On 19 Apr 2014, at 12:35, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2014, at 08:42, Samiya Illias wrote:
The harmful effects of the consumption of intoxicants for the
individual and its consequent effects on society are observable.
The bans are in thus in the larger interest.
This does not follow. Banning intoxicant augments the intoxicant
consumption, and so, if that is bad, it leads to the contrary
effect than the one desired.
Agree to disagree :)
Even when a turkish sultana condemned smoking tobacco by having the
head off, the consumption of tobacco grew.
Now, when a religion is related to the state, some religious
prohibition might work, but I was thinking to laic multi-confessional
countries.
However, if cannabis and other drugs have some medicinal benefits,
then the research should continue to find the correct, beneficial
use of them, as well as the side-effects.
Sure.
In Islam, consumption of intoxicants are discouraged. The arabic
word used for intoxicants, in the Quran, is al-khamr. The root
alphabets of the word are kh-m-r which means to cover or hide
something. Intoxicants, it implies, cover the intellect, and thus
are discouraged.
Does it? The Sufi thinks differently (as you know and can see by
searching "sufi drug use". For them, some psychotropic does not
cover the intellect, but discover it.
I am aware of the Sufi branch and thought. However, I am only
quoting the Quran, the original Arabic text, which all sects agree
upon as the Book revealed to Prophet Muhammad, which has not
undergone any change, and is preserved in written form as well as in
the memory of millions of human beings till this day.
The muslims I know disagree on many verses. I am not sure such text
are easy to interpret. Even arithmetic is not that easy to interpret.
If something is intoxicating the mind, then how can it be considered
safe to 'discover the intellect' unless the intellect has not yet
been discovered? ;)
It can be a reminiscence :)
In that case, in the absence of an active intellect, can such a
person be expected to making a rational decision of choosing whether
or not to 'use the drug'??
The decision has to be done before taking the drug. Yes, there is
always a risk, and nobody should push you, and that is another reason
to make it legal, at least in laïc countries. To avoid unscrupulous
street dealers pushing weak people to buy rotten psychotropic. (and to
avoid legal drug dealer not trying to cure you).
It is explained: [Quran 2:219] They ask you about intoxicants and
games of chance. Say: In both of them there is a great sin and
means of profit for men, and their sin is greater than their
profit...
That is an authoritative argument. You must understand that this is
not a good point for the Quran, or that interpretation of the Quran.
How can *you* be sure if the prophet did not misunderstood God?
The original Arabic words of the Quran have not suffered any change
over the centuries.
That might not necessarily be a good sign.
They are not the words of the Prophet. He was only the messenger,
transmitting the revelation as received.
Asserting this might not add sense to me. I respect your belief, but I
will be vigilant about you respecting possible other beliefs.
Have you come across any human book which has about 6236 sentences,
and millions of people know it by heart completely, from beginning
till end?
You are not reassuring me, here.
This original manuscript is protected from human interpretation...
My question is: what if a young person tells you, "I don't want to
study by heart the Quran, I want to study by heart the Bhagavad-Gita"?
Will that person keep a decent life in your neighborhood?
Saudi arabis just decided to make atheism illegal. Do we agree that
this should not be tolerated? I am not an atheist, but I consider that
each human can think for himself, as long as it does not impose its
idea by dishonest means or violence, threat, etc.
The word used for sin also means frustration; tiredness; laziness.
Thus, I gather, both mind and body eventually suffer from the
harmful effects of the intoxicant, and thus the negatives far
outweigh the benefits.
Initially, the believers were advised to pray when in a clear
state of mind, and not when under the influence of intoxicants: :
[Quran 4:43] O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are
Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say,...
Gradually, they were exhorted to refrain from it altogether:
[Quran 5:90] O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling,
(dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an
abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that
ye may prosper.
References:
[Quran 2:219]
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=218&to_verse=220&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1
[Quran 4:43]
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4&from_verse=42&to_verse=44&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1
[Quran 5:90]
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5&from_verse=89&to_verse=92&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1&show_urdu=1
Conventional religion have a tradition of forbidding anything which
can lead to psychotropic experience, if not mystic experience,
because they have decided of what is truth, and psychotropic
experience are able to question it, and usually leads to making the
doubt greater.
In the religious matter, even more than in science, I think we
cannot let other people think for you.
Exactly! That is why we must not be under the influence of any
intoxicant so as to be able to think clearly!
Television is an intoxicant, and what about the literature on the
other religions? Are there intoxicants?
Is not some religion used as a form of intoxicant? Are there no abuse?
Also, what if someone has a religion which favors some "intoxicant"
for their quest?
What about the bwiti religion, an african syncretism of animism and
christianity, in which the roots of the plant Tabernanthe iboga pays a
key role in the liturgy?
What about the traditions in South-America, where such syncretism have
been realized, and we know how much violence and force have been used
in that process, but some survived by renaming their gods and
goddesses with christian saints or entities, like the salvia feminine
presence (often felt by about 40% of the salvia consumers) renamed
"Virgin Mary" after christianisation?
Spiritual plants can be double edged, they can be used to enslave you,
and they can be used to liberate you, but eventually, what I reject,
is pressure on this, and misinformation.
In my religion, you can caricature the prophets, even God, and you
can burn the sacred text without blaspheming, but then you *do* a
genuine blasphem when you dare to talk in its name.
If I'm misguided, then you are right. However, I earnestly believe
that the Quran is God-sent and it helps us understand our purpose
here on Earth, and where we are headed.
I am all happy if you feel that way, as long as you accept that some
other people can feel differently and develop different ways to dialog
with the divine.
Do you accept that your daughter or your sun marry someone with
another religion? Do you accept that, when adult, they change of
religion?
You can only trust God to talk directly to the heart of the people.
You can't suggest any action or inaction in its name, as it
becomes the worst authoritative and manipulative argument. There
are just no human intermediate between you and God.
God is immanent and personal and needs no intermediary. However, God
has been kind enough to send guidance through human messengers, who
have lived and shown that it is possible for humans to follow
guidance and become all that God has created us to become
God might be kind enough to gives us many plants and many tools to
appreciate them in different ways.
In some religion, Satan has the power to fake admirably a human
messenger, so it is better to always be careful not trying to get to
the 100% public certainty, because that is insanity.
You can be certain in your heart, and taught by exemplar behaviors,
but you can't express the divine roots explicitly, without bringing
the authoritative argument, which is fatal in the long run.
Contemplation community, and dances, prayers, can be allowed, but
nobody can decide actions and inactions, and normalize behavior in
Its Name. If you believe in God, trust him.
To be sure, there is no problem liking sacred texts, but not for
any normative action. Some "intoxicant" can help to understand
this, and that is why, I think, some tradition and societies
wanting to control you, are condemning them.
Of course, in the Abramanic religion, God can be seen as the first
prohibitionist, and the first to suggest that prohibition can't
work. Explain me how God, with his infinite power, has not been
able to control a population having only two individuals, Adam and
Eve. How could He not prevent them to consume the illicit fruit of
knowledge?
As per the Quran, God created Adam as a 'Khalifa' for the Earth
(someone responsible for its well-being). The test in Heaven was
part of the Divine Plan, and so was the subsequent sending down to
Earth. Perhaps it was an important lesson to learn before starting
the trial on Earth.
Answer: he planned them to have the choice and get the knowledge.
He might permit the shortcut between Earth and Heaven, but not the
use of it to manipulate the others and talk in His name.
Agree, and that's why we are wary of drug-induced 'awareness', which
we believe is not a divine, but rather a devilish experience, being
presented in God's name.
That is your respectable opinion, but you cannot assert this in God's
name (without begging the question cosmically).
Other, including muslims like the Sufi, can believe that it is a sort
of insult to God, when not exploring its Garden in all the possible
means provided by Him, or Her, or It, as long as it is with reason and
caution, and moderation and without proselytizing.
Are you OK that God might talk differently to different people?
I like comparative theologies, and you know my Plotinus-Arithmetic
Lexicon which I use as some etalon for the comparison.
I believe that theology is the most fundamental inquiry, and that a
large part of it can be done in the usual 3p scientific way. Almost by
its proper nature, human theology cannot be entirely "scientific" for
the humans, and choices remain, like saying yes or no to this or that
shaman/doctor proposition(s).
Bruno
Samiya
Bruno
Samiya
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 4/18/2014 7:13 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What society thinks has nothing to do with it, because weak
correlation-based scientific evidence is used selectively to
create laws that were desired a priori by some interest group.
That implies some nefarious motive and corrupt use of data known
to be wrong. In fact there was no nefarious 'interest group' that
wanted to ban marijuana or to ban alcohol or to ban heroin. All
these bans were initiated by people who believed in the ill
effects of these substances for individuals and for society. In
many cases they had personal experience. That the bans may have
given rise to criminal activities to circumvent them, isn't to the
point of their origin.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
