The following is a continuation of the dialogue with this Turkish man from Gent I call Erci:   

 For a year or so I have been trying, in spite the language difficulties on both sides

and our cultural differences, to create a dialogue with him, defending love's superiority over thee rule of all people, and all religions,

including the Islam…

 

During a meeting, in a commemoration of the birthday of the prophet Mohammed,

 in the Centrale, in Gent, Belgium, a Muslim who does not know me, brother of the Turk Erci

aggressed me verbally, before the people around, throwing hateful  insults at me, and threatening to crush me.

 

The following was placed on my website in the page Dialogue with Erci

 and sent through Erci to the aggressor as my response.

 

 

Dialogue with Erci

 Love, or the Koran.

 

 

  21April 

Dear Erci, please give this to your brother.

 

 

Dear Muslim, if I am the devil to your belief because I defend love,
what for a belief is yours?

 I only ask you to be a friend,  and from a friend, I ask sincerity:

Does it make sense to you ?:

 Your God has prohibited you to be my friend, if I am a Christian or a Jew or an unbeliever.

It is not my God but yours, who obliges men to believe

that he is the Most Compassionate One ,

or he might chops off their head and finger tips !!.

No one is wise nor worthy by violating others, hating and butchering others.

For sure not for the sake of God!

Neither you nor I, nor a prophet nor a God are worthy,  without love.

If you want to over- power me and crush me, you can do it, if your arm is stronger,

but you cannot kill my friendship, my love,

nor the justice of  love.

You can silence me, if you kill me,

but you cannot silence the truth I am saying.
 

*****************

 

 

 

 

  

 Gent, 21 April 2006

The first and most important reason I reject any form of relationship 

based on unquestioning  obedience, is its inability for self criticism.

 

 

 

( "The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma

became Muslims because they feared for their lives."

from the history of Mohammed.

Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" or the Biography of the Prophet of God,
 the oldest and primary biography of Muhammad.
 

 

 

 

After a dialogue with Erci I wonder if all truly intelligent reasoning with a fanatic Muslim is out of the question,

if in a discussion with Muslims about their religion, one will always feel manipulated in every way to believe

in the superiority of the Islam over other beliefs, and if what remains is to listen to an endless praise of the purity

 of the Islam and of the Muslims, endless self defence and justification or denial, even in its discrimination against women,

against free thinkers, against people with any other teaching, any other belief,  justification or denial  even in regards to

the barbaric practices of war written in the Koran.

*************************************************************************************

 

                                        Stoned to death

 Is this the work of the kindest man you say you know, Ercy?

It revolts me .

Your last prophet Mohammed’s justice did not evolve from the StoneAge, On the contrary.!

 And you, Erci, say it is the will of God.

 it is no God, who can lapidate a living being, or a human,

-         'I have given myself up to Allah, Erci explained.

-         This is certainly not God but the devil! As to myself, I have to thrown up from it!

-          

Who can digest AND ADORE such barbaric butcher is a barbaric butcher himself

or just a coward not to denounce his great pretence to be the Most Compassionate one! This is hypocrisy!  

How a human could do this to another human is beyond my understanding.

****************************************

 

 

 

There is only the truth, that which is,  and the thoughts, the beliefs,  wrong or right, about the truth, about what is.

It would be absurd to give oneself to one single thought, or belief, and tell the truth itself to be quiet.

 

 If one wants to over- power and dominate the other, there is no true  spiritual community between two consciousnesses,

but the oppression, the suppression of consciousness.

Love alone opens the mind for the truth. In love there is no compulsion in belief. How can it be?

If anyone pretends to be God, or the prophet or the word of God, or to know everything, then questioning must be allowed,

 or there is no true love relationship, but tyranny and subservience to tyranny.

When the freedom to see for oneself is denied, when critical self awareness is not allowed, when someone

or a group of people pretends to be  more important than another, person or group, there is no real love.

One cannot have true peace or true love by doing injustice to others, discriminating others a priori,

because they don't belong to our group.

When compulsory unquestioning obedience replaces the freedom to seek mutual understanding, evolution stops,

and truth, love, beauty and peace in a relationship fades away.

 

In our old monotheistic traditions men were unquestioning to their words of God, however ruthless and cruel,

as men have considered women inferior to their  unquestionable selves, however ruthless and cruel they might have been...

 But the truth is that this pretentiousness does not have fundament because we in essence are all one.

 

 Women would not be considered inferior to man if there were true men, if they found true love.

Women would also not submit to discrimination, if they were true to themselves.

 

And people would not be enslaved to the words of another, or the words of a book, if there was true love.

 

Consciousness is consciousness, in whatever body or form it may take.

 Pretentiousness is the arrogance of pretentiousness, in whatever form it takes.

 

Love does not mean not to see the faults in another, nor does someone need to be perfect to deserve love .

In a system of authority and subservience, unlike a meeting in mutual respect, one is the 'perfect 'one,

the all powerful, who knows all better than another, and the other, the one who may not question him.

 

In a true relationship,  the master is love itself, truth itself, and no one is the slave.

 

 Men would not have created and adored a God who violates, slaughters and tyrannises people,

physically as psychologically, if in the relation between men there was not the bestial will of man to dominate

over others,  physically as psychologically, over the woman and other men.

 

 Physical, sexual, emotional or mental differences would not be so important, if there was true love,

 if there was spiritual  awareness.

 If there was love, or spiritual consciousness, all the external norms and forms, all superficial rules of old customs

and traditions would not be so important.

There would be peace between humans of all backgrounds, of all religious origins, of all races and places of the Earth or Universe, 

 if the quality of the heart and the purity in the eyes were more important than someone's rank,  the dress or the head shall .

.

Your friend in the love for truth  

van Chapman Philosophic Community project   www.naturestudio.net

 

 

                            22 April

 

 

van Chapman  Philosophic Community project   www.naturestudio.net

 

 

There is only the truth, what is,

and the consciousness, the love, which can see it,

or the infinite thoughts, or beliefs, about the truth, about what is.

which can conflict with what is and with each other.

 

A communion of thought or belief  does not mean a communion of consciousness ,

a spiritual communion or love.

One may have a moment of consciousness or a communion of consciousness,

 no belief and no thoughts about what is  are necessary for a spiritual consciousness to be,

nor for the existence of a communion of spiritual consciousness.

Therefore from a spiritual viewpoint, there is no discrimination possible between a believers and an unbeliever,

as the Koran or religion like the Islam preach.

 

 

If you would chose the Islam (who tells you even to murder for a belief,) rather than love,

(who tells you that hateful and criminal self defence has nothing to do with God nor the love for the truth,

I say to you and your prophet and your God,

 if in accordance to the pattern of your belief, you would want to crush or kill  a friend

for a critic on your belief,  for saying that love is more just than the God of your belief,

you  would prove his accusation to be just,

you would confirm the truth of what this friend is saying.

 

 

 

'Love your enemies' the teaching of Jesus, is one of the most revolutionary teachings in Bible,

and is not his invention. It is a spiritual perception, a deep understanding of our nature

the wisdom of the ages one can trace back  to Buddha, and Lao Tzu,

and still not be a slave of their words.

 

What true prophet, what  true God would have you throw your life and consciousness away

to a mere thought, a mere  belief about the truth, and then  silence truth ?

( "The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma

became Muslims because they feared for their lives."

from the history of Mohammed.

Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" or the Biography of the Prophet of God,
 the oldest and primary biography of Muhammad.
 

 

If you have to chose, and
 chose your belief rather than love,

you reject the awareness of what is:
Love is the awareness of what is.

 

 

 

 

From a discussion in the aula of the University of Gent in the middle of March 2006,
with the representatives of the Vlaams Belang and the Islam.

The Muslim representative complained about the 'Eigen volk eerst.' policy of the Vlaams Belang,
complaining, in fact, of an aspect in which the Vlaams Belang and the Islam are quite similar:
In several verses of the Koran it is understood the policy 'OWN PEOPLE FIRST'
be kind to believers and hard to unbelievers.

During the discussion panel in the Aula  I contributed with one question:
 'If it is true that Mohammed has murdered someone for criticizing how he
made war against non -Muslims, is a good Muslim supposed to justify it?'
A young Muslim from Gent, Erci, (who had taken me to the meeting at the University)
 told me he could not justify it, but he did not believe in the truth story.
(So it is a young man with a sense of justice.)

 

 

from

 Wikipedia
Asma bint Marwan From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search Asmā bint Marwān (Arabic عصماء بنت مروان)

is a female poet who lived in Hijaz in medieval Arabia during the life of Muhammad.

 Her affair is first written in Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" or the Biography of the Prophet of God,

 the oldest and primary biography of Muhammad.

The Siraat are one of the most important sources of information about the history of Islam, but are not necessarily authoritative. Such passages as this and the Satanic Verses, for example, are some of the most contested issues in Islamic theology. For all Muslims the Qur'an is the definitive explanation of historical, theological and social truths, and for the vast majority the Hadith, or the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed and his companions, have secondary authority. The Hadith are categorized according to verifiability and reliability using rules of transmission, or isnad. The Siraat do not fall under these strictures, and some Muslims reject the following story as a fabrication.[1]
Poetry was the usual medium of political discourse in medieval Arabia and Asma Marwan wrote a politically charged poem against Muhammad and his army; this poem was preserved in the Sira. Poetry, being the political medium of the time, could have a huge impact on the political landscape. Muhammad decided to silence her by having her assassinated. This story is described in the Sira written by Ibn Ishaq. Following is an excerpt from Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, describes that Muhammad commanded one of his soldiers to murder Asma Marwan; the assassination squad is described as having murdered Asma with knives while she was sleeping alongside her children.
From the Sirat Rasul Allah, by Ibn Ishaq

(A. Guillaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") page 675, 676:

"UMAYR B. ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL ASMA D. MARWAN

"She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection.

Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd.

Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

"I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit and Auf and B. al-Khazraj. You obey a stranger who is none of yours,

One not of Murad or Madhhij. {1} Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs

Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?

Is there no man of pride who would attack him by : And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?

" Hassan b. Thabit answered her: "Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma Are inferior to B. al-Khazrahj.

When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping, For death is coming.
She stirred up a man of glorious origin, Noble in his going out and in his coming in.

 Before midnight he dyed her in her blood And incurred no guilt thereby."

When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?

" Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her.

 In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said,

"You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!

" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said,

"Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan.

She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan,

O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.

" That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma;

 before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact.

The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the "Reader",

and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit.

 The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma

became Muslims because they feared for their lives."

{1} The note reads "Two tribes of Yamani origin."

Another source that described the death of Asma bint Marwan:

From Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, page 31.
"SARIYYAH OF UMAYR IBN ADI"
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).
Following is a description of this assassination (as well as the assination of Abu 'Afak by the contemporary Muslim scholar of Islam, Ali Dashti. From Ali Dashti's 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad (3) page 100:
"Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated."
 

PROJECT 

Philosophic Community

 

Manifesto Against Terror found on the web

(Original)


After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom,

equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers,

have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms,

but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing,

 but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings

 in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state:

nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred.

Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present.

 Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others.

 To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived

of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions.

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia",

an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents,

 against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

 

 

click here to see Call to the Muslims of the World
from a Group of Freethinkers
and Humanists of Muslim Origin

What I try to say to this Muslim,

is this:

 One does not clear someone’s consciousness,

nor brings order to someone’s thoughts

 by cutting off his head. 

 

van Chapman  Philosophic Community project   www.naturestudio.net

 

 

 

THIS PAGE OF THE SITE IS BEING WORKED ON.