.I like your AtlasS32, I think you're nice person, but you're digging a hole for yourself. I think you're totally wrong on the below statement:
In Islam the concept of "the end justifies the means" is totally forbidden
Maybe in your ideal version of your religion. You moan about the liars and hypocrites amougst the Ummah at least as much as I do. All of these Taqiya based "scholars", like Yusuf Estes and Zakir Naik - that must have some basis for lying to people (because so many in the Ummah do lie to Kafir, intentionally or otherwise). They are constantly trying to out do each other in terms of Shahadas. They want to look good in front of their brainless worshipers, who all they can utter is "Tasbish" all day long!
I mean, what is this if it's not just a numbers game to al-Saud's henchmen and others:
They love to assert that they are the fastest growing (even though I proved conclusively in one of my videos that the facts are not on their side). So you're totally wrong. They want as many Shahadas as possible so the end clearly justifies the means. I went on that chatroom, eDialouge, and I was told to watch Zakir Naik. And when I showed Zakir Naik is a noob the guy is like "oh poo, this guy actually knows soemthing".
All over the world I see religion taking advantage of vulnerable and gullible people. They want to keep people stupid because the end justifies the means. Saudi probably keeps Zamzam flowing and everyone thinks that it's Allah that's doing it.
Atomic bombs (ICBMs) had unintended consequences, like giving the technology to first go into space. So it's not as black and white as you make it out to be (but I do hate nuclear weapons). Secularism is also what allows free thinking.
Anarchism can also be either secular or theocratic. There's an entire Wikipedia page, a lengthy one as well, on Christian Anarchism. So I think you're clutching at straws at this point. I can't say that I've really looked into Anarchism, so I don't want to comment on the pros and cons of Anarchism.
The problem is imperialism. Secular Arab nations have attacked Israel. So the problem is the country, not the system. Each country has its ambitions and it just so happens that the United States was the first secular nation. And, let me tell you, if George Washington was alive today he'd be shocked at the state of his country.
Quote:Again: it's all about interest. In Islam the concept of "the end justifies the means" is totally forbidden, while in secularism -correct me if I'm wrong-, it's totally accepted as a concept. One example on that is the creation of Atomic weapons, and the military tactical bombing. Secularism never stopped that from happening.
In Islam the concept of "the end justifies the means" is totally forbidden
Maybe in your ideal version of your religion. You moan about the liars and hypocrites amougst the Ummah at least as much as I do. All of these Taqiya based "scholars", like Yusuf Estes and Zakir Naik - that must have some basis for lying to people (because so many in the Ummah do lie to Kafir, intentionally or otherwise). They are constantly trying to out do each other in terms of Shahadas. They want to look good in front of their brainless worshipers, who all they can utter is "Tasbish" all day long!
I mean, what is this if it's not just a numbers game to al-Saud's henchmen and others:
![[Image: CcIkuUeVIAEzBDP.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcIkuUeVIAEzBDP.jpg)
They love to assert that they are the fastest growing (even though I proved conclusively in one of my videos that the facts are not on their side). So you're totally wrong. They want as many Shahadas as possible so the end clearly justifies the means. I went on that chatroom, eDialouge, and I was told to watch Zakir Naik. And when I showed Zakir Naik is a noob the guy is like "oh poo, this guy actually knows soemthing".
All over the world I see religion taking advantage of vulnerable and gullible people. They want to keep people stupid because the end justifies the means. Saudi probably keeps Zamzam flowing and everyone thinks that it's Allah that's doing it.
Atomic bombs (ICBMs) had unintended consequences, like giving the technology to first go into space. So it's not as black and white as you make it out to be (but I do hate nuclear weapons). Secularism is also what allows free thinking.
Anarchism can also be either secular or theocratic. There's an entire Wikipedia page, a lengthy one as well, on Christian Anarchism. So I think you're clutching at straws at this point. I can't say that I've really looked into Anarchism, so I don't want to comment on the pros and cons of Anarchism.
The problem is imperialism. Secular Arab nations have attacked Israel. So the problem is the country, not the system. Each country has its ambitions and it just so happens that the United States was the first secular nation. And, let me tell you, if George Washington was alive today he'd be shocked at the state of his country.
