Thoughts on the current political situation in iran?

Author: Aryanman

Posts

Total: 74
#61
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Yassine
Jesus, I've been at this for an hour. Here's how I will respond. I will leave the thread as it is and I prefer to have as much traffic online looking at your posts. In other words, I'd rather not distract the thread by opening a chain of mass quotes. So It might look as if Im responding sparingly when in fact I have read and intend to reply as much as I can.

I don't agree that much of western philosophy is inspired from Islam. The only agreement you're getting from me is the fact that Aquinas referenced arab scholars. However, that's where your culture's influence end. Mere citations is the only thing the golden age of Islam was capable of producing. Granted, you did pioneer medicine for a time before the inquisition burned the books and drove the muslims away from Spain. That said, medicine now is not islamic thanks to the inquisition. Plus, I can offer you glimpses of what a Butler-ean reflection looks like, and I can tell you what Hume thinks of necessary connection. Both are deeply unislamic. For example, necessary connection has a small chapter disputing miracles. If Hume was a muslim and if he mass-produced and circulated his book, he would've been executed for corrupting the public sphere. Additionally, Voltaire and the German idealists share none of your views. Absolutely none of their philosophy is inspired from your religion. What's next? That Max Weber's Christian Faith in Capitalism is Islamic? That Calvinism arose from the doctrine that Muhammad prophesized that he and his companions(and their followers) are the only worthy sect in Islam? No. Well, on an unrelated note, I did remember that Malaysia successfully commercialized Islam, so go ahead and make your own illustrations of what you think of that. I'll read them and I won't distract the thread.

I don't disagree with anything you've said about dhimmis. The only thing I want to note is that If you think that's where rights are sufficient for dhimmis, you're wrong. Though, muslims are right in the fact that there are indeed dangerous enemies operating within every muslim nation. You could bomb them (enemies of Islam) for all I care; they're just as extreme as Islam.

I don't live in the west. I've only lived vividly through their philosophers. Almost everything you said about western tolerance either makes absolutely no sense,  because they don't connect to the philosophers or that they seem more of a tirade against the west than a genuine critique. Even if western philosophers did lie about freedom, and that they were "Medieval-CIA" style dajjal (anti-islam) operatives, then I must've been duped into the most biggest conspiracy theory I've ever seen. Uh, no. I don't find eschatological viewpoints compelling.

On the question of apostasy, what makes you think that clerics have your best interest at heart? Further, what makes you think the apostates in question are apostazing based on an infatuation of the west? Would you classify me as a malay fetishizing on an amoi? This is all very convenient of you to inject relativism without taking into account the amount of pain muslims have to go through once they've apostatized. You may judge me; I don't bite.

Im not talking about the persisting influence of the four imams, I'm talking about the Asharis and the Muatazis. Asharis literally grounded their belief in the same way as muatazis. Are you a salafi? Is that why you disagree with this? Then I'm not the person to debate this. Find another muslim; Indonesia houses another major sect called the Muhammadiyah, I'm sure you can find one online (they're not well versed in English but they speak fluent arabic). Back to the topic at hand, I think succeeding imams won because "islam will persist until Qiyamah", which is a pretty amusing statement after their victory over the Muatazis government. Again, I'm trying to say that this is an Islamic principle. Grandiose claims start and end at Islam. Stop mixing western philosophy with Islam. It bears no relevance when you're making grandiose claims about ideas. Western ideas are "free" while Muslim ideas are "grandiose"

Yes, I have read The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Just so you know, my parents implemented harsh hunger deprivation and threats of permanent disownment on me when they heard ive apostatized. They also told me to read Ghazali, which I did. Ptolemy writes scant little about philosophy and he merely extended Aristotle's De Caelo. Ptolemy was a careless astronomer and his textbook was quickly disposed in favor of Sufi's observations. Causality is not apparent and time is relative, well of course it isn't for you. Why do you think this ties to western philosophy, it's as Eastern as Eastern can be. Good luck with that level of generalization, you sound like my deranged anti-islam pastor when I first apostatized (not an insult to you in particular, just that the point youve raised is eerily similar to what he said to me).

Yes, moderate muslims don't exactly exist. Their belief structure is incoherent. I agree. They're not exactly true muslims. Hence, I told Lemmings that muslims generally label ihan omar a deviant. She's like mahathir who's notorious for having anti-semitic beliefs alongside that unsubstantiated "moderate islam". Muslims sure love to make labels. Disagreements in divisions in Islam are always labelled and classified with derogatory claims of blesphemy. I'm not interested in such a boring, uninspiring, narrow-minded lifestyle. 

Chomsky sounds a lot like peterson. So a deranged conspiracy theorist met his equal in an equally deranged self-help artist. I'll pass.

#62
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,329
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Yassine
You have to admit, the most successful propaganda machine in history can even make a thing look its opposite.

Some USA citizens saw a good example of that with immoral Trumpet. Repeat the lie enough times and people believe it or begin to question if the truth is not the truth.

To me Iran seems more secular and progressive than Saudi Abrabia, or the Taliban etc types of cultures.
#63
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Yassine


... is the issue with having access to a scholar to discuss with about one's doubts? That's the whole point. If an apostate is seeking the truth & has sincere objections about the faith then it's natural they should be accorded a scholar to engage with, to unveil truth wherever that might be. People are easily gullible, as Ibn Khaldun says: 'the dominated are forever infatuated with emulating the dominant'. Untruth may come disguised as truth in many ways: 'successful therefore true', 'new therefore true', 'popular therefore true'...etc. It is only in leveling the plain & removing these factors that Truth may prevail. Most apostate Muslims today don't apostasies from love of truth, they do from infatuation with dominance (the West), that's why they all adopt western lifestyle & ideas, & not African or Indian or whatever lifestyle. In a world where say China is dominance, they would adopt Chinese ideas, the same way most Muslim apostates in the 70s & 80s adopted communist ideas.
Is this your opinion or is this in accordance with Islam's view of human nature? That people are generally gullible? That I've subscribed to a falsehood masquerading as truth that is '1+1=3' rather than '1+1=2'?

Sounds a lot like the books that proliferate Saudi Arabia. 
#64
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan

I don't agree that much of western philosophy is inspired from Islam. The only agreement you're getting from me is the fact that Aquinas referenced arab scholars. However, that's where your culture's influence end. Mere citations is the only thing the golden age of Islam was capable of producing.
- Aquinas quotes mainly al-Ghazali & Averroes. He mistakenly quotes al-Ghazali from his 'Purposes of the Philosophers' work where al-Ghazali convincingly presents the ideas of the philosophers (mainly Farabi & Ibn Sina, from both the Platonic school & the Aristotelian school) as a prelude to destroying them in his next book ('The Incoherence of the Philosophers'). Aquinas most likely did not have access to the latter, thus assumed these were al-Ghazali's own ideas, which in reality were largely obsolete by that time in the Muslim world. Regardless, Aquinas's knowledge of Al-Ghazali & Ibn Rushd, the foremost theologians & philosophers of their time, is effectively knowledge of the Islamic tradition up to that point, or at least a great deal of it. Hence, his theology is essentially Islamic theology, although in a Christian mold, the same way Maimonides' theology is Islamic theology in a Jewish mold. If you literally put Aquinas arguments alongside Muslim ones, you'll know, it's almost uncanny! If you wish to debate me on this, I'll be happy to. This isn't strange at all, it is rather the norm; denial of Muslim influence is an act of worship to them;  al-Kindi's ontological arguments is falsely attributed to Anselm & Ibn Sina's cosmological argument (Burhan Sidiqen) is falsely attributed to Leibniz, just because they happen to be the first Christians to mention them -centuries later. 

Granted, you did pioneer medicine for a time before the inquisition burned the books and drove the muslims away from Spain.
- Laughable! Muslims pioneered nearly all the ideas proponents of the "scientific revolution" & "renaissance" & "enlightenment" claim, (with minor exceptions) in Physics, Astronomy, Social Science, Philosophy, Theology, Law... not just Medicine. What is now known as Classical Physics in mechanics, astronomy, optics, gravitation... is in effect Islamic Physics. Muslims are the true inventors of Science. The Greeks had no Science, they had Natural Philosophy. Thanks is due to great geniuses like al-Ghazali (d. 1111) & Ibn Haytham (d. 1040) who, conceptually & methodologically, excised Greek Philosophy (& Religion) from Science, to open the door to experimenting-hypothesizing based discoveries. The Muslims took their systemization of mathematics into a purely formal language (Algebra) to Natural Science, in inducing mathematics into it by modeling experimental problems into formal ones, inferring therefrom general mathematical laws (this is a uniquely Islamic logic invention, called Tanthir). This may sound evident today, but it's thanks to the Muslims. Until al-Qushji (d. 1474) gave the final coup de gras & alienated the practice of Physics from any philosophical assumptions or implications. This also applies to the Scientific Method falsely attributed to Bacon (even though he himself quotes Arabs in his own essay). Centuries before Newton, al-Biruni (d. 1048) had already established that gravitation is inversely proportional to altitude, Abu al-Barakat (d. 1166) had already proven that force is proportional to acceleration, & Ibn Baja (d. 1138) had already shown that for every action there is an opposite reaction... In fact, Fakhrdeen Razi (d. 1210) discusses all these laws of motion in his book Mabahith. The laws of refraction, reflection, refraction, & geometric optics in general already established by scientists from Ibn Haytham (d. 1040) to Taqiydeen Shami (d. 1585), which by the way happen to be all Ashaaris. I'm up for debating any of the above.

That said, medicine now is not islamic thanks to the inquisition.
- Are you sure...? Zahrawi's (d. 1031) 30-volume at-Tasrif was still studied in Europe until late 19th century, & Ibn Sina's 5-volume Qanun was standard textbook until the 17th century. I have a copy of the 30th essay of at-Tasrif (last volume): Maqal al-Jiraha (The Essay of Surgery), & I have a copy of Ibn Sina's Qanun. You'd be surprised how Islamic western Medicine is. In his Essay of Surgery (comprised of 187 chapters) in the chapter of Saratan (Cancer), az-Zahrawi categorizes tumors into four categories based on the size of the tumor, & deems the 4th category fatal. He also describes the procedure of removal of tumor, either by preservation of organ or complete removal with lymphatic nodes. The influence extends to biology in general & hospitals too, after all Muslims invented hospitals.
I could write an essay on this, or we could have a debate. 

Plus, I can offer you glimpses of what a Butler-ean reflection looks like,
- Use your words. What about Butler?! Do tell. If you're any bit familiar with the Islamic tradition you'd know that his ideas are basic discussions among Muslim theologians, it's almost childish. His views on conscience & the guilt-shame trap & the process of accountability from thoughts to desires & all that are *glaringly* Islamic & very anti-Christian. These ideas are elementary ideas in Islamic Theology, which is far more expansive & profound. The Islamic influence is too blinding to miss. There is literally an entire branch of Islamic Theology on Taklif (Accountability/Will) which expounds on these ideas. His argument from preponderance theory on faith is the weakest form of argument in our tradition, as espoused by the Athari school. It's not even a proof, it's an embarrassing conjecture.

and I can tell you what Hume thinks of necessary connection. Both are deeply unislamic.
- Wow! I'm impressed... They say, lie big & leave fast. But I say, just don't lie. For someone who keeps advertising Ashaaris you don't know one of their basic tenets: rejection of efficient causation (necessary connections), the principle of 'Indaha la biha' (with it not because of it). If you had read 'The Incoherence' as you claimed you'd have known the 17th essay about efficient causation, where al-Ghazali refutes the philosopher's 'Iqtiran' (necessary cause-effect) in favor of 'Adah' (uniformity/frequency). The chapter literally opens up in: "In our view, the connection between what are believed to be the cause and the effect is not necessary."

For example, necessary connection has a small chapter disputing miracles.
-To be honest, I was extremely disappointed reading Hume, all that hype for nothing. I don't get the appeal, most other westerners I read fair better than him. The entire thing is a huge case of begging the question. The great irony of this, is that he expands so much on denial of efficient causes with all sorts of anecdotes just so he can deny miracles afterward. In al-Ghazali's refutation of the philosophers, in contrast, leads him to confirm the possibility of miracles, which the philosophers deny. You can't have necessary causation & miracles, that's a square circle. Hume, however, while his argument for illusion of necessary connections necessarily implies the possibility of miracles, he proceeds to deny that possibility just to prove they can not be proven, which is begging the question. He claims that frequency of uniformity is always higher than frequency of singularity, therefore singularity can never undo uniformity. By this he literally destroyed his entire no-causation from single observations premise. Maybe we can have a debate on 'Of Miracles' of Hume.  

- Hume's other ideas about knowledge & association & "passion"...etc are very basic in Islamic Theology. It's profoundly unimpressive. Read al-Jurjani's 8-volumes al-Mawaqif  in 1.3 million words to understand the scope of 'Knowledge' in Islamic Theology. Hume's entire book is 50k words. He merely introduces basic Ashaari concepts discussed for a thousand years in the Muslim world to a European audience, in a crippled fashion nonetheless. His inductive causation venture doesn't get him very far. It rather leaves him in contradiction & confusion. Do not compare midgets like Hume to giants like al-Ghazali. Allow me to illustrate that insurmountable gap on this particular issue; al-Ghazali takes his inductive causation so much farther. He postulates that no-efficient causation not only allows for singularities, but rather entail the isolation of events as non-consecutive accidents which appear to be uniform from frequency. Thus substantialism (materialism) is not real, for substance is contingent on perception & must thus be discrete, i.e. quantized; being broken into infinitesimal essences (jawhar fard). Further, accidents, thus superadded properties (like motion & transformation) on these infinitesimal essences, mustn't persist two instances of time, are henceforth potential until actualized once perceived. This entails that time & thus space are relative, for they are hence contingent on perception...  long story. Hume couldn't even figure out the incoherence of his materialist doctrine with his inductive problem, which drives his followers nuts. Al-Ghazali also elaborates on the levels & types of said perception, way beyond Hume's measly association. I'll be happy to have a debate on this comparison, although it would look more like slaughter.

- I'm sorry to shatter your world, but Hume -like the others- has extensively been influenced by Muslim literature, particularly Ashaari literature. Islam then was the dominant force of the time & for the prior 10 centuries, Muslims controlled half global economy & global trade. Living standards in the Muslim world were much higher than those in Europe (~$2.5k Ottoman vs. $0.6k in France); civilization spread from the East to the West. By then, Arabic chairs -aimed at collecting, translating & studying Arabic manuscripts- were set up everywhere in Europe, notably at Oxford. Hume's two major influences, his idol John Locke & his mentor George Berkeley (from whom he gets his views on causation for instance) have both hugely promoted Arabic literature. John Locke's professor Edward Pococke is the founder of the Arabic Chair in Oxford University is credited with procuring the immense collection of 420 Arabic books from the Middle East after he travelled to Syria to study Arabic & Islamic sciences. George Berkeley, in his own turn, coming from Dublin Society & Trinity College from the largest collection of Arabic manuscripts, of the fellow Marsh. To note, Oxford University holds some 15,000 Islamic manuscripts collected from the Muslim world from early 16th century to late 19th century, & studied or taught in England & Ireland. Berkeley's essays (Hume's inspiration) rejected Newtonian doctrine of infinite & static continuous universe (inherited from the like of Averroes) & argued for relative time & motion & quantized substance, which are strictly Ashaari ideas of jawhard fard, zaman itibari...(these are not Greek ideas). As we say in Arabic, the stolen is in the pockets of the thief. David Hume, too, adopts the jawfar fard notion, yet rejects what it entails, which makes his worldview all over the place, most likely from lack of access to further Ashaari literature.

#65
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
- Truth is, the Muslims were honest about borrowing Greek ideas, for that was mandated by their faith. Plagiarism is prohibited in Sharia. One of the Ten Principles of Knowledge (Mabadi Ashara) in our tradition is al-Wadii, meaning: inventor/discoverer/founder. Muslims were compelled by faith to be honest about the origin of the ideas they engage, Christian Europeans were compelled by faith to lie & deny.

If Hume was a muslim and if he mass-produced and circulated his book, he would've been executed for corrupting the public sphere.
- Had you actually read 'The Incoherence, you would've realized that al-Ghazali's opponents, who are the Falasifa, deny miracles a-priori, unlike Hume who does so a-posteriori. Btw, Mutazilites denied miracles in the same way too, more or less. From your sheer ignorance, you conflate the gracefully tolerant Muslim world with the prohibitively intolerant Christian Europe. We can also see the influence of Islam in the deistic tendencies of Hume & his mentors. Maybe you know their views on apostates: punishment -& death if they become Muslim or atheist! As a matter of fact, their views on Blacks & non-White races. I don't have to tell you they were all deeply racist & intolerant, for they had no prophetic tradition to abide by. 

Additionally, Voltaire and the German idealists share none of your views.
- Voltaire was increasingly more familiar with Islamic literature in his carrier. Don't be shy, let us know. You're fantasizing. Germany had the largest Islamic manuscript collection in Europe (more than 40,000 manuscripts) & the most prominent Arabic chair in Europe, in Berlin, given the close relationship they shared with the Ottomans. The dominant narrative today which seeks to erase any Islamic influence on Europe was not the case even up until the 19th century. Revisionism in Europe started with the rise of racism & nationalism, particularly since the early 20th century. Parallel to the rejectionist revisionist narrative, there was always an honest narrative forever attached to their Islamic root. LeBon, Lamartine, Briffault, Tolstoy, Carlyle... & many others are a good examples. The same way Muslims tend to emulate westerner today, Europeans used to emulate Muslims for the better part of 8 centuries, although often with fervor hatred & an almost self-loathing sense of denial. Europe & Christians have a serious problem of ego.

Absolutely none of their philosophy is inspired from your religion.
- It's ironic isn't it. I asked for one idea of European philosophy that isn't Islamic & you bring Ashaari ideas, the most widely adopted at the time. The Ottoman Empire officially adopted Ashaari theology, & yet the Europeans couldn't go far in their philosophy despite the readily available material & ideas.

What's next? That Max Weber's Christian Faith in Capitalism is Islamic?
- That's the level of literature you're showing off with?! Max Weber is a sham. A feel-good "philosopher" for Protestants against the materialists. Though I do agree with him about work & striving for a better life, which as it happens is an ISLAMIC idea not a Catholic one. The ideas of Capitalism, about supply vs demand, work & savings, consumption driven wealth, free market, investment, trade ...etc are common understanding in the Islamic tradition, from Abu Hanifa's treatise to al-Jahiz's (d. 868) essay on trade Tabsira bi-Tijara through al-Khallal's (d. 923) Hath Ala Tijara to Ibn Khaldun's (d. 1406) Muqaddimah. The Prophet (pbuh) himself exercised free market reforms when he came to Medina, he said: "a townsman must not sell sell for a bedouin, leave people alone to engage in trade with one another, Allah will grant them provision through one another". It's just that Europeans attribute whatever discovery or innovation to the first European who happens to mention it, regardless where it came from. It's strange though that you bring up these abysmal people. Is that where your infatuation is? In that case, I'm sure it'll fade away as quickly as it came. Allow me to show you what it means to be a true giant. The great polymath Imam Fakhrdeen Razi (d. 1210), one of the 4 Pillars of the Ashaari school (alongside Baqilani, Juwaini & Ghazali), produced great works on every science known to Men:

  • On Scripture (Quran & Hadith) he wrote more than 20 works, including his famous 32-volumes (7 million words) Tafsir – Futuh al-Ghayb, a theological exegesis of the Quran considered one of the 7 mother tafsirs.
  • On Jurisprudence he wrote a similar amount, most notably the 6-volumes – al-Mahsul (1.2 million words) encyclopedia of Islamic legal theory, which is along al-Ghazali – al-Mustasfa, the reference work in the subject -legal theory & jurisprudence thus being his primary specialty, for which he is most famous.
  • On Theology he wrote over 50 works, such as – al-Matalib Aliya, a 9-volumes (1 million words) proof of God, where he discusses & argues views on God (his existence, unity, omnipotence & omniscience, transcendence, immanence & will), views of Muslims in all their schools & sects, from Christians & Jews in their various denominations, from Zoroastrians & Brahmans & other Hindu religions, from Buddhists, even from Subsaharan African tribes. Contrast this to Humes who argues with himself thinking he is so slick. 
  • On Philosophy he wrote over 20 preeminent works,  such as – Ayat Bayinat (in 10 volumes) – Tajiz Falasifa (Incapacitating the Philosophers) – Jawhar al-Fard (The Infinitesimal Essence) – Mabahith Wujud (Essays on Being) – & al-Mabahith al-Mashriqya (Eastern Essays, in 3 volumes), the most prominent work of his time... Plus his commentaries on Ibn Sina, namely: – Inarat – Sharf Uyun Hikma – Sharh al-Mantiq , & – Sharh Shifa (in 25-volumes)...etc.
  • On Tasawwuf he wrote a comparable amount, about spirituality & mystic thought, the soul, enlightenment, self-discipline, devotion & asceticism.
  • On Literature & Linguistics he wrote a dozen works, notably: In Grammar – Sharh Mufasal (in 4 volumes). In Poetry – Sharh Diwan Mutanabi (commentary on Mutanabi poetic corpus). In Rhetoric – Dirayat Ijaz. In Literature – Sharh Maqamat Hariri (commentary on al-Hariri "plays", 50 of them). [Maqam is a short play in poetic form meant to be narrated to an audience with passion or played with shadows]. In linguistics – Mukhtasar Sihah (Abridged Dictionary, with 40,000 entries)...etc.
  • In History, a similar amount, notability – Tarikh Duwal (History of States, in 9 volumes) & other biography & genealogy books.
  • In Mathematics, a comparable amount, notably, in Geometry – Musadarat Iqlids (Fallacies of Euclid, refuting Euclid's circular proofs). In Astronomy Risala Fil-Haya (Essay on Astronomy). In Navigation, – Bist-Bab Fi Marifat Usturlab (on astrolabes & navigation)...etc.
  • In Medicine he wrote a similar amount as well, particularly: In Surgery – Tashrih Mina Ras Ila Halq (Surgery From Head to Throat). In Medicine – al-Jami al-Kabir Fi-Tibb (The Major Encyclopedia of Medicine, commentary on Ibn Sina's Qanun). In Psychology, – al-Firasa (the first work ever exclusively written on the subject)...etc. Sadly most of these are stored deep in manuscript dungeons collecting dust & mold. Truly sad!
That Calvinism arose from the doctrine that Muhammad prophesized that he and his companions(and their followers) are the only worthy sect in Islam? No.
- You seem to be confused about something... The word 'Islamic' in Islamic Civilization or Islamic Heritage or Islamic influence does not pertain to the doctrine of Islam, rather to the intellectual & literary yield generated by the collective contributions of the Islamic civilization born of the prophetic tradition. Some important scientists & philosophers & poets may not have been Muslim though they were Islamic.

Well, on an unrelated note, I did remember that Malaysia successfully commercialized Islam, so go ahead and make your own illustrations of what you think of that. I'll read them and I won't distract the thread.
- I'm not sure what this mean...?

I don't disagree with anything you've said about dhimmis. The only thing I want to note is that If you think that's where rights are sufficient for dhimmis, you're wrong.
- None of those rights are offered in the West, yet you seem to be fine with that. Why don't you elaborate on your point.

Though, muslims are right in the fact that there are indeed dangerous enemies operating within every muslim nation. You could bomb them (enemies of Islam) for all I care; they're just as extreme as Islam.
- You're literally contradicting yourself. Any better formulation of this?

I don't live in the west. I've only lived vividly through their philosophers.
- I call that the great hypocrisy. One thing western intellectuals have succeeded in doing more than any other is the perfection of the art of slogans. They have the best names for everything they like & the worst names for everything they don't. The surface is nice, yet the inside is rotten. You know how Fuqaha (jurists) define Taxation (jibaya)? They define it as 'the coercive deprivation of able subjects from benefiting from some of their wealth', they don't do nice names. In contrast, US brutal invasion of Iraq is called 'Operation Freedom'. That's it, Truth vs. deception.

Even if western philosophers did lie about freedom, and that they were "Medieval-CIA" style dajjal (anti-islam) operatives, then I must've been duped into the most biggest conspiracy theory I've ever seen. Uh, no. I don't find eschatological viewpoints compelling.
- I don't know what any of this means.

On the question of apostasy, what makes you think that clerics have your best interest at heart?
- They should, if they are sincere, which is expected from a traditional scholar. My exposition regards traditional systems & views, which are hard to imagine being implemented today. All this is conceptual, no Muslim state today is actually Islamic in the traditional sense. That said, the amount of anti-Islam propaganda & atheist, feminist, LGBT... propaganda today can induce doubts in many Muslims, having a counter narrative is mandatory.

Further, what makes you think the apostates in question are apostazing based on an infatuation of the west?
- I said most, not all. Apostates in the past were so rare & exotic, it often happens that they get invited by the caliph or sultan himself to see what they are about.....

Would you classify me as a malay fetishizing on an amoi? This is all very convenient of you to inject relativism without taking into account the amount of pain muslims have to go through once they've apostatized. You may judge me; I don't bite.
- I'm discussing ideas, not individuals... Probably 90% of the time on this website, I don't actually speak from my personal beliefs as much as I speak with the intent to argue for something or against something (within the bounds of Sharia of course). In person I'm Sufi.  

Are you a salafi?
- No. I'm a maliki (fiqh) ashaari (theology) & junaidi (sufism) traditional Muslim, from a traditional background, with chains going back to Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). 

Is that why you disagree with this? Then I'm not the person to debate this. Find another muslim; Indonesia houses another major sect called the Muhammadiyah
- I doubt it, there is another kind in South Asia too.

Disagreements in divisions in Islam are always labelled and classified with derogatory claims of blesphemy. 
- You seem to be arguing with yourself. Cool.

#66
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan

Almost everything you said about western tolerance either makes absolutely no sense,  because they don't connect to the philosophers or that they seem more of a tirade against the west than a genuine critique.
- Yes, because you're trapped in the labels, not the actual substance behind those labels. The great success the West still enjoys blinds the infatuated from their oppression. In merely allowing your own faith in your own heart they make it sound like the greatest gift in the world. That's not even an object of freedom, for it is beyond the scope of law, by design. Everything you complain about in your country is *actually* western practices, which happen to be applied under a Muslim majority. If Muslims actually acted like the West & imposed their own laws & freedoms on people, there'll be turmoil. But it's ok when the West do it. Let's examine this great western tolerance:

  • In terms of religious beliefs: Islam = tells you let's agree that I consider your beliefs false & you consider my beliefs false. West = humiliate & subjugate your beliefs yet lies to your face & tell you it's freedom.
  • In terms of religious practice: Islam = virtually unconditional freedom of practice your faith – a minority is simply not subject to Sharia, for Taklif in Sharia is only meaningful if you're Muslim. Secular West = no such thing, for you are subject to the state & its morality & laws.
  • In terms of judiciary: Islam = minorities are free to establish their own courts & issue their own rulings & laws. Secular West = burbles... equality baby.
  • In terms of government: Islam = minorities are free to establish their own administration, elect their own representatives, run their own territory, & enact their own local policies. Secular West = crickets... majority rule baby.
  • In terms of finance: Islam = minorities are free to establish their own tax collection system on income & commerce. West = tumbleweeds...
  • In terms of culture: Islam = given it's a community based system, minority customs are naturally maintained & cultures are preserved. West = complete & total annihilation of culture. In fact, Christianity in the Middle East has fallen more in the past 100 years under secular rule, than it did for the prior 13 centuries under Islamic rule. Similarly, the 30 points down by which Christianity fell under 13 centuries of Islamic rule, it took only 30 years to achieve in secular France.
  • In terms of language: Islam = in communities language is vital, never dies. Secular West = assimilation practices annihilate diversity in language. All the Berber peoples of the Maghrib still speak Berber despite 13 centuries of Islamic rule & them not even having a written language. 3 generations in the US or any western country & it's gone.
  • In terms of defense: Islam = non-Muslims are exempt from participating  & sacrificing themselves in wars for a cause they don't believe in. West = a soldier is a slave to the state forced to fight against his own faith for a cause he does not believe in.
  • In terms of religion: Islam = no interference into the religious institutions of minorities (or Muslims). Secular West = even though they love to call it separation of Church & State, in truth it is strictly subjugation of Church to State. The Church has no power over the state & no power from it, unless granted otherwise.
  • In terms of education: Islam = parents are free to teach their children's, unless harm is done or complaints are issued. Secular West = systematic indoctrination labelled with very loud & very flashy 'freedoms'.
  • In terms of thought (& speech): Islam = free rein of ideas in the scholarly realm where thought matters, with prohibition of public propaganda. Secular West = prohibition of challenging & unfamiliar ideas in the academic realm, free rein to propaganda in public realm where thought does not matter.
...etc.

- You can not argue with this, it's hopeless. If you insist on denying this, just imagine the contrary scenario, where Islam is West & West is Islam, to realize the disgustingly unimpressive & empty slogans of "freedom" the West screams. In a 100% western system majority Muslim country, Christians will be crushed like dust, humiliated, & may only survive by conforming to Muslim lifestyle, their cultures lost & their languages. Conversely, how great would the West & their freedom be if they had adopted Islamic community-based system? Be honest. Muslims failed at PR & propaganda. But this is not going to last long, the moment their dominion is gone, so will the awe & the prestige, especially given the immense oppression & corruption they spread. You yourself will abandon this, the same way all those apostate communists 3 decades ago abandoned those beliefs.

Im not talking about the persisting influence of the four imams, I'm talking about the Asharis and the Muatazis. Asharis literally grounded their belief in the same way as muatazis.
- That can't be true, since they hold opposite beliefs! I will tell you briefly some of Ashaaris principles, which are in this case also my beliefs:

  • Tasdiq principle = faith is established with discernment (reason).
  • Taesis principle = inferred belief (dhan) must follow from foundational certainty (qat') [they reject the preponderance argument & circular faith].
  • Taqdis principle = unambiguous authentic revelation must conform with sound conclusive reasoning, else up for interpretation.
  • Tawil principle = scriptural language is Arab literary language, i.e. conventional, usage & inferred meanings are all valid, depending on context.
  • Tawatur principle = only mutawatir (authenticated with certainty) hadith are acceptable in Aqeeda (theology).
  • Tasalsul principle = foundationalism (as opposed to coherentism or infinitism).
  • Qidam principle = necessity of necessary being.
  • Huduth principle = non-necessary beings (events) are finite.
  • Imkan principle = non-necessary beings are possible/contingent.
  • Mukhalafa principle = Allah is transcendent, disjoint from his creation.
  • Tamanu principle = there can't be two necessary beings, argument of singularity.
  • Tawafuq principle = efficient causation is inductive, not necessary.
  • Ittirad principle = uniformity in nature is a habit immediately or secondarily imposed by Allah.
  • Ietibar principle = time & space & relations are relative contingent on perception.
  • Jawhar fard principle = matter is quantized.
  • Arad principle = accidents (properties of matter = motion, transformation & warmth) are probable until actualized.
  • Tazammun principle = accidents actualize in quantas of time.
  • Tamakkun principle = accidents actualize in quantas of space.
  • Tafra principle = velocity is bounded (there is a maximum & minimum possible velocity).
  • Ijbar principle = events are predetermined (determinism).
  • Kasb principle = free will is relative, a state of conscience in reaction to determined circumstances.
  • Hujjah principle = accountability to Allah is established with reason, ability & knowledge of revelation (people who don't know the message are not accountable)
  • Taklif principle = accountability in Islam is established with reason, ability & belief in Islam.
  • .... etc. 
- Christian Theology is infantile compared to this, a drop in the ocean of Islamic Theology. It's just that the loudest voices in today's Muslim world are from abjectly ignorant corners, like the Salafis & their kinds. They memorize Hadiths & they think they know everything...  


Back to the topic at hand, I think succeeding imams won because "islam will persist until Qiyamah", which is a pretty amusing statement after their victory over the Muatazis government.
- Where do you get this nonsense though? Mutazilites were crushed with reason, when they crushed their opponents with tyranny. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about. Close that window. If your sources knew any better at all they would've gotten attached to the Falasifa, not the Mutazilies. At least Falasifa had much more contributions & lasted far longer. Interestingly, the Mutazilites actually never went away, their thought was adopted by the Shia Imamya, particularly the usuli branch, still living until today.

Again, I'm trying to say that this is an Islamic principle. Grandiose claims start and end at Islam. Stop mixing western philosophy with Islam. It bears no relevance when you're making grandiose claims about ideas. Western ideas are "free" while Muslim ideas are "grandiose"
- False. Islamic affirmations are sincere while Western affirmations are pretentious. The Declaration of Human Rights in France was followed by mass massacres within, followed by more than 2 centuries of the most brutal & bloodiest expansion in history, killing dozens of millions of innocents in the most horrible ways, accompanied by the largest & cruelest slavery campaign in history. The Western great incoherence is a legacy of Christianity's great incoherence. Proclaim "give him the other cheek" slogan as a self-righteous guilt-free card to go & brutalize to your heart's content with "smite them with God's wrath". 

Yes, I have read The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Just so you know, my parents implemented harsh hunger deprivation and threats of permanent disownment on me when they heard ive apostatized.
- Why did you apostatize? Why Christianity? Do you believe Jesus is God?

They also told me to read Ghazali, which I did.
- It's ok to admit the obvious. No you didn't.

Ptolemy writes scant little about philosophy and he merely extended Aristotle's De Caelo. Ptolemy was a careless astronomer and his textbook was quickly disposed in favor of Sufi's observations.
- How do you come up with these sentences that make so much no sense?! I can't even! Ptolemy's legacy is in his treaties on geometrical positions of celestial bodies, aka Almagest. What does that have to do with Metaphysics? Aristotle's cosmology gives a conceptual structure to these paths & positions, in orbits & heavens & such. How did you read Copernicus? I don't know how you expect to have a debate on this subject when you can say stuff like this! I guess it's an automatic win for me.

Causality is not apparent and time is relative, well of course it isn't for you. Why do you think this ties to western philosophy, it's as Eastern as Eastern can be. Good luck with that level of generalization, you sound like my deranged anti-islam pastor when I first apostatized (not an insult to you in particular, just that the point youve raised is eerily similar to what he said to me).
- I don't know about that pastor, but I've indeed misjudged you, my fault. Given your big claims about reading Hume & all these philosophers it gave me the false impression that you're actually grounded in philosophy. A lot of things I might be saying would probably go over your head.

Hence, I told Lemmings that muslims generally label ihan omar a deviant. She's like mahathir who's notorious for having anti-semitic beliefs alongside that unsubstantiated "moderate islam". Muslims sure love to make labels.
- Ehhhh...?! I don't recall saying any of this. Who says Ilhan Omar is not a Muslim? Anybody who professes Islam & does not negate himself otherwise is effectively a Muslim, be it a saint or a murderer, & to Allah we all return & to Him all accounts. 'Moderate' is an empty label, it means nothing in Islam. Mahathir is a great president & a shrewd politician who masterfully seized Malaysia from under foreign dominion with class & propelled it to the powerhouse it is today, where the average Malaysian industrial output is higher than the average American. Great man, much respect.


#67
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Yassine
Enough with the accusation that I lied. I did none of those things; I'm not a snake who promises a contract only to bail a few weeks later. I could go with this local stereotype that Arabs/Indians/Whites are aggressive and unbearably loud in asia. But I didn't; I gave you my honest opinions as an apostate. Aside from that, this is good resource.

So... Kripke's modal logic came from the greco-arab translation movement. And Kant's synthetic a priori probably came from...another Arab. No doubt, you'll probably say analytic and rationalist philosophers took their own inspiration from reading Ghazali. Ok, I understand your perspective 

Might be interested in a debate. No promises though. But currently, I'm on Hobbes. So was his profound influence on pleasure and law an Arab idea? Feel free to say something about him too. As to Hume, well, he placed his faith in his supervisor, not of Locke or Burkeley.  Plus, it was him who contested the majority of Newton's work, not Berkeley. You're wrong to suggest that Berkeley's essays had an influence on the Anti-Newtonian movement. Plus, Hume's lasting legacy is his work on sentimentalism. His letters concerning natural sciences are pretty much defunct. I don't defer to him on natural sciences for the same reason why mathematicians don't defer to Kant on mathematics. they're both outdated. There are clearly false misrepresentations you made about western literature there. I'm not sure if they're  sloppy writing or that you've carelessly written them from memory. Either way, i'll leave this on a positive note.

I haven't checked on all of the other theological claims though. Do I plan to? At the moment, no. I'll see about what I can do about your post in the near future.
#68
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Yassine
I think that next post is trash to me. All I could read from that is the typical classic condescension from the ulama: that I'm incapable of deep thought. You sure you don't live in Indonesia and actually oversee the office to turn apostates back to reverted status? Be a jerk and get treated like a jerk. I think you need to stop viewing me less or Ill voluntarily leave this conversation. Youre free to post anything you want of course (freedom of speech) but don't expect me to reply if insults persist. Go ahead, continue.

I'd rather live in a melting pot of various western perspectives than to live under the constant condescension of Muslims for simply choosing a different lifestyle. No thanks.
#69
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Enough with the accusation that I lied.
- It's not an accusation, it's a fact. Lie = say something untrue. As to your intents, that's on you.

I did none of those things; I'm not a snake who promises a contract only to bail a few weeks later. I could go with this local stereotype that Arabs/Indians/Whites are aggressive and unbearably loud in asia. But I didn't; I gave you my honest opinions as an apostate. Aside from that, this is good resource.
- I don't even know what you're talking about.

So... Kripke's modal logic came from the greco-arab translation movement.
- That's not modern philosophy. Though a lot of underlined ideas are of course influenced by Muslim as by the Greeks. Muslims are an essential & integral part of Western Philosophy.

And Kant's synthetic a priori probably came from...another Arab. No doubt, you'll probably say analytic and rationalist philosophers took their own inspiration from reading Ghazali. Ok, I understand your perspective 
-  Yes to your question, but you haven't actually addressed anything I said. This is just conceited denial. You want to be right, therefore you are right. The fact is, at least 120,000 Muslim manuscripts have been collected & studied in Europe from early 16th century to late 19th century. Hundreds, if not thousands of Europeans migrated to the Islamic world to learn Arabic & science & collect books. Kant or Hume or the entire bunch were swimming in Islamic ideas wether they liked it or not. The question is not wether Kant or others plagiarized an Arabic text & put their names on it, although this has often happened. The question thus becomes wether Kant's ideas or others' have been circulated in the Muslim world prior. Once that's established, then it's a natural conclusion they were inspired by them. 

Might be interested in a debate. No promises though. But currently, I'm on Hobbes. So was his profound influence on pleasure and law an Arab idea? Feel free to say something about him too.
- I would have, but I'm not gunna waste my time with a dogmatic fantasist. You couldn't even defend Hume in the slightest. You just can't admit that he is not that great. 17th century & 18th century Europe was not as you like to imagine. It was a poor relatively backward part of the world. With very little to show for in intellectual terms. It was not until the 19th century, & particularly after the industrial revolution that Europe begin to leave everybody behind. Hume didn't say much, in comparison to what Ashaaris taught. That's the difference.

As to Hume, well, he placed his faith in his supervisor, not of Locke or Burkeley.  Plus, it was him who contested the majority of Newton's work, not Berkeley. You're wrong to suggest that Berkeley's essays had an influence on the Anti-Newtonian movement. Plus, Hume's lasting legacy is his work on sentimentalism. His letters concerning natural sciences are pretty much defunct. I don't defer to him on natural sciences for the same reason why mathematicians don't defer to Kant on mathematics. they're both outdated. There are clearly false misrepresentations you made about western literature there. I'm not sure if they're  sloppy writing or that you've carelessly written them from memory. Either way, i'll leave this on a positive note.
- Why do you admit a thing & deny its necessary consequences? If you admit Ashaari thought was prevalent around Hume's circle, why do you deny their influence. That's squaring the circle.

I haven't checked on all of the other theological claims though. Do I plan to? At the moment, no. I'll see about what I can do about your post in the near future.
- Next time I'll know not to be courteous.

That next post is useless. All I could read from that is the typical classic condescension from the ulama: that I'm incapable of deep thought.
- Yes, you have to be humble. That's how you learn & grow in knowledge. The point is, when you fathom someone like Fakhrdeen Razi & see his otherwordly genius & legacy, & his polymathic & librarial contributions, people like Hume & Kant become insignificantly small in your eyes. This is where I'm coming from. The dude literally wrote a dictionary, while being a physician, an astronomer, a mathematician, a jurist, a theologian, a philosopher of the highest caliber. His books could fill an entire library, it's estimated that he wrote one volume on average per week. I have dozens of his books, one of the most difficult people to read. But you have an excused, you probably don't speak Arabic. Hume will do.

You sure you don't live in Indonesia and actually oversee the office to turn apostates back to reverted status?
- Why are you doing everything else other than actually defending your beliefs or your idols?! 

I'd rather live in a melting pot of various western perspectives than to live under the constant condescension of Muslims for simply choosing a different lifestyle. No thanks.
- It seems to me you're still living under Muslim perspectives, albeit counterfeit ones. If you really want to live in a truly melting pot of western perspectives, you need to move to progressivist & post-modernist philosophers, early-20th century & on.
#70
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@Yassine
Good luck with your discourse. Feel free to roam the forums, I don't really care what you do. Freedom to speech to reply to any of my posts and others and whatever. I believe the usual stuff with this site applies. you should conversee with other like-minded philosophers, plenty of them seem immune to your kind of stuff. Good I guess, but I don't have to follow them or you.

I'm usually good as an observer of two debaters insulting one another because some of them can be pretty insightful. I really like reading their views and they're the reason why I frequent this site. However I have my own rules that I apply arbitrarily to myself. I dont want to throw insults because I have dignity and I don't have infinite time. I have control over participation so I will limit myself where appropriate.

T'is a simple philosophy to learn in the best way possible. Am I being Irrational and illogical? Perhaps. But I'm a sentimentalist philosopher, and I will follow emotions before reasons. Of course, you don't have to (freedom of speech and choice) but I will follow mine because I think my feelings are right.

Bangsa apa yang paling gobo dalam dunia in? bangsa yang suka menipu dalam hal perbahasan
#71
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
- Good luck with your Islamic studies.
#72
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Good luck with your discourse.
- Good luck with your Islamic studies.

Feel free to roam the forums, I don't really care what you do. Freedom to speech to reply to any of my posts and others and whatever. I believe the usual stuff with this site applies. you should conversee with other like-minded philosophers, plenty of them seem immune to your kind of stuff. Good I guess, but I don't have to follow them or you. I'm usually good as an observer of two debaters insulting one another because some of them can be pretty insightful. I really like that about this site. However I have my own rules that I apply arbitrarily to myself. I dont want to throw insults because I have dignity and I don't have infinite time. I have control over participation so I will limit myself where appropriate.
- Ex-Muslims generally tend to be good target for debate, alas! Are you actually Christian?

Bangsa apa yang paling gobo dalam dunia in? bangsa yang suka menipu dalam hal perbahasan
- My best friend speaks Malay, -la. 

33 days later

#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,791
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Aryanman
History of US-Iran Conflict Explained

455 days later

#74
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,218
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
'Bit too Pro Iran, but explains history, lights on events very well.
The point about technology outpacing society, is an interesting thought.

I 'would imagine it an irritant, To trade much wealth, for the ability to mine resources in one's own country, But Iran 'was doing better for it, than without it.

Of Kings, And their wealth, True in a fashion, But people also 'accept such at times, if the people are also doing well.

I find it peculiar, 'how outraged people are about Russia influence on America, As though people are blind to how 'much countries interact, influence, including the United States. Influence being good or bad, depends on goals of the influenced, views one has, goals view of influencer.

"Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." - Mao
Still,
Not 'quite war,
I'm not encouraging of chaos,
But it's also 'not in a countries interest, to strengthen countries that have such different values.