Subject:
|
Re: Vote against/for...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:46:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
866 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > Proselythism is a constant of practically all religions.
>
> Not the believe like us or die variety. That may be been en vogue 100s of
> years ago for Christianity, but Christianity grew out of those dark times, and
> continues to change with time (although the basic message is the same).
Islam is not "Believe or die", nor it ever was. Neither was Christianity.
Yet, both religions were used as pretexts by loonies - that is inevitable!
> Islam has no ability to grow, because the Koran was written directly by Allah
> himself and so it is perfect for all time the way it is. Burning libraries was
> a perfectly good idea, because, if you have the Koran, why would you need any
> other book? All you need is right there. That kind attitude contributed
> greatly to the demise of the once flourishing Islamic culture.
I have a hard time believing Allah wrote the Khoran. Somehow I tend to
follow a more conventional approach, maybe He inspired the writings?
:-)
As for the libraries, the same hapened with other religions - zealots were
behind it in all cases, it was never a generalized trend. My POV on the
decline of ARAB Islamic Culture has more to do with the internal struggles
for power and commercial competition from Maritime Powers of the 16th
century - but that's just me.
> > And BTW, there is
> > no ground in the Khoran to actively pursue murder of non-muslims - the only
> > statement regards those who fight the Muslim faith "per se" (ie, crusaders
> > in the 12th century). Please do not misread that Book, like some do for
> > their own purposes - that would be playing their game.
>
> I think there is only 1 way to read the Koran to fundamentalist Muslim
> extremists who are providing the theological justification for Islamic
> terrorists. 10,000 of Muslims are persecuted for not believing the way they
> do, much less we non-Muslims.
Islam started 1400 years ago, roughly. In 1400 AD the Inquisition was in
full steam... if a comparison can be made (and I'm not saying it can), there
is a chance this is a normal stance in the development of this Religion.
Zealots are inevitable.
> > Please quote Allah, in his exact terms. Otherwise, withdraw the statement.
>
> The Cow
>
> [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence
> they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight
> with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do
> fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
Kill *whom*? It is not "the unbelievers" just because they don't believe,
read well...
What I read here implies someone (non-Muslim) has invaded a land that was
previous Muslim. Now an important thing to have in mind is the essence of
Islam: it is something more than a Religion in the European sense of the
word, it is more a comprehensive lifestyle; Islam can be (and in fact IS)
seen as something above nationality. So to draw a correct comparison, you'd
might wanna ask yourself what you'd do if PRC chose to invade the USA (for
instance... :-)
> [9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near
> to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who
> guard (against evil).
"Fight" - not kill. A philosophical/religious debate is a form of fight;
hardness can be interpreted as strongness of convictions. I wish I knew
Arabic, in Portuguese "hardness" word has the two meanings.
> [2.90] Evil is that for which they have sold their souls-- that they should
> deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His
> grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases; so they have made themselves
> deserving of wrath upon wrath, and there is a disgraceful punishment for the
> unbelievers.
These unbelievers are those who renegate Islam, not those who refuse to
convert! And again, punishment is disgraceful - not necessarily fatal. I can
read "the abjuror will burn eternally in the fires of hell" just as easily...
> Just to cite a few. Those words taken literally equals justified violence
> against unbelievers.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Oh yeah, let's be literal! :-P
My point: I can say infer whatever I want out of a religious text; probably,
I'll chose to interpret it the way *I was taught*. That is the key: those
people who manipulate Holy Texts for matters that go far beyond the scope of
religion, and exercise their influence on others. There is nothing
fundamentally wrong with Islam, nor Judeism, nor Christianity, nor... all
can be victims of ill-intentioned people, and all are :-(
> > > Their anger and hatred is about you and me differing from them, not about
> > > anything we ever did to them. This is what rational-minded people are
> > > finding so hard to fathom, but the sooner we get past looking at ourselves
> > > for explanations as fuel for their behavior, the sooner we can effectively
> > > deal with leaders who teach/promote/exploit this hatred.
>
> > Aren't those two sentences contradictory? (ie, they hate us for being
> > different, but it is not within us that we'll find explanation for it)
>
> I meant they hate us because we are different (meaning we don't believe as they
> do). They don't hate us for anything we have done *to* them. We could be just
> minding our own business and they'd hate us-- that is a concept that is
> difficult for Westerners to understand. We tend to think that someone hates us
> for something we *did* to them (a rational explanation), not because we are
> simply different.
*We* do not tend to think that, and you don't have to go far back in History
to prove that. Remember Martin Luther King?
Anyway, it's absurd to put things like "they hate us". A *person* can be
rational, a *mob* will follow the one who cries the loudest. And you rarely
see individuals in TV saying "Oh, I hate America!" and such - you see people
*in crowds*, where it is almost a must say! (otherwise, why join the crowd?)
> > I'm not saying islamic extremists are good guys. NO! All I'm saying is that
> > they use *the cover* of Islam to achieve their political purposes (the
> > leaders), at the expense of the average pawn (the brainwashed terrorist). It
> > is *unspecific* of Islam as a technique - it is only far more obvious in
> > that case, given that one sixth of the World population follows that Religion...
>
> It is a specific technique of Islam *as interpreted by Islamic extremists*.
That's why we call them extremists in the first place... and what I said.
> Though it is true that secular leaders such as Hussein, Arafat, OBL are tapping
> into that hatred to advance their own political agenda, this *is* a religious
> movement that not only is terrorizing non-Arabs, but 10,000s of Muslims as well.
It is NOT a religious movement. It is a mass movement, *under the cover of
religion*.
IF all muslims of "the islamic belt" were given the chance to get the same
levels of litteracy counterparts in the West, do you think they'd pay
attention to populist leaders??? Ignorance allows mobs; knowledge foments
individual thought and critic (so little chance to follow extremists).
> Wait until we free Iraq of Hussein and its religious extremist leaders.
Funny thing is, Iraq has a nominally Socialist party in power... and Hussein
has balanced the appeal to "ordinary" nationalism with the appeal to
pan-islamism, mind you.
> The
> Iraqis will be *thanking* us for their liberation.
I won't say no to that in advance. First, I wanna know the alternative
ruler. If it is a puppet, like Kharzai, it will have little significance to
the average Iraqui.
> And so will the Iranians
Rough ride, in their case. I'll bet you 10 bucks (or ten EUR ;-) that Bush
will not invade Iran - the farther he'll go is destabilization (in hope for
regime implosion). Accept the bet? :-P
> and so will the Palestinians
Lost you there...
You mean to say *the palestinians will thank the US for their liberation*???
:-O
Now THAT is news!
(I wonder if Sharon already knows?)
> (as did Afghanistan)
What was there before the intervention was bad (pure obscurantism). Now,
it's only an absurd poverty and lack of perspective. Hey, I'm sure the
Afghanis thank for that improvement! (1)
BTW, have the natural gas contracts been signed yet? ;-)
Pedro
(1) - partially kidding here, as I'm sure you can immagine. The intervention
was *better* than letting things go on, it just came later than desirable -
I still don't know why the Taliban were allowed in power to begin with.
Plus, we both know it was not "free of charge".
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Vote against/for...
|
| (...) Not the believe like us or die variety. That may be been en vogue 100s of years ago for Christianity, but Christianity grew out of those dark times, and continues to change with time (although the basic message is the same). Islam has no (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
