God Aloners and Non-Religious Folks Never Built Civilization

[Neptin]

Peace

I believe that if we follow the Qur'an alone, we should call ourselves muslims/ submitters and our religion is Islam which specifically means following the Qur'an alone without using man-made religious sources for religious guidance.

'... [It is] the religion of your father, Abraham. Allah named you "Muslims" before [in former scriptures] and in this [revelation] that the Messenger may be a witness over you and you may be witnesses over the people...' 22:78

'The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account.'

If we believe the above, should we call ourselves God-aloners? Not really because we're submitters who believe in this specific Quranic revelation. But perhaps this is what some people mean by God alone. It depends what people mean by 'God alone'. Deism? Quranic submission to God? I prefer Muslim/ submitter who follows the Quran alone because this clearly reflects the Quranic view and helps me remember who I am.

Do I believe we should have a Qur'an alone community? Yes. Does that mean we should not be a part of other communities? No. So I agree that we should have a community of submitters however, I disagree that we cannot exist peacefully with other humans of different religious backgrounds. How do I know this? Because i have a sunni friend. Although we may not share the exact same religious views, we can agree to disagree and get on peacefully and even enjoy our friendship.

I have no objection to anything here. We're on the same page.

'Human beings are naturally & socially different, and thus divided. We can't all agree & to get along in spite of core ideological differences. And pushing people to permanently integrate and abandon their unpopular preferences all in the name of inclusivity, tolerance and diversity is the root of much of the world's problems like - Islamophobia, anti-semitism, racism, homophobia etc.'

So what do you want? The opposite? Exclusivity, intolerance and non- diversity?

It's only intolerant bigots that cannot exist peacefully with people of different religions and backgrounds. That's why there's islamophobia, anti-semitism, racism etc., it's not because we're all different and living together as a society, it's because there are many intolerant bigots/ narcissists out there who cannot accept other people because they can't stand the fact someone would dare to disagree with their views, they have to be superior etc. This behaviour is often 'covert' (although overt too) so although a lot of these bigots may not say these things, they'll indirectly behave in prejudice, discriminative ways. On the other hand, a peaceful/ humble person can agree to disagree- it is possible and I know from my personal experiences.

It's not so much about what I want. It is what is best for everyone. At the end of the day, you have one group of people that are opposed to stoning adulterers, and another group of people want to want adulterers stoned. What do you do with them? Force them to hold hands and hug?

If people say they want or don't want something or someone, you respect them their wishes and leave them alone, if you disagree with them. Refusing them space, forcing your position upon them and branding them bigots or intolerant is still bigotry and intolerant.

[jkhan]

We don't know partly because they didn't create communities or civilizations. If they did, we could have learnt about them. We don't even know if any such group existed, obviously because they don't organize themselves.

It is fundamental because to build a civilization, you need to first establish order and decorum, to eliminate anarchy or chaos. Religion prescribes defined laws and principles to accomplish this.

Here are the types of God aloners

1. Serving One God and not associating partners while recognizing that God's servants are divided into different communities based upon their scripture.
2. Serving one God and not associating partners but not recognizing that God's servant are divided into separate communities based upon their scripture.

Messengers of God and the disciples were type 1 God aloners. Type 1 God aloners were part and parcel of many civilizations, they build communities and in fact may have a hand in building a few civilizations.

But type 2 God aloners who often don't appreciate community building based upon a shared scripture or understanding of the scriptures are individualists, who don't build and will never build a civilization.

Lots of proof. US civilization was founded and built primarily by Trinitarian protestant Christians. The Abbasid Civilization was founded and built primarily by Sunnite Muslims.

Being part of civilization is different from founding or establishing the civilization.

Brother..
Don't complicate empire with civilization.. Both has big difference...

Abbasid empire you say is based on Sunni  Muslims... What is Muslim then? Who gave them a name Muslim for them?  Which book is key behind it?  What they believed is God only knows.. Don't decide it...
Who called them at later stage as Sunni Muslim is useless.. But do you think that everyone who lived in the period of Abbasid empire were belonging to religion Sunni Muslim (away from God alone) ..  As per you religion is not something which belongs to God Aloners..

Yes being part of civilization is not same as creating a civilization... No body knows who is at the back of every civilization which formed... For sure religion is not the main cause of forming a civilization... Religion only can corrupt a civilization formed which infuse into a civilization .. New religions and faiths can creep into well formed civilization.. When civilization are originating there is no part of religion...civilized society only created religions... Just to give more respect to it..
Every civilization is fundamentally based on formation of language.. Formation of language within a small group causes a civilization..after that many natural causes are behind the existence of such and form a large civilization.. Religion is just latest addition to a civilization..
 All civilizations began in ancient time... When the advanced society is formed no more forming of civilization... But just living under controlled ruling which is basically civilized..

So claiming Neither God Aloners nor non religious folks never gave their part in creating a civilization is erroneous...  No historical evidence for it.. Belief of a person within himself... And further worst part is claiming religious people only generated civilization... That is bizzare... When there is no civilisation on the earth you can't expect religion as well... Once people are civilized only additional things creeps up..
That's my last t add ke on this topic.. Whatever you claim is your own invention.. Sadly you tried to support it with 5:48...thats strange..

[Neptin]

Peace Neptin.
Actually I agree with this, quote:
"Come on. Why can't people be who they want to be - Qur'anist, Catholic, Jewish, White, Black, Brown? People should be free to be who they want and associate or dissociate from whom they want. Nothing is wrong with that.

So why can t people be God Aloners or non religious or ...as well?

If people want to be God aloners, you know, undermine scripture based communities in the name of God alone, they're free. I'm only pointing that such kinds of people never built civilizations.

I wonder if our aim is to build civilisations that despise each other anyway?

Civilizations don't have to despise each other. And even if they do, well even ordinary people within the same family may despise each other. Love and hate are just a natural part of life.

[Neptin]

From what I read on the verses it actually pose towards TOLERANCE.

Nothing about about God's servants being splits into multiple communities?

Inclusivity CANNOT BE PUSHED OR FORCED.. inclusivity means always opening your arms and leave the option opened to those who want to be included. But NOT FORCING those who don't want to be included.

It can be forced or pushed. If I host events where I invite the general public but exclude certain categories like women in niqab(face-veil), and I'm refused permission to host further event unless I include women even with face-veil. Then what is this?

But anytime the member of the 'exclusive club' wanted to join, they will always be accepted.
Inclusivity has inbuilt UNITY in mind.

Inclusivity don't have inbuilt unity in mind. A great analogy between inclusivity and exclusivity would be a public house and a family house. Yeah, the public house is not exclusive and allows anyone in, but the unity within the public house is considerably lesser than the family house which is exclusive and allow only specific people in.

Exclusivity however always forced it members to abide to certain rules and regulations, otherwise they will be expelled from the exclusive club. Although it's rare, more often the members will be 'tortured' within the exclusive club. As the exclusive club will not allow any of it's member to leave the club.

"Always forced"? That's a bold claim you're making.

Anyone know how to leave the Catholic religion? Islam religion? Judaism religion? or leave North Korea?
Even the US government makes it very hard for any US citizen to renounce it's US citizenship. At least they will check if there's any 'outstanding tax' to be paid and mandate for it's due payment.

  Being an exclusive club don't necessarily mean persecuting defectors. Also you're judging these exclusive clubs without considering the historical context under which they formed and why certain laws are enforced.

And there's always a set of requirements for new member to join this exclusive club.
Exclusivity has inbuilt SEPARATION in mind, they will try to came up with an argument on why they're exclusive, why they're 'special' and why they're different from others and why they're 'above' others (German: Uber Alles).

As I explained with the public house and family house analogy, inclusivity doesn't necessarily breed unity. And here you speak of inbuilt SEPARATION in exclusivity. But guess what?

Sometimes separation is needed for peace. There is nothing wrong with separation in and of itself. Your house is separated from your neighbors house. But there is no enmity between you and your neighbor.

Lastly, on unity. Look, 100 persons sharing quite similar worldview are more likely to agree on a subject and thus be united than 100 persons of quite dissimilar worldview. So inclusivity doesn't bring harmony, just as I've mentioned in my OP. Including everyone available without a filter is a recipe for disunity.

Unity Is The One Infinite Creator

Unity is the 'natural' or 'default' attitude of the one infinite creator. given everything is His creation in the first place, and everything are his children and actually within Him. The one infinite creator always opened His arms to those who want to be included.

Well most exclusive clubs are open to those who want to be enter. There may have certain requirement and conditions, but so does the Infinite Creator, just wanting to be included isn't enough to get anyone enter the arms of the Infinite Creator.


In conclusion. I only wished you had address the proposition that Type 2 God aloners and Non-religious folks don't build civilization. That is the bone of contention in this thread.

[Sarah]

'It's not so much about what I want. It is what is best for everyone. At the end of the day, you have one group of people that are opposed to stoning adulterers, and another group of people want to want adulterers stoned. What do you do with them? Force them to hold hands and hug?If people say they want or don't want something or someone, you respect them their wishes and leave them alone, if you disagree with them. Refusing them space, forcing your position upon them and branding them bigots or intolerant is still bigotry and intolerant.'

I understand your concern with the barbaric belief of stoning. It depends where you live. I live in the west and there are many people here who are sunnis. However, we all know that if they attempted to stone anyone to death here, they'd go to prison so they obviously won't do this here. On the other hand, if anybody lives in lets say the middle east where stoning may be part of the law, I would agree with you that it's best to leave. The west is probably the best option since it's more tolerant than the sunni countries and any other countries that do not have a high regard for human rights. But you see my point, the west has diversity in every sense of the word and is safest. We don't need to force the sunnis to hold hands and hug because the law already stops them.

'If people say they want or don't want something or someone, you respect them their wishes and leave them alone, if you disagree with them. Refusing them space, forcing your position upon them and branding them bigots or intolerant is still bigotry and intolerant.'

 I never forced anything onto you. I shared my point of view. You're welcome to disagree with me, I'm not going to force you to agree with me lol but I am going to share what I believe in. It's up to you to agree or disagree with me. Just to let you know, when I mentioned:

'So what do you want? The opposite? Exclusivity, intolerance and non- diversity?It's only intolerant bigots that cannot exist peacefully with people of different religions and backgrounds. That's why there's islamophobia, anti-semitism, racism etc., it's not because we're all different and living together as a society, it's because there are many intolerant bigots/ narcissists out there who cannot accept other people because they can't stand the fact someone would dare to disagree with their views, they have to be superior etc.'

It was never a personal attack on you. I never called you a bigot specifically. I literally just mentioned the factual things bigots do in general. I stated things such as bigots cannot accept other people because they can't stand the fact someone would disagree with them etc. If a person cannot stand the fact someone is different,that makes them intolerant towards others. This is factual, not my opinion. Dictionary definition of bigot:

'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'

"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"'

Intolerance esp. extreme intolerance leads to discrimination i.e. islamophobia etc. Also, definition of tolerance:

tolerant
'showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.'

I never refused you space. In fact, you're more than welcome to oppose my views. I never tried to stop you from sharing them because I believe you're allowed to disagree with me just like I am allowed to disagree with you. I'm allowing the existence of your opinions.

[Neptin]

'It's not so much about what I want. It is what is best for everyone. At the end of the day, you have one group of people that are opposed to stoning adulterers, and another group of people want to want adulterers stoned. What do you do with them? Force them to hold hands and hug?If people say they want or don't want something or someone, you respect them their wishes and leave them alone, if you disagree with them. Refusing them space, forcing your position upon them and branding them bigots or intolerant is still bigotry and intolerant.'

I understand your concern with the barbaric belief of stoning. It depends where you live. I live in the west and there are many people here who are sunnis. However, we all know that if they attempted to stone anyone to death here, they'd go to prison so they obviously won't do this here. On the other hand, if anybody lives in lets say the middle east where stoning may be part of the law, I would agree with you that it's best to leave. The west is probably the best option since it's more tolerant than the sunni countries and any other countries that do not have a high regard for human rights. But you see my point, the west has diversity in every sense of the word and is safest. We don't need to force the sunnis to hold hands and hug because the law already stops them.

'If people say they want or don't want something or someone, you respect them their wishes and leave them alone, if you disagree with them. Refusing them space, forcing your position upon them and branding them bigots or intolerant is still bigotry and intolerant.'

 I never forced anything onto you. I shared my point of view. You're welcome to disagree with me, I'm not going to force you to agree with me lol but I am going to share what I believe in. It's up to you to agree or disagree with me. Just to let you know, when I mentioned:

'So what do you want? The opposite? Exclusivity, intolerance and non- diversity?It's only intolerant bigots that cannot exist peacefully with people of different religions and backgrounds. That's why there's islamophobia, anti-semitism, racism etc., it's not because we're all different and living together as a society, it's because there are many intolerant bigots/ narcissists out there who cannot accept other people because they can't stand the fact someone would dare to disagree with their views, they have to be superior etc.'

It was never a personal attack on you. I never called you a bigot specifically. I literally just mentioned the factual things bigots do in general. I stated things such as bigots cannot accept other people because they can't stand the fact someone would disagree with them etc. If a person cannot stand the fact someone is different,that makes them intolerant towards others. This is factual, not my opinion. Dictionary definition of bigot:

'a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.'

"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"'

Intolerance esp. extreme intolerance leads to discrimination i.e. islamophobia etc. Also, definition of tolerance:

tolerant
'showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.'

I never refused you space. In fact, you're more than welcome to oppose my views. I never tried to stop you from sharing them because I believe you're allowed to disagree with me just like I am allowed to disagree with you. I'm allowing the existence of your opinions.

Peace.

My comment was not an attack on you. Although I used the second person singular, "You",

'If people say they want or don't want something or someone, you respect them their wishes and leave them alone, if you disagree with them. Refusing them space, forcing your position upon them and branding them bigots or intolerant is still bigotry and intolerant.'

I was addressing a common mindset among people, not necessarily you.

[amin]

Whats the connection between civilization and religion or God aloners?

Religion needs a leader or preacher and some followers,I think Quran says all those successful true prophets are god aloners and without God's help nothing happens.
Big kingdoms/countries with arrogant leadership/people had fallen out of nowhere and other countries were successful, we had seen this through out our history, the ones that are successful i think are where people accepted truth over falsehood, emulated what the Grand Source wants to enforce, the natures selection etc. where false dieties/idols are not worshipped by people, the idols that have no values, the idols or values that are evil for example the current capitalistic economic structure where cheating is so common and everything comes neatly packed, branded, valued a lot but worthless inside in real value.

[Jafar]

There may have certain requirement and conditions, but so does the Infinite Creator, just wanting to be included isn't enough to get anyone enter the arms of the Infinite Creator.

You will be surprised, but yes merely wanting is enough for anyone to be welcomed by the Infinite Creator.
As anyone is actually already part of the Infinite Creator itself.

In conclusion. I only wished you had address the proposition that Type 2 God aloners and Non-religious folks don't build civilization. That is the bone of contention in this thread.

I don't understand few things:
1. What is civilizations?
2. How come folks do not build civilizations? Cite few example of folks who do not build civilization.
3. What do you mean by "do not build civilization"?
4. What is your criteria for "has built civilization"?
5. Why fulfilling all the criteria for "has build civilization" above is important?