Can we not love our brother as ourselves?

[closrapexa]

It might also be remembered that while Europe was in ruins, the Islamic Empire was the light of the world, with the library in Bagdadh having millions of books and thousands of scribes. Many of the ideas we take for granted today in fields of medicine, society, philosophy, astrology, music, writing... so much we owe to Islam. It was also highly accepting of other religions, with Jews serving as Viziers and in other official capacities, Christians accepted as equals... the way things are now aren't the way they always were.

[Aetherous]

As far as the internet goes, I find its poisonous to get information on a religion solely from sources that are obviously against it, and/or hate it. In other words its better to find out about Islam (or Christianity/Judaism) from an internet source that is Islamic, or better yet ask a Moslem, visit a mosque, talk to an Imam.

 

I tend to agree...but in the 20/20 rebuttal video above, he's actually quoting the Quran and Hadith, etc. We can confirm by looking up those passages for ourselves. That's the best way to discover the truth, which is never "poisonous".

 

That approach is actually much more reliable than going to talk to an Imam or another Muslim, who are permitted by their religion to tell lies about it. What's in writing doesn't lie or tell convenient half truths. History also doesn't lie.

 

If I'm going to explore Christianity (which I'm personally fond of) I will definitely go to people who are opposed to it, who quote passages that are of questionable morality, etc. I will listen to them and read for myself, before listening to some minister who just wants to convert me and feel okay about his own religion by ignoring the hard parts.

 

Lets have some courage here to actually explore the truth. A way for someone to disagree with those videos is by presenting evidence, rather than just denying their accuracy solely because the presenters are opposed to Islam (which is the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem).

[3bob]

and how could that have possibly been in post 106 if they were following their Muslim doctrine? (thus and mostly in spite of their doctrine were they being human)

Edited January 11, 2015 by 3bob

[thelerner]

if one gets information from a well recognized and accepted source of doctrine directly related to or of a certain religion and that doctrine itself is poison, yet one remains lovey-dovey about it then what would you call that?

Yes, definitely. Because its so damn easy to quote something thats out of context. Without someone raised in that tradition its easy to misunderstand the relevance and importance (or lack of) of any statement. As I said its a very easy game to play and on the internet you can find it against every religion. Quotes (& histories) that prove what black-hearted murderers they are; its vitally important to get input and explanation beyond a quote.

 

We need the explanation of a native, without proper knowledge of the historical context and modern interpretation we'll never get to the truth. And we are likely to be manipulated by someone's agenda. A dead book can't explain the intricacies of a living tradition.

 

Its a game played by many racists and without someone to put things into perspective its easy to be infected by it. The antidote is to talk to a knowledgeable person of that religion, without appearing to want to sabotage them, and learn. Often we find out its been dropped, the religion has moved on, or that it was always a minority opinion.

 

<more editing & addition> I'm just putting out here, that we should be careful about saying and implying All (X) believe (Y). Because often such generalities are wrong.

 

You know what I've gotten from this conversation. I disagree with the apologists who understand, sympathize and rationalize the murders actions. I'm also weary of those who'd blanket blame on all of Islam. It should be pointed at the segment thats responsible.

 

Its also made me reconsider my thoughts on the death penalty. It made me turn against it. You need to draw a line somewhere. The apologists were getting dangerously close to 'in these conditions its understandable to kill these people'. How far does that go?? If you're religious enough is it okay to kill or throw acid on your daughter as an honor killing? Where does a license to kill begin and end?

 

For me, I acknowledge and approve of self defense and killing someone who's attacking can be justified. I understand war happens and is always horrendous and full of lies yet at times necessary. The attackers shouldn't be killed. The highest principle of civilization is to value and defend lives.

 

Obviously in the U.S we've fallen short of that ideal, yet things change and history's pendulum moves back and forth. Beyond our primitive violent instincts there has been a slow but accelerating movement away from many historic prejudices.

 

Most violence is caused by fear. I guess we should all get a little braver, and greet and talk to those we perceive as enemies.

Edited January 11, 2015 by thelerner

[Aetherous]

I'd also ask that we do our best to keep this thread clear of vicious sentiments aimed at any religion (though I'm certainly guilty of expressing some of that myself), especially when ones that tend to be 'All blank are blank', because like all generalities they tend to be untrue. We don't have a large Moslem group here to defend itself, and in the past when we have its devolved into My Religion (or lack of) is So Much better then yours.

 

One its against board policy, two it brings out the worst in us. E

 

Is it against forum policy to point out disturbing aspects of a religion and question whether that religion is good? I know that it's against the forum policy to insult another group, such as a religion...that hasn't been done here.

[closrapexa]

and how could that have possibly been if they were following their Muslim doctrine? (thus and only in spite of their doctrine were they being human)

 

Because in any religion there is often a difference between what is said and what is done. In Judaism there is "an eye for an eye," which the Sages reinterpreted to fit "modern" (Middle Ages) sensibilities as having to pay damages equal in worth to damages inflicted. The religion of Love, Christianity, blazed the way for the Inquisition. Those were relatively enlightened times.

[3bob]

if a doctrine lays things out in black and white that can not be taken out of context, (per same) it is a disservice to any party to say that that doctrine was taken out of context....

Edited January 11, 2015 by 3bob

[closrapexa]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom

[3bob]

so we have accepted vast contradictions in doctrine that can not be trusted by laymen or the heads of a religion to show the way to universal unity and peace among mankind... no wonder people sometimes choose atheism. If it were not for my inner experiences related to Sages, Gods, Spirit, etc, I could have gone mad long ago trying to reconcile un-reconcilable doctrines of the Abrahamic religions... (even with the tricks of esoteric study)

Edited January 11, 2015 by 3bob

[manitou]

so we have accepted vast contradictions in doctrine that can not be trusted by laymen or the heads of a religion to show the way to universal unity and peace among mankind... no wonder people sometimes choose atheism. If it were not for my inner experiences related to Sages, Gods, Spirit, etc, I would have gone mad long ago trying to reconcile un-reconcilable doctrines of the Abrahamic religions... (even with the tricks of esoteric study)

 

 

When we have experiential knowledge that is truth, it resonates. Intellectual knowledge does not resonate, although it seems that a mix of the two is pragmatic. Intellectual knowledge can shorten the process and point the way to experiential knowledge. This is self-realization.

Edited January 11, 2015 by manitou

[3bob]

in the sense that spiritual science is possible, I agree

[C T]

makes me wonder how the Sufi sect deal with all that black and white violent doctrine that was quoted? (in post 100 and elsewhere)

Did you not read recently about a self-proclaimed Sufi practitioner in Pakistan somewhere who strangled his 5 kids to death cos he thought a grand sacrifice of that nature would enhance his alchemical powers and his hopes for immortality? If i didn't know better, i'd be alarmed at Sufism, but because i think i know how to think appropriately, i saw instead a mentally deranged individual who desperately wanted to be free from his torments - first he turned to Sufism, thinking it will help (achieve his desire for magical prowess), then he turned on his kids, all in the name of ignorance, greed and delusion - definitely not in the name of Sufism.

 

(A link can be provided, but i don't think its necessary here as its not topic-related)

[manitou]

Hehehe. You can do better than that. You are very good with words.

 

 

BTW While outside attending to the gardens and fish ponds the thought came to my mind to respond to something you said above:

 

 

"... there but by the 'Grace of God' go I."

 

A direct response from me: There is no god. Time for us to start taking responsibility of our actions.

 

 

Well, I wasn't out at the fishpond, but I was in the bathroom when I realized that you and I are so very close to being on the same page. When I said earlier that nobody should get their panties in a twist because I mentioned 'god', this is exactly what I meant.

 

I think that only a tiny membrane is separating our views, and they're not actually separate at all. When you say 'time for us to start taking responsibility for our actions', I am in full agreement. But I am in full agreement because there 'is no god out there'....it's in HERE. In our hearts, our souls. Tag. We're 'it'. We are the Manifester. No, there is nothing out there to pray to, to implore, to blame. We create our own reality by our attitudes, we manifest our own circumstances.

 

This would seem to align pretty well with your view as well. We both consider ourselves 'athiests' in the sense that there's no foreign being apart from ourselves. But....we are, all of us, part of the melody, the harmony, the clocklike workings of life. The ancient Greeks would call it the Logos. I would call it gravity, mutual attraction, the oak within the acorn, the inner template of life that pushes outward and manifests. We are the microcosm to the macrocosm, and the laws of nature is the very thing that I see as 'god'. And you and I are both a part of it.

 

And the proof of this seems to be how very different our lives become as our attitudes change, as judgment leaves our hearts, as kindness prevails within our soul. The manifestations change, our circumstances change. It's magical, almost.

 

Despite our occasional bickerings - which I really don't think we need to do any more because we really are on the same page - I love you very much. I admire the time you put into this forum and keeping it flowing. And you are always to be counted on for good humor.

 

Namaste, my darling Marbles. Seriously.

[Marblehead]

Namaste, my darling Marbles. Seriously.

Yeah, as long as you remember to love the one you're with.

 

Actually, that is a good response. Thanks for standing tall and remaining in the discussion.

 

No, we really are not that far apart in our thinking and I suppose this is because of our individual past history and experiences.

 

And I do agree with you that much of what we do in life effects others. But then I will always stress that we each are responsible for our own thoughts, words and deeds. We must not blame others for the choices we make individually.

 

And yes, peace and contentment come from within, not from the outside. And too, I just recently mentioned that we really can't expect to be able to love others if we cannot love our self.

 

And I also agree that we each play a part in how well our environment remains in harmony. We we work against harmony others have to pick up our slack.

 

But back to your opening post, sure, if we would take the time to talk with others we could attain agreement or at least an understanding. To just kill someone because they have an opinion that is different from yours is, in my opinion, totally unacceptable.

[Marblehead]

I don't see this as a goal or consequence of religion.

It is a goal of the humans who do not understand or practice the religions they hide behind - they are power hungry cowards, religious people are humble and loving.

At least that's how I look at the world.

Nice mellowing of my firmness and criticisms.

 

Yes, spiritual people are humble and loving. Some are religious as well.

 

And, of course, being an Anarchist I am bound to speak out about what happened in Paris and the cowards who killed the defenseless people. (Also considering myself to have been a virtuous warrior I am bound to speak to it as well. We don't kill unarmed civilians.)

[Marblehead]

makes me wonder how the Sufi sect deal with all that black and white violent doctrine that was quoted? (in post 100 and elsewhere)

Perhaps, but I will remain on topic and speak to only what happened in Paris. Later perhaps we can talk about changes that have taken place as a result of what happened. And I do already see movement in a positive direction even though they are only words at this point.

[Marblehead]

if one gets information from a well recognized and accepted source of doctrine directly related to or of a certain religion and that doctrine itself is poison, yet one remains lovey-dovey about it then what would you call that?

A lie.

 

And no, I don't care whose book it is printed in.

[Marblehead]

I'd also ask that we do our best to keep this thread clear of vicious sentiments aimed at any religion (though I'm certainly guilty of expressing some of that myself), especially when ones that tend to be 'All blank are blank', because like all generalities they tend to be untrue. We don't have a large Moslem group here to defend itself, and in the past when we have its devolved into My Religion (or lack of) is So Much better then yours.

I have tried my very best to do that. I have tried to keep my comments pointed directly at the two cowards who killed innocent people. But yes, comments about Islam must be included in the discussion because it is at the center of what happened.

 

But I did hit on the Christians too and just recently I commented about the Israelis (Jews).

 

I just don't like religions. Sorry about that.

[Marblehead]

I tend to agree...but in the 20/20 rebuttal video above, he's actually quoting the Quran and Hadith, etc. We can confirm by looking up those passages for ourselves. That's the best way to discover the truth, which is never "poisonous".

But even here, we must remember that every religious book was written by a man with a goal in his mind. One must also question the goal of the words used.

[Apech]

Maybe the idea of families and brothers is part of the problem?! You know how family members fight! Try spending Christmas with them. So maybe (serious point) there's something in this very proximity which makes of antagonism????

[Cookie Monster]

.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Ocean Form

[GrandmasterP]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech for everyone.

For sure some will find what is uttered 'provocative'.

However there's no excuse for seeking to violently oppose and attempt to silence what was said or drawn or written.

 

[manitou]

I think it all comes down to price tags. And price tags are the likely result of what will happen (given the nature of human nature) if an action is performed.

 

So the magazine likes to satirize religion of every sort. Perhaps Christians and Jews are more tolerant. Muslims, a certain contingent at least, are not. So...the price tag of printing an offending cartoon is likely to be retaliation, in that case.

 

But looking at it from the other side, when Muslims who wear head gear as a result of what their religion says to do - when they wear head gear in another country (say, France) - human nature is going to result in many French seeing them as 'separate from them', and in some cases, the enemy. Particularly in lieu of what just happened in Paris.

 

So perhaps it would be wise, before any actions are taken, to consider that there is likely to be a price tag on it. And then to make the decision as to whether or not they are willing to pay the price tag before they take the action.

 

Head scarves of Muslim women is entirely appropriate and they certainly have every right to wear it, regardless of where in the world they are. But I can guarantee that folks wearing this apparel in France will be looked at with a tinge of fear from here on. That is the price tag. Hopefully it will not result in more retaliation. Maybe the Muslim requirement on this should be updated to coincide with the times, and with human nature. If the apparel were not different, there would be a blending of people more easily.

 

Just pragmatism there. I'm not saying anybody 'should' or 'shouldn't' do anything. But they wouldn't be the first world religion to update their mandates, and maybe it's time for them to consider this. Human nature being what it is; that is not going to change.

 

The thing I find most interesting about all these developments is the "I Am (Charlie...et al)" movement that has taken off. Could this possibly be an open door, although a bit contorted, to the 'I Am Consciousness' enlightening, in a very strange form?

[GrandmasterP]

I used to work with a Moslem lass who wore the full fig.

All you could see was her eyes.

She made her own clothes and they always had lovely embroidery around the sleeves.

One Saturday shopping at the local market I saw and greeted her by name at one of those 'pick your own veg' stalls.

My colleague selected her veg and was in front of me in the queue to have her shopping weighed and to pay.

That stall was run by a Pakistani family and the Mom ( in western dress) was on the till.

The Mom had seen me greet my colleague by name so when I came to pay she asked me...

" How in the world could you know who that was?"

I told her about the embroidery and that we worked together to which the Mom replied...

" Well I can't understand anyone dressing like that in this day and age."

Edited January 11, 2015 by GrandmasterP

[Marblehead]

Just pragmatism there. I'm not saying anybody 'should' or 'shouldn't' do anything. But they wouldn't be the first world religion to update their mandates, and maybe it's time for them to consider this. Human nature being what it is; that is not going to change.

A couple weeks ago the Egyptian president made that suggestion. Maybe it will happen before he has to kill too many more Muslims.

 

The thing I find most interesting about all these developments is the "I Am (Charlie...et al)" movement that has taken off. Could this possibly be an open door, although a bit contorted, to the 'I Am Consciousness' enlightening, in a very strange form?

Beware of this one. It isn't possible to see into the mind of those who are getting involved in this.