Spirit Of Islam: Does Islam put limits on a person

Jump to content

Icon Important Announcement!

Like us on facebook!

View Other Content

Search Articles

Recent Comments

Does Islam put limits on a person -----

Dec 19 2011 02:08 PM | Desert-Sheikh  in Basics of Islam

Written by Know-The-Ledge here: Christopher Hitchens Has Died

View Postsunniskeptic, on 18 December 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:


You have inadvertently perhaps hit the nail on the head: religion--any religion--by its nature puts limits on a person's ability to think freely and act freely and this is also true of Islam, perhaps more so since it
is still followed relatively purely compared to other religions. Of course if you have Faith (imaan) you will accept these limits on thought -- or learn to justify them to yourself--or accept them for fear of Hell--but to deny
religion limits human thinking is a non-sequitur
. There, I've said it.

Salaam, I would have likely glossed over this comment simply for the fact I shouldn't be taking time out to bog down like this; but I can't cogitate the way you have essentially labelled a whole historical heritage as intellectually weak and tenuous in their academia.; the way you've signed off this highlighted part is insulting; you know why? Because the only person who seems to have their mind colonised and weakend is you yourself, you and FTR show one major thing, you seem to know more about European and western history and academia than about Islamic civilisation; the goal of the secualrist muslim, has become to be like the white eurpoean man and learn about their technoloigcal and material advancements so you can become like them. What do you know about the torrent of black African scholars that existed in the history of the islamic civilisation? There were thousands, with vast works; have you read any of it? Do you know anything about it?

You go to their institutes and you read their books and argue from a completely colonised perspective, yet have you studieded deeply the other side of the coin?

The general argument you and Ftr propound is that 'Islam' puts limits on free thinking and most of your rhetoric is based on what you have anecdotally seen on TV channels and in your own little worlds about Irfan Shah sb and his ilk; as well as the idiotic acolytes of pirs so on and so forth; it's just a completely distorted perspective of the actual erudition of islamic schoastic history.

SS said :- puts limits on a person's ability to think freely and act freely and this is also true of Islam,
What does freedom mean? The arabs used to have an idea of 'freedom' that it is when a slave becomes enslaved to a master, he becomes free from absolutely everything else! Meaning he only answers to his master, absolutely every other person or thing has no right over him. Yet in the modern western world, 'freedom' is encapsulated in the motif of 'thou shall do what thous wills'. The former is a tangible reality, the latter is just an illusion.
Because free-thinking is the enslavement to your capricious whims and ignorances, the consequences of free-thinking are then formed by your personal capacity; if the apparatus of your framework is corrupted, you become enslaved to a state complete disruption, under an illusion of your right to 'free think'; it's amusing that you both claim the right to free-think but then at the same time can have the audacity to have indignation over any other person in the world, you see Hitler in his free-thinking mind believed what he was doing was right.

You are trying to sell us a notion of free-thinkers being an intellectual force of innovative and productive human beings as a template, yet the reality is Jeremy Kyle. The underlying fact is, society needs an underlying foundation of parameters; this is what muslims believe that The Qur'an and sunnah appropriate us with, this merely results in a framework of limits over not our thinking, but actions and in the way we conduct our human lives and societies.

As muslims we have had our intellectual senses colonised; in federal research for the American government, they determined that there were two forms of resistance to intellectual oppression from the oppressed.

- Secondary resistance
- Primary resistance.

Secondary resistance is when the oppressed inculcate the frameworks and methdologys of the oppressor to try and defeat the oppressor. That's where I believe you are, you are imbibing their methodolgys and ending up in a twist, because they knows these frameworks better than you ever can and they can easily manage you; .The same research has also clearly stated that this is a minor threat. as you evidently display with, you seem to be an advert for secualrist thinking.

Primary resistence

This is when the oppressed take on a methodology which is alien to the oppressor and try to tackle the oppressor using this framework which is beyond their scope; the research has tallied that this is a very problematic form of resistence and needs to be annulled using severe force and do you know what methodolgy was listed as being the most problematic? Islam!! Even they know better than us how incredible the power of islam is.

Because wherever Qur'an has travelled to it has turned savagery into civilisation, the jahliya of the arabs was vanquished and the domino affect is too much to list, we're all familiar with it.

Lastly, you second unhighlighted point, is too much for me to respond to right now, though I will say, what you cherish as this great paragon, is simply glittering on the surface, in reality it is rotten to the core! It is the fire dressed as hell and there are intellectual exchanges that can be had about this, it's not just simply a matter of "if only we were better muslims".


Page 1 of 1

No comments have been made yet

You do not have permission to leave comments on this article
Page 1 of 1

Enter your sign in name and password

Sign in options
  Or sign in with these services