Britain bans Indian Muslim preacher

[Hyde]

and what were those remarks "Neither right nor wrong"

if you know please do share

 

[Neither Right Nor Wrong]

and what were those remarks "Neither right nor wrong"

if you know please do share

 

[Icarus]

and what were those remarks "Neither right nor wrong"

if you know please do share

My speakers are screwed, can you plz tell me(broadly) what he says ?

 

[brahmastra]

 

[Hyde]

My speakers are screwed, can you plz tell me(broadly) what he says ?

Maulana Madani:

Musharraf Saab first of all congratulations for coming to India and starting your political career from here. Secondly i have a question in my mind that more indian muslims are residing in India than the total population of Pakistan. You must know that right?

Musharraf: i do know

Madani: If you know it then you must also know that the Indian Muslim has a power to solve our internal matters ourselves and we do not need your advises for that

Third and last question i want to say is, you have ruled Pakistan for so many years and you are accepting that it is happening from both sides (does not mention what?) and whether its from either sides or only one side but you did accept that it is happening from one side at least. You do whatever you want. India's civil society, her civil society's 70% + population is willing to stand side by side with Indian Muslims. You by your remarks, whether you say in India or in Paksitan, please do not try to alienate indian Muslims.

Musharraf:

Thank you, Thank you very much. First of all i have not come her to start my polical career from here i am not into politics and i ain't giving any political statements here. So you are wrong that i have started my political movements from India. Secondly, you are talking about Indian Muslims, i am happy to hear that and if it is correct i am very glad for Indian Muslims and hopefully your condition will be better and all your problems will be resolved. I have been given a subject here "CHallenge of change" I have my own opinion on this subject and i believe in expressing my opinion openly. You too must have courage to listen to my opinion just like i have a courage to speak and if you do not have courage to listen to my opinion then no problem, you be happy on your conditions if whatever you are saying is correct then nobody will be more happy than myself on the state of Indian muslims living in India. Insha'Allah both countries will be living happily and let it run as it is.

Thank you very much

 

[Icarus]

@Zaki: Thx alot brother.

 

[M8R]

and got a pretty fitting reply from President Musharraf.

 

[T-Faz]

This Madani, does he have any relation with the Mualana Madani of Jamaat-e-Islami Hind. That extremist who was aginst the idea of Pakistan with Madoodi and the others.

Many of them migrated to Pakistan later and make up our religious parties today, it is very important to ponder that these kind of people were vehemently against the idea of Pakistan and openly worked against it. This is why we have to root out all these groups that should not be in our country any way.

Fitting reply to people that I have no respect for, these groups killed many Pakistan movement people including some of my ancestors.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

@Unbeliever: It seems to me that you think only people who follow a specific faith are violent, that cannot be true, religion teaches self-control, it teaches a person to live his life within defined boundaries. To abstain from that which is wrong and to move towards what is right. Might I remind you that less than 4% of the total population of planet earth is Atheist while the remaining 96% believe in God in one form or another, however only a few hundred thousands are religious extremists and even fewer, possibly a few thousand are terrorists.

no one is hating any particular religion but its a fact that all people from a religion don't terrorize people but in one way or another they do sympathize the terrorists & see their religion been glorified by elimination of infidels,

then there are these kind of people(see video) who are easily said by Muslims that they do not represent Islam, for real Islam they (muslims) say that you need to read the book with tafseer(detail) because somehow God cannot communicate his message directly he needs men to decode his book for the understanding of common people yet it claims itself to be a great book with everything made easy for the understanding of people

Man needs the idea of God to thrive, It is this idea that gives him strength when he has none, gives him hope when all is lost, gives him the promise of justice to whom injustice has been done.

the simple thing is some people refuse to believe in a invisible diety which will give him/her strength because they have seen that most of the time most of the time the invisible deity refuses to address him but some people consider God 'no response' as God Will, certainly two hands working are better than a thousand clasped for prayer

You may get rid of this ideology but how many other factors that incite people to kill will you try to do away with ? IRA killed for freedom, not for religion, Hitler killed for white supremacy, not for religion, Ted Bundy killed for reasons he could not explain himself but it definitely wasn't religion.

just because Hitler had a Nazi Ideology or just because Stalin had Bolshevism on his mind dosen't means that you neglect the killings & suffering which have been brought over to humanity by religious people who justify their every act under the light of ancient books, The books & scriptures which are related to each other e.g. for Christains

• When Osiris is said to bring his believers eternal life in Egyptian Heaven, contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God we understand that as a myth
  
• ,When the sacred rites of Demeter at Eleusis are described as bringing believers happiness in their eternal life, we understand that as a myth
  
• When Vespatian's spittle healed a blind man, we understand that as a myth.
  
• When Apollonius of Tyana raised a girl from death, we understand that as a myth
  
• When Romulus is described as the Son of God, born of a virgin, we understand that as a myth.
  
• When Alexander the Great is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth
  
• When Augustus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal , we understand that as a myth
  
• When Scipio Africanus is described as the Son of God, born of a mortal woman, we understand that as a myth.

So how come when Jesus is described as

• the Son of God,
• born of a mortal woman,
• turning water into wine,
• raising girls from the dead, and
• healing blind men with his spittle,
• setting it up so His believers got eternal life in Heaven contemplating the unutterable, indescribable glory of God, and off to Hell—for the bad folks...

how come that's not a myth?

if i am wrong about god existing (which i think is highly improbable), the worst that can happen, according to most religions, is that end up in hell. This affects exactly one person, me! If religious people are wrong, then the millions of deaths, and incidents of discrimination, bigotry, sexism, oppression, mis-education and intolerance caused by faith and religion, are unnecessary. I'd rather err on the side of caution, evidence, and common sense

plus Serial Killers a wholly different breed of Human Beings

Atheists are just as prone to exhibiting violence as any Muslim, Christian, Jew or Hindu.

Prove it
but before you do that Stalin killed for his power & delusional idea of Bolshevism not for his atheism

 

[gambit]

...for real Islam you need to read the book with tafseer(detail) because certainly God cannot communicate his message directly...

Why not? I thought we are talking about the creator of the universe.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Why not? I thought we are talking about the creator of the universe.

not my words, I have edited my post for clarity

 

[Aimar]

We have to follow religion to make our lives better.....if we make religion our obsession, then we are just making our lives already a hell.

 

[sparklingway]

@Unbeliever: It seems to me that you think only people who follow a specific faith are violent, that cannot be true, religion teaches self-control, it teaches a person to live his life within defined boundaries.

Most people here were arguing that religion, all of the religions, are counter-productive and lead to violence and have lead to violence over millenia.

Nonetheless, some religions have a far greater tendency for violence owing to their dogmas. Hinduism is an established, religion, the oldest of the major religions, but due to the lack of universalit ambition it was never as threatening or violent as the two major Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Islam. Religions have changed the dogmas, created now dogmas and have evolved with time. Nonetheless, Hinduism has evolved over the past few centuries to create violent dogmas something it never had. Regardless of this, universalist ambitions among major religions can be found only (in a big generalized sense) among Islam and Christianity only. Orthodox Judaism prides itself on its royalty and Hinduism was never universalist. Buddhism is far from seeking domination and perhaps can't even be brought into the same group as the other ones for it's more like a spiritualist path than organized religion. Taoism and Shintoism never wanted to and do not want to convert the whole world to their beliefs, they don't foresee a inter-faith ultimate battle before judgment day nor do they label believers of other faith as inferior citizens or anything like the Abrahmic religions.

Besides Scientology (defined as a cult in France though), all post Judaism religions have relied on revitalizing the old beliefs, bringing in new books, scriptures and ideas but have essentially said that the previous thing wasn't complete and I'm here to complete it for you (Mormonism for Christianity, Ahmediyya, Ismailism and others for Islam and other numerous examples). It is difficult today to outright deny previous religious figures hence it is always I'm here to complete the word for you (remember Gohar Shahi, Yousaf Ali and others known as False Prophets).

Zeus, Thor, Horus and Poseidon are dead and we regard Mormonism with its healing underwears to be funny, perhaps our thousandth generation will laugh at our beliefs. But the entrenchment of religion (of the Judo-Abrahmic) kind has been very efficient and owing to the fact that they borrow a similar lineage and history (explanations will be different) and they are far better prepared than the Greek, Aztec or Egyptian Gods. Written accounts and unifying books have been a major source of their strength as well, as previous religions existed in a time when oral traditions were the main source, could be corrupted easily and weren't as powerful besides most of them never invoked the presence of a prophet on the ground.

To abstain from that which is wrong and to move towards what is right. Might I remind you that less than 4% of the total population of planet earth is Atheist while the remaining 96% believe in God in one form or another, however only a few hundred thousands are religious extremists and even fewer, possibly a few thousand are terrorists

The lack of atheism does not suggest that religion is somehow right. The figure might have stood at 0.004% in the 1600s. Increasing population suggests a far better understanding of the world has lead people to believe that religion, in all its forms, is a human creation and dis-belief is necessary. Scientific advancement has strengthened the case.

Man needs the idea of God to thrive, It is this idea that gives him strength when he has none, gives him hope when all is lost, gives him the promise of justice to whom injustice has been done.

There is no recorded evidence of a Judo-Abriahmic prophet arriving in China. China has a very well recorded history and the lack of such a prophet suggests that there never was one in that region.

Nonetheless, Confucianism created a very peaceful community that did not need a deity to pray to, to rely on and was based on what we can call today, Secular Humanism.

If religion makes one happy, then so be it. Everybody gets his share of mental peace from different sources but as I put it later, religion becomes an ideology rather than a personal faith and hence is a divisive belief. A personal belief is something everybody can respect.

Morality without Religion is one of the earliest and best discussed topics in Philosophy. But if you want a practical example then besides their socio-economic well being, the Scandinavians who are highly atheistic and irreligious are the biggest aid donors (as a %age of GNP) and are a very peaceful and law abiding society.

You may get rid of this ideology but how many other factors that incite people to kill will you try to do away with ? IRA killed for freedom, not for religion, Hitler killed for white supremacy, not for religion, Ted Bundy killed for reasons he could not explain himself but it definitely wasn't religion.

Nationalism and Religion have killed a lot of people, but religion wins the game of deaths. Nationalist ideologies will lead to violence, always. Similarly, Nazism and Bolshevism lead to millions dying but they weren't seeking an end to religion rather seeking dangerous political ideologies.

Serial Killers are a whole different ballgame. Criminal Psychology is a very interesting field.

Atheists are just as prone to exhibiting violence as any Muslim, Christian, Jew or Hindu.

Atheists might and have killed (Stalin) for political goals but will not kill for religion. As history has shown us, religion is the most divisive of all ideologies and the most brutal one as well. There might never have been any crusades (although other wars would have taken place), no forced conversions across Europe, no conquers in the name of religion and no inter-faith fighting at all.

A world without religion does not mean an entirely peaceful one but it sure means that there'll be better harmony and greater peace than there is. Geo-political ambitions will involve violence and war but religious glorification of war is a very big incentive that will no longer be there, hence populace won't be easily convinced as they are today by using divine rights and using religious dogmas.

The New Age Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc) aren't just atheists (although all atheists disagree with this very word for it implies that they are denying something while there isn't any hence the word dis-belief) but they are anti-religion and anti-theism for in their and many people's thoughts, religion is counter productive and leads to delusions and violence and hence it needs to be eliminated rather than being left to expand. In their debates and writing, they more than often become classic western imperialists and arrogant (especially Harris) which is reprehensible.

Many people are okay with others keeping their faith personal and not throwing that into each others face, but the sad reality is that religion is not a personal faith rather seeks expansion (especially in the case of Christianity and Islam) and irreligious people thus have no option than to call for the elimination all religious thought. Just like blasphemous speech is offensive to religious people, proclamation of a divine being (Thank God, May God ..., etc sentences) offend the non-religious people. Only in a dream world can faith be personal, and that is something perhaps hardly anybody would complain against. But the sense of pride and proclamation that is necessary with Judo-Abrahmic religions (and the pride associated with Islam especially) is disturbing to most atheists/people of other faiths. A friend of mine always says that he'll be perfectly fine with a guy praying to a dust bin, he has no problems with it as along as he keeps it to himself (including praying in public) but the sad reality is that tomorrow he'll set out on a proselytizing mission and start converting others to his dust-bin religion and tomorrow start crying war on other people. Also, as goes with most religious people, they do not want people of other beliefs to comment on their beliefs but that is a very arrogant and failed statement to make. Faith isn't the monopoly of one group or person and everybody has the right to comment (in a scholarly way and not bad mouthing) on their beliefs.

Like Daniel Dennet says, Yes everybody would like that there should be a God who should reward people for their good deeds and punish bad people for their deeds because the world is not a just place, but this does not mean that one has to believe in a non-temporal, non-spatial omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient divine being.

Didn't want to discuss religious thought today or any day here but thought it would be necessary to explain some ideas that you would have failed to see.

PS: As old China came into the debate, it reminds me of the fact that same-sex marriages used to take place in ancient China as there wasn't any divine sanction to kill homosexuals back then.

 

[v9s]

Humans have a tendency to blame things other than themselves.

Today's religions have become corrupted by Man, which includes Traditional Islam.
If you look at most of the "religious" conflicts that have occurred in the world, it is always one side that has a 'holier than thou' attitude and thus seeks to destroy the opposing 'heathen' side. What is the reason for this? Not religion but the EGO and ARROGANCE of mankind.

Recall that Moses said to his people, "O my people, you have wronged your souls by worshiping the calf. You must repent to your Creator. You shall kill your egos. This is better for you in the sight of your Creator." He did redeem you. He is the Redeemer, Most Merciful. (2:54)

What is this thing called "ego" which God advises us to kill? We all have a feeling of what it is, but Western culture has confused the issue for us. The dictionary definition of ego is almost useless, perhaps even harmful:

The thinking, feeling and acting self that is conscious of itself and aware of its distinction from the selves of others and from the objects of its thought and other operations.

That sounds harmless enough, doesn’t it? But is it really? Interestingly, even the dictionary suggests the Quranic truth. The word "distinction" is the key here. The very word implies that some are better than others, and thus should be followed in preference to others. But the messengers are just vehicles for God’s guidance, and it is that guidance we must follow, not the individuals themselves. In the same way, making a distinction between others and ourselves implies that one or the other is inherently better. Yet we know that the only thing which distinguishes the people is righteousness:

O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Omniscient, Cognizant (49:13).

And even righteousness comes from God alone:

He is the source of righteousness; He is the source of forgiveness (74:56)

Our ego directs us to make distinction among our self and others, making us better than them in our own eyes. It is also the piece that makes us feel that we have some power, control or influence over things. It is the piece that gives importance to our personal opinions, to our grudges, to our desires.

The Quran gives us examples of the result of following our egos rather than killing them. It teaches us that it was ego that provoked Adam’s son Cain into murdering his brother Abel (5:30). Through the example of the governor’s wife who had tempted Joseph it teaches us that "the self is an advocate of vice" (12:53).

Following our ego puts us in danger of being covered by the following verse:

Are those enlightened by their Lord the same as those whose evil works are adorned in their eyes, and they follow their own opinions? (47:14)

Following our ego causes us to be arrogant to the extent of rejecting God’s messengers:

...Is it not a fact that every time a messenger went to you with anything you disliked, your ego caused you to be arrogant? Some of them you rejected, and some of them you killed. (2:87)

Finally, we are given the example of David whose repentance was reinforced with God’s teaching to "...rule among the people equitably, and do not follow your personal opinion, lest it diverts you from the way of God" (38:26).

Humility is antithesis of ego. Its importance is emphasized throughout the scriptures. (See also 17:37 and 25:63):

"You shall not treat the people with arrogance, nor shall you roam the earth proudly. God does not like the arrogant showoffs "Walk humbly and lower your voice - the ugliest voice is the donkey’s voice." (Luqmaan’s advice to his son, 31:18-19)

Man’s pride causes his humiliation, but he who is humble of spirit obtains honor. (Proverbs 29:23)

God teaches us that the ego can become an idol and the consequences can be detrimental for our salvation. Those who idolize their selves or egos may be sent astray by God, despite the knowledge they acquired:

Have you seen the one whose god is his own ego? Will you be his advocate? (25:43)

Have you noted the one whose god is his ego? Consequently, God sends him astray, despite his knowledge, seals his hearing and his mind, and places a veil on his eyes. Who then can guide him, after such a decision by God? Would you not take heed? (45:23)

How do we go about killing our egos? God gives us many means of working at this. For example, advice has been given to us to use criticism from someone else to kill the ego. Even if it was not correct, you have used it constructively. (Easier said than done though!) Every time we make a mistake, then repent and try to make amends, we are killing our ego. Every time we take ourselves to task for not being as eager to work righteousness, for not being straightforward, for backsliding, for falling into gossip or vain talk, we are killing our ego.

Sadly, the ego is like a hearty weed. Just when you think you have it licked, it sprouts right back up again. We must remember that God is the only one who really can do anything—including killing our ego. However, it is us who must make the initial decision to improve ourselves:

...God does not change the condition of any people unless they themselves make the decision to change... (13:11)

 

[DaRk WaVe]

v9s though don't people like me going against the verses, but your post deserve a reply & i will do that in a bit

PS: As old China came into the debate, it reminds me of the fact that same-sex marriages used to take place in ancient China as there wasn't any divine sanction to kill homosexuals back then.

Homosexuality is a natural behavior, only religious scriptures deny it been natural coz of their own homophobic & lesbophobic attitude, if religious people believe that God made all animals on the face of planet then they gotta accept that homosexuality is natural in many species of animals

- List of animals displaying homosexual behavior