The Mistakes Man Makes


April 5, 2016

The Mistakes Man Makes

by Kassim Ahmad

 

Revised and expanded on 6th April, 2016

At times I wonder whether man is a tragedy or not. Considering the mistakes, big and small,  that he makes against all odds, one loses faith in the human being. No wonder when God informed the angels that He was going to create man, the angels protested. They averred that he was going to cause destruction and shed blood. Except that God replied to the protestation of the angels that He knew better. God, being All-Knowing, knew the good side of man. (See Quran, 2: 30)

What is so Indecent about this?

One million years of man’s history on earth has vindicated God’s optimism of man. He was not only a warlike and a warring creature; he was also a builder of civilizations. This side of man happens to be the stronger side of him.

I shall now enumerate the mistakes, the big ones first. God informs us in the Quran that most people do not believe in Him; even those who believe in Him do not do so without associating Him with His creatures. Even most Muslims do not believe that God alone is sufficient for them. They need Prophet Muhammad to be a god besides God! Hence the two syahadahs! How they can ignore the clear injuction against the second syahadah in Surah 63: verse 1 is beyond me.

This is a most glaring mistake that essentially has led to their downfall.  Note also that this is the one sin not forgiven by God.

A Symbol of Gender Discrimination/Male Domination, Thanks, Anwar Ibrahim

The wonder is: “Where are their teachers of religion?”  Those that have graduated from universities in the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds. Note also that the Al-Azhar University in Cairo is the oldest university in the world, prior to other famous centres of learning, including Oxford and Cambridge.

All prophet-messengers of God, from Adam to Muhammad, including Abraham, Moses and Jesus, taught the essential Divine message of the acknowledgement  of the One true God for all mankind, otherwise called the religion of submission or Islam. Note that Quran names twenty-five of them. Many others, hundreds of them, are not named. We know that there are many others because God informs us that He sent messengers to all human communities.

That being so, we can now see that what has come to be the religion of Judaism is not the religion taught by Moses, and  the religion of Christianity not the religion taught by Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ was not a Christian; he was a Muslim. [1]  It was Paul, a Christian-persecuting Jew who later turned Christian, who made Christ into a Son of God. [2]

They are different because they serve humanity–I went to kindergarten run by Nuns in Alor Setar. Kedah–Din Merican

For that matter, the completed and perfected religion of Islam brought by the last of the prophets, Prophet Muhammad, with its protected scripture, the Quran, did not escape this corruption.  Three hundred years after him, Islam broke into sects, Sunnism being the majority sect. The master-architect was none other than Shafi’e (767-820), who introduced the doctrine two principal sources, the Quran and the Sunnah/Hadith.

When Prophet Muhammad migrated to Medina, he granted to the community a constitution called the Medina Charter, the first written constitution in the world. It is unfortunate that our present teachers of religion almost never mention this great legal document of Islam (Dato’ Din has kindly published this along with my comments in this blog.) when they endlessly quote the so-called hadiths.

When Prophet Muhammad migrated to Medina, he granted to the community a constitution called the Medina Charter, the first written constitution in the world. It is unfortunate that our present teachers of religion almost never mention this great legal document of Islam (Dato’ Din  Merican has kindly published this along with my comments in his blog.) when they endlessly quote the so-called hadiths.

A Symbol of Hard Work

The so-called Hudud law (fixed punishments) is another great mistake. It is nowhere mentioned in the Medina Charter. It is a misinterpretation of some frases in the Quran. The current fashion of headscarf (the tudung) for Muslim women is another. Thirty five years ago Muslim women in Malaysia wear the selendang, a partial headscarf. The simple proof  that a woman’s hair is not ‘aurat (nakedness) is that when she takes ablution she has to wipe her head.

When the Quran is recited or even quoted in a speech, most speakers tend to sing, in a manner not dissimilar to any singer, even if he or she does not understand the language of the song. This is in contradiction with the clear statement in the Quran that it is not a book of songs and that Muhammad was not singer. What is more, the practice has grown into an art of the highest excellence. In Malaysia, we have been holding international Quran-reading competitions since a long time.

Then there is a mantra repeated by most Muslims whenever they metion the name of Prophet Muhammad. The mantra is: salla’al-Lahu alaihi wasallam, meaning ‘the blessing of God and peace be on him’. This phrase occurs twice in Sural Al-Ahzan (33), firstly in verse 43, referring to believers, and secondly in verse 56, referring Prophet Muhammad. Notice how most Muslims happily ignore the blessings God bestows on believers! The Arabic word ‘salla’ means ‘to bless’.

Less I do not just mention doctrinal matters, let me turn my mind to more mundane matters, the bread-and-butter issues. My friend, Dr. Hassan Hanafi, a Professor of Philosophy at Cairo University, criticized me for ignoring politico-social and economic matters. This is the reason why I have expanded this essay.

It is not that I do not consider these matters important. I do. But these matters have to be the logical outcome of a world outlook, a philosophy. The European social system is the result of a European secular humanist world outlook that came with the Europeans Renaissance of the 14th right through to the 16th centuries.

Europe has two wings, the Western  liberal-capitalist wing, and the Eastern Marxist-communist wing.  The latter has collapsed before our eyes at the end of the 20th century; the latter will collapse too in the not-too-distant future.

Unfortunately most European historians conspired to erase the fundamental role of Arab-Islamic phase in world history. A few objective Western historians, including Robert Briffault, bear witness to this fact.

Has any civilization completely erased poverty, waste and corruption? The island city-state of Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew came very near it. What a Lee Kuan Yew has done other Lee Kuan Yews can do. In short, all human beings are endowed by their Maker the ability to rule and change the world, indeed the Universe, to their liking . Therefore, it can be logically deduced that the Good Society with zero corruption, zero poverty, zero ignorance and so on and so forth can come into being, nationally and internationally. Enough number of men and women must decide to do it.

Why all these deviations, when the Quran and the examples of the early republican-democratic caliphates are with us? It is man’s tendency to revert back after the teacher is gone. In our souls, there are two opposite tendencies: one pushing us up, and the other pulling us down.  It is up to us, free spirits that we are, to choose which way to go.

________________________

[1] This is not a claim by Muslims. It is a factual information given to us by God Himself when He named Jesus, a Jew, as one of His prophets.
[2] It was the Council of Nicaea in 325 that established Christian theology for the first time into what is known as the “Nicene Creed”. The creed was re-written in 362
KASSIM AHMAD is a Malaysian freelance writer. He dares to be different with reason, and hence he is pain to all politically movitated ulamas in Malaysia. His website is www.kassimahmad.blogspot.com.
 

40 thoughts on “The Mistakes Man Makes

  1. Din, I’m going to be “blasphemous”, so ignore me if you wish.

    It has been proven time and again throughout history that religion is a powerful tool used by man to oppress his fellow men. We have seen how men killed others and destroyed properties in the name of religion. Such acts seem more prevalent for those religions that believe in a “supreme being” having untold powers over mankind. Some men will claim to be the true representatives of such “supreme being” and others who do not follow them will be ostracised and at worse, killed.

    I have never understood why many people become so obssessed with this “supreme being”, who is called different names by different groups, to the extent that some group even ban others from using the name of their “supreme being”. In all the religions where there is a “supreme being”, it is always the case that this “supreme being” left a scripture or rules of some sort (again called in different names) to a certain specific person or person(s), usually called a “messiah”. This person will influence the masses during his days (do people realised that those were usually dark days where the masses were starving and hopeless and therefore, more susceptible to anyone who can speak eloquently and give hope, even though such hope was a mere illusion?). This messiah would have a small group of faithful followers. Many years (in fact centuries) after this “messiah” dies, these followers will spread the religion and have their own group of followers. The religion gradually becomes a prevalent practice of the masses and morphs into the ugly creature that some men claimed to own exclusively and kill others for.

    But seriously, folks … has anyone actually seen or met the “supreme being” at all? Anyone? If the “supreme being” cannot be seen, how different is it from a “UFO”? Why are men gullible enough to believe in the “supreme being” that they have not seen?

    And, these scriptures / rules of the “supreme being”. Weren’t they left to the messiahs and their disciples (all men, fallible creatures) to write down and preached over the centuries? How sure are we that they were not massively edited by men for the centuries that they no longer even bear resemblance to the original ones passed down by the “supreme being”. We have Utusan Malaysia as a clear example of how stories can be concocted to sow discords.

    These and many examples in current times are testimonies that to live in harmony and prosper, people should discard religion, any religion.

  2. /// One million years of man’s history on earth has vindicated God’s optimism of man. ///

    How can men/women have one million years of history on earth when the earth was only created six thousand years (give or take a few) ago?

  3. No wonder when God informed the angels that He was going to create man, the angels protested. They averred that he was going to cause destruction and shed blood. Except that God replied to the protestation of the angels that He knew better. God, being All-Knowing, knew the good side of man. (See Quran, 2: 30)

    The way man behaves it appears could it be that the angles may have been right?
    Apologies but only seeking clarification and not questioning the wisdom of the Almighty.

  4. Jesus was a “Muslim”? Hmm.. Why do Muslims always claim this? Certainly not ‘clever’. Perhaps, it’s best t review the Eschatology?

    There was no such term as ‘Islam’ when He lived. So with His ‘Dying Breath’ He cried: “Eloi, Eloi. lama sabachthani?” from Psalm 22:1.

    “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” and “Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” Oops! I broke the cardinal rule of not quoting from my Scripture..

    It is best that Pak Kassim, deal with his own Submissions than to involve the Christians or Christian Theology. We worship a different God who is our “Father” – Abba etc. If God is One – then we are certainly worshiping a very different ‘Essence’.

  5. // It was Paul, a Jew who later turned Christian, who turned Christ into a Son of God.

    En Kassim, to be fair to Paul.. a few other Gospel writers made the same claim about Jesus being son of God :p. The last of the four gospel writers being John who is one of the original follower of Jesus.
    https://bible.org/question/does-jesus-fact-say-he-god%E2%80%99s-son-not-just-infer-it

    I know it is outside the point of your article’s main trust. So, Amen!
    Some of us Christians are as adamant about covering our own heads also.

  6. Inche Kassim is a respected, well meaning Muslim intellectual. All his discourses may have transformational messages for Muslims to re-invent themselves for their own sake and for a better world. But he and his calls for positive change (in Islamic context) may not have relevance to the non-Muslims.

    He also parrots some controversial claims like Jesus was a Muslim and Prophet Muhammad was last of God’s messengers. What generally is accepted as historical truth is what an overwhelming majority of mankind believe and accept what has been passed down over generations by the words, writings and messages of sages and prophets of the past and not that of iconoclasts.

    Jesus was a Jew who was betrayed by his own tribe and handed over to the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, to be crucified. He was not a Muslim according to the history I learned. Look at it from another angle. Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that is where Judaism originated. Likewise Buddha was born in India and Buddhism took off from there. So is Prophet Muhammed , being born in old Arabia and Islam having roots of origin there. Hence it will be a leap of logic to say that Jesus was a Muslim.

    Who is to say that Prophet Muhammed is the last of God’s messengers? You may say it to the Muslim Umah. But others may not accept it and they are not obliged to. Just because you say it does not make it so. Since Buddhism preceded Islam (and Christianity) by miles, will Muslims concede that Buddha was God’s last messenger until replaced by Christ and later by the Prophet? Who is God’s messenger really – someone who is a founder of a religion or master craftsman of a holy text?. What about Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism (in 15th century) , who fits both the bills. He is revered by the Sikhs and the Hindus. The Sikhs don’t claim him to be the last messenger of God and that is the way it should be.

  7. The biggest mistake man has made is having created God. I’ve read a great deal in religions but never have I experienced anything that could be plausibly called a religious impulse. What I got was simply a firm conviction that the Abrahamic faiths were full of palpable absurdities, and their God preposterous. Their act of worship seems to me to be debasing rather than ennobling. It involves grovelling before a Being who, if He really exists, deserves to be denounced instead of respected. I see little evidence in this world of the so-called goodness of God. On the contrary, it seems to me that, on the strength of His daily acts, He must be set down a most stupid, cruel and villainous fellow. I can say this with a clear conscience, for He has treated me very well, in fact, with vast politeness. But I can’t help thinking of his barbaric torture of most of the rest of humanity. I simply can’t imagine revering the God of war and politics, theology and cancer.

  8. LaMoy, why do you spell Him with a cap H?
    I guess you’ll die like the rest of us? And it would be good if you can take up Pascal’s Wager with all your heart, mind and ‘soul’.

    “Blessed are you who Doubt; for you shalt Know
    Cursed are you; who Deny Others.”

  9. In Malaysia,

    it is ” The Mistakes Umno Baru Man Makes”–
    –behaving like God-Allah,
    making race a religion by equating Malay to Muslim to Bumiputera.

  10. If Jesus was a Muslim, then Muhammad was a Christian.
    ______________________
    What is the issue here, Wayne and CLF?

    Islam recognises all prophets from Adam to Muhammad. This is in the Quran and that is why Christians, Jews and Muslims are known as Peoples of the Book. Jesus is the Son of God. In Islam he is one of the prophets. To me, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad are man of religion. Maybe, Pak Kassim can explain. –Din Merican

  11. CLF: Good question, bro. Out of habitual, I guess. I was brought up a catholic. But I don’t believe in immortality and have no desire for it. The belief in it issues from the puerile egos of inferior men. In its Christian form it’s little more than a device for getting revenge upon those who are having a better time on earth. What the meaning of human life may be I don’t know: I incline to suspect that it has none. All I know about it is that, to me at least, it is very amusing while it lasts. Even its troubles, indeed, can be amusing. Moreover, they tend to foster the human qualities that I admire most – courage and its analogues. The noblest man, I think, is the one who fights God, and triumphs over Him. I have had little of this to do. When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness. No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.

  12. Religion. Apart from being the main cause of Man’s inhumanity to Man, I also learnt long ago that there is no fun in it.

    When I was coming of age, my older brother warned me not to kiss a Catholic girl too passionately. It is a sin, he said. How boring, I thought.

  13. Mr. Merican I think the issue here is that cognitively Islam and Christianity are worlds apart. Muslim intellectuals have a rather convenient way of appropriating or conflating doctrinal issues and revising history to fit a narrative to conform to some sort of Islamic superiority disguised as the Final Word.

    In the words of Negan , “Not cool”.

  14. LaMoy – Amen (tongue firmly in cheek) to what you have written above. So mote it be.

    “Definition of a prayer – a petition that the laws of nature be suspended in favour of the petitioner; himself confessedly unworthy.

    Everybody can see the joke that is lodged within this entry: The man who prays is the one who thinks that god has arranged matters all wrong, but who also thinks that he can instruct god how to put them right. Half-buried in the contradiction is the distressing idea that nobody is in charge, or nobody with any moral authority.”

  15. While i agree the term “Jesus is a Muslim”, is strictly from a Muslim perspective – it invites commentary from folks of other faiths – when it is not qualified, as that.

    “Christology” in Islam, in part, resembles what is known about the ‘heretical’ Judaizer sect, called the Ebionites – who were extant in the Hejaz, during the time of Prophet Mohammad.

    “One of the first men to believe in the prophethood of Muhammad was an Ebionite[citation needed] monk named Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the distant cousin of Mohammed, whom Muslims highly honor as a pious man with deep knowledge of the Christian scriptures.” (Wiki – see link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites)

    It is ‘difficult’ to contemplate a Virgin Birth, without acknowledging the Divinity of Jesus, as the Only Begotten Son of God. So too, the Eschatology when the Judge is Christ while Mohammad is only the Advocate. But then, this a different End-Times ya?

    Most Christians would regard Mormons (Church of LDS) as heretics, but see Islam as a totally different Religion altogether. The term ‘Abrahamic religions’ is an overused and overrated catchall phrase, which does nothing to obviate the inherent antagonism between the faiths.

    The Golden Rule applies. Do not whack Others, if you don’t want to be whacked back. To each his own Religion.

    It would be best if wannabe Islamic Reform-Renaissance commentators, focus within their scripture, traditions and writings and qualify their remarks to the wider audience..

    None of Martin Luther’s 95 thesis nailed to the door of the Wittenberg All Saints Church, mentioned “Islam” or “Judaism”. That’s how to start a revolution, not by endless ineffectual mentions and comparisons about ‘Sola Scriptura’ and other Solas..

  16. Look fellas, religion may be a ‘opiate’ for many, but the most enlightened.

    The skepticism and abhorrence to Faith in the Supernatural is an artifact of Mechanistic Reason-Psychology. As we ponder the ‘Reality of Things’ we put ourselves into postures that cannot answer the Fundamental Questions of Life.

    Many Agnostics and Atheists reject Religions due to the questions in Theodicy. That’s a luxury which the poor, disenfranchised and marginalized do not have. They turn to Religion which structures their traditions, customs, society and thought, thus giving them a sense of belonging, comfort and meaning.

    Supposing i say: To pray is not to petition, but to communicate with something better than myself, so that i can change my ways? You see, even prayer has ‘utility’ not that it changes others but changes me and how i perceive things to be.

    There are many levels of ‘religionism’, but very few ways to perform it. That is why Atheism ultimately uses the ‘Language’ of Religious Means. I guess the liturgy reinforces, but contemplative prayer is like meditation. The Mystics understand it better than a contemplator (of the navel, if you will) like me.

    Any one does secular Yoga, as an ‘Exercise’ here?

  17. The problem is tat they do not know or do not want to know that it is a mistake. If you head is paining and you insist that it is your foot that is hurting then you will administer the wrong medicine and die of your head pain.

  18. CLF – The poor and disenfranchised do not have the luxury to question. They turn to Religion which structures their traditions, customs, society and thought, thus giving them a sense of belonging, comfort and meaning.

    You just described a whole group of people who are ripe and ready to be exploited by the rich and educated clergy class. Come and join our flock and we will give you a sense of belonging, comfort and meaning.

  19. Tell me ai tze, where and when has atheism + secularism really contributed to the advancement and economic development of society? Atheism is possible only when one is so full of oneself, that God, egalitarianism, charity and fortitude has little no meaning. Look at Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Or even the traumatic secular French Revolution in the Age of ‘Reason’.

    When one rages against God, he has to believe in Him-Her-It first, don’t you think? In order to reject, one must acknowledge God’s existence in the affairs of Man. The saddest past about a ‘Full-Fledged’ Atheist is that the meaning of existence, is relegated to things that he or she can’t explain – no matter how ‘scientific’ he becomes. It is a state of non-Being. Nihilism.

    Btw, in the recent past religious luminaries like Pope John-Paul, Archbishops Desmond Tutu and Jaime Sin with their moral authority lent great weight to precipitating changes in intractable regimes.

  20. /// C.L. Familiaris April 6, 2016 at 7:18 pm
    Tell me ai tze, where and when has atheism + secularism really contributed to the advancement and economic development of society? Atheism is possible only when one is so full of oneself, that God, egalitarianism, charity and fortitude has little no meaning. Look at Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Or even the traumatic secular French Revolution in the Age of ‘Reason’. ///

    This is specious argument. Stalin and Mao killed millions not in the name of atheism, but communist ideology. Mao persecuted intellectuals not because of atheism, but for political intrigue. The same goes for the Great Leap Backwards and Let a Hundred Flower Bloom. Hitler happened to be a professing Catholic. The Rennaissance and Age of Enlightenment are all led by atheists. In fact, science and technology were probably held back by hundreds, if not a thousand, years because of the church.

  21. “Tell me ai tze, where and when has atheism + secularism really contributed to the advancement and economic development of society?”

    Anyplace where Religion has been tamed ?

    I would argue and there is plenty of probative evidence that one is only full of oneself when one believes in a so called higher power . Religion breeds a kind of narcissism where the individual is placed in the center of the universe coupled with an arrogance that comes with the belief that one is a keeper of a special truth.

    Atheism is not a rage against God even though it is a convenient straw man for some. Most atheist don’t reject God. Atheist do not acknowledge the existence of God. Atheist acknowledge the existence of religion and faith but this does not mean they acknowledge the existence of God.

    You do not need a belief in God to be compassionate to your fellow man, nor do you need faith to devote yourself to a higher calling. And aitze is right. The disenfranchised always are prey to mendacious Religious types who convince them that their lot in life is part of a grander plan or part of the cycle of the various Abrahamic death cults.

    I would argue that any time a Religious celebrity lends his or her moral authority to various causes, it should be contextualised as part of the narrative of the organization the celebrity represents.

    Do I as an atheist reject those qualities of Religion that is beneficial to a given community ? No, and this separates me from the rest of my brethren.

    However to suggest that atheism is a state of being full of oneself, is not cool, considering the antics of most religious people and well, most religious dogma. As is suggesting that secularism is not beneficial to societies when all evidence points otherwise.

  22. Q. where and when has atheism + secularism really contributed to the advancement and economic development of society?

    A. China, in my lifetime, lifted a billion of her people out of poverty. I would call that an economic development of society.

    No, I don’t rage against God. I just question his seeming lack of compassion.

    CLF, your description of the poor’s reason for turning to religion struck a chord with me. I felt that if I were an opportunistic clergy, it would be an easy way to exploit the poor’s despair and hopelessness. Thus, adding to my distaste of religion.

  23. Rejecting faith causes the appearance of all the “ism”s as the alternatives: nihilism, socialism, communism, capitalism, environmentalism, and finally fatalism.

    Those alternatives often lack the built-in mechanism to sustain a stable society, much less a society that can improve over time.

  24. /// C.L. Familiaris April 6, 2016 at 7:18 pm
    Tell me ai tze, where and when has atheism + secularism really contributed to the advancement and economic development of society? ///

    During the Tang and Ming dynasties, China was flourishing and civilized while the west were still living in caves or the dark ages. The Tang Poems and culture exported to Japan and China. More than 2000 years ago, Chinese astronomers already recorded the super nova that was mistaken for a bright star over Bethlehem where three unwise men were looking for a child born out of wedlock in a manger.

    On the other hand, those truly religious countries, especially the Catholic and the Muslim ones, are economically backward and many are failed states and failing states.

  25. Heheh.. Twisted some cojonic hubris ya? Well, i welcome the “Dignity of Difference”.

    Look guys i really don’t care a hoot, whether you’re a die-hard atheist, agnostic, lapsed religious type or hyper-religious nut. Disbelief is neither an error of inborn breeding or gives rise to extremism (except in Communist hierarchies). And it is not an error of metabolism (although there is some scientific evidence that the VMAT2 gene causes hard-wiring). It is generated from the Nietzschean ‘God is Dead’ Null position.

    Therefore the word ‘brethren’ should not apply to atheists. Otherwise it becomes a ‘religion’ or at best, a reinforced ideology. It is not ‘a leap of faith’ (Kierkegaard) forwards, but stoic jump into the abyss of ‘pure human reasoning’, which fails when the counter-intuitive Reality of the Universe manifests itself.. (e.g Quantum Mechanics).

    All these arguments are a waste of time, and a lot of misinformation – like the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment was ‘atheistic’. Nay.., it was a result of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, which freed the Western intellectuals and scientists from the hyper-regulated and organized Wrathful religion. The Scientific Method started with the Jesus injunction to “Ask, Seek and Knock” and the curious phrases by Pontius Pilate: “What is Truth?” and “Ecce Homo”. Reproduce!

    The angst reveals that you fellas have conflated secularism with atheism. This is patently absurd. I am a secularist, liberal to the limit of my innate ‘ability’ but certainly no Atheist. Religion must be divorced from Statecraft.

    And to use PRC’s economic rise at the cost of untold horrendous personal tragedies, loss of ‘Soul’ and degradation of the environment is the epitome of narcissism. As if, pure economic power makes the term “Cash is King”, an absolute material truth?

    I see “Pure Atheists” as mechanically structured Beings, plodding and grasping for one reason or another – and am reminded of Maimonides “The Guide for the Perplexed” and E.F. Schumacher’s “A Guide for the Perplexed”. And there’s a difference between ‘The’ and ‘A’.

    Btw Pak Kassim could never in his wildest dreams figure that his piece will end up like this.. My apologies.

  26. “Therefore the word ‘brethren’ should not apply to atheists. ”

    My use of the word is in the Thomas Paine (an atheist or deist depending on who finds him useful) sense, who said ““The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”

    The sentiment behind the use also includes my religious brothers and sisters, since the word is also used in the Bible. Blame my Jesuit education.

    “The angst reveals that you fellas have conflated secularism with atheism. ”

    Certainly not me, who made the distinction very clear. For some odd reason your feathers got ruffled….or should that be your hackles got raised with the relevant point aitze made.

    “It is generated from the Nietzschean ‘God is Dead’ Null position.”

    Again with the straw man, as if an individual’s atheism comes from a nihilist stance.

    I would go on about misinformation but you are right about it being a waste of time.

    There is no such thing as a “pure atheist” only various diverse thoughts on the issue which includes my own and any other atheist on this board. I know my atheists brethren would have no problem with your belief that religion should be divorced from statecraft and even your mocking of their philosophical position but I know for a fact, that you would not receive the same courtesy from most of the religiously inclined.

    “And to use PRC’s economic rise at the cost of untold horrendous personal tragedies, loss of ‘Soul’ and degradation of the environment is the epitome of narcissism”

    (Even though this was not addressed at me but this is an old argument…)

    It is not the epitome of narcissism but rather the epitome of “survival”. But then again man made ideologies like religion have a way of biting the hand that feeds them.

  27. In Arabic the word Muslim means ‘submitter’. When Jesus is described as a Muslim, it means that he submits himself to God alone. thats it. The religion of Islam is about worshipping God alone without any partners. From this perspective Muslims see that Jesus son of Mary, as well as the prophets from the Children of Israel and other gentile prophets as worshippers of God alone and submitters to Him. Hence, they are all termed as Muslim or ‘submitters’. So, Islam is not trying to hijack Christ. It is from our perspective that Christ worshipped God alone without ascribing any partners to him. We do not deny that he was an Israelite. And we do not deny that the laws received by Christ had some differences with the ones received by Muhammad. It is the the belief that these prophets received their laws from the one true God and they submitted themselves that make them muslim/submitter. Not that they followed Muhammad and his laws.

    Also, claiming that Jesus as divine or the concept of trinity as a consensus belief in Christianity is false. Early on in Christianity there were already theological arguments on the divinity of Christ. Arianism rejected the divinity of Christ and considered him an inferior entity than the Father. Saying that Christ was of an inferior entity than the Father is the same as claiming that he is not God. For two things two be considered the same their essences would have to be the same. Of course Arianism from an orthodox perspective is viewed as a heresy. But it could be that the orthodox is wrong and the heterodox right. That is something that has to be examined.

  28. 1. I shall answer all the comments later for I will let a week or so to pass. Now I will only take three questions.
    2. The Nicene Creed establishes once and for all that it was not Jesus who formulated the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I was a Church meeting.
    3. As to who is the father of Jesus, since his mother did not marry, you make a guess. Ask yourself who was the father of the first man or woman.
    4. As to atheist who blames God for the evil doings of men, he should understand that God is well able to eliminate evil, but then where is man’s freedom? So do not blame God for your evil actions.

  29. Er.. L Wijaya, go sort out your own ‘Religion’ before you go commenting on Others.. If the Orthodox Christians wanna believe what they believe, what’s it to you? If they wanna argue, cajole, plead and so on with their Trinity God – and leave your Unitarian God alone – what is your problem? Your truth is not their truth. Their doctrine is not your doctrine. Let them answer to God – nobody is asking you to argue their case. Even my Rottweiler has better sense to let go.

    Just go practice the Golden Rule, and if cannot, you might try other ‘acceptable’ substance rules. Faham?

    Btw Conrad, Shalom.. No aggravation intended.

  30. Pak Kassim, my advice to L Wijaya goes for you too.

    The ‘average’ Christian recognizes only 2 fundamental doctrines – the Apostolic (the older)and the Nicene (the newer). Other Creeds like the Chalcedon etc depends on the denomination. Who are you to argue against a doctrine and religion (wrong, in your mind) that you’ve already rejected?

    Just like the ‘Being’ of God, leave Jesus as a human-adam prophet in your mind.

    There is no need trying to figure out the Trinity or the homoousian-homoiouisianism-homoeanism-heteroousianism conundrum – since most Christians don’t either. They experience the Trinity, so why are you telling them not to? Religion is not wholly ‘Reason’ izzit?

  31. C.L Familiaris. The issue regarding Jesus’s divinity has been commented on in the Quran. Because we accept him as a prophet of God therefore we feel that we also have a right to discuss about the nature of his message and also his being. I did not say that you have to accept it. But when you say that Muslims should not say that Jesus is a muslim you are denying our right to discuss what we accept as part of our religion. Whether you accept our religion’s position on the nature of Christ is up to you. We never force it down your throat. You just happened to read the writing of Pak Kassim and for some reason you think that he is misappropriating Christ from trinitarian Christians. He never asks you to accept this stance. And you can reject it if you like, it is not us that you should answer to. But you have no right to tell us that we should not comment on the divinity of Christ as he is also part of our religion. It is you who asked pak kassim not to comment on Christ. So it was you who impeded on our religion. I did not intend to tell you what you should do with your trinitarian conception of God. I was merely defending the right of Muslims to discuss about Jesus as he is within our view a prophet of God.

  32. // The: stalin and Mao killed millions not in the name of atheism, but communist ideology.

    Stalin killed in the name of Stalinism. Mao killed in the name of Little Red Maoist book.😋

  33. Ok. It is one thing about other tells me what my religion doctrine says. Another is what I read. On divinity of Jesus, this pops up on my mind. No Nicene creed.
    > 1John 2:22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.
    I hate the above statement. That makes a lot of my close family, and friends are all antiChrist.

    Fortunately, a few lines later says this …

    > 1John 3:7-8 The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.

    With that, I can myself a devil, and Pak Kassim a righteous saint😛
    Ok.. I am being blasphemous. But, most importantly, no point to gaduh-gaduh on this topic endlessly. It is enough to gaduh-gaduh with that topic individually. That itself is an endless cycle.
    _________________

    Katasayang,

    I do not comment on religion. We are free to choose. I was born a Muslim and will remain that way. But I will avoid making judgements about other religions. –Din Merican

  34. Kassim Ahmad’s point of view about the hijab is understandable considering there’s a certain degree of subjectivity here, not all moslem women wear these.

    However, his questioning the very shahadah, saying that moslems require two gods the other being Muhammad, tells a lot about his faith and why he has no credibility commenting about a religion he was born into but never really embraced.

    Furthermore, associating men with women’s choice whether or not to wear a tudung? C’mon, this is the 21st century. Women make their own choices. He should stop living in pre women’s lib age of the 60s when women were perceived to be subservient to men. Perhaps he was referring to the Middle East? Certainly not relevant in the west, or Malaysia for that matter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s