The hypocrites deceives himself while the believers talks to God and the chosen ones.

[firedragon]

I understand, but I'm talking how he perceives "Islam" as all "begging from God's chosen". It's similar how polytheists would say to Mohammad (s) (paraphrasing my understanding of the verse) "why should we prostrate to God and what is God anyways? You are asking us to simply follow your commands and are dictating what God is to us!"

Oh I see. I did not understand that. Really?

Ignorance brother. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Link]

Oh I see. I did not understand that. Really?

Ignorance brother. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's not just ignorance, but most of the arguments and taunts of disbelievers (that continues today by many non-Muslims not saying anyone here is a disbeliever), is circular in reasoning.

There is a few that are philosophical, such as "why not an Angel...", "why does he walk in the markets..." but most are circular taunts, which is why Nuh (a) and others, would emphasize "have you considered if I am on clear proof".

This is the first step, is just assume possibly, imagine it's true. See what Quran is, give it a chance, not asking to believe, just consider it possibly true and analyze then to see if it's from God or not.

But most humans are argumentatively stuck in circular reasoning.

This thread shows this. I'm trying to show why Islamically hypocrisy is bad and why seeking intercession of Mohammad (s) would cure it, but everyone wants talk from circular reference that Mohammad (s) is not a Messenger of God.

I'm not asking to accept Mohammad (s) is a Messenger of God, and Quran true, mainly to understand this concept of hypocrisy and Quranic solution to it from it's own paradigm.

 

[LuisDantas]

From Misbahal Shariah, Imam Jaffar (a) describes a hypocrite:

The hypocrite is content to be far from the mercy of Allah, because his outward actions appear to be in line with Islamic laws; and yet he is heedless and ineffective, mocking and transgressing its truthfulness in his heart.

Again: there is no way that can be called hypocrisy. If anything, hypocrisy seems likely to motivate that judgement.

The mark of hypocrisy is disregard for lies, treachery, insolence, false claims, insincerity, foolishness, error and lack of modesty, making little of acts of disobedience, desiring believers to lose faith, and making light of misfortunes in the faith; pride, praise, praise of love, love of praise, envy, preferring this world to the next and evil to good, inciting slander, love of amusement, dealing with prevaricators, helping aggressive people avoiding good deeds, disparaging those who do good, considering good the evil done by the hypocrite and recognizing as odious whatever good another person does; and many other things like that.

Now, that is indeed hypocrisy.

It is too bad that Islam and Muslims conflate two such unlike concepts into one. IMO they are actually opposite to each other.

Disbelief in not hypocrisy; rather, it is often an impediment to hypocrisy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh I see. I did not understand that. Really?

Ignorance brother. Nothing more, nothing less.

Suuure.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not just ignorance, but most of the arguments and taunts of disbelievers (that continues today by many non-Muslims not saying anyone here is a disbeliever), is circular in reasoning.

There is a few that are philosophical, such as "why not an Angel...", "why does he walk in the markets..." but most are circular taunts, which is why Nuh (a) and others, would emphasize "have you considered if I am on clear proof".

This is the first step, is just assume possibly, imagine it's true. See what Quran is, give it a chance, not asking to believe, just consider it possibly true and analyze then to see if it's from God or not.

But most humans are argumentatively stuck in circular reasoning.

This thread shows this. I'm trying to show why Islamically hypocrisy is bad and why seeking intercession of Mohammad (s) would cure it, but everyone wants talk from circular reference that Mohammad (s) is not a Messenger of God.

I'm not asking to accept Mohammad (s) is a Messenger of God, and Quran true, mainly to understand this concept of hypocrisy and Quranic solution to it from it's own paradigm.

I understand it alright. And I denounce it as both dysfunctional, immoral and destructive.

 

[firedragon]

It's not just ignorance, but most of the arguments and taunts of disbelievers (that continues today by many non-Muslims not saying anyone here is a disbeliever), is circular in reasoning.

There is a few that are philosophical, such as "why not an Angel...", "why does he walk in the markets..." but most are circular taunts, which is why Nuh (a) and others, would emphasize "have you considered if I am on clear proof".

This is the first step, is just assume possibly, imagine it's true. See what Quran is, give it a chance, not asking to believe, just consider it possibly true and analyze then to see if it's from God or not.

But most humans are argumentatively stuck in circular reasoning.

This thread shows this. I'm trying to show why Islamically hypocrisy is bad and why seeking intercession of Mohammad (s) would cure it, but everyone wants talk from circular reference that Mohammad (s) is not a Messenger of God.

I'm not asking to accept Mohammad (s) is a Messenger of God, and Quran true, mainly to understand this concept of hypocrisy and Quranic solution to it from it's own paradigm.

I understand. You are not trying to convert anyone but are trying to show the concept. Some people don't get it.

Anyway, I would like to recommend an atheist you should read up on. There is a guy called Graham Oppy. Excellent. Prolific writer, and a hard atheist. Strong guy and a fantastic philosopher from Australia. Just read when you get some time brother.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Suuure.

Absolutely.

 

[firedragon]

I understand it alright. And I denounce it as both dysfunctional, immoral and destructive.

Immoral? Lol. ON what basis are you claiming moral absolutes mate? Arbitrary inventions whenever you please? What's your anchor?

 

[Link]

Nifaq and hypocrisy - this maybe a language issue @LuisDantas

The Arabic has more of double face, then "double standards", "lying to oneself, others, deception to oneself and others" and having "double image, one inward opposite to outward"

It's literally better translated as two-faced-ness then hypocrisy.

 

[LuisDantas]

Absolutely.

In all honesty, I doubt you would even have the means to know, if your posts are any indication.

 

[LuisDantas]

Immoral? Lol. ON what basis are you claiming moral absolutes mate? Arbitrary inventions whenever you please? What's your anchor?

Please. It is basic morality. And I stress "basic".

 

[firedragon]

Nifaq and hypocrisy - this maybe a language issue @LuisDantas

The Arabic has more of double face, then "double standards", "lying to oneself, others, deception to oneself and others" and having "double image, one inward opposite to outward"

It's literally better translated as two-faced-ness then hypocrisy.

Nigaq is also explained in the Qur'an as you rightly said in one of your posts about those who pretend this way or that way. That is why reading the Qur'an is important prior to cherry picking a verse and making composition fallacies like you have seen in this thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you realize that Nifaq is precisely what is encouraged by the combination of strong proselitism with expectations of shared belief and faith in the creed one is raised into?

 

[firedragon]

In all honesty, I doubt you would even have the means to know, if your posts are any indication.

Honestly, I doubt you have anything valuable to say whatsoever other than a quick googling of some term, making statements you have never understood or put an effort in studying a bit, and making absurd fallacies all over the place.

Please. It is basic morality. And I stress "basic".

So "basic" is your moral anchor? That's your explanation for your grounding?

Nah. Not good enough.

 

[firedragon]

Do you realize that Nifaq is precisely what is encouraged by the combination of strong proselitism with expectations of shared belief and faith in the creed one is raised into?

The ignorance is sky high.

Do you even try to read up things you don't know about?

 

[Link]

Do you realize that Nifaq is precisely what is encouraged by the combination of strong proselitism with expectations of shared belief and faith in the creed one is raised into?

You are correct in this. Part of the huge problem of Muslims breeding hypocrisy, is Muslims encourage each other to blindly follow Islam and it's laws without seeking proofs.

Not all, and no one will say it this way, but the culture is not what Madina Al-Munuwara was for example. It's not the illuminated on insights and proofs.

They also are easily swayed by conjecture when done with charisma.

A book of insights is heavily mistreated and carried without knowledge.

The Quran is a book of insights and proofs however at least this is what it claims.

Relying on God means you should also seek proofs from God and his rope. The Quran itself says "Do not follow that you have no knowledge of" in Surah Isra/Bani-Israel.

 

[LuisDantas]

Honestly, I doubt you have anything valuable to say whatsoever other than a quick googling of some term, making statements you have never understood or put an effort in studying a bit, and making absurd fallacies all over the place.

Again, I give your statements all due attention. Which is, fortunately, very easy to do.

So "basic" is your moral anchor? That's your explanation for your grounding?

Nah. Not good enough.

Not that I particularly value or need your approval or acknowledgement - quite on the contrary really - but yes, it is quite good enough. And very, very basic morality indeed.

If you fail to understand that, you should have no expectations whatsoever of other listening to your opinions on moral matters.

 

[Nakosis]

That's predominantly an ad hominem fallacy. I doubt that you have the qualification to psychoanalyse billions of people.

Being an atheist does not mean one should be making such facade assumptions about what you need or what anyone else needs. You call yourself a scientist. I respect that. What you are saying is that you believe in scientism. But you are being unscientific Nakosis. Making such facade conjecture without any research whatsoever is not being scientific.

Unless you can provide scientific studies that proves your points in your post.

Cheers.

Just saying what is possible having been in the same shoes. Up to the individual to seen any truth in it.

 

[firedragon]

Again, I give your statements all due attention. Which is, fortunately, very easy to do.


Not that I particularly value or need your approval or acknowledgement - quite on the contrary really - but yes, it is quite good enough. And very, very basic morality indeed.

If you fail to understand that, you should have no expectations whatsoever of other listening to your opinions on moral matters.

So where do your moral absolutes come from?

 

[firedragon]

Just saying what is possible having been in the same shoes. Up to the individual to seen any truth in it.

Not really Nakosis. You are not making about yourself "being in the same shoes". You are making conjecture about others.