RELIGION VERSUS CULT: AND OUR QUEST FOR TRUTH
By Fahim A. Knight-EL
There is an old African saying: “When they first came; they had the bible, we had the land. We now have the bible and they have our land”. The two terms religion and cult have created controversy throughout human history and philosophers have argued Theism, Deism, pantheism, monotheism, existentialism, etc., for a very long time and today there are new debates going on about the concept of Intelligent Design. Philosophy is defined as the “Theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe; a study of human morals, character and behavior”. This writer had a philosophy professor named Dr. Clack who taught philosophy at North Carolina Central University. Thus, in my junior year in college, I took a course under Dr. Clack titled the "philosophy of religion". This professor was a heavy thinker and with an extremely analytical mind.
The first day of class, he asked the question, did God create man or did man create God? Dr. Clack could not phantom some intangible and formless being or entity possessing more of a rational and logical explanation about human existence than the quantitative values associated with cause and effect. You are not taught to question religion, but only to follow the tenets and precepts espoused by the clergy and further conveyed in the various interpreted so-called holy books. (Reference: Joseph Campbell; “Myths to Live By”).
The class was taking totally out of their familiar theological and intellectual comfort zone of perhaps having for the first time, in their lives, to think for themselves, as opposed to having others to think for them, which they had become so accustom. Dr. Clack’s line of questions were an exercise in thinking more so than some atheistic attack on religion, at least after almost thirty-years later that came to be my conclusion of those deep philosophical discussions.
The majority of the students were Christians and this writer could tell by the expressions on many of their faces that they were baffled and at a lost for words. For someone to dare pose such an awkward and off limit question (at least from their neck of the woods) it was considered so-called taboo. It was equally amazing how this single question within a split second had visually turned their vulnerable belief system topsy-turvy and the only thing many of them had to rely on to answer this question was their holy book, the Bible, because they were taught early on that this book contained all the answers. (Reference: John G. Jackson; “Man, God, and Civilization”).
Thus, many of them started or made attempts to quote scripture as definitive response statements of truth and they started stating that the Bible was divinely inspired by God. This writer some time ago was given a book by a friend; it was written in 1928 by Dr. Bhagat Singh Thind titled, "Divine Wisdom" Thind writes from an Eastern base philosophy and he gives a dictum relative to good intentions and it sums up my views on religion.
Dr. Thind stated, "There is a story of a monkey who was tamed by his master and who was fanning the master while he slept. One day a fly seated himself on the nose of the master and, of course, he was disturbed in his slumber. The monkey was well-meaning and full of love. He said: 'I will kill that fly, because my master is feeling very much disturbed.' He took a big stick, aimed at the fly, and killed the master. Lots of people are sincere, all right, but they are fools. A man can be a sincere man and a fool man at the same time. As far as their sincerity is concerned, we can praise them; as far as the foolishness is concerned, we can only pity them." (Reference: Bhagat Singh Thind; "Divine Wisdom" pg. 9).
This writer does accept that there are good people that practice religion and no doubt they have good intentions, but the above cited example, of the monkey and master led to the monkey having good intentions about killing the fly that was disturbing his master. His good intentions directed him to relieving the master of this pest by killing the pest, but he also killed his master in the name of good intentions.
Thus, as far as my fellow student’s lack of intellectual ability to defend and wrestle with a mindset like Dr. Clack they had relegated their arguments to mere emotionalism and became very defensive in posture. This only got them into further trouble with the philosophical minded Dr. Clack. He definitely did not buy into some religious history book that had some special sacred validity. The Bible, as well as all so-called holy books were perhaps viewed by Dr. Clack, no differently than he would view any other so-called secular history book written by men (in which history tells us they were not divinely inspired).
This writer knew that these above stated views according to Dr. Clack’s perspective had no moral entitlement or lofty divine privilege to reserve space in the minds of rational human beings and not go unchallenged and unquestioned. To him this was mere superstitious propaganda given credibility by earthly beings perhaps more for mischievous intent and purposes other than religious moral and ethical values.
Hilton Hotema in the “Genesis of Christianity” maintained that “the Priesthood frighten the people, and to keep the Priesthood in high places, and to drive the multitude into the church, for sake of profit and power.” Control benefits the status quo and those who possess the power, has always been at the center of religion and theologians have for the most part interpreted and waged war either covertly or overtly by reinforcing dogmas which benefited the symbols of power. (Reference: Hilton Hotema; “Genesis of Christianity”).
This writer believes that Dr. Clack was trying to lead us to a better understanding of the scientific method of reasoning according to the authors Otto T. Solbrig and Dorothy J. Solbrig in their book titled, "Introduction to Population Biology and Evolution" stated, "The scientific method is based on observations of nature, hypotheses formulated to explain those observations. and experimental testing of deductions from those hypotheses. New observations are constantly being compared with old observations and theories. Errors are detected and theories are modified as new information becomes available. Consequently the scientific view of the world is provisional and uncertain. This uncertainty does not deny scientific progress but, rather makes it mandatory, since misconceptions, which are inevitable, given the fallible nature of humans, are constantly being cleared up. Scientific precepts, like common sense, are opinions, but opinions based on observations rather than arbitrary dicta." (Reference: Otto T. Solbrig and Dorothy J. Solbrig; “Introduction to Population Biology and Evolution" pg. 25).
Yet, simultaneously religion had been leading the masses to negotiate their earthly existence by appealing to a heavenly requirement that is rooted in someone's interpretation of what is determined as good and evil. Religion does not free individuals it does just the opposite, it enslaves and compel human beings to conformity which is often steeped in religious anxiety teachings.
Wikipedia defines a Cult in this manner: this quote was taking from the work of Louis Jolyon West "A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community". (Reference: Wikipedia on line research site-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult).
Man originally established external belief systems because he was in search for answers to explain his existence and the universe; this mental exploration only left him with more questions. Thus, from this essential question arose perhaps a loosely religious structure and gave way to the inception of a culture of religion that would be based on a so-called divine hierarchy, headed by a Supreme Being with infinite wisdom and possessing extraordinary powers and abilities. This is probably more characteristic of Western religious culture.
This arcade social arrangement allowed man to satisfy his inquisitiveness and to establish a superficial affirmation institution which to answer the six basic questions of who, what, where, why, when and how. Sociologist would perhaps refer to this as Ecclesia; it "Is a religious organization that claims the membership of everyone in a society or even in several societies. A powerful, bureaucratized organization with a hierarchy of full-time officials, it gives complete support to the state authorities and expects the same from them in turn. People who are born into a society with such an "official" religion become members almost automatically." (Reference: Ian Robertson; "Sociology" pg. 416).
The professor continued to systematically deconstruct all of their religious arguments, as the students tried desperately to convince their constituents and the professor that the words written in the Bible were absolute. This writer in the deepest recess of his mind knew that Dr. Clack's over-all intellectual position held substantial credibility and was irrefutable within the realm of logic. This writer subconsciously at that moment had a mental paradigm shift and made a silent psychological commitment to never again allow untried and untested ideas to be imposed on me including my own faith tradition.
This class led me to become a Free Thinker, I did not say, I became an atheist or an agnostic, but I have no phobias or bias opinions of those who are—they have a right to intellectually weigh-in on the subject of God and religion and I am completely comfortable with their conclusions; even if those conclusions may differ from my religious worldview. This writer after coming in contact with Dr. Clack was willing to consider the possibilities and not negate trains of thought that might-be contradictory and opposed to tradition.
This was not just a creation versus evolution discussion, but perhaps for the first time it was getting people to think and at that point mentally I had broken with tradition and had come to the realization that religion was a straitjacket—with four defined walls and there were no allowable room for one to deviate and those questions that arose to challenge theological and/or religious inconclusiveness were systematically relegated to faith.
This furthered muddied the water for me, but I looked up the word Faith in the dictionary and it defined Faith as "belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof." So accepting this definition of faith, religion can offer a religious culture base on a set of teachings, values, norms, mores,' folkways, etc., but a logical explanation isn't a necessary prerequisite to justifying an overall belief system, in fact Faith defies the question of logic. There are certain things giving in all religions that aren't up for discussion, it requires silent devotion and the search for answers (proof) isn't important within the religious scheme and often any contradiction deviating from the popular view will be viewed with suspicious and met with resistance.
Yet, you will often hear the word tolerance being tossed around and associated with the religious worldview, as though it has a ting of meaningful conviction and a level of truth intent. Religious tolerance is only an acceptable attitude agreed upon by the religious clergy to protect the central theme and there is no room for judgmental attitudes and broadmindedness; these attributes are unwelcome.
The more this writer gathers his thoughts and how we define Cults, it is evident that the two—meaning organized religion and Cults share some similarities in the overall concept of religiosity and both are more closely akin to the mandate of having to unconditionally adhere to a set of agreed values that are closely guarded, which certain aspects isn't up for discussion and/or negotiation. However, in Western culture, we are taught, assuming that if a group or organization is defined and characterized as a Cult—there is a negative stigma or connotation attached and we automatically compartmentalize this to be something that has deviated from mainstream thought and function within the realm of a subculture or counter-culture.
Wikipedia further define a Cult as, "A group's cult status begins as rumors spread of its novel belief system, its great devotions, its idiosyncratic practices, its perceived harmful or beneficial effects on members or its perceived opposition to the interests of mainstream cultures and governments. Persistent rumors may follow relatively small and recently founded religious or non-religious groups when they are perceived to engage in excessive member control or exploitation” Logic is defined as a”sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim." (Reference: Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult ).
Logic viewed as a philosophy is defined as the “branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning." Cult if we can defining it by Western definition perhaps would encompassed ancient civilizations such as Egypt (Kemet), China, India, Persia, etc., in which the majority of our present day religions, cultures, and sacrament rites proceeded, developed and evolved as we know it in the West from these various ancient societies. (Reference: Kersey Graves; “The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors).
But it is very interesting how the West became the greatest influence in which thought and institutions were corralled and took on new meanings reflecting the dominant society and culture interest. And from this a body of religious ideas left its maternal origin of Cult societies and transitioned into being so-called legitimate organized religion, accepted as mainstream expressions of faith tradition. However, the Cults from which they sprung immediately became demoted as illegitimate and pagan and more so than that, become demonized and classified as being anti-establishment. (Reference: Gerald Massey; “Ancient Egypt the Light of the World”).
Perhaps these ancient civilizations did not necessarily need some single Supernatural Being, but understood best and accepted the delicate relationship balance—between nature, the universe and himself. They were able to explain and articulate their existence by viewing their lives, not as some detached entity who were in an antagonistic and entrapped evolutionary predicament, but instead, often embraced the reality that there lives were inclusive of the natural order of things—reflecting a microcosm of the macrocosm universe, which ultimately was an extension of the cycle of life.
It was what the Western world perceives as Cults that gave life to religion, a lot of religious folklore and mythology teachings are steeped in the tradition and histories of Cults. There is little doubt in this writer's mind that the majority of our religions, if closely examined parallel more ancient civilizations. Cults have subtly bought into the language of definition as assigned by the status quo and as religion continues to gain societal momentum; the so-called Cults have not reminded the religious zealots that they owe them a debt of gratitude.
Our media perception of Cults are unfair, bias and possess negative implications, but religion is more or just as guilty of creating fanaticism, human division, war, extremism, intolerance, human suffering and doing it all in the name of God. There is one name for it, religious totalitarianism. Yes, Cults have inflicted similar acts of man’s inhumanity to man; but even in these instances religion is not permanently subjugated and dismissed as being inheritably evil and unredeemable. However, Cults that violates the so-called societal norms based on the political, economic and social rules that create similar infractions are doomed to a lifetime of ridicule and unacceptability.
Dr. Clack’s teachings and words loom’s even higher to me in 2008 as it relates to the concepts of religion and God. This article was partially motivated by the overt hypocrisy that this writer sees in religion and of course reflecting back on the visionary professor Dr. Clack. He might-be quite happy, if he ran across this article written by one of his former students who made the transition to becoming a Free Thinker.
Karl R. Popper in his article titled, “Is There An Ultimate Source of Knowledge?” Stated, “I believe that it would be worth trying to learn something about the world even if we merely learnt that we do not know much. This state of learned ignorance might be a help in many of our troubles. It might be well to remember that, while differing widely in the various little bits we know, in our infinite ignorance we are equal. If only we look for it we can often find a true idea, worthy of being preserved, in a philosophical theory which we must reject as false. Can we find an idea like this in one of the theories of the ultimate sources of our knowledge. I believe we can; and I suggest that it is one of the two main ideas which underlie the doctrine that the source of all knowledge is super-natural. The first of these ideas is false, I believe, while the second is true”.
Popper continues: “The first, the false idea, is that we must justify our knowledge, or our theories, by positive reasons, that is, by reasons capable of establishing them, or at least of making them highly probably; at any rate, by better reasons than that they have withstood criticism. This idea implies, as I suggested, that we must appeal to some ultimate or authoritative source of true knowledge; which still leaves open the character of that authority—whether it is human, like observation or reason, or super-human (and therefore super-natural). The second idea—whose vital importance has been stressed by Russell—is that no man’s authority can establish truth by decree; that we should submit to truth; that truth is above human authority. Taken these two ideas almost immediately yield the conclusion that the sources from which our knowledge derives must be super-human; a conclusion which tends to encourage self righteousness and the use of force against those who refuse to see the divine truth.” (Reference: Tim C. Leedom; “The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You To Read” pg. vii).
The author Walter Williams in his controversial book titled, "The Historical Origin of Christianity" stated, "Whether you set these religious in a present or historical settings, where their true attributes can be extracted and displayed, you will find these attributes to be cold, calculated, deceptive and devious lies. Western religion is the ultimate deceptive psychological ploy, primarily because religion professes to encompass the word GOD. Therefore, to accept another religion over Western religion is to be ridiculed and reduced to an uncivilized savage. To deny these Western religions altogether is to damn your soul to eternal suffering. Cosmetically, these religions are embodied with high principles and valued ideas, but underlying this surface is the most devastating psychological ploy imaginable. Unsuspectingly, believers offer little resistance to their acceptance of these religions because, typically, religion is introduced to them by their parents. The orchestration and embellishment of these religions are a primary function of the mass news media to visually bring myths and lies to life, to lend validation to them and make them believable in the eyes of the masses." (Reference: Walter Williams;” The Historical Origin of Christianity" pg x & xi).
Dr. Clack stated he had more empirical proof that cause and effect gave more definitive answers to explaining our human existence and our relationship to other creatures, as well as to the universe than the God and religious theories. He definitely viewed the science and the universal laws of possessing more definitive credence than unproven faith that was rooted in myths, fairy tales, magic, tradition etc., unscientific "beliefs" that are substantiated by "faith" which often defies logic and reason would not be acceptable in his world.
In the book authored by T. Williams, Richard B. Pilgrim and Ronald R. Cavanaugh titled, "Religion: An Introduction" stated, "Religion as a specific system of belief in God, including a group doctrine concerning Him, and His relations to man and the Universe". Clack through philosophical deductive reason drew the conclusion that man needed to explain his own existence and therefore invented religion and the concept of a Supreme Being with omnipotent ability and pointed to him to explain what he perceived as the unexplainable—this not only included his origin but how do you explain our five (5) billion year old planet in all its magnificence? It became easy to say God was responsible and this answer has quasi satisfied a large portion of humanity’s inquiry to know. (Reference: T. Williams, Richard B. Pilgrim and Ronald R. Cavanaugh; "Religion: An Introduction” pg. 6).
Fahim A. Knight-EL Chief Researcher for KEEPING IT REAL THINK TANK located in Durham, NC; our mission is to inform African Americans and all people of good will of the pending dangers that lie ahead; as well as decode the symbolisms and reinterpret the hidden meanings behind those who operate as invisible forces, but covertly rules the world. We are of the belief that an enlighten world will be better prepared to throw off the shackles of ignorance and not be willing participants for the slaughter. Our MOTTO is speaking truth to power. Fahim A. Knight-EL can be reached at fahimknight@yahoo.com.
STAY AWAKE UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN,
Fahim A. Knight-EL
Submitted by fahimknight on Tue, 2008-09-30 20:06
- fahimknight's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 258 reads
-
Belief in God is not dependent on belonging to a religion.
As far as evil and wrong go, athiests are just as guilty as those who would sin in the name of God.
Belief in God is not dependent on belonging to a religion.
As far as evil and wrong go, athiests are just as guilty as those who would sin in the name of God.
Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna knock you right on the head,
You better get yourself together,
Pretty soon you're gonna be dead,
What in the world you thinking of,
Laughing in the face of love,
What on earth you tryin' to do,
It's up to you, yeah you.
Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna look you right in the face,
Better get yourself together darlin',
Join the human race,
How in the world you gonna see,
Laughin' at fools like me,
Who on earth d'you think you are,
A super star,
Well, right you are.
Well we all shine on,
Like the moon and the stars and the sun,
Well we all shine on,
Ev'ryone come on.
Instant Karma's gonna get you,
Gonna knock you off your feet,
Better recognize your brothers,
Ev'ryone you meet,
Why in the world are we here,
Surely not to live in pain and fear,
Why on earth are you there,
When you're ev'rywhere,
Come and get your share.
Well we all shine on,
Like the moon and the stars and the sun,
Yeah we all shine on,
Come on and on and on on on,
Yeah yeah, alright, uh huh, ah-.
Well we all shine on,
Like the moon and the stars and the sun,
Yeah we all shine on,
On and on and on on and on.
Well we all shine on,
Like the moon and the stars and the sun.
Well we all shine on,
Like the moon and the stars and the sun.
Well we all shine on,
Like the moon and the stars and the sun.
Yeah we all shine on,
Like the moon and the stars and the sun.
"Why will you take by force what you may obtain by love?
We are unarmed and willing to give you what you ask for if you come in a friendly manner."
"Take away your guns and swords...or you may die in the same manner."
Will there ever be a day when love will conquer all instead of all being conquered by the rapacious and murderous ways of us white men?
And why are the Dick Cheney's, Condi Rice and Ariel Sharon's of the world among us?
An aberration in the human DNA or some sort of test put to us real humans?
What we do here is not the same as love. There's a lot of resentment and anger here, which is understandable. Our anger comes from compassion. Anti-Zionists are intrinsically good people. But what we're putting out is resentment and anger and outrage. We're not helping on an energy level. Which is why I've often thought about dropping out of this scene and fundamentally changing my approach. It's difficult though, very difficult, because it feels like surrender. It is surrender, and surrender is counter-intuitive to the dissident.
And look where it's got us.
The war mongers in DC and the greedy psychopaths in Wall Street have damn near wrecked the entire planet.
People in Gaza and parts of the West Bank and Africa might say that view is too kind.
Do we keep going on, getting slapped in one cheek and then the other, while getting sodomized in the other set of cheeks or do we finally stand up and say ENOUGH?
If you were being pursued by a pack of rabid dogs, would you stop running and give in to those carnivores or fight them off till your last drop of blood?
You know, the saying goes:
turn the other cheek; not spread 'em.
After 2 slaps, it's time to fight or flight.
If you criticize his notorious posts, some of those strange books he reads, some of those bizarre people he quotes, then fahim will claim you are "emotional".
When in fact, fahim is the emotional one who demands that you debate with him, regardless. It doesn't matter what logical / rational / decent argument you present to our dear fahim, he will label you a religious zealot.
[Honestly, fahim...I see no "emotional anger" whatsoever in the comments of KC.]
heh heh heh...to continue...
While fahim indeed loves a debate, he continually states that no one can debate him, and so what is the point?
Indeed, there is no point of debating an extremely non-focused post, or rather, the poster.
[sigh]
Anyway, KC...I agree with you here:
#800000">"There is an old African saying
:When they first came; they had the bible, we had the land."
#0000ff">KC - NOT true.
#0000ff">When they first came, they came with..
#0000ff">GUNS
MACHINES
ARMIES
SHIPS
ORGANIZATION
PURPOSE
.. a bible .. and a thousands of other things that Africans NEVER had!
nothing emotional or angry there....just plain simple facts.
I'm talking about surrender in a spiritual sense, not a lose-the-fight sense. Surrender as in acceptance, as opposed to resistance. Resistance of ideas, tragedies, realities. This is what I've always had trouble with, personally. Resistance in that sense does no good. That's when you get caught up in the bullshit and only feel resentment, anger and frustration.
This guy sums it up beautifully:
If you only feel anger and resentment, you're not 'being the change' but perpetuating the problem. That's what I meant by 'we're not helping on an energy level'. Lennon, Gandhi et al understood this.
But as I said, surrender is counter-intuitive to me, so it's difficult for me to not resist. It's tricky, I don't really get it yet. Resistance to shit like this is instictive, and it should be. So it's a bit of a quandary for me.
One way is to not let them push you off your center.
It's not easy. Contrary to most peoples' ideas about surrender, which they associate with cowardice, it takes courage to surrender. Surrender is fearless, and conversely, resistance is fearful.
Coz, it seems like the ultimate paradox, until we realise that all things are relative.
As for you, fahim "think him fag" knight..
You've got to be kidding; the 'athiest movements' use mind control techniques that are so advanced, they use religion like a play toy: to justify WAR (etc).
Are you trying to tell me the rothschilds are God-fearing, religious types? In reality, if they do worship anything but themselves, it's the devil.
Belief in God and religion are not the same thing; nor are the vast majority of religious people responsible for the wars and turmoil, just as most athiests are not.
1. I am not a 'religious idiot', nor are there any bothering to talk to you here.
2. It seems you haven't bothered to read the comments, so who's the fool now?
3. Quest for truth? uh huh.
4. Debate? Seems like you're here to pontificate.
5. Emotional ploys?
6. Deceptions? Are you in Ghana?
We haven't been defending religion; the question is why do you feel the need to attack it. However, we are exposing zionism.
1. The zionists did not invent religions, nor give them to us.
2. For the big three, it goes Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
3. The rich blood suckers are not religious, regardless of what they say. More likely they belong to some kind of cult! =P
Yawn. (LOL)
1. i am not religious.
2. zionists did not invent ANY religion whatsoever, nor did the rabbis invent Christianity or Islam.
3. Religion has been around for alot longer than Judaism. Are you trying to tell me that zionists invented Buddhism and Hinduism? (etc, etc)
4. Religion had nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing of Australian aboriginees; it was RACISM.
5. Seems you're the kafir, buddy.
6. You may damn yourself, if you wish.
So what you're saying is that truth is an ever changing, agreed upon consensus of a bunch of theologan grifters, which is always bullshit that is forced down people's throats.
By your logic: bullshit would be the truth that never changes; argued about by a bunch of honest athiests, and which is always true, and never forced upon people.
as you think it is. More like suffocating.
You are DISMISSED, fahim. DISMISSED! as you are dangerous to fools who don't know any better.
fahim = Jean Brodie
Glad to see you are still regaling us with your semi-literate, thoroughly jaundiced and quasi-racist gems of "research" from your so-called "think-tank". Don't worry, whenever others here have the temerity to challenge your peculiar warped view of history, you can always come out with absolute show-stoppers like...
Now that WILL put them in their place, won't it Fahim?
Anyway, well done! Keep up the good work!
If you want to blame all humanity's ills on a silly superstitious boogie man, go ahead. You check-mate your own argument that it's all because of religion, when you said just now that it's partially because of religion.
So what is pagan? Brown-eyed devil voodoo witchcraft?
Less of the Kafir nonsense.
Your opinions are valid. However, that does not mean you are either right or wrong.
You are deconstructing nothing. You are spouting off with your opinions and your prejudices. Your 'essays' are full to the brim with words, not all of which are correctly spelled. Those words fail you miserably when it comes to exhibiting sound reasoning and analytical skills.
By the way, Fahim, been to Ghana, North Carolina recently? ;)
Kaffir (ethnic slur)
Kaffir, kaffer or kafir, which once was a blanket term for black southern Africans (see Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa)), is now utilized exclusively as an ethnic or racial slur. The original meaning of the word was 'heathen', unbeliever or infidel, from the Arabic Kafir.[1] Portuguese explorers used the term generally to describe tribes they encountered in southern Africa, probably having misunderstood its etymology from Muslim traders along the coast. European colonists subsequently continued its use.[2] Although used often inoffensively between the 16th and 19th centuries, as racial tensions increased in 20th century South Africa, its use became more racially slanderous than just a general word to describe a race of people.
In the heart of South Africa, during Apartheid, the term was used to refer to black people, and is still regarded as highly offensive (in a similar way to the word "nigger"). Use of the word has been actionable in a South African court since at least 1976 (Ciliza -v- Minister of Police and Another 1976 (4) SA 243) under the offence of crimen injuria: "the unlawful, intentional and serious violation of the dignity of another" (W.A. Joubert, 1981; The Law of South Africa, VI, p251-254).
#000080">Septic tank full with floating....
#000080">
"I declare emphatically that I am no longer in Elijah Muhammad's 'strait jacket', and I don't intend to replace his with one woven by someone else. I am a Muslim in the most orthodox sense; my religion is Islam as it is believed in and practiced by the Muslims in the Holy City of Mecca."
Malcolm X saw and experienced many positive things. Generosity and openheartedness were qualities which were impressed on him by the welcome which he received in many places.
He saw brotherhood and the brotherhood of different races and this led him to disclaim racism and to say: "I am not a racist... In the past I permitted myself to be used... to make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race, and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt.
#0000ff">[Like I said...FK's usual, ongoing generalizations are useless, let alone dangerous, therefore, serve no purpose, except to distract and misinform people]
Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as the result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy City of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true Sunni Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenets of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people."
Malcolm X was vehemently anti-White.
That's the way he was taught as a 'Black Muslim.' But his trip for Hajj changed all of that. He came to see that all men are equal, regardless of their color. True anti-racism is color blindness. That is what he preached on his return to the United States. And that is why he was assassinated.
While he preached separatism, keeping people aware of color differences, that was OK. Blacks vs. Whites is an acceptable dialect.
But when Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz started to preach the Oneness of God and the equality of races, and was prepared to act in any lawful (halal) means necessary, he had to go: Truth vs. Falsehood is an unacceptable dialect.
Garbage by FK: "For example, in the Middle East (Iraq
#0000ff">[#0000ff">Really? Muslims are willing to kill each other because of these shallow items? Perhaps you don't understand what Jihad means]
...because one side view Ali Ibn Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) as Prophet Muhammad Ibn Abdullah's (PBUH) the only and final Caliph and the other side recognizes all four successors to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) including Ali.
#0000ff">Sounds like zionist rot to me.
#0000ff">Save your PBUHs, you hypocrite.
#0000ff">That whole paragraph makes no sense, except to trick people into believing the lie of violent dissension between Sunnis and Shias. There never was such a thing in Iraq to begin with! You are spewing zionist media drivel, you dull robot, you. I do not care that you sandwich in "instigated by zionists" and oh, gee, thanks! But NO THANKS.
#0000ff">In a classroom you would be dangerous. But the zionists would LOVE you.
Islam believes in the unity of the human race. Islam says that all mankind are the creatures of One God, they are all equal. Division of color, class, race or territory are sheer illusions; and ideologies which are based on such distinctions are the greatest menace on earth. Humanity is one single family of God, there can be no sanction for these barriers. Men are one and not White or Black, Aryan of Non-Aryan, Occidental or Oriental.
Islam's greatest contribution to mankind was the abolition and extinction of distinction based on race and color. The Holy Qur'an declared:
"Mankind were one community, then they differed among themselves, so God raised Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners..." (Al-Qur'an 2:213)
"O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female; and made you into nations and tribes, that you might get to know one another. The noblest of you, in the sight of God, is he who is the most righteous.(Al-Qur'an 49:13)
From the above verses, it is clear that the whole of humanity from its diverse races, was originally one, deriving its existence from One Creator and that all barriers that separate humanity by race and color must vanish and the superiority of a person be judged by his conduct only.
A good Muslim considers himself a fusion of all races. Anyone who enters into the fold of Islam becomes part and parcel of this fraternity, forgetting all pride and prejudice.
On the basis of this principle, Islam seeks to build an intellectual, moral, ideological and international society, as against the existing tribal, racial, linguistic and national societies, which have turned the world into a racio-color holocaust.
The legacy of Malcolm X is the real Islam taught to us by the Prophet Muhammad of Arabia, not the racist cult of the "Nation of Islam," presently lead by Louis Farrakhan and others who branched out of the old following of Elijah Muhammad.
However, Elijah's son, Wallace D. Muhammad, was known as Imam Warith Deen Muhammad, moved away from his father's religion. He came to the real Islam adopted by Malik Shabazz for which Malcolm was assassinated. Malik Shabazz shall be remembered by all Muslims as a martyr for the cause of Allah.
http://www.dawanet.com/nonmuslim/intro/convert/20.html
Fahim, if you want to label me as something, knock yourself out. I really don't care. You can spew out as many insults or racist epithets as you wish, it doesn't change anything.
Nobodaddy, it isn't for you to overrule the objections of others!
My issue with Fahim is not necessarily WHAT he writes, but how he presents himself - as a 'professor' who is an authority on everything under the sun - and how that conflicts harshly with the lack of dispassionate and reasoned argument, scholarly research and academic literary style evidenced by his work.
I also dislike the manner in which he starts flinging about insults and ad-homs when challenged, and the racist subtexts to much of his writing.
Nobbo,
How can you possibly critique mythologies when you start out with that you hold precious such as...
This is patently inaccurate, as it has been pointed out to Fahim by others here, not only because the first invaders didn't bring the Bible (that came afterwards) but also because the situation now is that former colonies have broken free of their self-appointed colonial masters.
Fahim makes the fatal mistake of seeing everything in terms of black and white, both literally and metaphorically. It just isn't that way. He sees everything in terms of 'them' and 'us', ignoring completely the small contingent of 'us' who collaborated with 'them' in setting up and running the despicable slave trade. Fahim is unable to detect and address such nuances, which makes me question his legitimacy as an academic.
The responses to Fahim have not been mainly ad-hominems, but legitimate critique of the gaping holes in his essay and/or of his obviously bigoted stance on racial issues. His only response to such criticism is slurs, insults, and the holier-than-thou 'I know more than you could possibly know'.
What in the hell are you people smoking?
I don't endorse any religion. Religion is a concept created by man, not me.
All of those silly ass looking statues of my favorite prophet, Jesus, showing him to be lilly white are absurd.
He was born in Palestine with dark, curly hair and a swarthy complexion and doesn't look like Mr. Colonial Bread.
I don't endorse any political candidates, especially the ones that say I do.
Nor am I in favor of thermonuclear war.
And I have no idea of where loonies like Pat Robertson's coming from, but I damn sure KNOW where he'll be going.
I create not destroy, so why would I want to destroy my Earth?
Get your shit together and start acting like responsible adults and start taking care of my creation or else.
And remember the Sermon on the Mount? That one about feeding the poor, tending to the sick and sheltering the homeless?
Those weren't suggestions, dammit.
Get your acts together before I decide all is lost and open up a can of whup-ass on you fools and then let Evolution determine the next best thing for my beloved creation, Earth.
Now I'm out of here to watch my favorite baseball team, the Cubs, blow another post season game. Grrrrr!
This is true, I've met many Muslims from different country's and most of them don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, most Sunni's believe and love Imam Ali (a.s) and his children as true Muslims, and the the other half believe what the Wahhabi's feed them,Why because most people follow their true leader , MONEY and suddenly man starts to make up things which aren't true,also cause confusion and create conflict between the two sects, The Shia's worst fear aren't the Zionists they are the Sunni's that fell under the spell of Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia. the evil of all evil, the evil that takes sides with Islam's enemy, the evil that as we speak are changing the truth in their own sunnah hadith because of the hundred thousands that are converting from Sunni to shia every year.....yes the shia are using sunni haddith books not shia but sunni to prove them , and again they are trying to conceal the truth, inshallah Allah will deal with them.....
Although a huge number of Sunni scholars from all ages and from all points of view have confirmed the event and the historic words of the Prophet (Pbuh), they have found it difficult to reconcile it with what actually happened after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh). It is outside the scope of this short document to detail those incidents. The important point is that many Sunni scholars claimed that the Prophet (pbuh) merely wished to declare 'Ali (a.s) as a friend and helper to the Muslims!There are many aspects to this event that show that it was much more significant. The revelation of the various verses of the Qur'an, the large gathering, the final stages of the Prophet's life, the confirmation by the people that the Prophet (pbuh) was superior in authority, the subsequent congratulations by 'Umar as well as many other factors which are difficult to cover in this short document, all point to the occasion as one of designation of successor by the Prophet (pbuh). It is evident that the word mawla was used in the sense of absolute authority after the Prophet (pbuh) including, but not restricted to, temporal power.The Final Word If there still remains doubt about the historic importance of this statement and the efforts of some people to cover it up, let this be the final word:When Imam 'Ali (a.s), during the time of his caliphate and decades after the event of Ghadir, said to Anas bin Malik, the Companion of the Prophet (pbuh): "Why don't you stand up and testify what you heard from the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadir?" He answered, "O Amir al-Muminin! I have grown old and do not remember." Thereupon 'Ali (a.s) said: "May Allah mark you with a white spot (of leprosy) unconcealable with your turban, if you are intentionally withholding the truth." And before Anas got up from his place he bore a large white spot on his face."q Ibn Qutaybah al-Dinawari, Kitab al-Ma'arif, (Cairo, 1353 AH), p. 251q Ahmad bin Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 1, p. 119q Abu Nu`aym al-'Isfahani ,Hilyat al-Awliya', (Beirut, 1988), vol. 5, p. 27q Nur al-Din al-Halabi al-Shafi'i, al-Sirah al-Halabiyya, vol. 3, p. 336q Al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Kanz al-'Ummal, (Halab, 1969-84), vol. 13, p. 131To find out detailed information on the event of Ghadir Khumm.
O Messenger, Proclaim what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don't do it, you have not delivered His Message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people(Qur'an: Chapter 5, Verse 67)Did the Prophet (pbuh) Appoint a Successor?The Shia believe that the proclamation mentioned by the Qur'anic verse was fulfilled by the Prophet (pbuh) when he appointed Imam 'Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s) as his successor on the day of Ghadir Khumm.
What happened on the day of Ghadir Khumm?Ghadir Khumm is a location some miles from Makkah on the road to Madinah. When the Prophet (pbuh) was passing by this place on 18 Dhu'l Hijja (10 March 632) on his return from the Farewell Pilgrimage, the verse "O Messenger, Proclaim what has been sent down..." was revealed. He therefore stopped to make an announcement to the pilgrims who accompanied him from Makkah and who were to disperse from that junction to their respective destinations. By the orders of the Prophet (pbuh) a special pulpit made of branches of trees was erected for him. After the noon prayer the Prophet (pbuh) sat on the pulpit and made his last public address to the largest gathering before his death three months later.The highlight of his sermon was when, taking Imam 'Ali (a.s) by the hand, the Prophet (pbuh) asked his followers whether he was superior in authority (awla) to the believers themselves. The crowd cried out in one voice: "It is so, O Apostle of Allah". He then declared: "He of whom I am the master (mawla), of him 'Ali is also the master (mawla). O God, be the friend of him who is his friend, and be the enemy of him who is his enemy."Immediately after the Prophet (pbuh) finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur'an was revealed: Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favor upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Qur'an 5:3)After his speech, the Prophet (pbuh) asked everybody to give the oath of allegiance to 'Ali (a.s) and congratulate him. Among those who did so was 'Umar bin al-Khattab, who said: "Well done Ibn Abi Talib! Today you became the master of all believing men and women."An Arab, having heard of the event of Ghadir Khumm, came up to the Prophet (pbuh) and said: "You commanded us to testify that there is no deity but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah. We obeyed you. You ordered us to perform the prayers five times a day and we obeyed. You ordered us to observe fasts during the month of Ramadhan and we obeyed. Then you commanded us to offer pilgrimage to Makkah and we obeyed. But you are not satisfied with all this and you raised your cousin by your hand and imposed him upon us as our master by saying 'Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla.' Is this imposition from Allah or from you?" The Prophet (s) said : "By Allah who is the only deity! This is from Allah, the Mighty and the Glorious." On hearing this reply the man turned back and proceeded towards his she-camel saying: "O Allah! If what Muhammad said is correct then fling on us a stone from the sky and subject us to severe pain and torture." He had not reached his she-camel when Allah flung at him a stone which struck him on his head, penetrated his body and left him dead. It was on this occasion that Allah, the exalted, caused to descend the following verses:A questioner questioned about the punishment to fall. For the disbelievers there is nothing to avert it, from Allah the Lord of the Ascent. (Qur'an 70:1-3)Do the Sunni scholars consider this event authentic?The number of Sunni authorities who narrate this event, both in detail and in summary, is mind boggling! This historic event was narrated by 110 Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), 84 Successors from the following generation and then by many hundreds of scholars of the Islamic world, from the first to the fourteenth century AH (seventh to twentieth century CE).These statistics only include transmitters appearing in narrations recorded by Sunni scholars!A very small selection of these sources is given below. Many of these scholars not only quote the Prophet's declaration but also call it authentic:q alHakim alNaysaburi, alMustadrak `ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut), volume 3, pp. 109-110, p. 133, p. 148, p. 533. He expressly states that the tradition is sahih in accordance with the criteria of alBukhari and Muslim; alDhahabi has confirmed his judgment.q alTirmidhi, Sunan (Cairo), vol. 5, p. 633q Ibn Majah, Sunan, (Cairo, 1952), vol. 1, p. 45q Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, (Beirut, 1988), vol. 7, p. 61q Al-'Ayni, 'Umdat al-Qari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 584q Ibn al'Athir, Jami` al'usul, i, 277, no. 65; q Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, vol. 2, p. 259 and p. 298q Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Tafsir al-Kabir, (Beirut, 1981), vol. 11, p. 53q Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Qur'an al-'Azim, (Beirut), vol. 2, p. 14q Al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul, p. 164q Ibn al-'Athir, Usd al-Ghaba fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, (Cairo), vol.3, p. 92q Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, (Hyderabad, 1325), vol. 7, p. 339q Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, (Cairo, 1932), vol. 7, p. 340, vol. 5, p. 213q Al-Tahawi, Mushkil al-Athar, (Hyderabad, 1915), vol. 2, pp. 308-9q Nur al-Din al-Halabi al-Shafi'i, al-Sirah al-Halabiyya, vol. 3, p. 337q Al-Zurqani, Sharh al-Mawahib al-Ladunniyya, vol. 7, p. 13
Most Sunni and Shia live side by side in peace, where I'm from we have Shia , Sunni and christians. Just one big happy family......Alhamdulillah.
We praise Allah for the succour He has given us in carrying out His obedience and in preventing us from disobedience, and we ask Him to complete His favours (to us) and to make us hold on to His rope. We stand witness that Muhammad (pbuh)is His slave and His Messenger. He entered every hardship in search of Allah's pleasure and endured for its sake every grief. His near relations changed themselves for him and those who were remote from him (in relationship) united against him. The Arabs let loose the reins (of their horses to quicken their march) against him, and struck the bellies of their carriers to (rouse them) in fighting against him, so much so that enemies came to his threshold from the remotest places and most distant areas.
I advise you, O' creatures of Allah, to fear Allah and I warn you of the hypocrites, because they are themselves misguided and misguide others, and they have slipped and make others slip too. They change into many colours, and adopt various ways. They support you with all sorts of supports, and lay in waiting for you at every lookout. Their hearts are diseased while their faces are clean. They walk stealthily and tread like the approach of sickness (over the body). Their words speak of cure, but their acts are like incurable diseases. They are jealous of ease, intensify distress, and destroy hopes. Their victims are found lying down on every path, while they have means to approach every heart and they have (false) tears for every grief.
They eulogise each other and expect reward from each other. When they ask something they insist on it, if they reprove (any one) they disgrace (him), and if they pass verdict they commit excess. They have adopted for every truth a wrong way, for every erect thing a bender, for every living being a killer, for every (closed) door a key and for every night a lamp. They covet, but with despair, in order to maintain with it their markets, and to popularise their handsome merchandise. When they speak they create doubts. When they describe they exaggerate. First they offer easy paths but (afterwards) they make them narrow. In short, they are the party of Satan and the stings of fire.
Satan hath gained hold on them, so he maketh them forget the remembrance of Allah; they are Satan's Party; Beware! verily, the party of Satan are the losers. (Qur'an, 58:19)