Have you even heard the guy speak? He has come out to say that most Muslims are not like the idiots you see crashing burning barbeques into airports.
Are we talking about the same Geert Wilders?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Unless you happen to agree with his ilk, that most Muslims are imperfect (and so good), as they don't follow what the Quran/Islam allegedly dictates, and that is exactly the kind of violence that extermists do.
He suggested that in contemporary times, the Prophet (pbuh) would be considered a terroist. He compared the Quran to mein kampf.
He's a bigot. And you're defending him. Your conflation of my attack on him as a defense of the terrorism he allegedly stands against (he doesn't...he's against Islam proper) is simply foolish.
Enlightenment is all encompassing. It's an aid or pursuit toward commonality and sharing of 'goodness' It comes not only in one philosphical opine.
In the context of this discussion, 'Enlightenment' is a loaded term used to qualify those philosophies that stand diametrically opposed to ones own. Without any true meaning, and ignoring the fact that it is wholly a relative bit of jargon, it's simply giving a stamp of approval on ones own world view, without the need to delineate exactly what it is except in the most nebulous and vapid terms...simultaneously dismissing other philosophies with sharp critiques (albeit of singular wit), thereby creating an illusion of an intellectually superior position.
Of course, the natural reaction of any ideologue will be to defend against a critique. Given the non-position of those doing the critique, a rebuke of the contrary position becomes nigh impossible. The only option to engage in such a discussion is in the form of defense...thus the discussion is one way (for those gullible enough to participate in it).
Eastern philosophies do seem stronger against these kind of rhetorical argument, as they are almost entirely self-centered, and ego-centric... and so not at all concerned with any kind of external attack or image.
Perhaps when muslims demonstrate on the street against videos of innocent people being beheaded with the same rigor as a drawing of Prophet Mohammed (SAW), when muslims unambigously declare Shariah law should have no status over civil law in a pluralistic , democratic society.
Do you think the Quran should be banned? Yes, or no.
Do we have a say in the matter, or need we be all bleeding heart and pour out into the streets protesting political disputes that take a religious hue? I'm sorry...been there, done that. IT DOESN'T WORK!!! that's another story...
Muslims could have a big march from here to china...and nobody will pay any bloody attention. In the meantime, I don't see how the violence of OTHERS should hinder OUR ability to challenge local bigots. Or are people so easily distracted?
simultaneously dismissing other philosophies with sharp critiques (albeit of singular wit), thereby creating an illusion of an intellectually superior position.
Wait a minute... this describes those who follow literal texts of a dogmatic religion. Creating the illusion of claiming to follow the only divine texts (singular wit).
[quote]
Of course, the natural reaction of any ideologue will be to defend against a critique. Given the non-position of those doing the critique, a rebuke of the contrary position becomes nigh impossible. The only option to engage in such a discussion is in the form of defense...thus the discussion is one way (for those gullible enough to participate in it).
[/quote]
It's impossible to rebuke because people aren't enlightened enough to see the other point of view. Whereas it's pretty simple to understand someone's simple and blind following of a singular, standard set of beliefs that has been interpreted for you. Perhaps there is a reason there is no option other than in the form of defense.
[quote]
Eastern philosophies do seem stronger against these kind of rhetorical argument, as they are almost entirely self-centered, and ego-centric... and so not at all concerned with any kind of external attack or image.
[/quote]
You should study Eastern philsophies before making such an outrageous statement. The concepts of selfless service, karma, vand chakna and social ethic and humanist systems are anything but self centered and ego centric. That would better describe those who wish to murder those who speak against their faith.
The media picked up on this when the Muslims began hootering and hollering for his murder. Had they kept shut nothing would have become of this "film". Instead, their typical Muslim behaviour has done exactly what every Muslim is afraid of : a negative portrayal of Muslims as an illiterate, arrogant, insensitive, imposing, violent, unreasonable, rowdy and moronic people.
Who creates an impression of Muslims you ask? Not van Gogh... nope not Wilders either. The answer is Muslims. Muslims make a mockery of themselves!
Kskhan, EXACTLY. I welcome Geert Wilder's film. Perhaps it will get more people in my community speaking with open dialogue. When fellow muslims behave like maniacs on crack and ecstacy overdose instead of saying we welcome the film. Let's have critical dialogue, lets here the voices of many moderates who think like me but keep their mouths shut. Is it because of silent agreement that much which is seen in the media in Islamic countries is brutal , is demeaning and is full scurrilous suppression?
I have a copy of Van Gogh's film , entitle Submission, and many muslimah's and both of my parents agree there is much truth in what was narrated. It dealt with the brutality and submission women are forced into. And when a crazy/demented muslim assassinates Van Gogh it bespeaks volumes about what are we afraid to expose which is the blood is already in the streets today in Baghdad, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan , Thailand etc etc. Muslim on muslim violence , persecution and subjective suppression.
It's so easy to label this Islamaphobia. The brutality of the Roman Catholic church was challenged in the medieval times and since and many still label it as heresy --catholicphobia. And many died heinously questioning the church's dogmatic nefarious suppression of society.
Wait a minute... this describes those who follow literal texts of a dogmatic religion. Creating the illusion of claiming to follow the only divine texts (singular wit).
My claim was only on those who proclaim "enligthenment"...whatever it be. It IS a dogmatic concept. And yes, many who think they are immune are in fact not immune from it. So it is quite ironic that those who proclaim freedom from a dogmatic stance would employ such a loaded term, which itself admits to a subscription to some dogma.
[quote]
It's impossible to rebuke because people aren't enlightened enough to see the other point of view.
[/quote]
Oh dear...
[quote]
Whereas it's pretty simple to understand someone's simple and blind following of a singular, standard set of beliefs that has been interpreted for you. Perhaps there is a reason there is no option other than in the form of defense.
[/quote]
All positions are rooted in some (more often than not singular...although not of singular wit...I'm sure you know how to distinguish between the two) tradition...please see my original post again to see the purpose of casting some positions as "enlightened" and others as not.
[quote]
You should study Eastern philsophies before making such an outrageous statement.
[/quote]
Spare me.
[quote]
The concepts of selfless service, karma, vand chakna and social ethic and humanist systems are anything but self centered and ego centric. .
[/QUOTE]
I have NO understanding why you think I used those terms with a negative connotation. If such was my intent, I'd simply parrot what the Pope said...but of course, I don't share his views on the matter.
As for people who speak and hear god? Frontal lobe epilepsy. Joan of Arc? Very informative.
**Seminole , **I am sure you will understand frontal lobe epilepsy and its symptoms. It is the primary symptom exhibited by a major i(_____ )religious figure. Are you aware of what the sufferer experiences or sees? I engage you to thinking this out and finding the reference I am refering to. Hint. I believe Karen Armstrong wrote of this illness in precise detail regarding a person and it clearly is evident in modern medicine as experiencing frontal epileptic seizure. But, I do believe if memory serves me correctly , she was not aware of this important detail in her writing exercise.
Have you ever come across this in correlation to other well known figures of religion?
My claim was only on those who proclaim "enligthenment"...whatever it be. It IS a dogmatic concept. And yes, many who think they are immune are in fact not immune from it. So it is quite ironic that those who proclaim freedom from a dogmatic stance would employ such a loaded term, which itself admits to a subscription to some dogma.
Dogmatic as in specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down
or
characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
[quote]
All positions are rooted in some (more often than not singular...although not of singular wit...I'm sure you know how to distinguish between the two) tradition...please see my original post again to see the purpose of casting some positions as "enlightened" and others as not.
[/quote]
Singular wit, one-trick pony, monolithic belief system, one ring circus, whatever. It's all the same thing when people of a faith are forced to follow the doctrine that has been laid out as "the doctrine".
[quote]
I have NO understanding why you think I used those terms with a negative connotation. If such was my intent, I'd simply parrot what the Pope said...but of course, I don't share his views on the matter.
[/quote]
I didn't see it as negative, rather uninformed.
Only if i could let Prophet Moses (a.s.) and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Prophet Noah (a.s.), Prophet Adam (a.s.) and others…know about this. They’d be thrilled. You wouldn’t believe a miracle if it happened to you. Then again, i don’t expect you to believe anything beyond your thinking capacity, because there’s something called Faith and the unseen. Something Muslims believe in.
Dogmatic as in specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down
or
characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.
The latter is your own take on the matter...the delusional would think otherwise.
[quote]
Singular with, one-trick pony, monolithic belief system, one ring circus, whatever. It's all the same thing when people of a faith are forced to follow the doctrine that has been laid out as "the doctrine".
[/quote]
I see little difference between the forcefullness of "my way is right" and "it's all the same crap", as far as this discussion is concerned.
[quote]
I didn't see it as negative, rather uninformed.
[/QUOTE]
I think you need to once again read what I wrote and why I wrote it...I may indeed be uninformed if champions of said theologies take offense over a perceived slight.
Science proves fact and disputes earth is flat, dinosaurs did exist, clouds only contain moisture and pollutants and black holes exist whereas faith proves existence of an imagination. And blind faith proves lack of analytical thought which gives rise to questions.
Do you discount 'pre-Adamic' man?
Where did the wives come from , for the off spring of Adam and Eve?
LOL…I get half the symptoms of TLE when I eat something bad…when people bring up wishy washy observations invoking something remotely scientific, I often wonder what’s worse…being ignorant or only *partially * educated.
LOL...I get half the symptoms of TLE when I eat something bad...when people bring up wishy washy observations invoking something remotely scientific, I often wonder what's worse...being ignorant or only *partially *educated.
Ignorant is wrose. Partially educated as the smartest man knows there is much he does not know.....................
Ignorant is wrose. Partially educated as the smartest man knows there is much he does not know.....................
If the ignorant one has no pretensions to being otherwise, I'd say that in itself is a display of great wisdom.
A smart man would always admit to a degree of ignorance...but that's simply a statement of solidarity with the ignorant. Now the fool who is smug with their (incomplete) education...what to make of that sort of person?
Well it’s written in the scriptures, eve was made of adam’s rib. So where did all the other people come from? God made man and woman. No mention how the rest were made. SO yes, please give me a credible answer. As my friends and I have often discussed this issue.
It is written or believed we are descendants from Eve and Adam therefore , its a reasonable question as the boys are mentioned but where did they get their women? Something I have seriously wondered about.
Adam and Eve had two sons and two daughters. Son Cane and daughter Aklima were born first as twins. Then a 2nd pair with the son named Abel and Gaza (spelling may not be correct).
They intermarried. It is immoral and strange to us now but that's how the humanity started, hence we all being the offsprings of Adam and Eve.
There's a lengthy history behind Abel and Cain and their fight, because one daughter was beautiful (Aklima) and the other one wasn't so attractive (Gaza). They fought over who marries who and then one is killed. Really interesting. You should read it. (if u haven't already)
The latter is your own take on the matter...the delusional would think otherwise.
No, actually it's from the dictionary.
[quote]
I see little difference between the forcefullness of "my way is right" and "it's all the same crap", as far as this discussion is concerned.
[/quote]
That's all this discussion is about. The forcefulness of "my way is right" so how dare you make a film that says otherwise.
[quote]
I think you need to once again read what I wrote and why I wrote it...I may indeed be uninformed if champions of said theologies take offense over a perceived slight.
[/quote]
It's not about a slight, perceived or otherwise. It's wrong. Eastern philosphies are not self centered and egocentric, if anything they are more altruistic and champion social causes over philosophies where man follows doctrine to achieve a physical and carnal afterlife.
Where did nude women come into the thread? I thought we were talking about the freedom to interpret religious texts and make a short film about it.
Seminole, you must know examples are best to back your arguments. I used them on basis.
[quote]
No where did I say I agree with those interpretations. But there is just as much proof of those things as there is that Muhammad met with an angel in a cave and received words from God.
[/quote]
But you agree with Jesus ressuraction and yet question Muhammads (s.a.w)
Prophethood. So something is really wrong then, Isn't It? Oh no, there isnt, since we have different believes :). THere are enough mentioning in the Quran regarding our Prophet (s.a.w), Cave Hira and the incident where all started. More authentic proves than about the ressuraction of Jesus.
[quote]
Yes, they need to be denounced strongly for these violent acts against those who speak their minds.
[/quote]
No one is justifying violence against free minds. But at times free minds need to be shut(ted) up once and for all without the use of violence.
