Why trust Prophet Muhammad? [Archive]

xtremerebel

15th November 2009, 05:23

I've been thinking about this one lately.

This borders on the spiritual as well, but definitely belongs in the religion section. Over the years, we've had many people - mostly nutcases - say that they have received a divine revelation of some sort from the heavens. What I'm wondering, is, why do 1.57 billion people blindly follow the vision of Muhammad the prophet?

Sure, the story about paganism and sin is all rosy and uplifting and such, but when it comes down it, really, people are blindly following the 'revelations' of a 7th century Arabian warlord. Don't these people ever question the validity of Muhammad's divine revelations? What if Muhammad was mentally ill? What if Muhammad suffered from seizures or had epilepsy? What if Muhammad was just lying about being the messenger of God in order to gain power among the competing tribes of Mecca in Arabia at the time?

He could have also mistaked his own subconscious for divine revelation. That's a possibility. Or, he could have done some good 'ol drugs to lighten up the days of meditating in the cave. Anythings possible with this guy it looks like.

So this is not meant to be offensive, as I know many muslims. Rather, this is a criticism and a major questioning of the religion of Islam, based on Muhammad's visions and revelations, that 1.57 billion people follow, from an agnostic-atheist perspective. Why should we be convinced that Muhammad was a genuine, honest man who represented God's plan through Islamic teachings? It looks to me that he had so much political power and popularity to gain, he capitalized on it. There have been thousands of false gurus and mentally ill "spiritual leaders" out there, so why, why is Muhammad any different?

Revy

15th November 2009, 05:39

You could say this about every religion's founder.

Islam isn't special in this regard. though what Islam has going for it, is that there is actual evidence that Muhammad was a real person.

Tatarin

15th November 2009, 06:00

What I'm wondering, is, why do 1.57 billion people blindly follow the vision of Muhammad the prophet?

I'm guessing the 'evidence' of Islam being the second biggest religion in the world serves as a kind of proof, does it not? And if you are to believe the numbers, Islam is also the fastest growing religion in the world.

Mix that with the current state of the world, the need for hope, and the background of many believers, and suddenly it isn't as supprising.

In addition, I believe that Islam is about the only religion that "plans out" everything, life, belief, politics, history and so on.

Sure, the story about paganism and sin is all rosy and uplifting and such, but when it comes down it, really, people are blindly following the 'revelations' of a 7th century Arabian warlord.

Ah, but couldn't the same be said about many other things? All in all, people blindly follow the capitalists in their own doom, do they not? How many really question what is outside of the capitalist box? Not many in my surroundings, at least. There are many problems, sure, but "an outside"?

And for that matter, haven't people learned anything from World War 2, when one looks at the recent upswing of fascist parties in Europe (of all places). Just think of the fact that Italy is ruled by Berluscioni who practically glorifies Moussolini. And this is in a world of fast communications, public libraries and freedoms of everything.

Don't these people ever question the validity of Muhammad's divine revelations?

I'm sure many do. Their voices are most likely not heard because of the states they live in, or they are too few and far between to really amount to anything.

What if Muhammad was mentally ill?

But many people are mentally ill, and many have been. Yet, they haven't received such following. Besides, I don't buy that. He did rule with "sense" in those times. I doubt a maniac would be able to pull that off.

What if Muhammad suffered from seizures or had epilepsy?

I don't get it, what is the relevance of this? Muhammad claimed that he had received the visions in a cave, alone. The whole thing got going when he started to preach what he had seen.

What if Muhammad was just lying about being the messenger of God in order to gain power among the competing tribes of Mecca in Arabia at the time?

Well, just as mentally ill people, there are a lot of liers. None of them seems to have a following of 2 billion people, right?

Why should we be convinced that Muhammad was a genuine, honest man who represented God's plan through Islamic teachings?

Again, take that question to other aspects of the current world. Why should we believe in anything the ruling classes say? Considering the current crisis, there should logically be a global uprising by now. Yet, people accept being fired, accept huge bonuses given to their bosses, accept the trashing of whatever social system there is left.

This is a very strong point. What Muhammad may or may not have done is quite distant and irrelevant. People believes in what he saw, and the real questions about Islam is really how to apply these teachings. Saudi Arabia has it's own way, Muslims in Europe have another. Some see it as the ultimate judgement of everyday, others as mere guidelines for a sound life.

But the capitalist crisis is affecting all people - atheists, Muslims, Christians, everyone. People loosing their jobs isn't a philosophical question of what he or she saw, it's bloody reality. What I'm trying to point out is that while it may seem "stupid" to believe in what someone once said - is it not more stupid to keep believing in something that basically screwed your whole life all over?

In contrast, should Islam fail in every endeavour, decline and be critisized, as well as bring great suffering for believers, then most likely those believers would leave that faith. Then it could perhaps be considered "stupid" to believe in something that doesn't work and even brings disaster.

xtremerebel

15th November 2009, 06:34

I'm guessing the 'evidence' of Islam being the second biggest religion in the world serves as a kind of proof, does it not? And if you are to believe the numbers, Islam is also the fastest growing religion in the world.

No, it doesn't. Just like Hitler said, tell a lie long enough, and loud enough, eventually everyone will believe it. It doesn't serve as any kind of proof at all, scientifically or empirically. Also, remember that the majority has almost always been wrong in the history of the world.

Mix that with the current state of the world, the need for hope, and the background of many believers, and suddenly it isn't as supprising.

Just because there are many believers does not mean that the religion necessarily gains more validity in the way of evidence and truth.

In addition, I believe that Islam is about the only religion that "plans out" everything, life, belief, politics, history and so on.

Of course it does. Everything is planned out so Muhammad, the 7th century Arabian warlord, can be worshiped like a king.

Ah, but couldn't the same be said about many other things? All in all, people blindly follow the capitalists in their own doom, do they not? How many really question what is outside of the capitalist box? Not many in my surroundings, at least. There are many problems, sure, but "an outside"?
And for that matter, haven't people learned anything from World War 2, when one looks at the recent upswing of fascist parties in Europe (of all places). Just think of the fact that Italy is ruled by Berluscioni who practically glorifies Moussolini. And this is in a world of fast communications, public libraries and freedoms of everything.

Globalization and freedom of information and new technologies does not prevail in the face of human ignorance. Remember, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Expand the "capitalist box" to the "box of the system", and I would agree with that small portion of your post.

But many people are mentally ill, and many have been. Yet, they haven't received such following. Besides, I don't buy that. He did rule with "sense" in those times. I doubt a maniac would be able to pull that off.

If you read my post in the desired context, that's what a lot of it was about. Perhaps he was just lucky, capitalizing off of a great opportunity to get power and for people to follow him? Your posts seem to imply that Islam is some great wonderful true thing made by the Prophet Muhammad - or am I wrong in thinking that?

I don't get it, what is the relevance of this? Muhammad claimed that he had received the visions in a cave, alone. The whole thing got going when he started to preach what he had seen.

Yep. And? He could have been mentally ill, or simply lied to gain followers. Stories go that he was quite a man of wit, and you know most people were uneducated back then, especially in Arabia.

Well, just as mentally ill people, there are a lot of liers. None of them seems to have a following of 2 billion people, right?

The opinions and views of the collective have no bearing or backing on anything. It does no make a difference if he has 3 followers or 1.57 billion followers - in the end, they are essentially doing the same thing.

This is a very strong point. What Muhammad may or may not have done is quite distant and irrelevant. People believes in what he saw, and the real questions about Islam is really how to apply these teachings. Saudi Arabia has it's own way, Muslims in Europe have another. Some see it as the ultimate judgement of everyday, others as mere guidelines for a sound life.
But the capitalist crisis is affecting all people - atheists, Muslims, Christians, everyone. People loosing their jobs isn't a philosophical question of what he or she saw, it's bloody reality. What I'm trying to point out is that while it may seem "stupid" to believe in what someone once said - is it not more stupid to keep believing in something that basically screwed your whole life all over?

There is no Islam but Islams. Remember that.
Yes, the capitalist system took us for a ride and really messed with us - but don't you think there is signs that it has pretty much crumbled when the media is LYING about the economy recovering so people can spend again, AND the fed actually wants you to donate to help relieve the national debt?? I want you to think about that too.

In contrast, should Islam fail in every endeavour, decline and be critisized, as well as bring great suffering for believers, then most likely those believers would leave that faith. Then it could perhaps be considered "stupid" to believe in something that doesn't work and even brings disaster.

Religion is man made. We are bound by the same laws of the Universe as everyone else, so I don't see what the point of that part of your post was. But, if you wanna go there, look at the situation of Muslims worldwide - Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Korea, Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. They are not living happily or are living exactly like children of god.

Your entire post, from my point of view, reeked of apologetics and attempting to defend the religion of Islam from a leftist point of view against the capitalist system.

mikelepore

15th November 2009, 11:20

I don't see why Muhammad was specified in this topic. The same question applies to Moses, or the oracle of Delphi. In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna reported that the divinity spoke to him. Why did people believe any of these founders?

VeganLiz

15th November 2009, 11:23

though what Islam has going for it, is that there is actual evidence that Muhammad was a real person.

We all know that Joseph Smith was a real person as well but that doesn't mean that Mormonism has anything going for it just because the founder was real.

Revy

15th November 2009, 12:00

We all know that Joseph Smith was a real person as well but that doesn't mean that Mormonism has anything going for it just because the founder was real.

And I would agree with that.

danyboy27

15th November 2009, 14:29

well, i think its beccause muhammad was a warrior that people like so much.

he kicked some asses back then, and just like all heroes, at a certain point even if he made some shit up people believed him beccause he was a great warrior.

the koran is still nonsense. think about it, a book, written by god?
he couldnt stop all those war back then but he had the power to write a book and send him presto to muhammad?

ridiculous.

red cat

15th November 2009, 14:58

Devrim

15th November 2009, 15:21

A rather unimportant point; Islam is indeed the world's fastest growing religion, but that is due to the lack of family-planning in Islam dominated countries, not because people from other religions convert into Islam.

It is strange that the Maoist third worldist actually thinks that people who live in the so-called 'third world' are backwards barbarians. Birth control is not prohibited by Islam, is widely available in Islamic countries, and in Iran, as an example of an 'extremist' Islamic country, is taught in school.

That doesn't mean that there isn't population growth in these countries, but I would put that down to poverty more than religion.

Devrim

red cat

15th November 2009, 17:40

It is strange that the Maoist third worldist actually thinks that people who live in the so-called 'third world' are backwards barbarians. Birth control is not prohibited by Islam, is widely available in Islamic countries, and in Iran, as an example of an 'extremist' Islamic country, is taught in school.

That doesn't mean that there isn't population growth in these countries, but I would put that down to poverty more than religion.

Devrim
And why don't we take a look at African countries? Or how about Bangladesh? Aren't these the nations that contribute most to the Muslem population? Birth control methods are not widely available here.

In third world countries, the feudal way of viewing women as machines for producing offspring leads to compatible interpretation of every religion. Inspite of several examples from the Hadith where Muhammad asks his followers to use methods of birth control while having sex with their slaves, birth control is identified with infanticide in many third world Islamic societies, and hence prohibited .

By the way, I really enjoy the way you attack Maoists on every available excuse. Please go on.

gorillafuck

15th November 2009, 17:56

And why don't we take a look at African countries? Or how about Bangladesh? Aren't these the nations that contribute most to the Muslem population? Birth control methods are not widely available here.
I think that birth control is not widely available in these countries due to the very poor conditions and lack of information on it, not because people see it's availability and know all about it and how it can help but deny it due to religious reasons.

red cat

15th November 2009, 18:07

I think that birth control is not widely available in these countries due to the very poor conditions and lack of information on it, not because people see it's availability and know all about it and how it can help but deny it due to religious reasons.Poverty is of course a reason, but yes, there are many places where people deny to use it due to religious reasons.

Devrim

15th November 2009, 18:54

And why don't we take a look at African countries? Or how about Bangladesh? Aren't these the nations that contribute most to the Muslem population? Birth control methods are not widely available here.

Bangladesh? Let's take a look then:

Article entitled: 'Birth control not un-Islamic, says Bangladesh Minister'

"In fact, the Population Control Programme is a major success story of Bangladesh and we have gone a step further by demanding total reproductive freedom for women," Begum Khurshid Haque, Bangladseh Minister of Women and Children Affairs, said here today.

Article entitled 'Bangladesh, Still Poor, Cuts Birth Rate Sharply'

Anwara's story is a common one in Bangladesh, where a vigorous family planning program has halved the nation's birthrate in the last 20 years. Even though Bangladesh has made no significant progress in reducing poverty, the success of population-control efforts in this densely populated nation have startled many of the world's experts.

So it seems you were wrong on that one too.

In third world countries, the feudal way of viewing women as machines for producing offspring leads to compatible interpretation of every religion. Inspite of several examples from the Hadith where Muhammad asks his followers to use methods of birth control while having sex with their slaves, birth control is identified with infanticide in many third world Islamic societies, and hence prohibited .

Please name 'Islamic countries' where birth control is prohibited.

By the way, I really enjoy the way you attack Maoists on every available excuse. Please go on.

I dislike Maoism. I think it is a dangerous anti working class ideology in many countries. I also dislike western Maoists talking about the 'third world' in an ingnorant patronising manner, which in my opinion boarders on chauvinism. Your comments here are akin to your comments on the Bangladesh thread where you were saying that single women didn't work in factories. Basically you have a very strange view of the 'third world' and little idea of what you are talking about.

Devrim

red cat

15th November 2009, 19:14

Bangladesh? Let's take a look then:

Article entitled: 'Birth control not un-Islamic, says Bangladesh Minister'

Article entitled 'Bangladesh, Still Poor, Cuts Birth Rate Sharply'

So it seems you were wrong on that one too.

Please name 'Islamic countries' where birth control is prohibited.

Parliamentary politicians and other bourgeois sources often give a grossly wrong overview of what is actually happening.

Prohibition need not be officially declared.

You don't have any idea of how the people live in these regions of the world and how each religion is implemented. For example, if a man says the word "tallaq" three times, it is an automatic divorce recognized by the society, whether his wife likes it or not. In several countries the system of "temporary tallaq" is prevalent, by which rich Muslems can justify their more than four marriages by switching to a different group of wives every three or four months.
There is a custom called "khatna" which involves cutting off a woman's clitoris, and stitching parts of the vaginal opening so that no sexual intercourse takes place. The stitching is done in a traditional method without using anaesthetics. The woman's limbs are in position while Allah's praise is sung by four other women. The stitching is removed and replaced each time the woman is married or divorced. Do you know that all these things happen here? Obviously not, because your theories are completely devoid of practice.

I dislike Maoism. I think it is a dangerous anti working class ideology in many countries. I also dislike western Maoists talking about the 'third world' in an ingnorant patronising manner, which in my opinion boarders on chauvinism. Your comments here are akin to your comments on the Bangladesh thread where you were saying that single women didn't work in factories. Basically you have a very strange view of the 'third world' and little idea of what you are talking about.

DevrimPreach your anti-Maoist theory where entire populations are turning Maoist. They will recognize you as a true communist and embrace you.

Devrim

15th November 2009, 19:32

Parliamentary politicians and other bourgeois sources often give a grossly wrong overview of what is actually happening.

Prohibition need not be officially declared.

You don't have any idea of how the people live in these regions of the world and how each religion is implemented. For example, if a man says the word "tallaq" three times, it is an automatic divorce recognized by the society, whether his wife likes it or not. In several countries the system of "temporary tallaq" is prevalent, by which rich Muslems can justify their more than four marriages by switching to a different group of wives every three or four months.
There is a custom called "khatna" which involves cutting off a woman's clitoris, and stitching parts of the vaginal opening so that no sexual intercourse takes place. The stitching is done in a traditional method without using anaesthetics. The woman's limbs are in position while Allah's praise is sung by four other women. The stitching is removed and replaced each time the woman is married or divorced. Do you know that all these things happen here? Obviously not, because your theories are completely devoid of practice.

None of this answers the question. It is though as ignorant as your other posts. The Arabic word 'Khatna' refers exclusively to male circumcision.

Female circumcision and infibulation, which are what you seem to be talking about are not Islamic practices:

The traditional cultural practices of FGC predate Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) and Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam). A Greek papyrus from 163 B.C. mentions girls in Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt) undergoing circumcision and it is widely accepted to have originated in Egypt and the Nile valley at the time of the Pharaohs. Evidence from mummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummies) have shown both Type I and Type III FGC present.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#cite_note-Skaine_2005-39) (Note that the earliest evidence of male circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#History_of_circumcision) is also from Ancient Egypt.)
Most Muslims reject this practice in its entirety, however it remains a tradition within certain countries which was not entirely overcome by the arrival of Christianity and Islam. A lack of religious education among these people leads them to mistakenly believe this ancient tribal practice is a religious observance.
UNICEF reports that:
"... Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research, the highest religious authority in Egypt, issued a statement saying FGM/C has no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions and that it is harmful and should not be practiced." In fact, this pre-Islamic barbarity runs contrary to the Islamic tenet which dictates that a man should make sure his wife enjoys their lovemaking.

Basically, what you are saying reads like the traditional Islam/Arab bashing that you get in the right wing media.

I will repeat the question again just in case you didn't understand.:

Please name 'Islamic countries' where birth control is prohibited.

Devrim

red cat

15th November 2009, 19:43

None of this answers the question. It is though as ignorant as your other posts. The Arabic word 'Khatna' refers exclusively to male circumcision.

Female circumcision and infibulation, which are what you seem to be talking about are not Islamic practices:

Basically, what you are saying reads like the traditional Islam/Arab bashing that you get in the right wing media.

I will repeat the question again just in case you didn't understand.:

DevrimKhatna is practiced in third world countries, and as far as I know, is restricted to the Muslem population.

It does not matter what the word means in Arabic. This word is commonly used for what I used it for. The word used for male circumcision in the Indian subcontinent is "chunnath".

Birth control is prohibited in the Indian subcontinent, and many African countries, by local religious institutions(which often act as governments). These religious institutions might not all be Islamic, but most of them are.

Patchd

15th November 2009, 19:47

Oppressed people require a crutch to help them mentally get through life, religion is that crutch that gives their lives apparent meaning, others opt for drugs (which makes their lives more fun/tolerable), hobbies, sports etc...

red cat

15th November 2009, 19:53

One of the major causes of religious fundamentalism and strict adherence to the creed (sharia) in the Islamic societies that we are witnessing for the past few years is due to the targetting of this community by imperialist powers and their lackeys politically, militarily, economically and culturally. Muslems are being forced to consider themselves as a group devoid of any national identity in the countries where they are minority, and in oher countries they are under constant threat from western powers.

Devrim

15th November 2009, 21:45

Khatna is practiced in third world countries, and as far as I know, is restricted to the Muslem population.

Well yes 'Khatna' is practised only by Muslims because it means Islamic male circumcision.

It does not matter what the word means in Arabic. This word is commonly used for what I used it for.

You just make these things up, don't you? Even the most elementary research would show you otherwise. Try Wiki:

Khitān (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): ختان‎) or Khatna (Arabic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language): ختنة‎) is the term for male circumcision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) carried out as an Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) rite.

Birth control is prohibited in the Indian subcontinent, and many African countries, by local religious institutions(which often act as governments). These religious institutions might not all be Islamic, but most of them are.

I am not going to go through all of Africa. It is a big place and there are a lot of countries. Let's just focus on the Indian subcontinent. Again a little elementary research could help you instead of just making up outlandish claims.

We have already seen that Birth control is promoted by the state in Bangladesh, now let's look at the other countries:

India:

IN INDIA, BIRTH CONTROL FOCUS SHIFTS TO WOMEN

India's national birth control program is gaining momentum, and all over the country thousands of people, mostly women, are lining up at medical camps for surgical sterilizations.
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi proclaimed February as ''family welfare month.'' Billboards equating the ''small family, happy family,'' were put up in every state, and radio programs advocated family planning.
The major reason for the campaign is that India's census last year counted 684 million people, 12 million more than demographers had predicted. Subsidized birth control pills and condoms are being distributed, but most of the emphasis has been on sterilizations.

Pakistan:

Increase Use Of Birth Control In Pakistan

The fertility rate among women in Pakistan has dipped significantly from 5.6 percent in 1990-91 to 4.1 in 2004-06, a phenomenon attributed to rising but uneven use of contraceptives and its growing awareness.

But this trend is more in Punjab than in other provinces.

Women bear much of the brunt of controlling childbirth, either through sterilization or by phasing out conception, reveals Pakistan Demographic and Health Survey (PDHS) 2006-07, Daily Times reported Saturday.

According to the report, half of married women use contraceptive methods and few women know about the use of condoms by males. Female sterilisation is on the rise and 84 percent children are breastfed in the first year of birth, it adds.

Sri Lanka:

Sri Lanka condom use peaking

Jan 14, 2009 (LBO) - Condom use has peaked in Sri Lanka but sales of oral birth control methods such as emergency contraceptives are rising, the island's top marketer of family planning services said.
The Family Planning Association of Sri Lanka, a non-profit entity, has launched a new anesthetized condom, which can give new life to the condom market. The condom, branded Stamina will give a 'longer love experience' the FPA said.
In Sri Lanka contraceptives are also sold by private drug firms, given free of charge by the government health services and also by the FPA, which sells the products at concessionary prices.

So in all of these countries contraception is not only legal, but actually promoted by the state.

Or were you talking about other countries in the Indian subcontinent.

Devrim

Demogorgon

15th November 2009, 22:53

Khatna is practiced in third world countries, and as far as I know, is restricted to the Muslem population.
Well we have seen the extent of what you know don't we? The most cursory examination of the subject reveals it is most prevalent in cultures where either traditional religions dominate or where Islam or Christianity has not replaced pre-Islamic and pre-Christian practice. It is pretty crazy to bring religion up here, because often for the people in question their religion forbids it and they do it anyway.

Really though, I have to agree with Devrim here, you are talking as if people from outside your Western comfort zone are savages. You claim to be a Maoist (always a warning sign) but you don't even manage to live up to their standards here. Any concern you might have for the third world seems, in light of your statements, to be at best the tutting of the British Upper Classes about the pight of the poor natives in the colonies and how something simply must be done for them.

red cat

15th November 2009, 23:19

Well yes 'Khatna' is practised only by Muslims because it means Islamic male circumcision.

You just make these things up, don't you? Even the most elementary research would show you otherwise. Try Wiki:

I am not going to go through all of Africa. It is a big place and there are a lot of countries. Let's just focus on the Indian subcontinent. Again a little elementary research could help you instead of just making up outlandish claims.

We have already seen that Birth control is promoted by the state in Bangladesh, now let's look at the other countries:

India:

Pakistan:

Sri Lanka:

So in all of these countries contraception is not only legal, but actually promoted by the state.

Or were you talking about other countries in the Indian subcontinent.

Devrim
Official legalization by the central government has nothing to do with what the local feudal institutions say.

This might give you an idea of how the dominant culture in the countries we are talking about is like:

http://www.irinnews.org/IndepthMain.aspx?IndepthId=15&ReportId=62462

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251426.stm

http://www.unfpa.org/news/news.cfm?ID=927

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-121964184.html

http://in.christiantoday.com/articles/now-mizoram-church-against-birth-control-policy/4245.htm

EDIT:

http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=96391

red cat

15th November 2009, 23:31

Well we have seen the extent of what you know don't we? The most cursory examination of the subject reveals it is most prevalent in cultures where either traditional religions dominate or where Islam or Christianity has not replaced pre-Islamic and pre-Christian practice. It is pretty crazy to bring religion up here, because often for the people in question their religion forbids it and they do it anyway.

Really though, I have to agree with Devrim here, you are talking as if people from outside your Western comfort zone are savages. You claim to be a Maoist (always a warning sign) but you don't even manage to live up to their standards here. Any concern you might have for the third world seems, in light of your statements, to be at best the tutting of the British Upper Classes about the pight of the poor natives in the colonies and how something simply must be done for them.
The initial claim was that Islam is growing the fastest because of lack of family planning in Islam-dominated countries. Can you contradict this?

Or will you just accuse me of being a western-comfort-zoner(which you are not even sure of) while living in Scotland yourself?

xtremerebel

15th November 2009, 23:36

Perhaps all these recent posts should be moved to a different topic, the original post and question was whether we should trust Muhammad based on his claims and visions.

Devrim

15th November 2009, 23:52

Official legalization by the central government has nothing to do with what the local feudal institutions say.

But official legalisation does determine whether something is prohibited or not, and your claim was that "Birth control is prohibited in the Indian subcontinent". It isn't.

As for 'local feudal institutions, I live in a city of about 4,500,000 people. We don't tend to have them here, not do the inhabitants of the other massive cities in the 'third world'. In fact if you look at a list of the ten biggest cities in the world, none of them except Moscow are in 'the West'. They all have massive populations, and millions of proletarians, not feudal institutions.

This might give you an idea of how the dominant culture in the countries we are talking about is like:

Surprisingly enough I do actually have an idea. I live in Turkey, lived in Lebanon for nearly a decade, and have travelled widely across the Middle East, and been more than once to the Indian subcontinent. I think it is you who has no idea what they are talking about.

If we look at your links though, it is quite interesting that one talks about a Christian majority Indian state denouncing the Governments birth control programme, and another talking about Bangladesh says:

Sources in the DGFP says, around 55 per cent of the countrymen are adopting family planning system currently. But the dropout percentage is 44. That is why the growth of population cannot be controlled, it says

So as your own link says a majority of the population of Bangladesh use birth control. Yet only a few posts ago, you were claiming it was prohibited there.

Devrim

16th November 2009, 00:22

Birth control is prohibited in the Indian subcontinent, and many African countries, by local religious institutions(which often act as governments). These religious institutions might not all be Islamic, but most of them are.

Do you want to source your claim about the Indian subcontinent? You've still failed to do so and I don't think you can, because you know it's complete bullshit.

There are a number of factors and it varies massively between the different parts of the Indian subcontinent, I know for a fact that in India with its Hindu majority, there is a tendency to prefer boys and in fact, gender selective abortion of girls is not uncommon.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/16/stories/2009111655400300.htm

People are increasingly coming forward to adopt girls than boys defying age-old belief that only son could carry forward a clan. This year (between January 1 and September 30), of 99 kids adopted, 61 are girls and 38 boys.

Demogorgon

16th November 2009, 01:39

The initial claim was that Islam is growing the fastest because of lack of family planning in Islam-dominated countries. Can you contradict this?

Or will you just accuse me of being a western-comfort-zoner(which you are not even sure of) while living in Scotland yourself?
For heaven's sake. A poster from an "Islam dominated country" has contradicted your ridiculous claims about the availability of birth control pretty conclusively. So instead of peddling your crackpot conspiracies and fox news hysteria about Muslims out breading us, you might want to consider the economic reasons why large families are often prevalent in less developed areas.

And I fail to see what my nationality has to do with anything. I am not the one simultaneously thinking that people putside the west are backwards savages and holding pretentions of being a "maoist, third worlder", am I?

red cat

16th November 2009, 12:20

But official legalisation does determine whether something is prohibited or not, and your claim was that "Birth control is prohibited in the Indian subcontinent". It isn't.

As for 'local feudal institutions, I live in a city of about 4,500,000 people. We don't tend to have them here, not do the inhabitants of the other massive cities in the 'third world'. In fact if you look at a list of the ten biggest cities in the world, none of them except Moscow are in 'the West'. They all have massive populations, and millions of proletarians, not feudal institutions.

Surprisingly enough I do actually have an idea. I live in Turkey, lived in Lebanon for nearly a decade, and have travelled widely across the Middle East, and been more than once to the Indian subcontinent. I think it is you who has no idea what they are talking about.

If we look at your links though, it is quite interesting that one talks about a Christian majority Indian state denouncing the Governments birth control programme, and another talking about Bangladesh says:

So as your own link says a majority of the population of Bangladesh use birth control. Yet only a few posts ago, you were claiming it was prohibited there.

Devrim
Enforcement of prohibition by local religious/feudal institutions take through intimdation, boycotts etc. That is why so many people drop out.

And please do not rely on government propaganda to understand the practical situation. Untouchability was outlawed in India decades ago. Yet it remains as a part of feudal cultural oppression.

red cat

16th November 2009, 12:29

Do you want to source your claim about the Indian subcontinent? You've still failed to do so and I don't think you can, because you know it's complete bullshit.

There are a number of factors and it varies massively between the different parts of the Indian subcontinent, I know for a fact that in India with its Hindu majority, there is a tendency to prefer boys and in fact, gender selective abortion of girls is not uncommon.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/16/stories/2009111655400300.htm

The people who adopt children generally come from middle-class families and have a bourgeois-progressive outlook. So they tend to prefer girls, as the dominant tendency is towards preferring boys. Still, very few children are adopted.

And I think that the two links referring to a church forbidding birth control, and a highly influential Islamic organization still debating whether to tolerate birth-control prove enough.

red cat

16th November 2009, 12:33

For heaven's sake. A poster from an "Islam dominated country" has contradicted your ridiculous claims about the availability of birth control pretty conclusively. So instead of peddling your crackpot conspiracies and fox news hysteria about Muslims out breading us, you might want to consider the economic reasons why large families are often prevalent in less developed areas.

And I fail to see what my nationality has to do with anything. I am not the one simultaneously thinking that people putside the west are backwards savages and holding pretentions of being a "maoist, third worlder", am I?
So, if I claim to be a poster from some country and claim something about that country, and moreover, generalize to many countries, will you believe me?

Please explain how any of my posts indicate that people outside the west are backwards savages.

16th November 2009, 12:39

And I think that the two links referring to a church forbidding birth control, and a highly influential Islamic organization still debating whether to tolerate birth-control prove enough.

They don't prove very much at all, they simply prove that Kerala and that state out of so many more in India have churches that want to staunchly deny birth control. Devrim has posted a link about a christian-majority Indian state too doing the opposite of what you're saying as well.

It's weird that you think these strange things divorced from reality, yet proclaim your support for "all things third world", like you somehow have more knowledge on them, even more than people who have lived and extensively travelled throughout the third-world as well or have direct understanding thanks to their parents' experiences living in places.

Why don't you educate yourself more before you say stuff like this, local feudal institutions simply do not hold sway in all the countries mentioned in this thread, in most regions of most of the countries mentioned in fact, the central government can implement and do what it pleases, influencing local customs whichever way it likes.

Devrim

16th November 2009, 13:32

And I think that the two links referring to a church forbidding birth control, and a highly influential Islamic organization still debating whether to tolerate birth-control prove enough.

No, they don't prove that birth control is prohibited in Islamic countries in general, or the Indian sub-continent in particular because it isn't. As we saw from your link, the majority of people in Bangladesh, the example you chose, use birth control.

And I think that the two links referring to a church forbidding birth control

Churches can not forbid birth control. They can forbid their members to use it, but they can not forbid it without the states support, and here they were arguing against the policy of the state.

However, the fact that their are Christians that have reactionary opinions about birth control proves nothing about Muslims.

and a highly influential Islamic organization still debating whether to tolerate birth-control prove enough.

Actually, they were discussing whether to 'promote', not tolerate. It is also interesting the way you suddenly deem this organisations to be 'highly influential'. I have very little idea about the influence of this organisation, but as I understand it, it is basically a small organisation of clerics, which has recently suffered a series of damaging splits.

So, if I claim to be a poster from some country and claim something about that country, and moreover, generalize to many countries, will you believe me?

Posters who know me on here, or even the admins (by checking the IP address) could tell you that I live where I say I do. In addition, I didn't just generalise to other countries, I provided evidence to show that not only was birth control not prohibited in the Indian sub-continent, but was in fact promoted by the state.

Please feel free to keep digging though.

Devrim

red cat

16th November 2009, 19:43

No, they don't prove that birth control is prohibited in Islamic countries in general, or the Indian sub-continent in particular because it isn't. As we saw from your link, the majority of people in Bangladesh, the example you chose, use birth control.

Churches can not forbid birth control. They can forbid their members to use it, but they can not forbid it without the states support, and here they were arguing against the policy of the state.

However, the fact that their are Christians that have reactionary opinions about birth control proves nothing about Muslims.

Actually, they were discussing whether to 'promote', not tolerate. It is also interesting the way you suddenly deem this organisations to be 'highly influential'. I have very little idea about the influence of this organisation, but as I understand it, it is basically a small organisation of clerics, which has recently suffered a series of damaging splits.

Posters who know me on here, or even the admins (by checking the IP address) could tell you that I live where I say I do. In addition, I didn't just generalise to other countries, I provided evidence to show that not only was birth control not prohibited in the Indian sub-continent, but was in fact promoted by the state.

Please feel free to keep digging though.

Devrim
The Indian state has never cared to challenge religious sentiments to promote birth-control, because the parliamentary parties are in perputual fear of losing vote-banks and are interested in keeping the country immersed in a feudal culture. Sometimes it has certain sprees to show off to its imperialist masters, such as the birth control campaigns of the 1970s, where countless people were forcefully castrated.

The power of local feudal bodies in India is tremendous. You can check by reading up on the feudal atrocities on Dalits in India, which shows how poewrful these bodies can be and the sort of unofficial support that they enjoy from the government.

And another point, just because you live in a country does not mean that anything you claim about that country will be taken as granted. What we claim is not necessarily what we observe (though I am not saying that in this case the information you provided about Turkey is false).

Here is some material on the Muslem population in India:

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/demogislam/part3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India

red cat

16th November 2009, 19:46

They don't prove very much at all, they simply prove that Kerala and that state out of so many more in India have churches that want to staunchly deny birth control. Devrim has posted a link about a christian-majority Indian state too doing the opposite of what you're saying as well.

It's weird that you think these strange things divorced from reality, yet proclaim your support for "all things third world", like you somehow have more knowledge on them, even more than people who have lived and extensively travelled throughout the third-world as well or have direct understanding thanks to their parents' experiences living in places.

Why don't you educate yourself more before you say stuff like this, local feudal institutions simply do not hold sway in all the countries mentioned in this thread, in most regions of most of the countries mentioned in fact, the central government can implement and do what it pleases, influencing local customs whichever way it likes.How are you so sure that you are correct?

17th November 2009, 01:47

How are you so sure that you are correct?

Because much of my family including my immediate family come from and have lived much of their lives in India, mostly rural Goa but in other many other states too. They have also lived in rural and urban (Mombasa) Kenya. I have learnt a lot about what life is like there, both from proletarian and petty-bourgeois (many of them were petty-bourgeois) points of view.

Also, because I understand the way governments and the people work and do not buy into non-materialist classifications of countries as being 'semi-feudal' or 'feudal'.

And finally because of the understanding I have from so many other people who have lived in the third world, countries like Nigeria and Turkey.

I don't see what invalidates my opinion compared to yours, simply because you (apparently) come from a third-world country, which appears to be what you are saying, just coming from a third world country does not necessarily guarantee your materialist analysis of it (and other countries similar) is correct by any means. Furthermore, the sections of organisations like the ICC IN places such as Turkey and India come to fundamentally correct conclusions that completely contradict yours.

Ret

28th November 2009, 15:50

Raúl Duke

5th December 2009, 00:33

Khatna is practiced in third world countries, and as far as I know, is restricted to the Muslem population.

It does not matter what the word means in Arabic. This word is commonly used for what I used it for.

While this practice (Female Circumsion) is usually practice in countries with a significant Islamic population, it is not derive by Islam, it's seldom practiced in the Islamic countries in the Middle-East, and also even people of other religions probably also take part. (i.e. Sudan also has a christian population. While I'm not totally sure, but they also practice female circumcision.)

Plus, this practice in Africa has more to do with ignorance (even ignorance of the fact that nothing in Islam/Koran calls for this).

red cat

18th January 2010, 19:23

Because much of my family including my immediate family come from and have lived much of their lives in India, mostly rural Goa but in other many other states too. They have also lived in rural and urban (Mombasa) Kenya. I have learnt a lot about what life is like there, both from proletarian and petty-bourgeois (many of them were petty-bourgeois) points of view.

Also, because I understand the way governments and the people work and do not buy into non-materialist classifications of countries as being 'semi-feudal' or 'feudal'.

And finally because of the understanding I have from so many other people who have lived in the third world, countries like Nigeria and Turkey.

I don't see what invalidates my opinion compared to yours, simply because you (apparently) come from a third-world country, which appears to be what you are saying, just coming from a third world country does not necessarily guarantee your materialist analysis of it (and other countries similar) is correct by any means. Furthermore, the sections of organisations like the ICC IN places such as Turkey and India come to fundamentally correct conclusions that completely contradict yours.

I don't know much about what is presently happening in Turkey, but from my experience I know ( if some incident has happened somewhere in my country, I can always communicate with a migrant worker from that place)the sources that oppose the Maoists, especially the sources that call themselves "leftist", are terribly wrong. As for the other shades of leftists in my country, I have seen only the elite and elite-middle class in their ranks.

red cat

18th January 2010, 19:50

Redcat likes to try to dismiss some inconvenient facts by saying 'ah, but the bourgeois press would say that, it's never reliable'. (Yet he and fellow Maoists are selectively uncritical on the Nepal sticky thread when providing bourgeois press reports they see as favourable to Prachanda & co.). But this thread (and the Bangladesh thread previously mentioned) make clear that even the bourgeois press is a more reliable source than redcat's fantasies about the 'feudal cultures of the 3rd world'.

The way I come across information about Maoist activities is by direct interaction with the working class. In my country, and I think in most other third-world countries, the Maoist parties are banned, practically if not officially, and if the government even gets a hint that a person is in contact with the party, he gets arrested. So it is impossible to communicate with a partisan Maoist. Nowadays the situation is such, that even if the government comes to know that one believes in Maoism, or even in Marxism, or if he is found to possess communist literature, he is detained until they are convinced that he is a member of some other party.

So it is generally difficult for people like me who think Maoism is the correct extension of ML, to obtain any information. But wherever I go, the members of the working class have a strange urge to befriend me. So I come across what may sound like rumors but are often surprisingly correct. There have been instances of me coming to know about things happening in Nepal days and even weeks before Comrade Alastair posted them.

And the way I generalize about partisan Maoists in every third-world country is by generalizing on the fact that in the place where I live, partisan Maoists have engaged in only pro-worker acts, and not a single one against them. Their activities are mysterious, as in people never know who stick the posters or take part in actions. From this, mind it, it is happening in worker infested areas of a big city, I can conclude nothing other than that the partisan Maoists are members of the proletariat itself. Also, in recent times, many migrant workers whom I have talked to, and who apparently had no link to the party, referred to the Maoist party as "our party" and the Maoist army as "our army". In some places there have been instances of the workers making posters to threaten their employers in the name of Maoists ( the posters can be easily distinguished from Maoist ones from their quality and content). In my country, the broad masses have have accepted the Maoist party as their own party.

And by the way, Comrade Alastair's thread about the accusation that Maoists in Nepal banned strikes clarifies a lot about the knowledge of revlefters who made this accusation in the Bangladesh thread.