Quotes from Mad Mullahs

[S.A.M.]

About time we had one of these threads.

Taha Abdul Basser, Islamic chaplain at Harvard University on capital punishment for apostasy:

I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.

http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1805

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

There is even greater wisdom in atheism. Apostasy is something I don't have to worry about. The religion must have another reason to have me killed.

 

[Bishadi]

About time we had one of these threads.

Taha Abdul Basser, Islamic chaplain at Harvard University on capital punishment for apostasy:



http://secularright.org/wordpress/?p=1805

i observe apostasy as anyone who choses "self over the good of the total."

Such as the definition implies

*the state of having rejected your religious beliefs or your political party or a cause (often in favor of opposing beliefs or causes)

* the act of abandoning a party for cause


But to be used as not observing a specific belief; then the majority on the globe would have to be murdered (from most every religious perspective of apostacy)

and since each religions is based on opinions, then each could use the same context for an all encumbering war of mankind.

eg.... see what is occuring right now in the middle east. In issy, they about to remove folk from the land, again, if no 'oath' is given by each to the state.

and we all know, barely even a single community of Islam, accepts, what the other believes.

in fact, across the board in every belief heading, the divides within are huge. (sects within sects)

So then it can be reasoned that in all cases, it is not God who is being questioned, but the opinions of men/women (mankinds renditions).

it means, if we question even one of the frames, then all must be open to further investigation; then by spending that time each could find; most are all talking about the same rules and compassionate observances and it is the culture and people who retain the divide, not any God's or of Gods cause but man's.

'we the people' are who created this climate, not God

and since few are willing to self reflect, then the divide remains.

fact is, we all equally bound to mother nature; therefore there is a God equal to all mankind and most just do not wish to observe the truth of the matter, based on what is accepted in beliefs.

I consider the awareness of the isolating idiosyncracy as being found within the camps of standard physics, particle, string with biology; they could NEVER find a common ground either and that is something, the sciences have just learned to accept.

The problem is not a divide between God and man, but a divide between man and truth within the species of mankind.

 

[S.A.M.]

I was focusing on this part

"hegemonic modern human rights discourse"

:roflmao:

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I was focusing on this part

"hegemonic modern human rights discourse"

:roflmao:

NO? I didn't know. That's why I avoided it and focused on the Chaplain(good grief). You've become the stereotypically transparent typecast poster SAM. Like me.

:roflmao:

 

[(Q)]

I was focusing on this part

"hegemonic modern human rights discourse"

:roflmao:

Try focusing on this bit of tripe for a much hardier laugh.

"Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements."

Translated: Muslims get pissed when you criticize Islam.

 

[Bishadi]

I was focusing on this part

"hegemonic modern human rights discourse"

:roflmao:

then why no post the definition or at least the publication on the subject?

* Hegemony ( (Amer.), (Brit.)) (ἡγεμονία hēgemonía) is a concept that has been used to describe and explain the dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group or hegemon acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force ...



http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/4/3/6/p74367_index.html

Abstract:


Do human rights scholarship, activism and advocacy perpetuate a hegemonic discourse regarding the individual, the state, and civil society which—were they taken to a logical end—might actually frustrate the realization of human rights? This paper will explore this question with specific reference to the internationally recognized principle that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. As an adjunct to the equally central principle of universality, the indivisibility of human rights is meant to overcome or ameliorate the divisions resulting from the codification of two categories of human rights—politic and civil; and economic, social and cultural—into two distinct international treaties. The blame for this division is often—and incorrectly—dumped on the doorstep of Cold War politics. In recent years, a growing number of human rights scholars, activists and advocates have bolstered the treatment of positive economic and social rights as real human rights. The very act of contending that economic and social rights share the same stage of legitimacy with political and civil rights makes us keenly aware of the extent to which negative civil and political rights remain at the heart of the discursive environment of international human rights. A real problem this paper will examine is a tendency among human rights scholars, activists and advocates to deploy rhetorically the principle of indivisibility in such a manner that it prevents us from unpacking the concept in any meaningful way. The unreflective treatment of such an important and central concept creates a great deal of confusion with regard to who holds rights, and what institutions are capable of instantiating rights in the modern world. In their efforts to counter the hegemony of political and civil rights, advocates of economic and social rights are forced to reproduce the dichotomies so prevalent in human rights discourses (e.g., negative vs. positive rights). An unresolved tension between the positive and negative nature of different kinds of rights—as most human rights advocates see them—centers around what role the state should play in the realization of rights. Because this tension is either used to in a Cranston-esque rejection of economic or social rights that brings all discussion to a halt, or treated as if the differences between rights were not important, our ability to see the state as anything other than the enemy of rights is significantly compromised. A contemporary approach to human rights that is willing to seriously consider a non-reactionary approach to the state as an institution of positive freedom is necessary to overcome these tensions and divides. And the good news is that the genealogy of human rights reveals sufficient support for a comprehensive theory of the state that is compatible with a robust vision of the indivisibility of human rights.

i think the per se hikma based on judging from a religious opinion stand point is beyond rude.


within your link set the tone quite nicely

There is a vibrant Muslim community at Harvard. They have a Muslim chaplain, employed by Harvard and loved and respected by Muslims all around Boston. His name is Taha Abdul-Basser. He gives Friday sermons, is invited to talks and to him local Muslims go when they need religious advice. Rarely does any one voice disagreement with him.

Recently, Muslim students as MIT had a disagreement on what Islam has to say on apostasy. Fortunately, some one from Harvard was able to get Brother Taha’s opinion on this. Enjoy.

assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

here is Brother Taha’s response on apostasy.......


I am familiar with these types of discussions.

While I understand that will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.

Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements.

the context of the discussion was not presented as much as you claim it to be.

the initial post, i made; hit this thread and hegemonic modern human rights discourse ... right on the head!

such that there is a combining principle and it will not be within religious ideals but the combining of reality and mankind, performing equality across the board.

The last word is the math to back it up, not the opinions of beliefs, as science, nature and reality operate consistantly with no requisite of religions opinions or beliefs.

 

[S.A.M.]

then why no post the definition or at least the publication on the subject?

* Hegemony ( (Amer.), (Brit.)) (ἡγεμονία hēgemonía) is a concept that has been used to describe and explain the dominance of one social group over another, such that the ruling group or hegemon acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate, as opposed to dominance purely by force ...

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/4/3/6/p74367_index.html

i think the per se hikma based on judging from a religious opinion stand point is beyond rude.
within your link set the tone quite nicely



the context of the discussion was not presented as much as you claim it to be.

the initial post, i made; hit this thread and hegemonic modern human rights discourse ... right on the head!

such that there is a combining principle and it will not be within religious ideals but the combining of reality and mankind, performing equality across the board.

The last word is the math to back it up, not the opinions of beliefs, as science, nature and reality operate consistantly with no requisite of religions opinions or beliefs.

I haven't a clue what you just said.

 

[Bishadi]

I haven't a clue what you just said.

it said, you opened up a thread and to address, the link, the terms, the claim of the quote, that no matter what a religion wishes to impose;

the religions are not what will combine mankind for Peace.

the combining principle of life, nature and reality (that which is equal to all mankind) are what will rule this taco stand............

the 'mad mullahs' and the ignorance of not addressing the inconsistancies of belief as the first order, is what makes the thread so confusing to you.


you asked for nothing in question.

you posted someone elses comment, and i observed each angle and find the idiot who was quoted does not know how to spell wisdom

no religious order has the ability to judge over what is equal to all mankind

 

[S.A.M.]

You're talking about the distance between belief and objective reality? And what happens when they become inconsistent and one has to choose between them?

I think. :bugeye:

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

The Mad Mullahs: Musicians/artists best know for the hit song: Hegemony for Nothing

The Mad Mullah of Harvard: Novel depicting a despised depraved misunderstood moron, Quasimullah, who's disfigured brain lands him in the basement of a local Mosque where he spends his life in the pursuit of Rights of atheists and gets beheaded for his trouble.

 

[James R]

Just another anti-Muslim thread.

Closed.