Dear Bruno, 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.
There were argumentations a millennium ago, but the sword answered. Wars and wars. We have different vocabularies and both sides understand things differently. 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?) John M On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 29 May 2014, at 05:33, Samiya Illias wrote: > > > > On 28-May-2014, at 10:12 pm, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> 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 [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. > -- 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.
