View Full Version : For the Hardcore Atheists


Maiwand
06-24-2010, 11:59 PM
For the hardcore thinking experienced atheists to reflect upon.

Dr. Laurence Brown
A graduate from two Ivy League universities with sub-specialty training in ophthalmology, Dr. Brown served as a respected ophthalmologist in the U.S. Air Force for a period of eight years. His term of service was distinguished by earning the position of Chief of Ophthalmology, both at Lakenheath Air Force Base in England and at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida (the largest military base in the free world). Dr. Laurence Brown received his BA from Cornell University, his MD from Brown University Medical School, and his ophthalmology residency training at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, DC.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fhdo3wIAiYQ&hl=nl_NL&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Fhdo3wIAiYQ&hl=nl_NL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Levanaye Zalmaye
06-25-2010, 12:08 AM
So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 12:09 AM
So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?
god is uncreated.

Maiwand
06-25-2010, 12:12 AM
So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?
According of the definition of God of the muslims and the defintion that God has given of himself, he is eternal and not created. And you cannot compare him with anyone/anything.

Levanaye Zalmaye
06-25-2010, 12:15 AM
Those arguments may satisfy a theist but as Sangar would know, a "hardcore atheist" would want more than theological philosophy as proof.

Maiwand
06-25-2010, 12:17 AM
Those arguments may satisfy a theist but as Sangar would know, a "hardcore atheist" would want more than theological philosophy as proof.
What would confince a hardcore atheist that there is a God, besides seeing him with his/her own eyes?

Roshina
06-25-2010, 12:51 AM
In almost all discussions I've had with people on the whole creation thing, and most people find it intelligent to say, "Look, okay? Everything has to have a creator. We HAD to be created by God, duh."

But... why don't they realize that I'm gonna be obliged to ask in return, "So who created God then?" The typical answer is, "God by definition has no creator, so it is illogical to ask such a question" (classic answer by Zakir Naik!).

Firstly, how is it illogical?
Secondly, according to WHOSE definition? Someone has to have defined the term or concept of "God" for you to believe that "by definition," God has no creator, right? So then whose definition is that? And why is that the only definition?

However, lemme try to answer it for those who don't know.

The chain HAS to break somewhere. If there IS an answer to who created God (say, something called A created God), then one can legitimately ask, "What created A then?" The answer may be that "B created A," but we'll naturally ask, "What created B?" And so on. So the best we can do is to agree that this chain HAD to break somewhere, and God-believers have decided that "Okay, then, let's have the chain be broken with God."

Most of them are satisfied with this, but the rest of us want to look more into it -- just because.

So, if most theists wanna end with, "OKay, then GOD is the one who created everything," the question becomes, "Define God." And that's where theists don't always agree.

Some atheist scientists argue that why make "God" the creator? The answer from the theist is: Because we need an answer, we need a creator, and we need to beleive that something has the ABILITY to create something more and new, so it has to be God. The atheist might then go a little further and say, "Okay, then. That might be satisfying for you, but it's not so for me. What's wrong with my believing that a Unicellular Organism came out of nowhere, just like God came out of nowhere? Why necessarily does it have to be this God, why not something else?"

And then the theist gives the same answer: "Because a unicellular organism cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and everything else that God is."

So, yeah, we need a better claim (I don't even wanna say "argument" here!) than a simple and superficial "God is by definition the creator and uncreated." It might work for you but not for those who like to think beyond *your* understanding.

Maiwand
06-25-2010, 12:57 AM
In almost all discussions I've had with people on the whole creation thing, and most people find it intelligent to say, "Look, okay? Everything has to have a creator. We HAD to be created by God, duh."

But... why don't they realize that I'm gonna be obliged to ask in return, "So who created God then?" The typical answer is, "God by definition has no creator, so it is illogical to ask such a question" (classic answer by Zakir Naik!).

Firstly, how is it illogical?
Secondly, according to WHOSE definition? Someone has to have defined the term or concept of "God" for you to believe that "by definition," God has no creator, right? So then whose definition is that? And why is that the only definition?

However, lemme try to answer it for those who don't know.

The chain HAS to break somewhere. If there IS an answer to who created God (say, something called A created God), then one can legitimately ask, "What created A then?" The answer may be that "B created A," but we'll naturally ask, "What created B?" And so on. So the best we can do is to agree that this chain HAD to break somewhere, and God-believers have decided that "Okay, then, let's have the chain be broken with God."

Most of them are satisfied with this, but the rest of us want to look more into it -- just because.

So, if most theists wanna end with, "OKay, then GOD is the one who created everything," the question becomes, "Define God." And that's where theists don't always agree.

Some atheist scientists argue that why make "God" the creator? The answer from the theist is: Because we need an answer, we need a creator, and we need to beleive that something has the ABILITY to create something more and new, so it has to be God. The atheist might then go a little further and say, "Okay, then. That might be satisfying for you, but it's not so for me. What's wrong with my believing that a Unicellular Organism came out of nowhere, just like God came out of nowhere? Why necessarily does it have to be this God, why not something else?"

And then the theist gives the same answer: "Because a unicellular organism cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and everything else that God is."

So, yeah, we need a better claim (I don't even wanna say "argument" here!) than a simple and superficial "God is by definition the creator and uncreated." It might work for you but not for those who like to think beyond *your* understanding.

We cannot change the reality and the factual existense of God or his definition in order to satisfy the arrogant atheists. First of all all the knowledge that we humans have about God, is from God. So he is the only one who can define himself. And he has said in the Quran that he has those 99 qualities. So I would ask the atheists, prove that the Quran is not the word of God. If he succeeds in doing that, then we would know that the information about God in the Quran is possibly wrong or that God doesn't exist. As long as an atheist can't do that (relatively easy job), then why is he denying the existence of the creater of the universe and every living being.

I advice everyone who has the least bit of doubt in his/her heart about the divine origin of the Quran to watch the complete lecture of Zakir Naik: "Is Quran Gods Word?", it's on youtube.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9nWthgMb7Zg&hl=nl_NL&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9nWthgMb7Zg&hl=nl_NL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Roshina
06-25-2010, 01:06 AM
^ Maiwand wrora, when an atheist asks you why you believe in God, are you gonna say, "Because God says so in the Quran -- here, here, here, here, here, and allll over His Holy Book."?

Because that wouldn't lead to a discussion at all. I'm interested in a discussion, and we're not gonna have that with a simple "God exists and He's the creator of all things because He said so in the Quran."

єѕαρχαι
06-25-2010, 01:11 AM
So if the Big Bang was indeed under the control of a creator, how does that infer that the 'creator' was Allah and not Raam, Zeus or Morgan Freeman?

In any case, I just have one question for the almighty Dr. Laurence Brown (peace and salutations be upon him) - you ask where the primordial dust and the clouds came from? I ask you, where do you think the sole, singular Creator came from who created those clouds?

Nobody can prove you wrong if you believe in nothing.
:dead:

Maiwand
06-25-2010, 01:14 AM
^ Maiwand wrora, when an atheist asks you why you believe in God, are you gonna say, "Because God says so in the Quran -- here, here, here, here, here, and allll over His Holy Book."?

Because that wouldn't lead to a discussion at all. I'm interested in a discussion, and we're not gonna have that with a simple "God exists and He's the creator of all things because He said so in the Quran."
Then I will repeat my previous questions to such an atheist, what will definitely confince him/her that there is a God, without seeing Him with his/her eyes?

Because in the Quran there is a verse in which God says, that even if those people see every sign, they will still not believe. I even think that even when they see God with their eyes, they will still have doubts or say that it is some kind of magic etc.

Every proof of the existence of God is already in nature, the laws of the universe and our own body. So what does an atheist need more to be confinced of the existence of Allah (swt)?

The main goal of our life is to worship God and believe in the unseen, that's why this life is a test. What is the point of the test if you get the results before hand or are able to cheat?

Roshina
06-25-2010, 01:15 AM
Nobody can prove you wrong if you believe in nothing.
:dead:


I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I'm just wondering, Sher Khan wrora ... what does "nothing" mean? If you were referring to atheists and their disbelief in God, why do we assume that just because they don't believe in God, they don't believe in ANYTHING? That they believe in "nothing"?

I suspect the answer must be: Because God is everything. So if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in "everything" -- hence, you believe in "nothing." But if you think about it more honestly, do you personally REALLY agree with this? Does this honestly make sense to you?

I'm saying all this *assuming* that you were referring to atheism and its belief in what you have called "nothing." If I'm wrong, or my assumption is wrong, then please forgive me and correct me and just ignore this, then.

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 01:20 AM
Then I will repeat my previous questions to such an atheist, what will definitely confince him/her that there is a God, without seeing Him with his/her eyes?

Because in the Quran there is a verse in which God says, that even if those people see every sign, they will still not believe. I even think that even when they see God with their eyes, they will still have doubts or say that it is some kind of magic etc.

Every proof of the existence of God is already in nature, the laws of the universe and our own body. So what does an atheist need more to be confinced of the existence of Allah (swt)?

The main goal of our life is to worship God and believe in the unseen, that's why this life is a test. What is the point of the test if you get the results before hand or are able to cheat?
I think there is more to that.

Atheists are by nature rebellious people. They are usually bitter, and frustrated. There is something that bothers them. So they decide to rebel against highest authority thinkable. So they deny existence of god.

Most prominent atheists are usually the biggest degenerates.

Usually, the atheists from conservative communities are most vocal when they remain anonymous. An atheist from a Muslim community who is frustrated why he could not have the woman of his dreams, or why his parents don't like his facination with dead-metal music, usually resort to irrational behavior online questioning the existence of god.

єѕαρχαι
06-25-2010, 01:22 AM
I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I'm just wondering, Sher Khan wrora ... what does "nothing" mean? If you were referring to atheists and their disbelief in God, why do we assume that just because they don't believe in God, they don't believe in ANYTHING? That they believe in "nothing"?

I suspect the answer must be: Because God is everything. So if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in "everything" -- hence, you believe in "nothing." But if you think about it more honestly, do you personally REALLY agree with this? Does this honestly make sense to you?

I'm saying all this *assuming* that you were referring to atheism and its belief in what you have called "nothing." If I'm wrong, or my assumption is wrong, then please forgive me and correct me and just ignore this, then.

awww khory.

according to me , atheist is the one who believes in nothing.
Atheists always deny a higher power.:banghead:

Maiwand
06-25-2010, 01:25 AM
I think there is more to that.

Atheists are by nature rebellious people. They are usually bitter, and frustrated. There is something that bothers them. So they decide to rebel against highest authority thinkable. So they deny existence of god.

Most prominent atheists are usually the biggest degenerates.

Usually, the atheists from conservative communities are most vocal when they remain anonymous. An atheist from a Muslim community who is frustrated why he could not have the woman of his dreams, or why his parents don't like his facination with dead-metal music, usually resort to irrational behavior online questioning the existence of god.

yes exactly, they are Summun Bukmun Umyun (Deaf, Dumb and Blind) :)

Roshina
06-25-2010, 01:26 AM
awww khory.

according to me , atheist is the one who believes in nothing.
Atheists always deny a higher power.:banghead:


Gotcha! Mananana for your opinion, wror gula.

Nadir Shah
06-25-2010, 06:01 AM
god is uncreated.

Malgariya, This is not the way to go about this. Who gets to define something as uncreated? How/Why/On Whom's authority is God to be assumed as uncreated? As as long as we are making stuff up, I claim that the 'Universe' or 'Multiverse' (or whatever the Sagan/Hawkings type of people are upto these days) is uncreated. Since the Universe is uncreated, there is no need to go any further up the ladder? Sounds rational?

Nadir Shah
06-25-2010, 06:31 AM
awww khory.

according to me , atheist is the one who believes in nothing.
Atheists always deny a higher power.:banghead:


Malgariya, that is one way to say this. Another person would say that Atheists only believe in things that exist, though, 'Existence' is a whole another subject. Atheists believe in food, coke, laptops, watches, rings, chairs, tables, pictures, cameras, rectangles, triangles, squares, cars, books, wines, people, societies, work, masses etc. So It would be unfair to say that Atheists believe in 'nothing'.

Levanaye Zalmaye
06-25-2010, 06:35 AM
yes exactly, they are Summun Bukmun Umyun (Deaf, Dumb and Blind) :)

I find that highly ironic.

YOU are the one who has blind faith, not me.

YOU are the one who is not supposed to to make himself deaf to music, not me.

YOU are the one who is supposed to be dumb and not discuss the origins of god and other things that 'decrease faith'.


@Sangar, no it's not a girl, it's heavy and folk metal and not death metal per se and I'm not 13.

Nadir Shah
06-25-2010, 06:46 AM
I think there is more to that.

Atheists are by nature rebellious people. They are usually bitter, and frustrated. There is something that bothers them. So they decide to rebel against highest authority thinkable. So they deny existence of god.

Most prominent atheists are usually the biggest degenerates.

Usually, the atheists from conservative communities are most vocal when they remain anonymous. An atheist from a Muslim community who is frustrated why he could not have the woman of his dreams, or why his parents don't like his facination with dead-metal music, usually resort to irrational behavior online questioning the existence of god.

Rebellious? Malgariya, some people just cannot believe in everything any homosexual, bourgeoeisie lapdog, illiterate and loser of a Mullah utters. Malgariya, some people tend to be more than passive, useless and 'Mussala'-ized sub-humans, who feel obligated to move and proceed when they see the masses or people oppressed and suppressed.

Malgariya, people who can't get the women of their dreams or are frustrated losers and bitter tend to have a semen-ladden, orgy-fantacising brain, and surface as Islamic Mujahid Suicide Bombers, not atheists.

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 11:04 AM
Rebellious? Malgariya, some people just cannot believe in everything any homosexual, bourgeoeisie lapdog, illiterate and loser of a Mullah utters. Malgariya, some people tend to be more than passive, useless and 'Mussala'-ized sub-humans, who feel obligated to move and proceed when they see the masses or people oppressed and suppressed.

Malgariya, people who can't get the women of their dreams or are frustrated losers and bitter tend to have a semen-ladden, orgy-fantacising brain, and surface as Islamic Mujahid Suicide Bombers, not atheists.
easy now. Did I hit a sensitive nerve there?

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 11:08 AM
Usually, when you talk about the rebellious nature and emotionally laden relationship of Atheists with god, they resport to name calling.

This reveals the deep rooted nature of this antagonism against higher authority.

The more outspoken an atheist, the deeper the pain and the more emotional the source of this rebellion.

MazloomyarMaseed
06-25-2010, 11:28 AM
Usually, when you talk about the rebellious nature and emotionally laden relationship of Atheists with god, they resport to name calling.

This reveals the deep rooted nature of this antagonism against higher authority.

The more outspoken an atheist, the deeper the pain and the more emotional the source of this rebellion.


You are not so innocent yourself, you are known to insult and divert topics when you can with your Sarcastic Remarks.

You left islam 5 years ago but then promote those who leave should be killed, then you support suicide bombings and promote Saudi Wahabi Litrature on this forum, expecting us to be so naive to accept the trash and then you thank those who promote offensive jihad yet your backside is sat in Holland, given the chance they boot you out, you will be the first to screem Human rights abuse.

Then you speak so highly of Taliban, but admit that Taliban love col imam and then you reject ISI connections with ISI ignoring the fact that Taliban was produced in the durol islami Haqqania in Pakistan.

Sangar, you are confused.

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 11:33 AM
You are not so innocent yourself, you are known to insult and divert topics when you can with your Sarcastic Remarks.

You left islam 5 years ago but then promote those who leave should be killed, then you support suicide bombings and promote Saudi Wahabi Litrature on this forum, expecting us to be so naive to accept the trash and then you thank those who promote offensive jihad yet your backside is sat in Holland, given the chance they boot you out, you will be the first to screem Human rights abuse.

Then you speak so highly of Taliban, but admit that Taliban love col imam and then you reject ISI connections with ISI ignoring the fact that Taliban was produced in the durol islami Haqqania in Pakistan.

Sangar, you are confused.

If I would count the number of your posts summarizing your views about me, and line them up, I could compile a whole book.

I feel quite honored to have such a dedicated critic who invest so much time writing about me.

MazloomyarMaseed
06-25-2010, 12:48 PM
If I would count the number of your posts summarizing your views about me, and line them up, I could compile a whole book.

I feel quite honored to have such a dedicated critic who invest so much time writing about me.


Why did you leave Islam but promote others who do to be killed who do.

Go prepare CIA jihad on Iran, Saudi and Wahabis are awaiting their Wahabi Messiah, Maybe you will get 72 white virgins and you can have a orgy with the sheik who told you this.

Kind Regards

amna.
06-25-2010, 05:04 PM
Athiesm=Jahalat.

The Quran predicted these people. Mashalllah.

єѕαρχαι
06-25-2010, 05:14 PM
everything is good as long you dont take it to the extreme

Roshina
06-25-2010, 05:42 PM
easy now. Did I hit a sensitive nerve there?

Not everyone is feeble-minded, wror gula! As I've said before, you seem to think that ANYONE who disagrees with you has had his/her "nerve hit." Of course. But then again, don't you know that the person who claims, "Did I hit a nerve?" is implying that HIS own nerve just got hit. If anything, your own posts have anger, disrespect, and intolerance painted all over them, and here you are, telling everyone else who disagrees with you "easy now." You've said it to MWMN, me, Mujib, Nadir, Laevaney Zalmaye, Strategist Maseed, and everyone else whose perspectives don't parallel yours.

So, calm down, Sangar. This is a discussion. No need for irrelevant comments like "Did I hit a nerve there?" Refute the interlocutor's views, and if you can't, just either be honest to yourself and others or save yourself the embarrassment of taking part in a conversation about which you lack elementary knowledge.

Roshina
06-25-2010, 05:45 PM
Usually, when you talk about the rebellious nature and emotionally laden relationship of Atheists with god, they resport to name calling.

When did this happen? I mean at least on this forum.

And, on the contrary, I can pinpoint your own posts in which you yourself have resorted to name-calling and insults.

єѕαρχαι
06-25-2010, 05:48 PM
No personal attacks . brothers.

keep this forum clean and peaceful.

IN THE NAME OF PAKHTU

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 09:08 PM
When did this happen? I mean at least on this forum.

And, on the contrary, I can pinpoint your own posts in which you yourself have resorted to name-calling and insults.
I was making a general statement about atheists. Not particularly anyone from PF.


And I do tend to say things that can be considered as insulting or name calling. But I disagree. I just see it as making observations and daring to state facts of life.

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 09:10 PM
Not everyone is feeble-minded, wror gula! As I've said before, you seem to think that ANYONE who disagrees with you has had his/her "nerve hit." Of course. But then again, don't you know that the person who claims, "Did I hit a nerve?" is implying that HIS own nerve just got hit. If anything, your own posts have anger, disrespect, and intolerance painted all over them, and here you are, telling everyone else who disagrees with you "easy now." You've said it to MWMN, me, Mujib, Nadir, Laevaney Zalmaye, Strategist Maseed, and everyone else whose perspectives don't parallel yours.

So, calm down, Sangar. This is a discussion. No need for irrelevant comments like "Did I hit a nerve there?" Refute the interlocutor's views, and if you can't, just either be honest to yourself and others or save yourself the embarrassment of taking part in a conversation about which you lack elementary knowledge.


Nadir Shah has his own public spokesperson. What did he do to have his own spokesperson?

شمله ور خراساني
06-25-2010, 09:11 PM
Why did you leave Islam but promote others who do to be killed who do.

Go prepare CIA jihad on Iran, Saudi and Wahabis are awaiting their Wahabi Messiah, Maybe you will get 72 white virgins and you can have a orgy with the sheik who told you this.

Kind Regards
No thank you. I rather stick to posting on PF. Which appears to make your life miserable.

Nadir Shah
06-26-2010, 02:09 AM
Those who have turned to Atheism think they know it all. They ask "proof for good" but they can not provide proof for him not existing either.

ITS A LOSE LOSE SITUATION FOR YOU GUYS.

Malgariya, it is the norm among rational, civilized people that the person who claims some hypothesis to be true, the same person must provide the logical reasoning/ empirical evidence to support the hypothesis before it is accepted.

Nadir Shah
06-26-2010, 02:22 AM
that is when faith comes into effect. Heard of faith wrora?

Faith, unfortunately, does not count as evidence or logic. The whole purpose of the thread, I suppose, was to provide logical arguments and/or scientific/empirical evidence for the existense of God. Needless to say, None has been forthcoming.

Roshina
06-26-2010, 02:43 AM
Faith, unfortunately, does not count as evidence or logic. The whole purpose of the thread, I suppose, was to provide logical arguments and/or scientific/empirical evidence for the existense of God. Needless to say, None has been forthcoming.

Unfortunately, also, faith comes into play only when our Muslim beliefs are concerned :| For Hindus, for instance, we can't say, "Look, leave them alone, okay? It's called faith! They have their reasons for believing what they do and worshiping what they worship." For other non-Muslims, faith doesn't matter, either. Only for Muslims.

I don't know how we're expected to fall for this or accept it as a good enough reason for anyone's beliefs.

Roshina
06-26-2010, 02:47 AM
Those who have turned to Atheism think they know it all. They ask "proof for good" but they can not provide proof for him not existing either.

Um. Seriously? If I tell you that I don't have a grandfather or that my grandmother passed away last month or that I don't have a niece, are you going to ask me for evidence?

In other words, wror gula, you don't ask anyone to prove the ABSENCE of anything.

And it's actually untrue that (all) atheists want the proof of God's existence. Many have other reasons for believing that God does not exist. You need to get yourself familiar with their beliefs and disbelief before you involve yourself in a discussion on them. Just some friendly advice, nothing bad.

Nadir Shah
06-26-2010, 03:10 AM
Unfortunately, also, faith comes into play only when our Muslim beliefs are concerned :| For Hindus, for instance, we can't say, "Look, leave them alone, okay? It's called faith! They have their reasons for believing what they do and worshiping what they worship." For other non-Muslims, faith doesn't matter, either. Only for Muslims.

I don't know how we're expected to fall for this or accept it as a good enough reason for anyone's beliefs.

A minor but important disagreement. The personal beliefs of any person do not concern is outside of a discussion precisely for this purpose. A person could believe in 'One', 'Thirteen', 'Forty Seven', 'Two-Thousand One Hundered and Eighty Seven', or 'Six million' Gods, for all we care (Why is the concept of 'One' being so alluring?). Our problems arise when the said person or gourp of persons, seek to impose their views/thoughts on others, and most often, using voilence as a means. This is totally unaccepetable. Should a person be of no detriment to another individual and the society as as long as he contributes to the Pashtun cause to his fullest capacity, We should not be concerned about his belief or lack thereof.

Roshina
06-26-2010, 03:49 AM
A minor but important disagreement. The personal beliefs of any person do not concern is outside of a discussion precisely for this purpose.

Never, ever should a person's personal beliefs be brought up or held against that person in any discussion.

But you said "for this purpose." I'm not sure what that purpose is, though. I mean, I can think of tons of reasons why one's personal beliefs shouldn't be brought up in a discussion, but I'm not sure what you refer to here.

A person could believe in 'One', 'Thirteen', 'Forty Seven', 'Two-Thousand One Hundered and Eighty Seven', or 'Six million' Gods, for all we care (Why is the concept of 'One' being so alluring?). Our problems arise when the said person or gourp of persons, seek to impose their views/thoughts on others, and most often, using voilence as a means. This is totally unaccepetable. Should a person be of no detriment to another individual and the society as as long as he contributes to the Pashtun cause to his fullest capacity, We should not be concerned about his belief or lack thereof.

That's the problem. In the opinions of many Muslims, not believing in God is detrimental to society :S And so is polytheism and hundreds of other things that some humans would actually find totally harmless to society. In other words, anything that's not in sync with their beliefs is detrimental to society at large, and this is the belief that I personally can't stand.

єѕαρχαι
06-26-2010, 04:04 AM
nadir shah. you are doing good dawah for atheism.
Just dont ever go to afghanistan. else someone will behead you :p

MeemWawMeemNoon
06-26-2010, 08:51 AM
I am really confused who are the Atheists here and who are not.

Nadir Shah
06-26-2010, 02:15 PM
Nadir Shah is the Atheist.

Malgariya, that is rather unkind and not very well informed. You should not judge me by a few posts.

Nadir Shah
06-26-2010, 04:15 PM
Nadira
What is your main problem with Islam?

Malgariya, Please read the whole thread, If you care.

Dukhtar-e-Kabul
06-26-2010, 06:52 PM
Nadir Shah

I have noticed you constantly say Arab-Islam do you know Arabs are a minority in Islam?

Roshina
06-26-2010, 09:46 PM
Nadir Shah

I have noticed you constantly say Arab-Islam do you know Arabs are a minority in Islam?

If I understand his view correctly, by Arab-Islam, he means that the Islam that is practiced by Arabs, which may or may not necessarily be the one that the Quran and hadiths support. We know, for example, that Saudi Arabia isn't an "Islamic" state but many of us are fooled to think it is just because the Prophet was from there.

It's not about which race has the most Muslims or anything like that but rather a specific brand of Islam being practiced by a group of people.

Roshina
06-26-2010, 11:50 PM
Qrratugai, How isn't it an Islamic state? Are you judging the state based on it's people or laws? They have Islamic Shariah.

I don't understand your question, guley. Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia actually IS an Islamic state? Because that's not true -- in which case, are you asking me to give you reasons for why Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic state (referring mostly to its national laws, its government, etc.)? The Muslims of KSA are pretty much as normal as Muslims elsewhere; it's how they implement/enforce their laws, particularly against women. Human rights is a maaaaaaaaaajor issue there, and it's like one of the top ten (if not top 5) nations on earth with the most brutal ways of treating humans.

And, no, I'm not getting this from the media. I thought everyone knew by now that Saudi Arabia is actually not as Islamic as it claims.

karachipashtun
07-01-2010, 10:58 PM
I don't understand your question, guley. Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia actually IS an Islamic state? Because that's not true -- in which case, are you asking me to give you reasons for why Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic

Ofcourse it is. They might not be practicing but they are considered an Islamic state. You are wrong.

Roshina
07-02-2010, 05:16 PM
Ofcourse it is. They might not be practicing but they are considered an Islamic state. You are wrong.

They're considered an Islamic state? By whom? And just because they're considered an Islam doesn't necessarily make them an Islamic state.

I'm not talking about how things are supposed to be; I'm talking about the reality of things, how Islam is actually practiced there. So if they are not practicing it, it means it's not an Islamic state. Simple.

Qrratugai, what makes you say they are not an Islamic state? Because they dont follow it? Its there implemented though.

What? Aren't these two statements of yours contradicting each other? They "don't follow it" but it's "implemented"?

When I have time, I'll give you accounts of some of the most un-Islamic things carried out by Saudi Arabia, to prove that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic state at all. Just because it claims to be and just because Mecca and Madina are located there doesn't at all make it an "Islamic" state. It's just as "Islamic" as all other so-called "Islamic" countries on earth.

Dukhtar-e-Kabul
07-02-2010, 05:25 PM
Qrratugai, They have the system there.

Just like how you dont judge a religion by whom is following. You dont judge a country by its certain citizens. They have Islamic Shariah. You steal there, your hand gets cut.

Take it or leave it.

Roshina
07-02-2010, 05:58 PM
^ Being "considered" an Islamic state is not the same as "being" an Islamic state. Look into the difference when you have some time, Shlombay Jaana.

They have Islamic Shariah. You steal there, your hand gets cut

Is that all there is to Islamic law?

Are their rape laws the same as what Islam says? (Penalty for rape, I mean, of course.)

What happens to people who commit adultery and fornication in Saudi Arabia? (I'm talking about both men AND women, not just women.)
What happens to women who decide to drive? (They get imprisoned for at least a year and their passports are taken so they don't leave the country.)

How is the zakat system implemented there?

What are the rights of minorities in Saudi Arabi? Saudi has absolutely NO respect for human rights, even the human rights supported by Islam. (And, no, I'm not getting this from the "media," as may be assumed.)
How long did it take Saudi Arabia to give women the right to vote when Islam gave them the right over 1400 years ago, as we're told?

How Islamic is "monarchy," when the kingship/rule goes from father to son and the citizens don't get a say in who rules them? Whatever happened to consulting others implementing "God's" laws? Who decides how these laws -- and even WHICH laws -- must be implemented?

What does the country do to people who speak up against the king, or express dissent with the government's laws? They're imprisoned and tortured beyond belief. Absolutely NO criticism of its policies is permitted in Saudi Arabia. Where does Islam say you can't express disagreement with the king or the country, especially when it's extremely unjust to you and to others who are not as powerful or rich as the royalty and its friends?

According to most Muslim scholars, riba (sudd, interest) is haraam in Islam. Yet, it is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Strangely and hypocritically, Saudi doesn't allow women to drive, claiming it's un-Islamic AND it "cuts off the hands of thieves" because they say Islam tells them to, but they practice riba. How do they pick and choose which of Islamic laws to practice and which ones not to? That's hypocrisy.

And the Saudi royal family (their men) are recognized for the most un-Islamic behavior and actions possible, including fornication/adultery, forcing their women into marriages, drinking, exploiting women, etc., etc. Yet, none of the punishments that they claim are "Islamic" ever apply to the royal family. Where does Islam say you get to pick and choose whom to punish when they break Islamic laws and whom to pardon?

etc., etc.

And, btw, according to Islam, you can't cut just ANY thief's hands off; if they're poor and the state doesn't help them, and they resort to stealing, the state has no right to cut their hands off. That's not Islamic at all. But what does Saudi Arabia do?

Come on - you have GOT to be kidding me that Saudi Arabia is actually an "Islamic" state.

Laws are ALWAYS there, in EVERY country, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Canada. In Pakistan, for instance, forced marriages are not allowed by the government and any man who wants to have another wife must seek the state's permission (which will include his wife's state). But who follows this? No one. We know forced marriages still happen there.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia has laws - but by no means do they apply to ALL of its citizens, including the royalty and other wealthy families there. It's always the poor who suffer, while the rich are the luckiest ones. The Constitution of Saudi Arabi is just as great as "Islamic" as most other Muslim country's (I've read Saudi's and some others), but I'm not concerned with whether law is there: I'm concerned more with how it is enforced and who follows it -- if at all.

I plan to compile a list of un-Islamic things in Saudi Arabia (laws/crimes, punishments, etc.) and will share it here in due time so you see that Saudi Arabia is NOT an Islamic state just because it's a Muslim state.

There's a difference between being Muslim and being Islamic.

akbarkhan
07-02-2010, 06:32 PM
Saudi Arabia applies the Shariah selectively, hence it is not an ideal Islamic state.

Roshina
07-02-2010, 06:39 PM
Saudi Arabia applies the Shariah selectively, hence it is not an ideal Islamic state.

Exactly one of my points! As long as the law is applied selectively, it cannot be Islamic.

akbarkhan
07-02-2010, 07:27 PM
As long as the law is applied selectively, it cannot be Islamic.

That is incorrect.

The first bylaw of the Saudi Arabian charter states that Quran and the Sunnah makes the constitution of the country hence it is an Islamic country from both Islamic and international relations perspectives.

One becomes a Muslim the moment one takes the Shahadah, the fact that (s)he still smokes, backbites or gambles does not make them a non-Muslim. If the Saudi government does not fully implement the Shariah, it does not mean that it is not an Islamic state, it just proves that they are corrupt and are not pious enough.

Roshina
07-02-2010, 07:53 PM
Two questions for you, AkbarKhan wrora.

1. What is the difference between the following two statements (the first one yours the second one mine):

Saudi Arabia applies the Shariah selectively, hence it is not an ideal Islamic state.

As long as the law is applied selectively, it cannot be Islamic.

2. What is the relationship between the following two posts (the first one mine, the second one yours):

As long as the law is applied selectively, it cannot be Islamic.

That is incorrect.

The first bylaw of the Saudi Arabian charter states that Quran and the Sunnah makes the constitution of the country hence it is an Islamic country from both Islamic and international relations perspectives.

One becomes a Muslim the moment one takes the Shahadah, the fact that (s)he still smokes, backbites or gambles does not make them a non-Muslim. If the Saudi government does not fully implement the Shariah, it does not mean that it is not an Islamic state, it just proves that they are corrupt and are not pious enough.

As far as whether it's Islamic or not, please refer to post # 62 (http://www.pashtunforums.com/71338-post62.html), and answer the questions I've asked there regarding the Islamicness of the Saudi Arabian state.

Manana for your attempts in recognizing it as an Islamic state. It just is not as long as it remains the way it is.

Roshina
07-02-2010, 08:31 PM
look up what Islamic means Qrratugai.

Hm... why don't you tell me what "Islamic" means, Shlombay? You seem to know very well.

Read his post carefully. he said "Ideal" he did not say they are not Islamic.

Ideal Islamic states do not exist and never will. According to Samima Jaan's and Akbar Khan's posts as well as the posts of others who deem Saudi Arabia to be an Islamic state, even Paksitan is an Islamic State -- yet, all anti-Pakistan members here will completely disagree with that.

An Islamic state will have to be Islamic in its system, in basically everything from its social to political to economic to you-name-it laws. Not only will it be theoretically Islamic (by name) but also practically (by practicing it, executing those laws equally with no nepotism involved), and so on. Be honest to yourself: Is ANY Muslim country today, INCLUDING Saudi Arabia, like this at all? No.

One completely out-of-the-zone question -- for you, Shlombay Jaan. Would you ever be willing to live in an Islamic state? ... If so, would you be willing to move from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia? If it's an Islamic state, it must mean it's as best as it can get, right? Since anything Islamic would be by default as great as it can get. (You don't have to answer it out loud; just ask yourself.) Sure, sure, not ideal - but Islamic nonetheless, right? What does "ideal" mean and what does "Islamic" mean? If they mean two different things, then you're trying to say the thing I've been saying all along -- that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic state.

akbarkhan
07-02-2010, 09:25 PM
Two questions for you, AkbarKhan wrora.

1. What is the difference between the following two statements (the first one yours the second one mine):


Your statement is dicto simpliciter, mine isn't.

2. What is the relationship between the following two posts (the first one mine, the second one yours)

Yet another fallacy.

A man who has taken the Shahadah and who is cherry picking Islamic laws is still a Muslim, but not an ideal Muslim. Apply the same thing to states.

amna.
07-02-2010, 09:31 PM
Your statement is a dicto simpliciter, mine isn't.



Yet another fallacy.

A man who has taken the Shahadah and who is cherry picking Islamic laws is still a Muslim, but not an ideal Muslim. Apply the same thing to states.

You took the words right from my mouth.