On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 19 Apr 2014, at 12:35, Samiya Illias wrote: > > > > On 19-Apr-2014, at 1:15 pm, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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. > > > Yet you work with arithmetic, explore comp and try to understand :) > > > 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. > What do you mean? > > > > > 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. > Fair enough > > > > 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. > Just pointing out a unique miracle that I know not of any other book. I do not understand your comment. > > > > 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? > The question is besides the point: can the Bhagavad-Gita or any other book be memorized by heart, from beginning till end, word by word, in the original language? Do millions of people already know it by heart, so that the authenticity of the original text can be verified by cross-checking various sources? There are many decent people on all communities and societies who have different sets of beliefs and religions, as well as different sects within the same religion. I have Hindu and Christian neighbours, and that's fine. > 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 Pakistan, under law, hard drinks cannot be sold to Muslims, but there are licensed liquor shops which sell liquor to non-Muslims. > > > > > 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? > If they choose to do so, of course I will not be happy, but their life is their choice. They are exposed to many cultures and people of various beliefs. When young, my daughters went to a convent school. I myself had also studied at that same school as did my mother before me. We had Christian friends, Hindu friends and Muslim friends. We had religious friends and not-so-religious friends. Now, my children (two daughters and a son) are all studying in US and Canadian universities, and are interacting with a much broader spectrum of beliefs, faiths and cultures. I do not know how their thought and personal beliefs will evolve. What I could do was that when they were younger, during their school days, we used to sit together and I used to read out the translation of a few verses of the Quran to them. Cover to cover, this took a few years. Yet, I know that they know the content of the Quran, and therefore, whenever they encounter new thoughts and ideas, they have the Quranic message also at the back of their minds, and can think objectively about it. May God be with them. Amen. > > 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. > Its authoritative for me, because I choose to be a Muslim. To you, I only introduce it as a text worth studying. If you can read up so many varied philosophical, theological and scientific works, why not this as well? You don't have to believe it or take it as an authoritative argument. > > > 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? > God can choose to do whatever God wants to do. I can only share what I believe is from God. > > 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). > That is what I'm proposing. You have scientific knowledge and an appreciation of a broad spectrum of theology. I'm just asking you to include the Quran in your list of theological readings, even if you mean to disprove it scientifically. Isn't that how hypothesis, theory, proof work? You're equipped to undertake this fundamental inquiry with the objectivity, earnestness and sincerity it demands! Samiya > > Bruno > > > > > Samiya > > > Bruno > > > > > > Samiya > > > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 3:52 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 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.
