Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

[StopS]

Human being are emotional creatures.
And this is one of the things that makes them superior to other biological machines.
It surely introduces extra baggage - baggage that is necessary.
It is a bit unfair to complain about it - unless it is impossible to make progress in the conversation.


See you are being emotional here. It only makes you adorable - at least temporarily.


Alright.

But this thread is out there on a public forum.

You are ignoring his good points and focusing on his shortcomings. This immediately assigns a bias to you.
In view of that it is naive to expect support for your opinion.

Is this not a thread? And you have earlier asserted that atheism does not propose anything - it only reacts. In view of that every thread here serves your purpose. A dedicated thread will be a minor improvement for you - if at all.

Alright - back to brother Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.

Err ... Hamza is my brother in Islam. Even if he falls on the wrong side of the law I'll give him a medium punch in the ribs but arrange for his parole. Man is a social animal, according to some one.

We believe that purpose of life is to be 'Abd (slave - in fact much lower then a slave) of God.
To be an 'Abd means to indulge in 'Abd-ship.
I had used the word worship for it earlier - the near equivalent word.
'Abd-ship or 'Abdiat has much wider connotations then mere worship.
You have to be completely subordinate to God in every aspect of life.

And then our life revolves around that. Our life is an open book for all to read. Except for the missile locations of Pakistan, Iran, etc forces.


You are western. There the society have created a bubble that everything can be solved by dialogue.
Some of us end up believing that - to our own chagrin. If everything can be solved by dialogue then we must only have our embassies - not the defense departments.

So the assertion you are making is not that innocent. I'll give you a reverse example in which west could not handle simple diplomacy. A person in Bangladesh asked Hillary Clinton why the US is on war against Islam. Her answer was that she is outraged at this question. Or words to the same affect.

To call it mild is one sided. Being affected people we have a different opinion.

This again is a mater of perspective. If you do something to hurt us then it will hurt. And the moment we display that it hurts it is an emotion. Nothing black about it.

I have linked the first episode of Dawkins interviewing Weinberg either in this thread or the other.
Two things are apparent from the first episode itself. Physics holds sort of superior position and majority of physicists are believer. This is from Weinberg.

So you are justified in your complain when people equate science with atheism - it is not their property.


No we did not assert any where that we do not know atheists.

If you do not accept Islam then this can happen only for a very limited number of times.

There is a time for emotions and there is a time for facts.

If I am taking a decision which will govern my life and decide my infinite existence I tend to take this serious.

My point is that I am not "bashing" Hamza here, but taking a distinct rational and factual approach to show whether people here can trust him with any level of confidence. Obviously, the answer is no. I see no "good points". He lies, deceives and misleads Muslims by pretending to be open and knowledgeable. I don't expect support. I am fully aware that my stance is contrary to the snuggly approach some Muslims take because it makes them feel better. I am aware that the truth and that reality can be more harsh and difficult than a dream.

My point regarding atheism is that it seems to me that Muslims really don't know much about atheists. So a dedicated thread would serve to inform and at the same time offer a platform to ask for those that are genuinely interested in expanding their horizon.

"Hamza is my brother in Islam" ok, I'll accept that. Would the same be true if he killed another human being? Where is the limit?

Thank you. I think I know what Muslims believe in - it's what Muslims think what interests me. Because I see a conflict here. If you are a subordinate or a slave to a god it means you accept the judgment of that very god. Why would that god require you to take the law into your own hands and not judge, but execute punishment on another human being? Would that god be incapable of doing that?

"You are western" what does that mean? Is New Zealand Western? ok ok ok, I am kidding, I think I know what you mean. So, yes, my personal opinion is that differences can be solved without violence. Which is why I would gladly see anything stronger than a sling-shot or a paint-ball-gun abolished.

I strongly believe in free speech, so telling people outside a Church, Mosque or Synagogue that humans can be good or bad without any of these is perfectly ok. How can this "offend" anyone? Muslims tried to kill me. Am I offended? No, I consider them brainwashed and deluded.

I must have missed your "episode of Dawkins interviewing Weinberg" link. But I know the video. Regardless: maybe most scientists are atheists, but hardly any atheists are scientists. I am not an active scientist but an atheist. I do NOT see any link between atheism and science. Science, where physics is a branch, is not superior to anything. No, not at all: some physicists are atheists and some are not.

I find that people here have very and highly preconceived notions as to what represents an atheist.

I don't understand why I can only talk to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, Jainists, Taoists, etc etc a limited number of times.
Does it mean that after talking to Muslims several times I HAVE to accept Islam or be chucked out?

[Maripat]

There is a time for emotions and there is a time for facts.

If I am taking a decision which will govern my life and decide my infinite existence I tend to take this serious.

I suppose we have squared at least one problem. Emotions can not be ignored but they should not overwhelm the discussion.

My point is that I am not "bashing" Hamza here, but taking a distinct rational and factual approach to show whether people here can trust him with any level of confidence. Obviously, the answer is no. I see no "good points". He lies, deceives and misleads Muslims by pretending to be open and knowledgeable. I don't expect support. I am fully aware that my stance is contrary to the snuggly approach some Muslims take because it makes them feel better. I am aware that the truth and that reality can be more harsh and difficult than a dream.

Since this thread is about Hamza therefore your above views are the crux of the matter. I happen to be at variance with you in this matter. This is what we got to focus upon. How much of lying Hamza has been indulging in? Does he have any substance?

The former is your baggage - you got to prove unequivocally that he has lied.
Later is my burden - to show that he has some substance. (He should give me treat later on. I intend to call you too for facilitating the treat. Hang around.)

Then you are asserting that he is taking us for a ride. Than you sir for pointing that out. Very kind of you.

Some Muslims are snugly.

Here you have raised one very good point. It will be nice if this is cleared. It will help in the rest of the communication.

You feel that we, or at least some of us, do not get worked up by some things which should excite and insight our fancy. That is what you mean by snugly. Our point of view is that our priorities are different.
So, in some cases, the things that excite you do not excite us. And vice versa.

Since you have not mentioned any specific example it is not possible for me to say more here but I'll furnish one example from my own side.

See the value of a coin in this post by a new Muslim.

My point regarding atheism is that it seems to me that Muslims really don't know much about atheists. So a dedicated thread would serve to inform and at the same time offer a platform to ask for those that are genuinely interested in expanding their horizon.

Open a thread by all means but what will it achieve? We are believers by choice.

And, no atheism does not widen the horizons. It contracts the. We have some thing more than you - God. Ergo our horizons are wider.

"Hamza is my brother in Islam" ok, I'll accept that. Would the same be true if he killed another human being? Where is the limit?

I suppose a Prophetic Tradition will help here. Beloved Prophet (PBUH) said that help your brother even when he is the wrong doer. Puzzled the interlocutor asked how and why he should help the wrong doer?
Belove Prophet (PBUH) said, "Help him by stopping him from doing wrong."

Thank you. I think I know what Muslims believe in - it's what Muslims think what interests me.

Indeed it is Muslim faith that widens their horizons. Just look around. The whole world is engaged with Muslims. Some are worried that Europe might turn into Eurabia. Some are looking for jobs in the Gulf. Some one went to the Gulf and destroyed a flourishing country by falsely accusing them of having WMDs.

Because I see a conflict here. If you are a subordinate or a slave to a god it means you accept the judgment of that very god. Why would that god require you to take the law into your own hands and not judge, but execute punishment on another human being? Would that god be incapable of doing that?

When you say why will god require you to take law into your own hands you are assuming that there is an authority above God who has given the law.

"You are western" what does that mean? Is New Zealand Western? ok ok ok, I am kidding, I think I know what you mean. So, yes, my personal opinion is that differences can be solved without violence. Which is why I would gladly see anything stronger than a sling-shot or a paint-ball-gun abolished.

We do need force some time or other. (Non-mahram warning for Muslims.)
To think of abolition of arms is too idealistic.
I'll take a minor diversion here. Islamic injunctions are of two type. One, those that are pleasant. For example Allah (SWT) says that eat and drink from the fine things that We have provided you. Two, unpleasant injunctions. For example you are supposed to get up for the morning prayers when it is the sweetest hour of the sleep. Whole world has defense departments and this will qualify in the second category.

I strongly believe in free speech, so telling people outside a Church, Mosque or Synagogue that humans can be good or bad without any of these is perfectly ok. How can this "offend" anyone?

We are responsible for our actions and our speech is our action.
But then it is a point of contention between the west and Islam which needs attention of its own.

Muslims tried to kill me. Am I offended? No, I consider them brainwashed and deluded.

Sorry to hear that. I tried to search for that Hotel episode but usually it is difficult to read about these events. I hope you are aware that our scholars have given a fatwah against such things in any form.

I must have missed your "episode of Dawkins interviewing Weinberg" link. But I know the video. Regardless: maybe most scientists are atheists, but hardly any atheists are scientists. I am not an active scientist but an atheist. I do NOT see any link between atheism and science. Science, where physics is a branch, is not superior to anything. No, not at all: some physicists are atheists and some are not.

So can we say the following: More scientists are believers hence it is more scientific to be a believer..

I find that people here have very and highly preconceived notions as to what represents an atheist.

We are Muslims. Opposite of atheists. It is unlikely that you shall find your favourite things here. Exceptions are rather few, like Biryani.

And an atheist is not a deep conundrum. He is just the person who has refused to accept the responsibility that comes with faith. He sort of has chickened out. It is neither profound nor honourable.

I don't understand why I can only talk to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, Jainists, Taoists, etc etc a limited number of times.
Does it mean that after talking to Muslims several times I HAVE to accept Islam or be chucked out?

I can speak for Muslims only.
After talking several times you can still sell potatoes, potato chips, electronic chips to us and buy Persian tiles from us.
You can still join the same voting queue.
You can travel by the same Tube.
And so on.

But there is a limitation. There are clear injunctions in Islam that people will be judged in groups and no Muslim can risk being judged in a group that has atheists in it.

But why get into such technicalities? Just be a Muslim and get on with life. There is no journey better than this. There is no adventure better than this. There is no joy better than this. We only call you to the best of both worlds. You supposedly have only half of that. I say supposedly because whatever joy you have in this world most of it is not joy but pain. I shall sign off with one example. Whenever I came out of movie show it was always an unpleasant and dark feeling that I came out with. This includes all those cases where the movie was supposedly good. The trouble is that we sort of can not identify our feelings clearly otherwise every one will realize that one has indulged in a sin of two hours or more.

Ciao.