Dear John,
it is wasted time and effort to argue "who is right" in a question
that raises 2 billion children in a 'faith' they will live by - AND
such 'faith' does include the killing of 'infidels' (meaning: who do
not share their faith to the last comma) and many more peculiarities
which our part of the world would not accept anymore. There is no
question about 'truth', believability, oracles and supernatural
wisdom, there is a 1500 year old power over billions of people with
no questions asking and willing to do whatever they believe has to
be done.
It is the same problem with christianism, but such structure has shown
to be able to evolve a bit. Then I would differentiate muslims,
literalist muslim, and fanatics. Only the later are dangerous.
I think that Samiya is open to discussion, even if it is not clear how
far she is to doubt the literal Quran, which of course is necessary at
the start if only to see if it contains anything "scientific" (in
physics, biology, ... but also theology).
This hides the real roots of fundamentalism which is that we have
forbid the use of science (that is the skeptical spirit since well,
indeed 1500 years.
There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered.
Wars and wars.
We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things
differently.
Those are political, if not economical war, disguised in religious war.
I do not say which part is 'better-or-worse' I am just sorry for an
advanced worldview getting erased by a violent ancient force that
overwhelms our civilisation. (Q: are WE civil, indeed?)
An ancient force like fire can erase in few weeks what needed an
incredibly long/deep history like a tree or a forest.
It is in the nature of wiseness and advanced mind to be the easy prey
for violence.
Are we civil? Well, officially, the US is no more since the 31
december 2011 (NDAA 12). But the bad seed comes from something older
than Kennedy's assassination.
There is a problem with radical islamism, but the real problem is in
the exploitation of that problem by bandits to hide their lucrative
criminal activities.
The war on drugs and the war on terror are de facto non stopping wars
which constantly create and fuel its "enemy".
The value of money is based on trust which needs *fair* competition,
and a notion of genuine use, but the society get a cancer when money
is used to create "fake money", based on lies or on problems created
for that purpose.
Bandits might be a progress compared to dictator using god to justify
its job. So we are not civil, but still can become.
Virgin lôbian number seem civil at the start. Uncivilness seems to be
only a bad habit, a "passage" similar to some dilemmas in game theory,
when you can make a very big win by ceasing cooperation. May be that's
a devil's temptation, or the fall from sane egoism into psychopathic
or paranoid egocentrism.
Bruno
John M
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
wrote:
Ok, so let's talk some specifics.
Islamists issued death sentences on people for artistic
expression. Famously on Salman Rushdie for writing a book, and
several people for drawing Mohammed. When I was living in Paris,
the building of a small publication was bombed for publishing a
drawing of Mohammed.
The Quran advises us (6:68,69) to remove ourselves from the company
of those who blaspheme, till they do not change to another topic.
It does not prescribe any of the above forms of punishment.
OK.
Women in Islamic societies are frequently punished for being
raped, their husbands are allowed to beat them (against their
will, I have nothing against consensual BDSM), they are sentenced
to stoning to death for adultery (even when they were raped), they
have to dress in a certain way and can be publicly lashed for not
doing so and they are prevented from going to school. Even
recently, young girls were attacked for attending school.
The Quran prescribes (24:1-14) 100 public lashes for adulterers
Is that not a blaspheme? Using the 'Name' as authority in the
temporal moral code realm.
If two person decide to live together and promise to God maintaining
fidelity, say for 500 years, and one betrayed the other, it is only
the other, and God which have to handle this. Not the friends, not
the family, not the Government. Just each others, the person
involved, and, if they need, the helps of shamans and wise or
spiritual persons.
I don't think that any humans or group of humans, can intentionally
harm other humans without consent (with rare exception like the
legitimate defense).
The problem comes only from the literalist interpretation.
We can vote for laws, and nobody should forbid you to consult sacred
books or God, if you can, or divine subaltern in Heaven (in case you
found a two way shortcut) before voting, but the laws should not
refer to It, and I think cannot, refer to It without blaspheming.
A famous another example of such blaspheme. is Genghis Khan's
statement ""I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed
great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."
The good guy get a sadist impulse? He believes in God, so he take it
as a sign that he has a right to hurt someone, as his divine
pleasure assures him that its victim has necessarily committed great
sin, that God allows a good fellow like him/her to torture.
(not rape victim); for that 4 witnesses of the crime are required,
and if the witnesses are found to be lying, then 80 lashes for the
persons who give false witness, and they are to be banned from
bearing witness in any other case.
Regarding beating by husbands, you refer to 4:15. I think the
interpretation of the word d-r-b is incorrect, and it is separation
which is advised, not beating. However, most translators and
scholars insist it means beating. I disagree.
I am glad you disagree, and I appreciate that honest statement.
In the comp 'fairy tale", it is said that if you kill all the humans
for your own pleasure, well, you have still some chance to go to
heaven, but if you hurt a fly's leg and justify the act with the
name of the unnameable, there is much less hope.
Quran advises (24:31) women the covering of their bosoms with
scarf; head covering is not explicitly stated but it's traditional
in almost all religions. Mother Mary's statues all show her head
covered. Muslims did not make those statues. Also, till about a
century ago, almost all people, men and women, used to wear some
sort of headgear, in most cultures.
The Quran also advises (33:59) draping a cloak over the body, when
going out, if one fears for her safety. Is that good advise?
Homosexuality is considered a crime.
Yes, the people of Sodom received divine punished for it. Verse
4:16 contains guidance for how to deal with this crime.
See above.
Limb amputation is considered an acceptable punishment.
Quran (5:38) prescribes cutting off the hand of the thief. I
believe it is implemented in Saudi Arabia where theft incidences
are very low. However, I have heard scholars argue that such laws
can only be implemented in an ideal Islamic welfare society where
excuses / rationale for theft are almost non-existent, and thereby
stealing is a pure crime, not borne of any need for survival.
So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If
so, do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the
Quran?
I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance.
Therefore, I accept everything in it, and try to understand the
best meaning thereof.
It is hidden, it can't be literal. (provably so assuming comp + some
"simple definition", and even in comp the G/G* theory cannot be
taken literally.
Humans can be very influenced by their education. Imagine that at
the age of two month you would have been raised by christians, or by
atheists, or think about any existing religion, do you think you
would have been Muslim?
The real sacred book is in your heart, it makes you "invariant" for
the sacred texts.
However, on this forum, I only invite you all to benefit from the
factual accuracy of the Quran in your efforts to understand the
world of science. I am not asking anyone to become a Muslim. Faith,
we believe, is God's gift to the willing heart.
You talk like if the Muslims have the monopoly of faith.
It is a bit like telling us that you found the truth, and that the
non-muslims are erring.
You might introduced a non needed dichotomy.
If you want do science, I am afraid you need to train yourself in
much more doubt and modesty.
Only the gigantic doubt can reveal the most certain part of reality,
and deepen the faith, by notably making it more independent from the
human words, images and stories.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
