Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:44:57 +0200 (CEST)
From:      Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>
To:        Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Elden Fenison <moon_dog@spamcop.net>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Islam (was: Religions (was Re: helping victims of terror))
Message-ID:  <1003661097.3bd2a72959115@webmail.neomedia.it>
In-Reply-To: <20011021101345.A28033@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References:  <1003617187.3bd1fba3d31ff@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011021101345.A28033@wantadilla.lemis.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> On Sunday, 21 October 2001 at  0:33:07 +0200, Salvo Bartolotta wrote:
> >
> > I am not sure whether the same could be said of the Koran.
> > Recently, I have spoken with a few historians of religion, among
> > others.  I was explicitly told that the "organic design" contained
> > in the Koran is one of the worst forms of _totalitarianism_.  In
> > particular, the "moderate" parts in the Koran are only a means to an
> > end.
> 
> I've tried to read the Quran, and I've found it very hard going.  The
> Bible is a model of clarity by comparison.  The Quran brings home very
> forcibly that its scribe was not a learned man.  I don't think you can
> interpret much more into its form.



By the way, as far as I can see on the 'Net for now, there WAS a fine 
pre-islamic culture (which had points of contact with Veda).  Mr Muhammad felt 
it his duty to destroy that culture.

The best-known example of this kind of attitude/behavio(u)r is the destruction 
of Alexandria's library: thousands of scrolls (~ 700.000?) were burnt -- 
because either they were in contradiction with the Koran or they had the same 
contents as the Koran [sic!].  Well, I'll have to RTFM on these topics before 
speaking. :-)


 
> > I have been revising a number of things lately.  My history
> > textbooks -- I live in Italy -- simply described the splendid
> > Islamic civilization in the Mediterranean (well, in Spain and
> > especially in Sicily), as well as its far-reaching cultural
> > influence on Western thought.
> 
> All valid points.
> 
> > They were deliberately lying:
> 
> No, like most historians they were looking at the parts which
> interested them.
> 
> > a few ahem "minor" aspects (eg earlier massacres) were "omitted" or
> > hinted at.  Moreover, that's just _one part_ of the story: the
> > western part.  The _eastern_ part of the story is horrible to say
> > the least.
> 
> You mean the Eastern story of the atrocities committed by Christians?
> Those were violent times.  I don't think the Muslims were worse than
> the Christians.



I was referring to Islamic atrocities in the East (eg India).  I had been 
reading some material about that on the 'Net (cf Hindu Holocaust).  l'll have 
to RTFM on this, too. :-)


 
> > I now gather that, at a doctrinal level, there exists no "moderate"
> > Islam at all.
> 
> Could you explain that?  There may be fewer Muslims who just pay lip
> service to their religion than there are Christians, but I wouldn't
> even be sure about that.  I grew up in Malaysia, a country with Islam
> as its state religion.  While I don't approve at all of enforced
> religion (if you're Malay, you *must* be Muslim), until this Mulslim
> fundamentalism thing sprung up, I found Islam a very gentle religion.
> For most people, it still is.



"Moderate interpreters" simply discard certain parts of the Koran.  Whence the 
image of gentle religion.  Thus, however, they betray the actual totalitarian 
doctrin underlying the Koran; fundamentalists don't.

Better than nothing.  I would say that "moderate interpreters" are profoundly 
aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it.



 
> > Of course, strong political reasons make all western political
> > leaders speak of ahem "moderate Islam".
> 
> As opposed to moderate Christianity or moderate Judaism?  Members of
> all three religions continue to commit atrocities in the name of their
> religion.



Christ != Muhammad

Bruno and Galileo (a _Catholic_ scientist) were well-known examples of 
"Christian" intolerance.  I am afraid this has nothing to do with what Christ 
said, though.  More generally, "Christian" misdoings have very little to do 
with the NT.  These so-called "Christians" were actually barbarians (cf eg the 
crusades) -- of the worst kind.

Religio instrumentum regni.  In the Middle Ages (and later: cf Bruno, 
Galileo), a number of "popes" applied this very ancient principle of politics. 

Incidentally, Matthew says: "Nolite possidere aurum neque argentum neque 
pecuniam in zonis vestris non peram in via neque duas tunicas neque 
calciamenta neque virgam dignus enim est operarius cibo suo [...]".  This is 
not exactly in harmony with the existence of a rich _State_ of the Church,  
namely with "popes" pursuing _temporal_ power and interests.  To the shame of 
all Christianity per omnia saecula saeculorum.


By contrast, Islamic atrocities are in full harmony with what Mr Muhammad 
himself, a very, erm, "gentle" prophet ("THE Prophet"), said, did, and wrote.

-- Salvo (needing to RTFM much more, though)

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1003661097.3bd2a72959115>