Ben Macintyre wrote yesterday in the Times that, despite the occasional talk of a Muslim "fifth column" in Britain, there has been no scare remotely comparable to those surrounding German spies in the early years of World War II and the "Red Scares" of the 1950s:
The contrast with an earlier fifth column scare could not be more acute, or more telling. In the run-up to the Second World War, Britain was seized by a spy panic of astonishing virulence, inflamed by the press and politicians. Fifth columnists, terrorists and saboteurs were spotted everywhere, and nowhere; so many reports of suspicious doings flooded in to MI5 that the organisation came close to collapse. “There is a well-defined class of people prone to spy mania,” wrote Winston Churchill, who was not immune to the mania himself. “War is the heyday of these worthy folk.”Many reports were bogus and xenophobic; some were hilarious. One avid amateur spy-catcher reported seeing a man with a “typically Prussian neck”, and Robert Baden-Powell, the original Scout master, insisted you could spot a German spy from the way he walked. The spies were said to be poisoning chocolate, recruiting mental patients in asylums to act as a suicide squad, and sending agents into the countryside disguised as nuns, butcher’s boys and women hitch-hikers. One secret service officer became convinced that spies were communicating by leaving empty cartons of milk and other detritus in public places — a theory that was, in every way, a load of rubbish.
As a Muslim who has been paying close attention to the media since Sept 11, I'd beg to differ that society has moved on much since then. The key difference is that Britain is not facing an invasion from a regular or well-equipped army, as Britain did from Germany or the Spanish Republic did from the Nationalists who first coined the term "fifth column". The situation is more of a small, international criminal syndicate capable only of occasional, but devastating, acts of terrorism. Most British people know, whatever the media is telling them, that most Muslims couldn't possibly support such a thing.
While "official pronouncements on the threat of Islamic extremism have been deliberately nuanced, and carefully measured", the same cannot be said for the media treatment of the situation, which has been marked by ignorance and by sensationalism across the board. Newspapers have routinely given space for bigoted and inaccurate articles written by people with an agenda, notably Amir Taheri and Patrick Sookhdeo, who have often used the space to lay into ordinary Muslims, not just the extremists.
Connections are commonly drawn between perfectly innocent actions and extremism, even when it is well-known that one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other. The use of niqab (the female face covering) as a handy shorthand for extremism is one example. The Observer, this March, produced an image of a woman in niqab next to the caption: "'Tolerance is not a positive thing': Europe's Angry Young Muslims on the World Service". The World Service is a BBC radio station and a set of radio broadcasts, so the picture could not possibly have been related to the programme unless the BBC had used a similar picture to illustrate it. It was clearly a library picture, used as a convenient symbol for hardline Muslims. A similar example appeared on the front of last Thursday's Evening Standard: the caption "The Great Muslim Debate", accompanied by two eyes looking from behind a black veil. Quite apart from the fact that face veiling is a long-established tradition among Muslims, although it is not universal, it does not have any link with extremism: not all those who wear it are extremists, and not all women connected with extremists wears it. Despite the fact that most of those actually involved in terrorism are men, they choose to illustrate their "great debate", brought about by these extremists' activities, with a stereotype about our women!
Newspapers routinely insert "scare facts" into stories to add spice despite those facts not always being relevant. For example, if someone comes from the same town as one of the 7th July bombers, this may well get mentioned even if the two did not know each other. If someone was involved in the Tablighi Jama'at, this will be mentioned, despite the TJ being such a vast operation that one can easily be involved at a basic level and never meet any of the people who attracted the suspicion. And how can we forget the routine outrages about concessions to Muslim sensibilities - the recent fuss over the so-called burka gown, invented by a non-Muslim who saw a gap in the market in gowns which don't really provide for much modesty, and the manufactured controversies about bans on Christmas and piggy-banks?
These tactics are used across the board, from tabloids and heavies of both left and right. Complaints about such behaviour often go unaddressed - as with my complaint about the inappropriate picture in the Observer in March. I could not really say how much of it is down to ignorance, how much to laziness and how much to a straightforward desire to sell papers regardless of whose toes have to be trodden on, and how much is representative of something more sinister. If it does not amount to a mid-20th-century "fifth column" scare, it's probably because we're not in the mid 20th century any longer; the fact is that it has become fashionable, and acceptable, to malign an entire religious community in the press.
Well, now, one important difference is that nazi sympathisers before World War II hadn't murdered a few dozen people chosen at random.
Well, now, one important difference is that nazi sympathisers before World War II hadn't murdered a few dozen people chosen at random.
Of course they hadn't they were spies not terrorists.They don't have to kill people they're supposed to gather intelligence so that a military can.
In terms of general sympathy towards far-right forces in Europe that existed on all levels of society but didn't necessarily amount to loyalty towards Germany.
Today the fifth column are the zionists and their poodles in government.
Thersites,
When you talk about murder, I think we the first world have a more impressive murderous history - both past and present; a lot of historians and rational researchers have documented this.
There is little disagreement in this area.
If you take the total of random/mindless violence carried out by muslim-terrorists over the past 50 years and count the numbers of people killed therein, the numbers are shockingly low compared to what we have seen from the first world (not to count the killings of their own minority citizens such as in America during the racism days - oh, not like it is over).
So, I don't understand why these muslim-terrorists are competing with us and our illegit child (Israel) that we have placed in their bedroom.
Muslims can never defeat us in (this war of) barbarity.
Yes, Dr M. Those darn Zionists are really going to blow us up on the tube, aren't they?
Care to pose that question to the survivors of the USS Liberty pRickler? Ever heard of the Lavon affair? Jonathan Pollard? AIPAC spy scandals? If not, I suggest you shut that hole you call a mouth and seek the answers.
I heard you BNP scum now supporting Israel, so your sycophantic disposition is hardly surprising.
"Of course they hadn't they were spies not terrorists."
Real terrorists and imaginary spies.
"If you take the total of random/mindless violence carried out by muslim-terrorists over the past 50 years and count the numbers of people killed therein, the numbers are shockingly low compared to what we have seen from the first world (not to count the killings of their own minority citizens such as in America during the racism days - oh, not like it is over)."
Not at all, Synonym: the first world specialises in aimed, deliberate and puposeful violence with definite ends. If- say- Israel had engaged in deliberate killing of randomly chosen Lebanese civilians then we'd be talking about tens or even hundreds of thousands dead. It's an interesting moral dilemma: the first world kills more, but it doesn't kill as many as it could; terrorists kill as many as they can.
No British Jew is going to murder his fellow British citizens on the tube or anywhere else. I wish I could say that about British Muslims.
'Yes, Dr M. Those darn Zionists are really going to blow us up on the tube, aren't they?'
'Those darn Zionists' conducted a brutal terrorist campaign against both Arab civilians and British forces in Palestine after WW2. It was a mark of the fascist movement at the time, led by Mosley, that they attempted to spread the blame from Zionists to all Jews in Britain, much as Mosley's ideological descendants do the same today with Muslims.
Oh no Pickler,
That's too cheap. We don't do darn stuffs like that.... like blowing up tubes and cheap targets. That's for muslim-terrorist and all the other beady terror cells.
You should be familiar with our capabilities by now particularly in the area of weapons of must destruction. We in the first world take on only comprehensive targets, like whole cities, whole countries, an entire people, nations, cultures, races, etc.
We don't deal in home-made fertiliser and nail bombs, or dynamite straps. Frankly that is too primitive for where we are now.
We tend to look at the big picture, with big bombs.
To start blowing up tubes is a bit of a maniac reactionary behaviour. Really. We are not like that, we are cold blooded callous murderers. And the way we do it, you won't find any blood or body parts at the scene. You will find just dust and some smoke. You won't even find fires.
Yeepie! we have perfected this art over the centuries.
Whose blowing up their fellow citizens?
No answer.
"Who's" not "whose". Arrgh.
This post is about a fifth column or enemy within. It is, of course, ridiculous to say that all or most Muslims are the enemy within, but it is not ridiculous to say that some Muslims are, or that some interpretations of Islam are a threat.
Instead of going on about other countries, why aren't moderate Muslims condemning the extremists, who would kill them as soon as they would kill a non-Muslim?
Cant read too well can you BNP scum? You're done pRickler.
Thersites,
You wrote:
the first world specialises in aimed, deliberate and puposeful violence with definite ends
Of course, every violence is carried out for a definite end.
Are you saying, one end is more noble that the other; and the noble one in this case are those of the first world and Israel.
Oh, that's interesting!
What was the definite end of the July 7th nutters? Who said anything about nobility? Deliberate aimed violence with specific targets is more effective- a rather different thing.
Thersites,
The people who carried out the 7th of July attack in London, or similar attacks elsewhere are "nutters" as you rightly pointed out. Their ends are not shared by most human principles, first and foremost the Islamic principles.
So, let's move on to your "deliberate aimed violence with specific targets" - let us appraise how effective and acceptable they are.
Would you care to give few examples?
"Their ends are not shared by most human principles, first and foremost the Islamic principles"
Do you mean their immediate ends or their ultimate ends? Actually, one of the immediate ends- their own immediate transmogrification to paradise as heroic martyrs- was precisely an islamic principle and their general motives were expressed in islamic terms and there is considerable evidence that killing people you disagree with and valuing heroism are both human and islamic principles, with long histories in both human and islamic records.
An obvious example of the effectiveness of "deliberate aimed violence with specific targets" is in one of the greatest historical wors of all time, "1066 and all that":
"War with Zulus.
Cause: the Zulus.
Zulus exterminated.
Peace with Zulus."
Thersites,
Most muslims in the world (i.e. more that 2 billion people) would actually disagree with you. Most muslims would say that according to their faith - both the immediate and ultimate ends of the terrorist are not shared by Islamic Principles.
Now, they are either lying or they do not understand their religion as much as you do. You are probably a muslim or some kind of ex-muslim, but you still would have to concur that your understanding of Islamic Principles is not the same as the understanding of the majority of Muslims in the world. This should cause you to rexamine your understanding, not to rebutt the majority opinion of the religious teaching.
You wrote:
...their own immediate transmogrification to paradise as heroic martyrs- was precisely an islamic principle and their general motives were expressed in islamic terms and there is considerable evidence that killing people you disagree with and valuing heroism are both human and islamic principles, with long histories in both human and islamic records.
There is an element of truth in the above statement. I shall go into some detail on this (I have some time to burn!).
It is Very True that Martyrs will go straight into Paradise earning the Pleasure of God. Thus, Martydom is a Great Thing.
Generally speaking, this means sacrificing everything you 'think' you own for the sake of some Transcendent Principle(s) i.e. The Truth. Principles such as Honesty, Justice, Compassion, Love, Equality, and so on are founded on Truth or you could re-arrange that vice-versa i.e. That The Truth is founded on principles such as Honesty, Justice, Compassion, Love, and so on. These principles are not of any particular Religion, they are Universal, cuts across time, cultures, geography, space, logic, religion, race, and whatever category you could add, etc. Can you imagine a world, any world where lieing for example is desirable. How is it going to work?
These principles are from outside of this world, one could say (although not accurately). We try to live them them in our day to day actions, as human beings we try to acquire and demonstrate qualities/actions that characterises them. Typically this takes some sacrifice in different little ways. E.g You need to do some action in order to be Honest (sorry, you cannot just be honest or loving as the christians think! - you cannot just love your neighbour in your heart, you need to give him some bread!), such as speaking the truth about a matter. You need to do some action in order to be described as fair, e.g such as going after a theif in order to recover and old man's wallet, and so on.
The more we make these little sacrifices and act in relevant ways, the more we characteris the Transcendent Principles i.e. we give life to them, and the more they live in us, the More we become amiable to the Truth (to God), fit to enter Paradise, etc... As I mentioned earlier, Truth is founded on these principles and/or vice-versa.
This is not an Islamic Teaching by the way, it is the teaching of every Orthodox uncorrupted religions of the world.
But yes, you could also rightly say it is an Islamic Teaching because Islam is the Most Complete Form of any Religion.
From what we have describe above, the problem area now is when you learn the wrong or corrupted teaching of what is means to be Just, Fair, Truthfull, Love, Compassionate, etc. If someone has the wrong understanding of Justice, then they would be making the wrong sacrifices, whether it be in terms of their time or money, or actions and beyond.
So, it is important to learn the correct undestanding of these Principles from an authorised Teacher (NOT SIMPLY READING TEXT AS YOU ARE DOING). You can't just open the Koran and say, Oh this means this and this means that. If you do that, you would living your own HELL!!! as you are now doing. Wallowing in multi-layers of confusion.
Rather, you need to learn the living teachings of the Prophets, they are the True Teachers, such as Abraham,.... Moses, Jesus, and The Final Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon them all). Obviously none of these Prophets are "alive" today to teach us on a one to one basis and elaborate both by words and their sunna on the true exemplification of these principles. However, their knowledges are inherited by their companions and the disciples of their companions and so on up until today. So, you need to go and find someone who is a qualified Teacher of your religion to explain to you what is right action and what is not.
So, what about Martydom? There is no shying away from this. A Martyr makes the Highest sacrifice, lays down his life in whatever form or shape (excluding suicide) for the Lofty Principles on which Truth is founded or by which Truth is founded. The death of a Martyr may occur whilst fighting an invading Army or simply trying to save a drowning dog. It doesn't really matter! The point is that we all make sacrifices to the degree of our conviction. Life is the most coveted thing we've got. Some people don't mind laying is down for the sake of Higher Principles, whilst others indulge in it for the sake of the Worst of Principles.
What a Gulf!
And finally, with regards to your An obvious example of the effectiveness of "deliberate aimed violence with specific targets" .....is in one of the greatest historical wors of all time, "1066 and all that":
No Comment.
"Most muslims in the world (i.e. more that 2 billion people)"
I hope your theology is better than your numeracy.
"Now, they are either lying or they do not understand their religion as much as you do. "
Well, now, many- perhaps most- muslims don't understand their religion very well because they have taken it for granted and assumed it said what they want it to say. However, the fact that two muslims disagree about what muslim teaches need not be a matter of ignorance but simply a difference in interpretation and which part people think more important.
"Generally speaking, this [martyrdom] means sacrificing everything you 'think' you own for the sake of some Transcendent Principle(s) i.e. The Truth."
Which- in their own eyes and the eyes of their sympathisers- is precisely what the bombers did. In fact, given islam's insistence on the importance of motives, you could argue that the rightness or wrongness of actions resides only in motives.
"The Truth. Principles such as Honesty, Justice, Compassion, Love, Equality, and so on are founded on Truth or you could re-arrange that vice-versa i.e. That The Truth is founded on principles such as Honesty, Justice, Compassion, Love, and so on. "
What is your evidence for this claim? In fact, principles such as the ones you cite, often contradict one another and may have no connection with the truth, whatever that may be.
"But yes, you could also rightly say it is an Islamic Teaching because Islam is the Most Complete Form of any Religion."...in the opinion of muslims. It is perfectly possible for a religion to be completely untrue.
"So, it is important to learn the correct undestanding of these Principles from an authorised Teacher (NOT SIMPLY READING TEXT AS YOU ARE DOING). "
...and who decides who is or is not "authorised"? The bombers did not simply read the text [after all, with an avowedly simple and easy to understand text, what more need one do?] in fact but had what they believed were qualified teachers. The fact that the bombers believed they were qualified because they said what the bombers wanted to hear [or the bombers believed they said what the bombers wanted to hear] means they were exactly like every other supposedly qualified teacher.
"Some people don't mind laying [life] down for the sake of Higher Principles, whilst others indulge in it for the sake of the Worst of Principles."
...and some indulge in "laying it down" from the worst of motives believing they act from the best of motives.
"1066 and All That", as a comic work, can be honest in a way that other historical works cannot. You could, if you want other examples, cite the methods used in preparing for the proposed invasion of Japan in 1945, or Buonaparte in Spain, or Caesar in Gaul or the Punic or Peloponnesian Wars as examples: in every case the purpose was to make the enemy so weak, by killing so many of his forces, as to make him incapable of fighting for the foreseeable future. Whatever their fasults, neither the USA nor Israel did that in Iraq or Lebanon, although both were perfectly able to do so.
Thersites,
Quoting your post above:
"The Truth. Principles such as Honesty, Justice, Compassion, Love, Equality, and so on are founded on Truth or you could re-arrange that vice-versa i.e. That The Truth is founded on principles such as Honesty, Justice, Compassion, Love, and so on. "
What is your evidence for this claim? In fact, principles such as the ones you cite, often contradict one another and may have no connection with the truth, whatever that may be.
I could ask what is your own evidence to the contrary, but this would be a waste of mine and your time. You are obviously looking for evidence and hopefully answers. But your are not ready to understand the answer, because your epistemology is faulty.... you are asking for evidence in one paragraph and talking about interpretations in another...
As for contradictory principles, again this is the questioning of a propositional logician. Of course they would be contradictory for theorists such as youself, but for those who live by them principles - in fact the harmony between these principles cannot be any clearer. So, perhaps you should get busy and stop philosophising. Do something different...be adventurous.
Religiously guided muslims have Faith that enrich their lives and are frankly oblivious to these apparent "contradictions" that seems to torture the hell out of the secular mind...
And guess what, there is contradiction everywhere, you can find it in everything and anything localisable ....lots of it in your post btw. Resolve them,and they will come to haunt you at another new level. You would find Godel's Incompleteness Theorems a good starting.
As for your question of authority:
" ...and who decides who is or is not "authorised"? The bombers did not simply read the text [after all, with an avowedly simple and easy to understand text, what more need one do?] in fact but had what they believed were qualified teachers.
I am surprised that given the weight of the fuzzy philosophical questions you are raising, you consider any "text to be avowedly simple and easy to understand". Well this is your problem on which I am not going to elaborate.
Coming back to the question, as you know every professor in the university usually has a certificate or two coupled with years of experience that confirms his authority in a particular field. This is traditional approach to knowledge transmission. It is no different for religious knowledge.
I know I haven't addressed much of your questions, personally I feel they demonstrate layers of confusion...and a blog is not the right place to tackle them.
However, you should know that we both agree that terrorism and killing of innocent civilians is wrong. And my religion, Islam, has a lot to say about it. Whether you (mis)understand it from the text is a different matter.
Also, inspite of what you say about muslim terrorist, I do not feel responsible nor do I feel guilty, or feel the need to apologise to any one for their actions. In fact it is 'interesting' to watch someone stand up to these state criminals such as US, Israel, UK and their allies.
Thersites,
One thing I thought I should clarify from my previous post.
Regarding the qualification of the Teacher of Religious knowledge/principles: When I referred to certificates, please don't misunderstand this to imply university or college certificates. I am referring here to certification from a living Teacher with chains of transmissions back to the Prophet (saw). I don't know if you are familiar with this idea, as it would be too much to elaborate here what we mean my an authorised Teacher of religion.
So, for example if you go to a Teacher of Islam and ask him if he/she is authorised, and he responds yes. By who? The wrong answer would be something like "By Oxford University, or Medina University, or Damascus University, or Whatever university, etc" It's time to move on to the next Teacher....until you find one who was trained by a Teacher, and his Teacher trained by another Teacher, and so on, until you reach the Prophet (peace be upon him). I thought I should clarify this, however basic as it might be. This is how religious, particularly Islamic knowledge is learnt...however untrendy.
"I could ask what is your own evidence to the contrary [that Principles such as Honesty, Justice, Compassion, Love, Equality, and so on are founded on Truth ], but this would be a waste of mine and your time."
Not at all. It's a very important question. If we are trying to be truthful we often cannot be compassionate. If we are compassionate, we need to be dishonest or unjust. If we love someone we favour them over others and so are unjust. "Treat each man to his just deserts and who would scape whipping?"
Equality, too, is unobtainable- after all, the quran itself espouses inequality in its claim that muslims are "the best of mankind".
"Of course they would be contradictory for theorists such as youself, but for those who live by them principles - in fact the harmony between these principles cannot be any clearer. "
However, they don't look clear to the people on the receiving end. Principles- theories- derive from practise. If a principle can only be clear to some people and they cannot explain or justify it to anyone else it isn't a principle at all. The muslim view seems often to be "That's all very well in practise, but whow does it work in theory?"
"Religiously guided muslims have Faith that enrich their lives and are frankly oblivious to these apparent "contradictions" that seems to torture the hell out of the secular mind..."
Not a matter of torturing the mind- 'though muslims are rather fond of applying physical torture for principled reasons when they can- but of recognising that some things are contradictory. For example, if you want to comfort someone you tell them all will be well when you know it won't- you have applied the short-term good of compassion over the long-term good of truthfulness. Muaslims, however, follow their Faith and behave cruelly while explaing that in the eyes of Faith they behave well and are hurt that everyone else regards it as hypocrisy.
"And guess what, there is contradiction everywhere, you can find it in everything and anything localisable"
Then why do you say muslims have no need to worry about them above? What do you think Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with contradictions? They are concerned with mathematical proof, not contradictions.
"I am surprised that ... you consider any "text to be avowedly simple and easy to understand". Well this is your problem on which I am not going to elaborate."
Where did I say any text was avowedly simple and easy to understand"? The quran avows that it is simple and easy to understand, in fact. I don't agree. Nor, going by the number of interpretations around, do muslims as a whole, 'though any individual muslim will probably be astonished at the errors of every other muslim in interpreting such a simple and easily understood text.
"However, you should know that we both agree that terrorism and killing of innocent civilians is wrong. And my religion, Islam, has a lot to say about it. Whether you (mis)understand it from the text is a different matter."
Everyone agrees that terrorism is wrong. They do not object to unavoidable moderate collateral damage in the pursuit of justified ends. The problem is telling the difference. In the case of the July 7th bombers- and it is their [mis]understanding of the text, not mine, that is important here-, I think, they may well also have been influenced by muslim teachings on martyrdom. After all, if the people they killed turned out to be innocent then they would be martyrs and would go directly to paradise and so they ought to be posthumously grateful to the bombers.
"Also, inspite of what you say about muslim terrorist, I do not feel responsible nor do I feel guilty, or feel the need to apologise to any one for their actions."
Where did I say you ought to feel guilty or apologise? I simply say that their interpretaion of the quran is as easily justified as yours- that, in fact, it is just as "true" as yours.
" for example if you go to a Teacher of Islam and ask him if he/she is authorised, and he responds yes. By who? The wrong answer would be something like "By Oxford University, or Medina University, or Damascus University, or Whatever university, etc" It's time to move on to the next Teacher....until you find one who was trained by a Teacher, and his Teacher trained by another Teacher, and so on, until you reach the Prophet"
Have tyou ever heard of the children's game Russian Telegraph? The whole point is not what someone taught but what their students learned. there's often a big difference.
Thersites,
Your text are in Italics.
"If we are trying to be truthful we often cannot be compassionate. If we are compassionate, we need to be dishonest or unjust. If we love someone we favour them over others and so are unjust. "Treat each man to his just deserts and who would scape whipping?" Equality, too, is unobtainable- after all, the quran itself espouses inequality in its claim that muslims are "the best of mankind".
Yes, this is if you are looking at effects within a small time frame. If you are able to see further down a longer timeline, you may come back with a different view. And a little further, an even more different view may emerge. And so on.
As for "Equality" and loving someone...
When we love someone or anything, we love them for the sake of something else. So for example, you love your wife/husband for the sake of that comfort you have in your heart (which is in turn conditioned by some bounded and/or spacially localisable attributes). It is completely utilitarian, but of a limited and deficient type. So, if such is the basis of your actions to demonstrate equality, you would never be able to demonstrate it! It would be deficient. Because you will never find two ('similar' attributes) in life. Hence, you need to re-arrange the sake for which you love someone/something to a more Grand - One, Unbounded and Complete Basis.
You quoted the Koranic verse about muslims being the "best of mankind...". What about the rest of the verse "best of mankind because you enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil and you believe in Allah...."
Yes, if somebody is like this they are the best. As I already told you, the Good things such as Honesty, Compassion, Love, Justice, Peace, Equality, etc are the foundation of Truth or/and vice-versa.
What is bad, etc are the foundations of Hell. Good and bad here are as taught by the Prophets (peace be upon them).
You still want evidence for this?
....Of course they would be contradictory for theorists such as youself, but for those who live by them principles - in fact the harmony between these principles cannot be any clearer. " However, they don't look clear to the people on the receiving end.
They don't and won't. Because the people at the receiving end do not subscribe to teaching of the (Prophetic) pioneers of these principles. Rather they take their definitions and clarications from intellectual masturbators.
From a muslim point of view, it is 'two' (un)opposing worlds, one of Lights and the other of darkness.
Principles- theories- derive from practise. If a principle can only be clear to some people and they cannot explain or justify it to anyone else it isn't a principle at all.
It is a principle except that it is inseparable from the living source from which it is derived.
A principle that has no life is a waste of our time. Let's talk about useful things and spare ourselves of intellectual torture.
Religiously guided muslims have Faith that enrich their lives and are frankly oblivious to these apparent "contradictions" that seems to torture the hell out of the secular mind..." Not a matter of torturing the mind- 'though muslims are rather fond of applying physical torture for principled reasons when they can- but of recognising that some things are contradictory. For example, if you want to comfort someone you tell them all will be well when you know it won't- you have applied the short-term good of compassion over the long-term good of truthfulness.
No; It's the other way round. You cannot be truthful in the short term, you can only be truthful in the long-term. Also, you cannot be compassionate in the short term, you can only be compassionate in the long-term. This should be clear enough without elaborating.
"And guess what, there is contradiction everywhere, you can find it in everything and anything localisable" Then why do you say muslims have no need to worry about them above? What do you think Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems have to do with contradictions? They are concerned with mathematical proof, not contradictions.
I was using contradiction here in the way you were using it, according to your reasoning. It is your language, not mine. As for Godel, let's leave it out. Sorry to have brought that in.
"I am surprised that ... you consider any "text to be avowedly simple and easy to understand". ...
......Where did I say any text was avowedly simple and easy to understand"? The quran avows that it is simple and easy to understand, in fact. I don't agree. Nor, going by the number of interpretations around, do muslims as a whole, 'though any individual muslim will probably be astonished at the errors of every other muslim in interpreting such a simple and easily understood text.
The Koran is simple, but we are not. So we need interpretations and whatever we can get to survive in our fatal complexity. Or until we become simple.
Everyone agrees that terrorism is wrong. They do not object to unavoidable moderate collateral damage in the pursuit of justified ends.
Collateral damage is also wrong. In Islam it is wrong. Using a 10,000 tonne bombs of various cocktails in a human city is avoidable; but country leaders need brains and some civility to avoid it.
In the case of the July 7th bombers- and it is their [mis]understanding of the text, not mine, that is important here-, I think, they may well also have been influenced by muslim teachings on martyrdom.
And does that prove dieing a martyr is wrong. Most people who die as martyrs aren't conscious of the fact that they are definitely going to die (in a given instance). They act to defend what they believe is the worthwile and die in the cause. And even if they were aware that it might lead to death(as long as it isn't suicide - 100%), this should be considered as a praiseworthy thing!
It is not different from hurting yourself in the foot whilst fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest. Sound ridiculous?
"Also, inspite of what you say about muslim terrorist, I do not feel responsible nor do I feel guilty, or feel the need to apologise to any one for their actions." Where did I say you ought to feel guilty or apologise? I simply say that their interpretaion of the quran is as easily justified as yours- that, in fact, it is just as "true" as yours.
Oh, of course, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation and would be responsible for their intentions and actions - whether they were reckless or took the due precautions.
.... until you reach the Prophet" Have tyou ever heard of the children's game Russian Telegraph? The whole point is not what someone taught but what their students learned. there's often a big difference
Yes, there is a big difference. Just as there is sometimes a big difference (for better or for worse) between the architect's plan of your house and the builder's construction of it. But you need a house, so you still live there. This is hypocrisy, you should be homeless.
"If you are able to see further down a longer timeline, you may come back with a different view."
Or you may not.
"the Good things ... are the foundation of Truth or/and vice-versa... Good and bad here are as taught by the Prophets (peace be upon them). You still want evidence for this? "
Of course I want evidence for it.
"A principle that has no life is a waste of our time. Let's talk about useful things and spare ourselves of intellectual torture."
You have yet to show that any of these are principles- general truths derived from observation of actual instances- at all.
"You cannot be truthful in the short term... you cannot be compassionate in the short term, you can only be compassionate in the long-term. This should be clear enough without elaborating."
Not to me. Please elaborate. In the long-term, a wise man said, we're all dead.
"I was using contradiction here in the way you were using it, according to your reasoning. "
You haven't shown that my reasoning is wrong.
"The Koran is simple, but we are not. So we need interpretations and whatever we can get to survive in our fatal complexity"
Then it isn't easy to understand.
"And does that prove dieing a martyr is wrong.[?]"
It is in the eyes of those of us who don't want to be martyrs to your beliefs if it involves making other. people martyrs. There is an important difference between being a martyr in your own eyes and actually dying a martyr.
"Most people who die as martyrs aren't conscious of the fact that they are definitely going to die (in a given instance)." The July 7 bombers were intent- insistent- on it. The other people who died weren't and had no choice in the matter.
"They act to defend what they believe is the worthwile and die in the cause."
...even if their beliefs are absurd and contemptible.
"And even if they were aware that it might lead to death(as long as it isn't suicide - 100%), this should be considered as a praiseworthy thing!"
So, merely dying- or risking dying- and killing and/or maiming other people for a cause is a good thing. why the objection to the IDF, then? They risk death too on a cause they believe in. Or does what people believe make a difference, perhaps?
" It is not different from hurting yourself in the foot whilst fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest. Sound ridiculous?"
Yes. How is it "not different from hurting yourself in the foot whilst fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest"?
"everyone is...responsible .. whether they were reckless or took the due precautions. "
...and who decides whether they were reckless?
"for worse) between the architect's plan of your house and the builder's construction of it. But you need a house, so you still live there. This is hypocrisy, you should be homeless."
What are you trying to say?
"If you are able to see further down a longer timeline, you may come back with a different view." Or you may not.
True, you may not. But if your truthfulness and compassion is based on short term effects or implications, it cannot be relied upon. Religious actions is based on Eternal effects, at least that is the belief - which is a consistent one albeit not mechanically verifiable.
"the Good things ... are the foundation of Truth or/and vice-versa... Good and bad here are as taught by the Prophets (peace be upon them). You still want evidence for this? " Of course I want evidence for it.
What kind of evidence would you like. The subjective type or the objective type?
"A principle that has no life is a waste of our time. Let's talk about useful things and spare ourselves of intellectual torture." You have yet to show that any of these are principles- general truths derived from observation of actual instances- at all.
I claim these are principles based on history and human experience.
Honesty is a virtue in all cultures, so is compassion, justice, etc.
On the other hand lieing and treachery are frowned upon, etc.
"You cannot be truthful in the short term... you cannot be compassionate in the short term, you can only be compassionate in the long-term. This should be clear enough without elaborating." Not to me. Please elaborate. In the long-term, a wise man said, we're all dead.
The reason you cannot be TruthFull in the short term is because time do erode facts. But as I have mentioned to you above, Religious assumptions are on an Eternal span of time. You are free to disbelieve this. I am only telling you what religions assumptions are based on. It may not work for you, so you have no choice but to work on the short term narrow time window.
"The Koran is simple, but we are not. So we need interpretations and whatever we can get to survive in our fatal complexity" Then it isn't easy to understand.
That is not a Koranic problem. It is a human problem. We need to be in a certain way to appreciate the Eternal Wisdoms of Scriptures. That way is what the Prophets (peace be upon them) came to teach. i.e the way to be.
The July 7 bombers were intent- insistent- on it. The other people who died weren't and had no choice in the matter. "They act to defend what they believe is the worthwile and die in the cause." ...even if their beliefs are absurd and contemptible.
Not if their belief is absurd. Come on, that is absurd. They need to account for how they got themselves into such absurdity. Did they follow the right teachings or did their ego lead them to a warped version.
I already mentioned to you that it is easy to get actions wrong when the reference is to unauthorised Teachers. We are now going in circles.
This is hypocrisy, you should be homeless." What are you trying to say?
I am trying to say, you need to be consistent. If you claim that what someone taught is different from what their students learn - implying thereby that you are not going to trust any authority, then you cannot do anything in life. You you may not live in your house because who knows if the builders understood the architect's plan correctly. But our experience shows that the world doesn't work that way. Human approach to knowledge is typically based on trust coupled with individual experience. Again, it doesn't sound too modern.
"And even if they were aware that it might lead to death(as long as it isn't suicide - 100%), this should be considered as a praiseworthy thing!" So, merely dying- or risking dying- and killing and/or maiming other people for a cause is a good thing. why the objection to the IDF, then? They risk death too on a cause they believe in. Or does what people believe make a difference, perhaps?
Certainly. What people believe makes a difference, because it would eventually guide their actions (Actions are different based on the belief from which they spring). Even when they appear similar, they are usually not.
...and I forgot to clarify this for you:
" It is not different from hurting yourself in the foot whilst fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest. Sound ridiculous?" Yes. How is it "not different from hurting yourself in the foot whilst fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest"?
Because they are both a form of sacrifice.
"Religious actions is based on Eternal effects, at least that is the belief - which is a consistent one albeit not mechanically verifiable."
How is it verifiable at all? Every act has immediate effects and long-term and- perhaps- eternalresults. We can tell their likelihood much more accurately in the short term though.
"What kind of evidence ... The subjective type or the objective type?"
If it isn't objective it isn't evidence.
" Honesty is a virtue in all cultures, so is compassion, justice, etc. On the other hand lieing and treachery are frowned upon, etc."
Again they can contradict one another. If a judge is compassionate to a criminal that does not serve justice. If you are threatened with death or pain if you tell the truth you are entitled to lie. Treachery to a tyrant is regarded as heroism.
"The reason you cannot be TruthFull in the short term is because time do erode facts."
If time erodes facts, then more time erodes more facts. How does time erode facts?
"That [that the quran claims to be easy to understand and isn't] is not a Koranic problem. It is a human problem."
The quran is supposed to be addressed to humans. If understanding it is a problem it is a problem with the quran, so it is a quranic problem.
"Not if their belief is absurd. Come on, that is absurd. They need to account for how they got themselves into such absurdity. Did they follow the right teachings or did their ego lead them to a warped version."
Then your claim that dying as a martyr is always a virtue is not true. In what way are the teachings followed by the July 7th bombers "warped" compared with other teachings?
"I am trying to say, you need to be consistent."
How were the actions of the July 7th bombers inconsistent with their beliefs? How were their beliefs inconsistent with the quran and hadith? What makes you think the versions you follow are more consistent than theirs?
" If you claim that what someone taught is different from what their students learn - implying thereby that you are not going to trust any authority, then you cannot do anything in life."
Implying that you are not going to give absolute trust to any authority. If you believe an authority just because it is an authority you have abandoned any ability to think or act for yourself.
"What people believe makes a difference, because it would eventually guide their actions (Actions are different based on the belief from which they spring). Even when they appear similar, they are usually not."
How is the action different if someone blows a few people to bits because they believe they are following the dictates of the quran from when they do it believing they are following the dictates of L. Ron Hubbard, say? Is someone who blows themselves and other people to bits because they believe they are following the quran no different nto someone who doesn't blow themselves and other people to bits because they are following the quran?
"Because they [hurting your foot while fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest and blowing yourself and several other people to bits] are both a form of sacrifice."
I see.
"Religious actions is based on Eternal effects, at least that is the belief - which is a consistent one albeit not mechanically verifiable." How is it verifiable at all?
It is verifiable through individual experience. Are you alive? How did you verify this? By checking your heart beat, eye lids, pulse, breath, etc?
Btw, these are pointers for you, not answers. There are no answers, there are signs. You don't just look out for your destination, do you. You lookout for the signs.
"What kind of evidence ... The subjective type or the objective type?"
If it isn't objective it isn't evidence
Please clarify what you mean by objective evidence?
We need definitions before we can move forward here. The word objective is so much abused these days.
" Honesty is a virtue in all cultures, so is compassion, justice, etc. On the other hand lieing and treachery are frowned upon, etc."
Again they can contradict one another. If a judge is compassionate to a criminal that does not serve justice. If you are threatened with death or pain if you tell the truth you are entitled to lie. Treachery to a tyrant is regarded as heroism.
I have told you many times that they don't contradict each other in the eternal long-run. They only contradict each other if you are looking at the short term; or it could be that what you are seeing has nothing to do with truthfullness, compassion, etc in the first place...i.e it is a bogus form of those virtues. i.e. they have been learnt from other than Prophetic traditions.
"The reason you cannot be TruthFull in the short term is because time do erode facts."
If time erodes facts, then more time erodes more facts. How does time erode facts?
For example if you take a measuring tape to source your height now. The measurement is only true for few seconds. If you repeat the same exercise again say after 1 year (I could have said after 10 seconds or less!), your height would be completely different. Hence, the passage of time cause facts at one time to be false at another time.
"That [that the quran claims to be easy to understand and isn't] is not a Koranic problem. It is a human problem."
The quran is supposed to be addressed to humans. If understanding it is a problem it is a problem with the quran, so it is a quranic problem.
It is not a Koranic problem. The Koran is One, men are many. One to many relationship. There are those who are at the Complete Perfection of their souls, like the Prophets, they would have no problem understanding the wisdom of the Koran. In fact they are Koran in person.
There are those on the other extreme who are enveloped in their desires of the lower self, on their necks is a yoke, their heads are covered up, they cannot see, such men regardless of any stretched interpretation would not be able to benefit from the Koran. And there are multitudes of men in between these two extremes -people: some would understand parts of it and gradually go on to understand other parts and so on.
If what you are saying is that the Koran is not a divinely inspired book, then that is a different subject. Then you are calling for a proof of the Koran as the word of Allah. Again here, there is no one size fits all proof (as you are probably looking for, the so-called objective proof). What is a proof to me may not be a proof to you. Yet, there is a proof for everyone, otherwise Allah's attribute of Justice would be meaningless - which is impossible. So, the proof is simultaneously objective and subjective, or you could say neither.
"Not if their belief is absurd. Come on, that is absurd. They need to account for how they got themselves into such absurdity. Did they follow the right teachings or did their ego lead them to a warped version."
Then your claim that dying as a martyr is always a virtue is not true. In what way are the teachings followed by the July 7th bombers "warped" compared with other teachings?
The teachings they follow is warped because most of the neo-jihadist don't seem to believe in any Teacher's authority. When I say teacher, I mean someone who has a scholarly chain of transmission back to his Teacher and so on until you reach the Divine Source. Not some shaky Sheikh who graduated from an Islamic University. Knowledge is not in the lines of paper, but rather in the hearts of men. This the problem of mass education brought about by western syfilis-ation. However, anybody is entitled to die for the cause they believe in based on any teaching. God judges, not us.
How were the actions of the July 7th bombers inconsistent with their beliefs? How were their beliefs inconsistent with the quran and hadith? What makes you think the versions you follow are more consistent than theirs?
Their interpretation of the Koran and hadith is not in line with the interpretation offered by the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
What makes you think the versions you follow are more consistent than theirs?
The well-known teaching in Islam that when legally warring (which is not the case with virtually all bombers including the state sanctioned one, US, UK , Israel, etc) muslims should not kill civilians, women, children, livestocks, poison water, destroy trees, and so on.
And btw the using of any form of explosive weapons that kill indiscrimately is also against our Religion of Islam. All of these criminal idiosyncrasies are not from the sunna of our Exemplar, rather it is the way of the so called liberal secular world.
People with the worst weapons of destruction calling for a Nuclear non-proliferation. ...Worst record of civilian bombing fighting a war on terror. ...worst record of racism, anti-semitism, xenophobia etc calling for democratic equality. Sounds quite schizrophrenic. Sorry to go off track.
Next point...
If you claim that what someone taught is different from what their students learn - implying thereby that you are not going to trust any authority, then you cannot do anything in life." Implying that you are not going to give absolute trust to any authority. If you believe an authority just because it is an authority you have abandoned any ability to think or act for yourself
So, I repeat the question, how did you come to the conviction that your house is safe to live in? Did you think through the architect's calculations, and the builders extrapolation, etc. This is a serious question which you haven't answered?
How is the action different if someone blows a few people to bits because they believe they are following the dictates of the quran from when they do it believing they are following the dictates of L. Ron Hubbard, say? Is someone who blows themselves and other people to bits because they believe they are following the quran no different nto someone who doesn't blow themselves and other people to bits because they are following the quran?
They are very different.
Now I can see that you have not understood much of my previous posts.
I won't go into much details with this, rather I would give you the following pointer.
Basically, the consequence of any two (wrong/right) actions can never be the same. Why not? Because they are two. Does that make sense? They are two, they are different. The word "Similar" is just a metaphor or analogical adjective in human language.
"Because they [hurting your foot while fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest and blowing yourself and several other people to bits] are both a form of sacrifice."
I see.
I am glad you see this. They are both a form of sacrifice, whether they are right or wrong is a different matter.
"It is verifiable through individual experience. "
So it isn't verifiable by someone else.
"Please clarify what you mean by objective evidence? We need definitions before we can move forward here. The word objective is so much abused these days."
So is the word evidence. Objective evidence is something which both of us and others can verify the existence of. A signed message, say, going across the sky, saying "I made you. God." This would not be proof, but it would be objective evidence.
"I have told you many times that they don't contradict each other in the eternal long-run. "
However, you haven't said why this is so. Presumably, then, if a judge is compassionate to a criminal that does serve justice in the eternal long-run.
"For example if you take a measuring tape to source your height now. The measurement is only true for few seconds. If you repeat the same exercise again say after 1 year (I could have said after 10 seconds or less!), your height would be completely different. Hence, the passage of time cause facts at one time to be false at another time."
Completely different? Is "1+1=2" or "There is no god but god and Mohammed is his prophet." true now and completely untrue in a few seconds then?
"So, the proof is simultaneously objective and subjective, or you could say neither."
Or not proof.
"When I say teacher, I mean someone who has a scholarly chain of transmission back to his Teacher and so on until you reach the Divine Source. Not some shaky Sheikh who graduated from an Islamic University. Knowledge is not in the lines of paper, but rather in the hearts of men. "
And who decides which is "a scholarly chain of transmission"? So, you know how to drive a car without benfit of instruction because you need only look into your heart to do so?
" However, anybody is entitled to die for the cause they believe in based on any teaching. "
Certainly. The problem comes when they decide they want company when they die.
"Their interpretation of the Koran and hadith is not in line with the interpretation offered by the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)."
You mean what you interpret as "the interpretation offered by the Companions of the Prophet".
"The well-known teaching in Islam that when legally warring ...muslims should not kill civilians, women, children, livestocks, poison water, destroy trees, and so on."
Of course. Exactly when and where did they follow this teaching?
"And btw the using of any form of explosive weapons that kill indiscrimately is also against our Religion of Islam."
Perhaps the shortage of such weapons at Mohammed's time is not unconnected with it.
"So, I repeat the question, how did you come to the conviction that your house is safe to live in? Did you think through the architect's calculations, and the builders extrapolation, etc. "
When did you ask the question? The house was thoroughly surveyed by qualified experts before I bought it.
"Basically, the consequence of any two ...actions can never be the same... Because they are two. Does that make sense?"
The consequences can be so similar that for all practical purposes they are the same. A lot of corpses as a result of someone blowing themselves to bits is very similar to another lot of corpses as a result of someone else blowing themselves to bits. So similar that we may say they are the same. In the eyes of the corpses and their relatives they are the same.
""Similar" is just a metaphor or analogical adjective in human language."
A metaphor? It is an adjective. It means having many features in common with something else. Humans are different to one another. that doesn't stop them being very similar to one another too.
"They are both a form of sacrifice, whether they are right or wrong is a different matter."
I saw what you said. I still don't think ittrue. How is "hurting your foot while fetching a little boy's toy in a nearby forest" a form of sacrifice?
It is verifiable through individual experience.
So it isn't verifiable by someone else.
It is verifiable by someone else, but it won't be exactly in the same way for everybody. Everyone has what makes them tick which is different to the other person. We just have different personalities as human beings.
Please clarify what you mean by objective evidence? We need definitions before we can move forward here. The word objective is so much abused these days.
So is the word evidence. Objective evidence is something which both of us and others can verify the existence of. A signed message, say, going across the sky, saying "I made you. God." This would not be proof, but it would be objective evidence.
Is this an OBJECTIVE definition? You could be seeing a mirage in the sky thinking you were seeing God's signature.
I have told you many times that they don't contradict each other in the eternal long-run.
However, you haven't said why this is so.
I did explain to you why this is so using the example of Equality and loving someone for the sake of something else. You need to extrapolate from some of these points. There isn't enough time to go over every single detail.
For example if you take a measuring tape to source your height now. The measurement is only true for few seconds. If you repeat the same exercise again say after 1 year (I could have said after 10 seconds or less!), your height would be completely different. Hence, the passage of time cause facts at one time to be false at another time.
Completely different? Is "1+1=2" or "There is no god but god and Mohammed is his prophet." true now and completely untrue in a few seconds then?
1 + 1 = 2 is true now or in a context (based on Peano's axioms) . There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet is true Eternally.
Outside space and time, 1+1 doesn't make sense. In fact, it is statement of insanity. It is time that makes it seem sensible. So, it is wiser to base one's actions and intentions on an Eternal reference. The cliche goes "For God's Sake". If you love, love for the sake of God, if you speak the truth, speak the truth for the sake of God, if you help people, help people for the sake of God, etc. Otherwise, time will erode the significance of your actions and they would come to waste. Why? Because the basis on which they were acted was localised in time, etc, I hope that sounds clear. Sorry, I am not a good and/or patient writer, and may not be writing as clearly as befitting the subject.
"So, the proof is simultaneously objective and subjective, or you could say neither.
Or not proof.
It is a proof, but the problem with proofs is that they are known to be proofs only in retrospect. Answers become Answers after they have been evaluated to be correct, and so on. So, we are short of words to describe these things in temporal time, especially if it takes Eternity to evaluate the answers. So, Religion is a better bet.
Their interpretation of the Koran and hadith is not in line with the interpretation offered by the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
You mean what you interpret as "the interpretation offered by the Companions of the Prophet.
That is correct!
And who decides which is "a scholarly chain of transmission"?
You decide using everything at your disposal. You work with what you've got. Just as you decided on the "qualified experts" to survey your property before you bought it, a point we shall come to shortly, inshallah.
The well-known teaching in Islam that when legally warring ...muslims should not kill civilians, women, children, livestocks, poison water, destroy trees, and so on.
Of course. Exactly when and where did they follow this teaching?
This teaching is for all times.
And btw the using of any form of explosive weapons that kill indiscrimately is also against our Religion of Islam.
Perhaps the shortage of such weapons at Mohammed's time is not unconnected with it.
Nothing to do with the shortage of such weapons. It has to do with morality.
The ruling is concerning indiscrimate killing methods, not concerning a particular kind of weapon. I used explosives as an example for you.
So, I repeat the question, how did you come to the conviction that your house is safe to live in? Did you think through the architect's calculations, and the builders extrapolation, etc.
When did you ask the question? The house was thoroughly surveyed by qualified experts before I bought it
Thank you for the answer.
So finally, you had to submit to the experts because you had no knowledge in the area. Ultimately your faith in the safety of your house is resting on qualified surveyors in a very fundamental way. You are a pretty trusting person then.
If I may ask further, how did you come to believe in their qualification?
How come when it comes to issues concerning the safety of your soul (which is no different from the safety of your body under the roof of your house) you start looking for so-called "objective" proofs, you want to do it all by yourself, etc, you don't trust nobody. You are not consistent with your views on life. One time you are comfortable submitting yourself to "qualified experts", the next minute you are looking for objective proofs. We are not calling for blind faith btw. There is a lot to be said in this area.
A metaphor? It is an adjective. It means having many features in common with something else. Humans are different to one another. that doesn't stop them being very similar to one another too.
Listen to yourself. "Humans are different to one another. that doesn't stop them being very similar to one another too."
Thersites, if something is different, they cannot be similar except by making an analogy between them. You are getting into contradictions again - for understandable reasons. This is something you need to meditate about in your quiet time.
And perhaps the only way you would resolve this contradiction is that you begin to consider or evaluate things against an Eternal yardstick. This is the what Religion teaches. Hence, you would be saved from the problems of contradiction say nepotism, racism, anti-semitism, injustices, and so on. If you see human beings as different, you can't act fairly. But in order to see them as not-different, you need look at their Eternal qualities, you need to believe they have a soul, look beyond the different temporal attributes that strike your eyes in temporal time (Remember, I said, time do erode facts!).
Okay, Thersites. It's nice talking to you. I am sorry I may not be able to respond to your reply. But I would certainly come to have a read. I have got to take care of few things over the coming weeks.
I hope we have exchange few mutually useful information, inshallah a seed that would grow one day. Thanks for your time, and apologies if I have made any personal insults.
And please note, there are most likely typos in my posts.
Objective evidence is something which both of us and others can verify the existence of. A signed message, say, going across the sky, saying "I made you. God.
Some interesting verses to consider.
Koran 20:10
Are they waiting that Allah comes to them in canopies of clouds, with angels (in His train) Then the case would be already judged.....
Ask the Israelites how many a clear sign have We given them...
Koran 15:14
Even if We opened out to them a gate from heaven, and they were to continue (all day) ascending therein,
They would only say: "Our eyes have been intoxicated: Nay, we have been bewitched by sorcery.
Koran 17:90
They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,
Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water;
Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen), against us; or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face:
Or thou have a house of gold; or thou ascend up into heaven, and even then we will put no faith in thine ascension till thou bring down for us a book that we can read. Say (O Muhammad): My Lord be Glorified! Am I aught save a mortal messenger?
What kept men back from belief when Guidance came to them, was nothing but this: they said, "Has Allah sent a man (like us) to be (His) Messenger?"
You mean what you interpret as "the interpretation offered by the Companions of the Prophet.
Not me in particular, but all qualified experts of Islamic law, and by extension - the majority of muslims.
"It is verifiable by someone else, but it won't be exactly in the same way for everybody."
Therefore there is no reason to think that whatever is verified is the same thing at all.
"Is this an OBJECTIVE definition? You could be seeing a mirage in the sky thinking you were seeing God's signature."
I didn't say it was an objective definition. I said it was objective evidence- something that everyone agrees as to what it apparently is. After that we can discuss what it is and how it came to be and how good it is as evidence compared with evidence against it.
"I did explain to you why this is so using the example of Equality and loving someone for the sake of something else. You need to extrapolate from some of these points. There isn't enough time to go over every single detail."
Do you mean this?
"As for "Equality" and loving someone... When we love someone or anything, we love them for the sake of something else. So for example, you love your wife/husband for the sake of that comfort you have in your heart (which is in turn conditioned by some bounded and/or spacially localisable attributes). It is completely utilitarian, but of a limited and deficient type. So, if such is the basis of your actions to demonstrate equality, you would never be able to demonstrate it! It would be deficient. Because you will never find two ('similar' attributes) in life. Hence, you need to re-arrange the sake for which you love someone/something to a more Grand - One, Unbounded and Complete Basis."
Since you insist, how, precisely, does this show that different virtues, such as truth and compassion do not often contradict one another in the long run?
"1 + 1 = 2 is true now or in a context (based on Peano's axioms) . There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet is true Eternally. "
Which of Peano's axioms shows that? What- apart from its repeated assertion- is the evidence that "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His Prophet"? Was it true before Mohammed was born?
" Outside space and time, 1+1 doesn't make sense."
Actually, according to some theorissts, it is only outside time and space- in the realm of abstractions- when the numbers exist independently of anything except other numbers- that 1+1=2 makes sense.
" So, we are short of words to describe these things in temporal time, especially if it takes Eternity to evaluate the answers. So, Religion is a better bet. "
So, because evidence isn't absolutely reliable, reject all the evidence. "Never mind the facts. Print the legend."
This teaching [when legally warring ...muslims should not kill civilians, women, children, livestocks, poison water, destroy trees, and so on] is for all times."
Again, when and where have muslims actually followed this injunction? Or have muslims never legally made war?
"So finally, you had to submit to the experts because you had no knowledge in the area. ... If I may ask further, how did you come to believe in their qualification?"
Because they are controlled by laws and if they make mistakes they can be made to pay compensation for them. If for some reason they cannot pay compensation they belong to a professional organisation which, through insurance, will pay it. In short, there are many outside factors -"objective proofs" to you- which are evidence of their reliability and which guarantee they have good reasons to be accurate in their assessments. They have to assess actual pohysical things and can judge the reliability and safety of an actual building, not, as is the case with religion, what someone said someone said someone meant when they allegedly said god said something.
"Thersites, if something is different, they cannot be similar except by making an analogy between them. "
So, you think that the fact that you are human and I am human is an analogy, as is the fact that you are alive and an aardvaark is alive. The fact that if we fulkfil and have in common a certain number of criteria- are similar in those ways- means that they are human and are alike in that respect. There is as much evidence that we have souls as there is that we and aardvarks have souls.
"Objective evidence is something which both of us and others can verify the existence of. A signed message, say, going across the sky, saying "I made you. God.
Some interesting verses to consider."
All of your verses have in common the claim that objective evidence shouldn't be necessary before belief. I don't have a high opinion of belief- I prefer to think things more or less probable and to alter my opinion according to the evidence- and I only think that on the basis of what I can judge and assess, including the credibility of those who say things.
So finally, you had to submit to the experts because you had no knowledge in the area. ... If I may ask further, how did you come to believe in their qualification? Because they are controlled by laws and if they make mistakes they can be made to pay compensation for them. If for some reason they cannot pay compensation they belong to a professional organisation which, through insurance, will pay it. In short, there are many outside factors -"objective proofs" to you- which are evidence of their reliability and which guarantee they have good reasons to be accurate in their assessments. They have to assess actual pohysical things and can judge the reliability and safety of an actual building.
The fact still remains that you believe in their expertise without having any "objective" knowledge of surveying building. This is the salient point. The rest of your reasons are frankly obscurantism. i.e. Because they are controlled by law, ..can be made to pay compensation, etc, all of these may not be good enough reasons for somebody else to make the same decision as you.
However, what everyone must necessarily do is to arrive at the same decision of having to submit to the authority of those who they "believe" to be qualified experts in the area... Failure to arrive at this point of "Faith" implies they would never be able to get their house surveyed and obtain the needed re-assurance of its safety.
In fact, they would not be able to do decide on anything in life.
So, you think that the fact that you are human and I am human is an analogy,...?
Good question.
Very good question.
And the Answer: