Muslim cleric claims Lord Shiva was the first prophet of Islam

In what’s likely to stir a hornet’s nest, Mufti Muhammad Ilyas of the newly-formed Muslim body Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind on Thursday said Lord Shiva was the “first prophet of Islam” and Muslims are “followers of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism)”.

As part of a delegation of clerics that visited Ayodhya on Wednesday to garner support for a communal harmony seminar - National Qaumi Ekta Conference - to be organized by the group on February 27 in Balrampur, Ilyas told journalists, “Lord Shiva was first prophet of Islam and Muslims are followers of Sanatan Dharma.”

Facebook

Facebook

He even went on to add that Muslims should have no reservation in accepting that Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati are their creators. “We are all Indians and children of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati and there should be no reservations in accepting the truth,” he said.

Ilyas also said he is not opposed to the RSS’ idea of declaring India a Hindu nation. “The citizens of China are called Chinese. The people of Japan are called Japanese. What’s wrong in terming Hindustani as Hindus. We are not against declaring India a Hindu country,” he added.

While Muslim intellectuals rubbished Ilyasi’s statements as his personal views that is “baseless and have no proof”, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) hailed cleric’s words. The Bharatiya Janata Party too has termed it his personal comments.

“The Holy Quran asserts that every community has its prophets, but mentioning the name of (Lord) Shiva as a prophet of Muslims has no proof. We condemn and completely disagree with the comments made by Ilyasi,” Jamaat-e-Islami Hind secretary general Maulana Nusrat Ali told Firstpost.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JuH) made it clear that Ilyasi has no association with it and none of its delegation has visited Ayodhya. “First, be clear that it is not Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind but Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind, which was formed by some maulvis (clerics) with vested interest before 2014 Lok Sabha elections with an aim to improve Narendra Modi’s image in the Muslim community. It was used for Modi’s PR theatrics before the general elections and now, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is using it to spread a false message,” said JuH chief Maulana Mehmood Madani.

 

Terming the statements “irresponsible”, JuH Secretary Maulana Neyaz Ahmad Farooqui said Ilyasi’s controversial remarks have hurt the religious sentiments of both Hindus and Muslims. “Prophet Adam was the first prophet and Prophet Mohammad was the last one. Quran has mentioned very few of them. But Lord Shiva was a Prophet has no proof in Islam. By declaring him as a messenger of Islam, he has hurt the sentiments and Muslims. On the other hand, Hindus worship Lord Shiva as their God; therefore, by calling him as a messenger of God is his disrespect,” he explained.

Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali dubbed Ilyasi’s statements as “un-Islamic”. “It must be his personal statement. It has nothing to do with Islam. In other words, the statements are un-Islamic,” said All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali.

 

Rejecting Ilyas’s remark, Mufti Mukarram Ahmed, imam of Fatehpuri mosque, said, “His statements are politically motivated. He should explain for whom he is working.”

Meanwhile, the VHP has welcomed the statements and said it is in the interest of nation. “Although we disagree with Ilyasi’s statement that Lord Shiva was a prophet as he is a God, but we welcome the cleric’s statements. Rising above religions, he has tried to unite people and take them away from self-centredness,” VHP spokesperson Vinod bansal told Firstpost.

“Why a hue and cry being raised when he (the cleric) is talking about all Indians are Hindus. The arguments he has given to establish his points are extremely logical,” he said adding that “those who oppose ‘Vande Matram’, hoist Pakistani flags in India, disrespect Amar Jawan Jyoti (a war memorial dedicated to soldiers) in Mumbai and raise voice against Batla House encounter and the execution of Afzal Guru have no right question Ilyasi”.

However, the BJP has termed Ilyasi’s statement as personal. “This is his personal comments and we don’t want to make any comment on the issue,” UP BJP President Laxminkant Bajpai told Firstpost.

Old Delhi's Daryaganj-based Jamaat is close to the RSS and the BJP and has worked for the saffron party in Kashmir to bridges with the local clergy and market Modi’s development plan for the Valley.

Several attempts to contact Ilyasi failed as he did not respond to our phone calls and text messages.

https://www.firstpost.com/indi...t-islam-2111329.html

Original Post
Prince posted:

In what’s likely to stir a hornet’s nest, Mufti Muhammad Ilyas of the newly-formed Muslim body Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind on Thursday said Lord Shiva was the “first prophet of Islam” and Muslims are “followers of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism)”.

As part of a delegation of clerics that visited Ayodhya on Wednesday to garner support for a communal harmony seminar - National Qaumi Ekta Conference - to be organized by the group on February 27 in Balrampur, Ilyas told journalists, “Lord Shiva was first prophet of Islam and Muslims are followers of Sanatan Dharma.”

Facebook

Facebook

He even went on to add that Muslims should have no reservation in accepting that Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati are their creators. “We are all Indians and children of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati and there should be no reservations in accepting the truth,” he said.

Ilyas also said he is not opposed to the RSS’ idea of declaring India a Hindu nation. “The citizens of China are called Chinese. The people of Japan are called Japanese. What’s wrong in terming Hindustani as Hindus. We are not against declaring India a Hindu country,” he added.

While Muslim intellectuals rubbished Ilyasi’s statements as his personal views that is “baseless and have no proof”, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) hailed cleric’s words. The Bharatiya Janata Party too has termed it his personal comments.

“The Holy Quran asserts that every community has its prophets, but mentioning the name of (Lord) Shiva as a prophet of Muslims has no proof. We condemn and completely disagree with the comments made by Ilyasi,” Jamaat-e-Islami Hind secretary general Maulana Nusrat Ali told Firstpost.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JuH) made it clear that Ilyasi has no association with it and none of its delegation has visited Ayodhya. “First, be clear that it is not Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind but Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind, which was formed by some maulvis (clerics) with vested interest before 2014 Lok Sabha elections with an aim to improve Narendra Modi’s image in the Muslim community. It was used for Modi’s PR theatrics before the general elections and now, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is using it to spread a false message,” said JuH chief Maulana Mehmood Madani.

 

Terming the statements “irresponsible”, JuH Secretary Maulana Neyaz Ahmad Farooqui said Ilyasi’s controversial remarks have hurt the religious sentiments of both Hindus and Muslims. “Prophet Adam was the first prophet and Prophet Mohammad was the last one. Quran has mentioned very few of them. But Lord Shiva was a Prophet has no proof in Islam. By declaring him as a messenger of Islam, he has hurt the sentiments and Muslims. On the other hand, Hindus worship Lord Shiva as their God; therefore, by calling him as a messenger of God is his disrespect,” he explained.

Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali dubbed Ilyasi’s statements as “un-Islamic”. “It must be his personal statement. It has nothing to do with Islam. In other words, the statements are un-Islamic,” said All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali.

 

Rejecting Ilyas’s remark, Mufti Mukarram Ahmed, imam of Fatehpuri mosque, said, “His statements are politically motivated. He should explain for whom he is working.”

Meanwhile, the VHP has welcomed the statements and said it is in the interest of nation. “Although we disagree with Ilyasi’s statement that Lord Shiva was a prophet as he is a God, but we welcome the cleric’s statements. Rising above religions, he has tried to unite people and take them away from self-centredness,” VHP spokesperson Vinod bansal told Firstpost.

“Why a hue and cry being raised when he (the cleric) is talking about all Indians are Hindus. The arguments he has given to establish his points are extremely logical,” he said adding that “those who oppose ‘Vande Matram’, hoist Pakistani flags in India, disrespect Amar Jawan Jyoti (a war memorial dedicated to soldiers) in Mumbai and raise voice against Batla House encounter and the execution of Afzal Guru have no right question Ilyasi”.

However, the BJP has termed Ilyasi’s statement as personal. “This is his personal comments and we don’t want to make any comment on the issue,” UP BJP President Laxminkant Bajpai told Firstpost.

Old Delhi's Daryaganj-based Jamaat is close to the RSS and the BJP and has worked for the saffron party in Kashmir to bridges with the local clergy and market Modi’s development plan for the Valley.

Several attempts to contact Ilyasi failed as he did not respond to our phone calls and text messages.

https://www.firstpost.com/indi...t-islam-2111329.html

Probably gone into hiding a la Salman Rushdie and "The Satanic Verses"......

The brother should clarify if he thinks Shiva that is the first prophet or if he thinks that Shiva is God.

Infact, Muslims are probably the only non-Hindu group that accommodates the belief that the personalities mentioned in Hindu scriptures can be prophets also. 

Riff posted:

I was recently looking at some videos of the Sri Krishna Mandir at New Amsterdam...very nice construction of a mandir...impressive

 

I heard that wood ants eat out the old one.

The Sri Krishna Mandir at Gay Park, Greater New Amsterdam, Berbice (GINA photo)

Image result for Krishna mandir New Amsterdam, Guyana
GTAngler posted:
Prince posted:

In what’s likely to stir a hornet’s nest, Mufti Muhammad Ilyas of the newly-formed Muslim body Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind on Thursday said Lord Shiva was the “first prophet of Islam” and Muslims are “followers of Sanatan Dharma (Hinduism)”.

As part of a delegation of clerics that visited Ayodhya on Wednesday to garner support for a communal harmony seminar - National Qaumi Ekta Conference - to be organized by the group on February 27 in Balrampur, Ilyas told journalists, “Lord Shiva was first prophet of Islam and Muslims are followers of Sanatan Dharma.”

Facebook

Facebook

He even went on to add that Muslims should have no reservation in accepting that Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati are their creators. “We are all Indians and children of Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati and there should be no reservations in accepting the truth,” he said.

Ilyas also said he is not opposed to the RSS’ idea of declaring India a Hindu nation. “The citizens of China are called Chinese. The people of Japan are called Japanese. What’s wrong in terming Hindustani as Hindus. We are not against declaring India a Hindu country,” he added.

While Muslim intellectuals rubbished Ilyasi’s statements as his personal views that is “baseless and have no proof”, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) hailed cleric’s words. The Bharatiya Janata Party too has termed it his personal comments.

“The Holy Quran asserts that every community has its prophets, but mentioning the name of (Lord) Shiva as a prophet of Muslims has no proof. We condemn and completely disagree with the comments made by Ilyasi,” Jamaat-e-Islami Hind secretary general Maulana Nusrat Ali told Firstpost.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JuH) made it clear that Ilyasi has no association with it and none of its delegation has visited Ayodhya. “First, be clear that it is not Jamiat-e-Ulema Hind but Jamaat Ulama-e-Hind, which was formed by some maulvis (clerics) with vested interest before 2014 Lok Sabha elections with an aim to improve Narendra Modi’s image in the Muslim community. It was used for Modi’s PR theatrics before the general elections and now, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is using it to spread a false message,” said JuH chief Maulana Mehmood Madani.

 

Terming the statements “irresponsible”, JuH Secretary Maulana Neyaz Ahmad Farooqui said Ilyasi’s controversial remarks have hurt the religious sentiments of both Hindus and Muslims. “Prophet Adam was the first prophet and Prophet Mohammad was the last one. Quran has mentioned very few of them. But Lord Shiva was a Prophet has no proof in Islam. By declaring him as a messenger of Islam, he has hurt the sentiments and Muslims. On the other hand, Hindus worship Lord Shiva as their God; therefore, by calling him as a messenger of God is his disrespect,” he explained.

Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali dubbed Ilyasi’s statements as “un-Islamic”. “It must be his personal statement. It has nothing to do with Islam. In other words, the statements are un-Islamic,” said All India Muslim Personal Law Board member Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali.

 

Rejecting Ilyas’s remark, Mufti Mukarram Ahmed, imam of Fatehpuri mosque, said, “His statements are politically motivated. He should explain for whom he is working.”

Meanwhile, the VHP has welcomed the statements and said it is in the interest of nation. “Although we disagree with Ilyasi’s statement that Lord Shiva was a prophet as he is a God, but we welcome the cleric’s statements. Rising above religions, he has tried to unite people and take them away from self-centredness,” VHP spokesperson Vinod bansal told Firstpost.

“Why a hue and cry being raised when he (the cleric) is talking about all Indians are Hindus. The arguments he has given to establish his points are extremely logical,” he said adding that “those who oppose ‘Vande Matram’, hoist Pakistani flags in India, disrespect Amar Jawan Jyoti (a war memorial dedicated to soldiers) in Mumbai and raise voice against Batla House encounter and the execution of Afzal Guru have no right question Ilyasi”.

However, the BJP has termed Ilyasi’s statement as personal. “This is his personal comments and we don’t want to make any comment on the issue,” UP BJP President Laxminkant Bajpai told Firstpost.

Old Delhi's Daryaganj-based Jamaat is close to the RSS and the BJP and has worked for the saffron party in Kashmir to bridges with the local clergy and market Modi’s development plan for the Valley.

Several attempts to contact Ilyasi failed as he did not respond to our phone calls and text messages.

https://www.firstpost.com/indi...t-islam-2111329.html

Probably gone into hiding a la Salman Rushdie and "The Satanic Verses"......

Image result for salman rushdie

Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses": Excerpts of Controversial Passages

How an Indian Actor Became Prophet Muhammad’s Understudy

Gibreel Farishta, the alienated, deracinated Indian actor who’s fallen back to Earth after terrorists exploded his plane, is recuperating from the fall in one of his first bouts of psychotic delirium. He dreams “heavy-lidded towards visions of his angeling.” This is the beginning of the conjuring of Mahound, the character, based on the Prophet Muhammad, that Gibreel channels in his dreams. Keep in mind (it’s worth repeating again and again) that this is a fiction within a fiction, an intentional inversion not only of reality, but of the presumption that fiction should even be a reflection of reality:

The human condition, but what of the angelic? Halfway between Allahgod and homosap, did they ever doubt? They did: challenging God’s will one day they hid muttering beneath the Throne, daring to ask forbidden things: antiquestions. It is right that. Could it not be argued. Freedom, the old antiquest. He calmed them down, naturally, employing management skills à la god. Flattered them: you will be the instrument of my will on earth, of the salvationdamnation of man, all the usual etcetera. And hey presto, end of protest, on with the halos, back to work. Angels are easily pacified; turn them into instruments and they’ll play you a happy tune. Human beings are tougher nuts, can doubt anything, even the evidence of their own eyes. Of behind-their-own-eyes. Of whyatm as they sink heavy-lidded, transpires behind closed peepers… angels, they don’t have much in the way of a will. To will is to disagree; not to submit, to dissent.
 

I know; devil talk. Shaitan interrupting Gibreel.

Me?

[…] His name: a dream-name, changed by the vision. Pronounced correctly, it means he-for-whom-thanks-should-be-given, but he won’t answer to that here; nor, though he’s well aware of what they call him, to his nickname in Jahilia down below—he-who-goes-up-and-down-old-Coney.

[Coney Mountain in Rushdie’s rendering is a pun on many levels, and a reference to Mount Hira, where Muhammad is supposed to have had his first Koranic “revelation.”] Here he is neither Mahomet nor MoeHammered; has adopted, instead, demon-tag the farangis hung around his neck. To turn insults into strengths, whigs, tories, Blacks all chose to wear with pride the names they were given in scorn; likewise, our mountain-climbing, prophet-motivated solitary is to be the medieval baby-frightener, the Devil’s synonym: Mhound.

That’s him. Mahound the businessman, climbing his hot mountain in the Hijaz. The mirage of a city shines below him in the sun.

The Satanic Verses Deal

The following passage relates the story of the so-called “deal” of the satanic verses, when Mohammed was offered by the elders of the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca to trade in a little bit of his monotheistic dogmatism in favor of accepting the intercession of three goddesses, Lat, Uzza and Manat. There is nothing offensive about the story in and of itself, in that it’s been debated, argued, documented and even accepted or rejected by various scholars, historians and clerics over the centuries. Some Muslims remain offended by the suggestion that the Prophet Muhammad would be involved in anything like a “deal,” or that his “revelations” would in any way have been influenced by Satan, as that deal is said to have been influenced.

 

Mahound sits on the edge of the well and grins. “I’ve been offered a deal.” By Abu Simbel?Khalid shouts. Unthinkable. Refuse. Faithful Bilal admonishes him: Do not lecture the Messenger. Of course, he has refused. Salman the Persian asks: What sort of deal. Mahound smiles again. “Al least one of you wants to know.” […]

“If our great God could find it in his heart to concede—he used that word, concede—that three, only three of the three hundred and sixty idols in the house are worthy of worship…”

”There is no god but God!” Bilal shouts. And his fellows join in: “Ya Allah!” Mahound looks angry. “Will the faithful hear the Messenger?” They fall silent, scuffing their feet in the dust.

“He asks for Allah’s approval of Lat, Uzza and Manat. In return, he gives his guarantee that we will be tolerated, even officially recognized; as a mark of which I am to be elected to the council of Jahilia.

That’s the offer.”

Describing the “Revelation” of the Satanic Verses

Rushdie, of course, doesn’t stop there. The following pages, among the most moving and shattering of the novel, describe Gibreel/Mahound/Mohammed as anguished, self-doubting, sometimes doubtful, possibly even calculating as he prepares to hear the revelation enabling the “deal” of the three goddesses—what would come to be known as the satanic verses:

O my vanity I am an arrogant man, is this weakness, is it just a dream of power? Must I betray myself for a seat on the council? Is this sensible and wise or is it hollow and self-loving? I don’t even know if the Grandee is sincere. Does he know? Perhaps not even he. I am weak and he’s strong, the offer gives him many ways of ruining me. But I, too, have much to gain. The souls of the city, of the world, surely they are worth three angels? Is Allah so unbending that he will not embrace three more to save the human race?—I don’t know anything. –Should God be proud or humble, majestic or simple, yielding or un-? What kind of idea is he? What kind am I

Rushdie then describes in equally moving detail the moment of revelation itself (“no, no, nothing like an epileptic fit, it can’t be explained away that easily”) culminating in the uttering of “the Words,” the verses later to be deemed satanic, though Rushdie cleverly doesn’t have Mahound speak them just then: Mahound’s eyes open wide, he’s seeing some kind of vision, staring at it, oh, that’s right, Gibreel remembers, me.

He’s seeing me. My lips moving, being moved by. What, by whom? Don’t know, can’t say. Neverthelessm here they are, coming out of my mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words.

Being God’s postman is no fun, yaar.

Butbutbut: God isn’t in this picture.

God knows whose postman I’ve been.

Spoofing the Ayatollah Khomeini

In a lesser-known controversial passage of The Satanic Verses, Rushdie does what he does best: he mercilessly spoofs figures of contemporary history. In this case, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini—who, in 1989, decreed the sentencing Rushdie to death, along with anyone connected with the publishing and translating of the novel. It’s believed that Khomeini never read the book. Surely though, he must have caught wind of the passage portraying him as a slightly mad, child-killing Imam who launched suicide-soldiers to their death in the Iran-Iraq war:

Gibreel unsderstands that the Imam, fighting by proxy as usual, will sacrifice him as readily as he did the hill of corpses at the palace gate, that he is a suicide soldier in the service of the cleric’s cause.

The “Imam” orders Gibreel to kill Al-Lat:

Down she tumbles, Al-Lat queen of the night; crashes upside-down to earth, crushing her head to bits; and lies, a headless black angel, with her wings ripped off, by a little wicket gate in the palace gardens, all in a crumpled heap.—And Gibreel, looking away from her in horror, sees the Imam grown monstrous, lying in the palace forecourt with his mouth yawning open at the gates; as the people march through the gates he swallows them whole.

https://www.thoughtco.com/salm...tanic-verses-2353503

seignet posted:

Rushdie must have read Homer, so much of religion is tied to Greek and Hindu Mythology. Joseph Campbell found universal truths within Hindu myths.

Perhaps. It is clear from his satanic verses book that he never read the Qur’an

Who cares. If there is a God. There will only be one. No one has come from the dead to validate the claims that all these religious people says. Mankind has been brainwashed for centuries about a God and the hereafter. There is not one solid proof to back these up

seignet posted:

Rushdie must have read Homer, so much of religion is tied to Greek and Hindu Mythology. Joseph Campbell found universal truths within Hindu myths.

Someone probably heard of Pegasus and made up a story about Mohamed riding on a horse to Heaven.

Mars posted:
seignet posted:

Rushdie must have read Homer, so much of religion is tied to Greek and Hindu Mythology. Joseph Campbell found universal truths within Hindu myths.

Someone probably heard of Pegasus and made up a story about Mohamed riding on a horse to Heaven.

Look trouble here. I wonder what Chief has to say about this ?

yuji22 posted:
Mars posted:
seignet posted:

Rushdie must have read Homer, so much of religion is tied to Greek and Hindu Mythology. Joseph Campbell found universal truths within Hindu myths.

Someone probably heard of Pegasus and made up a story about Mohamed riding on a horse to Heaven.

Look trouble here. I wonder what Chief has to say about this ?

You mean all this time Chief was praying to Lord Shiva, that's why he is successful.

Amral posted:

Who cares. If there is a God. There will only be one. No one has come from the dead to validate the claims that all these religious people says. Mankind has been brainwashed for centuries about a God and the hereafter. There is not one solid proof to back these up

All religions are competing to see who will come up with the correct God. That's why they all claim their God is better than your God.

kp posted:
Amral posted:

Who cares. If there is a God. There will only be one. No one has come from the dead to validate the claims that all these religious people says. Mankind has been brainwashed for centuries about a God and the hereafter. There is not one solid proof to back these up

All religions are competing to see who will come up with the correct God. That's why they all claim their God is better than your God.

There is only one all pervading God. Religion was created by man.

ksazma posted:

The brother should clarify if he thinks Shiva that is the first prophet or if he thinks that Shiva is God.

Infact, Muslims are probably the only non-Hindu group that accommodates the belief that the personalities mentioned in Hindu scriptures can be prophets also. 

Educate Baseman and Nehru.

All religions should be open up to scientific scrutiny since there is no factual basis for its existence. Religion can hold sentimental values for many but it should never remain unchallenged. We are living in a time where there are more questions than answers. The Bible is the most controversial scripture known to mankind, yet Christianity is so established that you couldn't even destroy it.      

I value the truth over the Kingdom of God.

Good morning Prince

God has spoken the truth.

Kindly read the Quran, furthur I have never seen anything what Prophet Muhammad uwbp said that is incorrect. All his pronouncements are valid from then to now, with men like Mahatma GhandI and MLK who  publicly acknowledged that they followed his advice.

Baseman posted:

There is space for faith and for logical science.  The human mind needs both!

There's nothing wrong with believing in Santa Claus or an imaginary friend in the sky who you can call on for help. Some people are not strong enough to face life on their own and need another voice in their head to guide them through tough times. Once they don't try to make their mumbo jumbo the law of the land, it's all good with me.

Islam uplifted the majority of white Arab peoples economically, culturally, socially and politically.  It took them from tents in the sand deserts and from the backs of camels then propelled them to greatness and global glory. It will continue to do so into the distant future.

Religion & Culture | Humanism, Not Religion, The Path To Salvation

While Christian apologists are busy defending the historical, theological and evidential bases of their faith, the Church continues to crumble from within.

Its moral failures have impeded its ability to ably address social problems without sounding ridiculously hypocritical, even pitiful.

No one needs to resurrect the history of religious indiscretions and improprieties to prove that there is something innately defective about religions. I am moved to cite the 'Good Book': By their fruit, you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? (Matthew 7:16)

And of the fruits of religion, we are well aware.

Two weeks ago, I was introduced to a young lawyer from the Czech Republic and we shared cultural experiences. When our discourse turned to religion, he stated, matter-of-factly, that nearly all of his country is agnostic, if not atheistic.

Blame this on the communist rule at one juncture in its history, some might argue. But this explanation holds little water when we look at neighboring Poland and even Russia (once communist) where religion is embraced.

Eagerly, my young friend then boasted of Czech's homogeneity, its liberal values, its democratic system, and more important, its social stability.

 

HIGH CRIME RATES

 

For a moment, I thought of the high crime rate in countries that are replete with religions, and still boast of being 'God-fearing'. And I reflected on inner cities in the United State where churches outnumber just about every other institution, but black-on-black crime remains a nagging, endemic problem.

I also look at my native Trinidad and Tobago characterized by its multiplex religious landscape and a crime rate that is shocking and revolting.

Later, I conducted a brief research on the Czech Republic and my young friend's boast was not an idle one. I needed to understand that nation's non-religious character.

I learned that the founder, Tomas Garrigue Masaryk (1850-1937), was a Neo-Platonist, who trumpeted philosophy over politics; that he showed a critical interest in the self-contradictions of capitalism; that he studied the prevalence of suicides and suffering in modern societies; and that he advanced moral righteousness and personal responsibility.

Religion was viewed as a source of morality. Nothing more. His writings are arguably aligned with Con***ianism's human-heartedness, goodness and benevolence.

As for that country's crime rate, my research led me to information from the Overseas Security Advisory Council, a department of the US Department of State.

I read that 'violent or confrontational crime is rare in the Czech Republic; terrorism and political violence are rated low, (and) drug-related crimes lean towards petty theft.'

And my young friend was right that his country is proud of its atheistic bearing.

From the Pew Research Center (June 19, 2017), we garner these revelatory statistics:

"About seven-in-10 Czechs (72 percent) do not identify with a religious group, including 46 percent who describe their religion as "nothing in particular".

An additional 25 percent say "atheist" describes their religious identity. When it comes to religious belief - as opposed to religious identity - 66 percent of Czechs say they do not believe in God, compared with just 29 percent who do."

Compare these figures with the US where 61 percent of the population believe in God.

I am certain that figure is exponentially higher in the Caribbean.

 

Rampant Evil In God-Fearing Nations

 

Remarkable is that in so-called God-fearing nations, crime, drugs, corruption, discrimination, gender violence, ethnic cleansing, and wars are rampant. Food for thought.

Notably, the philosophical basis of atheism and agnosticism is rooted in ethics, charity, and compassion.

I recall my article, 'Religion not necessary, say humanists', (Jamaica Gleaner, January 12, 2014), wherein it was said by one interviewee, "We don't have to believe that judgment awaits us to be good."

Those words returned with a sharpened meaning.

Humanism is very much in alignment with Con***ianism's concept of benevolence and mercy.

Not that religion rejects such noble qualities. But, by their very framework, religion breeds exclusivity and division. Sadly, most religions have veered into a destructive course, ruined by self-righteousness, obsession with God (and His wrath), vicarious atonement and the afterlife - all a priori arguments that are based on dogma and faith, not epistemology.

Meanwhile, society wastes away. The annals of history are still bleeding from this madness.

http://jamaica-gleaner.com/art...igion-path-salvation

Prashad posted:

Islam uplifted the majority of white Arab peoples economically, culturally, socially and politically.  It took them from tents in the sand deserts and from the backs of camels then propelled them to greatness and global glory. It will continue to do so into the distant future.

What are "White Arabs" and what differentiates them other Arabs or Semites?

GTAngler posted:
Prashad posted:

Islam uplifted the majority of white Arab peoples economically, culturally, socially and politically.  It took them from tents in the sand deserts and from the backs of camels then propelled them to greatness and global glory. It will continue to do so into the distant future.

What are "White Arabs" and what differentiates them other Arabs or Semites?

White skin colour and attitudes. Now go grab your serving tray and go serve him and her.

Prashad posted:
GTAngler posted:
Prashad posted:

Islam uplifted the majority of white Arab peoples economically, culturally, socially and politically.  It took them from tents in the sand deserts and from the backs of camels then propelled them to greatness and global glory. It will continue to do so into the distant future.

What are "White Arabs" and what differentiates them other Arabs or Semites?

White skin colour and attitudes. Now go grab your serving tray and go serve him and her.

What exactly did I ask to justify that? Now, since you want to act like an ass, I am going to treat you like one. You have obviously mistaken me for someone of your stature. When you're done scrubbing the latrines, take a few minutes to clear the shit fumes from your head and then clean my boots.

GTAngler posted:
Prashad posted:
GTAngler posted:
Prashad posted:

Islam uplifted the majority of white Arab peoples economically, culturally, socially and politically.  It took them from tents in the sand deserts and from the backs of camels then propelled them to greatness and global glory. It will continue to do so into the distant future.

What are "White Arabs" and what differentiates them other Arabs or Semites?

White skin colour and attitudes. Now go grab your serving tray and go serve him and her.

What exactly did I ask to justify that? Now, since you want to act like an ass, I am going to treat you like one. You have obviously mistaken me for someone of your stature. When you're done scrubbing the latrines, take a few minutes to clear the shit fumes from your head and then clean my boots.

Why should I clean your boots when the white Arab have you living in the Paki Sh-tings pit of Dubai. It will just be an awful waste of time.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×
×