PDA

View Full Version : Turkish theologians revise, modernise Islamic texts


Tau Ceti
26-02-2008, 16:00:11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7264903.stm

Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts
By Robert Piggott
Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News


The scholars say they are returning to the original values of Islam

Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.

The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.

The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.

As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.

It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

'Reformation'

Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.

Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.

Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.

The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University's School of Theology.

An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.

"Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation," he says.

"You can find messages which say 'that is what the Prophet ordered us to do'. But you can show historically how they came into being, as influences from other cultures, that were then projected onto Islamic tradition."

The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various - often conservative - cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.

Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Revolutionary

Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.

But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.

Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

Original spirit

Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.

As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".

They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.

One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.

She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.

"There are honour killings," she explains.

"We hear that some women are being killed when they marry the wrong person or run away with someone they love.

"There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment by uncles and others. This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them."

'New Islam'

According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.

He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.

"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.

"Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. "

Fadi Hakura believes that until now secularist Turkey has been intent on creating a new politics for Islam.

Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.

They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.

"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."
An interesting project. I can't see it gaining any widespread influence in the foreseeable future, but it is something.

protein
26-02-2008, 16:16:53
reinterpreting religion is even more scary than pure religion. we just need to scrap religion.

MDA
26-02-2008, 16:35:09
we should scrap economics and politics too!

protein
26-02-2008, 16:38:46
why?

Tizzy
26-02-2008, 16:39:55
Scrap everything!

protein
26-02-2008, 16:43:16
what for?

Tizzy
26-02-2008, 16:49:08
Fun?

Immortal Wombat
26-02-2008, 16:56:25
Scrap scrapping things!

Venom
26-02-2008, 17:11:05
So they're updating from the 14th century to the 17th century.

JM^3
26-02-2008, 17:15:54
Christianity and Judaism have always interpreted scripture.

If we had a large book that detailed the interpretation of Christ or Moses, things would be different though.

JM

Shining1
26-02-2008, 17:30:41
Religion reinvents itself every few hundred years to stay hip and modern.

It's like Madonna. =)

protein
26-02-2008, 18:21:14
is believing in fairies ever modern?

Kitsuki
26-02-2008, 18:48:30
Originally posted by protein
reinterpreting religion is even more scary than pure religion. we just need to scrap religion.

Is it really?

During the Christian Reformation most of Europe took a very large step forward - that was essentially a reinterpretation.

I am not quite sure that a government department can be the cause of a reformation, but a reformation isn't in and of itself a bad idea...

protein
26-02-2008, 19:20:14
you can reinterpret religions to endorse hatred, homophobia, war, murder, suicide... at least the pure religions discounted all that. god hates fags and all that.

Kitsuki
26-02-2008, 19:22:29
You can also modernise them and make them have more bearing on the modern world... Two way street - and the Turks have long been the most moderate members of the Islamic world. :)

protein
26-02-2008, 19:26:48
but why bother to try and fix what is an absurd notion in the first place? isn't it more logical to live by science and logic than ridiculous unfounded ancient tales of invisible demons and magic messiahs? if you are going to revolutionise the way you view religion and accept that it is absurd, why not chuck it out completely?

protein
26-02-2008, 19:28:11
it's like saying "okay, the world isn't flat after all, now it's a big circular disk."

JM^3
26-02-2008, 20:20:11
I don't really enjoy getting in arguments with strong atheists, but I don't think that you understand what science is, if you think that it is an alternate choice to being a deist.

You could say that strict monism and reductionism is an alternate choice to being a deist... but science? No.

JM

Kitsuki
26-02-2008, 20:45:44
Originally posted by protein
but why bother to try and fix what is an absurd notion in the first place? isn't it more logical to live by science and logic than ridiculous unfounded ancient tales of invisible demons and magic messiahs? if you are going to revolutionise the way you view religion and accept that it is absurd, why not chuck it out completely?

I don't think you would make much headway arguing that in Turkey! ;)

Scabrous Birdseed
26-02-2008, 21:02:50
Originally posted by Kitsuki
During the Christian Reformation most of Europe took a very large step forward - that was essentially a reinterpretation.

I'd have to disagree on that - a lot of the protestant content and not least the protestant churches were/are a lot scarier than the catholic one. By far the most extreme forms of christianity have sprung indirectly from it.

protein
26-02-2008, 22:40:23
Originally posted by JM^3
I don't really enjoy getting in arguments with strong atheists
i'm not a strong atheist. i'm not an anythingist. you are either have a faith in something absurdly ridiculous and unproven, or you don't. :)

honestly though, when they prove the existence of god i'll join in on all the magic rituals and worshiping and so on. until then i'm going to get on with real life perfectly happy without it.

MDA
26-02-2008, 22:50:45
Originally posted by protein
but why bother to try and fix what is an absurd notion in the first place? isn't it more logical to live by science and logic than ridiculous unfounded ancient tales of invisible demons and magic messiahs? if you are going to revolutionise the way you view religion and accept that it is absurd, why not chuck it out completely?

its not absurd to everyone

Kitsuki
26-02-2008, 22:52:59
I think Protein might have fallen foul to the Western European distaste for religion; elsewhere in the world the percentage of people who follow a faith is much higher (including other developed nations.) What is interesting is the contrast of belief rates across the EU (under 20% in some countries like the UK and Holland, and as high as 90% in some places such as Poland.)

protein
26-02-2008, 23:05:43
define "faith" without it sounding like an unfounded blind belief in the unprovable.

Kitsuki
26-02-2008, 23:19:35
Well, I am not a particularly religious man myself - but nevertheless, I am very much in the minority as are you... :)

protein
26-02-2008, 23:37:38
that doesn't bother me at all. there will be many more in the future. i also don't think i've fallen fowl of anything. that's exactly the point.

JM^3
26-02-2008, 23:54:33
Originally posted by protein
i'm not a strong atheist. i'm not an anythingist. you are either have a faith in something absurdly ridiculous and unproven, or you don't. :)

honestly though, when they prove the existence of god i'll join in on all the magic rituals and worshiping and so on. until then i'm going to get on with real life perfectly happy without it.

God is 'proved' on the same level science is. Science and a believe in God have different (but not mutually incompatible) assumptions. The generally held understanding of science is internally consistent (which is as close to 'proved' as you can get), although there are many people who hold differing views of what science is. Similarly, there are understandings of religion which are internally consistent. There are even understandings of religion which are entirely consistent with science.

For any meaningful definition of 'proved', both are proved. There is no higher level of proof then internal consistency.

After that, it is whether or not you are willing to make the assumptions or not.

JM

protein
27-02-2008, 00:07:19
where does one look to find god (without saying something silly like "in your heart") and can you repeatedly find him and measure his existence?

which god is it that has been proven? the roman gods? the hindu ones? the scientology god? the judeo-christian-islam one? the one i just made up a minute ago?

does this now mean that one religion has it right and all the others have it wrong? if so, let me know which rituals i should be doing to appease god and which meats and sexual practices anger him.

JM^3
27-02-2008, 00:28:04
You are talking about empericism, most people (and from your posts, you also) don't restrict themselves to only beleiving in emperical philosophies. Although empericism is the one of the basic assumptions of many sciences. (Not all though, there are philosophies of science which aren't emperical in nature, I find discussing science with such people frustrating.) BTW, it is pretty much impossible to discuss many subjects from a.. has to be proved under the assumption of empericism first.. standpoint.

The Roman and Scientology 'gods' aren't (generally) intenrally consistent. So they would be disproven. There are judeo-christian view points that are internally constent, and the majority of major religions are this way (note that it is likely that the majority of practitioners aren't internally consistent).

From your statements, I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. Please reconsider (maybe within light of this post).

Just another questoin to ponder. Is the science with reductionism right? Is the science where reductionism doesn't hold right? Oh, there is are infinite possibilities for science, such must be a loony idea that we should throw it out. This type of arguement is just silly.

The existence of God is generally considered a subject of philosophy... which means that it is treated by internal consistency under assumptions. To ask for emperical evidence of God is to no longer be talking about the philosophy of whether God exists or not, but to be talking about the science of whether He exists or not. Traditional science only 'says' something about subjects for which scientific evidence exists for (or against), since scientific evidence is lacking in the case of the existence of God, science says nothing about His existence. Therefore, a beleive in science is in no way counter to a beleif in God.

JM

Shining1
27-02-2008, 05:08:49
Which is to say, it's all fun and games until some jews get beaten up.

Drekkus
27-02-2008, 08:25:00
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
I'd have to disagree on that - a lot of the protestant content and not least the protestant churches were/are a lot scarier than the catholic one. By far the most extreme forms of christianity have sprung indirectly from it. I hope this will be more of a renaissance than a reformation.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
27-02-2008, 08:58:44
Looks more like a beam of enlightenment.

It's just a bit odd to sell it as all-new. I think there have been many schools of interpretation over history, the madhabs, or sufism which if I understand correctly doesn't care much about rules anyway.

Maybe it's revolutionary within orthodoxy.

MoSe
27-02-2008, 10:07:18
Originally posted by JM^3
If we had a large book that detailed the interpretation of Christ or Moses...

Huh?

MoSe
27-02-2008, 10:50:21
Originally posted by JM^3
You could say that strict monism and reductionism is an alternate choice to being a deist... but science? No.


sorry JM, I too do not enjoy entering in arguments with people who hear voices in their head, who are fully respectable and have all the right to hear and even heed those voices, but also show a worrying tendence to think that those others who do not hear those voices are handicapped people...

...anyway.
did you ever think to take a step back and see the issue with a wider angle:
I am NOT forced to take that choice
If I don't "choose" to be a deist, I do not *need* an "alternative"
I refuse to take the issue of a choice in consideration in the first place
I exist, and I have my ethics and morality, PRIOR to considering such a choice, which is irrelevant to my life. And this does not make me a lesser, or stupid, NOR superficial individual.
I accept that for many people, even the majority of people, addressing such a choice is necessary in their lives. I regret that most of those people fail to reciprocate, and can't accept and/or understand that for others the issue of such a choice is totally unnecessary to conduct an equally full and rich and inspired life

MoSe
27-02-2008, 11:20:49
JM, I hadn't read you last posts before posting my above one.
I don't want to turn this into a Poly thread (too late!)... but...

JM: "The existence of God is generally considered a subject of philosophy... which means that it is treated by internal consistency under assumptions. To ask for emperical evidence of God is to no longer be talking about the philosophy of whether God exists or not, but to be talking about the science of whether He exists or not. Traditional science only 'says' something about subjects for which scientific evidence exists for (or against), since scientific evidence is lacking in the case of the existence of God, science says nothing about His existence. Therefore, a beleive in science is in no way counter to a beleif in God.
"
this summary is an approach I am totally comfortable with, I'd even say I totally agree with it, and add that scientific evidence is NOT APPLICABLE in the case of the existence of God

I'd only object to the use of the term "believe in science"

Science is an internally consitent system of assumptions AND METHOD, wich holds up by itself without the need of anyone believing in it.
God and religion are concepts wich might also be internally consistent with their assumption, but are *founded* on belief, they can't exist in the first place if there isn't a being who believes in them

BUT this really puzzles me:

"God is 'proved' on the same level science is"
"For any meaningful definition of 'proved', both are proved. There is no higher level of proof then internal consistency."

maybe I need to investigate the semantic of "proof"
maybe I'm restraining to associate the concept of proof with empiricism in scientific disciplines, and with logic in humanistic disciplines
(I might be simplistic, but I hold that for instance philosophy is a humanistic discipline, and it's knowledge, but it's not a "science")

according to this, a proof is an *element* which might or might not be present in an internally consistent system [let's shorten it in ICS].
To me the difference between science and gor/religion is indeed that the science ICS has methods and proof as necessary elements in it, while the religion ICS holds perfectly up without the need of the concept of proof, whereas it's based on the concepts of faith, dogma, and revealed truth. The concept of proof can indeed even *undermine* a religious ICS.

Do you really think that your faith needs to know that there's a "proof" of what you believe in? (God/whatever)
It's not my business, but Id' say that such a faith is rather shaky

MoSe
27-02-2008, 11:27:13
but let's get back to the topic and a seriouser CG attitutde.
I only came in here to post:

"That's not what I said! You Had ith wrong!"

:D

MDA
27-02-2008, 11:32:19
I thought ICS was an early game Civ strategy...

MoSe
27-02-2008, 11:43:08
:D

OO!

(=overloading of operators, object oriented)

Chris
27-02-2008, 11:57:37
This thread proves god exists and hates us, because he gave us windbags like protein and JM.

MoSe
27-02-2008, 11:59:25
I don't believe in Chris!

Chris
27-02-2008, 12:07:57
You can't scientifically prove I exist either.

MoSe
27-02-2008, 12:17:54
Originally posted by MDA
its not absurd to everyone

It's absurd that it's not absurd to everyone!
;)

The absurdity of what you believe is the base of any belief and reinforces the faith...
:cute:
CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum)

no faith is a true faith if what you believe in is reasonable and not absurd!
:D

MoSe
27-02-2008, 12:19:17
Originally posted by Chris
You can't scientifically prove I exist either.

Alas we can't scientifically prove you don't exist either

:p

Chris
27-02-2008, 12:22:21
That proves I am god, and I smite you with more dumb ass Mr_g posts.

MoSe
27-02-2008, 12:23:52
HOLY COW!

Tizzy
27-02-2008, 12:24:41
NOW LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE MOSE!!!!!!

MoSe
27-02-2008, 12:28:23
eezy tizzy
It's all in your head.
Just stop believing in it.

Tizzy
27-02-2008, 12:30:58
There's nothing in my head, ask Funko :(

Chris
27-02-2008, 12:36:37
And lord said:

"Let there be dopey Dutchmen"

maroule
27-02-2008, 13:15:12
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Looks more like a beam of enlightenment.

It's just a bit odd to sell it as all-new. I think there have been many schools of interpretation over history, the madhabs, or sufism which if I understand correctly doesn't care much about rules anyway.

Maybe it's revolutionary within orthodoxy.


good point, and you're answering your own question

Soufism would provide the intellectual backbone for the enlightment, but is seen as a sect. It needs to come from main stream.

It's not a surprise it's coming from Turkey (the only other serious candidate could have been Malaysia, but they don't have the historical credibility); its the society that has gone the furthest in mixing islam and modernity. As the society strides forward, it ajusts its values, religion included.

Christianity didn't become liberal by choice, the societies it was embedded in moved forward, then forced religious doctrine to adjust, or become irrelevant (or become a minority exercise, like the hassidic jews). It happened before, it will happen again...

MoSe
27-02-2008, 13:50:18
Originally posted by Tizzy
There's nothing in my head, ask Funko :(

In your head, in your head,
Zombie, zombie, zombie,
Hey, hey, hey. What's in your head,
In your head,
Zombie, zombie, zombie?
Hey, hey, hey, hey, oh, dou, dou, dou, dou, dou

Ssssooo...
is he implying you're up for a ....

http://sonicundermind.me.uk/lyrics.htm#zombie ?

:cute:

Funko
27-02-2008, 14:27:27
Protein:

I think the point you should take out of this is, you really shouldn't trust/believe in Science either.

It can in many ways be just as flawed and based on people's individual view of the world as religion is.

We know people thought that the sun revolved around the earth, because it must do, we're too important. Which was stupid with hindsight, but I'm sure there are plenty of current scientific "facts" based around scientists beliefs that'll seem just as stupid in a few hundred years and there are plenty of scientists who resist any new theory that goes against what they knew growing up.

Still, better than religion though.

Good news from Turkey though. They'll do anything to get into the EU!

Scabrous Birdseed
27-02-2008, 14:32:09
Am I the only one who thinks this is in fact negative and just serves to put a wedge between secular society and mainstream islam, especially since all the westerners are leaping on it? Accept them instead of treating them as savages in need of civilising and you'll see muslims integrating into society and modernising.

Funko
27-02-2008, 14:39:17
I understand your point, apparently lots of British Muslims are annoyed that the whole religion is portrayed as a bunch of suicide bombing fanatics when they are no more a threat to the country than your average CofE church congregation

protein
27-02-2008, 14:48:59
Originally posted by Funko
Protein:

I think the point you should take out of this is, you really shouldn't trust/believe in Science either.

i don't, but i think scientific method is a better way of looking at the world than picking one of the many gods and creation myths and then having "faith" in it.

i was watching a programme about a remote guinnean tribe last night and the only spiritual beings they are concerned with are evil spirits. their whole spiritual lives revolve around appeasing them. even to the point of killing humans in revenge for illness brought about - of course - by bad spirits. that is no more brutal or ridiculous than any other religion. if you explained to them about shiva or jesus they would say you are mad.

when you are inside a religious mindset, all other religions look silly. when you aren't religious at all, they all look equally demented.

MDA
27-02-2008, 16:19:48
I learned that intolerance of all religions is just as offensive as intolerance of one religion.

Venom
27-02-2008, 16:40:26
Accept them as suicide bombing, women abusing psychos! Or it's your fault they blow you up!

Funko
27-02-2008, 16:41:45
No-one likes people thinking they are stupid.

Venom
27-02-2008, 16:44:36
Seems people have plenty of advice for other religions but are just willing to let Muslim run roughshod.

Funko
27-02-2008, 16:44:43
Originally posted by Venom
Accept them as suicide bombing, women abusing psychos! Or it's your fault they blow you up!

Religious people?

protein
27-02-2008, 17:15:29
Originally posted by MDA
I learned that intolerance of all religions is just as offensive as intolerance of one religion.
that's the irony. religion (on the whole) equals intolerance.

if people have the right to preach about whatever invisible beings they prefer then i reserve the right to tell them they don't actually exist.

Funko
27-02-2008, 17:21:04
Lots of religious people don't preach, and lots of religious people aren't intolerant.

MoSe
27-02-2008, 17:58:25
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Accept them instead of treating them as savages in need of civilising and you'll see muslims integrating into society and modernising.

we might have a long way to truly accept them, as we don't have for instance the volumes and history of immigration from muslim countries that France has.

there was in norhtern italy a pakistani iirc family, whose father had a regular work, was not a preacher, was in italy since many years.
they were integrated enough that his daughter grew up here and at 14 or 15 she wanted to dress the western way, and wanted to take part to high-school afternoon disco-parties with all her schoolmates
Of course this was unacceptable under his belief, so he killed her.

At the trial, he was was susprised that the country where he thought he had by now integrated, was so harsh and hostile both in law action and in public opinion against him - in the country where he came from, murder was punished with death, but for killing a child you only get few years in jail (from 3 to 9) according to islamic law, as your own blood is your own *property* and you have the right to decide of their lives - literally...

MoSe
27-02-2008, 18:03:13
Originally posted by Funko
Lots of religious people don't preach, and lots of religious people aren't intolerant.

I think appropriate at this point to close the case, replying to the leader of one of the major religions here, pope J.Ratzinger (paparatzi as we friendly call him), who pointed out Relativism as one of the modern secular culture most creepy and dangerous evils.

We must dissent, as every free-thinking person knows that:

RELATIVISM IS AN ABSOLUTE VALUE!!!!

:smoke:

protein
27-02-2008, 18:05:56
Originally posted by Funko
Lots of religious people don't preach, and lots of religious people aren't intolerant.
yeah but we don't get many eastern religions around here. certainly not in any position of power.

for us in the uk we have to put up mainly with middle-eastern religions that tell you that sex before marriage, not getting married, same-sex partnerships, contraception, masturbation, eating pork and and not believing in their god make you a sinful and a fundamentally bad person. even if they are nice to you to your face, that's what their religion teaches them to think about you.

MoSe
27-02-2008, 18:08:25
Originally posted by MDA
I learned that intolerance of all religions is just as offensive as intolerance of one religion.

I am perfectly willing to tolerate people with their beliefs, as long as they don't expect to dictate me what *I* should do according to *their* belief (not mine).

Many religious people don't do that, but many others do.

Vincent
27-02-2008, 18:21:41
This thread stinks

MoSe
27-02-2008, 18:22:46
Oh, that's what you believe?

Vincent
27-02-2008, 18:27:30
I believe you stink

MoSe
27-02-2008, 18:36:37
it must be that I puke everytime I think to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism#Benedict_XVI
:vom:

Vincent
27-02-2008, 18:40:27
You're no good man

Shining1
27-02-2008, 19:11:02
No god man, anyways.

Drekkus
28-02-2008, 09:14:10
Originally posted by Funko
No-one likes people thinking they are stupid. I don't mind

Shining1
28-02-2008, 10:55:50
Stupid people don't like people thinking they are stupid.

maroule
28-02-2008, 11:23:16
being called stupid by a stupid shouldn't offend though

Dyl Ulenspiegel
28-02-2008, 11:29:57
You stupidist.

maroule
28-02-2008, 12:18:44
this is a stupidistic remark

MoSe
28-02-2008, 12:40:21
stop all this stupidisticism

Scabrous Birdseed
28-02-2008, 21:12:12
Originally posted by MoSe
At the trial, he was was susprised that the country where he thought he had by now integrated, was so harsh and hostile both in law action and in public opinion against him - in the country where he came from, murder was punished with death, but for killing a child you only get few years in jail (from 3 to 9) according to islamic law, as your own blood is your own *property* and you have the right to decide of their lives - literally...

So he claims, dude, so he claims. In fact, this kind of "honour killing" is culturally frequent crossing all religions in some parts of the middle east - here in Sweden (where we have enormous amounts of Assyrians/Syriacs) about half are committed by nominal "christians". (Plus part of the background is the non-acceptance. Wouldn't you retreat into old social codes if the new ones shut you out?)

Anyway, as you probably know there is another religion that's at least as bad that does much more evil in the west (and especially right now in Italy!) that you should be focusing your energies against. :)

Dyl Ulenspiegel
28-02-2008, 21:45:39
Fight the buddhists!

Shining1
28-02-2008, 21:46:20
None the less, how do you rationialise tolerance of a viewpoint founded on intolerance?

Both Christianity and Islam tend to aggressively preach their central importance to society, and their disdain for non-believers.

Debaser
29-02-2008, 00:36:08
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

OldWarrior_42
29-02-2008, 03:07:41
Great post , Debaser. :lol:

Greg W
29-02-2008, 03:28:27
Originally posted by protein
define "faith" without it sounding like an unfounded blind belief in the unprovable. I gave up reading the thread, but just wanted to pick out this one line.

Um, you do know that faith is basically defined as the belief in something without absolute proof?

That's like saying prove science without using scientific methods. :clueless:

mr_B
29-02-2008, 08:17:40
Originally posted by Debaser
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png :lol: :lol:

maroule
29-02-2008, 08:38:25
:lol:

mr_B
29-02-2008, 08:59:01
that pic is so so poly, ow no it's not.

Drekkus
29-02-2008, 13:04:34
it's from xkcd.com. Brilliantly brilliant webcomic.

Funko
03-03-2008, 09:45:54
:lol:

Shining1
03-03-2008, 20:45:48
(The mouseover line for that one is "What do want me to do? Leave? Then they'll keep being wrong!")

Finding out there's a mouseover comment for every comic was a great excuse to go back and reread all 300 or so. =)

LoD
03-03-2008, 21:42:28
Hear hear :lol:!

MoSe
04-03-2008, 12:19:43
at first in reading Shiny's post I thought a mouseover line was something you dare a rat to cross
:cute: :o