Jump to content
mohsenhona

Why science cannot prove ‘There is no God’?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

No, a working universe is nothing but proof of a working universe.  The working universe is god.  The same reason you give for why your god does not need a creator is the same reason why the universe does not need a creator because the universe itself is god.

Lol, its a positive change that you come to admit something as a God. Now, let me take you to another side. Firstly, I will like you tell you that everything which undergoes changes is not God. This reason of this is that every thing which causes it to change is stronger than the thing to whom it is causing change. For example:- Time, space, gases and other properties of universe are changing universe continously.  So, it means that universe is governed by them and it is helpless against them like we are helpless against time. Secondly, the one who made universe helpless before those things is God himself and all time, space and energy are his creation which defines limits of creations. And about your confusion as to who created God you gave answer yourself by believing self-existence when you mentioned about universe as God but I pointed out to you that self-existence and non-influence defines God to which your universe failed but my God qualifies for it as He has influence over all things but things do not influence it. 

Edited by Danish14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Danish14 said:

time, space and energy are his creation

If anyone (theist or non-theist) claims that something caused time to exist, then that person is wrong. It is logically impossible for anything to cause time to exist. 

If time has been caused to exist, then it must have passed from a state of non-existence into existence. But changes in state occur within time, so if there was no time when time didn't exist, then it could not possibly change its state and come into existence.
(In the absence of time nothing can change.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Quisant said:

It is logically impossible for anything to cause time to exist. 

It is also logically impossible for anything to cause the laws of thermodynamics to exist. But something did that somehow anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quisant said:

If anyone (theist or non-theist) claims that something caused time to exist, then that person is wrong. It is logically impossible for anything to cause time to exist. 

If time has been caused to exist, then it must have passed from a state of non-existence into existence. But changes in state occur within time, so if there was no time when time didn't exist, then it could not possibly change its state and come into existence.
(In the absence of time nothing can change.) 

What you are saying is not sensible. Time is a property that is assigned to things by a creator and God Himself assigned it to things that he created and prescribed time for their variations. Time came into existence when things came into existence. If there is not creation, there is no time. If there is creation, there is time. If you establish nuclear facility, you will have created time for its decommissioning when they will be closed and likewise there is age for universe too which is fixed by God himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quisant said:

If anyone (theist or non-theist) claims that something caused time to exist, then that person is wrong. It is logically impossible for anything to cause time to exist. 

If time has been caused to exist, then it must have passed from a state of non-existence into existence. But changes in state occur within time, so if there was no time when time didn't exist, then it could not possibly change its state and come into existence.
(In the absence of time nothing can change.) 

In our time yes.

Is God's time the same as ours?

One could say, nothing exists that isnt in the 3 dimensions, now this maybe true for things within our universe, but it is not necessarily true in itself.

One could imagine a scenario where there is created time, which is a dimension, like weight, and then there maybe God time which is the framework in which God operates. The point is that you can not extrapolate assumptions to God.

 

These exact issues were raised with the Imams AS, eg How can Allah exist before there was space? How did Allah exist before time?

H 238, Ch. 6, h7
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated in a marfu‘ manner from Zurara who has said
the following:
“Once I asked (Imam) abu Ja’far, recipient of divine supreme
covenant, ‘Did Allah exist when there was nothing?’ The Imam
replied, ‘Certainly, Allah existed when there was nothing.’ I
further inquired, ‘Where did Allah exist?’ The Imam was
leaning; he then sat up and said, ‘O Zurara, you spoke of the
impossible. You ask about space where there is no space.’”

 

H 239, Ch. 6, h8
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad from Muhammad ibn
al-Walid from ibn abu Nasr from abu al-Hassan al-Muwsali who has narrated the
following from abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant,:
“Once a rabbi, hibr, came to Imam Ali, recipient of divine
supreme covenant, and asked, ‘O Amir al-Mu’minin, when did
your Lord come into existence?’ Imam Ali, recipient of divine
supreme covenant, replied, ‘Consider carefully. The question
when applies to one who did not exist (and then came into
being). When does not apply to the One Who is eternal. He was
before the before without before and after the after without an
after. He is not the end of a certain end so that His end would
also end.’ He then asked, ‘Are you a prophet?’ Imam Ali,
recipient of divine supreme covenant, replied, ‘Bereft of you be
your mother! I am a slave among the slaves of the Messenger of
Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant.’”
Note: The words ‘was’ ‘is’ and so forth do not apply in the
case of the existence of Allah. The use of such words is due to
shortcomings of language in which we seek to express the fact of
Allah’s being, to which the factor of time cannot apply.

 

The final point is that rationalisation of Allah is condemned : 

H 245, Ch. 8, h2
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn abu
‘Umayr from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Hajjaj from Sulayman ibn Khalid from
(Imam) abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, who said the
following:
“The words of Allah, the Majestic, the Glorious that say, ‘And
that the final end is unto thy Lord’ (53:42) instruct people to end
a discussion that may take up Allah’s Self as an object of
investigation.’”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

In our time yes.

Is God's time the same as ours?

One could say, nothing exists that isnt in the 3 dimensions, now this maybe true for things within our universe, but it is not necessarily true in itself.

One could imagine a scenario where there is created time, which is a dimension, like weight, and then there maybe God time which is the framework in which God operates. The point is that you can not extrapolate assumptions to God.

 

These exact issues were raised with the Imams AS, eg How can Allah exist before there was space? How did Allah exist before time?

H 238, Ch. 6, h7
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated in a marfu‘ manner from Zurara who has said
the following:
“Once I asked (Imam) abu Ja’far, recipient of divine supreme
covenant, ‘Did Allah exist when there was nothing?’ The Imam
replied, ‘Certainly, Allah existed when there was nothing.’ I
further inquired, ‘Where did Allah exist?’ The Imam was
leaning; he then sat up and said, ‘O Zurara, you spoke of the
impossible. You ask about space where there is no space.’”

 

H 239, Ch. 6, h8
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from Sahl ibn Ziyad from Muhammad ibn
al-Walid from ibn abu Nasr from abu al-Hassan al-Muwsali who has narrated the
following from abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant,:
“Once a rabbi, hibr, came to Imam Ali, recipient of divine
supreme covenant, and asked, ‘O Amir al-Mu’minin, when did
your Lord come into existence?’ Imam Ali, recipient of divine
supreme covenant, replied, ‘Consider carefully. The question
when applies to one who did not exist (and then came into
being). When does not apply to the One Who is eternal. He was
before the before without before and after the after without an
after. He is not the end of a certain end so that His end would
also end.’ He then asked, ‘Are you a prophet?’ Imam Ali,
recipient of divine supreme covenant, replied, ‘Bereft of you be
your mother! I am a slave among the slaves of the Messenger of
Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant.’”
Note: The words ‘was’ ‘is’ and so forth do not apply in the
case of the existence of Allah. The use of such words is due to
shortcomings of language in which we seek to express the fact of
Allah’s being, to which the factor of time cannot apply.

 

The final point is that rationalisation of Allah is condemned : 

H 245, Ch. 8, h2
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn abu
‘Umayr from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Hajjaj from Sulayman ibn Khalid from
(Imam) abu ‘Abd Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, who said the
following:
“The words of Allah, the Majestic, the Glorious that say, ‘And
that the final end is unto thy Lord’ (53:42) instruct people to end
a discussion that may take up Allah’s Self as an object of
investigation.’”

 

 

Brother pardon me but I tell you that He is creator of time and time is at his finger points. If He wishes he stops it, if He wishes he starts it. So, once I read about Imam Ali a.s who said God is time and this meant that even time cannot start without God's permission so the realm of time is also in His hands. Like he causes Mars to have only days and no nights and like He (SWT) gave long life to hazrat khizr a.s so God is master of time as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Danish14 said:

Lol, its a positive change that you come to admit something as a God. Now, let me take you to another side. Firstly, I will like you tell you that everything which undergoes changes is not God. This reason of this is that every thing which causes it to change is stronger than the thing to whom it is causing change. For example:- Time, space, gases and other properties of universe are changing universe continously.  So, it means that universe is governed by them and it is helpless against them like we are helpless against time. Secondly, the one who made universe helpless before those things is God himself and all time, space and energy are his creation which defines limits of creations. And about your confusion as to who created God you gave answer yourself by believing self-existence when you mentioned about universe as God but I pointed out to you that self-existence and non-influence defines God to which your universe failed but my God qualifies for it as He has influence over all things but things do not influence it. 

 

17 hours ago, Danish14 said:

Lol, its a positive change that you come to admit something as a God. Now, let me take you to another side. Firstly, I will like you tell you that everything which undergoes changes is not God. This reason of this is that every thing which causes it to change is stronger than the thing to whom it is causing change. For example:- Time, space, gases and other properties of universe are changing universe continously.  So, it means that universe is governed by them and it is helpless against them like we are helpless against time. Secondly, the one who made universe helpless before those things is God himself and all time, space and energy are his creation which defines limits of creations. And about your confusion as to who created God you gave answer yourself by believing self-existence when you mentioned about universe as God but I pointed out to you that self-existence and non-influence defines God to which your universe failed but my God qualifies for it as He has influence over all things but things do not influence it. 

The universe as a whole is unchanging with its eternal laws by which everything within it abides.  The laws do not change are eternal.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Danish14 said:

What you are saying is not sensible. Time is a property that is assigned to things by a creator and God Himself assigned it to things that he created and prescribed time for their variations. Time came into existence when things came into existence. If there is not creation, there is no time. If there is creation, there is time. If you establish nuclear facility, you will have created time for its decommissioning when they will be closed and likewise there is age for universe too which is fixed by God himself.

What quisant is saying is that TIME itself cannot begin at a point IN TIME and cannot end at a point in TIME.  We cannot use time to measure time.  For something to be in time means that it has a before and an after.  If time began and if it will end, then time itself would have to be in time... And this is absurd.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

 

The universe as a whole is unchanging with its eternal laws by which everything within it abides.  The laws do not change are eternal.  

hahahahaha,

1. Laws are unchanging but universe is changing (read about universe in point 2 below) because these laws are of God himself. His laws are eternal as is He. To every action there is an equal reaction. This is not only valid in physics in material world but it is also true in world of spirituality. If you do good deeds, you will be rewarded in response and if you do bad deeds, you will get punishment if not corporal then spiritual as you become hard-heart.

2. you are wrong about universe that it is unchanging. Because, there were some atheist scientists that believed like you gave theory that universe was static but when Edwin Hubble's observations proved that universe is not steady but changing all hopes of atheist's were put to end because universe was not static as proved by observation. so, what are you talking about huh ? Universe has been changing and it will always change like you cannot avert changes of aging universe cannot change it too. Do not fool yourself by denying facts please. It is not good for you :)

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

What quisant is saying is that TIME itself cannot begin at a point IN TIME and cannot end at a point in TIME.  We cannot use time to measure time.  For something to be in time means that it has a before and an after.  If time began and if it will end, then time itself would have to be in time... And this is absurd.  

Although time is abstract but we measure it by our way by counting it into years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds....and this is because God made us time dependent as we grow and get old by time. But for God there is not time because He is self-existing and eternal. Time is measurable for mortal things but for eternal there is not time. And, God made for you sun and moon so that you may measure time so how can you say that time cannot be measured as we measure it by revolution of earth around sun as year and revolution around itself for hours. Parameters of time are fixed by God and He will set parameters for it as he wants. Time is at his will.

 

 

Edited by Danish14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, May 08, 2016 at 10:20 AM, eThErEaL said:

So as I already explained, science is based on inferences.  It makes inferences about certain things.  Do you know what an "inference" is? We can make inferences about whether there is a Flying Invisible Spaghetti Monster even though we haven't looked at every single corner of the universe and even though it is invisible and cannot possibly be detected.  In the same way, science can make an inference that god does not exist.  This is because it is just as absurd to infer that there is a flying invisible spaghetti monster.  The fact of the matter is that we KNOW that an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, and we know this even though it cannot be detected.  It is a scientific fact that there are no invisible flying spaghetti monsters.  It is just an imagination and so is god.  

Well, thats true from the evidence you have. Edison believed in God and he had experience of him. What should be done is to provide evidence of current miracles to the world of science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

What quisant is saying is that TIME itself cannot begin at a point IN TIME and cannot end at a point in TIME.  We cannot use time to measure time.  For something to be in time means that it has a before and an after.  If time began and if it will end, then time itself would have to be in time... And this is absurd.  

Time is relative. It can be measured compared to some other time. 

Edited by sefket83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 

The universe as a whole is unchanging with its eternal laws by which everything within it abides.  The laws do not change are eternal.  

Because you have no evidence of the laws changing you infer that they allways will be that way. The laws of the Universe do have start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Quisant said:

If anyone (theist or non-theist) claims that something caused time to exist, then that person is wrong. It is logically impossible for anything to cause time to exist. 

If time has been caused to exist, then it must have passed from a state of non-existence into existence. But changes in state occur within time, so if there was no time when time didn't exist, then it could not possibly change its state and come into existence.
(In the absence of time nothing can change.) 

Finite time exists, you can say that finite time itself has no cause. That is what Stephen Hawkings also says. On the other hand it is not illogical either to say that something which is infinite created finite time if it has the ability to create something out off nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sefket83 said:

Well, thats true from the evidence you have. Edison believed in God and he had experience of him. What should be done is to provide evidence of current miracles to the world of science. 

Miracles are not bound by scientific parameters. I consider it to be beyond the scope of physical science to understand them and they are not often repeated but for a cause. These are associated with the belief of person. A person having pure beliefs can understand happening of miracles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Danish14 said:

Miracles are not bound by scientific parameters. I consider it to be beyond the scope of physical science to understand them and they are not often repeated but for a cause. These are associated with the belief of person. A person having pure beliefs can understand happening of miracles. 

What do you mean with to understand them? 

Kindly, Sefket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sefket83 said:

What do you mean with to understand them? 

Kindly, Sefket

Understanding them requires:

1. Who are invested with the authority among humans to perform miracles.  These are only pure and infallible such as Prophets and infallible imams.

2. Only believers believe in miracles and non-believers do not understand it and doubts.

Many things are there but these are the two major things which I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Danish14 said:

Understanding them requires:

1. Who are invested with the authority among humans to perform miracles.  These are only pure and infallible such as Prophets and infallible imams.

2. Only believers believe in miracles and non-believers do not understand it and doubts.

Many things are there but these are the two major things which I mentioned.

It is true only those that are ready to believe can understand them for what they are.

I think I do not understand the first thing, do you want to say we normal humans can not understand them unless we are infallible? Please have patients with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sefket83 said:

It is true only those that are ready to believe can understand them for what they are.

I think I do not understand the first thing, do you want to say we normal humans can not understand them unless we are infallible? Please have patients with me.

I do not say that normal people cannot understand, I say that among normal men only believers will believer in miracles. And, I say that miracles are of two types. 

1. Miracles that are done by Allah (SWT) such as He concealed the birth of Hazrat Moses a.s so that paroh do not hurt him anyway.

2. Allah (SWT) also grants miracles to his chosen ones such as Prophets and our 12 Infallible Imams and that condition is reserved for pure ones who are infallible and are not inclined to any sin and who always have science at their finger tips. Moses's stick divided ocean into two halves for passage with the aid of God. Jesus brought dead into life with the help of Allah (SWT). Our beloved Prophet (PBUHHP) divided moon into two halves, Imam Ali a.s took the door of khyber on his hand which required 40 strongmen to move.

3. God also grants also miracles to certain human beings besides Prophets and infallible Imams but their criteria is also purity of soul and staunch belief in God some of these examples are like Hakeem Luqman a.s who was doctor and Allah (SWT) gave him such knowledge that he possessed cure of every disease except death and doubt.

In Quran, Allah (SWT) says that at the day of judgement Allah (SWT) will not speak to the wrong-doers. This is also true for this world because whoever have belief in Allah (SWT) will be rewarded by Allah (SWT) by any best gift such as gift of Islam which is biggest of miracles. So, it depends upon purity.

Edited by Danish14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Danish14 said:

I do not say that normal people cannot understand, I say that among normal men only believers will believer in miracles. And, I say that miracles are of two types. 

1. Miracles that are done by Allah (SWT) such as He concealed the birth of Hazrat Moses a.s so that paroh do not hurt him anyway.

2. Allah (SWT) also grants miracles to his chosen ones such as Prophets and our 12 Infallible Imams and that condition is reserved for pure ones who are infallible and are not inclined to any sin and who always have science at their finger tips. Moses's stick divided ocean into two halves for passage with the aid of God. Jesus brought dead into life with the help of Allah (SWT). Our beloved Prophet (PBUHHP) divided moon into two halves, Imam Ali a.s took the door of khyber on his hand which required 40 strongmen to move.

3. God also grants also miracles to certain human beings besides Prophets and infallible Imams but their criteria is also purity of soul and staunch belief in God some of these examples are like Hakeem Luqman a.s who was doctor and Allah (SWT) gave him such knowledge that he possessed cure of every disease except death and doubt.

In Quran, Allah (SWT) says that at the day of judgement Allah (SWT) will not speak to the wrong-doers. This is also true for this world because whoever have belief in Allah (SWT) will be rewarded by Allah (SWT) by any best gift such as gift of Islam which is biggest of miracles. So, it depends upon purity.

I get it now dear brother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Danish14 said:

Miracles are not bound by scientific parameters. I consider it to be beyond the scope of physical science to understand them and they are not often repeated but for a cause. 

Assume it is true that Allah (swt) preserves the bodies of martyrs so their blood is fresh. This could be verified by anyone. Imagine the most knowledgable phycists started to study the laws of these miracles. Probably they would be different from what they ever have observed and searching for the cause of this new set of laws the only evidence they would have is the explanation of the Quran. A theory of phycists would be born.

Edited by sefket83

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, sefket83 said:

Assume it is true that Allah (swt) preserves the bodies of martyrs so their blood is fresh. This could be verified by anyone. Imagine the most knowledgable phycists started to study the laws of these miracles. Probably they would be different from what they ever have observed and searching for the cause of this new set of laws the only evidence they would have is the explanation of the Quran. A theory of phycists would be born.

Every knowledge comes out of the ocean and that ocean of knowledge is the absolute Knowledgeable. Science is too infant in these days to understand the miracles because it is just focusing on apparent things parting ways from metaphysics and spirituality. Secondly, existing science is just a fraction of the single drop of the absolute knowledgeable and it is from Him that knowledge has gushed forth because He willed it so. And, for understanding His (SWT) ways, it must take account of all forms of knowledge including spirituality and metaphysics who knows that science is searching for knowledge in material things but it is not there and is in abstract ones whom it is neglecting. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Danish14 said:

Every knowledge comes out of the ocean and that ocean of knowledge is the absolute Knowledgeable. Science is too infant in these days to understand the miracles because it is just focusing on apparent things parting ways from metaphysics and spirituality. Secondly, existing science is just a fraction of the single drop of the absolute knowledgeable and it is from Him that knowledge has gushed forth because He willed it so. And, for understanding His (SWT) ways, it must take account of all forms of knowledge including spirituality and metaphysics who knows that science is searching for knowledge in material things but it is not there and is in abstract ones whom it is neglecting. 

 

You are right we can not understand the ways of our most merciful lord, but he requires of us to act on that which is knowable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salam What do you want to know?
    • وَأَمَّا الْجِدَارُ فَكَانَ لِغُلَامَيْنِ يَتِيمَيْنِ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ تَحْتَهُ كَنْزٌ لَهُمَا وَكَانَ أَبُوهُمَا صَالِحًا فَأَرَادَ رَبُّكَ أَنْ يَبْلُغَا أَشُدَّهُمَا وَيَسْتَخْرِجَا كَنْزَهُمَا رَحْمَةً مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۚ وَمَا فَعَلْتُهُ عَنْ أَمْرِي ۚ ذَٰلِكَ تَأْوِيلُ مَا لَمْ تَسْطِعْ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرًا {82} [Shakir 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father was a righteous man; so your Lord desired that they should attain their maturity and take out their treasure, a mercy from your Lord, and I did not do it of my own accord. This is the significance of that with which you could not have patience.
      [Pickthal 18:82] And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure belonging to them, and their father had been righteous, and thy Lord intended that they should come to their full strength and should bring forth their treasure as a mercy from their Lord; and I did it not upon my own command. Such is the interpretation of that wherewith thou couldst not bear.
      [Yusufali 18:82] "As for the wall, it belonged to two youths, orphans, in the Town; there was, beneath it, a buried treasure, to which they were entitled: their father had been a righteous man: So thy Lord desired that they should attain their age of full strength and get out their treasure - a mercy (and favour) from thy Lord. I did it not of my own accord. Such is the interpretation of (those things) over which thou wast unable to hold patience." ***** Whatever is in the Qur'an is for our understanding not to have a court case to judge Allah(awj) creation. Usually, we spend a lot of time, judging the conduct of Allah(awj) creation, if they sinned or not. There is Law for Humans to follow, and violation of it is called a Sin.So, apparently, they are saying that the one who is to Teach us the Book, Law and Wisdom broke the law? Because what is a Sin, A sin is going against  the Sharia(Law)? If it is the Will of Allahسُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, try not to look at it from the measure that is for humans to be judged. ( Sharia (Law). So, like Prophet Musa(as) some may look at things , based on the Law/Book. Read the answer in Bold in the verse.   
    • Of course men not used to see women will stare. Now I suppose Arabs have dressed the way they do even before Islam. Sun is dangerous in the desert. Not like here in Scandinavia where winter is dark and the Sun often covered by clouds. Being covered here is not very healthy, we need the Sunrays. In the rainforest people almost do not dress at all. It is warm and humid. Are men staring at the almost naked women there. Dont think so, they are used to it. On Swedish beaches girls lie topless in summertime. Why stare, it is normal. A refugee from Syria would probably stare a week or so. Or at least until he has gotten used to it.
    • “If the eyes of a female cry over a man that oppressed her, angels will curse him with every step he walks”— Imam Ali
    • @Jebreil The problem is none of these arguments apply to me. I consider myself more Western than Eastern, have great respect for Western intellectual tradition, and am at least as critical of Muslims as I am of 'the West' (see my numerous posts on the gullibility of Muslims, their blind adherence to tradition, their racism, etc). I am under no illusions about the current state of the Muslim world, but neither am I blind to the serious moral and intellectual issues (of a mostly different nature to those in the Muslim world) that are currently blighting the Western world. Wahdat on the other hand barely ever has any criticisms to make of the West, so grateful does he seem to be that they allow him to live here. He talks about the more advanced state of the Western world, without ever acknowledging the massive role played by the exploitation of other nations, both in the past and in the present. This is a issue if he is going to constantly bleat on about how morally superior the West is. What good is it to be nice to Muslims at home, if you are busy bombing, oppressing, and enslaving them abroad? How can anyone look at, to take one of many examples, what is going on in Yemen, and have the nerve to talk about Western moral superiority? How can any Muslim, particularly one 'confident in their Islamic skin', look at the direction Western culture has taken in the past few decades, and see anything other than moral decay? Plenty of Christians (and others) can see it, but apparently Wahdat is blind to it, or at the very least doesn't think Muslims have any right to comment on it. Wahdat's issue is that he has no balance, and worse, is openly hostile to any moral or intellectual critique of the West, even when it agrees with what many non-Muslim Westerners themselves say. His attitude seems to be that Muslims should just shut up and be grateful. This is the attitude of a slave, rather than that of a free man. Many of those who post on here were born in the West, and/or have parents born in the West. They have just as much right to offer criticisms of their society as anyone else, and have no need to live in a state of eternal gratitude.
×