capable of reason?
A. Those who are considered as adult and as sane.

Given that all men are capable of reason, other than the exceptions stated above, a further clarification is found wanting.

Q. What differentiates a "reasonable man" from other men?
A. That displayed majority use of reason over passion in arriving at decisions.

The problem with defining reason is not that its difficult, but that its an infinite loop. The ability to reason ..... monkeys, squirrels, rats, they all have it. A monkey will always find a way to get the bananas. He makes some logical calculations (gravity, muscle power, reach etc), reasons pros/cons (how many bananas, how much hunger, how many threats/men around etc) , & gets the bananas. An insane man also reasons to some extant.

Combining "those who are capable of reason" with the differentiation of use we have:

A person who is both adult and sane and that uses Dis-passionate decision making and reason for the majority of those decisions arrived at during the course of their adult lives may be considered as a "Man of reason," otherwise known as a "reasonable man."

The above is both a simplistic introduction to, and the beginnings of, a rather long series of Q&A that would comprise the basis of the reasonable man theorems.

This is more or less where my mind was taking me. Although here too, we have to define passion. There are good passions & bad passions. You don't achieve nirvana if you don't want nirvana, while nirvana itself implies no-wish. How can one achieve no-want-ness if he doesn't want it? In some schools of Sufism, one doesn’t achieve non-attachment till he doesn’t develop a longing for God. So there are layers/levels of passion; need, want, wish, longing etc. A reasonable person would be a person whose passions don't cloud his reason. But there is no such thing as absolutely dispassionate decision making.

Another interesting fact is that powerful people (decision makers) are almost always passionate.

It should also be noted that, in accord with the above provided definition of reason, many aspects of law for the discovery and/or worship of deity may, in themselves, be considered as non-rational and thus outside of the bounds of reason.

<font face="Verdana">If belief in the existence of an intelligent first cause is irrational, then a beli

[farhan]

It should also be noted that, in accord with the above provided definition of reason, many aspects of law for the discovery and/or worship of deity may, in themselves, be considered as non-rational and thus outside of the bounds of reason.

If belief in the existence of an intelligent first cause is irrational, then a belief in no-deity-ism is even more irrational. Nobody ever tries to define NotGodness. People usually negate God, & that's not exactly a definition.

Originally Posted by DrumR

The un-mentioned portion of the Reasonable Man Theorems, which is arrived at through a similar drawn out series of questions and answers, leads to the operating concept that:

All social adults, unless and until they are proved otherwise, are to be considered as Reasonable Men.

Thus the answer to the question that you had posed is that one needs not prove a person reasonable, as this is assumed from the basic definitions developed from the previous post. The burden of proof is required for the contrary opinion - i.e.

"Has this person shown, by a combination of words and deeds, that they are to be considered as less than a Man of Reason?"

How does a reasonable man declare other men reasonable? Does a non-reasonable man declares other non-reasonable men non-reasonable? Do under-graduates judge under-graduates? You need to be a little bit higher from your subject to define it. A reasonable man can only say that the other person is "like me". Only a meta-reasonable-man can define reasonable man. Unlike Islam, AA thinking doesn’t have any concept of meta-reason. So at best RM can say,"they are people like me/us, & I/we are reasonable". He can never define reason.

IMO everything is reasonable, from amoeba to the greatest path finders of humanity. The difference is of their level. Whenever a group of people are at a certain level of reasonability, they declare it as the standard, which in reality is nothing more than them collectively saying, "we are awesome"

[farhan]

Originally Posted by DrumR

What would be the difference, if any, between a "Muslim" and an "Islamist?"

Would it be correct to say that a Muslim is one of the "faithful" and an Islamist is one who endeavors to propagate a Worldly State based upon Muslim Spiritual teachings? Either/or? Neither/nor? Expansion and illumination would be appreciated.

A muslim is who submits himself to the will of God, as it is expressed in his revelation.

A mu'min is a person of faith, firm belief, & not just physical submission.

Islamist is a political label created by the west to control people's minds. There is no theological definition of this word. You will find a lot of these definitionless words around. For example the killer of 3 people is called terrorist by the killers of 3 million, who call themselves peace keepers.

Islam can be spread in many different ways, doesnt necessarily have to be a state. Although you can never overlook the fact that a huge majority of muslims always want "more Islam" in the government/national ideals (Turkey is an example), which if left without foreign intervention, will always become something like what gets labelled as Islamic state. Which is kind of "the democratic right" of people.

The word Islamic state itself needs to be defined first.

[farhan]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

If we do not kill religion we will kill our species.

tao

You made me think, at last.

Whats the big deal with this specie-conservationism anyways? We are nothing more than a product of fusion garbage, & gazzilion years later, we will be sucked up by some time-space convolution into coincidence knows what. Our heavy nuclei are nothing more than slowpoison for universe.

The only logical thing humans can do is to device a technology to disintegrate our matter, for the sake of father coincidence & mother universe.

The rest is mere superstition.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by farhan

You made me think, at last.

Ohhh I doubt that, probably just a head cold.

Whats the big deal with this specie-conservationism anyways? We are nothing more than a product of fusion garbage, & gazzilion years later, we will be sucked up by some time-space convolution into coincidence knows what. Our heavy nuclei are nothing more than slowpoison for universe.

The only logical thing humans can do is to device a technology to disintegrate our matter, for the sake of father coincidence & mother universe.

The rest is mere superstition.

And here we have in a nutshell my problem with the direction of Islam, fundamentalist Christianity and all the other nutters that are so screwed up with fictional garbage that they no longer even value life. If you want to die so much then kill yourself but do not think you have the right to kill another. Your above posts are filled with the nonsense of victim mentality and you blame the west for it. You use so many words to say absolutely nothing! In actuality it is your religion that makes you a victim, yeh I know you could never admit that to yourself, but it is a fact. Your religion does not teach you to be happy and progressive. It teaches subservience, slavery, fear and the promise that only in death can you be free of this. Well sorry to burst your bubble but when you die you will be dead and nothing more. And all this misery you feel will be all you ever were. Now how sad is that?

tao

[Dharmaatmaa]

And now we see a rare astronomicl phenomenon: I agree with Tao Equus!!! I thought it would never happen.

[c0de]

@ DrumR

What would be the difference, if any, between a "Muslim" and an "Islamist?"

The same difference between a Christian and a member of the KKK.

[farhan]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And here we have in a nutshell my problem with the direction of Islam, fundamentalist Christianity and all the other nutters that are so screwed up with fictional garbage that they no longer even value life.

All I wanted from you was to prove rationally that galactically speaking (or universally speaking) there is an inherent value of human existence, forget that, prove there is a value of solar system. Not a diatribe on my beliefs, but a proof of yours. It seems you were unable to do it. And so, you replied with this

If you want to die so much then kill yourself but do not think you have the right to kill another. Your above posts are filled with the nonsense of victim mentality and you blame the west for it. In actuality it is your religion that makes you a victim, yeh I know you could never admit that to yourself, but it is a fact. Your religion does not teach you to be happy and progressive. It teaches subservience, slavery, fear and the promise that only in death can you be free of this.

You fail to realize that you & I are a gazillionth of the mass-energy of the universe. Life ..... thats just a coincidence, nothing else (or is it?). What I or you consider important, right or wrong is of no value here. You cant think in galactic terms...right? Take a look at the bolded words, they have got nothing with what I was talking. I am just thinking too philosophically, & that unearthed a lot of repressed insecurities from within you. Otherwise my above post had nothing to do with victimisation, progress, slavery etc.

Try to imagine you are a meteorite hovering above the milky way, a few light years from the galactic center. Detach yourself from all emotional human values. Take a look at millions of stars burning, dying, & try to figure out what I was saying. Think ...."value"......... what exactly is that? What is more valuable than hydrogen?

Well sorry to burst your bubble but when you die you will be dead and nothing more. And all this misery you feel will be all you ever were. Now how sad is that?

If I wont be, then I am least bothered about what I ever were.

For the record, I never said I dont value life. That was a baseless assumption from your side, the fundamental argument of your diatribe.

[c0de]

@ Tao + Farhan + Dharm


Ok maybe I am over simplifying this... but all I saw was a very funny parody that Farhan did of the Athiestic mindset... and Tao thought Farhan was being serious and that's what he actually believed. If that is what happened, let me just add the following:

L

M

A

O

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by farhan

All I wanted from you was to prove rationally that galactically speaking (or universally speaking) there is an inherent value of human existence, forget that, prove there is a value of solar system. Not a diatribe on my beliefs, but a proof of yours. It seems you were unable to do it. And so, you replied with this

If you want to die so much then kill yourself but do not think you have the right to kill another. Your above posts are filled with the nonsense of victim mentality and you blame the west for it. In actuality it is your religion that makes you a victim, yeh I know you could never admit that to yourself, but it is a fact. Your religion does not teach you to be happy and progressive. It teaches subservience, slavery, fear and the promise that only in death can you be free of this.

You fail to realize that you & I are a gazillionth of the mass-energy of the universe. Life ..... thats just a coincidence, nothing else (or is it?). What I or you consider important, right or wrong is of no value here. You cant think in galactic terms...right? Take a look at the bolded words, they have got nothing with what I was talking. I am just thinking too philosophically, & that unearthed a lot of repressed insecurities from within you. Otherwise my above post had nothing to do with victimisation, progress, slavery etc.

Try to imagine you are a meteorite hovering above the milky way, a few light years from the galactic center. Detach yourself from all emotional human values. Take a look at millions of stars burning, dying, & try to figure out what I was saying. Think ...."value"......... what exactly is that? What is more valuable than hydrogen?

If I wont be, then I am least bothered about what I ever were.

For the record, I never said I dont value life. That was a baseless assumption from your side, the fundamental argument of your diatribe.

The value of human existence is human and human alone. The universe is as unaware of us as we are of the dust mites that live out their lives in your carpet. We are only important to ourselves, not to any supernatural all seeing, all knowing fiction. Thus we have a responsibility to ourselves and that which we love to perpetuate our selves through our children. That is the ultimate truth of nature. We will not remain static, we will evolve and change but we can only do so if we value life itself. Islam and religions of that ilk value death and the afterlife more than life itself. That is my point. They are in opposition to nature, not with it.
I re-read your post to see if I mistook your intent. I still see you saying the same thing. And it fits in with the collective essence of your posting in general. So I cannot be blamed if I did indeed misunderstand you.

tao

[siddhartha]

Originally Posted by DrumR

Secularism: Politics and Society;
Western Concepts, Are they Compatible with Islam??

A thread was initiated entitled:
"Is Islam compatible with Western concepts of freedom"

A query was raised that was quite the opposite of the original thread. I had thought that someone would have seen the obvious and would have started such a thread based upon that query.

I had noted that after many pages of comments had been written that such a thread had not been created and so here one is.
I put these questions to the Islamic readership in particular the following questions:

In general:
Are Western Concepts such as individual freedoms, freedom of religious choice, and many as yet unnamed freedoms, to be considered as compatible with with the Teachings as found in the Koran and/or other Teachings of Islam?

If a Western Concept is found in agreement with the teachings of Islam, why would that be so?
I.e. :
What aspect of which particular Basic and/or Revealed teaching(s) of Islam is indicated.


If a Western Concept is found in agreement with the Koran, why would that be so?
I.e. :
What aspect of which particular Basic and/or Revealed teaching(s) of the Koran is indicated.

If a Western Concept is found to be in agreement with the Koran but is found to be in conflict with one or more of the other Teachings of Islam, how is this to be dealt with?

Interesting post , DrumR.

And an interesting thread indeed as well. And is islamic society compatible with secularism, humanism,democracy, liberalism and respect for human rights and dignity! This is the multi-million dollar question.

The first lady ever elected to lead a muslim state in the islamic world, Benazir Bhutto, was brutally murdered in cold blood by islamic terrorists last year.

Pakistan and Bangladesh , even though stated to be democracies , has seen more years of military coups and dictatorships than democratically elected governments. And no need for me to elaborate on Afghanistan.

Most of the islamic states are theocracies and monarchies, and power is not shared with the civilians or common man.

Perhaps the only islamic nation that came close to being compatible with these concepts would be Kemal Ataturks Turkey.

But for that Ataturk had to divorce Turkey from its islamic past and traditions, and place emphasis on turkish nationalism ,culture and language as a focal point.

Kemal Ataturk was a brilliant military commander, liberator of Turkey, creator of the Republic of Turkey as well as its first president, a superb statesman and a radical and courageous social reformer.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Born as a muslim, his views on Islam are quite well-known.

"Through the abusive interpretation of ignorant and filthy priests ... Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives."

--- Mustafa Kemal Ataturk


He was the man , who made Turkey, till then known as the 'Sick man of Europe', into a progressive, powerful and developed state.

I believe that at these turbulent times, it is all the more important to study the views, teachings and legacy of this great man and humanist, who is held in tremondous respect and honour all over the world, and who is an institution in himself.

[DrumR]

Greetings to all who have participated in this thread.

As is quite apparent to many I have been absent from the board in general for quite some time. During that period of time I have visited and examined much of the content of this thread while in the process of arriving at some semblance of a conclusion to the original query posed and I am of the belief that such has come to pass.

The prime query being: "Western Concepts: Are they compatible with Islam?"

I now say that at the very base and core of Western beliefs there exists a minor discrepancy that, to me, proves to be the major hurdle for the Western compatibility with Islam. While it may be argued that reason is employed by both Western Law and Islamic (Shaeera) Law, it appears to me that the Western attitude, of including Religion as an "un-reasonable" factor, which prevents the meeting of the Western mindset with the Islamic mindset.

For as long as the stubborn "Western" insistence, that the worldly external social order should be as independent of the influence of factors religious in nature, persists so shall their in-compatibility with Islam.

Peace - DrumR

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by DrumR

Western Concepts: Are they compatible with Islam

People have worked through "minor discrepancies" before. There's no reason for me to believe that this is one we can't surmount.

Over 4.5 Muslims live in America, so it can't be a totally unreconcilable issue.