Archive for the 'Religious fatih' Category

I believe

I believe in angles. I believe in multi-dimensional beings called djinn. I believe in Iblis/satan. I believe Jesus isn’t dead and will return. I believe in a humanoid called the anti-Christ. I believe in the unseen. I believe after death there is something.

Am I crazy? Does it make anything of what I say, nonsense?

Advertisements

Darling Dave lets his hate rip – in disguise

Darling Dave lets his hate rip.

“Multiculturalism has failed” because the British prime minister, past cocaine snorter, David Cameron hath spoken.

Herr Merkel of Germany said something similar a few months ago too, which sparked a slightly more logicalflaw-spotting-type-reply from me than this more angry one.

Have C&M undertaken painstaking sociological research over the years, interviewing hundreds of different people from a diverse set of cultural and religious backgrounds, studying and pondering over the sea of factors involved in mixed societies, experiencing life amongst highly diverse people’s proud of their culture, customs and faith? Have they met with sociologists the world over and read reports detailing (or even summarising) an accurate global consensus?

No.

Of course not.

They’re just talking utter bollocks – the rule rather than the exception.

One may argue, reasonably, that one doesn’t have to be a recognised expert in a field to know something about it, or hold accurate knowledge about it, so can we give this grace to cokey Cameron and herr Merkel?

Once more, No..

Why? Because these Pepe le Pew’s don’t define what being ‘British’ or ‘German’ means, although one suspects it could well allude to something like the following:

  • Getting drunk, pissing and vomiting on the streets and somewhere along the way trying to screw some poor girl – the one that just finished brushing your vomit of her clothes five minutes ago – the same girl that for some reason doesn’t fall for your mating ritual involving putting a traffic cone on your head.
  • Not washing your ass or urinary parts after you go to the toilet.
  • Binning your unborn baby because it will make you look fat or slow down your career. Cokey Dave’s reference to liberalism don’t you know.
  • Feeling some pride at military parades in amongst them lurk some psychopaths that have done to humans what you could never have imagined in your worst nightmares.
  • Voting without shame for proven liars and mass murderers in a parliament that has participated in some of the greatest killing sprees in the history of man.
  • Believing that there is something ‘good’ or ‘special’ about being British because of repeated propaganda telling you so.
  • Not being able to speak out / stop people having sex in public in something called ‘Dogging’
  • Have some saggy hag bagpuss think she has some claim over you thinking you are her subject.

<i><b>Tip:</b> don’t be a tit and send in a list of the failings of others, thanks.</i>

So why is the rolled-up-bullseye-one so ambiguous about it? Because it’s not multiculturalism that he’s attacking, it’s Islam. The little plop doesn’t even try and think of a new disguise for his attack, or have the balls to be honest about his xenophobia.

I am a British citizen and I’m pretty certain I don’t conform to what jumped up little jerk like Cameron tries to pimp what being British is, which remember, he doesn’t define it, so I can only guess, but whatever the little pratt’s idea is about what being British must entail, it has absolutely no right to have any power over me.

I’ve come to the conclusion that nationalism is a farce – nay, worse than that, it’s a ploy along the lines of divide and rule. Stuff your phoney idea of nations and marketing spin as to what any national identity must involve. Stick the union jack where the sun don’t shine Dave. Now that’s real liberalism Dave, not your phoney dictate-as-liberalism.

Not only am I a (an ashamedly) British citizen, but I’m a Muslim too. I reject the UK’s perverse laws that consistently fail to be upheld against the biggest criminals in the society. I spy with my little eye false-flags that killed probably 56 people in London on 7-7. I know well your Imperialist history and neo-imperial contemporary history. I know your lies about Iraq, Iran, the Palestinians and Israyhell ad nauseaum. Your ‘hero’ Churchill used chemical weapons on Arab villiagers and firebombed cities of families in Germany.

I want Shariah law. As a British citizen I, and every other British citizen who wants it, have a perfect right to want it and have it. Under it, hopefully you and the thoroughly rotten establishment you preside over will get your just rewards for your monumental crimes. All the other Muslims, white, brown, black or whatever living in Britain have the right to demand that too, and pursue it, and when we become a majority voice in the country you and your EDL/BBD fan clubs should shut-up about it. Liberal Democracy you see Dave ;) But of course what you mean by liberal democracy isn’t liberal democracy, which like being British, you avoid defining.

Until that day, the Muslims of the UK will follow the way of life God prescribed for them but will likely respect the way the UK is administered, however they by no means should stand quiet in the face of evil as witnessed by your foreign crusades.

There is not the slightest bit scared about Britain’s past that must be preserved. It’s past sucks and it’s bulk is akin to an encyclopaedia of war. Britain’s with a Muslim mindset at it’s helm offers real and better direction. {Tip: Avoid a second chance for titdom status by pointing the shambles of Islamic (so called) ‘leadership’ overseas as representative of what I’m saying here}

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Here’s a rip from the Brit govt’s propaganda bureau.

5 February 2011 Last updated at 06:54 GMT 

State multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron

David Cameron
Mr Cameron will signal a tougher stance on groups
promoting Islamist extremism
Related Stories

The prime minister will criticise “state multiculturalism” in his first speech on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism since being elected.

Addressing a security conference in Germany, David Cameron will argue the UK needs a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to extremism.

Different cultures are encouraged to live apart, and objectionable views met with “passive tolerance”, he will say.

He will also signal a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

You see? it’s bloody obvious that Druggy Dave’s attack is about Islam, not multiculturalism. After just a few measly sentence length paragraphs, ISLAM becomes the focus. No mention of Orthodox Jews who retain their Kosher foods, clothing, ways, and close community [not that there should be]. No mention about Hindu’s whose caste system is still practices even among Christian Indians because Dave and Merkels issue is with Islam, period!

Mr Cameron is to suggest there will be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups that get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

Reality is of course much different from what this little fart is going to drool out. You’d be hard pressed to positively identify much Muslims-within-britain-extremism at all – p.s. government crystal ball show trials on what people thought or might have done in the future don’t count. ! Neither will I cout the extremism that lurks on the halls of Westminster palace and the darkened glass buildings of the City. No group has any obligation to tackle what the GOVERNMENT defines as extremism (does anyone really believe the governmnet will be unbiased in this??), which I believe is classified as anything resembling resistance to the UK government penchant for killing, something permeating the armed forces and the dirty cops marauding in the streets of Britain.

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he will argue.

Cameron is going to encourage some establishment whore to declare at their own (guided) discretion, whose ‘message’ can be heard and whose can’t. It’s pretty clear to see that if any group speaks the hard truth but it isn’t to the Governments or Israyhells favour, then one expects an attempt to shut it up.

“Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism,” the prime minister will say.

What??

“Let’s properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

These organisations read: Islamic organisations and ABSOLUTELY NOT JEWISH ORGANISATIONS THAT OPENLY FUND AND SUPPORT ISRAYHELLI TERRORISM

“These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations,” he will add.

 

“Start Quote

We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values”

End Quote David Cameron

But Muslim youth group The Ramadhan Foundation said that, by singling out Muslims, Mr Cameron had fed “hysteria and paranoia”.

Well, Cameron and all the British establishment have been working on that for years. Muslim groups to try and get into the game to change the game are deluded. Well intentioned perhaps, but deluded.

Chief executive Mohammed Shafiq said: “British Muslims abhor terrorism and extremism and we have worked hard to eradicate this evil from our country.

Yes the do, and as it’s the British government that are the oxygen, heat AND fuel for terrorism most muslims of sound mind abhor the British governments actions and those of Israyhell. That’s why Cameron is stirring the crap here.

“But to suggest that we do not sign up to the values of tolerance, respect and freedom is deeply offensive and incorrect.

Indeed and in fact it’s Cameron that’s frothing out lack of tolerance. QED!

“Multiculturalism is about understanding each others faiths and cultures whilst being proud of our British citizenship.”

Personally I feel there is almost nothing to proud of in the slightest, but as I said to a respected friend the other day, the UK actually allows some aspects of Islam that Islamic countries will not – and that is (soon to become WAS) freedom of speech. That I guess is something one can be proud of in Blighty.

BBC political correspondent Ben Wright said the prime minister would be delivering a stark message to his audience in Munich – that European countries must “wake up to what’s happening within their borders”.

The British establishment has already attempted to form a non-uniformed brown shirt brigade reporting anything “suspicious” e.g. A Muslim talking on the phone or overhearing a word of Arabic or having olive skin.

Mr Cameron will draw a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he describes as “Islamist extremism” – a political ideology he says attracts people who feel “rootless” within their own countries.

Will he bollocks! It won’t happen as Islam is his target. What he will do, is try and paint it so that it doesn’t look like it’s Islam that he’s after.

“We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing.”

What about British extremism, the extremism you preside over you dog!

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.

Do you mean we will try harder to set up gullible people and keep the same disgusting foreign policy? Yes. I suspect you do.

‘I am a Londoner too’

What’s that a reference to Cameron? The false flag of 7/7 perhaps? The greatest act of terrorism in recent history? A gross act of treason against the British people? You scum! But say for a moment you are right and that 7/7 was an act of terrorism by 4 Muslims. How should we  weigh it against the 1.3 million killed in Iraq and the families you keep killing in Afghanistan today? Anyway, typical southerner, the world revolves around London.

A genuinely liberal country “believes in certain values and actively promotes them,” Mr Cameron will say.

Crap. Anyone can say your hollow words.

“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

Oh come on now Dave. You really have no shame. Who taught you that chutzpa? Tzipi Livni over the phone after you told her you would act to stop the law from prosecuting her terrorism that killed over 400 children terrorists

“It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things.

Definition that you dare not try define. You fraud.

“Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty.”

I’m going to be sick. And I know there will be thousands if not millions of people who will lap up your words. Maybe the EDL will have an honourary doctorate for you.

He will say that under the “doctrine of state multiculturalism”, different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

People of the same culture, mother tongue and religion want to stick together. Get used to it. It’s their right and some, perhaps even a lot take up that right. They are still human beings. Not your slaves.

“We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”

I think I’ve hit upon just a few reasons earlier as to why that might be.

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds “the key to achieving true cohesion” by allowing people to say “I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner… too”, he will say.

Listen up you worm, you ain’t no Muslim, but you are a terrorist Dave and a supporter of terrorism. That’s right Davey boy, you, not me. but of course, you know that, but don’t give a toss do ya Dave.

Dave fails to mention anything about Brits abroad who stick in their own fish and chip serving ghettos and fail to learn the local language and merge into the ways of the locals.

I reject your spiteful xenophobia. Dave you obnoxious creep, crawl back beneath your rock!

Twilight

It finally looks like Brits and Yanks are starting to pay the price for the bankruptcy of perverted economic and moral bankruptcy (neo-imperialism) they allowed continue (largely unopposed and suckled off) for decades if not centuries. In all honesty, I can’t say I have any sympathy for them, after all, they keep voting for proven killers and killers-to-be, they are utterly deluded that the political system UK and US (I don’t care if you call it Democracy or what – as it’s totally irrelevent) is anything other a great failure.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”   – (Galatians 6:7 KJV)

The greatest protests the world has ever seen (Feb 2003)  against the looming obliteration of Iraq were encouraging (despite the fact Iraq had been under 12 years of murderous sanctions and wicked bombings by the rAF and USAF) but when the bombing started, those same people were pretty much content that ‘Febuary’s first step‘ meant that they had done their ‘bit’. How miserable.

As regards to the self declared non-elected leaders of the so called anti-war movement, they proved to be a disgrace. manufactured dissent, firmly thinking within the box, (I’m beginning to hate the expression “Thinking outside the box” because  ‘outside the box’ is not really outside the box at all. It’s actually still well within the establishments box – that of permitted dissent, besides, saying ‘out of the box’ is just about said by almost everyone these days who are attempting self-projection, believing they are subtly callin themselves clever, but in actual fact, they are drawing attention to themselves by trotting out tired and boring populist expressions. Saying ‘thinking outside box’ is now confirmation they are actually in sheeple box. I’ll grant Steve Jobs an honourable exception here) or simply cowards;

Actually it’s all three.

The so called ‘anti-war’ movement should have called for certain politicians (bLiar, Straw & Brown for a start) should have been hung drawn and quartered – not an extreme act at all, as it’s a similar philosophy bLiar & Co. used (so called pre-emptive military action*) – putting bLiars head on a spike outside Westminster would have saved a million innocent lives, but in fact it’s even more moral based compared to bLiars pretence at a moral stance, in that bLiar’s justification was a clear lie, Saddam was never going to attack, but it was abundantly clear bastard bLiar and jackass BuSh, Howard and Aznar were going to destroy Iraq – illegally. Lets not forget those so called Muslim Countries that did nothing, or those like France, China and Russia that stood by calculating no detriment to their own interests (and very likely thought they would ‘gain’ in the long term from it).  

Selfish Brits of course would have none of putting bLiars demon head on a spike – for passers by to spit at. It’s simply not on to kill a pathological liar, a cheat, hypocrite, willing partner in infanticide (over half a million Iraqi kids during 12 years of abhorrent sanctions). Blair is English, speaks English, wealthy, held power, and is white. All attributes which entitle him to escape punishment for his murder lust. Iraqi’s on the other hand are poor, darker-skinned, powerless, Iraqi and Muslim… BOMBS AWAY !!!

So the justice of having bLiar publically executed is unlikely to be realised, but at least they could have called for him to be publically beaten to a pulp, allowed to recover and then beaten to a pulp again and again; treatment herr mudjesties forces did to the people of Iraq.

Or at least allow some Iraqi mourners whose kids were blown to smithereens to given a damn good shiner and had a bloodied nose and a decent scar across his repulsive face and scratch his eyes out with their fingernails.

Despite the failing of the ridiculous so called ‘ant-war’ movement, people should not have ceded their morality to these anti-war ‘leaders’ and/or buried their moral conscience into an emotion-proof dungeon. They should stopped paying tax, refused to purchase goods from nations in the correctly named Coalition of the Killing, they should have taken out as much of their money from the banks and so on. But no, they were unwilling to risk any ‘luxury’. February (for those who bothered) was fine. And if you didn’t do any of those things, you could try, starting from tomorrow.

Today the UK and UK citizens still vote of liars, cheats, embezzlers, killers, killers-to-be, immoral shells (probably freemasonic/cabbalistic Satan worshippers – openly conscious of the fact or not) wanting to bend the law to their advantage and use it as a club to pummel the people who voted for them, while giving reassurances that everything’s ok, we’ll all pull through. I haven’t heard that other war-criminal Winston Churchill’s been called upon yet, but the stopwatch is running.

Face facts. Voters hands are bloodied with the crimes of the elect-ees. There is no escape from that.

So, the fact the western snake is starting to consuming its own tail, is actually a strange sence of poetic justice.

I do feel sorry for those that DID speak out against the white hot evil their nation spewed (and keeps spewing) out, but such people are tiny in number.

This post follows partly from watching Francis Fukuyama on fora.tv. Re: Noam Chomsky, StefZ said on Famous for 15 megapixels wrote something like “people keep saying Chomsky is a leading intellectual”. Fukuyama seems to be same. He’s preaching to the choir and gets promoted and admired by it. I first heard this (similar) ‘in-house’ point on the BBC”s Question Time in which Salman Rushdie’s literary award was dismissed as it was a bit of a Trades Union award / closed shop kind of honourarium. Fukuyama says some absolutely ridiculous and incredibly ignorant things (which I may describe in one of my final posts {assuming this isn’t it}) His rubbish words lapped up by his audience (TED’s a bit like this too – got it’s head up it’s ass, believing it occupies some kind of multi-dimensional high ground)  show what deep shit the planet we are in, a secular occidental bog of collapse. All of these occidentials (and Tariq Ramadan sadly seems little different) are like this. Beyond Sun Tzu, Confusious and Lao Tzu name 5 Chinese intellextons. Beyond Ghandi, and Siddhartha Gautama, name 5 leading Intellectuals, Name 10 African Intellectuals. Name 10 South American intellectuals. Don’t be surprised if you can’t – the West won’t let you. You’re only an intellectual if you play the game. And what a sick game it is.  

As well as residual feelings from my previous post, this post is also a result from the commentators on Craig Murray’s site and indeed Craig Murray himself. Craig posted something about no hope a week or so ago expressing he saw no hope and failed to realise the way he’s courting (conventional)politics with zero resistance (see above)  is why there is no hope. The commentators on that post and his subsequent post are the same. His commentators are of course far worse (I actually have a decent amount of respect for Mr. Murray, but it pains me that he’s performing like a half-way house). The commentators are those who talk-the-talk mighty fine, but don’t walk-the-walk, yet they believe they are radicals or true liberals and that the system is perhaps sound but just going through a rough period. Hah! Dupes(many of them). “Ooooh, we are going to drown” they cementing their feet in large blocks and throwing themselves off the jetty.

I am old, and no longer have fresh questions to ask about this world. I know how it run, I know the score. I know where it’s headed. Indeed Mr. Murray, there is no hope at all – at least in places where this globalised hegemony reaches – which is pretty much everywhere.

I look back on my youth (up to perhaps my mid 20’s) and remember a time when I thought there was actually something good and exciting about this world. I was really scared of it’s vastness and diversity.

Not now.

It’s all the same and it stinks. It’s suffocating the good people – mostly poor and innocent – people of traditional culture and values.

The western heartless, godless self pontificating/promoting arrogant world is fast approaching it’s doom. It’s fully realisable. Actually, it’s could be postponed but definately not with a prevailing ‘mind’.

Let the TSA continue to humiliate the people who voted for Clinton / Bush / Obama or whatever tyrant puppet is in control. Let the Irish idiots who voted for their funny-money politicians and loved them when they yields were high and the champagne flowed feel the consequences of their acton. Let the Brits feel austerity and have moe lies and deceptions flow from the mouths of the people they voted for (and will vote for next time) while more Yemeni, Somali, Pakistani, Haitians, Burmese, Roma, and of course the Palestinians in an ongoing Holocaust and other peoples etc.. continute to be oppressed by these secular power holding vampires.

It’s just a pity the good people will suffer too. 

My posts here are going to become very infrequent. There is no point. Even those USans who know 911 was a lie (WTC 7 – the main achillies heel of that horrific (ritual?) massacre) won’t do anything meaningful to stop the rot. The centres of power in China will continue as long as it believes it’s elite is making money, as will Russia, Brazil, India, The huge central asian ‘Stans’ are all on the same path, and I will not forget to mention the rotten seed of it all:  Israyhell. Israyhell is close to openly assuming it’s apocaplypic position as leadingnation in the world and so their champagne will also run dry soon. The powerfully built Jew with curly hair proclaiming(falsley) to be the messiah is almost ready to make his appearance. His paradise will he hell and his hell will be paradise, but you’re already in his paradise, faux-democray being a useful tool propagating it, and you will just vote again in his paradise to get even more paradise. And if you don’t believe the dajjal will get you, the dying environment and the GM(junk) food will.

After a last fling of time wasting, I’m purging my time wasting hobbies and am going to knuckle down with acquiring knowledge of my Creator and worshipping him accordingly.

That’s all that matters. Nothing else.

I will try and respond to the funny and thought provoking, most welcomed comments people graciously spend their time leaving here, and I may, occasionally, when I’ve decided to read current events for a quick break, post here again but like this world is entering its twilight, so is this blog while spiritual being makes effort to emerge from its self imposed twilight.

The twilight is just about here now, but I’ll leave with this; A pic of from the newz-journo-junk organisation called the BBC. Source: http://www.ZION-NEWS-OUTLET.co.uk/news/uk-11773665
(copy the link and although the above is correct, to read the article, replace the ‘ZION-NEWS-OUTLET’ part with ‘bbc’)

Big heads up to http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/ by the way.

* of course there was nothing pre-emptive about it. The Pre-emptive doctrine was ‘strike them before they strike us’ and of course you realise they would NEVER have struck us. but shich is the extent ir perverse and mind-rotting ssumes you act now to

I’m a scholar – so push off!

I’m a scholar – so push off!

 

I often get that feeling when hearing so called ‘knowledgeable people talk’. But as it’s a feeling, I concede it could be wrong. Such harsh and direct words are seldom spoken, but is it entirely your fault if that is the impression you are given?

 

Can scholars only be taught things from scholars above them? I don’t think so, but again, that’s the impression that comes across quite often when I hear supposed ‘scholarly’ people speak. “Your opinion isn’t more correct than mine because I have more knowledge that you” That seems very arrogant. How does the ‘scholar’ know the full extent of the “less scholarly” persons line of reasoning and the extent of his knowledge?

 

This does NOT mean a supposedly learned person should not be allowed to say “No”, or “I think you are wrong” to somebody, but they MUST EXPLAIN WHY it may be wrong. Because the scholars explanation might be flawed and if so, it should show itself as the scholar is delivering his explanation.

 

Failure to openly discuss sounds alarm bells with me. It’s a near sure-fire sign that the ‘scholar’ is grasping at straws – and I suspect if they were honest with themselves – they would admit it.

 

And it’s worse when others blindly defend so called scholars/wise men. Admiration of some flawed man to the extent that you will never listen to others pointing out the flaws in his argument is actually a disgrace on you. For you attribute flawlessness onto that person which is dabbling in Shirk (putting something at the same level of God). If you want to stick up for someone, fine! Good! Some people are great people. Some are very wise, some very moral. But you too must address the issues relating to the criticism of that person.

 

Aren’t all men (and all men that have ever been) flawed in some way. They are MEN yes? They are NOT God, yes? So aren’t they flawed?

 

Idolisation of men is rife these days. By that I mean idol supporters refuse to listen to valid criticism of their idols/heros – and most importantly refuse to see if there is any basis behind such criticism.

 

What’s this latest thing that is putting ants in my pants?

 

 

All this kicked off from the following article: Conspiracy Practice by Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi, which honestly speaking, contains really preposterous elements to it. I sent off a letter to the gentleman concerned and got no reply. I then had a ‘conversation’ about it with someone who I would regard as scholarly. The author of the piece, Shaykh Abdal Qadir as Sufi is a respected scholar., indeed one of my good friends told me about him some time ago.

 

 

The heart of a discussion involved God, 9-11 and Evil. {BTW: The scholar rejected forensic evidence as the basis for saying it legally proves(within Islamic jurisprudence that  9-11 was an inside job, and Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir as-Sufi totally ignored any mention of any physical evidence}

 

Does God ‘do’ evil? Does God create evil? Is God responsible for evil? Did God ‘do’ 9-11? Are there any differences between those statements?.. etc…

 

In the conversation, the scholarly person said the answer was “Yes”. God Decrees evil.

 

It presupposed some Islamic beliefs. As we are both Muslims, that is understandable. The scholars reasoning went something like this…

 

Nothing can be outside the Tawhid (Oneness) of God. Everything is created by God. If evil or badness exists it is because God created it. Everything is within Gods domain. The scholar is saying God has decreed everything, evil and 9-11.

 

I was told “there is no dispute among people of knowledge about this.”

 

I could feel sore about the insult, I want my Islamic brotherly feeling towards him try and help me ignore it, although I would be lying to say I have the strength of character to let it go without residual unhappy feelings :(

 

But to me, what this person said seemed to be something like blasphemy. I was willing to accept this view if it was explained to me.

But it wasn’t.

A few interpretations which could equally be interpreted in another way was all that was offered.

 

Thing is, I feel like I’m in a bit of a panic! Because if he is right, then I must be a terrible Muslim because he is saying I am putting something outside Gods power.

 

I certainly don’t intend to say that, but I know full well that people who believe in something can be blinded by it, and in fact, the Qur’an warns that there are people who have no perception of them being on the wrong path. Is this happening to me? Am I somehow unable to see any really bit pitfall that I’m in? It could well be – The Qur’an indicates so, and I’m not going to argure against the Qur’an.

 

 

So I pursued the matter, quite scared that my belief and understanding of God* had for years been seriously flawed.

 

I put to him my understanding of the situaton, and asked a few Q’s of him, but my points went unanswered as were my questions, unless you call ‘answering a question with a question’ an answer. On rare occaison ok, I can tolerate that, but surely, to keep on doing that gets a bit silly.

 

When one answers a Q with a Q, (in terms of having honourable intentions) is usually to get the questioner to reflect on their initial Q, because the initial Q may have been flawed/illegitimate, and the person bouncing back the Q, wants the initial questioner to see that. But surely there is a fine line between doing that (as a way of improving learning and discourse) and being annoying. When abused, it can be a sign of “I’m an intellectual fortress don’t you know?” or “I’m a scholar – so push off!” It’s dam easy to answer a Q with a Q. Repeatedly doing so isn’t polite when it provokes agitation. And there is no sanctity of conforming to the movie portrayl of Asian-mystic/Kung-Fu/Buddhist apprentice scenes, where it’s a measure of the ‘good apprentice’ is governeed by how much he can take all the riddles and so forth from his ‘wise’ master like the modern characterature of Confucius or Lao Tzu.

 

Is it an absolute necessity for a wise man to answer a question with another question? I think just giving the answer is useful too! But hey, I’m not a scholar so I would say that right???

 

On one occasion however, the scholar took what I said, inverted it and said words to the effect that he couldn’t believe I said that. I was flabbergasted.

 

I said “there is no dependence on the Creator by creation”

 

He replied: “[the statement] is entirely the opposite of the reality; the creation is completely dependent on the Creator for its existence, for its attributes and for its actions.”

 

Was my crappy typing and worse spelling wasn’t to blame here? I don’t think so. What I said was perfectly clear. When I pointed out to him that his ‘correction’ was in fact exactly what I had said, he offered no apology at all, even though what he said I had ‘said’, was really something terrible!

 

Well, more of the convo was quite unsatisfactory. In line with what we were saying I said to him “I have never found any reference to ‘God decrees evil’ in the Qur’an. this could well be a failing on my behalf. Could you please give me the Surah and Ayat? It is quite important.”

 He offered:

35 Every self will taste death. We test you with both good and evil as a trial. And you will be returned to Us.” (21:35)”

 

Now I may be wrong here, but in the context of My belief that God does NOT ‘do’ evil, the ‘test’ here is, man by his free will, has the ability to do good and evil. If he is righteous he will pass the test and avoid doing evil? the scholar seemed to be saying God will put evil upon us and if we come through that evil then we have passed the test. I think our lines of reasoning are quite different.

 

The scholar said supported his position The good and the evil are of His decree. and “Iman is that you believe in… and that the decree, the good of it and the bad of it is from Allah.

 

The scholar quoted:

 

Every self will taste death. We test you with both good and evil as a trial. And you will be returned to Us. (21:35)” Remember we inherited an idea of evil as an absolute, but that is not our perspective as Muslims. Good and evil are relative. Allah is the absolute.

 

“He [Jibril] said, ‘Tell me about iman.’ He [the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace] said, ‘That you believe in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day, and that you believe in the Decree, the good (khayr) of it and the bad (sharr) of it.’ He [Jibril] said, ‘You have told the truth.’”

 

Imam an-Nawawi said: The position of the people of Truth is confirmation of the Decree. Its meaning is that Allah decreed things before time, and He knew that they would come about at times known to Him and in places known to Him, and that they would come about according to how Allah had decreed.

 

Imam an-Nawawi further said: Allah created good and bad, and decreed their coming to the slave at known times. … He (Allah) said, “Say, ‘I seek refuge with the Lord of daybreak, from the evil of what He has created…'””

 

 

It is clear the scholar is saying my understanding of God is wrong and that he believes evil is by Gods decree.

 

Frustratingly he repeatedly failed to answer my subsequent points.

 

I replied:

 

[That] Is very interesting statement (Re:He decreed everything that has been, that is and that is to be. The good and the evil are of His decree.). No body can second guess God, but I’ve never heard anyone claim God decrees evil! I was of the opinion God decreed within man the abilty of free will. That free will and physical eminations thereof, is allowed to have consequence. {I’m saying when man exercises that free will he causes evil}

 

The 99 names Allah Ta’ala are positivisms. They are not coupled or in anyway connected with their antonym. {I am saying there is no ‘bad’ attributes of God}

 

The evil will of man did 9-11, not God’s evil.

 

 

It was immensely frustrating that he totally avoided the ‘free will’ issue. I see it like this… God knows everything. He knows the tiniest details of our lives, even those which haven’t happened yet. He knows ALL pathways our lives could ever travel down.

 

His decree is that that we have free will – the choice. His Decree means that if we choose a branch point on the path of life, then his prescribed decree for that particular choice or path will therefore happen. He therefore knows the outcome of our choices before we make them. A critical question is, does he know WHICH choice we will make. I would have to say yes, but then we run into the problem of “Was it then free will?” and “Did God decree that choice?” I’d have to say No, God didn’t decree/force us to make that choice (but he does and can force a consequence of that choice). If he Decreed that path it wouldn’t have been an actual ‘choice’. It would make an irrelevance out of our free will. So what of the question “Did he know the choice we were going to make?”

 

The scholar (if we were to actually address my points) might have said “You are saying Allah(SWT) doesn’t know which path we are going down and therefore God is ignorant of something – which is clearly impossible.

 

I think it’s fair to say without question that he knows the outcome of the choice, but did he know which choice we would make? Yes, God knows everything, but he didn’t force it upon is. I don’t see any problem with that.

 

Well, we are trying to second guess God using Human logic which seems very likely to me to actually be a ridiculous thing to do. And for a human stuck in physical time to understands things that don’t conform to linear time is also very difficult. God of course not only because he is indepenedent of and the creator of time, knows everything. He knows what is uncertain for us.

 

 

At the risk of repeating myself, Can what the scholar said “Allah creates and decrees both good-khayr and bad-sharr.” Could that mean He Decrees if man decides to do an evil act then that evil act shall come about – i.e. God creates /brings forth the pathway that the evil doer wants to happen? The scholar seemed to say no (but didn’t say so directly) and me, of the unscholarly opinion, thinks the answer is yes.

 

If there was no man, would there be evil? I don’t think there would. The Angels are incapable of evil as they have no free will. Didn’t Iblis exercise free will (and therefore can’t be an angel) and refused to obey Gods command to bow before man? Is there not another lesson that free will allows for the evil to occur? Allah(SWT) allowed the choice for evil to actually bring about evil.

 

 Is my understanding of God wrong? Should I see evil as a Decree from God in the sense that God initiates evil as the scholar was suggesting, and not that God creates it in the sence he creates it and allows it to happen consequentially on the desires of men to do evil acts?

 

-As usual I’ll probably have to come back at a later date and ‘fix’ aspects this post. Try as I might I seem unable to adjust my copy and paste composition / multiple rewrites of various parts, even on the small scale, So there is likely to be silly errors and typos and other errors in this post. But it is sincere, and I really want to know..

 

  

footnote:

 

* I mean in as much as a person can understand God. I have often thought it futile to understand/debate God because I, as a silly little human with a brain the size of melon, with a conscious mind so full of silly things and strange habits/behaviours, and being a person of a meaningless life (outside worshiping Allah(SWT) and that such a life span is really amazingly short, and that I need to rely on silly human flawed models to understand the physical universe, entirely based on things I have previous knowledge. All that means, if such an explanation was ever needed in the first place, that I or anyone can never ever hope to understand God in anything near His Glory. It is not debated that we have the choice to do evil right?. Anyway, to end with, the best case for God, to stop second guessing him according to silly human notions, is the Qur’an. I as a silly person cannot ever hope to explain God even on the tinyest scale than the Qur’an can.

 Reading the Qur’an is the guidance for everyone.

NHS – Nothing but Horrible Secularism

While the interestingly called Royal Devon and Exeter NHS “Trust” says the ban on necklaces has nothing to do with Shirley Chaplin’s necklace being a cross, I’m suspicious that it’s yet another thinly disguised attack on people of faith. It is afterall the trend – the ‘gravity’ of this diseaded socirty we have today.

Dear Mr Qutb – you thought you saw it bad.

I could be wrong. I hope Ms. Chaplin  tests this theory be wearing a very visible garment with a Christian cross on it.

Ms. Chaplin said “Everyone I have ever worked with has clearly known I am a Christian: it is what motivates me to care for others.” – fair play to her.

Why does it always seem to be women that are the secularists target. More easily bullied perhaps?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090920/tuk-christian-nurse-in-necklace-ban-6323e80.html


Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!

JUST:

JUST - International Movement for a Just World

ICH:

Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
September 2019
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  
Advertisements