Off-Topic: Israel-Lebanon & Terrorism in general

Post by **The Law** » 23 Aug 2006, 20:08

states wrote:
lawllb wrote:If all the 3 main religions were followed word for word then we would be living in peace, end of story.
Perhaps, one day, God will appear and tell all his followers to do just this.... That would probably help.

If people want to believe in fairy tales, that's their choice. But they shouldn't be having such an influence, and impact, on peoples lives in the 21st century.

I can't believe people can still be so influenced by religion in this day and age. I'm not so arrogant as to believe there is no possibility of a God existing. I just think it's highly smeg unlikely.

That's your prerogative, and you have every right to your belief (or disbelief

). However, I find it rather offensive when people blame wars on religion, when infact they are mainly down to land, legal, electoral and property disputes.

Furthermore the terrorists who caused the 911 bombings clearly didn't follow their religion properly because Islam clearly doesn't condone suicide in general and the attacking of innocent non-muslims. Therefore Islam was not at fault for that either, it was the terrorists' own idiotic radical beliefs.

Distortions, brainwashing and misinterpretation is to blame, NOT Islam. A lot of this distortion is down to a 'few' idiotic radical imams and the fact that the Quran (and Hadith) are being incorrectly interpreted into many different languages. Many Quranic words simply can't be understood unless you learn 'Quranic Arabic', which is even distinct from normal Arabic.

states · Post by **states** » 23 Aug 2006, 20:35

I'm not blaming all the worlds problems on religion: as you rightly say, if all the supposed follwers of Islam, or indeed any religion were following the original ideals of the book, then nobody would be strapping bombs to themselves/bombing people from 30,000 feet. Religion is a convenient excuse for attrocities these days. But It does provide people with an excuse.

If there was no religion, there would still be war, because, at the end of the day, people want what other people have, be it land, oil, gold, or indeed any damn thing you can think of.

I just find it astonishing that anyone (not just fundamentalists) can have any belief in something that can never be proved. More a personal rant than anything pertinant to the topic.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 04:57

Terence wrote:I sympathise with Ex-Muslim but his views seem to jar with common practice. My (moderate) Arabic teacher finds them especially odd and not applicable with Koranic law nor with marriage in many Islamic countries.

States, quantum physics can 'prove' that the flapping of butterflies wings can cause a monsoon on another hemisphere yet we still believe in science. Much of science is untested hypothesis.

Pundit, fair enough. You owe me a Torah-based denouncement of ultra-Orthodox Jews though, as well as an explanation about why the UN abandoned the Palestinian refugees they created and also an explanation as to why the Lebanese overlapping consensus can tolerate 10+ faiths and we in the West are having trouble holding three together. Could it be that when you elect Christian Democratic politicians the overlapping consensus lapses into a consensus with Christian underpinnings? Bush uses words like 'good', 'evil' and such, these are religious terms and are states of mind that cannot be proven, no one is purely evil, although Bush is giving it a bash. Blair also called 9/11 a prelude so is he saying that 9/11 marked year zero? The birth of terrorism? (These are rhetorical questions, I'm writing a 5,000 word refutation of liberalism based on the OC) It is very '1984'. Also Bush claims that history is not the preserve of sweeping dialectics and that history has stopped, presumably on hyper-consumerism and capitalism? Evidently not. History is a dialectical process and we are in the throes of the next stage.

As for our debate. Yes, we'll call it quits. You got a bit bothered about Spain though, I guess that was your one-move Bishop hoping to sweep my unmoved Rook wasn't it? I bite and foam at the mouth screaming: "Give Spain to the Muslims who conquered it!" and you retort: "Well the West conquered and owned Palestine so we can choose who we gave it too!" As you can see I'm not biting. Let Spain alone, leave it in Western hands but bear in mind that we in the West lived like animals in caves until Islam spread itself across the globe conquering and teaching whilst it conquered. It pervades right to the naming of our military hierarchy.

Freedom of speech is grossly overrated. The intelligent should speak, the ignorant listen and learn. Opinion is destroying politics and choice is destroying human affairs. Give a man five choices and he will invariably make 4 wrongs ones until he gets to the right one Bloody choice!

Terrence, got to pull you up a bit here. To compare modern science and religion is a rather facile argument, and I think you know that. The 'butterfly' effect is nothing to do with quantum mechanics (or at least no more than any other physical phenomena), but is merely a product of cause and effect on a grand scale. It's a symbolic illustration of how if you change the state of any system far enough back along the timeline, the difference in permutation in the present will be demonstrably huge.

Unlike reglion, the basis of science is to prove your theory with experimentation, or put another way, disproving incorrect theories. In science any laws are only held true until they are disproved. Hence, until Einstein Isaac Newton's treatise was held up as the bible of physics until Einstein's relativistic theorems poked some holes in Newton under certain rather unusual circumstances.

Whilst the Arab world and the region we generally call the middle east was definetly responsible for spreading a well organised and sophisticated culture, to suggest we were living like animals in caves is rather far fetched. In parts of Northern Ireland there are stone buildings older than the oldest of the pyramids. No culture has ever really had a monopoly on wisdom, but the Islamic world benefitted from it's geographical position between east and west, and also the fact that it was one of the first staging posts of early man's migration north out of Africa. Europe (apparently) was uninhabited until about 50,000 years ago, and man had already made it as far as india, china and even australia by that time.

The problem with most territories in the world is that they have been conquered, reclaimed and conquered again many times over, and so who can truly claim to own a piece of land which is older than mankind itself.

These disputes rage on and on for centuries even thousands of years, as we can see now in what was the former yugoslavia. People's identity is strongly linked with land of their forbears and old wounds sometimes seemingly never heal.

It is not I think realistic to suggest just disbanding Israel, this would cause too much upheaval and is not going to be politically possible. The Israeli's would have to be driven from the land at gunpoint, and that is no way to solve this problem.

As for George Bush, did he really say history has stopped? Christ almighty that sounds like one of the most arrogant statements I've ever heard. He obviously thinks that Wars were something that didn't happen historically then, because from where I'm sitting this era looks like any other.

Post by **The Law** » 24 Aug 2006, 06:04

James I recommend you read the book 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Science' written by Dr Maurice Bucaille

Dr Bucaille conducted the research from a totally unbiased standpoint (as an atheist). After conducting his research he outlined the parts of the Old Testament and the Gospels that are "totally out of keeping with the cast-iron FACTS of modern science" while for Islam science and religion have always been "twin sisters".

The Quran proved numerous scientific facts well before they were discovered by man, and in no way whatsoever does it contradict any scientific FACT. That book is well worth a read, it has converted thousands to Islam in the past.

Dr Maurice Bucaille was a non-muslim while he wrote this book but converted to Islam after discovering his findings.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Aug 2006, 07:07

Whilst I agree that science fails it's own test of being "scientific" a religion cannot contain scientific thinking for too long. This has been evinced over and over within history and will always be so. Eventually dominant religion must change/adapt or put in measures to prevent the exapnsion of science. This is often done through the guise of ethics or morality.

Religions, like civilizations, fall away... They change and return or are lost, but the central tenets remain, which is why they will always be so popular.

Post by **The Law** » 24 Aug 2006, 07:13

Ezzard wrote:Whilst I agree that science fails it's own test of being "scientific" a religion cannot contain scientific thinking for too long. This has been evinced over and over within history and will always be so. Eventually dominant religion must change/adapt or put in measures to prevent the exapnsion of science. This is often done through the guise of ethics or morality.

Religions, like civilizations, fall away... They change and return or are lost, but the central tenets remain, which is why they will always be so popular.

Like I stated earlier Islam and Scientific FACTS go hand in hand. This can't be said for any other religion, I grant you that. Furthermore Islam has never adapted nor has the Quran ever been changed (unlike other religions).

Please read 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Modern Science' by Dr Maurice Bucaille. That should clear things up for you. The book was written by an unbiased atheist professor (who later converted to Islam after analysing his findings).

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 07:54

lawllb wrote:James I recommend you read the book 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Science' written by Dr Maurice Bucaille

Dr Bucaille conducted the research from a totally unbiased standpoint (as an atheist). After conducting his research he outlined the parts of the Old Testament and the Gospels that are "totally out of keeping with the cast-iron FACTS of modern science" while for Islam science and religion have always been "twin sisters".

The Quran proved numerous scientific facts well before they were discovered by man, and in no way whatsoever does it contradict any scientific FACT. That book is well worth a read, it has converted thousands to Islam in the past.

Dr Maurice Bucaille was a non-muslim while he wrote this book but converted to Islam after discovering his findings.

Whilst Islam may have embraced the sciences in a way that the other major religions did not, especially christianity, that does in no way detract from the fact that is still a FAITH. The nature of faith is not to question certain things, such as the existence of ALLAH, that is beyond question if you want to follow Islam, and must be taken as a given. There are of course all sorts of self referential ways that this may be proven in the context of the text. I'd like to read the Koran, Qu'ran etc, but I've just not the time at the moment, but I find it difficult to believe it any different than any other holy book. They are all historical texts which contain sections on a guide on how to best live your life, but they are written for a situation very different to how we live our lives now, at least in a superficial sense.

The Quran may have 'proved' or rather put forward certain scientific ideas, but that in no way proves somehow that Islam is the RIGHT religion. All religions contain truths, and fictions too, to follow any one of them to me seems a fools errand.

I am very wary about holding up any particular culture as a paragon of anything. There were centres of culture and civilisation around the world stretching back many millenia. I am not suggesting that Ireland was the centre of the world at any point, merely that human beings have always had the same mental capacity, and it is perfectly reasonable to think that they formed complex societies if they had the right conditions and long enough periods of stability in which to prosper.

There is evidence surfacing of advanced cultures long predating even the ancient centres such as Ur which have cropped up from time to time. It seems it is quite likely that there were many civilisations which rose and fall and were engulfed by deluges and submerged, whilst others dissapeared into thick undergrowth and were reclaimed by nature (much like Ankgor Wat was until it was rediscovered or the city of Petra).

I refuse to put my faith in a single book of man, man has written many books, some believe guided by the hand of an extraneous force, but I myself prefer to think that the 'divine hand' which guided them was the innate wisdom of man. Or are we to suppose that some parts of the world have a monopoly on wisdom. If so then why did Greeks borrow some of their wisdom from the Egyptians, the Romans from the Greeks, and so on?

I am talking in broad and general terms here, as I do not have the background reading to make observations on tight details of Islam, but I know deep down that it is just a book, written by men, like all the other books, and no matter how much wisdom is contained within, it does not represent the apogee of our achievement nor it's sum total encapsulated in a volume.

Post by **The Law** » 24 Aug 2006, 08:07

To be honest it is a bit inaccurate to say that islam 'embraced the sciences'. if anything it is vice versa. Many things which we now perceive as 'scientific facts' were mentioned in the Quran and Hadith well before scientists even contemplated them.

Thus it would be accurate to say that scientific FACTS are inline with Islam. It is the only religion that doesn't contradict any scientific facts, that may bring you to a certain conclusion, but that everyone's own prerogative. As you stated it still remains a matter of faith.

Nevertheless I highly recommend that you read the book 'The Bible, Quran and Modern Science'. It's an amazing read.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 08:22

Yes maybe so, but a lot of scientific ideas are nowhere near as new as is often perceived. Take the evidence that suggests that the ancient messopatamians had electric cells, or that the telescope may have existed long long before Gallileo. History only records a very small fraction of everything that occured in human times. We can only wonder how many natural philosophers there were throughout human history whose ideas never found favour or were borrowed by later thinkers.

I am sure that there have always been those who questioned the status quo of thinking as long as there have been humans, it's in the nature of some people's brains, hard wired in from birth to question things on a very deep level, however before the advent of written language, we had only oral traditions to rely on. The story of the flood I believe has it's origins in the Zororastrian tradition (correct me if I am wrong), and was borrowed by the Hebrew and then the Christian texts, but there is increasing evidence that there were major changes in sea levels throughout human history, so what often seems like a symbolic story has it's basis in scientific fact, but is just unrecorded.

I may give that book a go, it should be easier than trying to learn ancient arabic.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 08:25

lawllb wrote:To be honest it is a bit inaccurate to say that islam 'embraced the sciences'. if anything it is vice versa. Many things which we now perceive as 'scientific facts' were mentioned in the Quran and Hadith well before scientists even contemplated them.

Thus it would be accurate to say that scientific FACTS are inline with Islam. It is the only religion that doesn't contradict any scientific facts, that may bring you to a certain conclusion, but that everyone's own prerogative. As you stated it still remains a matter of faith.

Nevertheless I highly recommend that you read the book 'The Bible, Quran and Modern Science'. It's an amazing read.

It's also worth pointing out that the term scientist is a very modern one. People like Isaac Newton, who is a relatively recent figure, considered himself a natural philosopher but also a man of god who still believed god to be at the centre of all his observations.

Prior to the industrial era, science was often practiced by clergymen as they were the only ones well educated enough. Science, religion and magic are interchangable, they all have their own belief systems and are all attempts to rationalise the world. The major difference is that science adapts to changes rapidly, whereas religion and magic are far more rigid.

Post by **The Law** » 24 Aug 2006, 08:34

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes maybe so, but a lot of scientific ideas are nowhere near as new as is often perceived. Take the evidence that suggests that the ancient messopatamians had electric cells, or that the telescope may have existed long long before Gallileo. History only records a very small fraction of everything that occured in human times. We can only wonder how many natural philosophers there were throughout human history whose ideas never found favour or were borrowed by later thinkers.

The book 'The Bible, Quran and Modern Science' takes this into consideration. Yes some scientific facts were found well before the Quran was revealed. However, can you think of any scientist or philosopher prior to the existence of Islam who has been proven to be 100% inline with scientific facts as we know them today? In contrast the Quran doesn't contradict any scientific facts.

The Bible and the Torah (in their original forms) are also books we believe in as muslims. However they are no longer in their original state.

We believe that the bible (in it's ORIGINAL form) was also 100% inline with scientific facts and same goes for the Torah. However both have been edited over the years (as everyone knows) and consequently they now have SOME things that inline with scientific facts and some which aren't. In contrast the Quran has never been changed.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Aug 2006, 08:43

lawllb wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Whilst I agree that science fails it's own test of being "scientific" a religion cannot contain scientific thinking for too long. This has been evinced over and over within history and will always be so. Eventually dominant religion must change/adapt or put in measures to prevent the exapnsion of science. This is often done through the guise of ethics or morality.

Religions, like civilizations, fall away... They change and return or are lost, but the central tenets remain, which is why they will always be so popular.
Like I stated earlier Islam and Scientific FACTS go hand in hand. This can't be said for any other religion, I grant you that. Furthermore Islam has never adapted nor has the Quran ever been changed (unlike other religions).

Please read 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Modern Science' by Dr Maurice Bucaille. That should clear things up for you. The book was written by an unbiased atheist professor (who later converted to Islam after analysing his findings).

I've read it and it really proves very little. He has become something of a centre piece for followers but his work is far from conclusive.

The fact(s) of any discipline are always socially constructed. Science and scientific enquiry are completely different to so called facts. Besides the factual basis of any text was thrown out by linguistics a long time ago.

Everybody believes in something, for some it's a religion for others it is something else but knowledge we have is always limited by the system of beliefs that we accept, and place ourselves within.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Aug 2006, 09:02

Terence wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
lawllb wrote: Like I stated earlier Islam and Scientific FACTS go hand in hand. This can't be said for any other religion, I grant you that. Furthermore Islam has never adapted nor has the Quran ever been changed (unlike other religions).

Please read 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Modern Science' by Dr Maurice Bucaille. That should clear things up for you. The book was written by an unbiased atheist professor (who later converted to Islam after analysing his findings).
I've read it and it really proves very little. He has become something of a centre piece for followers but his work is far from conclusive.

The fact(s) of any discipline are always socially constructed. Science and scientific enquiry are completely different to so called facts. Besides the factual basis of any text was thrown out by linguistics a long time ago.

Everybody believes in something, for some it's a religion for others it is something else but knowledge we have is always limited by the system of beliefs that we accept, and place ourselves within.
Do you mean 'death of the author', that is badly lacking and much post-WWII work in thought hinges on the inability to accept the work of Heidegger due to his Nazi membership, a membership shared by many Germans.

Barthes did add something to it but it is has become an accepted tenet in linguistics. I don't think Heidegger's membership has much to do with how a text is analysed by you, me or anyone else who reads the written word.

We are all scrambling for meaning because we cannot face existence without it. We find meanign wherever we look because we need it to be there, but when you try to prove anything interpretation will never let you rest.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 09:22

Ezzard wrote:
Terence wrote:
Ezzard wrote: I've read it and it really proves very little. He has become something of a centre piece for followers but his work is far from conclusive.

The fact(s) of any discipline are always socially constructed. Science and scientific enquiry are completely different to so called facts. Besides the factual basis of any text was thrown out by linguistics a long time ago.

Everybody believes in something, for some it's a religion for others it is something else but knowledge we have is always limited by the system of beliefs that we accept, and place ourselves within.
Do you mean 'death of the author', that is badly lacking and much post-WWII work in thought hinges on the inability to accept the work of Heidegger due to his Nazi membership, a membership shared by many Germans.
Barthes did add something to it but it is has become an accepted tenet in linguistics. I don't think Heidegger's membership has much to do with how a text is analysed by you, me or anyone else who reads the written word.

We are all scrambling for meaning because we cannot face existence without it. We find meanign wherever we look because we need it to be there, but when you try to prove anything interpretation will never let you rest.

I'm with you on this one. Everyone is always looking for the 'ultimate truth' the 'ultimate meaning' of everything. I've come to accept that the truth is impossible to find as it doesn't exist. Even physics seems to be reaching this conclusion, the forces they are trying to describe at the fundamental level are so exotic so remote that it's impossible to describe exactly what they are. They are as much conceptual as physical, particles dreamt up to explain absences elsewhere in the system.

The deeper you look into anything, the more mysterious it becomes and the less clarity you find. I find for instance the more I study boxing, the less sure I have become of my own opinions, and the more I can see ranges of possible outcomes from fights, and the more perspectives there are to evluate fighters from, it's dreadfully confusing.

The same is true of history, we can never really know with any surity the 'facts' of history. Even if we were there ourselves, we have only out own perspective to truly judge by.

This thread is making me confused and making my head heart, I am beginning to become squashed with cosmic insignificance again.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 24 Aug 2006, 09:23

lawllb wrote:
exmuslim wrote:Far from being the religion of peace, Islam decrees discrimination against women, non-Arabs, and especially against non-Muslims. The worst hatred however is reserved for ex-Muslims.
I'm sorry to tell you but Islam doesn't decree discrimination against non-muslims, infact muslims are even allowed to marry Christians and Jews. Yes ex-muslim males are punished in quite a few muslim countries, this law isn't Quranic though.

You should know that this is incorrect. Muslim MEN can marry non-muslim women but are obliged to educate their children as muslims. But for muslim women it is strictly forbidden to marry non-muslim men.

The Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) lived in peace with non-muslims, yes he defended his people if they were attacked but he never discriminated against anyone (he did punish deserters though, as most leaders would, remember it was a time of war!). He taught us to live in peace with non-muslims, you should read all the 'Hadith' of the prophet Mohammed.

Also incorrect. Only "people of the book" are permitted to pratice their faith in an Islamic state, meaning Christians and Jews, and only if they adhere to the discriminatory rules levied upon (including on marriage, taxaation, acess to high office).

He also taught us to obey the law of the land if we lived in a non-muslim state. For example if we kill an innocent non-muslim in the UK (e.g. like the 7/7 bombings) we "will not smell the fragrance of paradise" (Stated by the Prophet peace be upon him).

One issue is the definition of a non-Muslim state. For some hardcore Islamics Spain is a Muslim state because there was Muslim rule in Al-Andalus until the 13th century (and in some parts until the 15th).

Don't confuse Islam with the idiots who misinterpret Islam and practice it in an incorrect manner. I can't think of one Islamic state that practises Islam correctly. The leaders are at fault NOT the religion, don't confuse the two.

This reminds me of "don't confuse communism with the real existing socialist states in Eastern Europe - they don't pratice communism correctly. The leaders are at fault NOT the ideology, and don't confuse the two"

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Aug 2006, 09:23

Texts have meanings... They have multiple meanings. The problem is not intellect but the inability to ascertain any value from the meaning. This has nothing to do with Heidegger.

In terms of 'The Death of the Author' the idea that a text is written at a point in time by a number of external factors cannot be refuted. It was not invented by academics (but maybe pushed, I'll give you that). If the texts do have meanings (and we both agree they do) then the idea of tacking meaning onto it, and any interpretation we care for, is an entirely honest endeavour.

I'm not trying to obliterate knowledge and boil everything down to some definition of everything and nothing. I believe that there are some meanings that we should prioritise, but that's for us (as human beings) and us only. It cannot be taken any further than that.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 09:38

I studied English Literature, and found it a completely facile exercise perpetuated by dustry old alchoholic men with nothing better to do that sit wittering on about their own preferred interpretations of famous texts.

The only thing I enjoyed was the latin American literature course, which was run by a guy who was just so enthusiastic and filled with joy of the books themselves, and saw them as fantasic and magical flights of fantasy which any of us was free to make of what we would so long as we enjoyed the richness of the imagery and the culture behind it.

It helped that the literature wasn't old and therefore handn't been subjected to countless revisionist theories over the years. Some of the older texts on other courses like Dickens, had literally hundreds of books of criticism written on them.

Literary criticism makes me laugh, and bunch of blowhard bores trying to outdo one another in constructing densely packed books about other books. Whatever happened to telling stories and writing for the joy of the words and the language they sprang from?

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 24 Aug 2006, 09:39

lawllb wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Whilst I agree that science fails it's own test of being "scientific" a religion cannot contain scientific thinking for too long. This has been evinced over and over within history and will always be so. Eventually dominant religion must change/adapt or put in measures to prevent the exapnsion of science. This is often done through the guise of ethics or morality.

Religions, like civilizations, fall away... They change and return or are lost, but the central tenets remain, which is why they will always be so popular.
Like I stated earlier Islam and Scientific FACTS go hand in hand. This can't be said for any other religion, I grant you that. Furthermore Islam has never adapted nor has the Quran ever been changed (unlike other religions).

Please read 'The Bible, The Qur'an and Modern Science' by Dr Maurice Bucaille. That should clear things up for you. The book was written by an unbiased atheist professor (who later converted to Islam after analysing his findings).

Yes, Muhammad traveled one night on his winged horse to Jerusalem, guided by the angel Gabriel, and ascended from the Temple Mount to heaven, saw Paradise and Hell, met figures from the Bible and the New Testament, and spoke to Allah about the precepts of Islam (first verse in Sura 17 of the Koran)

Goes TOTALLY hand in hand with the "facts of science".

exmuslim · Post by **exmuslim** » 24 Aug 2006, 09:39

It is typical to hear Muslims that the Quran can only be understood in Arabic. That however is a coop out, a way to deflect discussion. Any book can be translated and that includes the Quran. (the fact that you ignored the fact that I am an Arab is also comical, since I read the Quran in Arabic and have no need of translations)

As for the 2 Muslim propagandists here they throw the usual decoys. Quran itself discriminates and not mere ``interpretations``. Your Dawaganda may work with the Westerners who have not read Quran, but not with me.

This book (Quran) and this religion (Islam) is exactly what keeps our countries in darkness. The Arab World is primitive in thought, mores, economy, science and technology because of Quran and Islam and the anti-science and anti-modernity views propagated by this religion.
Islam is not content with a separation of religion and state and does not acknowledge the supremacy of science. Thus our countries are left behind the West and East Asia.
If it wasnt for the vast oil and gas reserves under our sands we would be starving worse than Black Africa.

Altough you 2 express contempt for my views and feel I betray Islam you must know deep within you that what I say is true. Look at our countries and the wretched state they are in, the underdeveloped economies, society and science. Do you not see the need to modernise? What happens when the oil and gas run out? What will feed and employ the Arabs and non-Arab Muslims?

There is no problem with you being a Muslim or worshipping the Quran or the Black stone if that is your wish. Just separate state and religion and let science and technology flourish, liberate women and keep religion a private issue and concern. And while you are at it let others choose other religions or no religion at all if they so wish.
Live and let live. We are in the 21st century, not in the 7th century anymore.

faithfreedom.org

Peace to you all,

Karim

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 24 Aug 2006, 10:03

Terence wrote:
Also incorrect. Only "people of the book" are permitted to pratice their faith in an Islamic state, meaning Christians and Jews, and only if they adhere to the discriminatory rules levied upon (including on marriage, taxaation, acess to high office).
Pundit, why then does the Koran refer to Judaism and Christianity as the 'other people of the book'? The other texts are by Prophets and some aspects feature in the Koran.

I don't understand your question.

"The people of the book" are granted second-class, discriminatory existences in Islamic states; other folks (Hindus, Buddhists, Zaraostrians, Atheists) are granted no existence at all. Conversion or death is the alternative open to them.

I cleared this up yesterday. Zakat is a pillar of Islam and is a welfare tax. Non-Muslims are not forced to pay Zakat. If they did this would be unjust but they must pay for the greater good so why not be taxed to make up the shortfall?

Because it is discriminatory. Islam may wish to impose relgiously motivated obligations on its members (as long as these members are free to leave if they disagree with these obligations). But Islam has obviously no right whatsoever to impose obligations on non-members. If that leads to monetary advantages to non-members Islam will simply have to live with the incentives it has created.

(Besides, in the historical pratice it is of course the opther way round -- discriminatory taxation has acted as a strong incentive for conversion to Islam, as the burden of discriminatory taxation tended to be far higher than Zakat).

There were no points worth addressing from the other day. Spain was a busted flush and you brought up the misinterpretations of the Torah then grew scared when asked to back up your claims, as I have done, by refering to those texts that have been interpreted.

The legality of Spain is a question that you refuse to address.

The interpretatons and "misinterpretations of the Torah" you brought up, not me -- in my view they are simply irrelevant for the assessment of the legality of states (as are interpretations of the Koran).

But I wrote this several times already, and you have obviously decided not to take notice.

As for your Catholicism. Have you enrolled your children in a Catholic school? If so they will need to be Catholic and a Catholic must be a married in a Catholic Chruch. Otherwise you are standing before god and making vows you have no obligation to keep. Unless you married in a US Catholic Chruch, over there things might be different, it will be merely another philosophy stripped of meaning in the US.

I already told you why this example if off. The Catholic church can behave like a private club with its own rules as it pleases, AS LONG AS it does not try to impose these rules on people outside of this private club, i.e., on society and the state at large.

In this specific example: the Catholic church is perfectly entitled to not offer my kids schooling, AS LONG AS the Catholic church does not try to prevent my children from access to other forms of schooling. It is the responsibility of society, of course, to make sure that such alternatives exist.

This is of course nothing but the principle of the seperation of church and state.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Aug 2006, 10:03

Terence wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Texts have meanings... They have multiple meanings. The problem is not intellect but the inability to ascertain any value from the meaning. This has nothing to do with Heidegger.

In terms of 'The Death of the Author' the idea that a text is written at a point in time by a number of external factors cannot be refuted. It was not invented by academics (but maybe pushed, I'll give you that). If the texts do have meanings (and we both agree they do) then the idea of tacking meaning onto it, and any interpretation we care for, is an entirely honest endeavour.

I'm not trying to obliterate knowledge and boil everything down to some definition of everything and nothing. I believe that there are some meanings that we should prioritise, but that's for us (as human beings) and us only. It cannot be taken any further than that.
Texts have multiple misreadings and one reading. Have you ever seen the funniest sight? An academic with a thesis putting it to an author only to be rebuffed? They then bring out the 'death' theory. It is a continuing sign that academic has hit a wall. It cannot be denied. Where are our 'Being and Time' and 'A Treatsie Concerning Human Understanding'?

Nor can the fact it, a text, was written at one time by an individual and if we fail to understand them we fail to understand the text. Are you saying 'Rememberance of Things Past' was written by externa/sociall forces?

It does also pertain to the work of Heidegger. By re-phrasing the key question in the 'Sophist' he begins a voyage to finds meaning and mixes up a number of techniques to do so. Hyper-relativity is a tool of scepticism. If there is no overarching meaning why are all our religious texts (at base) so similar. Isn't that a shared dialogue with a common author?

As for the academic, you need not give me anything. I knew that and spoke it. I prefer the grammar/linguistics as the plaything of the intellectual elites thesis

The author is only a part of the story. The individual only has consciousness. Have you ever seen a psychologist unravel someone's unconscious? Walk past any billboard, watch any TV advert and you will see an articulation of something that is hidden from yourself, something that you strive to deny on a conscious level. You can voice your dissent as an individual but there are millions doing it every day. There is too much going on to know whether the writer is right to refute the thesis. Is he right? Wrong? Lying? Denying?

I can't accept that a text has one reading. There is no formula or magical key to unlock a text. I have known professors devoted to 'Ulysees' and 'The Cantos' striving to find the meaning. They wasted their professional lives and still didn't get the point. And even if you could unlock the true single meaning how would you ever know that you'd found it?

A Remembrance of Things Past was written by a man and is the part culmination of his experience and imagination. This is all reliant upon his social milieu, geography, etc... Furthermore someone had to read the text (probably edit it) decide it was good enough to publish. the book was then, at some point, read by others, some of whom were considered to be people of intellect. These then reccomend the book to others. It goes on... Today it is a Penguin Modern Classic. We can still read it but there were countless other books from the time Proust completed his work until today. Many are forgotten, and for good reason, but there are many who were worthy. What we can read today is much more than what a man achieved at a typewriter.

Our religious texts are all so similar because we all face the same crises and dilemmas. The meaning of the human race is to find meaning (if that makes sense).

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 10:04

I have to admit to having a bit of a soft spot for Brian Sewell, despite speaking like he has a bag full of plums in his gob, I like the way he cuts through a lot of the utter bollocks spoken about modern art, and rightly points out that there is very little skill in the execution of much (though not all) of modern art, but rather lots of time spent dreaming up expansive back stories to justify filming a piece of smoked haddock slowly rotting over a week and then playing it on a loop.

I had a fancy for doing a piece of modern art myself. I was going to call it 365 days of shit. I was going to photograph my turds every morning and then produce a short piece describing the sensations experienced during each one, and my observations on texture, colour and odour with the date given for each one. It sure as hell ain't art, but I'll bet I could convince some gullible idiots it is.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Aug 2006, 10:22

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I have to admit to having a bit of a soft spot for Brian Sewell, despite speaking like he has a bag full of plums in his gob, I like the way he cuts through a lot of the utter bollocks spoken about modern art, and rightly points out that there is very little skill in the execution of much (though not all) of modern art, but rather lots of time spent dreaming up expansive back stories to justify filming a piece of smoked haddock slowly rotting over a week and then playing it on a loop.

I had a fancy for doing a piece of modern art myself. I was going to call it 365 days of shit. I was going to photograph my turds every morning and then produce a short piece describing the sensations experienced during each one, and my observations on texture, colour and odour with the date given for each one. It sure as hell ain't art, but I'll bet I could convince some gullible idiots it is.

The work of art would not be your sh1t, though I'm sure it's very aesthetically pleasing... The work of art would be the that you could convince someone that your sh1t, and meditaions on it, were.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 24 Aug 2006, 10:26

Indeed. However, you could argue that the act of evacuating my bowels was the actual creation of the art, and my musing on it merely a commentary on the progency of my bowels. In effect my rectum would be giving birth to the artwork, an act beyond my direct control, and I would then be forming a relationship between my excretia and the outside world as formed via the conduit of my intellect.

See how easy this crapola is?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 24 Aug 2006, 10:32

So it seems, with the right diet, of course...