Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Understanding Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: uu who wrote (629)	12/1/2001 2:11:09 PM
From: uu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2926

gda: One more thing... I am responding to the post you made on "Islam the Message thread and since I am blocked from posting my comments I am going to make a comment here: In your post Message 16731964 you state: > And by the way, none of these books was "written" by God. You want a simple proof? God is perfect. None of the scripture is. Be careful what you are saying, because the originator of the thread on which you are making such comments strongly believes Quran was written by God himself! See Message 16699450 and I quote: "One either believes that the Holy Qur’an is the word of God and accepts ALL of it as such, or does not. Since the originator of that thread tends to block people if they question the holiness of Koran, you may soon find yourself among a long list of people who have been blocked posting on his thread! But you are more than welcome on this thread whether you are a hard-core radical psychotic Muslim, or a communist atheist! :) Regards,

To: uu who wrote (629)	12/1/2001 2:26:37 PM
From: gda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2926

Addi, You certainly are making this debate difficult for no reason. I'll have to resort to your method of response, as you seem to go back to the same arguments all the time: 1. Forget about the "pessimistic" and "bitter". I take this back as it is of no consequence to this debate and I am sorry I even said this. 2. you say: "I fail to see your point. The focus is on “Islam”, and nothing else. Like I said, you are sort of justifying having Saddam Hossein simply because we had Adolph Hitler!" I am not "justifying" anything! I am simply stating historical facts! I also resent you using Hitler for any purpose in this debate. I am Jewish and kind of sensitive to this if you don't mind. Now as to the point I was making which you failed to understand: Religions do not necessarily act according to the simple understanding of their holly books. Therefore, it is not mandated the Islam should act according to the passages in the Koran that speak of killing and wife beating etc. The point is, the religious leaders can and should interpret these passages and lead their believers away from violence and towards the positive teachings of their books. The Jews have been doing this for 2000 years which resulted in the Talmud and many other studies. Whether the Islamic leaders actually do this or not is a different issue. All I am saying is that this is what I believe should be done. 3. You say: "This is exactly my point. They have gone through their sanitation evolutionary process. Islam has not! It has to go through the same sanitation process. But talk to any Muslim and see if they are willing to do that!" Well, Hallelujah, we agree on something (the first part of your statement). I do think there are Moslems that agree with the need to interpret the Koran as non-violent. At least they publicly claim that it is not preaching terror! With regards to the "red" and the "blind", this is the reason I thought you are a pessimist. I think that eventually, most religious leaders of the Moslem faith will turn around. Starting with Moslem communities in the West. 4. You say: "With that framework of mind, how on earth do you think Mullahs, and Imams and other psychopaths who have taken the title of being Islamic religious leaders for average Joe in Islamic countries, can possibly be influenced/educated by the so called even the moderate educated civilized Muslims?!" The answer is that there is no connection! You can accept the Koran as a true Muslim should, and also accept its interpretation as a non violent and peace loving teaching! It all depends on how it is explained to me, if I am a simple "Joe" of the Muslim faith. The person you quoted, I believe, said that he accepts the Koran as a holly scripture but he also said that to his understanding the Koran preaches peace and tolerance! So, what do I care what the book says, as long as the average Muslim understands it to be peaceful! This is the whole point, and this is my learned opinion which you can accept or not. GDA

To: uu who wrote (629)	12/2/2001 4:45:05 AM
From: DukeCrow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 2926

<< (with all its violent out-of-date barbaric teachings and verses ranging from wife beating to killing of non-Muslims) >> It seems to me like you don't understand what those verses truly mean when taken in context. It is easy to take verses out of context and claim they mean something which they really do not. For example, I cite a verse often taken out of context to disparage Islam. xlvii.4: "When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives." This sentence is taken entirely out of the context of the passage and surah. This surah deals prominently with various aspects of fighting in God's cause. It begins by talking of those "who are bent on denying the truth and on barring others from the path of God." This lays down the fundamental condition which alone justifies physical warfare: namely, a defense of the Faith and of freedom. Islam prohibits aggression but allows defense against it. The above sentence refers to a war actually in progress. It is not some radical statement to kill and slaughter any infidel you see. It refers to actions to be taken during the course of a war. The complete verses 4-6 show what the true meaning of the passage is when read in its proper context. "Now when you meet in war those who are bent on denying the truth, smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; but thereafter set them free, either by an act of grace or against ransom (either monetary or a trade of POWs), so that the burden of war may be lifted: thus shall it be. And know that had God so willed, He could indeed punish them Himself; but He wills you to struggle so as to test you all by means of one another. And as for those who are slain in God's cause, never will He let their deeds go to waste: He will guide them in the hereafter as well, and will set their hearts at rest, and will admit them to the paradise which He has promised them." That passage doesn't have quite the same meaning when it read in context, does it?