Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Qatl-al-Ghurab

Interzone / Re: Childless relationships
« on: June 10, 2013, 09:08:15 AM »
From my observations, “love” can only be viewed in a holistic sense. “Procreation” cannot be taken as an end in itself and should only be valued in terms of the relative functionality of that progeny. Without the right foundation i.e. level-headed and functional parents (that are in love), the child is already at a biological and environmental predisposition to a dysfunctional life. Not that this can't be overcome.

Apparently research shows that the role of the environment is almost negligible in the development of children. If you have two healthy, functional, intelligent people having children they will most likely turn out the same way. While divorce is a great trauma for developing kids, outside of that even a loveless union wouldn't be a problem. Biology is destiny etc.

As for a definition of metaphysical love, I don't think one is needed. Its use here is probably to account for subjectivity and individual circumstance, the argument excludes it.

Interzone / Re: The student and the teacher.
« on: May 29, 2013, 01:24:30 PM »
Still, Islam teaches many things that we europeans could learn a great deal from. First and foremost: Ruthlessness towards unbelievers. That is: If you believe, and you know in your heart and mind that what you believe is right and real, you have the God-given right to fight against those, who seek to destroy it. The end result will reveal if you were in the right.

This is a little overstated. It is certainly true that Islam exhorts the believer to fight against kufr, but the popular "interpretation" bounces between two lies. The first, that Islam is a "religion of peace" in the sense that it is pacifist. This is untrue on its face, Islam codifies all aspects of life, war being amongst them. It has warlike qualities both spiritual and exoteric (outer vs. inner war, see Evola for an accessible explanation).

On the other hand, snippets of text and historical grievances lead to a view that Islam is exclusively warlike and under all circumstances believers must be conquerors. This is also incorrect. A common reasoning is the label Islam gives to territory outside the pale of Abrahamic revealed religion, Dar-ul-Harb; the land of war. This definition is of lands where it is legal to wage war, not where it must be sought. In the end, we are bound by "There is no compulsion in religion...". As immigration brings the dregs of Muslim (and other nations) in hordes to Europe, so views harden and turn to this latter one. I think it is a mistake to consider it thusly. While Islam is no friend of Europe, the current issue of globalist liberalism and mass immigration is not a resurrection of that ancient enemy.

I wont go so far as to say that Islam is the cure for what ails you, though it is a cure. Do westerners think a European Islam would turn them into Africans or Arabs? That is the impression I get from the online right.

My understanding of an unbeliever: Someone who doesn't really believe the things, he claims to believe. Someone calling on the gods strictly when it is to his own advantage. Someone who doesn't stand up for what he believes in, but escapes into mindless doctrine. A liberal.

In Islam this is beyond unbelief, such a person is a Munafiq, a hypocrite. "The Hypocrites, men and women, (have an understanding) with each other: They enjoin evil, and forbid what is just, and are close with their hands. They have forgotten Allah; so He hath forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse. " -Quran 9:67

The claim that Islam somehow "revived" or "preserved" the wisdom of Classical Antiquity is disingenuous, at best.

On the contrary, it is your claim that is disingenuous. The Muslims did nothing except not destroy the knowledge which was handily recovered later by Europeans? Does that seem like a reasonable proposition? Look at Aquinas for instance, the Summa refers to the work of Averroes, Avicenna and al-Ghazali, not only the Greeks/Romans. This knowledge was studied and worked upon extensively, and reference to Muslim works was an intellectual fad at multiple points in European history; Averroism is a convenient example.

As far as Halal slaughter is concerned, I am not certain what Saif-al-Malik refers to when he mentions that it is often that this doesn't result in unconsciousness. Perhaps the current mass-produced industrial travesty called "halal"? The actual method would always cause unconsciousness in seconds if it were successful at all. Anecdotally, I have never witnessed nor performed one that has been unsuccessful. With both the carotids severed, unconsciousness is near instant. Also, while one purpose of this may well be to prevent the spread of blood-borne pathogens, its ritual value supersedes it and is (IMO at least) more important.

Saif-al-Malik, no need to apologize! I do not know if you responded to my earlier PM query. Unfortunately I can no longer access that account. I would be very appreciative if you could direct your answer, if there was one, to this one.