9/11 Koran-burning: armed congregation vow ceremony will go ahead

What I have learned in life that when people disagree, it's not that one person is right, and the other is wrong. It is usually that both are right to some extent. The real question is, about which truth, represents the greater truth. The basis of my supposition, is that at some point the Prophet' as a commander in chief, had to promote control of the sexual desires of his men. And this would include, whatever were the norms, going on in the general culture, regarding that basic biological urge. I have one concrete example, from an article I read. It stated that, some of his soldiers approached him, and asked him, if it would be permissible to visit prostitutes to take care of their needs. I assume that this may have come from the Hadith, (stories of actual conduct of the Prophet, submitted by others). Anyway, I did not find his answer(s), since the article was about a related subject. This is just evidence, that the Prophet, had aspects of his life, some of which were put in the Koran, had to directly address social conduct issues. I refer to the aspect of his life as being an administrator. Another aspect him, is his life as a battlefield general. Conduct of war has always been subject of different rules, than that of regular human social life. So just that by itself could be the subject of another thread, or a book. I believe that promoting Understanding, is the way to true peace. There is a line passage in the Koran, that says, that killing of innocent people is wrong. It states that killing one innocent person is like killing all of humanity. We should be using those words to the people that claim to believe. Some spiritual people call that, the power of the Word. It will accomplish more, with more efficiency than burning the Koran, or going to war with Iran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

What I have learned in life that when people disagree, it's not that one person is right, and the other is wrong. It is usually that both are right to some extent. The real question is, about which truth, represents the greater truth. The basis of my supposition, is that at some point the Prophet' as a commander in chief, had to promote control of the sexual desires of his men. And this would include, whatever were the norms, going on in the general culture, regarding that basic biological urge. I have one concrete example, from an article I read. It stated that, some of his soldiers approached him, and asked him, if it would be permissible to visit prostitutes to take care of their needs. I assume that this may have come from the Hadith, (stories of actual conduct of the Prophet, submitted by others). Anyway, I did not find his answer(s), since the article was about a related subject. This is just evidence, that the Prophet, had aspects of his life, some of which were put in the Koran, had to directly address social conduct issues. I refer to the aspect of his life as being an administrator. Another aspect him, is his life as a battlefield general. Conduct of war has always been subject of different rules, than that of regular human social life. So just that by itself could be the subject of another thread, or a book. I believe that promoting Understanding, is the way to true peace. There is a line passage in the Koran, that says, that killing of innocent people is wrong. It states that killing one innocent person is like killing all of humanity. We should be using those words to the people that claim to believe. Some spiritual people call that, the power of the Word. It will accomplish more, with more efficiency than burning the Koran, or going to war with Iran.

---

Although I agree in general with your remarks, the problem we face is the same for any religion which relies on an ancient text, because in my opinion we are doomed to interpret and re-interpret such texts in our own time, which for Islam makes the claims of the present day Salaf a complete nonsense -they should have the honesty to state that they are re-interpreting their religion and not pretend that the Quran in particular cannot be interpreted. History has shown that far from being immutable, the 'Word of God' might as well be made of plastic.

There is a similar problem with those Jews in the Occupied West Bank whose claim to a God-given right to the 'Land of Israel' is considered moral, religious, political and legal, as if the intervening millenia and the completely new State of Israel -which many of the religious settlers do not recognise as a 'Jewish state'- was irrelevant. Just as Christians are obliged to, in effect, edit the Old and New Testament to justify all the things they do which are either not there, or which the 'Holy Books' appear to disapprove of or condemn, such as masturbation and sodomy. When was the last time the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope issued a statement urging men not to masturbate?

The case of the military aspects of early Islam is a fine case of how history is read backwards to suit present times, rather than in its context. The Battle of the Trench, viewed as the decisive battle between the Muslims and the Pagan and Jewish tribes for control of Medina, offers up for some the typical reaction of Muslims to the Jews, for of the Confederate tribes who attempted to inflict a decisive defeat on Muhammad and his new religion, the defeated Jews were rounded up after the battle, the men slaughtered and the women taken into 'sex slavery'. What the present day re-interpretations do not reveal is that when Muhammad arrived in Medina he sought an accommodation of the Jewish tribes into his new Community and initially they obliged, but owing to to the complex relations the Jews already had with the existing tribes, plus the influence of the anti-Muslims, the Jewish tribes hedged their bets by deciding after all not to support Muhammad, so that they became seen as having betrayed a pledge -but they did it for political rather than religious reasons. Yet when it came time to punish them, Muhammad's punishment was taken not from the emerging 'Shari'a law', but from the Torah, and in particular from Deuteronomy 20, 10-14 -in other words, Muhammad inflicted 'Jewish' punishment on the Jewish tribes.

The issue of sexual behaviour is even more complex, not least because among the Pagan gods and goddesses whose idols were displayed inside the Beit Allah/House of God in Mecca some were worshipped for their powers to improve fertility and virility in men and women; indeed, a Priapus was found in a household in the Hejaz as recently as the late 19th century. That prostitution in early Islam existed is a fact, but whether or not homosexuality as we understand it existed is a difficult one to prove. We know from the research of Everett Rowson that there were 'effeminate' men or Mukhannathun some of whom were prostitutes, some Eunuchs with access to women's quarters (for those married to wealthy husbands who could afford more than a room to live in)-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhannathun

But this may also relate to anal sex as a fact of life rather than to our notions of homosexuality. The prevalence of anal sex among men in tribal societies has been documented in Papua New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands; whether oral sex between males was also common is harder to assess, for while documented by Gilbert Herdt in Papua New Guinea, it is a subject which, like sex in general, people are reluctant to talk about.

What this means is that in contemporary attitudes, much of the complexity over issues of justice, war and sexuality have been reduced to either/or simplicities precisely because people can't cope with, or don't want to admit that societies, all societies are made up of diverse attitudes to sex, even when everyone appears to believe the same religion, accept the same laws, and so on. A reliance on the content of the Quran enables the Salaf to take verses out of context to suit the moment, with the weird irony that many of the Muslims inflicting violence on other Muslims or anyone else for that matter and who cite without any real authority any verse that says 'Kill the infidels' (as if we were all living in 7th century Arabia) -are the same verses quoted by hysterical pseudo-scholars to 'prove' that Islam places the murder of 'infidels' high on its agenda and there is nothing we can do about it. Verses in the Quran that encourage people to love, to live in peace, to struggle against the temptation to do wrong are simply ignored. People pick and choose what they want to believe to suit the mood.

It may be that one of the reasons why Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab in the 18th century dismissed everything that had developed in Islam since the death of the Messenger was the response of a not very intellectual thinker to a world of complexity he couldn't deal with -his own brother thought he was mad. The Saudi regime has spent billions exporting its monochrome, one-dimensional view of Islam as the only true version of Islam, has demolished mosques and shrines and places of historical interest to Islam in the Hejaz, and is hopelessly embedded in the violent Islam that has seized control of parts of Syria and Iraq which threatens to effectively replace Islam as a religion with a political ideology based on dictatorship and violence.

One option, of course is to dismiss religion as a phoney interpretation of the world which has no credibility precisely because it relies so much on a non-existent deity who has created everything and who made a statement in the 7th century which cannot be changed. That does not deal with the billions of people who do believe in God, but it does remind us that we for ever editing the religious texts of the past to remove those passages we don't like, just as some other passages are interpreted to justify a course of action. All religions are guilty, and tedious and often ineffectiive as it seems to be, we should always try to engage people in a dialogue which does not insult believers, even as it attempts to expose those parts of their faith which are no longer acceptable in the world in which we live.

Most religions start backward, one man is enlightened and tries to explain it. Since God is the beginning and end, any explanation of God always comes in too late. Or too early. As Buddha answered when they asked him why he bothered to try and explain God to a bunch of naysayers....
"some will understand"
Just because a bunch of Arabs don't get Islam is no reason to scratch the whole project. Even while Bibles burn, God is in his Heaven and All is right in the World.

It sure is! All is dandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

...... Even while Bibles burn, God is in his Heaven and All is right in the World.

---

Brother Martin, need I remind you that both US and British forces killed 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq, not our finest hour, in WWII we bombed the shit out of Europe, because everyone in Europe was in an evil cult. For us, this was a good righteous thing worth dying for. We didn't line up civilians and shoot them, but we sure as hell dropped bombs on civilians.

Blowing somebody away may not me righteous, but it is right. To the person pulling the trigger. If you see a retarded guy walking down the street, you see the guy as retarded, not the world. History is always right, the world is always right. It's the people that are fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Although I agree in general with your remarks, the problem we face is the same for any religion which relies on an ancient text, because in my opinion we are doomed to interpret and re-interpret such texts in our own time, which for Islam makes the claims of the present day Salaf a complete nonsense -they should have the honesty to state that they are re-interpreting their religion and not pretend that the Quran in particular cannot be interpreted. History has shown that far from being immutable, the 'Word of God' might as well be made of plastic.

...

The case of the military aspects of early Islam is a fine case of how history is read backwards to suit present times, rather than in its context. The Battle of the Trench, viewed as the decisive battle between the Muslims and the Pagan and Jewish tribes for control of Medina, offers up for some the typical reaction of Muslims to the Jews, for of the Confederate tribes who attempted to inflict a decisive defeat on Muhammad and his new religion, the defeated Jews were rounded up after the battle, the men slaughtered and the women taken into 'sex slavery'. What the present day re-interpretations do not reveal is that when Muhammad arrived in Medina he sought an accommodation of the Jewish tribes into his new Community and initially they obliged, but owing to to the complex relations the Jews already had with the existing tribes, plus the influence of the anti-Muslims, the Jewish tribes hedged their bets by deciding after all not to support Muhammad, so that they became seen as having betrayed a pledge -but they did it for political rather than religious reasons. Yet when it came time to punish them, Muhammad's punishment was taken not from the emerging 'Shari'a law', but from the Torah, and in particular from Deuteronomy 20, 10-14 -in other words, Muhammad inflicted 'Jewish' punishment on the Jewish tribes.

...
One option, of course is to dismiss religion as a phoney interpretation of the world which has no credibility precisely because it relies so much on a non-existent deity who has created everything and who made a statement in the 7th century which cannot be changed. That does not deal with the billions of people who do believe in God, but it does remind us that we for ever editing the religious texts of the past to remove those passages we don't like, just as some other passages are interpreted to justify a course of action. All religions are guilty, and tedious and often ineffectiive as it seems to be, we should always try to engage people in a dialogue which does not insult believers, even as it attempts to expose those parts of their faith which are no longer acceptable in the world in which we live.

---

Philosophically, many define God, as "all knowing', the creator of the world/and or universe (as we perceive it.) Our scientific knowledge, should then bring us closer to God. And if human life is evolving the some the rules should evolve with our new understanding. However, principles should never change, but can find new ways to practice the same principles. Charity is a principle. But lets look at the eating of pork. In my view, at the time, the Koran was written pigs were often easily infected with parasites. so it made more sense back then. So for me that was okay for that time, but not important today. However, there are many people that say we should not eat pork, because of how the animals are treated. Others cite that there are still health reasons why pork is bad. But in a hypothetical example where someones kills another because they knowingly but pork by-products in their food, they did not kill the person for religious reasons. That is because Islam, and other religions have important distinctions about the taking of human life. and that is more important than a 'status' violation.

You are correct about the "Battle of the Trench". How the Jews that betrayed the Prophet were treated about rules of war. The Prophet's earlier definition of Jews, and Christians being "People of the Book' have never been invalidated, to this day. There as some Muslims who may believe that the principle was invalidated but that's not the truth. The concept that certain things were changed over time is called 'abrogation'. Are even Islamic scholars who believe that certain passages were abrogated, but there is a verse in the Koran itself, that says there are no abrogations. Many people believe the conflict with Israel, and the Islamic world is about religion. It is not. It is about land, and political power. I believe this truth is downplayed, in western media, for political purposes.

Lastly, I believe in God. However, for me proof of it's existence is not that important. It's really about the rules for living, that benefits individual happiness and the overall advancement of human life. Jesus himself captured the essence of this, in his story about "the good Samaritan". He broke certain religious laws of his land, but his message was about fulfilling the underlying principles, not strict adherence to rules.

Maybe the question is this: Is God a noun or a verb?

God is definitely a a noun. But is is often named as the cause of events, and also 'recommender' of actions, or a way of life. I like the concept of Karma, but it is virtually identical to what others call 'God's Law". The major issue with 'God" is that groups of people begin to believe their path is the only way. For example, they might say God must be called by a specific name. But even in Islam, there are 99 names for Allah. These are his attributes, such as the "The Merciful", etc. But all too often, a religion's path to God is used an excuse for political power. If one believes in the words of the Koran, as just one example, the righteous follows will spend eternity in paradise. So why would one need to go out and punish 'non-believers' when they could possibly be punished by Allah for eternity? In the case of the Koran, at the time it was written, 'non-believers' were the ones attacking them and fighting them for precious resources. So that specific actions of the Prophet were for his battle enemies, at the time, for the 21st Century, against people who are not interfering with Muslims religious practice and lifestyle. Jews lived peacefully for 700 years, in Spain, after it was conquered my Muslims in 711. (Despite Jews being killed under the Prophet's orders, in the Battle of the Trench.) But the Jews were persecuted, and tortured by Christians, as they took power.

I have read the Koran, it has a completly contrast with the BIBle, at some point it make u think muslims are right , that book made me a conflict with all my family........ it a really powerfull book

"Better to Reign in Hell than Serve in Heaven" - Hell's Angels

I guess Nikka has two Hells she's destined to go to, now................ha ha

I think everybody carries a sense that there's a debt to be paid in this life, that there's going to be Hell to pay, but let's put it off as long as we can. Especially when the ante for the "Big Game" is about as close to Death as it gets. For Illusion to be Illusion, it's got to be real.

If you were to concentrate on one point on the wall directly in front of you, (meditation) eventually all the stuff you accept as real would cease to exist, and after you were done, the One Thing that doesn't cease to exist would be God.
Pretty Simple in Theory.