What's the Point/Purpose of Humanism, for Atheist?

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

Your post -

sum wrote:Please tell me what right have Muhammad and other muslims to impose Islamic laws on other innocent people living as they choose by their own laws in their own lands.

only if they are dealing with muslims, like killing one of muslim!

Absolute rubbish. You really do post nonsense, don`t you. Please give references for what you claim.

sum

[Garudaman]

QS. 42:39. And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves,

QS. 42:40. And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah. Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.

QS. 42:41. And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].

QS. 42:42. The cause is only against the ones who wrong the people and tyrannize upon the earth without right. Those will have a painful punishment.

QS. 42:43. And whoever is patient and forgives - indeed, that is of the matters [requiring] determination.

[frankie]

QS. 42:39. And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves,

QS. 42:40. And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation - his reward is [due] from Allah. Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers.

QS. 42:41. And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged - those have not upon them any cause [for blame].

QS. 42:42. The cause is only against the ones who wrong the people and tyrannize upon the earth without right. Those will have a painful punishment.

QS. 42:43. And whoever is patient and forgives - indeed, that is of the matters [requiring] determination.

Garudaman:

The Quran and example of Mohammed are said to be Allahs eternal guidance, to enable (only) Muslims save their souls from the fires of hell,which you would have to agree with.

If the Quran is Allahs literal word to Muslims which cannot be changed,not an historical record of past events, it has to be true in every sense of the word,and should not be contradictory, even to the point of previous revelations said to come from the same source.

The Quran fails on all counts.

Allah shows himself to be a discriminatory tyrant who only has "forgiveness" to those who believe in him and Mohammed shown in (just one of many examples) in surah 9.80.

Allah commands Muslims to fight in his cause,if they want to escape the hellfire promised to those who just sit at home 9.81 - 9-90

Mohammed fought in Allahs cause by fighting and killing those who did not believe in what he believed,he advanced his newly invented religion Islam, by killing people for his pagan god.Islam found its way to other lands by fighting, plundering and enslaving to further Allahs cause.Muslims around the world are still killing Non Muslims because of their faith, e.g.Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan are all places where Christians are loosing their lives because they have a different faith to Muslims.

Muslims are killing their co-religionists by the thousands,they say for freedoms sake.What sort of freedom are they talking about? Allahs freedom,or man made freedom.The men they want replaced are/were Muslims,who presumably are/were not putting in place Allahs rules correctly enough.

The common denominator to all this madness is Islam.Islam is the key driver,which perpectuates mass destruction of peoples and lands,which is escalating throughout the Middle East.

And Muslims want to live by Allahs rules?

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

You persist in posting rubbish. What you posted does not relate to my question. All you are doing is posting any sort of reply, whether relevant or not, in order create the impression that you have a reasonable response. You fool nobody but yourself.

Please now go back and answer my question.

sum

[Garudaman]

still relevant, sharia punishment for who wrong muslim (whether muslim or not)!

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

I find it hard to tell whether you really are deficient intellectually or simply a troll. Either way, you are not answering the question that I asked you.

Please go back to the question, read it properly and then answer what it is asking.

sum

[Garudaman]

Please tell me what right have Muhammad and other muslims to impose Islamic laws on other innocent people living as they choose by their own laws in their own lands.

muslims will not impose Islamic law on the people who don't deal with them, even muslims permitted to not impose Islamic law on themselves :

QS. 4:59. O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

You are doing it again. Please answer my question with your own opinion.

Your quote does not address my question at all.

sum

[Garudaman]

so the answer should be what? give an example!

[manfred]

dear sum,

I think his answer is the verse he quoted. I goes back to this:

Most people would refer to the golden rule to decide if something is acceptable or not. Muslims, however, do not. They refer to the Qur'an and the sunnah. "Is this right?" would amongst most people result in a discussion, and almost always the end result would be a reference to the simple golden rule. "Would we like to be treated like that?"

This discussion does not take place in Muslim circles. Instead, ANY such question is settled by reference to the Qu'an or the dubious example of Mohammed.

....if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger...

Garudaman is telling us that the treatment of non-Muslims is clearly set out in the Qur'an and in sunnah. So that is his answer.


Sadly it reminds me of the answer of a cult member... the question of right and wrong is reduced to what the cult leader would do in that situation.

[sum]

Hello Garudaman

The answer should be that Muhammad had no right to invade, or threaten with war, people of other nations who lived in peace with their own laws and customs in order to establish Islam and himself as prophet.

sum

[Garudaman]

who says Muhammad the Messenger of God do that?

[manfred]

who says Muhammad the Messenger of God do that?

Ibn Ishaq, for example.


Shall we have a look was early MUSLIM sources and and historians tell us?

[Nosuperstition]

Gandhi was a clever and principled man, but he either was either mistaken about the nature of Islam or he tried to use Muslims for his political aims

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=14244&p=191162&hilit=clever#p191162

Yes he knew what supporters of colonialism such as Winston Churchill were saying,if you give independance to India,its people will fight on lines of religion and caste.Much like what Yohan says colonialism was O.K as people of subcontinent riot unendingly over trivial issues such as beef and pork.

He was also a very clever politician who know that he could not achieve his aims without at least some support of the Indian Muslims. So he did what needed to be done in his view

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2395&p=115637&hilit=clever#p115637

On 30 January 1948, a few months after India gained its independence from Great Britain, he awakened at Birla House in Delhi at an early hour, 3:00 a.m., to continue his work hammering out solutions to the problems that plagued his land. That morning, he labored on a draft of a new constitution for the Indian National Congress, stressing as usual his major concerns for his newly independent and strife-ridden nation: that villages be empowered, that discrimination based on the caste system be abolished, that religious intolerance and violence between Hindus and Muslims cease. Still distraught over the partitioning of his land into a Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, he had weakened himself after independence through fasts and hunger strikes staged as satyagraha, .or “truth and firmness,” protests against the killings of Hindus and Muslims and the mistreatment of Pakistan. He weighed a mere 107 pounds that day

http://dev5.mhhe.com/textflowdev/genhtml/0073385646/37.htm

But he seemed more principled than clever.According to Hinduwoman he believed in the Hindu concept of existence of sin due to us all belonging to Kali Yug.Some nut case religious concept.That is because as soon as independance is achieved he did not try to dispose off Muslims from India and get all Hindus into India from Pakistan which is what a clever politician would have done so that there may be no more Hindu-Muslim rioting and so that there may not exist a future ticking demographic religious bomb.

[Nosuperstition]

Yes, because I remember the echoes coming out of and againGujarat of pain and agony, of women getting ganged raped in front of their families, of men sliced into pieces by rampaging mobs, of the leader of the riot movement getting re-elected again

The Pakistani Army in Bangladesh committed horrendous atrocities of rape and torture particularly on Hindu women and perpetrated a genocide of millions of Hindus in 1971.They pierced the women with swords in their private parts.

According to patriot of Old Forum,India fed more people than what it could actually feed as its intelligence inputs said that muslims would overpopulate Hindus,its majority if it does not resort to such measures.According to police reports though 33,000 people died in riots since independance with no of Hindus to Muslims being in ratio 1:3,in most cases muslims first started riots due to religious frenzy.

When I read that due to overpopulation even caste violence is on rise due to demand and supply equations,yes I do feel sometimes that had partition happened with complete population exchange followed by population control,we too would have seen a phenomenal rise that would have equalled that of China which does not have the minority problem.

They say that gattu meeda koorchuni enni neetulaina cheppavachu.You sit on the safe ground and then can lecture others on morality which is what Western people posing like muslims such as Balls might be doing.

The only case where provocation could be from Hindus is the Babri Masjid demolition incident.Even here Hindutva leader such as Vajpayee said they would not have stirred the Babri Masjid issue had not the then government resorted to dividing Hindus based on affirmative action policies.(He said there is no need for Kamandal if the Mandal issue had not been propped up).They are such atheists to the core.

[Nosuperstition]

Gandhi was able to force atheist Ambedkar and his followers to back off from their demand for seperate electorate for Dalits which would have resulted in another country other than India and Pakistan in 1947 for Dalits by threat of fast unto death,but he simply was not able to force muslims/ to persuade muslims away from attaining seperate electorates and abandon violence for the sake of seperate country.It would be another matter that new untouchables would have been created in both India and supposed Dalitistan as someone is needed to do jobs considered dirty.

Ambedkar was afraid that if Gandhi died,riots would break out in which huge number of Dalits would get killed by caste Hindus as they regarded him as "Mahatma" or great soul.So one can use persuasion against sensible atheists but not on religionists.

[Nosuperstition]

Before I forget, mono, you seem to frequently suggest that all things pagan are bad and must be avoided at all costs.

All pagans since time immemorial breathed air. So when are you ceasing this filthy pagan habit?

Pagan Arabs killed their weaker sex by infanticide.Muslim Arabs stopped the filthy habit and went for wars of conquest on others and were successful in spreading far and wide.Much like Christians abhorring the vile , devilish practice of abortion and infanticide and considering not belonging to such Jalhiliaya periods and cultures as something of a new life,a new birth and a new beginning sans all that past unsavory baggage.

Before Christianity, abortion was also commonplace, and the only know method of birth control, other than, of course, killing the baby. Afterwards, it was obviously still practiced, but less openly.

/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=13794&p=189309&hilit=slaves#p189309

Someone in the Old forum said that since people of subcontinent could bring the non-native religion of Buddhism to the Chinese,Christians also are entitled to do the same to the native cultures.But Buddhism adopted traditional Chinese ancestral worship whereas in Christianity you should not worship anyone other than God or his Christ incarnate as per the 1st or 2nd commandments and in Islam you should not associate partners in worship of Allah.Also one Chinese Emperor remarked that Buddhism the foreign religion shall remain only as one wing of Chinese religious bird , the other being native Confucianism.

Still saints are venerated in both the religions but saints are select few in number characterized by extraordinary morals/sacrifices/achievements and hence saint worship and ancestral worship cannot be compared.Ancestral worship means honoring your cultural heritage whereas lack of it means having no pride in your collective ancestral heritage and distancing from it citing its shortcomings.

[Nosuperstition]

Islam also supposedly stopped the practice of human sacrifice to Venus,the Arabs have thus been cleansed of that despicable ancestral baggage.Much like Christianity putting an end to gladiatorial fights held in Rome at a later date (the events being held in respect of your ancestors).Much similiar to Buddha rejecting the authority of the Vedas of Hinduism so that animal sacrifices can be put to an end.However the same Buddhism adopted Chinese ancestral worship in China and Hindus adopted the stress on vegetarian diet from Buddhism.

[Nosuperstition]

Rainbow it is obvious Gandhi was using another’s phraseology. However the Hindu concept of yugadharma was surely a powerful influence.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewt ... ght=#34567

Yugadharma or Kali yug dharma is the prism from which Gandhi tried to look at and reconcile with Islam.

[Exene]

4:36. Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful.

for theists, humanism usually is command of God! how about atheists? what's the point/purpose of humanism, for atheists?

Are you doing good because you're a good person, or because God tells you to do good and gives you a reward in paradise for good deeds?

Tell me who is more selfish -- the people who do good because God says and because there's a reward, or those who do good even if they know they will get nothing for it in return and no reward because they don't believe in paradise?