This is how Islam will end....

[c0de]

but why won't what worked on the mutazili work again on these guys, then?

I said why in my first post on this thread man... (last paragraph).

 

[dailogue is the best]

what an interesting opinion and one with which i have much sympathy - but one could say the same about the west, as well. i like the way you think.

Oh, brother, I wish it was my thinking. Actually, it isnt. It is the idea of one of the most prominent Muslim thinkers who deeply analyzed the causes of Muslims downfall, and looked for the causes of dvelopment and civilization. Unfortunately, he hasnt yet taken the right position he deserves. May be, because responsibles dont like those who talk about the late train. They like only only those who say that the train come on time. I think you got what I want to say.

This great person is called Malek Bennabi: Malek Bennabi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that's interesting, too, albeit it's what people who like edward said always say about bernard lewis. maybe i don't entirely understand the argument itself, but it doesn't seem that the "orientalist" point of view differs very much from your own! could you expand on this point?

Well, as I understand from Edward Said, Orientalism is not a science in itself. Why? Simply because science requires objectivity that we almost miss it in Orientalism. Edward Said remove the mask from Orientalism whom he said that it was a step for paving the way for colonizing the Islamic countries. Orientalism mainly paints the Orientals as savage, barbarous people with a very savage religion. They are rare those who truly hold to their responsibility of saying the truth like W. Montegomery Watt.

you seem to be assuming, however, that there is such a thing as "the west" that has "an agenda" and that would appear to me to be far too simplistic. the west is not monolithic, it is made up of thousands of squabbling factions who agree on very little; the perception i get from many middle easterners and people in the developing world is that there is a group of rich countries that get around the table and divide everything up between them. now, that i would concede was true in the age of empires, the treaty of tordesillas, the sykes-picot agreement and the "scramble for africa", but global capitalism itself has destroyed the possibility for such things to happen. it's not like they can even agree anything at the WTO, davos, or G7/8 summits.

Well in a global capitalism world, bananabrain, I think they have to find the market, right? The resources, right?

I believe that we are a part of others' plans because we are without plan. They decalre we have weapons of mass destruction...they defied the whole world, and they declared the war....they killed thousand od millions, and they are still doing....For what?! Can you tell me, bananbrain? It is for the sake of controlling petrol wills...for getting contracts of building infra-structure...for destroying the cultural heritage....for materialistic reason...for capitalist purposes, brother... I believe in that...

PS: I always differ between the masses and those in authority....

now there i agree again, BUT with the important caveat that it will never come from saying "whatever is within is pure and good and whatever is outside is corrupt and evil", as is said by the saudis, the taliban, the iranians and indeed some factions in the US and within all religions including judaism. i reject this point of view.

I entirely agree, brother..100%...

the western intelligentsia is too scared of being thought racist nowadays to seriously engage in critical thinking.

That's why sincerity in one's job is very important..Seeking God's pleasure and comfort of one's conscience rather than fearing to displease others...
Humans are alike....

i have an odd, but amazing little book by a chap called mohamed charfi who used to be a minister in tunisia i think it was, called "islam and liberty". in this book he basically argues what you're saying and gives some of the sources and structures which would allow islam to develop out of its current mediaeval sclerosis - basically, not a reformation or enlightenment, but a return to the values of islam interpreted in such a way as to allow liberty rather than tyranny as has happened in most of the places where they are kidding themselves that they have "islamic" government; in this, i believe the maghrebis have an amazing opportunity to show the way for the entire muslim world.

As for the tyranny, I think that all the "islamic" countries have an exposure democracy manifested in the numerous number of parties for in instance. While, the reality is that there is no democracy yet, and the voice of the masses is not yet full heard.

The best who talked about this is Mahdi elmandjra, one of the best Moroccan intellectuals. Here is his site. It is in French, but there are a lot of his participation, interviews...in his English: Site mahdi elmandjra

i get what you're saying, DIB, but we'd say the same thing about polish judaism, russian judaism, american judaism as opposed to moroccan, iraqi or indeed ethiopian judaism. i think, however, that saying that "judaism remains the same" is a little too idealistic rather than realistic.

That's why ignorance is the mother of calamities. Some people are programed to believe that some traditions are of religion. It happens. I admit. But religion remains free from these "additions". There is an urgent of clearing up, and transmitting the real teachings to people. A need of renewal...

it is not my concern what jesus may or may not have said, or is reported to have said in the christian scriptures. the book of matthew is an evangelist document aimed at getting jews to convert to christianity and has to be read as such. it is not a sacred text for jews, just as jesus is neither a prophet nor a sacred figure for jews and the quote you give is therefore irrelevant; our position remains that the jews are not "lost sheep", we still have the Torah of G!D and we read it, study it and keep its laws to this day. to suggest otherwise is in fact rather insulting, but i'm sure you didn't intend that, you are always very polite.

...Sometimes, I lost my politness as any human being...though, this is not the case here, brother. I didnt mean something offensive, and m no end sorry if you felt so.

Anyway, I dont want to open this subject in this thread, and if I have something to say about this subject, I will post it in the other thread inshAllah...

and as for om kolthom: KILILILILI!!!! we are not worthy!! i only, unfortunately, have one of her albums but she is surely one of the great singers the world has ever produced.

b'shalom

bananabrain

yeah, brother, Um Kalthom's songs are wonderful, amazing, and so.....

 

[bananabrain]

Religion today is a part of culture. For example, church attendance is very high in the U.S, but that doesn't mean anything in terms of faith. Just because Muslims take their culture very seriously, also does not mean there is more faith in Islamic societies.

it is interesting that you put it like that. it was observed in a conversation i was having the other day that, whereas being an adherent of some religions is not considered an "activity", being jewish actually is. it is quite time-consuming. i suspect the same is true of being muslim. one should, of course, make sure to note that islam is not *a* culture, but a multicultural entity, rather like judaism. russian jews are very different from iraqi jews are very different from ethiopian jews are very different from british jews - culturally speaking, at least. it is the effort of (to pick a not-exactly-random example) groups that seek to effectively engineer islam into a basically salafi-arab monoculture, christianity into a southern-US revival monoculture and judaism into a ashkenazi-haredi-yeshivish monoculture. so, really, taking culture seriously can be just as bad!

The coming Iranian Crises is not the real problem

i think you said in the other thread that it was part of a series of interlocking crises, in which i think i might well concur.

It is the idea of one of the most prominent Muslim thinkers who deeply analyzed the causes of Muslims downfall, and looked for the causes of dvelopment and civilization. Unfortunately, he hasnt yet taken the right position he deserves. May be, because responsibles dont like those who talk about the late train. They like only only those who say that the train come on time. I think you got what I want to say.

i think i do. this chap malek bennabi seems like an eminently sensible fellow. mohamed charfi is saying something very similar, in fact. the thing is, that i can't really see that bernard lewis is saying anything different - the main difference seems to be that edward said doesn't think muslims ought to listen, because bernard lewis is "a westerner" and therefore a "mind-coloniser". that to me seems eminently daft. he reads like nothing of the sort.

Well, as I understand from Edward Said, Orientalism is not a science in itself. Why? Simply because science requires objectivity that we almost miss it in Orientalism.

if you want to call something "scientific", it needs to be peer-reviewed and utilise control standards like double-blind testing. i highly doubt that edward said's work - or indeed anyone working in the liberal arts - meets such a standard either.

Edward Said remove the mask from Orientalism whom he said that it was a step for paving the way for colonizing the Islamic countries. Orientalism mainly paints the Orientals as savage, barbarous people with a very savage religion.

but that's not what bernard lewis says at all!!! not even slightly!!! he is a scholar of arabic, persian and turkish and holds all three cultures in the highest of regards - this is an astounding claim and one which i don't feel is borne out by the reality.

Well in a global capitalism world, bananabrain, I think they have to find the market, right? The resources, right?

but the thing about global capitalism, DIB, is that it largely depends on intangible things like intellectual property and "knowhow", not just finite natural resources. and the thing about ideas and knowhow is that they cannot really be owned. ideas can spread without institutions, without anything. skills can be trained. what bernard lewis says is that it was about the ottomans failing to pick up on *knowhow*, in particular how to use the printing press. i hardly think you can call this "colonising of minds" - it is no good owning a shiny new rifle if you don't know how to clean it. it is untrue to say that these intangible resources cannot be created in an islamic society, when the original islamic society was incredibly creative from this point of view. if you ask me, the only really *islamic* issue is the traditional interpretation of the world "bid'a" - innovation. now, a prohibition of theological innovation is one thing, but to extend it to vital areas of intellectual development, as has arguably happened, would really constitute a far bigger brake on progress in the muslim world than colonisation ever could - i mean, this is where you *could* look at the japanese; arguably, they faced "mind-colonisation", but they made their own way eventually. unfortunately, of course, they went through an ill-advised phase of "shiny toys", ending in the debacle of the second world war.

I believe that we are a part of others' plans because we are without plan.

but surely it's not just a matter of having a plan, but a matter of having a *good* plan.

They decalre we have weapons of mass destruction...they defied the whole world, and they declared the war....they killed thousand of millions, and they are still doing....For what?!

oh, come on, DIB. the vast majority of people killed in iraq have been killed not by the "west", but by insurgents and militants - sponsored in many cases by so-called "islamic" regimes. and saddam killed thousands not just during the iran-iraq war, but after 1990, when we should have got rid of him. yes, of course, he shouldn't have ever been supported in the first place, but that was the sort of thing that happened during the cold war. i don't see you having a go at the russians and chinese for doing the same thing. this is the most pervasive notion, the idea that "the west" wants nothing more than to kill muslims! it is quite simply *ridiculous*.

It is for the sake of controlling petrol wills...for getting contracts of building infra-structure...

i can believe this of certain institutions and corporations, but in the long run, this will do them no good. oil is running out. look at the guys in dubai - they realise that oil won't last; isn't green the colour of islam? surely this is where the muslim world can lead the way!

for destroying the cultural heritage....

this is *nonsense*. there is no reason for the west to do such things. iraq's museums were looted by local saddamite mafia thugs, not the american army. it wasn't the british who blew up the bamiyan buddhas, but the taliban.

Some people are programed to believe that some traditions are of religion. It happens. I admit. But religion remains free from these "additions". There is an urgent of clearing up, and transmitting the real teachings to people. A need of renewal...

well, arguably. the trouble is that many of the people who claim to be doing exactly that are deeply unpleasant and include many of their own cultural practices. the salafis and the taliban claim that they are "simply removing the additions and returning to the practices of the prophet and his companions" - and this is very far from being the case. who is to judge what is an "addition", then?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[c0de]

it is interesting that you put it like that. it was observed in a conversation i was having the other day that, whereas being an adherent of some religions is not considered an "activity", being jewish actually is. it is quite time-consuming. i suspect the same is true of being muslim. one should, of course, make sure to note that islam is not *a* culture, but a multicultural entity, rather like judaism. russian jews are very different from iraqi jews are very different from ethiopian jews are very different from british jews - culturally speaking, at least. it is the effort of (to pick a not-exactly-random example) groups that seek to effectively engineer islam into a basically salafi-arab monoculture, christianity into a southern-US revival monoculture and judaism into a ashkenazi-haredi-yeshivish monoculture. so, really, taking culture seriously can be just as bad!

I wish more studies were done to get a statistical picture... I have a feeling the figures would make the supposedly isolated atheists very happy.

i think you said in the other thread that it was part of a series of interlocking crises, in which i think i might well concur.

Yep, those shatter zones are gonna be a killer

 

[bananabrain]

I wish more studies were done to get a statistical picture... I have a feeling the figures would make the supposedly isolated atheists very happy.

well, i think that's the approach stark and finke take - except i don't think they include atheism. i'd be interested to see how well it fits their propositions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[c0de]

well, i think that's the approach stark and finke take - except i don't think they include atheism. i'd be interested to see how well it fits their propositions.

You know its funny... even though Stark's argument is supposed to contradict Secularization Theory, I actually use his work to support this hypothesis. I recently discovered that I am not the only one. Other contemporary defenders of ST do the same. The whole idea that religiosity = faith is a flawed assumption, which, once recognized, can turn Stark's entire thesis against him. However, I still think that much of his work is still very important (especially his historical analysis). But I honestly think Weber had it right in the beginning, and all subsequent attempts which have tried to contradict him have been off way the mark.

But I do have my disagreements with ST, for example; the idea that secularization increases overtime. IMO, it was always at a constant, it just becomes more apparent in some eras, and recedes in others, depending on the political and cultural climates of societies. But this is something which I can't really prove, cuz I can't exactly go back in time and hand out a questionnaire... so i guess it will have to remain a hunch... (unless.... I find a TimeMachine !!)

 

[bananabrain]

You know its funny... even though Stark's argument is supposed to contradict Secularization Theory, I actually use his work to support this hypothesis. I recently discovered that I am not the only one. Other contemporary defenders of ST do the same. The whole idea that religiosity = faith is a flawed assumption, which, once recognized, can turn Stark's entire thesis against him.

i don't know anything about secularisation theory - have you got a link? also, i haven't identified in the stark and finke book i've read anything like the assumption that religiosity = faith. if anything, they are focused on the social interactions that surround religious system.

But I do have my disagreements with ST, for example; the idea that secularization increases overtime. IMO, it was always at a constant, it just becomes more apparent in some eras, and recedes in others, depending on the political and cultural climates of societies.

that's actually stark and finke's theory about "tension" with the surrounding society - high-tension groups being "cults", low-tension groups being "churches".

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[c0de]

i don't know anything about secularisation theory - have you got a link?

There is a wiki page on it (under "secularization"), but its pretty basic. There was another site I found while I was studying for my exam last week. I tried to find it again but no dice... (it might have been the stanford philosophy encyclopedia ... but i cant find that particular article through the search...)

also, i haven't identified in the stark and finke book i've read anything like the assumption that religiosity = faith. if anything, they are focused on the social interactions that surround religious system.

Exactly, thats where they screwed up, they didn't make that distinction at all. This has left an opening for the supporters of ST to simply broaden their definition of secularization. Parry, and strike...

 

[nativeastral]

hey dib, talk about wanting to belly dance! nearly missed it
YouTube - Oum kalthoum " Alf Lila wa Lila" ?? ????? : ??? ???? ? ????

this website ma be interesting to some on secularisation; theres a book online sacred and secular [and some of the articles aright too]

http://www.pippanorris.com/

 

[c0de]

... did someone say... belly dancing ?

 

[Amica]

Salaam again

Not all is bad with "leftist" "Qur'an Aloner" Muslims. You cannot blame certain people who are fed up with "orthodox" Muslims making up hadiths that somehow override the teachings from the Holy Qur'an (i.e. Wahabbis from Saudi Arabia's view of Islaam).
Also, a true Muslim does not consider himself/herself to be a part of a denomination. He/she is just a Muslim.
What Muslims need to do is choose religious leaders (Ulaama) from each of their communities/countries who will sit down and find the best solution for all of us. Something that will not cause us to grow apart and that will stenghten Muslim Ummah. I believe that believers can achieve this by having the Holy Qur'an as the ultimate documented authority and guide for us to understand the core of our islamic teachings. The hadith collections of course should not be ignored but must be revisited in accordance with the Holy Qur'an. You can't have a hadith say one thing, the Holy Book say something else and then pick and choose which is the "most" correct.
Lets say, there is the stoning of women to death for adultery hadith vs. the Qur'anic teachings of punishment with lashes for women and men. You can't say the hadith has more authority because then it is straight out blasphemy: how can the supposed Prophet's word be more believed than Allah SWT'S own? This is exactly what a lot of Muslims (including myself) think about when people on the "right" focus more on hadith rather than the Qur'an. Certain hadiths are creating the "new denomination" of "Qur'an Aloners" out there.

 

[bananabrain]

What Muslims need to do is choose religious leaders (Ulaama) from each of their communities/countries who will sit down and find the best solution for all of us.

aaaaarrrrrgghhhh!!!! unfortunately, this has not previously resulted in terribly good outcomes. the muslim community in the UK has tended to judge its uleima on "authenticity", but this has resulted in taliban types from villages in pakistan and native-speaker arab "sheikhs" who have basically made the uleima look like a bunch of backward, paleoconservative extremists who are totally out of touch with how the community actually lives. you cannot just hand over responsibility to religious experts, that's like taking your brain out and putting it on top of the wardrobe. these people have to be accountable to the community, not dictating to it what to do: they only have wilayat al-faqih in iran, amica!

was-salaam

bananabrain

 

[c0de]

@ Amica

Salaam sister

"All" is not bad with anyone... "all" was not bad with Hitler either (he was a vegetarian, apparently, lol). But that isn't the point. The point is that all destructive movements initially start out championing a legitimate cause or concern. They all have a point in the beginning and present them as heroes bringing some revolution for the benefit of the people.

Our job is to scrutinize each movement's foundation very carefully to see what their real motives and direction is. And it is clear to me that this movement is no different then any other destruction disguising itself as construction. You may disagree, that is fine. We are all just exchanging opinions after all.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Has it ended yet?? Please tell me has it ended yet!!???

 

[c0de]

Has it ended yet?? Please tell me has it ended yet!!???

I doubt it will end before you, old man

 

[Tao_Equus]

I doubt it will end before you, old man

My only regret in dying will be all the things I'll never see

 

[c0de]

.

(lol) don't worry... you'll see enuff things there bud ; )

 

[Muslimwoman]

What a great thread, really enjoyed reading it, thank you c0de.

Well I'm a middle of the road kind of gal, so I cannot see Islam ending with Muslims all believeing the Quran is a sort of rough guide to Islam.

I also can't ever see Taliban or Wahabbi style groups taking over.

When you consider that less than 20% of the worlds Muslims are now Arab it is no surprise that there is much talk of reform or reinterpretation .. thinking other than the cultural norm from the Mid East is bound not to agree with their tribal rituals and ideas about women.

Islam is moving away from the Arab style patriarchal societies simply because the majority of believers are no longer from that culture.

This is where we have confusion. How do you take more than a billion people, all with different educational and cultural backgrounds and say think this way, speak this language and dress like us?

It simply harks back to the Christian era where people that tried to translate the Bible for the masses were executed as heretics.

I often read Western Islamic scholars being dismissed as Islamic apologists .. simply because they don't tow the Mid East party line but why should their studies be dismissed simply because they were not born in a given country and Arabic is not their native language?

I hear so much about .. you can't understand Islam unless you speak fluent Arabic .. well, I know very few Arabs that speak fluent Classic Arabic, their abilities stop at reciting Quran and I find it very hard to believe that Allah (swt) gave the world a guiding light in a language only a tiny minority of the worlds population can understand and could not be translated .. sort of defeats the object doesn't it

The only other alternative reasoning is protectionism .. we have the language therefore we are the leaders, now everyone stand on your head and clap three times. This protects, not Islam, but Arab culture and all the Arabic cultural practices that have slid into Islam over the paste 1400 years.

The other side to the coin is there is an element that says, we aren't Arabs so we're going to change it to fit our thinking and teaching from other cultures. You see it with articles from Muslims saying alcohol and homosexuality are halal.

Why am I currently thinking of round holes and square and triangular pegs? It seems everyone is trying to fit Isl;am into their way of thinking .. to win we need to fit our thinking into Islam .. not cultural Islam but what Allah (swt) clearly tells us.

Just my opinion.

 

[Radunzel]

Assalaam alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh

Im sorry ive been away for a while c0de my mother passed away.. and ive been rather cut up about it.. (as i am fully aware what happens to pagans)

Right the bullet point version as is my usual...

Please dont argue about what im gonna say (your beliefs my beliefs) unless its speculation then its fair game.

1)The quran is complete
2)Rasoullah (pbuh) is the final prophet.. then the second coming of Isa (pbuh) makes isa the last prophet. (please dont argue that isa is coming back thulsy making The Prophet (pbuh) still the last prophet, because that is cheap backtracking and apologetic)
3) The Sufi's consumption of alcohol and bhang promotes that when the quran says wine is forbidden, it means just that. if i say i dont like mangos does it therefore mean that i dislike all fruit? Thats absurd which leads me to
4) The word assasin is from the word hashshashin, if you want to argue that it means a pharmacist, in spite of the disturbing similarities between the two words, then i shall simply ask what one of the oldest recorded medicens is?
5) The whole 5 times a day thing..
6) Khamr means a process of fermented ie meaning wine..
7) Theres wine in heaven that doesnt give you hangovers
8) Tolu-e-Islam
9) Because in an age of informatics introducing new hadiths would be impossible, in a place and where religious rulers hold all spiritual and political clout and one often finds that just the latter can corrupt absolutely.. imagine the burden of both (my heart bleeds =/)

and to top it off

Right number 10

The old sunnah tells us how to pray arguement.

You learnt to pray either from your parents or if your a revert from your spouse or masjid..

masha'allah how many people here learnt arabic before picked up the sunnah before they learnt to pray?

Inshallah i await your reply!

Its good to be back

xxxxx

 

[koranist]

What do you get when you take out all faith from Islam and replace it with a cold rational materialism? You get a new brand of "Muslim" who calls himself a "Quran Aloner".... Granted not all of them are the same, and many are not as extreme as others, but one thing is certain: these are the people who will totally change the Islamic landscape within a century. This much is clear to me.

This might sound like dialectics (its not) but a counterpart to the rightist Taliban has arisen in the extreme secular left. These are the people who will take over the Muslim world (FOX News was wrong, it won't be Osama bin Laden). These "Quran Aloners" are a very small and fragmented minority today, mostly in the middle to upper classes. But they contain all the characteristics that a future mainstream movement needs to have and become the dominant Muslim denomination of the future. And all the work that the radical conservative Muslims are doing is directly contributing to their rise.

Their principles are diverse, but they have a few common beliefs. Almost all of them reject the "5 prayers" scheme. Some only accept 3, some reject the prayer totally, saying it was never meant to be an actual ritual. They also reject the significance of Mecca, and refuse to face it. Some of them believe that everything that takes place in Mecca is pagan idolatry.

These beliefs may sound very far fetched and crazy to the mainstream Muslims today, but it is very clear to me that that these beliefs will become the mainstream views within the Muslim ummah. It happened with Rome, with Christianity, it happened again with the Reformation. And the same will happen in the Muslim world... It is the same pattern with every new religion. If it attracts the middle-to-upper classes at first, you can bet it will keep expanding until it is the dominant force. There are no statistics, but I bet they are adding at least 40% new members per decade, just as the LDS Church. Such a growth, while it seems small at first, is exponential.

I don't really have much in common with mainstream Muslim sects either.. most of the time I am disagreeing with their beliefs... but this group of "Quran Aloners".... this is something completely different. Some of these people can hardly be considered Muslims at all, as some of them don't even believe in the finality of revelation, and feel that the Quran is "incomplete"... In my book, these people are much more dangerous then the Taliban, because their beliefs are much more attractive for the majority. Theirs will be a silent revolution, without weapons, without beheadings... And all the conservative Wahabi Taliban types are only making it easier for them, because it is -Islam- which is being put on the chopping block because of their actions.

... This is inevitable. There is no way to stop this... Many Muslims will convert to their side in the coming decades. Anyone in fact who values a self-negating "rationality" above faith will join their ranks. Maybe another war, or two, is all that is needed for a major shift in ideology to take place.. and when the time comes, these people will be waiting to step up and offer their "solution": a complete reformation of Islam, stripped of all faith... Setting the stage for a slow evaporation and drift towards a total materialistic atheism in the Muslim world....

I say this is inevitable, because this time, unlike the time of the Mutazillites, there are no core battallions left in the Muslim world to hold back this tide of skepticism... Too much faith has eroded over the centuries... There are not going to be any more al-Thalabis or al-Ghazalis, this time... they will win.

Interesting point. I am a Koranist myself, or at least I try to be. Some of the views you presented are more Quran aloner views that Quranist in the sense that these views come from questioning everything outside of the Koran. I myself look at the Gospel and Torah also and I do accept some of the rituals in Islam although I don't see it as a must for a person's faith. Its good to have common rituals that binds people somewhat together, but they are rituals and like all rituals they are a means to an end and not an end by themselves. Quranist are far more flexible and laid back than other Islamic traditions. The Sunni and Shia traditions have a serious tolerance problems and they are very legalistic and ritualistic and their faith interferes too much on people's lives. They are not able to accept modernity because they lack flexibility. I am not sure the Quranist will be the dominant force since religious traditions have a Divine purpose beyond human determination. Its tru Christianity went through some reform but theologically it still follows the doctrine established in the council of Nicea. But Christianity accepted freedom and tolerance and non inteference. Maybe that will happen thorugh the Quranist influence on the Islamic world but to say that most of them will leave Sunnisma and Shiasm is still speculative. The Islamist parties and the religious clerics will diminish in influence regarding public affairs, but they will still be influencive for individual.

I see the Koran and Gospel and OT as one religion followed by different communities. I consider all three one and I look at all three for guidance and believe they preach peace and tolerance and God fearingness. I am inspired by the stories of Jeremiah in the Old Testament and the stories of the disciples in the Gospel. They all preach faith and tolerance and peace and God fearingness. Evil will always exist its a question of which side you want to follow.

I see nothing wrong with praying towards Mecca but one thing that directs everything i do as far as the Quran is concerned is when it comes to praying towards here or there or any other ritual I hold this ALWAYS in front of me:

2.177. It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces towards East or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God fearing.