Zaqarbal

Is that a joke? Am I supposed to laugh? You already know what I meant: To explain why (according to you) my posts didn't reply the questions. It's about the CONTENT, not about me.

Wrong. The abrogation (naskh) is the way to solve the contradictions in the Quran. The earlier verses are replaced by the later ones.

__________________

Zaqarbal

I've considered that possibility. But I've reviewed my posts and for the moment I haven't found anything wrong. I honestly think I replied to the corresponding questions, really. But if I am wrong, I'd like to know what are the reasons.

__________________

Consolator

I'm aware of that. It isn't something all Muslims adhere to, however. Hence me saying it's about respecting other's beliefs. Religious crazies will be religious crazies, pointing the finger to which are the worst is irrelevant. Also, I thought the Quran was ordered by verse length, not by when it was written.

What it comes down to is interpretation of the book. Religious texts (The Bible and Quran) both say really bat**** crazy stuff. The Bible says slavery is perfectly acceptable, and that any children that are remotely disobedient should be stoned. Do Christians do this?

cardboard adolescent

Christianity tends to gloss over the Old Testament, because that's kind of what Jesus did. Sure, he said he was upholding the prophets, but he wasn't a big fan of stoning. "Judge not lest ye be judged," that whole thing. I haven't read the Quran, but I guess it's more in Old Testament territory. I think if you follow what Jesus did and said, you'd be a pretty upstanding person even by modern standards. Maybe the same isn't true for the Quran, and if that's the case it should be said. At the same time antagonizing people is just fighting fire with fire, which has always been rather pointless.

But if there's one thing history has taught us, it's that people like to burn things. They don't really need a good reason.

jibber

There is a huge flaw in the logic of those here who are disecting religious texts in order to "prove" that certain passages promote violence. The fact is that modern militant islamism is driven not by religious ferver, but by political issues. Israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza strip, and of the golan heights, and foreign involvement in afghanistan and iraq is the real fuel behind the acts of violence and terrorism. If you speak to any fundamental islamist, yes, verses of the Qur'an may be cited, but the motivation doesn't stem from a difference of religious beliefs. Where those verses DO come into play is as a way of enticing others to join those militant groups. Religious instruction plays a huge part in the militant islamic medrassas but in every one of them political issues are at the heart it. It's not the "infidels" that are seen as the problem, it's the people who support what they believe to be an invasion of muslim countries.

__________________
What you've done becomes the judge of what you're going to do -- especially in other people's minds. When you're traveling, you are what you are right there and then. People don't have your past to hold against you. No yesterdays on the road.
William Least Heat Moon, Blue Highways

Your toughest competitor lives in your head. Some days his name is fear, or pain, or gravity. Stomp his ass.

HOOKED ON THE WHITE POWDER

cardboard adolescent

i had a big debate with someone in my dream about that, with me claiming that ideological differences don't precipitate violence. i'm not entirely sure that it's true now, but it's definitely possible.

90'sMusicKid

This is why Europe laughs at, and hates America.

__________________
I'm waiting for the come down
to put me in my place
i'm giving you the low down
so you don't make my mistakes

Zaqarbal

Don't you think there is a contradiction between "respecting other's beliefs" and saying "religious crazies will be religious crazies" or "religious texts (The Bible and Quran) both say really bat**** crazy stuff"? In this thread, it was me the first who distinguished between believers, beliefs and freedom to express beliefs (or disbeliefs). And BTW, I was "assailed" for that.

Regarding texts, I said there are different POTENTIAL effects, although human circumstances can reduce or increase those potential effects. However, it is true that some belief systems are more rigid than others. I also mentioned that Islam is more than a religion (in the strict sense of the word), and for that reason the political and (purely) religious aspects are usually interrelated.

And if we assume that religion must not necessarily be above everything, we can talk about people's beliefs in general. A priori, if you burn Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (after having bought it) the probabilty of you being lynched by an enraged crowd is objectively lower than if you burn the Quran:


A priori (because you never know with randroids...). Because Ayn Rand defended your right to burn her books as long as you buy them (in this case this detail is especially important).

__________________

Consolator

Contradiction? I call it a paradox. I am tolerant of others beliefs until they try to enforce their views on mine. Worship any deity (or deities), refrain from alcohol, sex, drugs, whatever as much as YOU want, but when you try to tell me that I should become a prude or should go to church because it's what God wants (when there is no proof of a higher power) is where I have an issue. That's not to say I have completely reckless unprotected sex constantly. In fact, I never have. But I am well aware of the consequences of reckless behavior. And yes, I am aware that there is still a paradox when I say "I respect other's beliefs until they try to force it on me," but I'm hoping you can see my overall message here.

I could have worded a few things in my last post better, but your nitpicking is trivial. I think you may be onto something when you say Islam has the most potential to cause harm, breed radicals, or whatever. But does that really matter? Should we turn all our attention to Islam and start planting seeds of contempt towards that religion? Is that really what you think is best? The contempt spirals out of control and we have another "OMFG COMMUNISM" red scare.

My answer is no -- and as I've already said before, the focus should be on radical fundamentalists of all kinds (or those who condone such violent behavior, as you mentioned sometime earlier iirc.) A lot of my relatives identify and Christian and tried to explain to me that the Holocaust was a very good thing because the Jews killed Jesus. Tell me, do you think these people are on the right track to hold all sorts of radical and extremist views?

Zaqarbal

Nah, only the far left and the far right (or extremist people in general terms). Don't worry. Even in France, there are notable pro-American authors such as Jean-François Revel. People know there are bigots all over this strange World. To some of us, it is more surprising (negatively speaking) to see, for example, an important figure like Oliver Stone defending a criminal like Fidel Castro, but we know it's only a particular case of "political bigotry".

Sometimes small details are very revealing. And I think this is one of those cases. The expression "respecting other's beliefs" is very common in the West and we all have heard it sometime. We all know that it actually means "respecting the right to express other's beliefs". But that's because we have internalized the common values of modern democratic countries (not only Western but also Japan, South Korea, South Africa and many others). But, what happens with all those "touchy" and easily offended individuals who use the expression "Insult Islam"? Why do they say that, so frequently, to those who are critic with their religion? We don't have any commonly-used equivalent expression. We don't say "insult Christianity", "insult Judaism", "insult Buddhism", "insult Atheism", etc. We say "insult Christians", "insult Jews", "insult Buddhists", "insult Atheists", etc. There isn't a logical correspondence. So, finally, my point is that we should be more analytic, because maybe we are "tolerating the intolerants".

And of course, someone might decide to follow the 20% of a religion's dogmas and ignore the remaining 80%. But in that case, is he faithful to that religion? If a Muslim acts according to our modern liberal-democratic values, then the difference between what he does and what the Quran says would be too big. And sooner or later, that huge contradiction would provoke a kind of "neurosis". It would be easier and logical to simply say "I'm a theist". But it seems there's a reluctance to abandon the label "Muslim".

It's not about sowing contempt but rationalism, critical thinking and knowledge. There are two levels: a cultural one and a socio-political one. An educated and rational person will be able to distinguish between the two. Thus, each Islam-related event would be separately analyzed according to its circumstances. When TV says a Chechen terrorist has attacked a Russian detachment, people should know there is a serious military conflict there. But if people wonder "why do Iranians (or whoever) hate us so much, if they practice the "religion of peace?", they should know what the Quran really says.

My ideas about Quran's potential degree of hatred are not "mine", and they aren't something heterodox, eccentric or minority. Some of the most intelligent men in the World had the same opinion. [Pedantic History-geek mode on] Pascal, Pierre Bayle, Leibniz, Montesquieu, David Hume, Chateaubriand, Ernest Renan, Schopenhauer, Émile Chartier, Churchill.[Pedantic History-geek mode off]. And living authors (in case someone wants to read them): Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray, Giovanni Sartori, Alain Finkielkraut, Salman Rushdie, Bernard Lewis, Richard Dawkins, Ibn Warraq, Sam Harris, etc.

OK, we'll use Anti-Judaism as an example. Quran is deeply anti-Jewish. For instance, it literally says Jews are "apes and pigs". The Christian attitudes towards the Jews have been very varied. From pogroms, terrible persecutions and killings to Pope John XXIII, who saved many Jews from the Holocaust, he called them "elder brothers" and condemned antisemitism. And of course, there also are peaceful and friendly attitudes to the Jews by many Muslims. But as I said in other posts, the dogmatic basic structures are different. One permits more possibilities than the other. You may say "well, it depends on the circumstances". Yes, exactly, but the thing is that there are more possible distinct circumstances in Christianity than in Islam. What is the Christian view on Jews? If we don't specify the information, it's absolutely impossible to answer the question. It could be anything, since the interpretating criteria of Biblical texts are numerous. I repeat: they are not considered direct commands (keyword: considered). At least not necessarily (and this is very important too). Moreover, keep in mind that Christian leaders' opinions can be decisive. Just look the difference in Catholicism between before and after John XXIII. However, what can you do about a book (Quran) which direct commands contain a profound anti-Jewish hate? You can't deny that the options are very restricted just from the beginning. There is little leeway to soften all that hatred. You can't deny that fact. And Quran is meant to be recited.

The idea "doctrine doesn't really matter" doesn't convince me. If the believer doesn't obey the basic principles, then he's not a true believer (fortunately or unfortunately). Imagine a guy saying "I practice the Baal worship" (which includes many essential things, and amongst them are human sacrifaces and orgies). "Well, I take part in the orgies, although we never make human sacrifices. But I'm a Baal worshipper, that's for sure". Bullshit. If you only participate in the orgies, you're just a fuc**ing pervert. And it's OK, it's not our business, but don't say you follow a religion.

__________________