"The environmentalist movement is little more than racists..."

"... with ideas of population control as they fear the explosion in non white babies"

Discuss.

Part of the argument is that people worry about things that are not important while others starve.

There are people without food in the world while others use it to power their vehicles (I think there is an EU directive to have atleast 10% of fuels to be biofuels by 2020 or something...)

Many of the environmental products also do not really live up to the billing where they consume far more to manufacture than the older technologies and do not always deliver on the efficiencies they promise.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Another self-manufactured capitalist problem!

The world has sufficient resources for mankind - the problem in the economic paradigm which the west ignores, but which Islam addresses, is distribution. Government involvement is mandatory to redistribute wealth where necessary - to capitalists this is an anathema, preferring to allow individuals to hoard wealth en masse, and then scream how the world is becoming overpopulated and insufficient resources! What a joke!

Where would you stand on industrial scale pollution of rivers?

You cannot just ignore some issues and pretend that they would not exist if there was a Muslim government.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
Where would you stand on industrial scale pollution of rivers?

You cannot just ignore some issues and pretend that they would not exist if there was a Muslim government.

Many issues are created through incorrect conceptual models and would no exist in an Islamic state.

The large proportion of bastarts in Britain for example, where gung-ho youth sleep around with anything in a skirt, noone knowing who is related to whom, provides an environment where incest can easily happen - all because of the attitutude to casual sex and lineage. Would this happen in an Islamic state?

Because you incorrectly think you can adopt any ideology so long it does not contradict Islam, therein lies you problem. This approach would import problems from every ideology under the sun.

If one followed the correct methodology in understanding Islam, most of these artificial problems would be eliminated.

Others would exist - but they would be of a different category.

Regarding inudstrial scale pollution, the matter is easily resolvable through legislation, regionally or nationally or internationally. The Islamic solution of one global state allows this to occur - the nation state model of the world does not allow this unless all nations act in unison, something that rarely occurs judging by the fiascos at Kyoto and other summits in relation to global warming.

but an Islamic state isn't very likely in the near future, so how are the problems meant to be solved?
and are they big problems?

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

I don't think illegitimate offspring is what people talk about when talking about pollution.

The new thing that has happened in the past few centuries is the industrial revolution which allows for pollution to both be caused in large quantities and in high concentrations.

An old way to deal with waste was to throw it away and let nature take care of its course and that no longer works with some waste products as they wre designed with extremely long lives, so they stay there.

And then there is the green revolution - to feed the growing world population different methods of agriculture are/were used and this uses pesticides and fertilisers. Without these methods over a billion people a year would starve. But the problem is that these chemicals can run into the water system and cause damage there.

There is also other stuff like electricity and other every day appliances that cannot be blamed on the excesss of capitalism that also have side effects.

There are problems in other parts of the world too, where eg the river in pakistan that goes past karachi is something I have read is something that stinks.

So, no, it is not an issue of capitalism or even the west, but one of technological progress. The west is ahead of the curve here because when the progress happened, it happened to be the richer part of the world and more capable of using it, but that does not mean it will not happen elsewhere.

Egypt deals with some of its pollution problems by having ultra poor people who go through the collected rubbish reusing what they can. I somehow do not think such are sustainable models for development.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

ThE pOwEr Of SiLeNcE wrote:
but an Islamic state isn't very likely in the near future, so how are the problems meant to be solved?
and are they big problems?

Why do you think it's not likely soon?

The war on Islam is an effort by the West to crush the rising political forces across the Muslim world. It's just they don't label it that and try telling Muslims they are dealing with extremists and terrorists - ie those who oppose them and want to establish Islamic states.

The Muslim world is in a major flux, and political change is inevitable - it is only a question of time... That's why the West are trying to identify "moderate/secular" and friendly Islamic groups to promote in order to hijack the impending change...

You wrote:
I don't think illegitimate offspring is what people talk about when talking about pollution.

It is an example of a problem created by foreign ideologies which they have no solution to - Islam does not create such problems!

You wrote:
The new thing that has happened in the past few centuries is the industrial revolution which allows for pollution to both be caused in large quantities and in high concentrations.

Wrong - the lack of regulations (by capitalists controlling the country!) and the single minded pursuiot of maximisation of profits is the cause - not industrialisation. Industrialisation can occur greenly or through pollution - capitalism results in the latter!

You wrote:
An old way to deal with waste was to throw it away and let nature take care of its course and that no longer works with some waste products as they wre designed with extremely long lives, so they stay there.

Oh silly us - maybe we should go back to the stone age where stone is taken care of by nature, or the bronze age where bronze just decomposes quickly, or maybe the iron age where iron has similar decomposable properties... or maybe we just throw out capitalism that cannot manage what primitive societies had no problem managing!

You wrote:
And then there is the green revolution - to feed the growing world population different methods of agriculture are/were used and this uses pesticides and fertilisers. Without these methods over a billion people a year would starve. But the problem is that these chemicals can run into the water system and cause damage there.

This is so simplistic nonsense that the mind boggles anyone can write such stuff!

You wrote:
There is also other stuff like electricity and other every day appliances that cannot be blamed on the excesss of capitalism that also have side effects.

OF course capitalism can be blamed - side effects should be managed, regulated and controlled! A system that cannot do such a simple task should be dumped!

You wrote:
So, no, it is not an issue of capitalism or even the west, but one of technological progress. The west is ahead of the curve here because when the progress happened, it happened to be the richer part of the world and more capable of using it, but that does not mean it will not happen elsewhere.

Technological progress has been going on since humanity was born! The problem is the system is incapable of managing the technical progress as those in control of business control governments and want governments to keep "laws and interference" out! This is basic capitalist economics - minimal role of government - and that is the problem.
Government should have a role and to ensure the interests of society are not violated - this is at odds with the capitalists seeking profit - so in capitalism capitalists win and the poor person on the street suffers!

It is an example of a problem created by foreign ideologies which they have no solution to - Islam does not create such problems!

except that it is off topic and while Islam does not allow zina, it still did happen and there were children.

Its not that hard to stay on topic, honestly!

I know you hate "the west", you hate capitalism, you hate western form sof government etc, but this topic is about none of those issues.

How hard can it be to stick to a topic?

Has there been even a single discussion where you have managed to stay on topic?

Government should have a role and to ensure the interests of society are not violated - this is at odds with the capitalists seeking profit - so in capitalism capitalists win and the poor person on the street suffers!

Except I assume you have not heard of the rafts of health and safety legislations on this very matter. Mroe you probably are disgusted that the govenrment had the audacity to legislate when the right to legislate is only God's...

OF course capitalism can be blamed - side effects should be managed, regulated and controlled! A system that cannot do such a simple task should be dumped!

the issue is not capitalism but industrialisation

And then there is the green revolution - to feed the growing world population different methods of agriculture are/were used and this uses pesticides and fertilisers. Without these methods over a billion people a year would starve. But the problem is that these chemicals can run into the water system and cause damage there.

This is so simplistic nonsense that the mind boggles anyone can write such stuff!

yet you choose to not counter it. Do you know what the green revolution even is?

Oh silly us - maybe we should go back to the stone age where stone is taken care of by nature, or the bronze age where bronze just decomposes quickly, or maybe the iron age where iron has similar decomposable properties... or maybe we just throw out capitalism that cannot manage what primitive societies had no problem managing!

quantities and concentrations matter. waste is produces now on an industrial scale and not all of it is metals. Metals can be reused and re appropriated. Other things this can be more dificult with.

Burying all the waste on an industrial scale can cause problems because some of it may even be hazardous or toxic.

Wrong - the lack of regulations (by capitalists controlling the country!) and the single minded pursuiot of maximisation of profits is the cause - not industrialisation. Industrialisation can occur greenly or through pollution - capitalism results in the latter!

How dare you request legislation Smile

Also, industrial wastes are pretty new and there is not always precedence on how the waste has to be dealt with. Sometimes there needs to be research into the side effects before anyone can even think there is something wrong.

Have a look into the uses od CFC's in the 80s and earler and their unimagined at the time side effects. Have a look at the side effects of the use of thalidomide. These are not things people would have known intrinsically.

All you seem to want to do is apportion blame to people, but that is not how things work.

I will not deny that many of the excesses of capitalism are pur evil, but apart from those linked to interest/speculation etc, others could also occur within an Islamic system. Look at how there are examples of people adding water to milk in the early days in order to make a buck. The difference is one of technology where things can be done on a much larger scale and cause way more damage.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:

It is an example of a problem created by foreign ideologies which they have no solution to - Islam does not create such problems!

except that it is off topic and while Islam does not allow zina, it still did happen and there were children.

Its not that hard to stay on topic, honestly!

So why don't you stay on topic? Why do you answer? Or is it one standard for you and another for others?

Are you seriously comparing the permissable "have sex with whatever whenever you want" approach to "casual sex is haram" approach? You see no difference in a system that regulates sex and one that does not?

You just argue for argument's sake! Shame on you!

You wrote:

Government should have a role and to ensure the interests of society are not violated - this is at odds with the capitalists seeking profit - so in capitalism capitalists win and the poor person on the street suffers!

Except I assume you have not heard of the rafts of health and safety legislations on this very matter. Mroe you probably are disgusted that the govenrment had the audacity to legislate when the right to legislate is only God's...

And you've never read why such legislation was brought in and just believe the propaganda you are fed. I'd suggest you read the period of Victorian history and what the reasons were for welfare, health, safety etc legislation that were brought in for joe public and report back your findings - they are not as you are trying to imply! But I know your answer - your going to do your chameleon act and move the goalposts once again now your "perfect system" is shown to have the most disgusting ulterior motives to do what even an idiot would think right!

Sorry I even dared criticise this "wonderful system"... maybe I should prostrate to it and call myself a capitalist muslim - after all didn't the prophet(saw) trade? LOL

You wrote:

Oh silly us - maybe we should go back to the stone age where stone is taken care of by nature, or the bronze age where bronze just decomposes quickly, or maybe the iron age where iron has similar decomposable properties... or maybe we just throw out capitalism that cannot manage what primitive societies had no problem managing!

quantities and concentrations matter. waste is produces now on an industrial scale and not all of it is metals. Metals can be reused and re appropriated. Other things this can be more dificult with.

Oh silly us again - not only were they using decomposable iron, bronze, stone etc but they did not use it on an industrial scale - they only had a few families in those old primitive societies, living in little tiny villages of a handful of people... it's only suddenly we're into several billion on the planet in the last hundred years!!!

You just repeat terms like "industrial scale" you hear somewhere and are clueless what they actually mean isn't it? Idustrial scale operations existed over the centuries - the difference was many societies managed these processes well - others don't.

You can't solve a problem which you don't understand!

You wrote:
I will not deny that many of the excesses of capitalism are pur evil, but apart from those linked to interest/speculation etc, others could also occur within an Islamic system. Look at how there are examples of people adding water to milk in the early days in order to make a buck. The difference is one of technology where things can be done on a much larger scale and cause way more damage.

The Islamic system is not controlled and run by capitalists - that's why it's not called capitalism and is called the Caliphate - it implements Allah's laws and not man's.
The problem is not of technology - historically nomads could overgraze regions rendering them wastelands - overintensive agriculture could destroy fertile lands etc
You appear to have no knowledge of technology and its use in many areas en masse in the ancient and classical eras. All of which could have had similar destructive effects, and often did when it was mismanaged!
The problem is mismanagement on a systemic basis - and the system that allows that is capitalism!

No one has called the UK a perfect system (but when you compare it to someothers, it is a lot better), so get off your high horse already.

Sorry I even dared criticise this "wonderful system"... maybe I should prostrate to it and call myself a capitalist muslim - after all didn't the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) him trade? LOL

Was the ptophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) against people trading? that is the very basis of the capitalist system. Ther eare additions in western capitalism such as basing the monetary system on interest and the allowance of speculation which are totally evil.

The prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) did not prostrate to trade though, so if you do decide to do such things, you will be turning mushrik.

But that does not mean that commerce is something Islam is against. Bow down and prostrate in front of somethig toerh than God if you wish (you already seem to in front of blind hatred), but you seem to not understand what Islam allows and does not allow.

Oh silly us again - not only were they using decomposable iron, bronze, stone etc but they did not use it on an industrial scale - they only had a few families in those old primitive societies, living in little tiny villages of a handful of people... it's only suddenly we're into several billion on the planet in the last hundred years!!!

Look up world poipulations and the industrial revolution. it may open your mind.

The world population 200 years ago was probably a billion or less. More people does make a difference and I would see it as a gift from God that as the population has boomed, we have been provided with new ways to nourish it (Especially as we have been told that this is not something to worry about when having kids and that God provides nourishment).

The industrial revolution also changed things by making things concentrated in ways that were not the case before and this had side efects of new poisons, new concentrations and the old way of just lobbing useless waste away no longer worked.

(saying that, Baghdad has had swerage systems going bacj something like 4000 years)

Yes, people could throw away bronze etc if they did not need it and it was less of a problem as the refuse would not poison the water supply on an industrial scale. Except when it did in cities, where they still had problem with sanitation etc.

Before there were no produiction lines and factories employing thousands in them. after, there were and those that tried to stick to the opld ways often starved because they could not product product at competitive prices.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

The whole point originally was on the concept of environmental sustainability that is proposed at some times by some people.

In a time when there are people starving in the world, using/mandating the use of biofuels can be considered evil.

Some western thinkers have been harping on about the world being over crowded etc for over 200 years, when the population was only a smidgeon of what it is now - the question being asked is were/are they really afraid of over population or are they afraid of an increase in population of the wrong type?

On the issue of overproduction or not, some single countries in Africa have the natural resources to grow enough crops to feed the whole continent, yet those very countries are net importers of food (and if Africa was a country, it would be smaller in population terms than China or India).

However instead of discussing these issues, the discussion moved onto the evils of capitalism and western society (which is IMO repetitive and boring).

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Hate?

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
No one has called the UK a perfect system (but when you compare it to someothers, it is a lot better), so get off your high horse already.

Comparing horse manure with pig manure is hardly a valid empirical measure and proves little...

You wrote:

Sorry I even dared criticise this "wonderful system"... maybe I should prostrate to it and call myself a capitalist muslim - after all didn't the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) him trade? LOL

Was the ptophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) against people trading? that is the very basis of the capitalist system. Ther eare additions in western capitalism such as basing the monetary system on interest and the allowance of speculation which are totally evil.

As I said - your shallow logic will conclude the Prophet(saw) was a capitalist! Astagfirullah! But as you already think he and his followers could be hindu-devil-worshippers this shouldn't be shocking!

For your information the basis of the capitalist system is not trade - it is the freedom to trade upon which free unregulated markets with minimal govt intervention are built - your lack of knowledge of the political economy means you should read some texts on it - Smith, Ricardo or Malthus would fill this gap!

You wrote:
The prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) did not prostrate to trade though, so if you do decide to do such things, you will be turning mushrik.

According to your logic, one could prostrate no problems - simply believe in one god and all is fine!

The rest of your post is sadly irrelevant rambling with no specific stats (other than vague around a billion around 200 years ago!!! Ridiculous!) or points worth addressing.

aah yes, the return of the absurd.

For your information the basis of the capitalist system is not trade - it is the freedom to trade upon which free unregulated markets with minimal govt intervention are built

and the Islamic system? does it restrict the freedom to trade? does it require government more or less intervention? or are you talking out of your backside again?

Let's get out of your secular books and look in the real world. We both live in the UK which we both will agree is a capitalist country. What in your mind needs to be changed to bring it into line with the Islamic trade system?

Lets have some specifics over how Islam would limit - or not limit - the industriesin ways that they are not limited currently in order to curtail - or not curtail - their waste?

Here is your platform to get real and mention specifics. What do you propose?

According to your logic, one could prostrate no problems - simply believe in one god and all is fine!

Actually that is closer to your logic if hiding truth, like part of your processes that are similar to stating "there is no God" without stating "except Allah (swt)"?

you try to hide behind technicalities that make little difference on the ground.

I assume that to my last question you will have an urge to mention the "hidden hand of the market" amongst other things in order to not actually answer the asked question. Lets see if I am right.

The rest of your post is sadly irrelevant rambling with no specific stats (other than vague around a billion around 200 years ago!!! Ridiculous!) or points worth addressing.

Do you disagree that the population was only around a billion 200 years ago? what basis do you base your disagreement on?

This actually shows your lack of understanding and knowledge on this matter and on the effects of industry too. Have you read anything but overviews about this? Maybe the stories of people who used to make needles for the tailors who could produce about 17 needles a day, but suddenly they were made to starve when industrial processes came along and they could make a whole lot more for a whole lot less using a whole lot less manpower. It led to starvation to a part of the public because their skills became obsolete. This also happened in many other places and industries.

Before, you were questioning the effects of the green revolution. Have you managed to read something up on it yet?

There may not be "specific points worth addressing" but that is because your whole approach to this topic has been more than absurd, jumpi9ng in fighting and arguing instead of trying to gain an understanding of what is being discussed.

I am just mentioning cliff notes etc of stuff which your wading in ignored.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
aah yes, the return of the absurd.

For your information the basis of the capitalist system is not trade - it is the freedom to trade upon which free unregulated markets with minimal govt intervention are built

and the Islamic system? does it restrict the freedom to trade? does it require government more or less intervention? or are you talking out of your backside again?

//or are you talking out of your backside again?//
Nope it's you who's doing that once again - the same stench appears from all your posts!

The Islamic system is not built on the kufr capitalist economic paradigm which I know you and your colleagues love - if you don't know that I suggest you read some texts on Islamic economics rather than expect people to educate you.

You wrote:
Let's get out of your secular books and look in the real world. We both live in the UK which we both will agree is a capitalist country. What in your mind needs to be changed to bring it into line with the Islamic trade system?

Maybe you should read some secular books as you are talking about capitalism and the "green revolution" - but as ever you speak about topics you have no knowledge whatsoever - thus your postings full of insults, abuse and cheap slogans with no substance.

You wrote:
Lets have some specifics over how Islam would limit - or not limit - the industriesin ways that they are not limited currently in order to curtail - or not curtail - their waste?

As you seem to have all this knowledge, provide the detail! You can't (without cutting and pasting any trash you find through google or on wikipedia as per your previous postings in relation to Islamic jurisprudence!) thus you raise the question hoping someone else will provide the information.

You wrote:

According to your logic, one could prostrate no problems - simply believe in one god and all is fine!

Actually that is closer to your logic if hiding truth, like part of your processes that are similar to stating "there is no God" without stating "except Allah (swt)"?


So you hypocritially mention Mohammed is the messenger without mentioning he wasn't before 40 and that's ok?

You wrote:
you try to hide behind technicalities that make little difference on the ground.

And you talk about ideologies like capitalism based on trade which is nonsense - when you get caught out on concepts you have to talk about the ground. Such political tactics fool noone - if you can't get your ideas wrong, you will cause chaos on the ground!

You wrote:

The rest of your post is sadly irrelevant rambling with no specific stats (other than vague around a billion around 200 years ago!!! Ridiculous!) or points worth addressing.

Do you disagree that the population was only around a billion 200 years ago? what basis do you base your disagreement on?

I criticise your vague, wishy washy citation of such figures, with the entire vague wishy washy argument full of nonsense statements, that only someone who has no expertise on a subject utilises to avoid getting caught out as they have no specifics and throw in words like "around" to dig their way out!

The rest of your post is again insubstantive incoherent ramblings... you may think they make sense, but they don't.

I notice that you refused to actually post any concrete suggestions on what you would change. All I see is a long post with no actual content in it. Just attempts at slurs.

So you;re just talking out of your behind as usual then?

As you seem to have all this knowledge, provide the detail!

no, we are testing you here. If you are so hateful of a system, you should know what you hate about it and what you would change.

Instead I just get the impression that you are simply stalking me and will jump into a topic even if you have no clue about it.

You are railing against the system for it being unislamic, but you cannot show what would need to be changed.

Just another know it all you seem to be, another one of those that really doesn't know it all.

I criticise your vague, wishy washy citation of such figures, with the entire vague wishy washy argument full of nonsense statements, that only someone who has no expertise on a subject utilises to avoid getting caught out as they have no specifics and throw in words like "around" to dig their way out!

So how much do you think the population figure was about then? If you think I am wrong here, you can present an alternative figure.

Or is this another case of short syndrome where you feel you have the right to be angry simply because God created you as a woman?

So you hypocritially mention Mohammed is the messenger without mentioning he wasn't before 40 and that's ok?

and once again you hide the truth. The prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was a prophet before then. Remember the covenants made with the souls? the second one was with just the prophets. They were prophets before then. The prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) IS the messenger of God, WAS the messenger of God and WILL REMAIN the messenger of God for all eternity. (I have mentioned this before too, so are you forgetful or do you make stuff up ion order to continue an argument?)

But I assume you will refuse to acknowledge this as it blows your house of straws.

Back onto the topic, if the pollution is a problem only due to capitalism and would not have happened in an Islamic state, please can you present your concrete set of proposals that would fix everything? What would an Islamic system change compared what we have now that will affect trade and industry?

You're the one that is suggesting that it is a problem of capitalism where I am satying that it is not. Hence it is your job to prove that it is a problem of capitalism and what the Islamic system would do that would prevent the same excesses.

If you are against something, you should atleast know why.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
So you;re just talking out of your behind as usual then?

Nope - you are!

You wrote:

So you hypocritially mention Mohammed is the messenger without mentioning he wasn't before 40 and that's ok?

and once again you hide the truth. The prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was a prophet before then. Remember the covenants made with the souls? the second one was with just the prophets. They were prophets before then. The prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) IS the messenger of God, WAS the messenger of God and WILL REMAIN the messenger of God for all eternity.

What nonsense - he was not even aware he himself was a messenger before 40 and only became a messenger when he received revelation! Try following his actions before he was 40 such as being nude in one instance - is it sunnah? Of-course not! You will be punished for doing it! Your double standards lead to you defending kufr now!!! LOL

ok.

Since you never gave any concrete examples over how an Islamic state would be different in specific environmental policies affecting trade and industry, I guess this discussion has come to a close.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Maybe you should respond to your fabrication thatMohammed(saw) was a Prophet before 40, why he appeared naked in public? why he married his daughters to mushriks? why he stated he was not a prophet? Or maybe you are fabricating more lies to defend your indefensible position?

Are you denying the second covenant with the souls, where only the souls prophets were present?

There is also the other hadith that some use about the star that Angel Jibril had seen and the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) stated that that star was him... but I don't think everyone accepts that hadith, so its better to stick to my original question: are you denying the covenant with the souls? If you are not denying it, the rest is irrelevant as you accept that the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was a prophet even before birth.

(There is also another hadith in Sahih Muslim AFAIK where the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) stated that he Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was the seal of the prophets even before Prophet Adam had been made from clay, but I cannot provide a reference except saying that it is from there.)

You do realise here that you are trying to defend your position of neglecting to mention relevant facts, trying to say that it is allowed and proper for you to neglect to mention important information? It all goes into how you are not a credible person to discuss things with as there is nothing to say that even you actually believe or accept what you write.

I can discuss this if you want, but - and I am not claiming to be no environmental expert - it also shows more that you really didn't have a clue what you were talking about on the actual topic at hand and were using emotions to rebuke statements (such as when I mentioned that fertiliser and other chemicals can leak into the water causing problems which you labeled as "simplistic nonsense") instead of actually showing evidence on how they are wrong.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

You wrote:
Are you denying the second covenant with the souls, where only the souls prophets were present?

There is also the other hadith that some use about the star that Angel Jibril had seen and the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) stated that that star was him... but I don't think everyone accepts that hadith, so its better to stick to my original question: are you denying the covenant with the souls? If you are not denying it, the rest is irrelevant as you accept that the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was a prophet even before birth.

(There is also another hadith in Sahih Muslim AFAIK where the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) stated that he Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) was the seal of the prophets even before Prophet Adam had been made from clay, but I cannot provide a reference except saying that it is from there.)

You do realise here that you are trying to defend your position of neglecting to mention relevant facts, trying to say that it is allowed and proper for you to neglect to mention important information? It all goes into how you are not a credible person to discuss things with as there is nothing to say that even you actually believe or accept what you write.

I can discuss this if you want, but - and I am not claiming to be no environmental expert - it also shows more that you really didn't have a clue what you were talking about on the actual topic at hand and were using emotions to rebuke statements (such as when I mentioned that fertiliser and other chemicals can leak into the water causing problems which you labeled as "simplistic nonsense") instead of actually showing evidence on how they are wrong.

Our creed does not state nor do we believe Mohammedsaw was a messenger before 40. You can try playing politics with the issue as much as you want by talking about what allah knew at the start and what was intended to happen.

The verses order us to take whatever the messenger brought us. So I ask you again

Are we allowed to be out in the public naked

Are we allowed to let our daughters marry mushriks

Can you explain why he did not know of his messengerhood

If not why do you not follow his actions before he was 40 as you claim he was a messenger then. There are hundreds of things he did then. Can you follow any of them. Of course not because before the age of 40 he was mohammed the son of abdullah and not mohammed rasool allah.

You have been caught out lieing and you should accept your mistake. Even a 6 year old know this issue yet you do not! Shame on you!

Joie de Vivre wrote:
Environmental concerns are vital, it is people in the movement who are stupid. Same goes for a lot of movements. I was going to start a thread on this but the source I was using fits here:

Environmental concerns are important but it´s also important to point out the causes and ensure the people who caused the problems should clear them up. The bulk of consumption and pollution comes from Europe and North America with its rotten system that allows corporates to maximise profits whilst ignoring the environmental damage it does. Chickens are coming home to roost now!

Anonymous1 wrote:
Our creed does not state nor do we believe Mohammedsaw was a messenger before 40. You can try playing politics with the issue as much as you want by talking about what allah knew at the start and what was intended to happen.

The verses order us to take whatever the messenger brought us. So I ask you again

Are we allowed to be out in the public naked

Are we allowed to let our daughters marry mushriks

Can you explain why he did not know of his messengerhood

If not why do you not follow his actions before he was 40 as you claim he was a messenger then. There are hundreds of things he did then. Can you follow any of them. Of course not because before the age of 40 he was mohammed the son of abdullah and not mohammed rasool allah.

You have been caught out lieing and you should accept your mistake. Even a 6 year old know this issue yet you do not! Shame on you!

Do you allow for Mu'tah? Do you allow for alcohol to be drunk? Do you allow for people to not fast in Ramadan?

All of those things were at some point - even after the proclamation of prophethood - allowed.

Do you allow for marriage to more than four women at once?

Yes shame on me for sticking to the truth intead of one upmanship.

When the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) proclaimed prophethood, did he not present his life that he had lived amongst the people as an example, an example to show them that he was the best amongst them? If the people could find flaw, they surely would have.

The question is simple - do you or do you not accept that the second the covenant with the souls of just the prophets took place? If so, why are you still arguing? Its mentioned in [qs:3:81]

The thing is you are trying to dig yourself out of the whole you dug for yourself. You have no credibility and the only thing it seems you want to do is "win" a debate whilst not caring if you are in the right and wrong.

When you were disparaging the "kuffar capitalist system" for being the cause of all problems due to pollution, all you had to show was how the problems would be rectified in an Islamic system as opposed to how the system is now. Yet you refused to do so and that to my mind suggests that you really didn't have an answer and all you wanted was my attention. Or to argue.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Are we allowed to be out in the public naked

By this do you mean when the Ka'bah was being rebuilt? Someone quoted the section from a copy of As Shifa on Tribune:

Allah protected him even in keeping his modesty as in the famous tradition about when the Kaba was rebuilt and he took off his wrapper and put it round his neck to use for carrying stones making himself naked. He kept on falling down until he put his wrapper back on. His uncle asked him, "What is wrong with you?" He replied, "I was stopped from being naked."

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

As ever you are arguing nonsense - that Mohammed was a messenger before 40 but he did not know about it nor did he convey the message! Not only that, you have to fabricate that the actions he did were abrogated by the sharia and imply that we can emulate them! Disgusting! What proof do you have of abrogation? None whatsoever! You have just made that nonsense up on the spot to save your defeated argument! Shame on you!

Not only do you push a kufr ideology to the youth, you are now fabricating against the Prophet(saw) directly to justify your defeated and absurd argument of having to cite exceptions for everything we cite - which also exposes your double standards yet again as you have violated what you accuse others of, citing a concept without its exception! You cited Mohammed was a messenger without citing (this alleged but unproved!) abrogation! LOL

Lies and kufr always get caught out - and you've often been caught out with your pants down like the hadith you blazenly fabricated to support democracy and majority opinion as being right!

Maybe you can provide the reference for who authenticated the narration you are referring to in al-shifa - or as per your citation of hadiths, is it another fabrication?

The authenticated narration is as follows:
"While the people were rebuilding Al-Ka‘bah, the Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] went with ‘Abbas to carry some stones. ‘Abbas said: ‘Put your loincloth round your neck to protect you from the stones.’ (As he did that) the Prophet [pbuh] fell to the ground and his eyes turned skyward. Later on he woke up and shouted: ‘My loincloth... my loincloth.’ He wrapped himself in his loincloth." In another report: "His loins were never seen afterwards." [Bukhari Chapter: The Building of Al-Ka'bah, 1/540]

Ibn Al-Atheer reported Muhammad [pbuh] as saying: “I have never tried to do what my people do except for two times. Every time Allâh intervened and checked me from doing so and I never did that again."

Thus after revelation came, the Prophet(saw) commented on his previous life and why he did not do what his people did - Allah prevented him from doing so and not due to receiving any revelation or him being a messenger or knowing he was a messenger. This shows Mohammed(saw) was not aware of any revelation on these matters nor was he following revelation.

Interesting how you skipped the questions you could not answer - so whilst a messenger of God, he gave his daughters to mushrikeen? Why did his wife Khadijah nor anyone else know anything about him being a messenger? Why was he shocked at receiving communication from God in hira? Why did Khadija have to make enquiries? Why did he have to be told he was a messenger? According to your nonsense theory he knew he was a messenger and was hiding the fact - a messenger practicing deceit and deception!!!

Finally the verse you use to justify your stance shows your DIY ijtihad on it to be more kufr - it does not state Mohammed was a prophet before 40 thus is irrelevant as a proof. It states a messenger will come and a messenger came - at the age of 40!

Even the classical usuli scholars differ as to what he was following before the age of 40 - something you are clearly ignorant of - and I would again suggest you go and study the Islamic sciences and dumpt the kufr ideology you follow and propagate! Some say he followed the revelation of Adam, some Ibrahim, some Musa, some Isa, some all of them, some none of them. None argued he had new revelation! You're the first I've ever heard of to fabricate this claim - but then modernists are the first to introduce kufr ideologies of democracy and nationalism into Islam so I guess lieing about the prophet(saw) isn't an issue.

You wrote:
When you were disparaging the "kuffar capitalist system" for being the cause of all problems due to pollution, all you had to show was how the problems would be rectified in an Islamic system as opposed to how the system is now. Yet you refused to do so and that to my mind suggests that you really didn't have an answer and all you wanted was my attention. Or to argue.

Unlike you who comments on subjects he has no knowledge of, I have bothered to study Islamic and Western economics, banking and finance.

The fundamental economic paradigms are different and the systems built on them do not allow for nor encourage maximisation of profit with marginalisation of state from the economy as well as all other considerations which is the root problem with capitalism and the problems we see today. The Islamic economy in practice historically never produced such effects that are seen from the capitalist economies.

Anonymous1 wrote:
You wrote:
When you were disparaging the "kuffar capitalist system" for being the cause of all problems due to pollution, all you had to show was how the problems would be rectified in an Islamic system as opposed to how the system is now. Yet you refused to do so and that to my mind suggests that you really didn't have an answer and all you wanted was my attention. Or to argue.

Unlike you who comments on subjects he has no knowledge of, I have bothered to study Islamic and Western economics, banking and finance.

The fundamental economic paradigms are different and the systems built on them do not allow for nor encourage maximisation of profit with marginalisation of state from the economy as well as all other considerations which is the root problem with capitalism and the problems we see today. The Islamic economy in practice historically never produced such effects that are seen from the capitalist economies.

ok, so what would be done different? How would the technological shifts be dealt with?

its all well and good saying "oh but it will be different" when jumping into topics... but you are not presenting any case at all.

(and is it a notable thing that you focus on economics and finance in a topic about environmentalism? Does it show that you really do not get it?)

Its like all you are attempting to do is attract attention, begging to be shown attention "please talk to me, please."

You dont really have a clue but just have a mantra. Pathetic.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Not only do you push a kufr ideology to the youth, you are now fabricating against the ProphetPeace and Blessings of Allah be upon him directly to justify your defeated and absurd argument of having to cite exceptions for everything we cite - which also exposes your double standards yet again as you have violated what you accuse others of, citing a concept without its exception! You cited Mohammed was a messenger without citing (this alleged but unproved!) abrogation! LOL

Except that you ignore any evidence that is inconvenient to you.

Do you reject the covenant of the souls as mentioned in the qur'an? I even quoted you the relevant verse. I have asked you this question multiple times but you refuse to address is.

But I guess that is your way - to hide the truth. You have been caught out multiple times playing with truth as if it is a toy.

(There is also the hadith in Sahih Muslim where the prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam (Peace and Blessings be upon him) says he was a prophet when prophet adam (as) was ... either between soil and water or the soul had not been put into the clay or something, but this is secondary to the convenant mentioned in the verse quoted before.)

Thirdly, even then you are wrong, as the kalimah talks about now, the present. The prophet IS... which does not require any exceptions to it as it is the absolute truth. it is not hiding any exceptions etc even if you reject the second covenant with the souls.

You simply have no ground to stand on, yet you continue to argue digging yourself deeper and deeper.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Pages