ISIS via Ibn Taymiyyah and Avicenna


Much needed exposure of the ‘tendencies’ of these two wildly different representatives of the Islamic scholarly tradition. A beautiful piece.

Original here:

By Sheikh Atabek Shukurov

The Prophet Muhammad PBUH was very concerned to avoid any type of ‘mess’ as much as he could. For example in order to avoid academic mess he said;

Talk to the people on the level they can understand! Don’t let the truth which is from God and Prophet to be rejected by you speaking about the issues they don’t understand!

Another example could be the incident that happened in the camp of the Prophet whilst on a journey. Some of the hypocrites compared the Prophet PBUH to a dog. Believers were very offended and a fight nearly began. When the Prophet learnt about what happened, he ordered everyone to get ready and to set off to carry on the journey as soon as possible. That is how he stopped bloodshed and ‘mess’ that would have happened if they would spend the night there.

There are many more stories where Prophet PBUH does everything possible to avoid a mess. And that is actually a compulsion in Islam.

We are living in a time when intellectuals such as Ibn Sina, Farabi, Biruni, Kindi, Razi and many others are rejected and insulted and disowned – although conveniently and hypocritically wheeled out in front of non-Muslims as proof of Islam’s glorious and scientific past.

On the other hand anti-intellectuals such as Ibn Taimia, Ibn Qayyum, Ibn Abdul-Hadi etc. are displayed as the main representatives of Islam.

I just want to compare a top scholar from each of these two groups to the above-mentioned principle of Islam which orders us to avoid chaos and disorder as much as we can.

Let’s talk about Ibn Sina or the latin ‘Avicenna’ first. He has written many books, the most famous of which is ”al-Isharaat wal-Tanbeehaat”. No doubt that the book is not for laymen. It is a very difficult with almost locked content. Even the language is hard to understand. Avicenna only uses philosophical terminologies which cannot be taken or understood in widely spoken Arabic language. Actually, there are sentences which would seemingly be against Islamic creed if we would understand them not according to their specialist terminologies but only by Arabic language, much like the way the scientific definition of something like ‘entropy’ or ‘temperature’ is rather different from the usage of these terms in common English. For example, ‘relativity’ means something completely different in physics, philosophy and colloquial English language respectively.

And indeed, what happened is that people anathematised Avicenna and declared him a disbeliever based on their  imposition of their own ‘understanding’ onto Avicenna’s language. So where he was using philosophical terminologies from philosopher’s widely accepted lexicon of the time, many Islamic scholars imposed a theological meaning onto this without ever studying the scientific or philosophical one, or vice versa. This problem continues today. Salafi scholars such as Bilal Phillips (who said that believing in Einstein’s famous equation ‘E = MC squared’ was disbelief. Needless to say, he is not scientifically trained) have declared physicists ‘kaafir‘ for speaking of conservation of mass or energy, by assuming that they are speaking of these matters in a theological way as opposed to a technical way in the language of physics. So a Muslim or non-Muslim physicist may assert the conservation of mass or energy, that energy can neither be created or destroyed and mean this according to the physical laws of the universe, not that these laws apply to God or are general (though a non-Muslim may or may not mean this), just as we say the heart pumps blood around the body. This does not mean that God cannot interfere with this physical order. Of course, for puritans, everything must be in the ‘language’ of their chosen theology, but this is patently absurd.

This anathematisation, takfir and general disturbance at Avicenna proves that these books will cause a mess if you were to widely spread them to the laymen.

Avicenna was perfectly aware of that. That’s why he asked for very heavy oath from the person who actually asked him to write this book for him.

Avicenna said;


O Brother! I have clarified for you these ”Isharaat” to show the  truth. And spoon-fed you the wisdoms in very soft words. So protect it from the wasters and ignorant people. And keep it away from anyone who doesn’t have a sharp understanding, and wasn’t trained, and isn’t used to it. And from the ones who seek entertainment with the loud-voiced debaters. And keep it away from the sophists and  non-qualified among Philosophers.

But if you find someone who has a pure intention, and good behaviour, who doesn’t get excited towards satanic issues, the one who receives the truth with honesty and pleasure then give him it part by part. When you give him some of it just look at what his reaction is. Use his reaction to the previous part of this book to decide about what to do with the next part.

Take a binding oath from him by the name of God to also do as you are doing and to follow what you are following [in terms of keeping it away from the above mentioned people etc].

But if you waste it then God is the Judge between me and you, and He is enough to be the Representative!

We see how Avicenna is very concerned not to get his book widely spread as it is not directed to the non-specialists or laymen.

He repeated this demand few times in the book, for example here;


I repeat my will and remind you of my demand again to keep it away from the people who don’t meet the conditions that I mentioned at the end of the ”Isharaat!

We see that Avicenna is very careful.

Now let us compare it to the works of Ibn Taimia who is classed as one of the top scholars of Islam by nearly all of the schools and scholars purporting to be from ‘Ahlus Sunnah‘ today. Along with numerous others he accused of being outside the fold of Islam (such as Al Ghazzali and Imam Razi and Ibn Arabi…), Ibn Taimia demanded that Avicenna be considered a non-Muslim and is a scholar beloved of Puritanical movements, of both the violent (ISIS) and non-violent (subcontinental Deo-Brelwis for instance) kind.

Here is one page from his famous and oft published and quoted book called ”Majmoo’ al-Fatawa”. Just to clarify, ‘Fatawa‘ means that someone comes to a scholar to ask him about an issue to know about it. Then the scholar answers his question. This answer is called ”Fatwa” and ”Fatawa” is the plural. The answers of the scholar are sometimes collected into a book, and it then will be called  ”Fatawa of so and so scholar”. The main reason to compile the fatwas of the scholars is that if one person asked this question then there will likely be many more who may need it. Thus they compile it into a book so everyone can see it.

Therefore we know that fatawa are actually meant to go out to the public as widely as possible.

Here are some quotes from the book;


Here, in just one page Ibn Taimia states reasons for a death sentence eight times in seven issues;

1. If time of prayer enters, but a person didn’t pray, he will be killed
2. If one says; I will pray with no wudu (ritual ablution), he has to be killed
3. If one says; I will pray not towards qibla (facing the right direction), he will be killed
4. One will be killed if he leaves any of the agreed upon fards (compulsory acts)
5. One will be killed if he leaves the prayer
6. One will be killed by tightening the second and fourth 
7. One will be killed by the tightening the first too
8. One will be killed by leaving one or three prayers (there are two narrations).

No doubt that a genuine person wouldn’t like this to go out to the public (never mind these fatwas being wrong in and of themselves).

For example:


Means: ”Killing the person who leaves one prayer is more effective than stating that he committed a major sin!”

Or another example:


He says; ”If someone insists that pronouncing the intention [for prayer, as most Muslims do] loudly, it is compulsory that he has to be killed

Unfortunately it is not only these few pages with this ”killing” fatwa, but there are many more…the book is in 37 volumes in the recent edition.

I feel this is a good comparison for contemporary Muslims: one of the scholars (the ‘heretic’) thinks about not causing chaos with his book and takes an oath from the person for whom he has written the book not to spread it, with no consideration for the fame or recognition that he could receive for this acknowledged masterpiece of human intellection. He even demands another oath to make sure that the recipient takes a binding oath from anyone to whom he will give the book after testing that third person.

The second scholar (the ‘Shaykh Ul Islam‘ of salafis) writes a book which is dangerous without any doubt, as it is filled with fatwas about killing for minor or non infractions, but isn’t in the least bit bothered about what could be its effect, and sends it to the laymen. His followers today continue this blase tradition by mass publishing and disseminating this work proudly today – as can be seen first hand from any catalogue of Saudi funded publishers or any Islamic bookshop anywhere in the world in any language.

There could be some people who may say;

”Oh yes, regardless of what is the mistake of Ibn Taimia, but he is a Muslim whereas Avicenna is not”. Sadly, this is the attitude of many ‘practising’ Muslims.

Well, if few scholars takfeered Avicenna [declared him outside the fold of Islam], then even scholars takfeered Ibn Taimia too.

More than that, the three issues due to which Avicenna was takfeered (broadly, his allegedly believing in an eternal universe, denying God’s knowledge of particulars and purportedly denying a bodily resurrection) were clarified by many of the most senior scholars – such as Imam Razi, Ibn Arabi, Nabulsi, Khiali, and others. Of course, the Salafi favourites such as Ibn Taimia who takfired Ibn Sina were ‘generous’ enough to declare many of these scholars heretics and non-Muslims too.

Some may say;

”Why are you causing a mess by talking about these issues!?”

It is a double standard!

The ”mess” is already caused by spreading these type of ”killing” books. Actually, you can get this very ”Fatawa” book for free from certain institutes.

That is why it is important now to clarify and stop this mess which is caused by these types of books. In fact, what is happening is that extremist groups and individuals from Osama Bin Laden through Al Qaeda to ISIS are proudly using the fatwas of Ibn Taimia and others in their publications and justifications

Such examples can be multiplied almost without end and it is entirely understandable that an extremist groups such as ISIS which has a ‘kill first and ask questions later’ approach to what they claim is ‘Islam’ would be attracted to the utility of a scholar having a laissez fair attitude to killing such as Ibn Taimia. ISIS are quoting him frequently as can be seen in these excerpts from its English language magazine:

Ibn Taymiyyah Ruling on the Druze from Dabiq Issue 10 page 9

‘Dabiq’ issue 10

(‘Dabiq‘ is the English language publication of ISIS:


Dabiq issue 4 p15 

Ibn Taymiyyah encourages Jihad against his opponents by labelling them "apostates". ISIS do the same, from Dabiq Issue 10 page 10

Of course, ISIS quoting from Ibn Taimia does not mean that their use of him or the other Islamic sources they quote is justified, but rather does indicate that such individuals who are careless about killing will ‘resonate’ with each other. Furthermore, the various glosses offered by non-violent Salafis for the fatwas of Ibn Taimia are wildly dishonest and convince no one, least of all the non-Muslims. In fact Salafi apologists for Ibn Taimia frequently cause more damage in front of non-Muslims by sacrificing the reputation of Islamic scholarship in general to salvage that of Ibn Taimia by claiming that all of the Islamic scholars were as quick on the ‘kill switch’ as Ibn Taimia, thereby confirming the worst prejudices of non-Muslims.

Rather, the ‘killing fatwas’ of Ibn Taimia in particular are so egregious and careless as to be indefensible, as is abundantly clear above.

And this is why it is important to address this issue as Muslims – because the proverbial cat is out of the bag. The wider and non-Muslim public is aware of the issue now, both the honest ones:

Government advisers:

The ideology of Boko Haram is borrowed from Salafist thought and writings, “which treats anything western as completely un‐Islamic.” Yusuf was reportedly strongly influenced by the writings of the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyya, who called for jihad against rulers (including Muslim rulers)…

Boko Haram: An Assessment of Strengths, Vulnerabilities, and Policy Options
Report to the Strategic Multilayer Assessment Office, Department of Defense, and the Office of University Programs, Department of Homeland Security, January 2015

As well as the growing ranks of the Islamophobes, who are amongst the most passionate (if anything, more so than even ISIS) in quoting Ibn Taimia and insisting that he represents the ‘true’ Islam. Of course, I am not saying any of these sources is completely accurate or reliable, but what is reliable is that we have the published fatwas of Ibn Taimia from his own followers to refer to in their original language. And so do our enemies and friends.

We are merely arming our enemies and confusing our youth if we are not the first and foremost to address these problems – and to be like our beloved Prophet – the best at avoiding a ‘mess’.


47 thoughts on “ISIS via Ibn Taymiyyah and Avicenna

    • What. An. Idiot. Da`wah carriers (predominantly Salafi) tend to harp on the “Islamic Golden Age” like they had something to do with it, but ignorami like this probably resent there having ever been one in the first place. Physics may as well be black magic to these dregs. La hawla wa la quwwata illa bIllah…

  1. Avicenna is a genius. Plain and simple. Currently I am reading a section of his best known work, the Canon of Medicine, and it just seamlessly feels modern. The advice is way better than the ones I get from today’s diet guides!

    Ibn Taymiyyah, on the other hand, was a very violent man. There is no way around this. People are using his fatwas today to justify mass slaughter and rape (ISIS and co). Yet we still have people wanting to elevate Taymiyyah as the ‘face’ of Islam.

    Modern Muslims = ?

    • Ibn Taymiyyah was only slightly more violent than other Islamic scholars. This is a sectarian method for you to purify your school. Ibn Taymiyyah was controversial because of his theology and some points like three Talaqs (I never understood this issue about Talaqs). His contemporaries wanted to get him executed and he spent much of his time in prison. But this had as I mentioned theological reasons and had nothing to do with him being violent. He was not more violent than the average person at his time except maybe Ibn Arabi and his likes.

      A typical bediuzzamansaidnursi123-comment once again.

      • I can see that you have developed an attachment to whatever I comment on. The love affair from a self proclaimed atheist continues with the theists.

        Anyways, you say ibn Taymiyya was “only slightly more violent”?

        Did you miss this?

        “Here, in just one page Ibn Taimia states reasons for a death sentence eight times in seven issues;

        1. If time of prayer enters, but a person didn’t pray, he will be killed
        2. If one says; I will pray with no wudu (ritual ablution), he has to be killed
        3. If one says; I will pray not towards qibla (facing the right direction), he will be killed
        4. One will be killed if he leaves any of the agreed upon fards (compulsory acts)
        5. One will be killed if he leaves the prayer
        6. One will be killed by tightening the second and fourth
        7. One will be killed by the tightening the first too
        8. One will be killed by leaving one or three prayers (there are two narrations).”

        He was the only scholar to say this. A very violent person indeed. But just like Salafis do, they do not admit this. Instead, they portray Taymiyya as being a product of his times so anything he said was fair as other people (whom you do not mention) were also violent. He was just being “more” than they were.

        “He was not more violent than the average person at his time except maybe Ibn Arabi and his likes.”

        Care to expand on this? How was ibn Arabi “more violent”? Cite evidence before making random claims. You are behaving like a Salafi – just say something to fill in gaps and hope your audience just goes with it.

        A typical Zany comment once again.

      • I meant that people like Ibn Arabi were less violent than Ibn Taymiyyah.

        Regarding the points you listed, most of them are either kufr or big sins. Not praying is kufr according to the Hanbalis and Ibn Taymiyyah was Hanbali. If I remember correctly there are also death penalties for not praying in the other schools or at least some punishment. Praying without Wudu or not towards the Qibla intentionally seems to be kufr. What is the other reason to pray without Wudu? You know who prays without Wudu? Me. When I go to the mosque I pray there without Wudu because I do not believe in it obviously. So seems like Ibn Taymiyyah is right 🙂

        I already mentioned that Ibn Taymiyyah was jailed and is opponents wanted to get him executed. There are many scholars who wrote against him. But never was this about violence. Nobody cared about this because in the best case he was only slightly more violent than them. What they cared about was theology.
        This is nothing more but a reformist sectarian attempt to make it look like the problems come from Ibn Taymiyyah and Salafism.

  2. @Zany

    “I meant that people like Ibn Arabi were less violent than Ibn Taymiyyah”

    You demonstrated a poor grasp on basic logic and grammar with your previous post then. I sure hope you don’t teach kids! Or anyone!

    “Regarding the points you listed, most of them are either kufr or big sins. Not praying is kufr according to the Hanbalis and Ibn Taymiyyah was Hanbali.”

    As your Islamic knowledge is so woeful even though you pride yourself in being a person who is a former Muslim (who has, to quote from a previous article comment, “more knowledge and interest about Islam”), you demonstrate how dumb you really are. You do not tell us which ones are kufr or big sins. In regards to not praying, one may be excused if they are ignorant (of the ruling) or if they have a really good excuse e.g. Diarrhoea. Ibn Taymiyya certainly didn’t distinguish this. And as for the Hanbali belief of not praying = kufr, did you know that Imam Ahmad’s own teacher Imam Shafi‘i refuted him on this? But obviously, you will not want to reveal this as:

    A) You are dumb
    B) It allows you to bash Islam
    C) You genuinely didn’t know in which case it’s bewildering to see you acting as if you are full of knowledge

    “If I remember correctly there are also death penalties for not praying in the other schools or at least some punishment.”

    So you remember it but you do not care to mention it? Salafi behaviour here. This is not a dumb audience that you are normally used to addressing. As usual, you cannot bring evidence to the table.

    “Praying without Wudu or not towards the Qibla intentionally seems to be kufr. What is the other reason to pray without Wudu? You know who prays without Wudu? Me. When I go to the mosque I pray there without Wudu because I do not believe in it obviously.”

    I get it now. You pride yourself on being an apostate. You revel in the kufr you love to commit. It brings purpose to your self perceived meaningless existence. This website is providing an outlet for you for you to vent your incoherent ramblings. You crave the attention and response from others. It’s what motivates you.

    I was correct: once people like you leave the religion, you just don’t give up and leave the believers alone. People like you are so pathetic. The unwanted love affair.
    Anything you say means nothing – you are just here to export your crappy mindset on others. (Memo: It’s not working!!!)

    PS If you are saying that we are being sectarian by singling out Ibn Taymiyya, I sure hope you atheists don’t mind us singling out Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. for being responsible for all the deaths they have caused in the name of their ideologies. They have killed more over the last 300+ years than religious people have over the last 1000 years. Don’t try and deny this. They were all open in how they hated religion and how it didn’t fit in with their beloved secularism and other ideologies.

    Deep down, I know you sympathise with these people for what they did to religion. You will never admit that.

    PSS I will now further your depression by no longer responding to you. I advise the same for everyone else. This parasite needs us to respond to him for him to have any meaning.

    • This style of polemics is too high for you. Outside the safespace this site offers for such views you will lose. So calm down.

      First of all we should note that you guys believe that there is no punishment for gay sex except if it is in public and in that case there are only a couple of lashes. So it’s clear that you have a problem with violence in Islam. You then use a sectarian way to deny violence for your sect and blame it on other sects.

      I explained that Ibn Taymiyyah’s killing list was not so special when you look at it just a little bit closer. You can be killed for big sins in Islam. You can and will be killed for apostasy in Islam. You can deny it but you will not change this fact.

      I looked up what the punishments for not praying according to the Sunni Madhhabs are:
      Hanbali: death for apostasy
      Shafi: death for sin of not praying
      Hanafi: imprisonment
      Maliki: something like Shafi or Hanafi

      We see that Hanafis are the most “liberal” ones while Hanbalis the strictest ones. Whatever your view about Hanbalis is Ibn Taymiyyah did not invent it.
      And your talking about excuses is incredibly stupid in this context. Maybe I should stop responding to you?

      But I will make something else clear (and I have done it actually few times):
      I am not making a big issue about me being ex-Muslim. I have no hate for Islam. Otherwise I would not be able to still pretend to be a Muslim. I really don’t care. What I hate is natalism and most people are natalist.
      And I also have not many negative personal consequences from my Muslim background. I was quite religious but I always kept it for myself. Other people did not know for example that I was praying regularly and even knowing much about religion. Therefore I had no problems when I stopped believing. It did not change anything for outsiders.

      • @zany you massive wankpuffin. You just got slapped back to your father’s nutsack. Stay there please and don’t come back.

  3. Out of curiosity would you recommend that Muslims study philosophy? Some Muslim scholars completely demonize philosophy while others recommend it, and some say one must gain a certain amount of Islamic knowledge before pursuing the subject. What are your thoughts?

  4. Don’t you think allowing scholars today to reform religion according to logic and prevailing common sense is bound to create more problems? Most of the fatwas i’ve come across that legitimizes such massacres on civilians have a strong logical element to them – at least logical to the scholar who issues such fatwas and also those less knowledgeable fans who will be inevitably more prone to be convinced by such logic.

    Here’s a compilation of such fatwas on this rabidly extreme Deobandi site who funnily enough seem to have a problem with the extremism of such fatwas:

    Ibn Uthaymin’s fatwa for example is based on his logic with which he is clearly convinced by – no matter how absurd such logic might appear to others – that it is grossly unfair that muslims cannot take just revenge (qisas) against non-muslim civilians for the crimes non-muslims commit against muslim civilians.

    Furthermore such scholars find support for their logic by Quranic verses such as:

    O YOU who have attained to faith! Just retribution is ordained for you in cases of killing: the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the woman for the woman (Baqarah 178)

    Of course how the classical jurists had interpreted and restricted the application of this verse is immaterial in the face of logic and rational arguments with which these scholars are clearly convinced by and who feel justified in sticking firmly to what they believe to be justice, truth and what the Quran is telling them to do.

    Do you say that such scholars have the right to follow what they genuinely believe to be justice, qisas, and logically justified, or should they, in such emotionally loaded issues, suspend their intellects temporarily and instead blindly follow what some other group such as yourselves believe to be justice, qisas and logically justified (or unjustified)?

    I look forward to your thoughts on this.

  5. I would say that a God who actually exists and sends a message to people and demands them to accept it could also mandate killing those who do not accept it. The problem is obviously that the message is not faultless enough to be accepted and that people in general are not intelligent enough to see reality.
    So when someone starts killing disbelievers it ends up being a crazy genocide. The people who do this are usually literalist bigots who reject thinking like the early Wahhabis or ISIS. They demand others to think and to accept their religion but they see thinking as being evil. But there were also more rationalist slaughterers like the Almohads or the Mutazilite Abbasids.

    The Qur’an and Islam make big claims about being the truth. As a former Muslim I would say that they are convincing to some level but not sufficiently. You are admitting this by not being ready to force Islam on others. Pacifism is not what the Qur’an with it’s big words leads to.

    In case someone forgot, I have left Islam because I reject the concept of life and a God willingly creating it. This problem is not solved by any monotheist religion and also not by your interpretation of Islam.

  6. ” The Qur’an and Islam make big claims about being the truth. As a former Muslim I would say that they are convincing to some level but not sufficiently. ”

    This is the incomplete comparison fallacy again. Not sufficiently compared to what ?

    • For me the Qur’an is not convincing enough. I am not saying it is totally unconvincing. I do understand why people are believing it. The problems that can be found in the Qur’an can be explained away when you have faith. The explanations are sufficient as long as you believe. Examples are the sun setting in a mud, Mary being the sister of Aaron.

      • Funny how literally ALL ex-Muslims are
        Wahhabi literalists.
        ‘Hand’ means an actual hand etc.
        Quran says Allah forgets those who forget him.
        So: do Muslims believe that Allah has the attribute of forgetting.

        A while ago, when you were trolling thusly but not actually able to reply to anything (*a tendency which has blossomed in the interim) you claimed that you were a nihilist and thought that non-existence was best.

        So there is an easy way to act on such a purported belief: it is called suicide.
        I don’t want you to do it and I think the world is better with people like you in it (which is why I was reluctant to say it) but if your beliefs are sincere, why haven’t you acted on them?

        If there is no God and no afterlife, and you truly believe non-existence and/or oblivion is better, why are you still here?

      • As Liliy said, you HAVEN’T rejected the concept of life HAVE you dear?
        I wasn’t going to say it but since you feel like it’s fine to promote such ideas here publicly to people who may be depressed, considering suicide etc, why are YOU choosing life and choosing trolling crap about Islam the universe and everything instead of, you know, oblivion or non-life or death or whatever?

        Can you tell me please?

      • Discussing with you is not really possible because you are arrogant. You think that you have discovered the ultimate truth that nearly nobody else has. I do understand why you are arrogant but your rants are not convincing. They are supposed to intimidate. That does not impress me at all. Rather through your aggressive responses much ignorance in your argumentation is seen.

        “Funny how literally ALL ex-Muslims are
        Wahhabi literalists.
        ‘Hand’ means an actual hand etc.
        Quran says Allah forgets those who forget him.
        So: do Muslims believe that Allah has the attribute of forgetting.”

        I clearly said that I know the explanations for these problems in the Qur’an. I used to believe in them as a Muslim and I said that I do even find them convincing to some extent. But your general attitude always influences what you see as convincing. As a Muslim I had no big problems with the whole Dhul Qurnayn story. In the moment I lost faith in God it was totally different. So before you give an apologetic explanation think whether it is really convincing for an unbiased person too or not.

        Regarding the issue why I have not killed myself I can tell you quite frankly that I have considered it many times in the past. I had many emotional problems when I had no belief anymore. Your comment about how you crushed me in the discussion and I ran away which is bullshit would have made me angry and suicidal. Difficulties in life also mattered but my biggest problem was the stupidity or injustice of other people.
        But I have managed to look at these things more coldblooded. I realised that the reason I cared for what other people do and think was my former religious attitude. I used to believe that humans are rational and responsible beings as a Muslim of course. This attitude was in me even as an nihilist atheist. But once I fully understood that humans are just animals whose behaviour is determined biologically rather than through rational thinking I look at them much more easier.
        For example your ignorance does not make me angry anymore. You are simply a human ape like any person.

        So today I do not feel suicidal and I also do not have big hardships in life. Therefore I prefer to continue to live. But to be honest, the reason why I have not committed suicide when it was wished and why I would hesitate even today if the situation suggested is the still existing fear that God exists. Maybe this fear is caused by the instinctive fear of death just that I am not aware of it and think it is because of God. But since I cannot be totally sure that there is no God I prefer to have an option left. This is reasonable.

      • So you DO believe God exists.

        You admit to believing it more than your oft stated belief in oblivion and nihilism since you act on the fear of God and not the ‘necessity’ of oblivion.

        Dude, you are the arrogant one here. No one ‘crushed’ you as you can only crush something it must have substance. Your arguments don’t even have that. You needed to be told that. I engaged with you on free will and you basically failed to engage at all apart from emotional BS. You had a bizarre definition of ‘free will’ and failed to provide ANY objective or other proof for your assertion that oblivion or ‘non existence’ is better than perpetual suffering.

        Hence you lose. It’s not because I am arrogant or think I’m clever it’s because at root, you have no case and no arguments. You define yourself by your apostasy and trying to piss off people of faith. Yet your identity is hollow because you are still a theist in actions.

        I and others would be totally sympathetic to your reasons and anger against religion if YOU weren’t such a smug arrogant spam merchant. Look at the kind of weak jive you come out with. Mary is literally the sister of Aaron. Really?

      • Also, you are a shameless hypocrite. You encourage others towards atheism, nihilism and ‘non-existence’ (means suicide) but you ACTUALLY don’t believe in or practise these things yourself. Even THAT would be fine if you were HONEST and stated your doubts (which are sensibly that suicide is bad because then there’s no more chance and God MIGHT exist) so that people would not get negatively influenced.

        But you only admitted that when I PUNKED you on it, which I didn’t want to do. Don’t you feel ashamed?

        What if someone reading your CRAP (because let’s face it, it is mainly that isn’t it?) kills themselves without reading the small print that actually God might exist, you still fear him and that’s ‘sensible’?

        Are you willing to take responsibility for that? What if from the thousands who read this site there was just ONE like that? Do you accept responsibility?

        I told you to choose life from the start. You said to choose death but in the small print you said ‘life’.

        So who’s arrogant?

  7. “”You are admitting this by not being ready to force Islam on others. ”

    The activist who dies for his cause (aka “martyr”) is more convincing than the one who kills for his cause. If only because the second one’s actions can very easily be explained away by other motives, such as greed, cruelty, stupidity etc.

    Indeed, the fact that people allegedly kill too much for religion is one of the most popular and well-known anti-religious arguments. “Spread by the sword” is one of the Islamophobe’s favorite accusations.

  8. “I have left Islam because I reject the concept of life”

    uggggh this is sheer idiocy. Do you reject biological life? Some other definition of life? What does this even mean???

    Zany, do you have other things to do with your life than post comments that actually kill my neurons every time you post? How about you do normal atheist things like being a normal person and leading a normal life and actually having friends, instead of . . . uh . . . parotting whatever pseudo-philosophical BS you have over and over again like a talking head, making outlandish claims with negative one pieces of evidence, and refusing to actually engage with anyone here.

    Here’s something to help you out:

  9. There are two problems with the concept of life. The first and morally most dramatic is the possibility of suffering. Muslim theologians of your kind have accepted that this is a problem called the problem of evil. They tried to solve it with free will but this is in no way a solution. We discussed it somewhere else.
    The second problem is simply that life is pointless. It is ridiculous that a God creates all of this. This might seem to be a subjective opinion but I have not seen a good explanation for it.

    From the rest of what you wrote your natalist life affirming attitude is seen. I do not care for life and normal atheists. Just like you have issues with most Muslim I have issues with most atheists. I am an antinatalist nihilist atheist not humanist atheist.

    • I seem to remember threshing you on this issue of free will. You were not only unable to reply, it seemed like you:

      A) didn’t understand what free will is
      B) couldn’t follow the discussion anyway

      I think we have to ban you isn’t it?
      Because you get dealt with and then keep coming back with the same ‘arguments’ (in reality, especially watery emotional diarrhoea) as if you didn’t get your ass handed to you. It is exactly how Salafis behave.
      You are just an atheist Salafi isn’t it?

      • We discussed the problem of evil and you gave your explanation of free will as solution. I knew and understood this explanation totally (and knew it before) even though you kept and keep saying that I do not. The reason I do not accept it as the solution is as I explained that by God creating humans by his free will he subsequently willed to do evil too. If God did not want evil to happen he could have willed otherwise. That was my point.
        Then your argument was that existence with suffering might be better than non-existence. I suggested that we talk about this argument but the thread got lost.

      • Poppycock.
        I never said free will was the answer.
        I said God can’t create people with free will who never commit evil. I said show me how he could if you disagree and THEN I will GRACE your unworthy waffling self with a discussion on childhood cancers etc.
        We can all see your nonsensical answer to this.

        Good that you admit that you could not answer the second point at all. Actually, if you say that God shouldn’t have created anything (your actual position, which you are too much of a waffler to state clearly), you would then again have to prove that non-existence is better than suffering. We both know you can’t do that. Of course, you think ‘discussion’ means going around in circles with baby wipes clearing up your emotional diarrhoea.

        Just to show you how badly you are talking YAK PISS about the problem of evil, show me a proof as to why it is better to be created without free will (*you tried to argue that God could do this before – the thread didn’t get ‘cut off’, I had to ignore you when you could not answer academically but wanted to keep trolling).

        Also, Dear Sheikh of Non-Practising Nihilism, tell us of how intelligence can be separated from free will and how you can think without making choices. Once you have achived this impressive feat, then demonstrate how being a marrionette or puppet is better than an existence with free will and intellect.

        Don’t play the victim here kiddo. When someone comes and talks big and gets cut down to size, you don’t call the one doing the cutting arrogant.

  10. “Since I cannot be totally sure that there is no God I prefer to have an option left. This is reasonable.”

    Reasonable to preach one thing and practice the opposite ? I guess your actions are supposed to compensate your (BS) talking ? Hmmm … Just staying alive is not an excuse for preaching nonsense IMHO.

    And we have incomplete comparison there again. You do not say under what circumstances you would eventually turn to that “left option”.

    “whereas repentance shall not be accepted from those who do evil deeds until their dying hour and then say, “Behold, I now repent””

    (Qur’an 4.18, Muhamad Asad translation)

  11. @Zany

    “If God did not want evil to happen he could have willed otherwise. That was my point.”

    There is no point here, simply (as always with you) an ambiguous sentence which you refuse to clarify (in that example, you
    refuse and will always refuse to clarify the “otherwise” part). You like to always have “an option left” as you say.
    You only speak in ambiguous sentences, thinking “if my opponent interprets it as A, I’ll interpret it as B and vice-versa”.
    You think you’re playing it safe. In reality, you’re preventing any communication between yourself
    and other people, and wasting time, internet space, mental and physical energy etc

  12. Lol is this ‘Zany’ guy still going? I gave up interacting with this idiot a while ago. It’d be nice if WordPress could have a Troll Alert function, would spare us crap like this.

  13. I see that you are trying to present me as a literalist with stupid arguments against Islam. This is not true and I have always tried to show that I am not arguing like this against Islam. I did not use the “sister of Aaron” issue as some ultimate proof but basically said that it is something that sucks. Biblical Aaron had a sister that was named similar to Mary. Of course it could be a coincidence but such coincidences suck. What determines your conviction in such cases is your bias.

    What ultimately prevents me from suicide is fear. I have been Muslim for my whole life and therefore fear of God is still in me. It becomes less and less as the years are passing but it is simply not possible to throw everything you have in your head away. Fear of death is natural and related to this. It is not rational as I said.
    Another reason for not dying is what can be called morality. Even though I do not see any rational way of demanding morality I can still wish to be moral. I do wish to stop suffering of humans and animals and by promoting antinatalism I could maybe achieve something.

  14. You keep saying that I do not understand the issue with free will. I do understand it and I knew it already before as the theist argument. But I did not get further into the free will issue because your view is theological. You do not take into account any psychology and naturalistic explanations. I am not objecting since you do not have to as a theist but there is no point discussing it since we are not on the same basis for it. But do not tell me that I am not understanding your view.

    So it all ends in the question whether non-existence without suffering is better than existence with suffering but free will and pleasure. You ask for a proof that the first possibility is better than the second. My whole argument is based on the consideration that it is better. For me this is obvious.
    In fact this is the main argument used against antinatalism. Most discussions go around this. So my response to this is the normal antinatalist efilist response.

    Efilism BTW is an antinatalist philosophy that considers negative utilitarianism as the rational imperative. I disagree with the existence of rational absolute imperatives but I do still agree with it on this issue on another level that is difficult to explain now. So you can basically criticize efilism if you want to criticize my opinion.

  15. “do not tell me that I am not understanding your view”
    “you are trying to present me as a literalist with stupid arguments (…) this is not true”

    That’s what literalists always say, of course.
    Literalists are unable to understand what their literalist mental handicap is all about.
    The moment a literalist realizes what literalism really is and how stupid it is, he ceases forever to be a literalist.

    • Salaams, thanks for the question. You don’t need four witnesses for rape. Only adultery or fornication.
      If you needed witnesses for the rape, then the witnesses would have to be punished for not stopping it.

  16. As expressed in Qur’an 4.15 for example :

    (4:15) And as for those of your women who become guilty of immoral conduct, call upon four from among you who have witnessed their guilt; and if these bear witness thereto, confine the guilty women to their houses until death takes them away or God opens for them a way [through repentance]. (4:16) And punish [thus] both of the guilty parties; but if they both repent and mend their ways, leave them alone: for, behold, God is an acceptor of repentance, a dispenser of grace.

  17. It is difficult to prove that a rape happened because unlike other crimes the performed act can also happen and happens with consent. There are many cases of falsely accused men being convicted and there are many cases of actual rapists not being convicted. Islamic law is causing the latter more often. But you should not be pissed about Islam. Shariah just tries it’s best like any law. You should be pissed on Allah and ask yourself why are you more merciful than him?

    Do not try to reform Islam. Once you have understood the reality of life and the consequences of this to the belief in a non-evil God you will either reject faith or accept anything. If Allah could even create the suffering and evil in life he could have also ruled anything.

    You guys are not better than ISIS. ISIS is at least consistent and does not question neither the Shariah nor life. They are consistent in respect to their premise. You question the Shariah but you accept life. I call myself a nihilist but I do care about pain and suffering. But the admin here seriously asked the question whether suffering might be better than non-existence. This is the worst kind of nihilism since it even denies value to the only thing that has actual value which is pain.

    • Yeah, we already saw how atheistic and nihilistic you really are when you actually admitted that you are neither of these.
      Look, this ain’t free therapy kid.
      Stop wasting time and feel free to get lost unless you can bring anything other than fact free rants and veiled insults.
      All you Ex Muslims have a hard on for ISIS because you feel it justifies your decision.
      Stop harassing others as a means of assuaging your self loathing.

  18. Salaams, Thanks for ur answer but I have some other queries regarding certain hadiths which shows prophet muhammad doing most voilent acts like ordering the amputation of hands, feets and eyes of some sheep robbers and refusing to give them some water (I have to say that I have recently started reading hadiths ) the articles on this site are really helpfull may Allah increase you in health and knowledge thanks..

  19. I guess the authenticity of the hadith about the robbers can be disputed. But I think the criticism shows false priorities. If you believe that a God can torture people as a punishment you cannot have any problem with the prophet or any other person torturing people as punishment (by order of God).
    The whole issue of violence is dealt in a very ignorant way. It is important for modern theists that there is no violence in this life but they do not object to the worst violence and horror in the supposed afterlife. Nothing is worse than hell. They say Allah wants people to be peaceful while he is not peaceful in the afterlife. Actually Islam is not peaceful nor is Christianity. These are the modern interpretations. But even if the religions were, their God is not peaceful. Just put your hand into a stove and imagine you had to touch the place where the heat comes from. Ask yourself if you could bear that it happens to someone else. I could not. Even if it was a person who did a horrific crime. I would rather ask why did the crime happen? Couldn’t anyone stop it? Allah could stop it but he did not.

    And let’s not even talk about eternal hellfire for disbelievers.

    • “Just put your hand into a stove and imagine you had to touch the place where the heat comes from. Ask yourself if you could bear that it happens to someone else. I could not. ”

      Eck. What a disgusting show of fake empathy.
      Well then, Mr. Compassionate, I guess there must be a lot of unbearable (to you) things going on today. You speak of burning people alive, but torture or mass oppression techniques have improved a lot since that. Ask the Bush administration.
      I suppose your answer to that is look the other way, eh ? Better remain ignorant than hurt your feeeelings …

      Your quote above has been a starting point for many extraordinary people. They told themselves what you just wrote and became people like Rachel Carrie. Like Malcolm X.
      You, on the other hand, repeat that just to show off.
      A perfect illustration of what French writer Gérard de Nerval said : “The first man who compared women to roses was a wonderful poet ; the second who merely repeated it was an idiot.”

      • I talked about torture directly done by God in hell. It was not my standard argument about suffering in this world caused by humans or nature. So I do not understand why you mention GW Bush and this stuff since it is about hell.

        The point was whether someone can live with the fact that their God is going to torture people in afterlife. Because these people are shocked by IS and say they cannot be followers of a real God. But they simply ignore that this God is going to do worse things than humans ever could. With ignoring I mean that they do believe in it but they do not relate it to what happens in this life.

        I do not have much empathy left for humans. Arguing with empathy is wrong. I accept suffering as being real and having a value independent of my own empathy. By propagating antinatalism I am actually doing something good. With the end of the human race the suffering will stop. So I am in fact ultimately good.

        You Catholic guy are always trying to present me as being selfish or not really caring. But you forget that we have not the same basis to talk about morality. You believe that life is a test by God and everyone has to go through it. I reject this concept and therefore can only see the obvious which is that the human (animal) existence is an accident. It is an accident because it enabled something called pain. If there was no pain it would not be called an accident but simply irrelevant like the existence of stars, planets, seas, mountains, plants, etc.. Pain is not irrelevant.
        I will not try to fix the bugs of human existence but I will try to end it. I will not search for a solution for the Israeli-Palestine conflict but tell them to stop procreating and die out. That is the ultimate solution for the whole world.

  20. “The point was whether someone can live with the fact that their God is going to torture people in afterlife. Because these people are shocked by IS and say they cannot be followers of a real God. But they simply ignore that this God is going to do worse things than humans ever could. With ignoring I mean that they do believe in it but they do not relate it to what happens in this life.”

    On the contrary, those believers believe in the perfect and exact correspondence between “what happens in this life” and the situation in the afterlife ever after. That’s the whole point and the basis of a detailed moral code, in any religion.
    It is people like you (or ISIS) who deny or question or doubt that correspondence (by speech in your case and by actions in ISIS’ case), and then you attribute that thinking to believers. That’s strawmanning and mischaracterization.

    • I am going to leave it to Catholic Commentator who has done a splendid job of interacting with and addressing Zany’s frankly circular and hate filled display of self loathing as to whether he should be banned. I am inclined to do so, if only to benefit from Catholic Commentator and other contribution is a more worthy manner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s