How Xinjiang officers carry their daily duty to safeguard peace and stability in Xinjiang

[HannibalBarca]

I think Christian Fundamentalism is used for some form of politicized Christianity. In fact, that is where the word "fundamentalism" first came about and only later it is attached to Islam. Buddhism is largely immune to this because it is on the record that Buddha said what he had taught is just the finger that points to the moon, but not the moon itself. Later in China, another famous Buddhist Saint also had a very famous word about all the Buddhism scriptures. He said the Dharma (the teaching of Buddha) has nothing to do with what is written. That shatters the hope of Buddhist Fundamentalists, though they never stopped trying.

Religions have always been a powerful force, which entice political ambitious to try to harvest.

When you read the word ''Christianism or Judaism'' do you or anyone here make the link btw ''Christianity'' and ''Fundamentalism''? The answer is No.
As for Fundamentalism it came mostly after the renaissance as a way to differentiate them (non religious) to the religious behavior/entity of the Church.
In Islam it's simple... You should harm no one, you should take nothing that isn't yours, and DEFEND yourself when your life/way of life is DIRECTLY attacked.

But we agree both of us... that religion is one thing and the people are another...

 

[nang2]

When you read the word ''Christianism or Judaism'' do you or anyone here make the link btw ''Christianity'' and ''Fundamentalism''? The answer is No.
As for Fundamentalism it came mostly after the renaissance as a way to differentiate them (non religious) to the religious behavior/entity of the Church.
In Islam it's simple... You should harm no one, you should take nothing that isn't yours, and DEFEND yourself when your life/way of life is DIRECTLY attacked.

But we agree both of us... that religion is one thing and the people are another...

Of course, I am not defending the perception that media has created about Islam and Fundamentalism. I merely pointed out the existence of political movement or agenda in the name of Islam.

In Islam, as in other religions, it is both simple and complex depending on how you look at it. The confusion is mainly due to our own fault or ignorance, which put the religious practice in a very peculiar and awkward position. On one hand, we cannot judge the Teacher. He knows much more than we do and beyond. That means for non-Muslims, we cannot judge Mohammad for what He did and why. The same applies to Muslims who cannot really claim they know what He did and why. On the other hand, we must trust the Teacher in order to benefit from His teachings. That is why all religions are based on some form of faith, which is beyond logical reasoning. But people are addicted in looking for answers, which give some shrewd people a target to prey on when people have only the holy books to hold on to.

I think, what Muslim societies really need are Saints/Prophets, which, unfortunately, may not even wear the robe of Islam. Who am I to predict in what form or shape Saints/Prophets may present themselves? All I can hope for is that I may be attracted to one of them.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Of course, I am not defending the perception that media has created about Islam and Fundamentalism. I merely pointed out the existence of political movement or agenda in the name of Islam.

In Islam, as in other religions, it is both simple and complex depending on how you look at it. The confusion is mainly due to our own fault or ignorance, which put the religious practice in a very peculiar and awkward position. On one hand, we cannot judge the Teacher. He knows much more than we do and beyond. That means for non-Muslims, we cannot judge Mohammad for what He did and why. The same applies to Muslims who cannot really claim they know what He did and why. On the other hand, we must trust the Teacher in order to benefit from His teachings. That is why all religions are based on some form of faith, which is beyond logical reasoning. But people are addicted in looking for answers, which give some shrewd people a target to prey on when people have only the holy books to hold on to.

I think, what Muslim societies really need are Saints/Prophets, which, unfortunately, may not even wear the robe of Islam. Who am I to predict in what form or shape Saints/Prophets may present themselves? All I can hope for is that I may be attracted to one of them.

Islam is to Believe in ONE God, an entity that has no equal, that is eternal. We believe in Prophets that were chosen to spread the message of God, and that we must worship him alone and follow his Rules, Many prophets exist, but the Big names are Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus ,Mohammed (SAW) the seal of prophets, the last.
As for Islam, we know by details the life of the prophet and how he behaved to almost the letter... that is the ''Hadith'' the teaching of the prophet. and the Quran that is the literal words of Allah ( The God alone).

And in Islam... it is asked to use your Brain, your Logic your Knowledge to Question that faith/Belief... Something that is not present in other religion... Allah Himself ask ppl to prove it wrong... like doing something similar... finding errors, contradictions etc... and to this day... no one did... and if you can't then accept it.

Saints are forbidden, since it will push people to put their ''faith'' in other than Allah. as for Prophets, they clearly repeated the same message, Worship God and God alone.

 

[nang2]

Islam is to Believe in ONE God, an entity that has no equal, that is eternal. We believe in Prophets that were chosen to spread the message of God, and that we must worship him alone and follow his Rules, Many prophets exist, but the Big names are Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus ,Mohammed (SAW) the seal of prophets, the last.
As for Islam, we know by details the life of the prophet and how he behaved to almost the letter... that is the ''Hadith'' the teaching of the prophet. and the Quran that is the literal words of Allah ( The God alone).

And in Islam... it is asked to use your Brain, your Logic your Knowledge to Question that faith/Belief... Something that is not present in other religion... Allah Himself ask ppl to prove it wrong... like doing something similar... finding errors, contradictions etc... and to this day... no one did... and if you can't then accept it.

Saints are forbidden, since it will push people to put their ''faith'' in other than Allah. as for Prophets, they clearly repeated the same message, Worship God and God alone.

I think the phrase like "the Quran that is the literal words of Allah ( The God alone)" is often the source of conflict, because it is both true and false. It is true for what I believe in Islam. It is false because whoever says this often means differently. They often mean that what they read or understand from Quran is the literal words of Allah. After all, Quran is not gibberish to them or written in Chinese with all the funny characters. Even when you read Quran, you don't just try to mesmerize the letters. You try to understand it and that understanding forms what you think Quran is, which is influenced by all other information collected via senses and is, unfortunately, NOT the words of Allah. One reason Kant thinks human beings are incapable of perceiving the ultimate truth.

Then whose understanding of Quran is the words of Allah? I believe, in the logical sense, only the understanding of the two is. One is Mohammad who actually said those words. The other, the less reliable one, is the one whom He was speaking to and whom He intended to communicate with. That is why all the written records of Saints are often misinterpreted and they are often taken out of the context of the communication that actually took place, which is almost always impossible to know exactly. Just like one brilliant doctor who told one patient to drink more water and another patient to drink less. When his words were written down and treated as eternally correct in all circumstances, people are confused. One could pick the first one since it is beneficial to them and if he happens to follow the second one, diarrhea occurs. He then claims whoever picks the second one Kafir who is the one responsible for his diarrhea.

 

[HannibalBarca]

I think the phrase like "the Quran that is the literal words of Allah ( The God alone)" is often the source of conflict, because it is both true and false. It is true for what I believe in Islam. It is false because whoever says this often means differently. They often mean that what they read or understand from Quran is the literal words of Allah. After all, Quran is not gibberish to them or written in Chinese with all the funny characters. Even when you read Quran, you don't just try to mesmerize the letters. You try to understand it and that understanding forms what you think Quran is, which is influenced by all other information collected via senses and is, unfortunately, NOT the words of Allah. One reason Kant thinks human beings are incapable of perceiving the ultimate truth.

Then whose understanding of Quran is the words of Allah? I believe, in the logical sense, only the understanding of the two is. One is Mohammad who actually said those words. The other, the less reliable one, is the one whom He was speaking to and whom He intended to communicate with. That is why all the written records of Saints are often misinterpreted and they are often taken out of the context of the communication that actually took place, which is almost always impossible to know exactly. Just like one brilliant doctor who told one patient to drink more water and another patient to drink less. When his words were written down and treated as eternally correct in all circumstances, people are confused. One could pick the first one since it is beneficial to them and if he happens to follow the second one, diarrhea occurs. He then claims whoever picks the second one Kafir who is the one responsible for his diarrhea.

For a Muslim it is... and the source of conflict is actually not the Quran... But Hadiths.
The Quran speak by itself... It's like a First person speaker recording his own words...
With the likes of ''Oh Muhammed, say, That We... '' That's why the Book is labeled as such.


Before, something is labeled as false... you have to prove it to be false... and in a very scientifically manner, the Quran respect it... It's the only religious book where it is asked, to falsify it... recreate something similar with the same effect and so on... that is How modern SCIENCE is done... and how our theories are accepted...


Kant is not the right exemple for this imo... after all ...he is a destructive ideologue... not gonna get into his personal life and ideas... where he himself was unable to perceive his own destruction...

Hadiths are not just some ''Tales'' said by X and heard by Y few hundreds years after... Hadith and the Quran follow a very meticulous method of restitution... that NO document/Book in our Human history ever had and preserved to this day... Every word/saying GOT HIS OWN chain of narration, meaning from the one saying it, to the one writing it... everyone on the individuals present in that chain, is know at the perfection... in his speech, biography,family,location etc...
I can write on it for ages... but you can read about the Islamic chain of narration of the Hadith and Quran used by Islamic scholars, like Bukhari or Muslims... you will be amazed by the work done... that even to this day... academics don't follow...
And even after that Hadith are categorized by Truthworthy, to not really...

And to sustain such claim, like the Quran... Islam is also the only Abrahamic religion to Have an original from Day one... Christians don't, neither the jews...

Many believe that Islam books came later on.. or were written later on... no it didn't... From the moment Muhammed (saw) recited those words... they were immediately written down... verified by him and accepted by him.

 

[nang2]

For a Muslim it is... and the source of conflict is actually not the Quran... But Hadiths.
The Quran speak by itself... It's like a First person speaker recording his own words...
With the likes of ''Oh Muhammed, say, That We... '' That's why the Book is labeled as such.


Before, something is labeled as false... you have to prove it to be false... and in a very scientifically manner, the Quran respect it... It's the only religious book where it is asked, to falsify it... recreate something similar with the same effect and so on... that is How modern SCIENCE is done... and how our theories are accepted...


Kant is not the right exemple for this imo... after all ...he is a destructive ideologue... not gonna get into his personal life and ideas... where he himself was unable to perceive his own destruction...

Hadiths are not just some ''Tales'' said by X and heard by Y few hundreds years after... Hadith and the Quran follow a very meticulous method of restitution... that NO document/Book in our Human history ever had and preserved to this day... Every word/saying GOT HIS OWN chain of narration, meaning from the one saying it, to the one writing it... everyone on the individuals present in that chain, is know at the perfection... in his speech, biography,family,location etc...
I can write on it for ages... but you can read about the Islamic chain of narration of the Hadith and Quran used by Islamic scholars, like Bukhari or Muslims... you will be amazed by the work done... that even to this day... academics don't follow...
And even after that Hadith are categorized by Truthworthy, to not really...

And to sustain such claim, like the Quran... Islam is also the only Abrahamic religion to Have an original from Day one... Christians don't, neither the jews...

I am not really into scholars but more interested in mystics for I believe Allah is beyond reasoning and it is impossible to reach Him in this vehicle. For a similar reason, religion isn't compatible with science as science depends on proofs that either rely on reasoning or sensual evidence. Religion goes beyond that and must go beyond that while science is stuck there. That is why Saints don't recommend combing through holy books and arguing about every detail of them. They help you go straight to Allah. Once you are there, you don't need anyone to explain to you about holy books. To me, holy books only serve the purpose of quenching the homesickness. It is a comfort for a crying heart, not a guide for a seeking mind. To my knowledge, no Saints have ever written down anything by themselves in the form of descriptive reasoning. What is more common is that either they didn't write anything or what they wrote were poetry or songs or parables. What is about Allah is beyond human languages.

 

[HannibalBarca]

I am not really into scholars but more interested in mystics for I believe Allah is beyond reasoning and it is impossible to reach Him in this vehicle. For a similar reason, religion isn't compatible with science as science depends on proofs that either rely on reasoning or sensual evidence. Religion goes beyond that and must go beyond that while science is stuck there. That is why Saints don't recommend combing through holy books and arguing about every detail of them. They help you go straight to Allah. Once you are there, you don't need anyone to explain to you about holy books. To me, holy books only serve the purpose of quenching the homesickness. It is a comfort for a crying heart, not a guide for a seeking mind. To my knowledge, no Saints have ever written down anything by themselves in the form of descriptive reasoning. What is more common is that either they didn't write anything or what they wrote were poetry or songs or parables. What is about Allah is beyond human languages.

I don't know if I saw correctly... but that a paradox you are giving me...
How come you follow science and reasoning by accepting ''Saints'' position/duty?
While in Islam we follow a scientific alike method to verify the subject...
I don't speak for other religions, I do too believe their are corrupt... but not entirely false... Since when you say that X or Y words are from God... then the most basic thing is to at least be free from contradictions or erros... at least of that...

In Islam we are asked... to reason what we believe in... use logic/deduction/proof... to come to a conclusion...Ofc no one on earth will ever understand Allah... no one... But with our limited capacity we can wish to accept a certain reality upon our own ability to think... otherwise nothing beyond our nose shall be ''accepted''

As for Saints... who need them...when you can read directly primary sources of their own belief... and see for yourself what they are saying is true or not... Saints aren't teachers... People make Saints... not the way around...

 

[nang2]

I don't know if I saw correctly... but that a paradox you are giving me...
How come you follow science and reasoning by accepting ''Saints'' position/duty?
While in Islam we follow a scientific alike method to verify the subject...
I don't speak for other religions, I do too believe their are corrupt... but not entirely false... Since when you say that X or Y words are from God... then the most basic thing is to at least be free from contradictions or erros... at least of that...

In Islam we are asked... to reason what we believe in... use logic/deduction/proof... to come to a conclusion...Ofc no one on earth will ever understand Allah... no one... But with our limited capacity we can wish to accept a certain reality upon our own ability to think... otherwise nothing beyond our nose shall be ''accepted''

As for Saints... who need them...when you can read directly primary sources of their own belief... and see for yourself what they are saying is true or not... Saints aren't teachers... People make Saints... not the way around...

Yes, it is paradoxical, isn't it? That may be one of reasons why nobody can convince anybody in this world in the whole debates about religions and politics. If we just constraint ourselves just to the logical reasoning on the subject that concerns this world, we could easily have a fruitful discussion. As soon as we bring religions in, which are full of things that are either self-contradicting or simply miraculous, then the discussion falls apart. It must be a tough job for Saints/Prophets who take on the job of teaching mankind. If they speak with reasoning, it is below Allah. If they don't, nobody can grasp a word they say. What an awkward situation they got themselves in! That is probably the reason behind a famous Buddhism story: When Buddha asked one of his best disciple about the law of Dharma, the disciple only smiled with a flower in his hand. That may be the reason why when they choose to write down anything, they opt for artistic presentation, which tolerates the paradox.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Yes, it is paradoxical, isn't it? That may be one of reasons why nobody can convince anybody in this world in the whole debates about religions and politics. If we just constraint ourselves just to the logical reasoning on the subject that concerns this world, we could easily have a fruitful discussion. As soon as we bring religions in, which are full of things that are either self-contradicting or simply miraculous, then the discussion falls apart. It must be a tough job for Saints/Prophets who take on the job of teaching mankind. If they speak with reasoning, it is below Allah. If they don't, nobody can grasp a word they say. What an awkward situation they got themselves in! That is probably the reason behind a famous Buddhism story: When Buddha asked one of his best disciple about the law of Dharma, the disciple only smiled with a flower in his hand. That may be the reason why when they choose to write down anything, they opt for artistic presentation, which tolerates the paradox.

But should we tolerate paradox? isn't paradox the enemy of our reality... What should we accommodate paradox when it in itself can't accommodate logic... or even our own existence. Paradox is doubt in it's purest form... So why should we bet on ''Doubt'' for our eternal salvation...

I understand where non-religious ppl may see Religion as a paradox, When they take today limited lenses to read the essence of our reality... But what happen when one religion ask directly to use that limited lenses to get a proper answer to an existential Q... What happen when that same religion is ready to take on that condition... and yet succeed when it's seen in depth...

 

[nang2]

But should we tolerate paradox? isn't paradox the enemy of our reality... What should we accommodate paradox when it in itself can't accommodate logic... or even our own existence. Paradox is doubt in it's purest form... So why should we bet on ''Doubt'' for our eternal salvation...

I understand where non-religious ppl may see Religion as a paradox, When they take today limited lenses to read the essence of our reality... But what happen when one religion ask directly to use that limited lenses to get a proper answer to an existential Q... What happen when that same religion is ready to take on that condition... and yet succeed when it is see in depth...

No, paradox isn't the enemy of reality. It only seems so when we mistaken reality as truth. It is even more so when we realize the truth is beyond words. Though we use faith to ensure the pursuit of truth, the doubt never disappears until the day when we truly know Allah. What the faith really is, I think, is to suppress our wandering mind. Having more questions doesn't always lead to more truth.

 

[HannibalBarca]

No, paradox isn't the enemy of reality. It only seems so when we mistaken reality as truth. It is even more so when we realize the truth is beyond words. Though we use faith to ensure the pursuit of truth, the doubt never disappears until the day when we truly know Allah. What the faith really is, I think, is to suppress our wandering mind. Having more questions doesn't always lead to more truth.

I do in part agree, then why taking Paradox as a passenger? Why not pursuing truth by understanding/experiencing faith with the tools that Allah gave us already? Why having that dangling ''thing'' next to us... when in essence it is irrelevant or even being a liability to our understanding of truth...
It's the equivalent of a Mirage... that many could be lost to it... in hope to see the truth...

 

[nang2]

I do in part agree, then why taking Paradox as a passenger? Why not pursuing truth by understanding/experiencing faith with the tools that Allah gave us already? Why having that dangling ''thing'' next to us... when in essence it is irrelevant or even being a liability to our understanding of truth...
It's the equivalent of a Mirage... that many could be lost to it... in hope to see the truth...

Because human beings aren't perfect. So the path towards the truth cannot be perfect. The direct revelation of the truth may be too much to handle. (That reminds me the movie "A few good men". "You CAN'T handle the truth!" ) Saints have to use whatever tools they find convenient. It is the end of the journey that matters. Let's see you got injured in legs and couldn't walk. In the end, the doctor helped you to recover so you can walk as usual. Look back, do you care whether you used crutch or stool walker?

 

[HannibalBarca]

Because human beings aren't perfect. So the path towards the truth cannot be perfect. The direct revelation of the truth may be too much to handle. (That reminds me the movie "A few good men". "You CAN'T handle the truth!" ) Saints have to use whatever tools they find convenient. It is the end of the journey that matters. Let's see you got injured in legs and couldn't walk. In the end, the doctor helped you to recover so you can walk as usual. Look back, do you care whether you used crutch or stool walker?

But Saints don't make themselves Saints... But by the people. Therefore Saints evolve with Human society and belief... So what Will happen to X or Y saint of that same faith... did he become irrelevant?
You may not have direct Revelation, But Human can handle the truth... He may not accept it, deny it, run from it... but he surely can handle it...

The problem in that equation is the alleged ''Helper''... You may recover... but is that really the main focus of ''Salvation''? Isn't the Destination what's matter? Life is an endless bumpy/difficult road... walking or running or crawling may only change the way we perceive our place in this reality... but nothing more...

So what if that ''Helper'' gave what you wished to continue but put you on a different path and therefore a different destination... Since Saints aren't just simple helpers... But also used as Guides to attain a ''destination''...

 

[nang2]

But Saints don't make themselves Saints... But by the people. Therefore Saints evolve with Human society and belief... So what Will happen to X or Y saint of that same faith... did he become irrelevant?
You may not have direct Revelation, But Human can handle the truth... He may not accept it, deny it, run from it... but he surely can handle it...

The problem in that equation is the alleged ''Helper''... You may recover... but is that really the main focus of ''Salvation''? Isn't the Destination what's matter? Life is an endless bumpy/difficult road... walking or running or crawling may only change the way we perceive our place in this reality... but nothing more...

So what if that ''Helper'' gave what you wished to continue but put you on a different path and therefore a different destination... Since Saints aren't just simple helpers... But also used as Guides to attain a ''destination''...

Of course Saints make themselves Saints. They even chose the names to be called. Buddha chose the word "Buddha". Jesus chose the word "Christ". Of course, we only know those famous ones.

Of course, helpers are guides, whom you have to trust wholehearted. You don't always find the right guide. Being misguided isn't so rare. Just ask those who blow themselves up (pun intended). But it is the dilemma we have to live with. After all, you cannot get the pearl when your feet are kept on the safe dry land.

 

[HannibalBarca]

Of course Saints make themselves Saints. They even chose the names to be called. Buddha chose the word "Buddha". Jesus chose the word "Christ". Of course, we only know those famous ones.

Of course, helpers are guides, whom you have to trust wholehearted. You don't always find the right guide. Being misguided isn't so rare. Just ask those who blow themselves up (pun intended). But it is the dilemma we have to live with. After all, you cannot get the pearl when your feet are kept on the safe dry land.

Christ means the ''anointed one'' all prophet have similar domination... anointed by the one who sent them... Allah.
So if prophets themselves who are known to be the most special Human beings by their creator are anointed by him... then what place do Saints who are, according to you, chosen by themselves, hold in all of that?

But, I will put ahead the Saints evolution in the Islamic discourse. Throughout History... many pious/good man walk on this earth... then died... After their death, People with Ibliss help, wished to commemorate those pious Men... Generation after generation... people lost the initial meaning of such ''commemoration'' and begun to worship or seek help/guidance from those figures... In an attempt to make those ''Saints'' speak on their behalf to God... and therefore associating a ''being'' to the all mighty creator.
Then It was asked to them.. why do you follow/worship or seek guidance/help from them... they answered '' we only fulfill our forefathers belief''