You may want to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously, not just one sentence that reflects only your opinion but absolutely no explanation. You are welcome to elaborate and refute whatever you like, but at least do it intelligently.
The Sheikh should contact John Hagee, as they both speak the same language.
Though, I am glad that the Sheikh has apologized for Ottoman Empire (Dynasty). He should now go one step further and apologize for both Abbasid and Omayyad Empires (Dynasties) too.
The cheikh has apologized for the ottoman empire because the subject is to do with orthodox christians and because the cheikh looks forward to an alliance with such people.
It would have been nice if you have posted an handle/name. I watched the above link you posted and I am still very sad. As a Shia Muslim, I believe in Imam Ali (as) saying, “don’t inherit your religion, learn it”.
It makes me said for Sheikh’s statements like:
1. Upon the death of the Prophet (saws) the entire Ummah united and accepted abu Bakr as Caliph.
2. Not anyone at Hudaibiyah, agree with the Prophet (saws).
3. When Prophet (saws) gave the Command at Hudaibiyah for scarifying the animals at the spot, all Muslims rejected the Command.
4. Then his wife told the Prophet (saws) for him to do the sacrifice personally…..
All the above statements are very demeaning to the Prophet of Islam. Not only that the Sheikh comes up very arrogant when he talks about the “school boy”….. And, other matters.
I know the Sheikh has personally participated in this thread. So, I will give him just two examples that the entire Ummah didn’t unite and accepted abu Bakr.
1. When Yemen refused to pay the Zakat and abu Bakr couldn’t ex-communicate them as this was against the Prophet’s instructions. So, he came up with a new term called, “Apostasy” and committed war on Yemen and Muslims there by calling them Kaffir.
2. When abu Bakr son wrote a letter to Muawiya in favor of Imam Ali (as), I would like for the Sheikh to post Muawiya’s reply to Mohammad ibn abu Bakr.
As for me personally, i have adjusted my “clock” ages ago, cause we are in 2015/1437
Allah is Truth and Just. Men of religion should adhere to Truth and Justice. Why I love Saker, because he believes that the Pope who is in majority has injured the Orthodox who are in minority, thus the Pope needs to redeem.
Why I like Obama, because of him, quite a few Religious Scholars in Middle East are redeeming themselves, and accepting that Imam Ali (as) was on Truth and Justice, and he was wronged by abu Bakr, Omar and Osman.
It is happening in Middle East. The question is the Sheikh brave enough?
And, if you have adjusted your clock, have you personally redeemed yourself by accepting the Truth and Justice?
In previous comments when I saw your negative view of Imran Hosein, I thought to myself this guy can only be shia or salafi, when I checked one of your comment I saw your refer to yourself as shia from Oman, I didnt bother reading your negative comments. The problem with shias is that they have books which they consider absolute truth and never bother to question them.
Ten years ago, I met one iraqi woman working at International Atomic Energy Agency in Austria. She was born shia, but at the age of 16 years old she left shism to become a sunni, not only that she managed to bring all her family members to sunni islam except for one older brother of hers unfortunately (he was arrogant and refused to change). This woman explained to me how shias were misguided and how they follow books written by men who claim they were guided to write them by some hidden creatures.
Ask the Sheikh, why he keeps on twisting the history so much.
1. The first civil abu Bakr fought against the Muslims of Yemen, what was the reason for this war?
2. The response of Muawiya to Mohammad son of abu Bakr?
While you are at it ask Sheikh, why Aisha fought the second civil war against Ali?
I am sure that you know about Sahih Muslim. It your book. Ask Sheikh, about the Hadith of Thaqalayn in Sahih Muslim?
Or ask the Sheikh, why Omar refused Prophet Mohammad (saws) on his death bed to make a will?
Why he labeled the Prophet to be delirious due to illness (astafgurAllah).
I can go on and on, but ask the Sheikh the Truth about the above.
Forget Shia books. We always discuss with you from your books, your Sunni Books. The Truth is also buried in your books too. So, if Sheikh thinks that I am too low down the pole for him to personally answer me from his books, than you are welcome to answer me from your books.
See if you can bring me the Hadith of Thaqalayn from your book called, Sahih Muslim. Or any questions I have raised for you to answer me from your books.
Imagine, the Sheikh preaching that 90% of population to die from Nuclear War. There are good Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists in both USA and West. Most people in the world are good people, around 99.9%
What a fantastically ignorant thing to say! Angels are “messengers” of God. I don’t see how one can accept the notion of a “God” as not-nonsense but consider that angels are nonsense.
And no, you are not speaking with “all due respect”, not in the least.
Frankly, Saker, what you call ignorance is for me knowledge — and there is no due respect is calling people ignorant. This is something I’ve noticed about religious believers: they want respect but all too often not willing to give any to those who disagree with their belief systems.
Many people believe in a god or god-like being and yet have no belief in angels at all — which very much originates from the Biblic and Biblical mythology — so for many it is non-sense, as is the rest of supernal hierarchical structures. That’s not ignorance, but disagreement.
A major problem I see with religious belief, of various flavors, is that it often takes the place of analysis so that conclusions are reached which are based on dogma rather than fact — and for some belef systems that can mean concluding that blowing up the world with nukes is not a bad thing and need not avoided, or even encouraged. That’s scary.
My own thinking concerning spiritual, religious, consciousness, or ontology is too involved to discuss in a blog like this to any extent, and I avoid it when discussing or thinking about practical, ‘material’ aspects of our existence — and no longer frequent discussion sites involved in religion. One can discuss politics, or discuss religion, but when trying to mix the two of them except how religious beliefs can influence politics (or vice versa), it’s asking for trouble (and we’ve seen plenty of trouble in the US and world from it). They are two entirely different modes of thinking and reality systems.
Blue, if you really look at other religions…except perhaps Buddhism because that doesn’t even talk about God….you will see that there are higher beings in all the religions….
Just because they’re not called angels doesn’t mean that they are not angels..names are not important…
India calls them Ashuras….
And there are other beings too…higher than angels..
No — that’s not true. I’ve looked at other religions for decades, and it’s simply not true. As far as some reigions having other spiritually based entitites, you can’t say these are necessarily ‘angels’ — Wicca, for instance, does not have angels, and even the aspects of god such as the godess are only aspects, and not the same as the overall god, and Wicca is essentially monotheistic in that sense. The idea of hierarchy is not universal. Some Buddhists do speak of a god, while others do not. There are myriad variations of religious beliefs and creation stories.
You tend to make up stuff in these posts — like abut LDS being a creation of the Masons, which is not the case, regardless of Smith being a Mason (in fact, Utah Masons at one point did not allow Mormons to be Masons).
What the Saker meant is that you are being disrespectful and I will have to agree. You speak with some condescension about the shortcomings of some unknown religious believers while showing the same shortcomings. Any analysis (and rational thinking in general) is also based on dogma and it is actually nothing more than a system with its own limitations and shortcomings. And you believe in it. You clearly have no idea what religion or faith are, given that you describe them as “supernatural hierarchical structures”.
Of course rational systems are based on assumptions and axioms — and the better ones acknowledge that — and have their limitations. All modes of though are limited, by the structures of the brain, which is why it’s important to have the other modes.
You say I believe in rationality — but you have no idea what or how I think or believe — you just assume, based on extremely limited knowledge of who I am.
I did not say religion or faith is based on hierarchical structures — you read that into my post, not out of it. I said angels and the associated ideas are hierarchical, not that all religions are based on that — some religions have no hierarchies at all. If you think I have no idea what religion or faith is you clearly don’t know anything at all about me or what I’ve done.
Of course, I don’t know what you think. I can only read what you write and base myself on that – all discussions work that way. This is why it is a good idea not to start with calling someone’s belief “nonsense”. This is what I know that you have done.
Looking at your other posts, you do try to look very rationally at things – definitions, “linguistic frame”, heuristics and epistemology, critical thinking etc. And, mind you, you fail at using your own tool on several occasions. Most importantly, while you do recognize that it is just a tool, you simply cannot let it go – but you can’t analyze religion or faith this way. You are trying to explain how to cut a tree by digging a hole. That is what I meant by saying that you have clearly no idea what religion or faith are – had you spoken with a monk (for example) you wouldn’t be so lost in some definitions.
I started out as an acolyte (Episcopal) when I was a kid — after deciding on my own to start attending a church. I’ve practiced religion for years, including Christianity, mysticism, and Zen, and magick (close to the religious mode — and also the artistic and mythic modes) and studied and wrote about and taught these things. I have a library of dozens of books on religion I’ve gone through. I am at home in the religious mode as well as the others I mentioned. I’ve been doing this for 60 years — and you think just talking to some monk would make a significant difference, as if a monk did or do things which I haven’t and don’t? The religious people — including clergy, etc. I’ve talked to generally have almost no understanding of the subject except in their own narrow dogma and doctrine, and often enough not even in that.
If you think “definitions, “linguistic frame”, heuristics and epistemology, critical thinking etc” are simply rational then you understand neither those things nor rational systems. You are out of your depth here.
Now, it was not me who started calling angels nonsense, but I did come to the defense of someone who did and was called ignorant for it. Religion is nonsense by definition: non sense — non rational, and non sensible (not relying on the senses or naive reality) — the essence of faith and belief. That’s what mysticism is about. If it was not non-sense it would not be nor require religion or faith or intuition or clairsentience (direct knowing), or fancy theology.
Why do you assume I (or others) don’t know what religion is (about which you have written nothing in response)? I said that I don’t write about these things here, although I’ve touched on it at various times. You make assumptions on what I think and understand based on what I have not written? Or do you think that to be religious means that you must toss out all other modes, including the rational and logical — that the truly competent are fools who don’t employ logic and science as well as faith? You think that what you call god would need or want such hierarchy, angels, seraphim, etc. — and the bishops, priests, and so forth — which match so well the hierarchy (especially medieval) of humans and their political economic schemes and mental structures?
And yet here you come along saying I, and others, don’t know what religion is about and don’t understand these things — which is the very typical arrogance of so many people who talk so much about religion and get so insulted when they meet disagreement.
It was indeed someone else who said “nonsense” and I made a mistake in attributing it to you – my apologies.
Assumptions are a necessity for everyone not omniscient – you are assuming quite a lot about me and going far beyond ignorance. I am offering a point of view, you are taking offence. Speaking of insults, if you think that calling someone’s belief “nonsense” is fine, then just say so and I would lose any interest in the discussion.
I am simply going to skip the semantics part, as is a bottomless pit. To answer your question, I don’t think that logic and rational thinking should be tossed away, but that they are useless in defining and analyzing religion. By the way, why should those not using them be fools? Consider what impression that gives me.
You also mentioned that I haven’t explained my view. Definitions of God, supernatural hierarchy, angels etc. are just the sign above the entrance. Discussing them is of very limited use and will certainly never define religion. Religion is practice and a tool much more broad in function than a simple thinking model like logic. It’s not just “recognition that’s it all uncertain and ineffable”, it goes well beyond thinking into intuition, feel and other things that we have no words for (let alone explain it), hence why linguistics also can’t do squat and why esoteric tradition is passed directly from a teacher to a disciple in the form of exercises and tests in a very personalized approach.
As the saying goes, more or less, the problem is not that people don’t know things, but that they know so much which is not true. They become attached to their ideas.
‘I am offering a point of view, you are taking offense’ — you did more than offer a point of view; you said I know nothing of religion. Now, you can say what I think of it and my ‘conclusions’ are wrong, but to say I don’t what it is after the decades I’ve spent with it, and I should talk to a monk, is shifting the discussion to the personal rather than the issues. I’m not taking offense but saying that such a statement is baseless.
You insist, still, that I am attached to simple logic (but logics are not simple). It is interesting that when I say things in magickal, intuitive, artistic modes there are those who insist I am incapable of logic and rational thinking because they do not understand what I’ve said, but if I employ a rational mode there are those who insist I am incapable of intuition or feeling. And if I use mixed modes then most everyone is appalled at what I’ve said.
It’s like if I had a hammer in my hand I hear I’m incapable of turning a bolt, but if I pick up a wrench I hear I am not capable of driving nails.
“we have no words for (let alone explain it), hence why linguistics also can’t do squat and why esoteric tradition is passed directly from a teacher to a disciple”…
Yes, I’ve heard this stuff before, even though I have often talked about the limits of logic, math, linguistics, and so forth, but as far as passing knowledge from master to student that assumes that masters are real and know mysterious things which can be approached only through some mysterious, often secret, rite or process. Yet there is also a tradition of seeking within, emphasized in the Eastern religions such as Buddhism, but also in others. If someone tells me they have knowledge which I need them to have access to, or I must go through one of their rites to be ‘saved’, I go away from them.
Semantics (semiotics) is not a bottomless pit more than any other endeavor, but a critical component to learning, and understanding the self — and defending against propaganda and scams, which is found in religion at least as much as anywhere else.
If I see nonsense (the arational — not irrational which is always to be avoided, BTW) I call it that, and if there is no good reason for someone doing that, then I go away from them. Just because something is ineffable, BTW — can’t be handled rationally — doesn’t mean it can’t be handled at all — you use an appropriate mode, such as an artist, or sorcerer regularly does. One needs to know what one is doing and which modes are being used, however. Someone once told me that one can’t ‘faith out’ a problem with an electronics circuit — one needs meters and such to troubleshoot it. Look at what we have because so many people have ‘faith’ in political leaders or ideologies, and otherwise get hooked into the wrong modes to solve something.
Interesting that you are taking such huge offence at someone calling you ignorant, but you have apparently no issue with the initial comment (or calling nonsense when you see it), which you deem to be “knowledge”. You continue in the exact same line of thinking and then you wonder why assume things. If I was trying to shift things, why would I waste time explaining my view?
I do not think that you are “incapable of intuition or feeling” – that was never said, nor implied and simply shows that you are willing to take offence. Enough with the victim part – I could also show you how arrogant your stance looks through your own words – something you already accused me of. So, who is really trying to shift things? You are catching onto my words and my very very limited example and trying to dissect them after taking them out of context… and completely missing the point yet again.
“Yes, I’ve heard this stuff before, … , but as far as passing knowledge from master to student that assumes that masters are real and know mysterious things which can be approached only through some mysterious, often secret, rite or process… If someone tells me they have knowledge which I need them to have access to, or I must go through one of their rites to be ‘saved’, I go away from them.”
The above is precisely why I think that you know nothing of religion (and a claim of knowledge is, well, just that). But, I am not here to convince or teach you; there is no genuine interest in what I am saying, but just a desire to win an argument. I made my view clear – the original comment is insulting and you can’t explain religion the way you are trying to. I will leave it at that, as it is becoming too long.
“A major problem I see with religious belief, of various flavors, is that it often takes the place of analysis so that conclusions are reached which are based on dogma rather than fact — and for some belief systems that can mean concluding that blowing up the world with nukes is not a bad thing and need not avoided, or even encouraged. That’s scary.”
Eschatology IS analysis. The current turmoil on the planet cannot be explained by secular geopolitical analysis alone. Only a spiritual overlay furnishes coherence. Since you bring the word up, a purely fact-based interpretation is the dogma of rationalism.
If you once decide to believe arguably without sufficient warrant in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, sempiternal God, then lesser improbablities like angels are not a problem. If Vietnam Vet wants a theological dispute, he should address the arguments for theism, not the angelic host. And the respect should need no prompting: the arguments for theism are strong and sophisticated, not easily dismissed by the likes of him (or me).
The first thing one needs to address is the question of belief, which is a mode of thinking — one of a number of them (rational. artistic, scientific, religious, magickal, mythical, or some other scheme of classification). Then one needs to deal with how definitions of ‘god’ and what that might possibly mean within a mode or reality system — and within a linguistic frame. Then you need to consider the characteristics of such a defined or imagined god — or what can be said of a non-defined god — in conjunction with one means by ‘existence’. None of these issues are ultimately solvable by humans, and tend to quickly fall into non-radial category blather without coherence in any mode (a ‘cloud of unknowing’). Actual mysticism is not making stuff up or citing traditions and asserting it is ‘true’, but recognition that’s it all uncertain and ineffable when you try to pick it apart too much. You summon a demon, and it eats you for lunch.
I think more ignostic than agnostic. Perhaps a good way to think about this for some purposes is that of a figure-ground gestalt, in which the perception of something real arises or emerges as a figure from the ground. If you try to think about the ground all you get is another figure. Like that which is said of the Tao is not the Tao.
Some people can. One should study up a bit on heuristics and epistemology, critical thinking, and similar subjects to understand the difficulties presented in finding ‘truth’ in a reality system or model. While the scientific method is not perfect by any means it os one of the best tools people have come up with so far: evidence based, falsifiable hypotheses, peer review, established and defined axioms. It’s a very powerful method, as is seen from the great leaps in understanding achieved with it in a relatively short time.
First master rational thinking and the scientific method, and know some heuristic principles, and then delve into other paradigms with some substantive tools and safety valves on ones side. Know thyself, and understand some psychology and neuroscience, and the common traps one can fall into. This stuff is not easy, and often not straightforward. And when you have gone through all that and think you know something, toss it aside and start from the beginning again to recheck everything, including your axioms and paradigms, using self-dialectic and skepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
[…]
Fallibilism is a modern, fundamental perspective of the scientific method, as put forth by Karl Popper and Charles Sanders Peirce, that all knowledge is, at best, an approximation, and that any scientist must always stipulate this in his research and findings. It is, in effect, a modernized extension of Pyrrhonism.[12] Indeed, historic Pyrrhonists are sometimes described by modern authors as fallibilists. Modern fallibilists also are sometimes described as pyrrhonists.[13]
[…]
… just something one one of the modes of thinking/being, with a rather good book on the subject.
Can also look into Ramsey Dukes (Linoel Snell) and Austin Spare (also Lawrence LeShan’s book “Alternate Realties”). It’s been many years since I delved into this material, but it’s good stuff.
Also http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html Epistemology, introduction
at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/TOC.html
If you really want to get into this, set aside 30 to 50 years… I’ve been at for 60, and am just now beginning to get a grasp of it.
You talk about thinking “with the brain” and “other modes”. What other part of your anatomy? No nervous system, no consciousness.
Every religion falls back ultimately on the ineffable. Trouble is, it’s ineffable. So ineffable we can’t know whether it’s there. Mystics can claim to experience it. We all know the mind plays tricks.
I’ve had a go at understanding Madhyamika (of which Zen is a descendant). I’ve had a go at all the great Indian thinkers who followed Nagarjuna in their ever more subtle reasoning on the ineffable. We’re still left with… it’s ineffable.
Pragmatism is not like dogmatic Scepticism or later Pyrrhonism. If anything, it shares with Hume a hint of Pyrrho himself (and Buddha). It is a form of realism – it sets scepticism aside and carries on with the business of science, the only human institution that accumulates knowledge (a fact we all rely on every day).
The entire body (and it’s relation to the environment) is used in thinking — it’s a system — but it all comes back to the brain in cogitating where the data is coordinated. You can talk about chakras and such, even.
Consciousness (and the ‘hard problem) is something else again, and is too involved for me to write much of it here — but there is a Journal of Consciousness Studies and a yahoo group that gets into it quite a bit.
Pragmatism is good, but it can be problematic to deal with causality and decide if something really works or just looks like it (and for concerning which people). or is superstition. Scientific peer review and independent conformation or falsification is good to work on this.
We still end up largely stumbling around in the fog, though.
Your comments here on thought and consciousness suggest you favour naturalism as so far the only credible option, as do I. (It is an open question how useful it is to extend the notion of cognition beyond the organism, given that the function of cognition is to allow the organism to exploit its environment. Perhaps there is no distinct boundary.)
I mentioned Pragmatism in particular because you alluded to Pierce. I suppose I was daring to correct you (Pierce’s fallibilism is not that of Pyrrho or Popper). The heirs to Pragmatism are today’s structural realists (Discuss).
Causality is a subject I do not pretend to understand. It has to be treated differently in fundamental physics and the special sciences. In neither do I have a clue what the scientists are saying, (What is “objective modality”? And how can there be causality in special sciences when there is none in fundamental physics?)
You appear to agree that science is the human institution that reveals at least some of the structure of the world. You then say we are in a fog. Perhaps, but science is our only way through the fog.
I am not clear how your sensible remarks on science and philosophy fit in with your more tantalising comments about religion and “spirituality”.
We should get into this too far here and get off track from the purpose of the blog, but a problem is trying to define physical and non-physical — dualism — and accepting it as an axiom when going beyond current science, which is already at the edges of the ‘physical’ or ‘material’. We are running out of paradigm at both ends.
We run into objective modality in second order cybernetics, quantum physics, and constructivism, for examples. The problem is, as in my old tag line, ‘the world is covered in skin’: everything we perceive is through our senses and mind, but it looks like even when trying to use an objective model the observer effect is all over the place.
Causality is based on axioms: sequential time, action at a distance, and so forth, and relies on the model of space time, energy and forces, we assume — and to a large extent materialism. We can’t just toss these out and go all supernatural and make any progress, so we have to develop better models and paradigms. Even over-determinism makes problems in causality (and pragmatic action) — R.D. Wolff talked about this relative to economics and construction projects.
Causality (vs correlation) needs specific explanatory theory as well as a paradigm. And we need to careful about mental models: 2+3= 5 but they don’t cause 5, Lack of closure for roots of numbers does not cause the irrational numbers or imaginary numbers: all of math exists or none of it does, as a package deal, whether we are aware of it or not. The ‘kinetic energy’ of a moving object does not cause another object to move when struck because energy is just the expression of a mysterious relationship within the contextual model of what we call space and time.
The water gets very deep very fast here because to understand much of this stuff we have to unlearn so much and ‘reprogram’ the ‘circuits’ in the brain — a brain which did not develop to handle these sorts of things, and cultures and upbringings which don’t support or even discourage thinking like this. There is lots of deprogramming and mental re-patterning to do. That’s what takes up so many years.
There are many ways to coherently analyze the current situation — and none of them are complete, all being maps of the reality, not reality itself.
The very notion of ‘spiritual’ vs ‘material’ or ‘rational’ is an imperfect map of reality and dogmatic.
But ‘fact’ has a empirically based, meaningful, and useful definition, coherent with the property of persistence in a reality system. If you argue that ‘fact’ has no meaning then don’t even try to talk about reality, thinking, epistemology and ontology, or ‘confuse yourself with facts’.
As you say, deep waters and off-topic. The only way beyond the current physics is via current physics. The practice of religions or magic or other “modes” may allow you to enjoy a richer phenomenology. It doesn’t give access to reality.
I can compare it to making a painting. I constantly switch around to different modes, creative and feeling, technical handling of paints, checking against proportion and perspective (reality), relating to the visual system of viewers, space, line, composition, checking the light quality I’m seeing it by and which viewers will see it by, symbolism and psychological elements. Each informs the other and must all be used in concert, and it must be remembered that at the end one does not have ‘reality’ but paint on a paper, board, or canvas — a construction (‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’).
One can employ intuition, religion, myth, belief systems, etc., to advance, but must ‘reality’ and ‘fact’ check also.
Not appreciating art — making it. Painting, or creating some other piece of art, is a very real activity — as real as any other part of life. Preparing the ground, getting and mixing pigments, doing preliminary drawings, handling brushwork — all of that. Or shaping clay and firing it, or welding or bending metal into a shape. Some of that is very laborious, and all of it includes the creative, reflective, communicative aspects of art, mental, emotional, and physical. And yes, there is a magickal or shamanistic aspect. although you need some practical knowledge of chemistry, physical, and materials technology.
Making art & appreciating it, this is not what any true believer in religion or magic thinks they are doing. They are in earnest and not post-modernist. They do not think they are their own work of art, but a soul created by divinity or a spirit in touch with a spirit world, or whatever. Your various modes are no doubt fun, but neither religion or science, both of which attempt a reliable understanding of reality, not as a game – in one case it’s felt to be life or death, in the other a true understanding of the universe and our place in it.
Bismillah al rahman al raheem (In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful)
In Islam, we do not separate politics from the commandments of God and the teaching of the prophets and messengers of God (from Adam to Jesus and, Mohammed).
Political aspects of Islam are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna (the sayings and living habits of Muhammad).
Traditional political concepts in Islam include leadership by elected or selected successors to the Prophet known as Caliphs, (Imamate for Shia); the importance of following Islamic law or Sharia; the duty of rulers to seek Shura or consultation from their subjects; and the importance of rebuking unjust rulers.
What you are now witnessing, whether it is the Godless Western Usurious Secular System (e.g. totalitarian, parliamentary, nationalistic, etc.) based on fiat currency/debt and “sovereign” nation states or the corrupt “Islamism/Islamic parties” or ISIL type caliphates …..these are all in contradiction to the teachings of Allah and his messengers.
For us as believers in the one true God, we believe history will run its course, where all the above mentioned systems will fail and collapse. We should seek peace and justice, and not make matters worse for the millions of people living in these corrupt nation states, which will eventually cease to exist in their current form. History will run its course until the end of human history itself, where we have been given clear signs on what will occur when history nears its end.
God started human history in the Middle-East and he will end it in the Middle-East.
World history and the fate of the human race will revolve and ultimately climax in the Middle-East (Jerusalem, Damascus, Mecca).
“In Islam, we do not separate politics from the commandments of God”
Yes — and the Christians who burn people at the stake or currently pursue war, and the Jews committing genocide, and Muslim extremists beheading people, and the Hindus enforcing castes where many are subjugated, and who knows how many others, try to run political and economic systems by their personal religious beliefs, even with other people with different beliefs.
Do we not see many problems with mixing religion and politics or government?
Dear brother (assuming you are a brother ;-) ) Blue,
Non of these religions you mention commands the followers to commit these crimes that are being committed by man.
Actually, I cannot speak for Hinduism, since I do not believe in it……However, the true uncorrupted message of the God of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed did not command their people to commit sins and crimes against innocent people.
You cannot convince people to follow a secular political system by showing them how men have corrupted religion to their own liking with their own hands (or have completely ignored its teachings), just like how men have manufactured secular ideologies (e.g., nationalism, communism, socialism, etc.) and committed the biggest massacres in human history with their own hands.
With all due respect, this is a not a logic or reasonable form of reasoning, and is unfortunately continuously being repeated by people who are convinced that a Godless government is the correct way to run the affairs of man.
Evil is committed by the hands of men………God all mighty and his noble prophets and messengers are innocent of these evils and have called on men since the dawn of human history to turn away from this evil, or face great punishment, either in this life or after your soul has departed from your body.
Have faith and be assured that not a single crime committed by either a secular or a so called religious person will go unaccounted for……The Creator of what man calls the laws of Physics and the Universe, knows every single good deed or crime committed by every human soul that has been placed in its mother’s womb until the end of mankind.
I leave you with ayat from the Holy Quran:
“And be afraid of the Day when you shall be brought back to Allah. Then every person shall be paid what he earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.”
Quran (Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 281)
And if Allah were to seize mankind for their wrong-doing, He would not leave on it (the earth) a single moving (living) creature, but He postpones them for an appointed term and when their term comes, neither can they delay nor can they advance it an hour (or a moment).
“Non of these religions you mention commands the followers to commit these crimes that are being committed by man.”
That’s your thinking, but others think they do, and say that the religion requires violence or oppression, and each person interprets their religion as they want to, rightly or wrongly. This has always been done.
My point is that by not separating religion from politics and law the door is open for that, and for forcing religion on others — or stealing their land. Not just in Palestine, but in the early US the natives’ land was taken and the people killed in the name of religion. Similar happened in Africa. Even simple things like forcing kids to pray and read the Bible was done when I went to public school, and this is still an issue — mixing religion with law and public policy. We have in the US many who say it is a Christian nation and try to limit the rights of non-Christians, politically and legally. nd then the reaction is not just to separate politics form religion but to attack the religions and their followers.
I’ve had a lifetime of education and personal experience – including combat in Vietnam – to draw upon. What combat taught me is that there is no God – at least in the sense of some invisible entity interfering in the affairs of mortals.
Further, I’ve come to the conclusion that if I’m wrong and there is a “personal” God, that he is a sick perverted and cruel bastard willing to inflict horrific misery and death on even his “chosen” people, and thus a plague on humanity.
In any event, I can never take seriously any “analysis” based on the assumption that invisible beings – whose existence cannot be proved – have a casual effect on the affairs of humanity.
Everybody has had a lifetime of education and personal experience, including religious people. What continues to surprise me is the amount of people denigrating religion, while clearly not having any idea of what it is. Is God supposed to be your nanny?
Although it might seem OT, it is not so because everything is related, therefore, and because it is very important to make it known I put here this news published in Público.es which includes, exclusively, a report by the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) on the revolving doors at the European Commission, so you can see the intricacy of the European Commissioners with multinational corporations and transnational capital and how facilitated / facilitate the introduction of theTTIP:
MUST READ!
“Barroso king of the revolving door: a third of its Commissioners jumped from Brussels to private enterprise”:
“EU governments come and go, but the revolving doors keep turning, well greased. They do so irrespective of political signs of presidents and commissioners, their nationalities or the promises of the various Brussels executives. At least 9 of the 26 outgoing Commissioners from Barroso II Commission in 2014, one in three, jumped from their offices in Brussels to private companies or organizations linked to the major multinationals. Especially after having rubbed shoulders for years or decades with global political and economic elites from their top European leaders armchairs, which led them to dictate regulations affecting 500 million citizens.(…)
(….)Among the cases documented by the CEO shines with particular intensity the former President Jose Manuel Barroso, who since leaving office in its Second Commission on November 1, 2014 has taken up to 22 functions of all kinds, paid or unpaid, from honorable distinctions in universities or think tanks to the presidency of honor of the Honorary Committee of the European Business Summit-the largest gathering of corporate lobbies in Brussels, in addition to joining the exclusive direction of the secret Bilderberg club.(….)
(….)Only a few years later, in 2013, Barroso was at the controls of what would be his second Commission when they began secret negotiations of free trade agreement between Washington and Brussels, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP, in English). The Black Book prepared by the CEO documents some of the assignments of the Barroso II Commission to pressure from multinationals in agriculture, food and finance, and new study has to ratify: “Attempts to multinational and corporate lobbies to influence European policies were more successful than ever in the Barroso II Commission. “(…)
(…)Another paradigmatic case is that of former Commissioner Karel de Gucht, Commissioner for Trade when it formally began TTIP negotiations. Just then it was widely criticized by the enormous weight that gave the lobbies at these meetings, and recently received permission to take functions into three separate companies: CVC Capital Partners, Merit Capital and Belgacom ( today Proximus). The first two operate in the financial sector, while the latter is part of the Association of European Telecommunications Network Operators (ETNO, in English).(…)
While we await the arrival of Al Mahdi ( may Allah accelerate his arrival ), and since we, poor Europeans, will not survive The Malhama ( after all who would want to survive in a postatómic world ruled by Israel?) fight now, comrade, against the Armageddon that comes above us before The Final Malhama ( yes guys, they are going to give us everywhere with such panolis we have in Brussels ).
Do not stay paralyzed at the computer and fight against TTIP!
“Someone has called it the “economic NATO” and Susan George said that the TTIP is one of the most pernicious initiatives that Europe has lived.
It is not about lowering tariffs, which are already quite low, this is away with regulations that will surely make the European economy a different place from the American Far West.
Hayek already told to global businessmen: “what you can not achieve at national level, achieve it at the supranational level”.
Sheikh Imran Hosein may have a good grasp of Islamic eschatology however I think he leaves the realms of the credible when he begins to suggest that history must bend to the Koran and nuclear war is inevitable so that ‘little’ Israel can rule the world.
Firstly, facts happen and history is an interpretation of these events. The Islamic paradigm is one lens among many.
Secondly, he makes a fundamental mistake in trying to collapse all the past historical trends into one fatalistic future. There are many futures and narratives and this comic-book mystical return of the good king (who was it seems a humble carpenter in real life) does no justice to the idea of plurality of futures.
Perhaps, it could be framed in an “as if…” (i.e. it will appear as if …) but to try and suggest worldly facts and trends are directed by some higher powers runs the risk of needing to avoid the ultimate accountability question — who exactly is letting lose all these ‘gogs & magogs’ if not the ‘all powerful & loving’ controller of the universe.
Sorry, Sheikh, I’m happy to listen to your informed and expert views on the Islamic side of the equation, and even your analysis of events unfolding, but your prognosis of future world nuclear war to simply provide some grand stage in Palestine for a fascist nut case to assume world government control (of what’s left) from his New Temple balcony and pool is far less credible.
There are no doubt many ill minds and hearts acting as if this Middle Eastern narrative is truth and this can be a powerful driver of historical events unfolding.
However, we now know the world is a little larger and more complex than a cluster of questionable Judo-Christian-Islamic religious stories from thousands of years ago can frame.
Somehow in all this final ‘show-down’ at OK Corral theme is the ever existing need for release of the existential stress and pain which is itself somewhat of a closed-loop product of those very same belief systems. Why do we hear very little of what the billions of Indian, Chinese and Latin American indigenous peoples and cultures believe? Not much return of the ??? there it seems in cultures and civilizations that hugely pre-date the Middle East and its twisted tortured path to the modern world.
So, let us assume that the Zionist control theory is valid — and it may well be relevant.
Then why is a nuclear war killing “99% of world population” required — even down to Chile and Tasmania it seems — just so that a ‘small’ country like Israel can take over from Pax Americana?
Why all the nuclear drama (to fit the eschatological narratives of the ME) when effective control of the 99% by the 1% (who have indeed it seems embraced the degenerated values and customs described under the themes of ‘last days’) can be exercised via a debt-based global banking system?
Perhaps if we wish to see what the 1% world looks like we can read into the ancient Greek narratives and how their ‘gods’ (the oligarchy of those times) lived and behaved.
The Sheikh is on reasonably safe ground describing the state-of-affairs and using Islamic eschatology to help frame end-of-cycle times (it will certainly appear as such for many caught in the wrong places at the wrong times) — however, he is on less safe ground conflating this psychological mapping with real-world events past and future.
My books and lectures on Islamic Eschatology are meant primarilly for Muslims and Orthodox Christians. If secular scholarship finds my Islamic eschatolgy to be of some interest I will of course be happy, – but I do not ever make an effort to try to convince the secular world that truth resides in islamic eschatologys. It is sufficient to simple present to the world of secualr scholarship what is located in Islamic sources, and then leave it to them to accept or to reject.
Dear Sheikh Hosien…whenever I listen to your lectures I feel alot of love in my heart and mind..Its an easy, non-stressful, logical love, and it breathes. That’s a real sign of healing that you bring in your message.
I really believe that you are on the right path.
thanks for being here !!
And also..to Anonymous up there above the Sheikh’s post..
Anon…why is it you expect different cultures, such as Islam to have the same ‘white man’s’ understanding of the ways of the world ?
If eschatology doesn’t work for a person such as youself, a completely average university type, in the western world, maybe there are others in this big world that do relate to this kind of way of explanation and way of thinking.
Not all people are as hardened into materialism as the white west.
Re: “Anon…why is it you expect different cultures, such as Islam to have the same ‘white man’s’ understanding of the ways of the world ? ….”
With all due respect, you make a lot of presumptions here.
My blog note on Sheikh Imran Hosein’s presentation (above) was to attempt to raise the level of comment on this blog somewhat above the ‘love and cuddles’ department — a trend I’ve noticed for some time and likely one reason why certain serious commentators are rarely found here these days.
Firstly, I am not an academic although I sometimes choose to write in that style if the need for precision is required to make a subtle point.
Secondly, if you read it carefully, I am only somewhat critical of the ‘therefore …’ statements suggesting no alternatives to nuclear war etc. Sheikh Hosein’s polite response indicates he understands this limitation and, of course, he is entitled to his view — as am I to mine.
Thirdly, imo, the point of blogs is to share opinions and views — hopefully without the fan-club blow-back etc. Always a hazard and usually a distraction.
Fourthly, I am indeed an aged white anglo-saxon male approaching sixties. However, what you may wish to consider is I studied the evolution of religions in the 70’s under anthropology (as an elective) and then went on to study many of them — some first hand over time. I’ve traveled through India, Indonesia Turkey and Jordan and met several interesting people in the Islamic domain.
In 1991 I formally embraced Islam (at great cost to my career and personal reputation etc) and completed a minor pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina in the mid-1990’s. And all through that decade of seeking and finding my time and effort was conducted with a high degree of certainty that the then ‘quiet period’ for investigation would one day be over (as in fact it was soon after the 9/11 event in 2001).
I recognize patterns and smile at the ‘nibbling around the edges’ that various non-Muslims often exhibit around a good man who can explain and exhibit wisdom from the Islamic ‘well’ what they cannot draw from their own backgrounds. I was there once myself. Let me just add that after all this time I am still aligned with the theory but a lot wiser with respect to what is actually practiced.
I am no expert in this field but I have take some time to inform my thinking on this subject. Perhaps you might reconsider my comments above on Sheikh Hosein’s presentation as an invitation to consider how these views come across to an educated western mind that does not have an issue with the culture (or at least the religion) of Islam — as distinct from the current culture of the Arabs or other groups dominated by Islamic values within tribal cultures. This is an invitation for discussion and improvement of clarity. This blog may not be the best place for it, but it has been chosen and is sufficient to at least make some basic observations and points.
Just a little research and reading into the history of Islam in our modern age will show that much of it stems from a period of collapse under European empire and technical-cultural domination (e.g. British India, Dutch East Indies — Indonesia, and even Russia and its border regions) and that therefore there is a fundamental challenge to distinguish between the ideas and values of the system and the cultural bias and bruising suffered by peoples who have been subjugated for several hundred years.
And if we wish to understand better some of the complexities of coming to terms with these cross-cultural factors then we can see an example in the difference between shame and guilt based cultures. — e.g http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm
Of course ‘shame’ is called saving face in some Asian cultures.
“Loyalty: All Arabs belong to a group or tribe. Loyalty to the family tribe is considered paramount to maintaining honor. One does not question the correctness of the elders or tribes in front of outsiders. It is paramount that the tribe sticks together in order to survive. Once again, Arab history and folklore are full of stories of heroes who were loyal to the end.”
And anyone who has taken some time to study the history of claims for the ‘end times’ in the Islamic domains will find no shortage of examples — e.g. the Bahá’í Faith founded by Bahá’u’lláh in 19th-century Persia, or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community being an Islamic religious movement founded in British India near the end of the 19th century (and running the London Mosque). And to spice your sauce, there are no shortage of conspiracy theories about the roles of British Intelligence (and others) in promoting these movements. Question: why should we assume anything different now?
Longer than I intended, but hopefully of some help in understanding better what my point was.
And finally in respect to the style of argument used here by Sheikh Hosein — the “if I’m wrong, you must show me what is right…” (or words to that effect). It is a recognized style of debate within the Islamic traditions for determining seniority of authority in respect to the learning. However, on Western ears it falls a little short in the convincing department, imo. We do not need to know what the ‘square root of -1’ is to know that it is not ‘5’. There are numerous schools of thought in Islam and surprisingly large degrees of freedom to accept or not accept other interpretations. However, barring fundamentalism, none of these rely on faith. It is part of the self development work to understand these matters and that is where it differs from much in the Christian domain.
Thank you for responding to ignorance Sheik Hosein. I listen/watch all your lectures even tho I originally came from the wrong Christian side. I find much comfort thru your talks.
I always thought the point of inquiry was to apply the methods most likely to approach the truth. Surely that entails some responsibility (simply in terms of polite conversation, if nothing else) to say why your methods are more likely than anyone else’s to arrive at the truth, in this instance why it is rational for Muslims and others to take Islamic eschatology seriously as an account of how the world will turn out.
(Footnote: This is not a peculiarly modern “Western” notion. There is a very good new Very Short Introduction from Oxford on Philosophy in Islam. There is also a huge literature on Aquinas and other medieval Christian thinkers. We owe our knowledge of ancient philosophy to these Islamic and Christian thinkers. And in case anyone feels left out, take a look at the work of Maimonides. In other words, reason is not antithetical to religion.)
That’s really nice to see, that Sheikh is coming with stream and responding to his criticism.
I hope he will not stop accepting and learning from criticism.
“There are no doubt many ill minds and hearts acting as if this Middle Eastern narrative is truth and this can be a powerful driver of historical events unfolding.”
You put your finger on the self-fulfilling dynamic of belief. But not in a correct way. Eschatology argues both for free will and determinism. Yes, it is a paradox. Remember, as the physicists have shown, time exists in its fullness already. Time will self-fulfill mainly because it already exists. However we are neither robots or zombies. Combined, our free wills accomplish a predetermined future.
Sorry, you lost me after “paradox”. And as for physics, I gathered Einstein’s “space-time” suggested otherwise. Perhaps he is out of date these days? So, what is the non-mystical, non-subjective nature of Time that physics supposes? Perhaps you mean the alleged ‘4th dimension’ perspective?
By Anon: “[..] So, what is the non-mystical, non-subjective nature of Time that physics supposes? Perhaps you mean the alleged ‘4th dimension’ perspective?”
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s based on Quantum Physics. They discovered (actually physically proved it in an experiment) that a particle can exist in two places at once. This in turn generated all these theories, the most popular one being a ‘multiverse’ where all possible times, or time-lines, exist simultaneously. So hence; their argument is that is not so much that the particle exists in two places at once, it’s rather the same particle, in the same place splitting into two separate time-lines coexisting at once.
Intriguing as that may sound, I personally think it’s nonsense, but there you go, that’s what these theoretical/quantum physicists say when you cut through their indecipherable mumbo-jumbo.
I also think them, by believing (or theorizing) we all live these near infinite multiple lives simultaneously, in the end it’s, like, their version of ‘immortality’ or ‘heaven,’ if you will. So, not even scientific minds are free from the in-born anxiety to human mortality and try to find ways around it.
There’s another theory (also based on the particle experiment), one that I find far more logical, where multiple universes exists parallelly, each may have their own building blocks (chemical elements) some of which we may share, some may be alien to our own universe (and vice-versa). Also, these universes are ruled by different Laws of Physics and once again; some laws we may share, some not.
Never the less; we mustn’t forget that these are all theories, until proven as fact, they’ll remain being just that; theories. The last thing a scientist want to do is to get too emotionally attached to one particular theory (or a particular conclusion) that’s when they become no different from religious-minded people – Global Warming is a clear example of this – where all becomes more akin to being faith-based rather than fact-based. Correlation does not imply causation, it just suggests that more study/research/observation is needed to get to the truth, as it’s often the case in science.
it has to do with wave functions. When you look at something it becomes a particle but it is really a wave. And a wave can be present everywhere. Everything is a wave, the frequency determines what particle is presented. All matter is actually a wave at a certain frequency. By disrupting a wave you can split a particle into its different components. Like resonance.. It is the only logical explanation for things. Theories on physics and laws being different in different universes are because matter in those places are off a different frequency. It also makes sense in a way that god created the universe, a nudge here and a nudge there and he changed the universe into the image it wanted. Don’t need to do it the hard way by creating a lego set, Only need to arrange how things behave and the rest falls into place. God only needs one thing going for it and that is conscious will.. And because of that out combined free will can also shape the universe in out image. So we must also be part of god’s consciousness..
Well, it seems to me that they do not look like very bellicose women, unlike all those Hilarries, Margarets, Victorias and Rices, which is a blessing, isn´t it?
I do not know if the great laughter is because they seem so harmless ……
Prince William got smacked in the head with a five-iron when he was a little kid, so that makes him candidate #1 for Antichrist. Near fatal head injury. Check. Israel will get thrown under the bus by the world governing elites and Black Nobility who think the time is ripe to set up their One World Government, One World Religion based in Jerusalem and crown William as king. That’s why Bibi is so despondent. He knows they can pull the plug on tiny Israel any time they want. Who really owns all the religious sites in the Holy Land and really calls the shots? That movie, the Omen, is really really creepy. It’s so real. Diana was the sacrifice. When the Antichrist takes over and rules from Jerusalem, the whole world is going to long for the days when the Israelis were giving everybody the business.
Mainstream Christianity in the West has been hijacked & it’s members brainwashed, I think however there are millions of Christians in Western countries who reject mainstream teachings & instead follow the teachings Of Jesus Christ as written in his word. This would include loving our Muslim brothers Christian brothers And all of God’s children even as we love our own selves.
It’s good to be friends with Russia in this day & age, but don’t give up hope in all of westerners. or the rest of mankind who seek truth in different ways. We desire to live in peace within all cultures and have a deep love for our fellow man. Some of us even have beards & we can walk into any church.
I have enjoyed many of Hosein’s lectures. I found them informative. They gave me a better understanding of his brand of Islam. However, he lost me and I walked away when he supported little girls of 10 – 12 years old being given in marriage his reason being that they had attained “physical maturity.”Little girls under the age of 16 should be in school and playing with their friends, They are not mentally or emotionally mature to have regular sexual physical activity imposed on their small bodies, neither are they mature or educated enough to take care of children. The hand that rocks the cradle is responsible for the future. An uneducated and immature hand subjected to a life style at an early age when they are still in fact children themselves, produces immature, uneducated adults.
In islam, first thing a man is looking for in his future wife, is maturity. What Imran Hosein was saying is responding to fabricated saying about the prophet of islam.
Il write this as an reponce to IH talks, witch escatological is more or less impecable and spott on and to Muhammad from Oman, my deepest repect to you all.
Im tired, infact dead tired.
Il find if harder and harder to have any symphaty with people in general, and right now, il just stopp, and dont even read muth this days anymore, since nothing new is oming from anywhere, its all lies and forgerys.
And loosing my intress to futher instigate any justice and truth onto an people so massivly ingnorant and lead so far away astray that to lead them back on the path is becoming impossible, a climb I have failed in, and now Il retracts my self entirly from this realms of debates and history told.
Il be honest, because the time is short.
Destinys and faith.
I dont write about religion beause Im “religious” in any direction, but what I know, crosses this lines of knowledge long gone and dead this days, our very own consiousness.
Why debate anything regading reality in a world with mentaly cowards and people unable to reatch for new hights, the religious debate is downright an display of ignorance and arrogance about what God is and His/hers angels.
Why didnt Jesus if He ould walk on water, do miracles and didnt wipe the Romans of this reath with just a snapp of his fingers.
He could, but didnt.
The reason is simply, its OURs responcebility to fight darkness and evil, the consequensess of this forces is all ours to handle, to test if there is anything wurty of saving.
You blame God for everything, that alone is an misstake of epic proportions, God gave us this for our souls to learn, we came here to grown as Souls.
WE reap what we saw.
If you want materialism and greed to be the mantra, then it will be the mantra, this goes both ways.
The seond issue why dont the angles come, in this days of barbarism and wars.
The truth is, they cant and will not interfeer, thats NOT their primary, that is to make shure you UNDERSTANDS the gift given to you when you arived here, and if You dont understand or comply, that consequenss of actions you have to take, they rests sollely upon You.
Thats it.
And thirdly, the hollywood sceems about saviours of humaniity aka superman is just that, fiction.
There will be no saviour, this is a lie, prophets yea, but a saviour, nope, that will never happend.
The pushing a way of the basic of self respouncebility is what I consider to be porbably the moust dangerous propaganda stunt ever invented. to make people indure and stand slavery and crimes omitted against them because of been saved, by a coming saviour, that is THE wurst lie of them all.
Forth.
I was told i was an archangle (well, hehe, i have been dead and been to the other side by the virtue of mine own intent/mind/consiousness), everything have so far klicked into place, issues I was told about 30 years ago.
I have other things told to me, so horrific I dont think about that, beause it ripps my souls apart.
Evil crimes comitted upon children and people.
This things I havent talked about so mutch beause its beyound the present “geniuses” realms into powers that moust of you denie anyway so Il dont do that, and the things done to children so hideous Its physicaly painfull to think about, I have inside infromation, from people that feed the scums in charge.
The truth is, I have done my work, I have and stil does MY repents for MY life while I tryed to enlighten others, my only goal, nothing else than to awake people, from then on Im free.
The Imam mahdi, is a teacher, not a superman.
I know, I look exactly as writen about Him, see that and you see me.
Im sorry its short, but the main issues is covered.
The fifth, the war on white people/blue eyes, is true.
It is a war between light and drakness, and right now its pitch blak, no light anywhere, is it our fault, no, is it religions fault, nope, MAN is doing this, our Creatore is horrifyed and deeply insulted.
Thrue the years I have given those that see, everything they need, oour own minds is the clue to everything, it took me a decade to manage Lucid dreaming, and then push it further to the other side, but I stopped, since I have realised the present level of knowedge and wisdom is so bad that I dont bother to do that anymore, some have, and I know they are slowly realising what I talk about, this reality is a dream, the other side is the reality, not this side.
Il leave this to you, are you wurthy or not to be saved, because My creatore only asks one question, what did you do to others.
Never ever forgett that.
Love life and life loves you back.
Excellent post. Fully agree about no saviour. Mehdi is a title and not a name, and it means “guide”. He will help us from being savages, back to human beings again.
The central theme in Quran is that man is the oppressor. Throughout history, man has oppressed each other, so what is happening right now is nothing new. Whoever, is in power will oppress the weak, even to the point that we oppress our spouses, children, parents, loved ones and so forth.
The weak will cry for help, but it is the law of nature. The big fish will always eat the small fish, but the small fish will clean the big fish for food and this ensure the survival of the big fish.
I do not think any human being, including Sheikh Imran N. Hosein, have any certainty about what lies ahead, although, obviously, a keen observer, and informed, may well connect the dots and draw some conclusions.
What I find fatal in such predictions / prophecies is the sense of inevitability of what is to come, that, however much we try, our destiny is inescapable…… Maybe, but the Sheikh could very well be wrong on something, as he points out every so often during his lectures, and times do not have to conform to what he estimates…..
In this sense:
What if the advent of The Malhama is not as imminent and we have some leeway, at least those who are already given up by The Hadiths ( read Europeans ) to do something to improve our existence here and now or in the foreseeable future ?
What if the good citizens of Israel as well, that there will be, I suppose, do something to change the direction of their government?
What if Americans do the same with theirs?
Accordingly to this, is it that we should stop all fighting and leave all the work to the Mahdi Army?
I do not think. It is better to prepare the way, although some, according to the Sheik, we will not see the time of peace, justice, prosperity and love for all.
Some have already done so before, and without reward, only dreaming better times, they worried, fought and even gave their lives for the welfare of others. These are the only angels I’ve seen on this earth. Those angels called Ernesto ( Ché Guevara ) or Ignacio ( Ellacuría )….and many others along time and history…..
From today’s perspective, they were still very far from The Malhama, as far as knowing they would never see the “promised perfect world”, and yet they never stopped fighting to make this so imperfect world a more livable, more digestible place ……
MOSCOW, October 28. /TASS/. Russia is set to protect the rights of compatriots living abroad, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said in an exclusive interview with TASS ahead of the World Congress of Compatriots.
“We are set to defend the rights of compatriots in need, to enhance their public and cultural activity and the sphere of their education,” Karasin said. “We categorically reject attempts to cultivate suspicions against Russian communities abroad and to label them as ‘the fifth column’ in the countries of their residence.”
“We can see our compatriots as active and loyal citizens for their countries,” he said. “Along with this, naturally we will not stand any discrimination against them. We will help advocate for their rights with commonly recognized legal methods.”
“Moscow welcomes consolidation of the Russian community abroad and unity of people with common culture, history and the Russian language,” the deputy foreign minister said. “However, protection of legitimate rights of the compatriots, wherever they are, remains top priority, primarily, on the basis of national legislation of relevant countries.”
Moscow concerned with situation with compatriots in Ukraine
Russia closely watches all cases of persecution of Russian compatriots abroad, including in Ukraine, Grigory Karasin went on to say.”
eg
MOSCOW, October 29. /TASS/. The Kremlin will take all necessary legal protection measures, following the seizure of the state media holding VGTRK’s shares in the French company Euronews S.A., the operator of Euronews TV Channel, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.
“The Kremlin knows about this and all legal efforts are under way to protect the legitimate interests of the Russian Federation and its property,” Peskov told journalists.
MOSCOW, October 27. /TASS/. Moscow is resentful at the refusal of a New York court’s refusal to revise the criminal case against Russian businessman Viktor Bout, who is serving a 25-year sentence in a US high security jail on charges of arranging illegal arms sales, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday.
“We consider this ruling as another politicized step of the US judicial system, which is obviously implementing a political contract,” she said.
“We demand the United States authorities put an end to arbitrariness in respect of the Russian citizen,” she stressed. “We will continue to take efforts using all available legal and political mechanisms to have Bout’s rights observed and have him return home.”
————————————————
Maria has done her weekly Ministry of foreign Affairs presentation today-has emphasised the propaganda from western media etc
eg re russians bombing civilians, hospitals, which have not been proved.
Eschatology is a weapon. AngloZionists are the true masters of manipulating belief. From Wahabis to British Hindus and a thousand other sects of all religions, they’ve been playing this game for centuries.
Don’t fall for it.
Since IH is not much good for Muslims who know their faith, he haunts the places like the Saker blog and its demographic.
TO Imran N. Hosein, Thank you for the lecture you did in Malaysia 24 Oct. Thank you for what you said about arrogance and the arrogant – about not quoting out of context, but from understanding the whole – and thank you for what you said about Russia and that good will win over evil. I KNOW that is true.
I don’t find the Sheik’s comments on Western Christianity at all fair. He dismisses it with a wave of the hand, referring to the Santa Claus myth. Of course he also refers to the pedophilia and the empty monastaries. I would like to suggest that the Western branch of Christianity, as embodied in the Catholic Church, is in crisis and is being attacked on all sides, as Jesus himself stated would happen in the end times. The Church has been infiltrated by hostile elements such as freemasons, who were very enthusiastic when Bergoglio was made pope. There are even photos of Bergoglio using the hidden hand gesture as well.
The Church is suffering greatly in these times and is repeating in herself the sufferings of Jesus. She has been gravely harmed since Vatican II. It is important to understand that the Church has been undermined from within and without precisely because she is the true Church and therefore has determined enemies.
Nevertheless, Jesus said that even the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. Devout Catholics are the Church and they too are suffering greatly. There is persecution of Christians all over the world, but, in addition, there is the suffering that comes from the contempt and disdain that others show for Catholics and other Christians as individuals and for the Church as the Bride of Christ.
There is a great tradition of mysticism in the Church all predicated on the love of God. One only needs to look at great saints, such as St. Francis of Assisi to see this love in action.
I beg the Sheik to open his heart to those suffering Christians whose only desire is to do the will of God and to follow Jesus, whether they be Orthodox or Catholic, or other denominations whose adherents follow the Way of the Cross.
I dont believe people could believe in such non sens.
what non sense?
@Chergui,
You may want to elaborate if you want to be taken seriously, not just one sentence that reflects only your opinion but absolutely no explanation. You are welcome to elaborate and refute whatever you like, but at least do it intelligently.
Salam Everyone,
The Sheikh should contact John Hagee, as they both speak the same language.
Though, I am glad that the Sheikh has apologized for Ottoman Empire (Dynasty). He should now go one step further and apologize for both Abbasid and Omayyad Empires (Dynasties) too.
Let us see if the Sheikh will do this.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
The cheikh has apologized for the ottoman empire because the subject is to do with orthodox christians and because the cheikh looks forward to an alliance with such people.
Bless You Mohamed! ;-)
This is your own interpretation .wishes is very sad.
Salam Mohamed,
How Mu’awiwa corrupted the Khilafa. Not the entire lecture, but you are free to make of it whatever you heart wishes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zodkNusZTl0
As for me personally, i have adjusted my “clock” ages ago, cause we are in 2015/1437,
Salam Anonymous,
It would have been nice if you have posted an handle/name. I watched the above link you posted and I am still very sad. As a Shia Muslim, I believe in Imam Ali (as) saying, “don’t inherit your religion, learn it”.
It makes me said for Sheikh’s statements like:
1. Upon the death of the Prophet (saws) the entire Ummah united and accepted abu Bakr as Caliph.
2. Not anyone at Hudaibiyah, agree with the Prophet (saws).
3. When Prophet (saws) gave the Command at Hudaibiyah for scarifying the animals at the spot, all Muslims rejected the Command.
4. Then his wife told the Prophet (saws) for him to do the sacrifice personally…..
All the above statements are very demeaning to the Prophet of Islam. Not only that the Sheikh comes up very arrogant when he talks about the “school boy”….. And, other matters.
I know the Sheikh has personally participated in this thread. So, I will give him just two examples that the entire Ummah didn’t unite and accepted abu Bakr.
1. When Yemen refused to pay the Zakat and abu Bakr couldn’t ex-communicate them as this was against the Prophet’s instructions. So, he came up with a new term called, “Apostasy” and committed war on Yemen and Muslims there by calling them Kaffir.
2. When abu Bakr son wrote a letter to Muawiya in favor of Imam Ali (as), I would like for the Sheikh to post Muawiya’s reply to Mohammad ibn abu Bakr.
As for me personally, i have adjusted my “clock” ages ago, cause we are in 2015/1437
Allah is Truth and Just. Men of religion should adhere to Truth and Justice. Why I love Saker, because he believes that the Pope who is in majority has injured the Orthodox who are in minority, thus the Pope needs to redeem.
Why I like Obama, because of him, quite a few Religious Scholars in Middle East are redeeming themselves, and accepting that Imam Ali (as) was on Truth and Justice, and he was wronged by abu Bakr, Omar and Osman.
It is happening in Middle East. The question is the Sheikh brave enough?
And, if you have adjusted your clock, have you personally redeemed yourself by accepting the Truth and Justice?
Best regards,
Mohamed.
In previous comments when I saw your negative view of Imran Hosein, I thought to myself this guy can only be shia or salafi, when I checked one of your comment I saw your refer to yourself as shia from Oman, I didnt bother reading your negative comments. The problem with shias is that they have books which they consider absolute truth and never bother to question them.
Ten years ago, I met one iraqi woman working at International Atomic Energy Agency in Austria. She was born shia, but at the age of 16 years old she left shism to become a sunni, not only that she managed to bring all her family members to sunni islam except for one older brother of hers unfortunately (he was arrogant and refused to change). This woman explained to me how shias were misguided and how they follow books written by men who claim they were guided to write them by some hidden creatures.
Salam Anonymous,
Ask the Sheikh, why he keeps on twisting the history so much.
1. The first civil abu Bakr fought against the Muslims of Yemen, what was the reason for this war?
2. The response of Muawiya to Mohammad son of abu Bakr?
While you are at it ask Sheikh, why Aisha fought the second civil war against Ali?
I am sure that you know about Sahih Muslim. It your book. Ask Sheikh, about the Hadith of Thaqalayn in Sahih Muslim?
Or ask the Sheikh, why Omar refused Prophet Mohammad (saws) on his death bed to make a will?
Why he labeled the Prophet to be delirious due to illness (astafgurAllah).
I can go on and on, but ask the Sheikh the Truth about the above.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Salam Anonymous,
Forget Shia books. We always discuss with you from your books, your Sunni Books. The Truth is also buried in your books too. So, if Sheikh thinks that I am too low down the pole for him to personally answer me from his books, than you are welcome to answer me from your books.
See if you can bring me the Hadith of Thaqalayn from your book called, Sahih Muslim. Or any questions I have raised for you to answer me from your books.
Imagine, the Sheikh preaching that 90% of population to die from Nuclear War. There are good Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists in both USA and West. Most people in the world are good people, around 99.9%
God forbid such a calamity to happen to anyone.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Angels? With all due respect I figured out nonsense like this when I was a child.
What a fantastically ignorant thing to say! Angels are “messengers” of God. I don’t see how one can accept the notion of a “God” as not-nonsense but consider that angels are nonsense.
And no, you are not speaking with “all due respect”, not in the least.
Frankly, Saker, what you call ignorance is for me knowledge — and there is no due respect is calling people ignorant. This is something I’ve noticed about religious believers: they want respect but all too often not willing to give any to those who disagree with their belief systems.
Many people believe in a god or god-like being and yet have no belief in angels at all — which very much originates from the Biblic and Biblical mythology — so for many it is non-sense, as is the rest of supernal hierarchical structures. That’s not ignorance, but disagreement.
A major problem I see with religious belief, of various flavors, is that it often takes the place of analysis so that conclusions are reached which are based on dogma rather than fact — and for some belef systems that can mean concluding that blowing up the world with nukes is not a bad thing and need not avoided, or even encouraged. That’s scary.
My own thinking concerning spiritual, religious, consciousness, or ontology is too involved to discuss in a blog like this to any extent, and I avoid it when discussing or thinking about practical, ‘material’ aspects of our existence — and no longer frequent discussion sites involved in religion. One can discuss politics, or discuss religion, but when trying to mix the two of them except how religious beliefs can influence politics (or vice versa), it’s asking for trouble (and we’ve seen plenty of trouble in the US and world from it). They are two entirely different modes of thinking and reality systems.
Blue, if you really look at other religions…except perhaps Buddhism because that doesn’t even talk about God….you will see that there are higher beings in all the religions….
Just because they’re not called angels doesn’t mean that they are not angels..names are not important…
India calls them Ashuras….
And there are other beings too…higher than angels..
Seraphim Cherubim, Thrones, Kyriotetes, Dynamis, Elohim, Archai,
these are Christian terminology for the hierarchies.
It is said that Dionysius the Aeripagite ..sp? had a school with Paul in Athens, and that school existed for centuries.
In the sixth century the teachings were written down…they were studied all through the middle ages..Pseudo-Dionysian writings.
These are the Spirits of God…all more ancient than another,…in other words….varying ranks of ancientness…
No — that’s not true. I’ve looked at other religions for decades, and it’s simply not true. As far as some reigions having other spiritually based entitites, you can’t say these are necessarily ‘angels’ — Wicca, for instance, does not have angels, and even the aspects of god such as the godess are only aspects, and not the same as the overall god, and Wicca is essentially monotheistic in that sense. The idea of hierarchy is not universal. Some Buddhists do speak of a god, while others do not. There are myriad variations of religious beliefs and creation stories.
You tend to make up stuff in these posts — like abut LDS being a creation of the Masons, which is not the case, regardless of Smith being a Mason (in fact, Utah Masons at one point did not allow Mormons to be Masons).
Mistyped…
“in fact, Utah Masons at one point did not allow Mormons to be Masons)”
should be the Mormons in Utah did not allow Mormons to be Masons
What the Saker meant is that you are being disrespectful and I will have to agree. You speak with some condescension about the shortcomings of some unknown religious believers while showing the same shortcomings. Any analysis (and rational thinking in general) is also based on dogma and it is actually nothing more than a system with its own limitations and shortcomings. And you believe in it. You clearly have no idea what religion or faith are, given that you describe them as “supernatural hierarchical structures”.
Of course rational systems are based on assumptions and axioms — and the better ones acknowledge that — and have their limitations. All modes of though are limited, by the structures of the brain, which is why it’s important to have the other modes.
You say I believe in rationality — but you have no idea what or how I think or believe — you just assume, based on extremely limited knowledge of who I am.
I did not say religion or faith is based on hierarchical structures — you read that into my post, not out of it. I said angels and the associated ideas are hierarchical, not that all religions are based on that — some religions have no hierarchies at all. If you think I have no idea what religion or faith is you clearly don’t know anything at all about me or what I’ve done.
Of course, I don’t know what you think. I can only read what you write and base myself on that – all discussions work that way. This is why it is a good idea not to start with calling someone’s belief “nonsense”. This is what I know that you have done.
Looking at your other posts, you do try to look very rationally at things – definitions, “linguistic frame”, heuristics and epistemology, critical thinking etc. And, mind you, you fail at using your own tool on several occasions. Most importantly, while you do recognize that it is just a tool, you simply cannot let it go – but you can’t analyze religion or faith this way. You are trying to explain how to cut a tree by digging a hole. That is what I meant by saying that you have clearly no idea what religion or faith are – had you spoken with a monk (for example) you wouldn’t be so lost in some definitions.
I started out as an acolyte (Episcopal) when I was a kid — after deciding on my own to start attending a church. I’ve practiced religion for years, including Christianity, mysticism, and Zen, and magick (close to the religious mode — and also the artistic and mythic modes) and studied and wrote about and taught these things. I have a library of dozens of books on religion I’ve gone through. I am at home in the religious mode as well as the others I mentioned. I’ve been doing this for 60 years — and you think just talking to some monk would make a significant difference, as if a monk did or do things which I haven’t and don’t? The religious people — including clergy, etc. I’ve talked to generally have almost no understanding of the subject except in their own narrow dogma and doctrine, and often enough not even in that.
If you think “definitions, “linguistic frame”, heuristics and epistemology, critical thinking etc” are simply rational then you understand neither those things nor rational systems. You are out of your depth here.
Now, it was not me who started calling angels nonsense, but I did come to the defense of someone who did and was called ignorant for it. Religion is nonsense by definition: non sense — non rational, and non sensible (not relying on the senses or naive reality) — the essence of faith and belief. That’s what mysticism is about. If it was not non-sense it would not be nor require religion or faith or intuition or clairsentience (direct knowing), or fancy theology.
Why do you assume I (or others) don’t know what religion is (about which you have written nothing in response)? I said that I don’t write about these things here, although I’ve touched on it at various times. You make assumptions on what I think and understand based on what I have not written? Or do you think that to be religious means that you must toss out all other modes, including the rational and logical — that the truly competent are fools who don’t employ logic and science as well as faith? You think that what you call god would need or want such hierarchy, angels, seraphim, etc. — and the bishops, priests, and so forth — which match so well the hierarchy (especially medieval) of humans and their political economic schemes and mental structures?
And yet here you come along saying I, and others, don’t know what religion is about and don’t understand these things — which is the very typical arrogance of so many people who talk so much about religion and get so insulted when they meet disagreement.
It was indeed someone else who said “nonsense” and I made a mistake in attributing it to you – my apologies.
Assumptions are a necessity for everyone not omniscient – you are assuming quite a lot about me and going far beyond ignorance. I am offering a point of view, you are taking offence. Speaking of insults, if you think that calling someone’s belief “nonsense” is fine, then just say so and I would lose any interest in the discussion.
I am simply going to skip the semantics part, as is a bottomless pit. To answer your question, I don’t think that logic and rational thinking should be tossed away, but that they are useless in defining and analyzing religion. By the way, why should those not using them be fools? Consider what impression that gives me.
You also mentioned that I haven’t explained my view. Definitions of God, supernatural hierarchy, angels etc. are just the sign above the entrance. Discussing them is of very limited use and will certainly never define religion. Religion is practice and a tool much more broad in function than a simple thinking model like logic. It’s not just “recognition that’s it all uncertain and ineffable”, it goes well beyond thinking into intuition, feel and other things that we have no words for (let alone explain it), hence why linguistics also can’t do squat and why esoteric tradition is passed directly from a teacher to a disciple in the form of exercises and tests in a very personalized approach.
As the saying goes, more or less, the problem is not that people don’t know things, but that they know so much which is not true. They become attached to their ideas.
‘I am offering a point of view, you are taking offense’ — you did more than offer a point of view; you said I know nothing of religion. Now, you can say what I think of it and my ‘conclusions’ are wrong, but to say I don’t what it is after the decades I’ve spent with it, and I should talk to a monk, is shifting the discussion to the personal rather than the issues. I’m not taking offense but saying that such a statement is baseless.
You insist, still, that I am attached to simple logic (but logics are not simple). It is interesting that when I say things in magickal, intuitive, artistic modes there are those who insist I am incapable of logic and rational thinking because they do not understand what I’ve said, but if I employ a rational mode there are those who insist I am incapable of intuition or feeling. And if I use mixed modes then most everyone is appalled at what I’ve said.
It’s like if I had a hammer in my hand I hear I’m incapable of turning a bolt, but if I pick up a wrench I hear I am not capable of driving nails.
“we have no words for (let alone explain it), hence why linguistics also can’t do squat and why esoteric tradition is passed directly from a teacher to a disciple”…
Yes, I’ve heard this stuff before, even though I have often talked about the limits of logic, math, linguistics, and so forth, but as far as passing knowledge from master to student that assumes that masters are real and know mysterious things which can be approached only through some mysterious, often secret, rite or process. Yet there is also a tradition of seeking within, emphasized in the Eastern religions such as Buddhism, but also in others. If someone tells me they have knowledge which I need them to have access to, or I must go through one of their rites to be ‘saved’, I go away from them.
Semantics (semiotics) is not a bottomless pit more than any other endeavor, but a critical component to learning, and understanding the self — and defending against propaganda and scams, which is found in religion at least as much as anywhere else.
If I see nonsense (the arational — not irrational which is always to be avoided, BTW) I call it that, and if there is no good reason for someone doing that, then I go away from them. Just because something is ineffable, BTW — can’t be handled rationally — doesn’t mean it can’t be handled at all — you use an appropriate mode, such as an artist, or sorcerer regularly does. One needs to know what one is doing and which modes are being used, however. Someone once told me that one can’t ‘faith out’ a problem with an electronics circuit — one needs meters and such to troubleshoot it. Look at what we have because so many people have ‘faith’ in political leaders or ideologies, and otherwise get hooked into the wrong modes to solve something.
Interesting that you are taking such huge offence at someone calling you ignorant, but you have apparently no issue with the initial comment (or calling nonsense when you see it), which you deem to be “knowledge”. You continue in the exact same line of thinking and then you wonder why assume things. If I was trying to shift things, why would I waste time explaining my view?
I do not think that you are “incapable of intuition or feeling” – that was never said, nor implied and simply shows that you are willing to take offence. Enough with the victim part – I could also show you how arrogant your stance looks through your own words – something you already accused me of. So, who is really trying to shift things? You are catching onto my words and my very very limited example and trying to dissect them after taking them out of context… and completely missing the point yet again.
“Yes, I’ve heard this stuff before, … , but as far as passing knowledge from master to student that assumes that masters are real and know mysterious things which can be approached only through some mysterious, often secret, rite or process… If someone tells me they have knowledge which I need them to have access to, or I must go through one of their rites to be ‘saved’, I go away from them.”
The above is precisely why I think that you know nothing of religion (and a claim of knowledge is, well, just that). But, I am not here to convince or teach you; there is no genuine interest in what I am saying, but just a desire to win an argument. I made my view clear – the original comment is insulting and you can’t explain religion the way you are trying to. I will leave it at that, as it is becoming too long.
“A major problem I see with religious belief, of various flavors, is that it often takes the place of analysis so that conclusions are reached which are based on dogma rather than fact — and for some belief systems that can mean concluding that blowing up the world with nukes is not a bad thing and need not avoided, or even encouraged. That’s scary.”
Eschatology IS analysis. The current turmoil on the planet cannot be explained by secular geopolitical analysis alone. Only a spiritual overlay furnishes coherence. Since you bring the word up, a purely fact-based interpretation is the dogma of rationalism.
If you once decide to believe arguably without sufficient warrant in an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, sempiternal God, then lesser improbablities like angels are not a problem. If Vietnam Vet wants a theological dispute, he should address the arguments for theism, not the angelic host. And the respect should need no prompting: the arguments for theism are strong and sophisticated, not easily dismissed by the likes of him (or me).
The first thing one needs to address is the question of belief, which is a mode of thinking — one of a number of them (rational. artistic, scientific, religious, magickal, mythical, or some other scheme of classification). Then one needs to deal with how definitions of ‘god’ and what that might possibly mean within a mode or reality system — and within a linguistic frame. Then you need to consider the characteristics of such a defined or imagined god — or what can be said of a non-defined god — in conjunction with one means by ‘existence’. None of these issues are ultimately solvable by humans, and tend to quickly fall into non-radial category blather without coherence in any mode (a ‘cloud of unknowing’). Actual mysticism is not making stuff up or citing traditions and asserting it is ‘true’, but recognition that’s it all uncertain and ineffable when you try to pick it apart too much. You summon a demon, and it eats you for lunch.
“None of these is solvable by humans.” Quite so. An argument for agnosticism. Focus on questions we have a chance of answering.
I think more ignostic than agnostic. Perhaps a good way to think about this for some purposes is that of a figure-ground gestalt, in which the perception of something real arises or emerges as a figure from the ground. If you try to think about the ground all you get is another figure. Like that which is said of the Tao is not the Tao.
The upshot is you can persuade yourself of anything you want?
Some people can. One should study up a bit on heuristics and epistemology, critical thinking, and similar subjects to understand the difficulties presented in finding ‘truth’ in a reality system or model. While the scientific method is not perfect by any means it os one of the best tools people have come up with so far: evidence based, falsifiable hypotheses, peer review, established and defined axioms. It’s a very powerful method, as is seen from the great leaps in understanding achieved with it in a relatively short time.
First master rational thinking and the scientific method, and know some heuristic principles, and then delve into other paradigms with some substantive tools and safety valves on ones side. Know thyself, and understand some psychology and neuroscience, and the common traps one can fall into. This stuff is not easy, and often not straightforward. And when you have gone through all that and think you know something, toss it aside and start from the beginning again to recheck everything, including your axioms and paradigms, using self-dialectic and skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
[…]
Fallibilism is a modern, fundamental perspective of the scientific method, as put forth by Karl Popper and Charles Sanders Peirce, that all knowledge is, at best, an approximation, and that any scientist must always stipulate this in his research and findings. It is, in effect, a modernized extension of Pyrrhonism.[12] Indeed, historic Pyrrhonists are sometimes described by modern authors as fallibilists. Modern fallibilists also are sometimes described as pyrrhonists.[13]
[…]
BTW, you might be interested in reading http://dialmformusicology.com/2015/05/07/the-magicians-question-not-does-it-exist-but-does-it-work/ — dealing with chaos magic, and you can find a pdf of
S.S.O.T.B.M.E. at
http://api.ning.com/files/MyVlTc4R5WwGzmaRHtg2C-mQFkfh78b1WRPWBXLjovA8hbXT9fNqIvQZ6nJopExfkipgEFfxoxtHAiyaQvOVsmfw5B3H-e1e/SSOTBMEAnEssayOnMagic.pdf
… just something one one of the modes of thinking/being, with a rather good book on the subject.
Can also look into Ramsey Dukes (Linoel Snell) and Austin Spare (also Lawrence LeShan’s book “Alternate Realties”). It’s been many years since I delved into this material, but it’s good stuff.
Also http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html Epistemology, introduction
at http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/TOC.html
If you really want to get into this, set aside 30 to 50 years… I’ve been at for 60, and am just now beginning to get a grasp of it.
You talk about thinking “with the brain” and “other modes”. What other part of your anatomy? No nervous system, no consciousness.
Every religion falls back ultimately on the ineffable. Trouble is, it’s ineffable. So ineffable we can’t know whether it’s there. Mystics can claim to experience it. We all know the mind plays tricks.
I’ve had a go at understanding Madhyamika (of which Zen is a descendant). I’ve had a go at all the great Indian thinkers who followed Nagarjuna in their ever more subtle reasoning on the ineffable. We’re still left with… it’s ineffable.
Pragmatism is not like dogmatic Scepticism or later Pyrrhonism. If anything, it shares with Hume a hint of Pyrrho himself (and Buddha). It is a form of realism – it sets scepticism aside and carries on with the business of science, the only human institution that accumulates knowledge (a fact we all rely on every day).
The entire body (and it’s relation to the environment) is used in thinking — it’s a system — but it all comes back to the brain in cogitating where the data is coordinated. You can talk about chakras and such, even.
Consciousness (and the ‘hard problem) is something else again, and is too involved for me to write much of it here — but there is a Journal of Consciousness Studies and a yahoo group that gets into it quite a bit.
Pragmatism is good, but it can be problematic to deal with causality and decide if something really works or just looks like it (and for concerning which people). or is superstition. Scientific peer review and independent conformation or falsification is good to work on this.
We still end up largely stumbling around in the fog, though.
Your comments here on thought and consciousness suggest you favour naturalism as so far the only credible option, as do I. (It is an open question how useful it is to extend the notion of cognition beyond the organism, given that the function of cognition is to allow the organism to exploit its environment. Perhaps there is no distinct boundary.)
I mentioned Pragmatism in particular because you alluded to Pierce. I suppose I was daring to correct you (Pierce’s fallibilism is not that of Pyrrho or Popper). The heirs to Pragmatism are today’s structural realists (Discuss).
Causality is a subject I do not pretend to understand. It has to be treated differently in fundamental physics and the special sciences. In neither do I have a clue what the scientists are saying, (What is “objective modality”? And how can there be causality in special sciences when there is none in fundamental physics?)
You appear to agree that science is the human institution that reveals at least some of the structure of the world. You then say we are in a fog. Perhaps, but science is our only way through the fog.
I am not clear how your sensible remarks on science and philosophy fit in with your more tantalising comments about religion and “spirituality”.
We should get into this too far here and get off track from the purpose of the blog, but a problem is trying to define physical and non-physical — dualism — and accepting it as an axiom when going beyond current science, which is already at the edges of the ‘physical’ or ‘material’. We are running out of paradigm at both ends.
We run into objective modality in second order cybernetics, quantum physics, and constructivism, for examples. The problem is, as in my old tag line, ‘the world is covered in skin’: everything we perceive is through our senses and mind, but it looks like even when trying to use an objective model the observer effect is all over the place.
Causality is based on axioms: sequential time, action at a distance, and so forth, and relies on the model of space time, energy and forces, we assume — and to a large extent materialism. We can’t just toss these out and go all supernatural and make any progress, so we have to develop better models and paradigms. Even over-determinism makes problems in causality (and pragmatic action) — R.D. Wolff talked about this relative to economics and construction projects.
Causality (vs correlation) needs specific explanatory theory as well as a paradigm. And we need to careful about mental models: 2+3= 5 but they don’t cause 5, Lack of closure for roots of numbers does not cause the irrational numbers or imaginary numbers: all of math exists or none of it does, as a package deal, whether we are aware of it or not. The ‘kinetic energy’ of a moving object does not cause another object to move when struck because energy is just the expression of a mysterious relationship within the contextual model of what we call space and time.
The water gets very deep very fast here because to understand much of this stuff we have to unlearn so much and ‘reprogram’ the ‘circuits’ in the brain — a brain which did not develop to handle these sorts of things, and cultures and upbringings which don’t support or even discourage thinking like this. There is lots of deprogramming and mental re-patterning to do. That’s what takes up so many years.
There are many ways to coherently analyze the current situation — and none of them are complete, all being maps of the reality, not reality itself.
The very notion of ‘spiritual’ vs ‘material’ or ‘rational’ is an imperfect map of reality and dogmatic.
But ‘fact’ has a empirically based, meaningful, and useful definition, coherent with the property of persistence in a reality system. If you argue that ‘fact’ has no meaning then don’t even try to talk about reality, thinking, epistemology and ontology, or ‘confuse yourself with facts’.
As you say, deep waters and off-topic. The only way beyond the current physics is via current physics. The practice of religions or magic or other “modes” may allow you to enjoy a richer phenomenology. It doesn’t give access to reality.
I can compare it to making a painting. I constantly switch around to different modes, creative and feeling, technical handling of paints, checking against proportion and perspective (reality), relating to the visual system of viewers, space, line, composition, checking the light quality I’m seeing it by and which viewers will see it by, symbolism and psychological elements. Each informs the other and must all be used in concert, and it must be remembered that at the end one does not have ‘reality’ but paint on a paper, board, or canvas — a construction (‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’).
One can employ intuition, religion, myth, belief systems, etc., to advance, but must ‘reality’ and ‘fact’ check also.
If you’re trying to make your life like the experience of appreciating a work of art, not if you are trying to work out what is real.
Not appreciating art — making it. Painting, or creating some other piece of art, is a very real activity — as real as any other part of life. Preparing the ground, getting and mixing pigments, doing preliminary drawings, handling brushwork — all of that. Or shaping clay and firing it, or welding or bending metal into a shape. Some of that is very laborious, and all of it includes the creative, reflective, communicative aspects of art, mental, emotional, and physical. And yes, there is a magickal or shamanistic aspect. although you need some practical knowledge of chemistry, physical, and materials technology.
Making art is about as real as it gets.
Making art & appreciating it, this is not what any true believer in religion or magic thinks they are doing. They are in earnest and not post-modernist. They do not think they are their own work of art, but a soul created by divinity or a spirit in touch with a spirit world, or whatever. Your various modes are no doubt fun, but neither religion or science, both of which attempt a reliable understanding of reality, not as a game – in one case it’s felt to be life or death, in the other a true understanding of the universe and our place in it.
Bismillah al rahman al raheem (In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful)
In Islam, we do not separate politics from the commandments of God and the teaching of the prophets and messengers of God (from Adam to Jesus and, Mohammed).
Political aspects of Islam are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna (the sayings and living habits of Muhammad).
Traditional political concepts in Islam include leadership by elected or selected successors to the Prophet known as Caliphs, (Imamate for Shia); the importance of following Islamic law or Sharia; the duty of rulers to seek Shura or consultation from their subjects; and the importance of rebuking unjust rulers.
What you are now witnessing, whether it is the Godless Western Usurious Secular System (e.g. totalitarian, parliamentary, nationalistic, etc.) based on fiat currency/debt and “sovereign” nation states or the corrupt “Islamism/Islamic parties” or ISIL type caliphates …..these are all in contradiction to the teachings of Allah and his messengers.
For us as believers in the one true God, we believe history will run its course, where all the above mentioned systems will fail and collapse. We should seek peace and justice, and not make matters worse for the millions of people living in these corrupt nation states, which will eventually cease to exist in their current form. History will run its course until the end of human history itself, where we have been given clear signs on what will occur when history nears its end.
God started human history in the Middle-East and he will end it in the Middle-East.
World history and the fate of the human race will revolve and ultimately climax in the Middle-East (Jerusalem, Damascus, Mecca).
“In Islam, we do not separate politics from the commandments of God”
Yes — and the Christians who burn people at the stake or currently pursue war, and the Jews committing genocide, and Muslim extremists beheading people, and the Hindus enforcing castes where many are subjugated, and who knows how many others, try to run political and economic systems by their personal religious beliefs, even with other people with different beliefs.
Do we not see many problems with mixing religion and politics or government?
In the name of God most gracious most merciful….
Dear brother (assuming you are a brother ;-) ) Blue,
Non of these religions you mention commands the followers to commit these crimes that are being committed by man.
Actually, I cannot speak for Hinduism, since I do not believe in it……However, the true uncorrupted message of the God of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed did not command their people to commit sins and crimes against innocent people.
You cannot convince people to follow a secular political system by showing them how men have corrupted religion to their own liking with their own hands (or have completely ignored its teachings), just like how men have manufactured secular ideologies (e.g., nationalism, communism, socialism, etc.) and committed the biggest massacres in human history with their own hands.
With all due respect, this is a not a logic or reasonable form of reasoning, and is unfortunately continuously being repeated by people who are convinced that a Godless government is the correct way to run the affairs of man.
Evil is committed by the hands of men………God all mighty and his noble prophets and messengers are innocent of these evils and have called on men since the dawn of human history to turn away from this evil, or face great punishment, either in this life or after your soul has departed from your body.
Have faith and be assured that not a single crime committed by either a secular or a so called religious person will go unaccounted for……The Creator of what man calls the laws of Physics and the Universe, knows every single good deed or crime committed by every human soul that has been placed in its mother’s womb until the end of mankind.
I leave you with ayat from the Holy Quran:
“And be afraid of the Day when you shall be brought back to Allah. Then every person shall be paid what he earned, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.”
Quran (Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 281)
And if Allah were to seize mankind for their wrong-doing, He would not leave on it (the earth) a single moving (living) creature, but He postpones them for an appointed term and when their term comes, neither can they delay nor can they advance it an hour (or a moment).
Quran (Surah An-Nahl, Verse 61)
“Non of these religions you mention commands the followers to commit these crimes that are being committed by man.”
That’s your thinking, but others think they do, and say that the religion requires violence or oppression, and each person interprets their religion as they want to, rightly or wrongly. This has always been done.
My point is that by not separating religion from politics and law the door is open for that, and for forcing religion on others — or stealing their land. Not just in Palestine, but in the early US the natives’ land was taken and the people killed in the name of religion. Similar happened in Africa. Even simple things like forcing kids to pray and read the Bible was done when I went to public school, and this is still an issue — mixing religion with law and public policy. We have in the US many who say it is a Christian nation and try to limit the rights of non-Christians, politically and legally. nd then the reaction is not just to separate politics form religion but to attack the religions and their followers.
The prior question none of the believers here addresses is how they come to believe in the first place.
I’ve had a lifetime of education and personal experience – including combat in Vietnam – to draw upon. What combat taught me is that there is no God – at least in the sense of some invisible entity interfering in the affairs of mortals.
Further, I’ve come to the conclusion that if I’m wrong and there is a “personal” God, that he is a sick perverted and cruel bastard willing to inflict horrific misery and death on even his “chosen” people, and thus a plague on humanity.
In any event, I can never take seriously any “analysis” based on the assumption that invisible beings – whose existence cannot be proved – have a casual effect on the affairs of humanity.
So you were in a war where men slaughtered each-other…….and you blame God for the misery and death of people?
Your argument does not seem so logic, does it?
Everybody has had a lifetime of education and personal experience, including religious people. What continues to surprise me is the amount of people denigrating religion, while clearly not having any idea of what it is. Is God supposed to be your nanny?
A forceful expression of your incredulity. I’m sure you know it won’t persuade a believer.
Cassad’s latest update about the situation in Syria. ISIS is on the offensive against SAA.
http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2451273.html
Although it might seem OT, it is not so because everything is related, therefore, and because it is very important to make it known I put here this news published in Público.es which includes, exclusively, a report by the Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) on the revolving doors at the European Commission, so you can see the intricacy of the European Commissioners with multinational corporations and transnational capital and how facilitated / facilitate the introduction of theTTIP:
MUST READ!
“Barroso king of the revolving door: a third of its Commissioners jumped from Brussels to private enterprise”:
http://www.publico.es/politica/comisarios-comision-barroso-saltaron-bruselas.html
“EU governments come and go, but the revolving doors keep turning, well greased. They do so irrespective of political signs of presidents and commissioners, their nationalities or the promises of the various Brussels executives. At least 9 of the 26 outgoing Commissioners from Barroso II Commission in 2014, one in three, jumped from their offices in Brussels to private companies or organizations linked to the major multinationals. Especially after having rubbed shoulders for years or decades with global political and economic elites from their top European leaders armchairs, which led them to dictate regulations affecting 500 million citizens.(…)
(….)Among the cases documented by the CEO shines with particular intensity the former President Jose Manuel Barroso, who since leaving office in its Second Commission on November 1, 2014 has taken up to 22 functions of all kinds, paid or unpaid, from honorable distinctions in universities or think tanks to the presidency of honor of the Honorary Committee of the European Business Summit-the largest gathering of corporate lobbies in Brussels, in addition to joining the exclusive direction of the secret Bilderberg club.(….)
(….)Only a few years later, in 2013, Barroso was at the controls of what would be his second Commission when they began secret negotiations of free trade agreement between Washington and Brussels, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP, in English). The Black Book prepared by the CEO documents some of the assignments of the Barroso II Commission to pressure from multinationals in agriculture, food and finance, and new study has to ratify: “Attempts to multinational and corporate lobbies to influence European policies were more successful than ever in the Barroso II Commission. “(…)
(…)Another paradigmatic case is that of former Commissioner Karel de Gucht, Commissioner for Trade when it formally began TTIP negotiations. Just then it was widely criticized by the enormous weight that gave the lobbies at these meetings, and recently received permission to take functions into three separate companies: CVC Capital Partners, Merit Capital and Belgacom ( today Proximus). The first two operate in the financial sector, while the latter is part of the Association of European Telecommunications Network Operators (ETNO, in English).(…)
Link to the report by CEO included in the news:
http://corporateeurope.org/revolving-doors/2015/10/revolving-doors-spin-again
While we await the arrival of Al Mahdi ( may Allah accelerate his arrival ), and since we, poor Europeans, will not survive The Malhama ( after all who would want to survive in a postatómic world ruled by Israel?) fight now, comrade, against the Armageddon that comes above us before The Final Malhama ( yes guys, they are going to give us everywhere with such panolis we have in Brussels ).
Do not stay paralyzed at the computer and fight against TTIP!
Juan Carlos Monedero:
TTIP: el atasco de la democracia:
http://www.comiendotierra.es/2015/10/19/ttip-el-atasco-de-la-democracia/
“Someone has called it the “economic NATO” and Susan George said that the TTIP is one of the most pernicious initiatives that Europe has lived.
It is not about lowering tariffs, which are already quite low, this is away with regulations that will surely make the European economy a different place from the American Far West.
Hayek already told to global businessmen: “what you can not achieve at national level, achieve it at the supranational level”.
Salam Sister elsi,
Now I fully remember you. You are my neighbor. :)
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Sheikh Imran Hosein may have a good grasp of Islamic eschatology however I think he leaves the realms of the credible when he begins to suggest that history must bend to the Koran and nuclear war is inevitable so that ‘little’ Israel can rule the world.
Firstly, facts happen and history is an interpretation of these events. The Islamic paradigm is one lens among many.
Secondly, he makes a fundamental mistake in trying to collapse all the past historical trends into one fatalistic future. There are many futures and narratives and this comic-book mystical return of the good king (who was it seems a humble carpenter in real life) does no justice to the idea of plurality of futures.
Perhaps, it could be framed in an “as if…” (i.e. it will appear as if …) but to try and suggest worldly facts and trends are directed by some higher powers runs the risk of needing to avoid the ultimate accountability question — who exactly is letting lose all these ‘gogs & magogs’ if not the ‘all powerful & loving’ controller of the universe.
Sorry, Sheikh, I’m happy to listen to your informed and expert views on the Islamic side of the equation, and even your analysis of events unfolding, but your prognosis of future world nuclear war to simply provide some grand stage in Palestine for a fascist nut case to assume world government control (of what’s left) from his New Temple balcony and pool is far less credible.
There are no doubt many ill minds and hearts acting as if this Middle Eastern narrative is truth and this can be a powerful driver of historical events unfolding.
However, we now know the world is a little larger and more complex than a cluster of questionable Judo-Christian-Islamic religious stories from thousands of years ago can frame.
Somehow in all this final ‘show-down’ at OK Corral theme is the ever existing need for release of the existential stress and pain which is itself somewhat of a closed-loop product of those very same belief systems. Why do we hear very little of what the billions of Indian, Chinese and Latin American indigenous peoples and cultures believe? Not much return of the ??? there it seems in cultures and civilizations that hugely pre-date the Middle East and its twisted tortured path to the modern world.
So, let us assume that the Zionist control theory is valid — and it may well be relevant.
Then why is a nuclear war killing “99% of world population” required — even down to Chile and Tasmania it seems — just so that a ‘small’ country like Israel can take over from Pax Americana?
Why all the nuclear drama (to fit the eschatological narratives of the ME) when effective control of the 99% by the 1% (who have indeed it seems embraced the degenerated values and customs described under the themes of ‘last days’) can be exercised via a debt-based global banking system?
Perhaps if we wish to see what the 1% world looks like we can read into the ancient Greek narratives and how their ‘gods’ (the oligarchy of those times) lived and behaved.
The Sheikh is on reasonably safe ground describing the state-of-affairs and using Islamic eschatology to help frame end-of-cycle times (it will certainly appear as such for many caught in the wrong places at the wrong times) — however, he is on less safe ground conflating this psychological mapping with real-world events past and future.
My books and lectures on Islamic Eschatology are meant primarilly for Muslims and Orthodox Christians. If secular scholarship finds my Islamic eschatolgy to be of some interest I will of course be happy, – but I do not ever make an effort to try to convince the secular world that truth resides in islamic eschatologys. It is sufficient to simple present to the world of secualr scholarship what is located in Islamic sources, and then leave it to them to accept or to reject.
Sincerely,
Imran N. Hosein
Dear Sheikh Hosien…whenever I listen to your lectures I feel alot of love in my heart and mind..Its an easy, non-stressful, logical love, and it breathes. That’s a real sign of healing that you bring in your message.
I really believe that you are on the right path.
thanks for being here !!
And also..to Anonymous up there above the Sheikh’s post..
Anon…why is it you expect different cultures, such as Islam to have the same ‘white man’s’ understanding of the ways of the world ?
If eschatology doesn’t work for a person such as youself, a completely average university type, in the western world, maybe there are others in this big world that do relate to this kind of way of explanation and way of thinking.
Not all people are as hardened into materialism as the white west.
Re: “Anon…why is it you expect different cultures, such as Islam to have the same ‘white man’s’ understanding of the ways of the world ? ….”
With all due respect, you make a lot of presumptions here.
My blog note on Sheikh Imran Hosein’s presentation (above) was to attempt to raise the level of comment on this blog somewhat above the ‘love and cuddles’ department — a trend I’ve noticed for some time and likely one reason why certain serious commentators are rarely found here these days.
Firstly, I am not an academic although I sometimes choose to write in that style if the need for precision is required to make a subtle point.
Secondly, if you read it carefully, I am only somewhat critical of the ‘therefore …’ statements suggesting no alternatives to nuclear war etc. Sheikh Hosein’s polite response indicates he understands this limitation and, of course, he is entitled to his view — as am I to mine.
Thirdly, imo, the point of blogs is to share opinions and views — hopefully without the fan-club blow-back etc. Always a hazard and usually a distraction.
Fourthly, I am indeed an aged white anglo-saxon male approaching sixties. However, what you may wish to consider is I studied the evolution of religions in the 70’s under anthropology (as an elective) and then went on to study many of them — some first hand over time. I’ve traveled through India, Indonesia Turkey and Jordan and met several interesting people in the Islamic domain.
In 1991 I formally embraced Islam (at great cost to my career and personal reputation etc) and completed a minor pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina in the mid-1990’s. And all through that decade of seeking and finding my time and effort was conducted with a high degree of certainty that the then ‘quiet period’ for investigation would one day be over (as in fact it was soon after the 9/11 event in 2001).
I recognize patterns and smile at the ‘nibbling around the edges’ that various non-Muslims often exhibit around a good man who can explain and exhibit wisdom from the Islamic ‘well’ what they cannot draw from their own backgrounds. I was there once myself. Let me just add that after all this time I am still aligned with the theory but a lot wiser with respect to what is actually practiced.
I am no expert in this field but I have take some time to inform my thinking on this subject. Perhaps you might reconsider my comments above on Sheikh Hosein’s presentation as an invitation to consider how these views come across to an educated western mind that does not have an issue with the culture (or at least the religion) of Islam — as distinct from the current culture of the Arabs or other groups dominated by Islamic values within tribal cultures. This is an invitation for discussion and improvement of clarity. This blog may not be the best place for it, but it has been chosen and is sufficient to at least make some basic observations and points.
Just a little research and reading into the history of Islam in our modern age will show that much of it stems from a period of collapse under European empire and technical-cultural domination (e.g. British India, Dutch East Indies — Indonesia, and even Russia and its border regions) and that therefore there is a fundamental challenge to distinguish between the ideas and values of the system and the cultural bias and bruising suffered by peoples who have been subjugated for several hundred years.
And if we wish to understand better some of the complexities of coming to terms with these cross-cultural factors then we can see an example in the difference between shame and guilt based cultures. — e.g http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm
Of course ‘shame’ is called saving face in some Asian cultures.
“Loyalty: All Arabs belong to a group or tribe. Loyalty to the family tribe is considered paramount to maintaining honor. One does not question the correctness of the elders or tribes in front of outsiders. It is paramount that the tribe sticks together in order to survive. Once again, Arab history and folklore are full of stories of heroes who were loyal to the end.”
http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Honour-and-Shame-in-Islam.htm
And anyone who has taken some time to study the history of claims for the ‘end times’ in the Islamic domains will find no shortage of examples — e.g. the Bahá’í Faith founded by Bahá’u’lláh in 19th-century Persia, or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community being an Islamic religious movement founded in British India near the end of the 19th century (and running the London Mosque). And to spice your sauce, there are no shortage of conspiracy theories about the roles of British Intelligence (and others) in promoting these movements. Question: why should we assume anything different now?
Longer than I intended, but hopefully of some help in understanding better what my point was.
And finally in respect to the style of argument used here by Sheikh Hosein — the “if I’m wrong, you must show me what is right…” (or words to that effect). It is a recognized style of debate within the Islamic traditions for determining seniority of authority in respect to the learning. However, on Western ears it falls a little short in the convincing department, imo. We do not need to know what the ‘square root of -1’ is to know that it is not ‘5’. There are numerous schools of thought in Islam and surprisingly large degrees of freedom to accept or not accept other interpretations. However, barring fundamentalism, none of these rely on faith. It is part of the self development work to understand these matters and that is where it differs from much in the Christian domain.
Peace etc.
People do not like you have your own faith…. that has always been …… “bad reputation” (George Brassens).
This, anonymous libre penseur, occurs in all human groups, in one´s village or in the blog one frequents or to which decides to help….
“Brassens _”La mauvaise reputation” “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oUo80SSnoc
Also to the wise enough…. more Brassens …. always Brassens…..
“Brassens – La Ballade des gens qui sont nés quelque part – Balada de los Idiotas Felices”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFOcIvSBDV0
@Sheik Hosein
Thank you for responding to ignorance Sheik Hosein. I listen/watch all your lectures even tho I originally came from the wrong Christian side. I find much comfort thru your talks.
Blessings
Christine
I always thought the point of inquiry was to apply the methods most likely to approach the truth. Surely that entails some responsibility (simply in terms of polite conversation, if nothing else) to say why your methods are more likely than anyone else’s to arrive at the truth, in this instance why it is rational for Muslims and others to take Islamic eschatology seriously as an account of how the world will turn out.
(Footnote: This is not a peculiarly modern “Western” notion. There is a very good new Very Short Introduction from Oxford on Philosophy in Islam. There is also a huge literature on Aquinas and other medieval Christian thinkers. We owe our knowledge of ancient philosophy to these Islamic and Christian thinkers. And in case anyone feels left out, take a look at the work of Maimonides. In other words, reason is not antithetical to religion.)
That’s really nice to see, that Sheikh is coming with stream and responding to his criticism.
I hope he will not stop accepting and learning from criticism.
OT Humor:
The defence ministers of Sweden, Netherlands, Norway,and Germany, contrasted with a photo of the Russian minister of Defense.
“There are no doubt many ill minds and hearts acting as if this Middle Eastern narrative is truth and this can be a powerful driver of historical events unfolding.”
You put your finger on the self-fulfilling dynamic of belief. But not in a correct way. Eschatology argues both for free will and determinism. Yes, it is a paradox. Remember, as the physicists have shown, time exists in its fullness already. Time will self-fulfill mainly because it already exists. However we are neither robots or zombies. Combined, our free wills accomplish a predetermined future.
Sorry, you lost me after “paradox”. And as for physics, I gathered Einstein’s “space-time” suggested otherwise. Perhaps he is out of date these days? So, what is the non-mystical, non-subjective nature of Time that physics supposes? Perhaps you mean the alleged ‘4th dimension’ perspective?
Einsteins theory was only part of the equation and is still incomplete. Look up string theory
By Anon: “[..] So, what is the non-mystical, non-subjective nature of Time that physics supposes? Perhaps you mean the alleged ‘4th dimension’ perspective?”
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s based on Quantum Physics. They discovered (actually physically proved it in an experiment) that a particle can exist in two places at once. This in turn generated all these theories, the most popular one being a ‘multiverse’ where all possible times, or time-lines, exist simultaneously. So hence; their argument is that is not so much that the particle exists in two places at once, it’s rather the same particle, in the same place splitting into two separate time-lines coexisting at once.
Intriguing as that may sound, I personally think it’s nonsense, but there you go, that’s what these theoretical/quantum physicists say when you cut through their indecipherable mumbo-jumbo.
I also think them, by believing (or theorizing) we all live these near infinite multiple lives simultaneously, in the end it’s, like, their version of ‘immortality’ or ‘heaven,’ if you will. So, not even scientific minds are free from the in-born anxiety to human mortality and try to find ways around it.
There’s another theory (also based on the particle experiment), one that I find far more logical, where multiple universes exists parallelly, each may have their own building blocks (chemical elements) some of which we may share, some may be alien to our own universe (and vice-versa). Also, these universes are ruled by different Laws of Physics and once again; some laws we may share, some not.
Never the less; we mustn’t forget that these are all theories, until proven as fact, they’ll remain being just that; theories. The last thing a scientist want to do is to get too emotionally attached to one particular theory (or a particular conclusion) that’s when they become no different from religious-minded people – Global Warming is a clear example of this – where all becomes more akin to being faith-based rather than fact-based. Correlation does not imply causation, it just suggests that more study/research/observation is needed to get to the truth, as it’s often the case in science.
-TL2Q
it has to do with wave functions. When you look at something it becomes a particle but it is really a wave. And a wave can be present everywhere. Everything is a wave, the frequency determines what particle is presented. All matter is actually a wave at a certain frequency. By disrupting a wave you can split a particle into its different components. Like resonance.. It is the only logical explanation for things. Theories on physics and laws being different in different universes are because matter in those places are off a different frequency. It also makes sense in a way that god created the universe, a nudge here and a nudge there and he changed the universe into the image it wanted. Don’t need to do it the hard way by creating a lego set, Only need to arrange how things behave and the rest falls into place. God only needs one thing going for it and that is conscious will.. And because of that out combined free will can also shape the universe in out image. So we must also be part of god’s consciousness..
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSZpQsZWoAAD-XP.jpg
Oh my dear, I nearly pi**ed my pants.
It’s healthy to have a good laugh.
Australian defence minister is missing.
Well, it seems to me that they do not look like very bellicose women, unlike all those Hilarries, Margarets, Victorias and Rices, which is a blessing, isn´t it?
I do not know if the great laughter is because they seem so harmless ……
Prince William got smacked in the head with a five-iron when he was a little kid, so that makes him candidate #1 for Antichrist. Near fatal head injury. Check. Israel will get thrown under the bus by the world governing elites and Black Nobility who think the time is ripe to set up their One World Government, One World Religion based in Jerusalem and crown William as king. That’s why Bibi is so despondent. He knows they can pull the plug on tiny Israel any time they want. Who really owns all the religious sites in the Holy Land and really calls the shots? That movie, the Omen, is really really creepy. It’s so real. Diana was the sacrifice. When the Antichrist takes over and rules from Jerusalem, the whole world is going to long for the days when the Israelis were giving everybody the business.
Mainstream Christianity in the West has been hijacked & it’s members brainwashed, I think however there are millions of Christians in Western countries who reject mainstream teachings & instead follow the teachings Of Jesus Christ as written in his word. This would include loving our Muslim brothers Christian brothers And all of God’s children even as we love our own selves.
It’s good to be friends with Russia in this day & age, but don’t give up hope in all of westerners. or the rest of mankind who seek truth in different ways. We desire to live in peace within all cultures and have a deep love for our fellow man. Some of us even have beards & we can walk into any church.
I have enjoyed many of Hosein’s lectures. I found them informative. They gave me a better understanding of his brand of Islam. However, he lost me and I walked away when he supported little girls of 10 – 12 years old being given in marriage his reason being that they had attained “physical maturity.”Little girls under the age of 16 should be in school and playing with their friends, They are not mentally or emotionally mature to have regular sexual physical activity imposed on their small bodies, neither are they mature or educated enough to take care of children. The hand that rocks the cradle is responsible for the future. An uneducated and immature hand subjected to a life style at an early age when they are still in fact children themselves, produces immature, uneducated adults.
Harrold,
In islam, first thing a man is looking for in his future wife, is maturity. What Imran Hosein was saying is responding to fabricated saying about the prophet of islam.
Il write this as an reponce to IH talks, witch escatological is more or less impecable and spott on and to Muhammad from Oman, my deepest repect to you all.
Im tired, infact dead tired.
Il find if harder and harder to have any symphaty with people in general, and right now, il just stopp, and dont even read muth this days anymore, since nothing new is oming from anywhere, its all lies and forgerys.
And loosing my intress to futher instigate any justice and truth onto an people so massivly ingnorant and lead so far away astray that to lead them back on the path is becoming impossible, a climb I have failed in, and now Il retracts my self entirly from this realms of debates and history told.
Il be honest, because the time is short.
Destinys and faith.
I dont write about religion beause Im “religious” in any direction, but what I know, crosses this lines of knowledge long gone and dead this days, our very own consiousness.
Why debate anything regading reality in a world with mentaly cowards and people unable to reatch for new hights, the religious debate is downright an display of ignorance and arrogance about what God is and His/hers angels.
Why didnt Jesus if He ould walk on water, do miracles and didnt wipe the Romans of this reath with just a snapp of his fingers.
He could, but didnt.
The reason is simply, its OURs responcebility to fight darkness and evil, the consequensess of this forces is all ours to handle, to test if there is anything wurty of saving.
You blame God for everything, that alone is an misstake of epic proportions, God gave us this for our souls to learn, we came here to grown as Souls.
WE reap what we saw.
If you want materialism and greed to be the mantra, then it will be the mantra, this goes both ways.
The seond issue why dont the angles come, in this days of barbarism and wars.
The truth is, they cant and will not interfeer, thats NOT their primary, that is to make shure you UNDERSTANDS the gift given to you when you arived here, and if You dont understand or comply, that consequenss of actions you have to take, they rests sollely upon You.
Thats it.
And thirdly, the hollywood sceems about saviours of humaniity aka superman is just that, fiction.
There will be no saviour, this is a lie, prophets yea, but a saviour, nope, that will never happend.
The pushing a way of the basic of self respouncebility is what I consider to be porbably the moust dangerous propaganda stunt ever invented. to make people indure and stand slavery and crimes omitted against them because of been saved, by a coming saviour, that is THE wurst lie of them all.
Forth.
I was told i was an archangle (well, hehe, i have been dead and been to the other side by the virtue of mine own intent/mind/consiousness), everything have so far klicked into place, issues I was told about 30 years ago.
I have other things told to me, so horrific I dont think about that, beause it ripps my souls apart.
Evil crimes comitted upon children and people.
This things I havent talked about so mutch beause its beyound the present “geniuses” realms into powers that moust of you denie anyway so Il dont do that, and the things done to children so hideous Its physicaly painfull to think about, I have inside infromation, from people that feed the scums in charge.
The truth is, I have done my work, I have and stil does MY repents for MY life while I tryed to enlighten others, my only goal, nothing else than to awake people, from then on Im free.
The Imam mahdi, is a teacher, not a superman.
I know, I look exactly as writen about Him, see that and you see me.
Im sorry its short, but the main issues is covered.
The fifth, the war on white people/blue eyes, is true.
It is a war between light and drakness, and right now its pitch blak, no light anywhere, is it our fault, no, is it religions fault, nope, MAN is doing this, our Creatore is horrifyed and deeply insulted.
Thrue the years I have given those that see, everything they need, oour own minds is the clue to everything, it took me a decade to manage Lucid dreaming, and then push it further to the other side, but I stopped, since I have realised the present level of knowedge and wisdom is so bad that I dont bother to do that anymore, some have, and I know they are slowly realising what I talk about, this reality is a dream, the other side is the reality, not this side.
Il leave this to you, are you wurthy or not to be saved, because My creatore only asks one question, what did you do to others.
Never ever forgett that.
Love life and life loves you back.
wake up
peace
Salam mikael,
Excellent post. Fully agree about no saviour. Mehdi is a title and not a name, and it means “guide”. He will help us from being savages, back to human beings again.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
Salam mikael,
The central theme in Quran is that man is the oppressor. Throughout history, man has oppressed each other, so what is happening right now is nothing new. Whoever, is in power will oppress the weak, even to the point that we oppress our spouses, children, parents, loved ones and so forth.
The weak will cry for help, but it is the law of nature. The big fish will always eat the small fish, but the small fish will clean the big fish for food and this ensure the survival of the big fish.
Best regards,
Mohamed.
@Anonymous 1:57
Totally hysterical.
Please make this go viral..:)))
@eimar,
I agree ! lol I have sent that photo link posted by Anonymous to everyone!.
Cheers!
Regards,
Carmel by the Sea
I do not think any human being, including Sheikh Imran N. Hosein, have any certainty about what lies ahead, although, obviously, a keen observer, and informed, may well connect the dots and draw some conclusions.
What I find fatal in such predictions / prophecies is the sense of inevitability of what is to come, that, however much we try, our destiny is inescapable…… Maybe, but the Sheikh could very well be wrong on something, as he points out every so often during his lectures, and times do not have to conform to what he estimates…..
In this sense:
What if the advent of The Malhama is not as imminent and we have some leeway, at least those who are already given up by The Hadiths ( read Europeans ) to do something to improve our existence here and now or in the foreseeable future ?
What if the good citizens of Israel as well, that there will be, I suppose, do something to change the direction of their government?
What if Americans do the same with theirs?
Accordingly to this, is it that we should stop all fighting and leave all the work to the Mahdi Army?
I do not think. It is better to prepare the way, although some, according to the Sheik, we will not see the time of peace, justice, prosperity and love for all.
Some have already done so before, and without reward, only dreaming better times, they worried, fought and even gave their lives for the welfare of others. These are the only angels I’ve seen on this earth. Those angels called Ernesto ( Ché Guevara ) or Ignacio ( Ellacuría )….and many others along time and history…..
From today’s perspective, they were still very far from The Malhama, as far as knowing they would never see the “promised perfect world”, and yet they never stopped fighting to make this so imperfect world a more livable, more digestible place ……
MOSCOW, October 28. /TASS/. Russia is set to protect the rights of compatriots living abroad, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said in an exclusive interview with TASS ahead of the World Congress of Compatriots.
“We are set to defend the rights of compatriots in need, to enhance their public and cultural activity and the sphere of their education,” Karasin said. “We categorically reject attempts to cultivate suspicions against Russian communities abroad and to label them as ‘the fifth column’ in the countries of their residence.”
“We can see our compatriots as active and loyal citizens for their countries,” he said. “Along with this, naturally we will not stand any discrimination against them. We will help advocate for their rights with commonly recognized legal methods.”
“Moscow welcomes consolidation of the Russian community abroad and unity of people with common culture, history and the Russian language,” the deputy foreign minister said. “However, protection of legitimate rights of the compatriots, wherever they are, remains top priority, primarily, on the basis of national legislation of relevant countries.”
Moscow concerned with situation with compatriots in Ukraine
Russia closely watches all cases of persecution of Russian compatriots abroad, including in Ukraine, Grigory Karasin went on to say.”
eg
MOSCOW, October 29. /TASS/. The Kremlin will take all necessary legal protection measures, following the seizure of the state media holding VGTRK’s shares in the French company Euronews S.A., the operator of Euronews TV Channel, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Thursday.
“The Kremlin knows about this and all legal efforts are under way to protect the legitimate interests of the Russian Federation and its property,” Peskov told journalists.
© AP Photo/Laurent Cipriani
Russian state media holding confirms seizure of its stake in Euronews TV channel
Russian state media holding’s stake in Euronews TV channel seized over Yukos case
Russia’s state media holding VGTRK confirmed to TASS on Thursday that its stake in the French company Euronews S.A., the operator of the international news channel Euronews, had been seized under lawsuits filed by former Yukos shareholders.
“We confirm the fact of the seizure of our shares but cannot any longer comment on this so far. All the details will be available following the end of judicial proceedings,” the VGTRK press office said.
Media reports earlier said VGTRK’s 7.5% stake in the French Euronews S.A. operating Euronews TV Channel was among the assets seized abroad under lawsuits filed by former shareholders of the now defunct oil giant Yukos.”
and
MOSCOW, October 27. /TASS/. Moscow is resentful at the refusal of a New York court’s refusal to revise the criminal case against Russian businessman Viktor Bout, who is serving a 25-year sentence in a US high security jail on charges of arranging illegal arms sales, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday.
“We consider this ruling as another politicized step of the US judicial system, which is obviously implementing a political contract,” she said.
“We demand the United States authorities put an end to arbitrariness in respect of the Russian citizen,” she stressed. “We will continue to take efforts using all available legal and political mechanisms to have Bout’s rights observed and have him return home.”
————————————————
Maria has done her weekly Ministry of foreign Affairs presentation today-has emphasised the propaganda from western media etc
eg re russians bombing civilians, hospitals, which have not been proved.
All this hostility….definitely a different consensus among the commenters here than from even as recent as 6 months ago.
Too bad the sheik isn’t a rabbi talking from a Judaic perspective that is critical of Islam and not critical of zionism.
http://www.anna-news.info/comment/reply/45997
http://www.anna-news.info/comment/reply/45996
Segei Glazyov talking about rus economy
crisis happen because of poor management of the economy
Eschatology is a weapon. AngloZionists are the true masters of manipulating belief. From Wahabis to British Hindus and a thousand other sects of all religions, they’ve been playing this game for centuries.
Don’t fall for it.
Since IH is not much good for Muslims who know their faith, he haunts the places like the Saker blog and its demographic.
TO Imran N. Hosein, Thank you for the lecture you did in Malaysia 24 Oct. Thank you for what you said about arrogance and the arrogant – about not quoting out of context, but from understanding the whole – and thank you for what you said about Russia and that good will win over evil. I KNOW that is true.
I don’t find the Sheik’s comments on Western Christianity at all fair. He dismisses it with a wave of the hand, referring to the Santa Claus myth. Of course he also refers to the pedophilia and the empty monastaries. I would like to suggest that the Western branch of Christianity, as embodied in the Catholic Church, is in crisis and is being attacked on all sides, as Jesus himself stated would happen in the end times. The Church has been infiltrated by hostile elements such as freemasons, who were very enthusiastic when Bergoglio was made pope. There are even photos of Bergoglio using the hidden hand gesture as well.
The Church is suffering greatly in these times and is repeating in herself the sufferings of Jesus. She has been gravely harmed since Vatican II. It is important to understand that the Church has been undermined from within and without precisely because she is the true Church and therefore has determined enemies.
Nevertheless, Jesus said that even the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. Devout Catholics are the Church and they too are suffering greatly. There is persecution of Christians all over the world, but, in addition, there is the suffering that comes from the contempt and disdain that others show for Catholics and other Christians as individuals and for the Church as the Bride of Christ.
There is a great tradition of mysticism in the Church all predicated on the love of God. One only needs to look at great saints, such as St. Francis of Assisi to see this love in action.
I beg the Sheik to open his heart to those suffering Christians whose only desire is to do the will of God and to follow Jesus, whether they be Orthodox or Catholic, or other denominations whose adherents follow the Way of the Cross.