The Definition of Islam for An Atheist
Sarah
commands of Allah without objection. This is the true essence of
Islam. By obeying Allah and observing His commands, the Muslim would
be in harmony with the universe in which he lives, for everything in
this universe abides by the commands of Allah.
It is an established fact that everything in this universe follows
certain rule, and an unalterable law to which it submits; the sun, the
moon, the stars, the night, the day, the land, the trees, and the
beasts; all submit to a rule which Allah, the Creator, has designated
for all these things. Even man himself, when you consider his physical
construction, and biological compounds, his need for water and
nutrition, heat, air, light, rest, or sleep you would find him
submitting to a law under which he has no choice, just like other
creatures.
WHAT IS LIFE?
Man's existence in this world and the creation of this entire universe
are not mere accidents or products of a fortuitous nature. This
universe, every single atom of it, manifests and leads us to the
realization of a Loving, Merciful and All-powerful Creator. Without a
Creator, nothing can exist. Every single soul knows that he is
existing and that his existence is dependent upon a Creator he knows
for sure that he cannot create him self. Therefore it is his duty to
know his master, the Creator.
MANKIND
Man is a unique creature. God establishes man as His representative or
deputy to govern over all other creatures in this world. He is endowed
with the faculty of REASON, which sets him apart from all other
animals. Together with this faculty to discriminate and discern, man
is given the freedom (free-will) to choose for himself a way of life
worthy of his position as God's representative or to fall lower than
the lowest of all animals or creations. Man is born pure and sinless
and is given the choice to do righteous deeds or indulge in sins.
REVELATIONS
From the beginning of mankind, our Creator sent prophets to convey His
REVELATION and to invite human beings to the path of true PEACE and
OBEDIENCE to the ONE TRUE GOD.
This is ISLAM. This message is conveyed towards successive generations
of man through the different prophets, all inviting mankind to the
same path. However all the earlier messages or revelations from God
were distorted by people of later generations.
As a result, pure Revelation from our Creator was adulterated and
polluted with myths, superstitions, idol worship and irrational
philosophical ideologies. The religion of God in a sense was lost in a
plethora of religions. Human history is a testament of man's drift
between light and darkness, but God out of His Abundant Love for
mankind has not forsaken us. Islam is not a new religion. It is, in
essence, the same message and guidance which Allah revealed to all His
prophets, like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, David,
Moses, Jesus and Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Them). But the message that
was revealed to prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is Islam in its
comprehensive, complete and final form.
Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to
Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to
Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We
make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to
Allah (in Islam)."
Jon Schild
> The lexical meaning of Islam is submission, and adherence to the
> commands of Allah without objection. This is the true essence of
> Islam. By obeying Allah and observing His commands, the Muslim would
> be in harmony with the universe in which he lives, for everything in
> this universe abides by the commands of Allah.
> It is an established fact that everything in this universe follows
> certain rule, and an unalterable law to which it submits; the sun, the
> moon, the stars, the night, the day, the land, the trees, and the
> beasts; all submit to a rule which Allah, the Creator, has designated
> for all these things. Even man himself, when you consider his physical
> construction, and biological compounds, his need for water and
> nutrition, heat, air, light, rest, or sleep you would find him
> submitting to a law under which he has no choice, just like other
> creatures.
Aside from being massively off-topic (unless you consider the Koran to
be SF) this raises a question. Why a definition for an atheist? Do
atheists need different definitions? If so, why?
T Guy
> Aside from being massively off-topic (unless you consider the Koran to
> be SF)
(T Guy):
You may well have answered your own question there.
(Jon):
this raises a question. Why a definition for an atheist? Do atheists
need different definitions? If so, why?
(T Guy):
Yes, I was going to ask for the definition of 'Naziism' for an
atheist, given the OP's opening remark of 'The lexical
meaning of Islam is submission, and adherence to the commands of Allah
without objection. '
T Guy
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:he62m8$l6j$1...@news.xmission.com:
Those who self-identify as atheists, at least online, often insist
on using different definitions for some pretty common words,
including "atheist."
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Strobe
More specifically, the argument for an atheist must not cite any other
religion.
Many of the religious use 'facts' from their own teachings to debunk
other religions; such arguments would mean nothing to an atheist.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:fcvdg5hijguqetk08...@4ax.com:
And theists, of course, are just as stoopid.
Quadibloc
> However all the earlier messages or revelations from God
> were distorted by people of later generations.
Whereas Islam was not distorted, which is why the _true_ followers of
the just and loving God invaded and conquered Christian Egypt and
Greece, Buddhist Afghanistan, Hindu Indonesia, Zoroastrian Iran - and
even in the present day, many Muslim nations discriminate against
followers of other faiths.
When the Jews of Palestine fought back in 1948, and won freedom for
themselves from persecution by its Muslim population, this was
considered across pretty well the whole Muslim world as a monumental
offence against the natural order of things... and this attitude still
has not been given up, leading to more and more wars.
Those who behave peacefully towards all men are more likely to have in
their possession the undistorted message from God.
John Savard
Mike Schilling
> On Nov 20, 1:05 am, Sarah <love.isla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However all the earlier messages or revelations from God
>> were distorted by people of later generations.
>
> Whereas Islam was not distorted, which is why the _true_ followers
> of
> the just and loving God invaded and conquered Christian Egypt and
> Greece, Buddhist Afghanistan, Hindu Indonesia, Zoroastrian Iran
While followers of the peaceful Christ merely conquered all of Africa
and the Americas.
Shawn Wilson
> commands of Allah without objection. This is the true essence of
> Islam. By obeying Allah and observing His commands, the Muslim would
> be in harmony with the universe in which he lives, for everything in
> this universe abides by the commands of Allah.
In English it's "God", not "Allah". 'Allah" is not the name of the
Islamic god, as people are wont to assume. It is the Arabic word for
God. The god of Islam is the god of the Jews is the god of
Christianity. All the same god.
Shawn Wilson
> When the Jews of Palestine fought back in 1948, and won freedom for
> themselves from persecution by its Muslim population,
<guffaw> Nice bit of revisionism on a bunch of Europeans deciding to
colonize and oppress, followed by ethnically cleansing, a bunch of
Muslims who had been minding their own business...
Quadibloc
It's true that the British did impose colonial rule on the Palestine
mandate. This, however, happened long before 1948; it was the result
of the fall of the Turkish Empire during World War I.
Generally speaking, immigrants who entered a country under colonial
rule are still accepted as having a right to be there. Thus, for Fiji
or Uganda to expel their East Indian populations, or for Sri Lanka to
expel its Tamils, this is what would be condemned as ethnic cleansing.
It is indeed historical fact that prior to the founding of the State
of Israel in 1948, there had been increasing violence against the
Jewish population there. This is why the *United Nations* partitioned
Palestine - not Britain acting unilaterally. The 1947 line of
partition was drawn so that it only included the places where the Jews
lived.
However, the idea that Jews could escape from Muslim rule, even as a
way of escaping from violence, was so intolerable to the Islamic world
that the countries surrounding Israel descended on it immediately
following partition. As a direct consequence of this act of military
aggression, instead of coming into existence with the 1947 boundaries,
Israel held on to a larger area of territory, in order that it would
be practical for it to defend itself in future, after its neighbors
had proven their willingness to engage in aggression against it.
This is not "revisionism". If you read contemporary news accounts of
the events in the Middle East of 1948, this is what you will find.
It's only more recently, particularly since the oil embargo of 1973,
and since large numbers of Muslims have entered Europe as immigrants,
that voices have started to make themselves heard in the United States
and elsewhere in the Western world that argue that perhaps the Arab
side of this issue has something to be said for it as well.
If you go back and read newspaper accounts of the Six-Day War, for
example, you won't find people accusing Israel of aggression. Instead,
people at the time knew very clearly that Egypt had been stockpiling
armaments to get into a position to wipe Israel off the map in a
surprise attack - and that it had been getting these weapons, not
through legitimate channels, but from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact
nations - the same tyranny that was constantly threatening the world's
democratic nations with nuclear annihilation, suppressing freedom in
its own territory in a fashion reminiscent of the Nazis, denying
Eastern Europe and the Baltics the freedom they should have received
just like France, Holland, and other countries at the end of World War
II.
And, of course, this picture of the Soviet Union and Communism was not
a false one - it is confirmed now that the people of Eastern Europe
can tell their stories, it was confirmed by the Vietnamese boat
people, it was confirmed by Solzhenitsyn's _Gulag Archipelago_.
One can look at the bloody violence that accompanied the partition of
India in 1947, or the plight of non-Muslims in Lebanon, Indonesia, and
Egypt, to see that Muslim nations are, in general, not disposed to
treat non-Muslims with the kind of fairness and equality we extend to
minority groups.
So where is there any "revisionism"? What we thought in the past, I
still think today - and the facts confirm that there is no need to
change.
John Savard
William December Starr
brain-dead as their Christian brethren.
-- wds
William December Starr
Strobe <Str...@nyc.Beep!Beep!.com> said:
> More specifically, the argument for an atheist must not cite any
> other religion.
>
> Many of the religious use 'facts' from their own teachings to
> debunk other religions; such arguments would mean nothing to an
> atheist.
Take it a step further: many of the religions use facts from their
own teachings to prove that the facts of their own teachings are
true.
-- wds
DouhetSukd
>When the Jews of Palestine fought back in 1948, and won freedom for
>themselves from persecution by its Muslim population
That's rather disingenuous, innit? I bet the Jews of 1948 could have
named adherents of another religion entirely as their main
persecutors.
And the Jews, for all the justified reasons why they were given Israel
back, were still booting out the locals.
Let's not blame anti-Semitism on Muslims so much, shall we? Given our
own societies' gratuitous past treatments of Jews.
> Those who behave peacefully towards all men are more likely to have in
> their possession the undistorted message from God.
Well said (spoken as an agnostic who doesn't really care about Godly
existence or not, but rather the impact on human behavior).
In the defense of Islam, I would say that our "enlightened" Western/
Christian legal and societal positions have been arrived after
centuries of precisely the same kind of deplorable behavior that you,
rightly, attribute to current Islam.
Islam is a younger religion in absolute terms. In terms of engaging
in public debate within democratic societies about its role, it is an
infant. Most Muslim countries were until fairly recently either
European or Ottoman colonies. And, even now, very few Muslim
countries could be counted as democracies.
It will be interesting what choices Muslims will take, when given
governments which truly govern on their behalf, rather than drum up
external enemies to seize power or incite religious hysteria. I bet
that a modernized form of Islam is not as incompatible with tolerance
as many would have it.
One big barrier to modernization however seems to be its explicit
doctrine of immutability - i.e. what Mohammed said is all that there
will ever be to say and different circumstances do not warrant
adaptation. That, combined with the lack of a central doctrinal body,
like the Vatican - even if the Pope does not directly speak for non-
Catholics.
DouhetSukd
Very well made points.
However, once the USSR collapsed, Israel ended up being top dog in the
region, militarily. Precisely because the Arabs' weapon source had
dried up.
Sidestepping the issue of not-yet-existing Iranian nukes, in terms of
military strength, Israel's existence is not at risk and has not been
since the 90s. Yet, their position has been to pretend that they are.
I happen to believe that it would be in Israel's best interest to
reach an accommodation with regards to the Palestinians. Nobody is
asking them to go to 1948 borders. But they should go back to 1967's
and grant normal, though demilitarized, statehood to Palestine. What
they can't do is to let descendants of 1948 Palestinians go back into
Israel proper - that would erase the very notion of Israel.
If they then get attacked by Palestinians... Well, let's just say
that I was generally on the side of Israel when it responded to
attacks coming out of Lebanon in 2006. There were some specific
issues with cluster bombs being used and the like, but they certainly
have a right to retaliate against sovereign states (I still think that
Condi's "birth pangs" remarks was inane, diplomatically).
If you follow the Arab-Israeli conflicts, you can't help noticing how
much lower public perception is of Israel's behavior than it was in
say 1967 or 1973. There are people at either end of the pro or anti
Israel spectrum that are still holding the same positions. But the
middle chunk, non-Muslims and non-Americans, are more and more
critical of Israeli behavior.
Howard Brazee
Starr) wrote:
>Take it a step further: many of the religions use facts from their
>own teachings to prove that the facts of their own teachings are
>true.
But often are very selective, when their teachings and beliefs
conflict with others who accept their holy script.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Don Aitken
Hardly surprising. People like an underdog. Israel was able to
continue presenting itself as the underdog for many years after that
should have ceased to be credible (which I would put at 1967), but the
perception has finally died.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Mike Schilling
> Nice to see that Islam proselytizers are just as annoying and
> brain-dead as their Christian brethren.
Atheist proselytizers (e.g. Dawkins) are no bargain either.
Bill Snyder
"I remember when Saturn was a car, and Richard Dawkins was a
scientist."
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
William Hyde
In fact the Christians in Malta pray to Allah, as that is the word in
their language. At the siege of Malta in the 1500s both the attackers
and some of the defenders were yelling the "Allah" in battle. Not the
Knights, of course, but the Maltese defenders.
William Hyde
Mike Schilling
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:24:48 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> Nice to see that Islam proselytizers are just as annoying and
>>> brain-dead as their Christian brethren.
>>
>> Atheist proselytizers (e.g. Dawkins) are no bargain either.
>
> "I remember when Saturn was a car, and Richard Dawkins was a
> scientist."
What's Saturn now? (A planet, of course, but that's not what you
mean.)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:gmtig5lp4g5icoqf7...@4ax.com:
> On 22 Nov 2009 04:56:28 -0500, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
>>Take it a step further: many of the religions use facts from their
>>own teachings to prove that the facts of their own teachings are
>>true.
>
> But often are very selective, when their teachings and beliefs
> conflict with others who accept their holy script.
>
When there's no objective evidence (possible) for any of them, then
obviously, anything that conflicts with what you believe must be
wrong.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling