What is the need of Religion?

[pir_Rokhan]

In western societies we have like a "Dictatorship of the masses or the dictatorship of the majority of people", if the majority wants to do something, then everything goes. They have actually almost no fixed values, morals or ethics, like we have in the Quran and Sunnah. They can change their laws to suite their desires, as long as the populair opinion wants it and as you rightly say, the elite have a great power at their disposal to change the popular opinion and mind, to suite their interests. They have the media and especially television, with which they can easily brainwash people.

Brother Abu Eesa Niamatullah explains this changing culture and values of the west very good in this video:



By the way, he is also a Pashtun!

Maiwand wrora

I appreciate your sincerity.However we need to look at some bitter practical and theoretical aspects of your concept of khilafa.

Before that I can see it very vividly and vissibly that you are an ideologue of Hizb ur Tahrir or probably Almahajiroon [depending upon what are your views about their differnce of opinion about the UK immigration case]. Shaikh Umer bakri and the other fellows are infact staunch supporters of what they call khilafa - a concept squeeezed from the Arab nationalist interpretation of teachers from "Bilad ush shaam".

First of all they have a major difference of opnion which they are not able to resolve internally when both have the same faith ,leave alone solving the complex problems of humanity is facing in the techno-huersitiuc age of 21st century.

The differencee is the same as that of another proponent of khilafa [caliphate] who died recently named Dr Israr Ahmed from Pakistan, who just changed the terminoogy of his interpretation of Islamis ystem [which was an Indian cum salafi interpretation derived from Mawdudi ,Abul Kalam,Iqbal ,Rafiuddin,Hamiduddin farahi and Amin ahsan islahi]. He had differecne of opinion with Jmmaat Islami.His movement was called tehrek khilfat and his party was tanzeem islami.

Thirdly The concept of Imamat or Khilafat tarces back to Almawardi which he has discussed in depth in his "Al ahkaamul sultaniyah".

After an indepth study of the the literature of the above mentioned scholars, I have reached to the conclusion that when it comes to the practicl problems of humanity other than the metaphysical ones like existence of God [ontology] ,prophethood and revelation [parapsychology] and day of resurrection [anti ageing and ressurective properties of the DNA/Genes], they interpret the modern solution by using islamic terms and labels which is re inventing the wheel. So i would suggest that it is better for Afghans and Pashtuns to stick to the concepts of modern science as it is not specific to any group but a shared llegacy of humanity.

[Maiwand]

Maiwand wrora

I appreciate your sincerity.However we need to look at some bitter practical and theoretical aspects of your concept of khilafa.

Before that I can see it very vividly and vissibly that you are an ideologue of Hizb ur Tahrir or probably Almahajiroon [depending upon what are your views about their differnce of opinion about the UK immigration case].Shaikh Umer bakri and the other fellows are very staunch supporters of an Semitic Arab supremacy of which they call khilafa - a concept squeeezed from the Arab nationalist interpretation of teachers from "Bilad ush shaam".First of all they have a major difference of opnion which they are not able to resolve internally when both have the same faith ,leave alone solvign the complex problems of humanity facign in the techno-huersitiuc age of 21st century.The differencee is the same as that of another proponent of khilafga who died recently named Dr Israr Ahmed who also just changed the terminoogy of his interpretation of Islam which was an Indian cus salafi interpretation derived from Mawdudi ,Abul Kalam,Iqbal and Rafiuddin,Hamiduddin farahi and amin ahsan islahi.He had differecne of opinion with Jmmaat Islami.

Thirdly The concept of Imamat or Khilafat tarces back to Almawardi which he has discussed in depth in his Al ahkaamul sultaniyah.

After an indepth study of the the literature of the above mentioned scholars,I have reached the conclusion that when it comes to the practicla problem of humnaity other than the metaphysical ones like existence of God [ontology] ,prophethood and revelation [parapsychology] and day of resurrection [anti ageing and ressurective properties of the DNA/Genes/unconsiosu mind],they interpret the modern sollution by using islamic terms and labels.Which is re inventing the wheel.So i would suggest that it is better to stick to the concepts of modern science as it is not specific to any group but a shared llegacy of humanity.

Brother i am not affiliated with any group or organization. These are my views, which I have gathered from my studies of Islam, history and our current situation. Khilafah is just a global Islamic states, where one rules with the law of God, the shariah. Of course we will also have solutions to modern economical, social and cultural problems facing humanity. But our solutions will not be based upon the opinions of the majority, but they will be based upon the Quran, Sunnah and the consensus of the scholars.

[pir_Rokhan]

Justice is not universally agreed upon.

Some people consider death penalty as just. Others consider it as unjust. Some people consider the freedom to commit suicide to relief onself from pain as normal. Others consider that as immoral and prohibit it.

There is no way one can claim that there is one universally agreed upon definition of justice in all matters of life.

Western societies have defined their beliefs and ideology of what justice is based on the philosophy and wise men who have shaped their way of thinking. Before this, Christianity was teaching them virtues. BUt since most of Christianity is also based on Greek and Roman classic philosophy, Europe does not have a clear destinct definition of morality as it is framed in our case in Islam.

In Islamic society, our definition of justice, morality etc is defined in Qur'an. We deduct theories of social justice based on our religion. We model ourselves and our environment to the ideals of our religion.

For us to reject Islam and replace it with Western thought is to destroy our society from the ground up and reform it to something else.

1400 years of Islam will have to be washed away and 3000 years of European thought must replace it within a period of few years in order to make Muslims as advanced, and sophisticated as the Europeans.

This is not only impossible, but plainy STUPID!

That is why atheists, murtadeen and the likes are day-dreaming of something that will never happen. It is not surpirsing to see them in such condition since their great source of inspiration, Karl Marx was himself a utopian author.

Islam is for us, what Jean Jaque Rousseeu, John Locke, Jeremy Bentham and Emanuel Kant are for Europeans.

Just because Saudis love women cars and camels, it does not mean we have to denounce Islam and start chanting Vodka, Naghma and Volga!

Our religion has saved us from barbarism. Our anscestors use to be savage people who use to sodomize each other and feed their elder to wild dogs. We are civilized thanks to Islam.

And people might hate that because they have bad experience interacting with ignorant Saudis. But that does not mean that our religion is bad.

I agree to the academic part of your blind reverence. The terms not only in westren thought but even in Quranic thought should be debated. There are dozens of theories about almost all the major areas of socio-politico-economic terms of the quran, leave alone dogmas, creeds and notions which are purely of metaphysical nature hence beyond the debate of reason.

As I said if you [means the religeous people] could convince Afghans about your system ,that is, if your Islamic system ensures the things which humans need whether it is basic needs or even the establishment of state institutions,then it is fine.

My point ,however, is that what you are so naively claiming to be present and derivable from Quran or any other source, is not there or may be it is there but in a vague and ambiguous form and needs interpretation and it is at that point that we need to have a pluralistic approach. Probably you consider Islam to be the explanation of Shaikh Bin baz thats is why you dont see any controversy or any problem. However the reality as you should know is much differet than this.

If you do not give a solution to humanity or confuse it or just use the modern concepts in islamic labels then you know no body except a retard would revere a system just for its nostalgic fantasies.

The rest of the your argument is based on the assumption that Islam is some fixed and defined set of rules and regultions and other things and hence should be followed instead of Locke,Benthem,Mill,Kant etc. You see my friend, I sympathise with you however Islam has dozens of interpretations and do not assume that your sect is the "firqa e najia" as this is what they all think.

Your version of Islam has saved your ancestors and yourself from barbarism and other evils, good for you. I appreciate it however you need to transform this conviction and affiliation to a strong system of coherent ideas and thought to convince te intelligentsia in addition to your common villagers.

[pir_Rokhan]

Brother i am not affiliated with any group or organization. These are my views, which I have gathered from my studies of Islam, history and our current situation. Khilafah is just a global Islamic states, where one rules with the law of God, the shariah. Of course we will also have solutions to modern economical, social and cultural problems facing humanity. But our solutions will not be based upon the opinions of the majority, but they will be based upon the Quran, Sunnah and the consensus of the scholars.

Miawand Khana

If you read your posts, they repeat the same assumption that Islam or khilafa has such and such virtues and solutions and you assume there is a concensus on all this. This is obviosuly your optimistic thinking.

There is more controversy on Islamic system than probably the other system which has been evolved as a collective human effort. Hence unless you present the whole system in your mind as a coherent integrated system of thought ,it is impossible to covince any one specially the braintrust of your nation.

The other way is violence which is neither useful nor Islamic and neither accePtible to humanity at large. Dont think that I approve of the atrocities or injustice done by the imperialists from orient or occident. Please dotnt think that.I am totally against any form of agression, imperialism or invasion or coercion.

[Maiwand]

Miawand Khana

If you read your posts, they repeat the same assumption that Islam or khilafa has such and such virtues and solutions and you assume there is a concensus on all this. This is obviosuly your optimistic thinking.

There is more controversy on Islamic system than probably the other system which has been evolved as a collective human effort. Hence unles you presrent the whole system in your mind as a coherent integrated system of thought ,it is impossible to covince any one specially the braintrust of your nation.

The other way is violence which is neither useful nor Islamic and neither accePtible to humanity at large. Dont think that I approve of the atrocities or injustice done by the imperialists from orient or occident. Please dotnt think that.I am totally against any form of agression, imperialism or invasion or coercion.

Well what's wrong with the Islamic system that Hizbu Tahrer proposes, they seem to have a coherent and whole system. And how was the Islamic Ummah governed at the time of the Khulafah rashideen, they had a good governing structure and a prosperous society.

" God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them KhulifaKhulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth - it is they, they who are truly iniquitous on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to become !"[24:55] (Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55)

[pir_Rokhan]

Well what's wrong with the Islamic system that Hizbu Tahrer proposes, they seem to have a coherent and whole system. And how was the Islamic Ummah governed at the time of the Khulafah rashideen, they had a good governing structure and a prosperous society.

" God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them KhulifaKhulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth - it is they, they who are truly iniquitous on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to become !"[24:55] (Surah Al-Nur, Verse 55)

Other than my objections about which I already gave you a hint ,but you dint ponder over it, please ask Al Muhajiroon what is wrong with the system of Khilafa proposed by HT?

[Max]

Does anybuddy over here has any reasonable and rational explanation as to what is the need of religion in the first place?

well simple logic, there cant be no life without laws or rules..Everything around us no matter how primitive it is, its governed by some rules..meaning every phenomenon in universe is bounded by some rules

For us as humans, we have religion as a set of rules..a code to live life by

You might say our consitiutions and institutions provide those rules too?

Well religion predates geographic boundaries, and all of these rules and laws we live by today have been derived from these religions.

Another way to look at it is,

We have all these laws and whatnot for others to judge us, but we need religion to judge ourselves, think about our own actions and define our own realities

[Zakiah]

Does anybuddy over here has any reasonable and rational explanation as to what is the need of religion in the first place?

It will be really difficult to explain if you are thinking about it that way..Dont think of it as something you might need, i.e. money, culture.

Think about Allah the almighty...who created mankind.

1 Read! In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists),
2 Has created man from a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood).
3 Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous,
4 Who has taught (the writing) by the pen (the first person to write was Prophet Idrees (Enoch) ),
5 Has taught man that which he knew not.
6 Nay! Verily, man does transgress all bounds (in disbelief and evil deed, etc.).
7 Because he considers himself self-sufficient.
8 Surely! Unto your Lord is the return.
9 Have you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) seen him (i.e. Aboo Jahl) who prevents,
10 A slave (Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) when he prays?
11 Tell me, if he (Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) is on the guidance (of Allah)?
12 Or enjoins piety?
13 Tell me if he (the disbeliever, Aboo Jahl) denies (the truth, i.e. this Quran), and turns away?
14 Knows he not that Allah does see (what he does)?
15 Nay! If he (Aboo Jahl) ceases not, We will catch him by the forelock,
16A lying, sinful forelock!
17 Then, let him call upon his council (of helpers),
18 We will call the guards of Hell (to deal with him)!
19 Nay! (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him))! Do not obey him (Aboo Jahl). Fall prostrate and draw near to Allah!

[Maiwand]

Someone who has an outlook on life without the need of religion or God is like a pig in the following example given by John Stuart Mill. It is very difficult to argue with such people, because they don't know the other side. We (the muslims) know both sides and their consequences, so only we are able to compare the two things and choose the one with the most long-term and short-term benefit. The others merely follow their desires and lusts and those people are truly like cattle, no they are worse, they are pigs according to John Stuart Mill:

In his famous work, Utilitarianism, the younger Mill argues that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. His famous quote found in Utilitarianism (book) was, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"[5] demonstrating Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures."[5] In distinguishing between types of pleasure, Mill distanced himself from Bentham, who famously said[6] that the child's game of push-pin is as good as poetry (assuming that the two bring equal quantities of pleasure).

[Marwat]

dear Maiwand,

do you think Islamic morals are compatible with 21st centiru?

[Maiwand]

dear Maiwand,

do you think Islamic morals are compatible with 21st centiru?

Of course. Islamic laws, ethics and morals are universal. They are applicable and compatible in every time and place until the day of judgment. Our laws and values remain constant in the Quran. Only people can change, so cultures change, for the better or the worse. But as long as people stick to the Quran they will succeed in this life and will be prosperous on all fronts and they will have succes in the after-life.

[شمله ور خراساني]

I agree to the academic part of your blind reverence. The terms not only in westren thought but even in Quranic thought should be debated. There are dozens of theories about almost all the major areas of socio-politico-economic terms of the quran, leave alone dogmas, creeds and notions which are purely of metaphysical nature hence beyond the debate of reason.

As I said if you [means the religeous people] could convince Afghans about your system ,that is, if your Islamic system ensures the things which humans need whether it is basic needs or even the establishment of state institutions,then it is fine.

My point ,however, is that what you are so naively claiming to be present and derivable from Quran or any other source, is not there or may be it is there but in a vague and ambiguous form and needs interpretation and it is at that point that we need to have a pluralistic approach. Probably you consider Islam to be the explanation of Shaikh Bin baz thats is why you dont see any controversy or any problem. However the reality as you should know is much differet than this.

If you do not give a solution to humanity or confuse it or just use the modern concepts in islamic labels then you know no body except a retard would revere a system just for its nostalgic fantasies.

The rest of the your argument is based on the assumption that Islam is some fixed and defined set of rules and regultions and other things and hence should be followed instead of Locke,Benthem,Mill,Kant etc. You see my friend, I sympathise with you however Islam has dozens of interpretations and do not assume that your sect is the "firqa e najia" as this is what they all think.

Your version of Islam has saved your ancestors and yourself from barbarism and other evils, good for you. I appreciate it however you need to transform this conviction and affiliation to a strong system of coherent ideas and thought to convince te intelligentsia in addition to your common villagers.

Ibn Baz was a stooge of Salooli royal family. He issued fatwas that would meet the requirements of the political establishment in Salooli Arabia.

There are different opinions in Islam. As Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Shaybani said: only some fundamental aspects of religion are clear cut and don't need different interpretation. Most other trivial issues rely on consensus and interpretations.

Thats why we have different schools of thought, and different scholars with various interpretations.

However, most important issues that are basically the fundamentals of our religion are not debated. Those are matters faith and certain prohibitions.

Islam does not have a formula or a statute for us to design formal legislative and administrative institutions. BUt It does teach us the morality and it guides us to certain paths. The concept of a Jirga is something that falls inside the framework of our religion.

Salooli kindgom and their stooges such as Ibn Baz, Al Madkhali and An Najmee are people who are willing to go to any length deviating from religion to please their masters. For example, the endorsement of American bases on the holy land by Ibn Baz was clearly a violation of a prohibition by the prophet Muhammad saww.

We don't need state mullahs like they have in Salooli Arabia or Egypt. We need religious institutions to be independent so they can issue religious verdicts that are not influenced by politics. This is the reason why Imam Abu Haneefa was taken as a prisoner and tortured. Because he believed in independence of religious authorities from the political and administrative branch.

An ideal islamic government should consist of the office of the chosen khalif as the political leader. Two-chamber shura of doctors in religious sciences, political sciences, law and other social sciences such as economics, sociology and psychology to operate as the legislative branch.

A separate judicial branch independent of the other branches. The judicial branch must consist of scholars in both shariah law and international secular laws.

And an administrative branch that consists entirely of professionals.

We don't see that anywhere in the world. The reason for that is because our educated elite are alienated from religion and obsessed with man-made laws and ideologies of Western Europe. They don't see that an Islamic identity is characteristic of our society.

We don't need to shove religion up people's throat and force them to follow us in every detail.

We need a group of sensible people who understand religion well enough to be able to use it as a ideological groundwork of our society.

We can't change the fact that an absolute majority of our society are in favor of religion and conservatism. So why not accept it as it is and figure out solutions that are able to make progress and development possible.

Acting in a rash manner and expressing hatred for Islam calling recitation of qur'an arab bedoin imperialism does not help any of us to reach to any sensible solutions. It only reveals weakness of reasoning.

We are not primitive because we recite qur'an in arabic instead of shake our asses to Nazia Iqbal. We are primitive because we are too proud to admit that sometimes we are wrong and always unwilling to learn.

And those who have learned a thing or two, suddenly behave like they are the philosopher king from Plato's Republic. Studying abroad for a few years makes everyone think that they have seen the light and its time to return back to the cave to rule over the poor cave-dwellers who are tied up and ignorant of the outside world.

When will this type of people learn that if we are going to return to the cave, we should not go ther with the intention to rule, but to set the others free and lead them out of the cave so they can see the light for themselves.

This is after all what Prophet Muhammad saww did. He taught the primitive idol-worshipping Arabs morality, and he enabled them to learn how to read, how to reason, how to fight, how to clean themselves and how to treat one another with respect and denounce tribalism and be generous.

He did not accept the offer of Quraish to become the king. Because he was not self-interested.

Sadly in our society, most of our educated elite are self-interested. Even in my family, most of my relatives were high profile communist generals and members of the polit bureau of the communist days in the 80's. They preach socialism and communism and reminisce how they would march down the streets of Kabul with red flags chanting "proletariats of the world Unite". But once they became powerful people in the communist regime, they sold out their countrymen by helping Russians to subdue our people and fight the common man, the proletariat and di-stablize society.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Someone who has an outlook on life without the need of religion or God is like a pig in the following example given by John Stuart Mill. It is very difficult to argue with such people, because they don't know the other side. We (the muslims) know both sides and their consequences, so only we are able to compare the two things and choose the one with the most long-term and short-term benefit. The others merely follow their desires and lusts and those people are truly like cattle, no they are worse, they are pigs according to John Stuart Mill:

In his famous work, Utilitarianism, the younger Mill argues that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. His famous quote found in Utilitarianism (book) was, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied"[5] demonstrating Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures."[5] In distinguishing between types of pleasure, Mill distanced himself from Bentham, who famously said[6] that the child's game of push-pin is as good as poetry (assuming that the two bring equal quantities of pleasure).

This is why the ANP in Peshawar organize an annual event where *****s and pimps preform on stage and sing Pashtun nationalist songs.

[Maiwand]

Exactly and that's why those people think that if women remove their veils and have westernized clothes on and become "lust objects" for men and economical instruments for society, then they will be liberated and be free, ahaha.

[Maiwand]

^^

Good post Sangar. You mentioned some important points. We can not deny the fact that majority of our people are muslims and thus all the decisions have to be made keeping that important fact in mind. Western style secular government is not going to work with pashtuns. Our people have not gone through the same experiences as the Europeans and it would be wrong insist on secular government for our masses when most of our people are uneducated and don't have the slightest clue about secular values and democracy.

Even when they are educated, then they will realise that there is no such thing as "secular values", all the good things that the western people have today are the principles taken from the Islam. Like accountability of the government, rule of law, equality of human beings and the rest are man made laws, like materialism, self-interested behaviour, greed, capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, modern warfare, exploitation of other people's resources, drugs, prostitution, etc.

We muslims should implement the full principles and laws from Islam in our societies, only then will we have our full rights back and manage our affairs succesfully.