Caliphate or Khaleefeh is a Farsi word " خرابها - kharabeha " which means Ruins, abandoned properties or properties of dead owners with no heir. Hashem (zionism) and Commonwealth are partnered up as the khaleefa of the world, secretly and deceptively. Caliphate organization needs to be a public, transparent and not for power or profit. Caliphate shall use the entire assets to help women, children and old people who do not have the ability or opportunity to compete for food and shelter. Secret governments have taken over the biggest public asset [which can easily replace the taxes] and have been stealing them, they even kill the owners with fake diseases, they also make sure that people remain renters [from them] so commonwealth and its partners can slave them for their work and their sex and their children. Iran is the only nation who has a separate charity organization to manage this assets "Bonyad Mostazafan" which is the largest charity organization in the world which has virtually eliminated income tax.

In every human society, despite how isolated they may be, there religion is found. It's in our DNA, and logically using our brains we can easily conclude there is a creator (see the proof of god by ibn sina)

@@victorien3704religion is not in your dna stop and think for a few minutes

@@victorien3704The necessary existence is just the necessary existence. There’s nothing proofing that the necessary existence is a god in the Abrahamic sense.

Atheism is also a belief. I would say that a lot of atheists are actually more fanatical than theists. It's actually quite alarming when you notice it, and this is coming from an agnostic.

@@CHRB-nn6qp As a Muslim in Turkiye I agree. atheists are only existing group that will tell you are acting in a tribal and extremists way. Just to do the same. I don't understand how someone can be a religious extremist while not having a religion.

Thank you! There are many interesting videos on the channel.

tolerance is not a good thing.

@@Omer698tolerance to a degree of not bad! Tolerating everything is bad!

Yeah So intolerance is a good thing! 👍 Bring back Sharia Law and Hadud punishments. 🤦‍♀️ 🙄

Yes it was the reality of Islam throughout the most of its existance. It was the religion of reason, thought, philosophy, tolerance and culture. You would be shocked to know how common homosexuality was Al-Andalus, Safavid Persia and even in Abbasid Caliphate for a time. And there was a form of homosexuality practiced in Ottoman empire too while Mughal empire and other Indian Muslim states were known for their respect towards transgender and non binary. And you look at Muslim world now. Alcohole was common and legal in all of this said societies including Timurid empire, Mamluk Sultanate and now people get punished for drinking in middle east. All of this societies were progressive in their day and age. Islam has truly been hijacked by radicalism and extremism with the rise of Salafism and the video talked about the atheist scholars of golden age, while for past 200 years we are witnessing dark ages of Islam

What exactly r u yapping about

@@Mahmoud-ku5eb summary: islam is bullcrap

You are told to go to a scholar because they're the ones that studied the religion and the language their whole lives and ofc they don't answer you without quoting the Quran or the sunnah

Who ever told you that is not allowed in Islam, blind faith is not Islam and will never be Islam. You are told to go a Muslim scholar for islamic knowledge just as you should go to your English teacher for english or a baker for tips on baking

Shia Islam is much more historically consistent, because we had 12 Imams who kept the Sunnah alive for 200 years after the Holy Prophet. Thaqalayn, the book of Allah and the progeny of Muhammad.

Yea, the realization that I could not write in my native tounge was a surprisingly sad realization

i only started to doubt when i began to read more into it and read the scriptures, up until then i was really devout with the goal of becoming more devout

Blindly believing, consistently looking for answers from an imaginary parental/authority figure, but calling those who don't believe things blindly, and who look within themselves, for sensibility, to find truth, lost.

hmm :)

idk how a woman can be ok with this in the back of her mind

thanks for the encouragement!

thanks for the encouragement!

thank you for encouraging me. Tomorrow I plan to publish VERY interesting video on history's first recorded atheist

My pleasure!

Much appreciated! BTW I have a video on Marx, maybe not from the perspective you've mentioned though

Welcome aboard! Glad you enjoyed both videos!

Welcome aboard, Alex! Please check out other videos.

thanks for sharing this

La hawla wala quwwata illa billah

Are you Bangladeshi?

@@EV-EV-EV Why is it like that though?I’m noticing many of them becoming apostates..

@@EV-EV-EV yes. How did you know

thank you!

yes, I will

Narrations besides the Quran. God knows best tbh. Because it's true that when the children of Isra3l worshiped the calf they were told to kill themselves, i'm not claiming the ruling is bad, i don't make moral judgements besides God, but the Quran nowhere mentions that ruling still applies today in normal circumstances. In war you could argue treason is punished by death since it risks the life of others during an active conflict since they may leave and give crucial information to the enemy... So yeah, let's not be hypocritical either. But i do believe the Quran allows apostasy, altough it will have consequences in the hereafter, since you get what you do for breaking your promise and also the evil deeds you probably will do after leaving.

No one changed the faith itself. So it eventually caught up to the Persians and Arabs. We see something similar in Europe where the enlightenment also brought a surge and religious extremism, since more people read the bible and took it seriously.

@@MrCmon113 But the punishment of apostasy isn't in the Quran. It comes from sectarian sources. The Muatazzila if i'm not mistaken didn't use those narrations, they deemed them fabrications. So it's not that they didn't take their faith seriously, it's that they used the Quran instead of hearsay that was later collected to make laws as the supposed sayings of the Prophet... I hope this clarifies more, you can fact check what i said if i got something wrong.

​@@MrCmon113 Yes true, everyone when mentions the enlightenments seems to forget about the whole religious league wars lmao

​@@owncraticpathBut in the Quran, it is said that Allah forgave them after they repented for worshipping the calf. Even the one who started the apostasy, Samiri, was told to get out of sight by Moses (As.). The word used in the Quran was "qatlun nafsi" here 'nafs' can also mean the soul, so it can have a more 'spiritual' meaning

Thanks for sharing your feedback, Dabor!

Glad you enjoyed it! Tomorrow I plan to publish VERY interesting video on history's first recorded atheist

Welcome aboard! Many interesting videos to come.

thanks for the comment!

great

There is not as much tolerance as you like to think

@@user-ih8nm8lv1k Yes, there is.

​@@user-ih8nm8lv1kyes because people who bad mouthed the prophet were still killed.

They did not follow Sharia. That's precisely why he could be critical of religion without being killed.

Thanks, will do!

Thanks for the encouragement! please share

thanks for suggesting!

Thank you so much for supporting my work!

Glad you like it!

Thank you! There are many interesting videos on the channel.

thank you! Welcome aboard! Please check out other videos and share :)

please reach out via email religionandhomo@gmail.com

Thanks a lot 😊

thank you! please share

Thank you for the comment!

learn what ?

we already do the atheist scholars aren't good scholars. anyone that can't free think into belief in God is worthless in this life and the next.

you are welcome

Glad you enjoyed it. Check out my other videos

@@religiologEng Definitely did, and I am a believer!

Hi, reach out via email religionandhomo@gmail.com

You can find this book online if you go to AnnasArchive. I found a copy there and read the book for free 😬

Well don't blame Salafism entirely because those T groups aren't made by Muslims and they were made by so called atheists and they are using this to promote their agenda and to control the region and using it against Muslims as well.

thanks!

Thanks for watching!

Incorrect translation Beware. By the way, I am an Arab, the word air means nothing. And the word clouds does not exist. Strange that this is a fatal error in translation, did you modify it?

@@mohammedayoubsamhoud3363 you should cross check it and correct me: Grade: Hasan (Darussalam) Sunan Ibn Majah 182

Merci!

@@nur-azhar this is not for kafir though

And how's this relevant to the video? Go somewhere else with your boring religious proselitsm.

I think Abu Huraira was one of the biggest bullshitters of the Islamic history. He alone narrated more than 5000 hadeeths (which later produced more than 500,000 narrator chains). Many of his narrations are outright non-sensical, stupid and outlandish. He allegedly "compiled" them from multiple number of distant geographic locations, separated by hundreds of miles. Lived for 75 years, became a Muslim when he was like 40yo. Although it's doubted that he never met the prophet in person. Even the prophet's wife accused him of bullshitting. I think he was also mentally unstable, he had a strange infatuation with cats, the name "Abu Huraira" literally means "Cat dad".

​@@nur-azharcan't keep your shit filled mouth shut , can you ?

​@@kopashamsu9913you are so wrong , read a book instead of watching yt videos or googling. Loving cats is not a mental illness , I think the one with mental illness is you !

Dude they made a statue of him

If I am not wrong many did lose their lives

​@@daraa151 you are wrong

​@@env0x then vandalized it? Lol, I personally live in Baghdad and they cut off the statue's fingers except his index, you can probably get why that is. When it comes to theologian debates muslims were close minded and still are.

@@morningstar3178 well obviously they are more extreme and radical in their views in the time when they vandalize the statue than in the time when they built it. wonder what changed?

Thank you so much for these sources. I'll need to check them out.

@@religiologEng Your welcome, some topics and people seem to get a lot of attention. However most only rely on a few sources and dont recognize the range of views available by critical historians. Another suggestion for you is from the Abbasid History Podcast 'EP009 Dr. Kevin Blankinship on the life and works of poet-philosopher 'heretic' Abū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Maʿarrī' its pretty interesting.

Abu Bakr ar Razi's "anti-Islamism" derives from an Ismaili source which are not very trustworthy in general, other sources state he was a Muslim. He is just famously pushed to be one because he was a famous physician and that helps people push that false idea that if you study science you cant be religious lol.

Well don'r know about Others but accusations on Al Razi has made by Ismails who were against him. It was proven by mant Historians. The accusations started after Abu Hatim was an Isma'ili missionary who debated Razi, but whether he has faithfully recorded the views of Razi is disputed.According to Abdul Latif al-'Abd, Islamic philosophy professor at Cairo University, Abu Hatim and his student, Ḥamīd al-dīn Karmānī (d. after 411AH/1020CE), were Isma'ili extremists who often misrepresented the views of Razi in their works.

We Shia have always taked prophecy extremely seriously. The idea of an Imam coming back to rule with justice, and with Jesus returning alongside him, are essential to our faith even before we were sure about Muhammad al-Mahdi being that Imam, even when we didn't know we had to go through 11 Imams to reach that point. It took us 11 Imams getting martyred, because we didn't fulfill our obligations to cause justice to be established in the time of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or other Imams. Our failure is why our 12th Imam is in occultation, but no we are getting our act together, and the prophecies are coming true.

A drunk man that literally raped another man and made poetry about doing it with young boys is based huh

God Allah is center of all creation whole universe is his creation

@@MamaMama-sv3b - Nonsense: you're just the divine shard that denies its own divinity because of alienation from your own internal divinity. God is everything, from the smallest to the largest, EVERYTHING!

Ok god is not everything we are his creation

@@MamaMama-sv3b - No. Prove your theory or shut up. God is the ultimate cause of Reality and for all we know Reality is the ultimate cause of Reality and also Reality itself. Get real, Santa Claus is a bad theory.

​@@LuisAldamizok Hindu

Thank you for the suggestion, but how do we know it about Abu Nuwas? what are the sources?

@@religiologEng So Abu Nuwas was a poet and there’s poetry he wrote asking Allah for forgiveness. Idk if you can read Arabic but I’ll post them here anyway. يا رب إن عظمت ذنوبي كثرة *** فلقد علمت بأن عفوك أعظم إن كَانَ لا يرجوك إِلا محسن *** فمن الذي يدعو ويرجو المجرم أدعوك رب كما أمرت تضرعا *** فإذا رددت يدي فمن ذا يرحم مالي إليك وسيلة إِلا الرجا *** وجميل عفوك ثم إني مسلم For what I found there are many resources mentioning his repentance including in the beginning and the end for Ibn Katheer.

The point is he was tolerated until he decided to repent if he indeed did repent. In today's muslim world he wouldn't survive!

That is very much true. Unfortunately, in the Abbasi era, they were not tolerated either, and many of the Arab philosophers were banished or accused of heresy.

Yes he was persian muslim

you are right, he wasn't. In the video I call him a Persian poet.

Muslim ?!?!,​@@shadowborn1456

راستش یه اشتباه شرم ‌‌اور و مقدماتی بود.

agree. The phrase about Al-Gazali is not mine but from the book of Jim Al-Khalili, that some people put blame on his conservatism, and then I refute it as too simplistic explanation.

I agree Ghazali was completely misunderstood and his interpretation taken as against philosophy and science, which is total nonsense. Neil Tyson added his prejudice against Al Ghazali.

Sanest sand maggot

which minute?

@@religiologEng 0:14

@@user-fn2xz8dt8f oh, I see. Yes, its amazing, but sorry I don't know from which movie its taken.

thanks for sharing this!

Is there even meaning of life? Not just life ... what's the purpose of non livings ... what's a stone good for ? All living being should gather and u alive themselves

@@shoibericsson5007 La hawla wala quwwata illa billah

>Those scholars were indeed challenging the way rulers of their time were attempting to use religion as a tool to legitimize their reign. Huh? No. They were critical of the religion itself. They rejected the quran. They pointed out that God can't be all powerful and good. They weren't merely criticizing some rulers, but the faith.

@@MrCmon113and rightly so. No one should believe anything blindly cos one person said it. Religion has made a mockery of God. They kill in the name of God without mercy,shouting God is merciful. Then where is the mercy?

they were not arabs. they were persians.

@@Cyroos I thought some of them were Arabs?..also some people keep claiming algebra comes from Arabs.

@@WonderfulWorldview-pg3ey Razi khayam Ravandi were persians . there are others which are not as well known. But Zakaria Razi stands out as he was a great chemist( inventer of acid sulphuric ) an astrologist philosopher and he thought koran is badly written and the content was all mundane and nonsense.

@@Cyroos Persian civilization was a great one before the invaders destroyed its culture, traditions and beliefs..unfortunately the common people are not aware of the destructive impact of that cult which is long lasting and sometimes irreversible. The digital sword will continue to spread information and knowledge with the hope that the coming generations realize that archaic doctrines and ideologies impede progress and development of humanity and society…✌️🙏

@@WonderfulWorldview-pg3eyMaarri is Arab, Abu Nawas is Arab

in which countries?

thanks!

yes, I know

If you knew, you should have fixed this insult to our heroes!​@@religiologEng

Thank you for clarifying this! I watched your interview couple weeks ago.

According to Shia sources, a real atheist did exist, but an Imam brought him back to Islam.

for example? which specific claims are inaccurate?

"People who hold beliefs without evidence as dogmas." ... "superstitions nowhere found in the Quran which is what claims to be revelation from God " Can you show the evidence for thoughtorgan lacking thinkers? Or that there could even be any connection between this idea and the idea a text like the Qur'an could have had something to do with it?

@@Angelmou Peace The Quran literally tells people to use reason and reflect, constantly. What i meant with superstitions nowhere found in the Quran is refering to the collections of hearsay people tell us is "a second revelation besides the Quran", basically the Talmud J3ws have but in arabic terms. Inside of it is where you find the blatant wrong stuff, nowhere in the Quran do you find something which is wrong, i've seen attempts but they usually push their interpretation as the only acceptable one, even when the verse doesn't give off what they want to pretend it does. But with those other sources, you can indeed find weird stuff. You can find also good, but it's a mix. With dogmas i meant atheists or antitheists holding the dogma that there is no God, when they have no way to prove that idea, and their own studies prove belief in a higher power is something inside of us, something natural as believing in cause and effect. We don't need to prove cause and effect, it's an axiom. And God is basically "the first cause", so in an essential level we don't need to prove we come from something else that comes from nothing else while being something and eternal. Because it is logical. So yes, atheists have dogmas also, but they don't have evidences for them, their only hopes is to attack every belief that holds any idea of a creator or original being, in hopes of their assumptions to seem logical for people who have nothing to hold into but need to feel safe in the head to not go crazy. That's my opinion, you might disagree but i explain it in more detail so that you know where i come from. My parent's are kinda believers, but not in any sect, never pushed it on me, i was an agnostic for a long time, and searched a lot for truth and for morality especially, since i wanted to hold good moral values. Ended up falling into the opposite, and fell into egoism after research, which in a way is a deep atheistic belief, altough i guess some believers of a version of God outside of scripture might hold it. And yeah, it got dark, i would have done horrible stuff, thank God i didn't have the medium, and people think i'm good, i want to think i am but without God or a clear book with evidence i just couldn't justify having morals, idk if this makes sense to you, but when we say atheism cannot justify morality, we mean it, you don't believe it's the case because you haven't done the work, but i'm sure you would fall into the same if you de-indoctrinate yourself, then you would realize you can't make up morality on your own, and would end up as i ended up then. This is why i warn people against atheism, it has no evidence to it and it makes people do bad things if you are coherent... why? because bad things are easier to do and in the short term give off more pleasure to some people... and theologically God also sends d3mons, humans or from the unseen to inspire you with evil, be it on KZfaq, TV or in movies, they inspire you with bad ideas you can choose to do or not, to excercise your design, since you are a moral being unlike others. Then, i found the Quran and i won't like, i didn't believe in it because of the mathematical codes in it, or because of the historical accuracy, or prophecy or the miracles of it's speech, i just believed in it because it made sense and the morality in it was literally my old good morals i lacked at the time. It was as if i was reading my own soul in a text, idk how to explain it. Not only that, all what i had learned with experience, was already written in the book as guideance... I just recommend you read the translation of Sam Gerrans or any translation you like on your own, honestly my arguments suck compared to what the book says. Of course if you reason, if you read it superficially you will lose a ton of information. It's a book for deep thinkers, which again leads me to point out that it brought up a civilization as Baghdad, good books do that to civilizations. reader.quranite.com/verses/chapters?chapter=96 Peace

@@owncraticpath "Inside of it is where you find the blatant wrong stuff, nowhere in the Quran do you find something which is wrong," Is more or less a denial due to false imprinted emotions (so called pink goggles that you wish that the nicest and most good feeling can arrive aka seeking for untruthness that gives you fake meaning in your life and inner core personality). The Qur'an stated for example that the sun sets in a muddy spring, that the sun revolves the earth, that stars would be tiny rocket thrown at devils or fall from the sky at a supposed judgement day as they would not be 1 mio. times the size of planet Earth etc. or that that the activity _to create_ would be older than it actually is in history. Those are just mundane examples of false statements in the human texts called the Qur'an, where you actively have to work to press them in meaning so that the appearence of "it is fine" is artificially constructed around. "i've seen attempts but they usually push their interpretation as the only acceptable one," A not acceptable way to even approach any text is the personal wish that the text shall give you meaning in your life - this is never in any shape or form an acceptable interpretation way as it just reveals your inner bias and worships it then. This means a texts turn into a mirror so that you worship what you like, distaste and so on. It is then due to human emotions always the wish for Untruthness disguised as "sense in life" seeking. The same goes for the "this text shall give me depression" way of approach no one but goth people may do. "With dogmas i meant atheists or antitheists holding the dogma that there is no God, when they have no way to prove that idea, and their own studies prove belief in a higher power is something inside of us, something natural as believing in cause and effect." Deities are human concepts of thoughtorganlacking thinkers without ear organs to register air vibrations where they still shall hear like prayers or eye organs unable to register light waves but still able to see with impossible superpowers like endless life (immortality) or invisibility etc. It is basically the wish that square circles or married bachelors shall be real to deny self-contradictions and the real limitations of reality by irreal traits. This is why the denial of human mortality for the idea of an everlasting life (incl. a paradise) arrives from as the wish that some agency shall grant that wish. That means Allah shall be seen as the limit breaker of the finite and countable number of days a human person is able to exist. Allah shall be capable to do everything for the mere reason that a human hates limits and that for that hatred limits shall be gone - it is more of a desperate cry that they are so horrific emotionally that the limits like the finite number of days of a life shall be denied alone by the will to denial. While there is no limitation breaker at all. Here: "Higher power" humans are social tribal animals orienting on parents as forerunners and agents to nurture them. This is the reason why humans are selected to think in agency instead of cold mindless mechanism. So do people assume a creator solely, because they substantivize the activity called _to create_ and assume first comes the parent like a father figure that performs the to create activity. While in reality agency and the subject comes _always_ after the mechanism. So humans have inside us the mistaken imprint from raising up from toddler age to see parents and guidance first instead of the arrival of the technical mechanical structures that allowed agency to fill out roles where the roles and subjects are always younger in time and come AFTER the mindless establishment. "We don't need to prove cause and effect, it's an axiom." Correct. So is the activity _to create_ caused by the evolution of neuronal complexity aka thinking organs. This is why no one made the stars by the acitivity _to create_ - the stars formed by the clumping of atoms by gravity forces to ignite the plasma reaction at a specific point of mass. "And God is basically "the first cause", so in an essential level we don't need to prove we come from something else that comes from nothing else while being something and eternal." The first cause would just be called first cause not "God", as the first cause has neither a mind (no agency as complicated thought processes to have 1 chain of thought to the next relies already on proceeding mechanical thought architecture) nor as a relation point for humans. "Because it is logical." It is not logical to give concepts false names so that people can use the human nature to falsely attribute parenthood imprintings (feelings) to substanitivzed mindless mechanism. Or to think you can have then a relationship to a person that is simply not there. "So yes, atheists have dogmas also, but they don't have evidences for them," Not to be convinced that there are thoughtorgan lacking thinkers is not a dogma. It is just not falling into the trap to see everywhere surrogate parents or potential family members and be aware of the own limitations. "their only hopes is to attack every belief that holds any idea of a creator or original being," I do not see that people do that. I just see that theists react thin skinned by pointing out self-contradictions. Like when you claim an uncaused cause then the actual uncausedness is the main answer: This comes from those possible reality bases here: A.) Existence just has a countable number of timeframes/hours which were not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer) B.) Existence goes endlessly into a never ending past which as chain was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer) C.) Existence was made from an already existing creator, which was not caused as "Alpha&Omega" - as this God was not made it was uncaused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer upfront the deity). D.) Existence was made from an already existing creator, which was made by a META-maker, which was made by another Meta-Meta-Maker or a combination of existence forming makers which where made in an endless chain of Deities/Creators or existences prior while the chain of deities and existences itself was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer) E.) Existence here is a simulation (Like the matrix) with a countable number of hours of a more primary existence (serverworld) which has itself only a countable number of hours which was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer). F.) Existence is a time circle/time travelerer itself and at the end of time it beams itself into the past to be its own origin, which is a circle that was not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer). G.) Existence is a combination of several of the given A-F answers. So could our existence be a simulation that was made by a Maker outside of the simulation, while the maker itself was only a simulation of a bigger meta-universalserver, which was made by a superMaker which lived in the first premordial basic world (the actual "existence") which has only a countable number of timeframes/actions to be performed so that the whole thing is not caused (UNCAUSEDNESS is the final answer) or that the first existence there is like in F.) a time traveler causing itself in the meta existence all the time anew where simulations appear like growing branches from a tree in each time circle, while this re-newal-circle was itself never caused. (UNCAUSEDNESS is yet the final answer) You are never having there any agency to be truly the first cause as the cause for a deity in that idea would not be caused aka uncausedness - it is just that all given answers always result in Uncausedness to be the answer. It does not matter if you are theist or atheist in these topics. Which of those possible answers to be the correct one is irrelevant for the same answer. " in hopes of their assumptions to seem logical for people who have nothing to hold into but need to feel safe in the head to not go crazy." There is no assumption when you just not share the idea that you can make up stuff that is against how history works. LOL "That's my opinion, you might disagree but i explain it in more detail so that you know where i come from." I'm going to answer the rest later. As you have not a correct understanding how ethics work or a metamoral framework mechanically.

@@Angelmou All what you wrote got invalidatet when you said that "the Quran stated that the sun sets on a muddy spring" If you can't understand what the Quran said there, how can you understand anything. I would bet you didn't even read the context of the story and verse. You just heard it by a deceptive Christian preacher and since you have monotheism and want to worship you mangod then you believe whatever Lord Christian Clow tells you, I know most of them already, they are liars, they are hypocrites, they aren't even true Christians, they are only getting money out of fools like you who believe all they say without fact checking. If you had fact checked you would know nowhere in the Quran does it mention that the sun literally sets always on a moody spring, all the verse talks about is where the sun set from the perspective of Dhul Qarnain, basically it's a hit that he was near a sea. Probably the dead sea? Or was it the black sea, i can't remember. You need to be a FOOL to misunderstand that verse, or not having read the context. One of the two. When you read the Quran on your own, then we can talk. I do read the Bible on my own from time to time of course, since i'm focusing on my source i know is not corrupted...

⁠​⁠@@owncraticpath as an agnostic myself. Is it possible that the Quran got its morality and understanding of the world, from its surrounding culture and to keep order and peace in its community as evident by child marriages and forgive me if I'm wrong production of sperm from the tailbone.

agree, therefore I explain in the video that none of them is real atheist is the sense we use today

Writing exegesis on religious text is not contradictory to being an atheist, especially back then where that sort of thing was a very popular practice among scholars. Besides, it's pretty disingenuous of you to simply assert that they were not atheist (you didn't even spell that word correctly, lol), when some of these scholars had verifiably critical stances on religion in general as well as some others where it's at least implied that they might have been atheists.

He said that Abu Al-Nawas was not an atheist but rather a deist...that is he believed in the existence of a God but he denied all rituals of worship in the various organized religions especially Islam

​@@ko-xu1lryou dnt even know what is deism but you make your own definition, lol in islam, there is school of thought like deism, that was mu'tazilah abu nuwas was a hedonist in his young age and a sufi in his old age in islam, someone who repent like someone who never doing sins

No, it is definitiely is not. However, islam and they way it is implemented in most cases is guilty of the same. So, I guess if you are in a muslim society and capable of going against it without serious repercussions like death, then we can safely argue that people are free to think in that society, don't you think?

Average atheists thinking they are superior moment

Yes but atheism does not have a book. It's only one thing: not enough evidence to prove God and even less the Abrahamic religions. For the rest, you can be a pacifist, violent, right wing, communist (although extreme political viewsxand religion do have irrational dogma and tribalism as a common thing). I dare say that in the safest countries are usually quite atheist like Finland and prisons have very fiew atheists since an atheist gives this life a bigger importance since death might probably just be the end. That does not mean that certain old beliefs do not have wisdom but also a lot of BS.

@@K2dawillaBut it just means that it’s not the fault of Islam but it’s the fault of people.

As a Jewish refugee from a country that once imposed Islam and then Atheism, I can tell you that any ideology can suppress free-thinking. It’s sad that today Islamic countries suppress atheism, and atheist countries (such as China) suppress religion.

thank you for mentioning that. Non-American universities and countries also publish many research articles and translate many books and scientific articles. So, it so only about " the escape of the brains" to the US.

@@religiologEng yeah I said for western people too. Like in europe countries its the same thing but you talked about USA. The wester countries are land of immigration too. So yeah the escape of the brains is a real phenomena. if it continues like that the third world countries will never develop or have more opportunities to publish scientific articles. It's an opinion maybe I am wrong.

Thanks for the clarifications on the Mutazilites. It is common for diversity to rise in early period before certain practices and dogma becomes the standard.

Ask this question: "What evidence would be enough for you to accept that your religion is false?" We are called free thinkers because we can consider all possibilities without letting emotions influence us. I agree that a religious person can possess tremendous knowledge and wisdom. However, free thinking involves a different approach.

welcome a board!

What about the people who said he was a muslim? Are there any non-muslims in that set? Btw it shouldn't matter anyway. Who is Al Razi compared to the might of God? This shouldn't bother any muslim in the slightest. It shouldn't matter if the prophet himself was atheist.

@@K2dawilla read my comment bro al razi was a muslim and there is no prove that he wasnt the people who said he was atheist was atheist and they said that to make people believe that atheism is wat scientist choose and it dosent matter if he was atheist or not but its very wrong to lay about the guy just to proof ur point or make a video about it

@@hemaatef556 You got my drift, though, didn't you?

What's your source for that? All I can find quickly is that we was increasingly under pressure for his gay and anti-religious writings and that he may even have been killed for making fun of some aristocratic family.

@@K2dawilla i did but u didnt get mine

'Lingua franca' literally translates to 'language of the Franks', at a time when Frank was a broad term used in the eastern Mediterranean for any Western European (and the Franks themselves were originally Germanic). The medieval Eastern Mediterranean pidgin language that was named Lingua Franca was based primarily on Italian; Maghrebi Arabic had more of an influence upon it than did French. The long feud you are referring to has no relevance here.

@@RichWoods23 "Franca" could also possibly in this context mean "free" - so the free language that everyone uses. But you are right western Europeans whether Italian, French, German, Spanish or English were usually referred to as "Franks" both by the Byzantines, or the Arabs or indeed even much further east in Thailand for example where westerners are referred to as "ferenghi" a word derived from "Frank." This can be compared how Greeks in ancient times even in India were called "Javana" from the Ionian coastal region which is now the coastal area of Turkey -the Greeks that eastern peoples first came in contact with.

thanks for sharing!

How many false facts in your book

No; The Golden age of Islam describes the golden age of Islamic civilization. I understand where you're coming from, but I've not seen much people who reached such conclusions.

Should be called the Golden Age of a Lack of Islam.

@@MrCmon113 Ahistorical statement

There is a difference between a atheist and a pagan

Many with supposedly Persian last named like Al Khawarizmi are actually Arab settlers

Not all of them

Nationalism is cancer

Most were Arab and some were Mawali(slave)

All this is taken into consideration by Sarah Stroumsa. Are you trying to say he was a pious muslim?

@@religiologEng he may not be pious Muslim but not apostate either because whether his writings or any claims have any sort of evidence to prove he was atheist.

thank you, agreed, next time will take it into consideration. Isn't Jim Al-Khalili's and Salem (Noble Prize Laureate) fair? yes, they aren't scholars of Islam, yet their opinion is important to consider too.

@@religiologEng well u talking about a medieval area of Islam so u should use some one like ibn Khaldun and Alghazali there is ibn Sina and al kindi however ibn Khaldun would be a good start specially that he argument is the strongest one for the existence of god u can really examine the contingency argument it will be a great content

Islam didn't embrace skepticism. It was certain cultures historically that allowed for it.

@@Sticklemako well that is just incorrect because even in the Quran in multiple places encourages questioning everything about god for example not only that but in sirrah of the prophet means the biography people from other faiths used to challenge the prophets claims if skepticism is suppressed in an Islamic it is cultures who did forbid it not the other way around the arabs were pretty resilient and hard to convince at the time pretty sure any form of jailing thoughts wouldn't help islam to Flourish

@@the_old_farm Show ONE place it encourages questioning Muhammed?